An abundance of recent correspondence published in the ODT has commented on the moral decline associated with ongoing tragedies being exposed in the Middle East, and especially Gaza.
Some blame Hamas, others criticise Israel’s seemingly excessive response. Condemning Hamas (as distinct from Palestinians) should not mean you are Islamophobic, nor need you be anti-Semitic to criticise Israeli Zionists (as distinct from Jews). For those affected by this violence, tragedies continue to afflict their daily lives.
Dramatic human reactions are often well intended but based on fallible media information; this far too often represents only one side of a complex situation. The problem is represented as good versus evil; "our side" is the good one, and nothing the other side does can be seen to be good.
Is it possible to seek, let alone find, a resolution to the stalemate?
This is not new. George Orwell is quoted to have said of the Spanish Civil War: "Everybody believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves those of his own side without examining the evidence."
Desmond Morris, in his 1967 book The Naked Ape, describes observing two dogs having a major disagreement on either side of an impenetrable fence.
They progress along the fence until they reach an open gate, and then suddenly face each other. Do they continue fighting or do they learn to live with each other?
It seems that both the Palestinians and Israelis are faced with similar dilemmas. They have reached open ground, and the status quo is untenable. What are their options?
From the utterings of both parties, neither is at the stage of yielding to the other. Hamas does not recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist. The Israelis renounce the establishment of a state of Palestine. The "two-state solution" has been soundly rejected by Benjamin Netanyahu. Spokespeople for both sides have claimed that they want to govern "from the river to the sea", and denigrate their opposition to subhuman status. Both views are unreasonable and unacceptable.
Who will be the adult in the room and initiate momentum towards a permanent peace settlement? Until both parties are ready for dialogue, and accept the atrocities and abuse of human rights perpetrated by their forces, progress cannot proceed.
For that to happen, the international community needs to welcome both parties to the negotiating table as having equal rights. How long are we prepared to stand on the sidelines and watch humanity being degraded?
Many will say that peace is impossible. Many of us who left South Africa in the apartheid years feared a bloodbath, and could not see beyond the cruel actions and politics involved.
Then the visionary statesman Nelson Mandela persuaded F.W. de Klerk that the damage and futility of the ongoing conflict was morally wrong and futile. Dialogue was essential to pave the way for peace.
They were both required to face the truth, start a meaningful dialogue and eventually reach a seemingly miraculous outcome. It was a traumatic process, and much evidence presented to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was difficult to bear. Ongoing dialogue is required to continue the momentum to maintain peace.
Who would have thought that Ian Paisley, of the Democratic Unionist Party, and Gerry Adams, from the IRA, would come to an agreement so that peace could be declared in Ireland? They hugged each other once the peace process had been agreed.
Given visionary guidance and leadership, the will of the negotiators for open dialogue, and acceptance of truth and a process of reconciliation, miracles become possible.
A solution acceptable to all is not possible, so compromises are necessary. The "two-state solution" is regarded as an essential ingredient by many countries, including Israel’s powerful Western allies and United Nations resolutions. Some have regarded this as no longer possible.
Is there an alternative? The answer will not be found in war, unless genocidal annihilation of one side is an acceptable answer. There needs to be an appetite to share common goals and values which promote mutual understanding. Above all else, recognition of one’s own fallibility and the other side’s humanity is essential before peace can be negotiated.
Implement the ceasefire. Search your souls. Initiate meaningful negotiations.
■Gil Barbezat is an emeritus professor of medicine.
