No More Fighting For Peace

Gaza. It's breaking my heart.

"Israel has a right to defend itself from attack", cries the editors of The New York Observer, The New York Times, The New York Daily News among others.

Many groups joined together to purchase a full time advertisement in the New York Times railing against the disproportionate Israeli attack, and bringing a new fact to light - the Hamas were retaliating against 6 Palestinians that were killed by Israeli soldiers.
(Thanks http://mercypolitics.blogspot.com)

For me, the argument stops here. Both sides have merit. Both sides are right. Now what?

In his inauguration speech, President Obama vowed that he would not resort to the false choice between liberty and security.

Hope is alive.

Does this mean we will do what is right and good for all the world?
Does this mean we can stop fighting for peace?

Let's assume that peace is what is right and good for the world, then in Gaza and in Israel, both sides will have to shift their stance to give up their optimal choice, and move toward a mutually beneficial position.

It is mutually beneficial to end the conflict, although because some nationalists will want to continue the fight, it is difficult to believe a solution will come soon. But let's look again to
President Obama's inaugural speech for words of hope. "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

A recent New York Times Op-Ed, Muammar Qaddafi offers a plan for peace.

The United States has wrestled with its' own oppression and unrest, and President's Obama's election has given the people some comfort that we can overcome our past differences and unify for the greater good. It took many strong people and much conviction to get there.

But there is a glimmer of hope. As the president said "... a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."


Times can change. It is time to change.