Before a conflict takes place, there is usually a disagreement between the concerned parties. In the case of the Israel and Palestine, aggressive dialogue has never been set to foster talk rather than war. When this is absolutely put in to practice, the result will be successful owing to the fact that three will be a less possibility of the occurrence of the war therefore saving the lives of the people that would have been lost during the war.
Conflict basically entails a situation where two parties are not in agreement about an issue. In this case the parties usually engage in confrontation therefore limiting any diplomatic relations between the two sides. From the perspective of Israel, Palestinians are considered as caring out terrorist activities, therefore in order to cub such activities, they have to distort and prevent them from doing so. This forces them to deploy troops to Gaza to try and stop this kind of terrorist attacks to its citizens.
This however ought not to be the case since the deployment of the troop without talk signifies that one party is not in any attempt tom embrace dialogue which would have solved the problem. Terrorism as considered by Israel is an act that leads to violence or a type of violence. It is the experience of fear or terror as the proximate intend of that brutality. .Terrorism may also be defined as the performance of acts of violence directed against a state or a group of people with the aim of intimidating them so as to achieve ones political goals.
It entails making other people suffer so as to send certain messages to the relevant authorities about dissatisfactions or certain grievances. War is not justified at all in the case of the isrealites and the Palestine since they all suffer the consequences. For whichever reason a group of people or an individual decides to perform acts of terror, it just can’t be justified because there are better ways of solving disputes. For an action to be termed as justified, its end result should be good enough to justify the act.
War is not because the end result is fear, frustration and terror to a certain group of people. Taking cases like the recent Israel invasion into Gaza is not justified since many innocent lives were lost and property destroyed. That is not a morally right end result since it only leads to suffering and misery to the innocent Palestinians who were caught in the commotion. This coupled with the fact that the objective is not always achieved this way, renders war inappropriate and should not be given a chance at all. War only victimizes people who are very innocent.
All these victims only act as objects being used by a certain group of people to achieve their own unique absurd missions. The innocent victims who perish are used to terrify a certain group of people or governments. The ones who are sent to commit such an activity are also being used as objects by their masters to achieve their objectives. They are human beings and most often than not they end up perishing together with the innocent victims. There are better ways of settling personal differences without necessarily having to express ones frustrations through taking away innocent lives
During the confrontation between the two sides, war crimes are usually committed where there is usually a breech of contract set by the international organizations about activities not to performed on the civilians,. This entails aspect that is carried upon with the main intentions of causing aggravation or harm to the immediate neighbor not necessarily for revenge purposes. When the Israelites and the Palestine engage in war, there is usually destruction of property and the loss of lives of civilians a factor that clearly results to psychological problems to the people who are caught up in the cross fire .
In this case, those affected usually end up suffering and as a result the economic growth of the countries are hindered. Within the destruction of the facilities such as schools most of the youth and children end up engaging in a reengage mission and this in turn results to their influx in more terrorism attacks (Verhoeven,J eds) . Their can be understating within the two group in the event that all the previous are laid forward and analyzed critically through dialogue since by engaging in war, no sounding solution will be achieved.
In the event that there is peaceful negotiation within the two groups, the society will totally benefit since there will be absence of the destruction of property and the two groups will embrace each others culture and live together in harmony . The society will also develop economically owing to the absence of sanctions that hinder a particular side from transaction and trading with the other.
When things are clearly talked out between the Israelites and the Palestine it is depicted that there will be an agreement if each side decides to forget what was in the past and follow concepts that will sustain the future of the children of the two countries (Simon & Schuster) . On the other hand, dialogue is the key aspect to a successful ceasefire since all the two sides will be able to come up with their proposal and at the end of the day a consensus can be attained if they are all willing to let loose what was seen as a conflicting situation. . In a normal circumstance the issue of dialogue when there is conflict always solves the problems, since human being are bound to conflict and at the same time they can reach an understanding.
When the palatines and the isrealites embrace this aspect, the truth can be clearly seen therefore at the end of the day the two sides have to agree on whether to adopt the changes or not. Talking other than war on the other hand will shows the intenders of the war on the negative impact that can be produced in the event that it happens. When a person is convinced that when he or she goes to war death will be the consequence, then resulting result will be a change in that thought. “One will definitely consider his or her life other than death” (Barry). Therefore, the use of dialogue is a more concerned issue. In this scenario talking outshines the idea of war since, with appropriate dialogue between two parties at war, there will be no or a small chance of the occurrence of the war.
Conclusion Talking thins out other than war is the only solution that will make it possible for most of the people who might be caught up during the commotion to be safe. In reality, the safety of and individual is very vital. talking other than war definitely is a good idea since the Palestine and the isrealites will be able to look back on how the situation has be devastated as a result of the war and in return think of building and sorting their issues without indulging in war. The impact of war carries a social problem since with total destruction of the facilities that people are able to obtain their basic commodities, lives are usually lost.
In some case there is disease outbreak and food shortages therefore resulting to starvation of the affected individuals. Work cited Barry, R The Truth about Syria, Palgrave MacMillan, 2007 – Verhoeven,J eds. : Peace creation in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Lynne Reinner, London and Bolder, CO, 20 Simon & Schuster,. The peace within Palestine not apartheid, 2006 Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Brief History retrieved on 23rd February from http://www. mideastweb. org/briefhistory. htm The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in a Nutshell on 23rd February from http://www. mideastweb. org/nutshell. htm A Synopsis of the Israel/Palestine Conflict on 23rd February from http://www. ifamericansknew. org/history/