The Gazette on Gaza

There is an immense material out there for you to seem understanding on the conflict and the commentary come from both sides.

My personal favourite source is from RealClearPolitics. Here is the posts of the moment.

Thomas L. Friedman from the The New York Times speaking on the dangers of Iran leveraging on the Gaza conflict to negate the Obama effect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/opinion/07friedman.html?_r=1

Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian, arguing that the Israel offensive is a lost cause simply because Hamas is too rooted and the power vacuum from the removal of Hamas may be worse. I agree with this like Lewis Coser who believes that your opponents should not be broken and asymmetry complexify negotiations. (Functions of Social Conflict)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/07/gaza-palestine-israel

An article from RealClearPolitics, that comments on the knee-jerk reaction of the Israeli political leaders and how this failure of a longer term vision will jeopardise the state of Israel.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/the_decline_of_israels_leaders.html

USA Today has one on the similar track, saying that tactical success will not bring lasting security from rocket fire.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/01/todays-debate-t.html#more

Last but not least, New York Post making a case of the perfidious acts of Hamas and how Israel will fall prey to it.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01072009/postopinion/editorials/theyre_hamas_victims_148981.htm


I've also found many extreme posts, articles and blogs of both ends which I think is unnecessary here. I do not want to reinforce hatred but hopes to make a case of why Israel should go to the negotiating table rather than the battlefield and why Hamas need to back down from its dogma.

Again, this I point this tragedy to the lack of responsible and visionary leadership.

Going gaga over Gaza

The Palestine and Israeli conflict is perhaps one of the most protracted and simmering conflict in modern times. Although similar in the emotive aspect to Pakistan and India, there is one stark difference.

The fact that Palestinians don't yet have an official state and is in repression from Israel makes it different in terms of asymmetry of powers at play. Before we look into the media reports, and make sense of the carnage and verbiage, it's important to see how the people involved really see it. Thanks to my peers at Fletcher. I've come upon an excellent site where you get a real picture of the situation. It's a web documentary on the lives of people on both sides.

http://gaza-sderot.arte.tv

Why is watching and learning this important? Well, because it helps us to establish common denominators and common ground for peace and reaching compromise. It also helps understand where policy has gone wrong. It also provide a compass when navigating through the whole media verbiage and internet ramblings on the issue.

There is also a great need to look forward rather than look back. Re-establish trust and order and put the people's live back on track. Hamas agenda of resisting Israel and to oversee its destruction is pointless. To argue for the nation of Israel to be uproot is purely making the conflict intractable. At the same time, the reaction from Israel would only continue to prevent the Palestinians from getting back on their feet to elk out a normal and progressive lives and at the same time sow more seeds of discord and help Hamas recruitment. As game theory suggest, this is the lose-lose situation.

As much as I disagree with Israel's ground offensive, I think abhor Hamas even more for dragging its people into the conflict and misrepresenting them. This also is a demonstration of Rupert Smith's notion of the new regional wars that take place in population centers and involve non-state actors.

I cannot stress how non-state actors when having chosen the path of violence is so dangerous and destabilising for peace because they hold to no jus bellum, are not constrained by norms and use their asymmetry to legitimise their insurgency and non-discriminatory form of warfare.

As much as we get shocked that Israel has shelled a UN school killed many innocent or perhaps feel a moral obligation to speak out at the disproportionate death ratios suffered by both sides, I would like to also point out that the non-discriminatory firing of Kassim rockets into cities without designated military targets are terrorist acts, does not conform to the principle of proportionality and are perfidious.

It is also pointless to retrace history to determine who has the legality or legitimacy over the lands. It merely builds fortifies and entrench the positions that does not help ameliorate the conflict. In short, both sides seriously need to back off and achieve a peace settlement at the negotiating table. Hamas to act responsibly for the people and Israel to agree to self-determination of the Palestinians and cease the economic strangulation on the territories.

My two cents worth.

Role of Force

To relieve some stress and to show how complex the world can be, I present to you my visual map of the evolving security concepts in the world today.



This was created by VUE (Visual Understanding Environment by Tufts University.

Noam Chomsky's take on the election and state of democracy in the U.S.

I must say that I have utmost respect for Prof Noam Chomsky and his insightful opinions. More importantly, I identify with a good number of things which he says.

This is article that I am about to share. He mentions something very similar to what I have mentioned previously. That is about how the democratic election is a great advertising campaign and that we don't really know what the candidates stand for. That creates a weakness of delivering the people the policies that they want.

Anyhow, I won't spoil the fun and I need to write a real paper. Enjoy.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections

Bravo! The power of adaptive management endorsed by the President-Elect of the United States of America

I am a firm believer of adaptive management. If there is such a term in the firm place. This concept or notion stems from the fact that there is no silver bullet in life, no panaceas.

Nations grow strong, companies survive competitions, individual thrive in the rat race, not by some magic formula or some harden idealogy. It comes instead from a rational and open mind, entrench in the believe that only constant in the world is change. Even as we apply solutions, we change and redefine problems.

A case in point. Even when we thought that Bush was erroneous, I've learnt that it was his powerful conviction that create a new branch with the Salafi's that contest and challenge the notion Osama bin Laden's notion of a violent Jihad against the West. Apparently, the notion of them destroying a few buildings and the retributive action of them having a Muslim nation destroyed and many more Muslim lifes lost was too much and was not proportionate and logical to them. It is with this hope that the pure unfeasibility and logic would triumph in these radical non-state actors who often abandon any sense of risk because they feel they have little to lose.

Here, I have just read President Obama's Post-election speech. It was just laced with so much character of adaptive management that just confirms why he has the potential and making to be a great leader.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/change_has_come_to_america.html

Adaptive management needs
1) Leaders who listen because only when your feelers are on the ground can you adapt and respond
2) Leaders who acknowledge that mistake can happen and we can adjust and make good
3) Leaders who know it need everyone to pull their weigh and work collaboratively
4) Leaders who believe in change

He is certainly the One.