The Israeli military operation in Gaza was overtly conducted. Even though the Israeli government argued they had tried their best to minimize collateral damage, the decision to launch an all-out attack was still unacceptable.

Unacceptable, however, does not mean unreasonable. Israel has their reasons to launch such assaults. Hamas has been launching numerous rockets into Israeli territory even during the so-called truce. In both cases, the act of violence is what needs to be condemned.

It is a mistake to call for the eradication of Israel since Israel has their right to exist. It is also a mistake to call for the destruction of Hamas since they also have the right to be recognized as part of the Palestinian people. Israel's right to exist, however, must not come at the expense of Hamas or Palestinians as a whole, and vice versa.

Israel has always had to be concerned about its existence. Rejected by its immediate neighbors since its independence in 1948, Israel faced another three major wars afterward. In 1956, out of the blue, Egypt decided to force the UN mission to abandon their post and started a military move eastward, occupying the whole Sinai Peninsula.

In 1973, Israel was hit with a surprise attack right on the Yom Kippur holiday, when observant Jews are forbidden to conduct normal business. A sense of insecurity lives on in their minds up to today.

Hamas, on the other hand, shared a similar experience. Created in 1988 during the first intifada, their existence was undercut by the dominant Palestinian Liberation Organization. Hamas' decision to choose the path of jihad, and to clearly calling for the destruction of Israel in their charter, signals their anti-peace stance. Hamas, then, is perceived by many, including elements among the Palestinians, as an obstacle to peace.

The choice of violence seems to be the only option now, both for Israeli and Hamas. It is their way of communicating with each other and to the other actors. The message behind Hamas' violence is clear. They are there and need to be included in the game. Israel's message behind its actions is also clear. They are there and must not be challenged.

This attitude is one everyone needs to condemn. It does not matter whether it is Israel or Hamas who turns to it, violence is not the best way to communicate. Whether it is an all-out military operation or a small-scale rocket launching also doesn't matter that much since both carry the same mistake. Both are unnecessary violent acts.

The Indonesian public reaction to the recent Israeli military operations raises another two problems.

Vociferous demands directed at the UN or the United States to call a halt to such actions is understandable, but awkward. The best way to intervene to resolve the conflict is by establishing contact with both performances.

The absence of contact, official contact, either with Hamas or with Israel, is the main obstacle to Indonesia's involvement in settling the conflict. Indonesia does have contacts, diplomatic ones, with the Palestinian Authority. But the Palestinian Authority's decision to freeze Hamas out from domestic politics has created a barrier for Indonesia's involvement. The same is true in Israel's case.

Establishing contact with all the actors of the conflict is a prerequisite to helping. Otherwise Indonesia will have to deal with domestic demands, full of public grievances, without being able to take the necessary steps to halt or settle the conflict.

Overreliance on the UN and the United States is a pity since each has their own limitations and interests. It is not in the U.S.'s interest to call for sanctions against Israel while the UN has been struggling for more than half a century to find a way to solve the Palestine question without any satisfactory results so far.

The second problem is related to the politicization of the Israel-Hamas conflict within Indonesia's domestic politics. To give our support to one side and not the other is not a mistake. But to show our sincere sympathy to the victims, who are unrelated to the conflicting parties, invokes a higher value. The tendency to side with one party instead of the other easily leads to internal quarreling.

This attitude is usually related to the foolish decision of condemning the actor instead of the action. It is therefore extremely important to indicate Indonesians are condemning the act of violence done by the actor or actors, without calling for the destruction of the actor or actors.

Again, the problem lies in the violence and not in who carried out the violence. To understand what fear the actor is harboring is key to abolishing the act of violence.

The writer is a scholar of Middle Eastern studies and a lecturer in the international relations department at the University of Indonesia. This writing is a personal opinion.

Popular

Is Indonesia really ready to embrace dual citizenship?

Palm oil plantation-less mills lead to increase deforestation

Prabowo inaugurates construction of Majapahit palace replica