Violence begets more violence in the Middle East

The appalling tragedy that is occurring in the Middle East has dominated headlines over past weeks. The horrendous attack on Israeli citizens by Hamas, resulting in the deaths of more than 1400. Many more have been injured and some taken hostage. Now, the death toll is mounting in Gaza, as the Israeli military offensive intensifies. The Israeli government has mobilised it's army, calling up reservists in readiness for a mass military action against Gaza. Palestinians have been told to leave likely conflict zones. The approach of Israel has echoes of the US response to the attacks of 9/11, which led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The anger and desire for revenge on the part of Israel is understandable but it must act, proportionately, within international law. The early rhetoric in this conflict did not seem to distinguish between the actions of Hamas and the Palestinians living on the Gaza strip. The crude categorisation was a bit like making all Irish people responsible for the actions of the IRA during the war. History teaches that an all out assault based on vengeance does not in the long term solve anything - in fact it makes things worse. In Ireland, the demands of civil rights protesters in the North were denied, lethal force was deployed and decades of violence followed. Violence begets violence. Order and the rule of law get subsumed in conflict. Innocent lives are lost. It is important in such situations that the voices of reason and restraint are heard and listened to. Internationally, there have been worrying precedents set regarding the breaking of international law, over recent years. The Americans going into Iraq in 2003, without a supporting UN resolution. Most recently, Russia's illegal assault on Ukraine. The move to violent reprisal seems much quicker these days - international law being too easily set aside. Going back to the days of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the world was brought to the brink of nuclear war, it is interesting to read counts of the whole process. The ongoing analysis and weighing up of options, the measured and statesmanlike approach of President Kennedy. Also, a wise decision to relegate the opinions of the military, who it seems always want outright war. Why do we hear so many soldiers giving their opinions on the Middle East situation in the mass media? Also, the crucial brokering role of the UN. In the end, nuclear Armageddon was avoided over Cuba because of effective diplomacy, cool heads, international pressure and a wise president. Unfortunately, there are no President Kennedys around today. Nor is the UN the force it was for peace. Today, too many world leaders rush to take sides, setting a background context that justifies and legitimates revenge based actions. The lack of calls for restraint result in a narrative of inevitable conflict. Rather than opprobrium being directed towards those who may kill in vengeance there is an urge to act, ever more violently. The previous experiences of such an approach really should counsel caution. Violence is proven to beget violence, whether it be in Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine or the north of Ireland. The violent actions of western powers in the Middle East 20 years ago led to the emergence of Isis and all that followed. What is needed now are cool heads counselling caution. The voices of peace, not the militarists preaching war, need to be heard. International leaders need to lead, not join in a one sided dash toward oblivion What is needed now is more jaw jaw, not war war. Maybe then the Middle East can be pulled back from the brink of escalating conflict. Then, genuine negotiation can eventually lead to a peaceful settlement for all who live in those lands. Published - Irish Post - 28/10/2023