Although a tentative cease-fire persists in the Gaza Strip as classes resume here at the University, it was difficult to peruse a news source over the break without reading something about the continuing conflict between the Israelis and the Hamas in the Middle East.

This is a conflict I do not understand. I do not understand why the fighting persists. I do not understand why it seems so one-sided. I do not understand why the United States backs Israel when they appear to be the aggressors. I do not understand why Israel won’t let Palestine become its own sovereign state. I do not understand why Jerusalem is so phenomenally important that it dictates the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and places two nations entirely in a perpetual state of fear.

The conflict in Gaza stretches back decades, with the current conflict appearing to originate in 2006. At the moment, there seems to be three major issues that propel the conflict: Jerusalem, trade and terrorism.

Fighting over a holy place I get. I understand a spiritual connection to a place that holds so much power in whatever scripture is followed. But the issue of Jerusalem seems absurd. I don’t understand sacrificing all for that place. Sacrificing the tenets of a scripture, of a religion, for the holy place. Surely God/Muhammad/Christ/whoever would not want such atrocities perpetrated in his name? The area under question doesn’t even seem to be concrete. It’s a “he said, she said” of locations, people and how the city would fare under control of the other party. (Poorly, in the eyes of both.)

With regard to trade, the arguments are a bit more sensible. Because Gaza is located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, it houses a collection of ports used for imports and exports. Control would allow Gaza to export at will, without the sanctions currently imposed upon it by Israel — which, in turn, could affect Israel.

Finally, like with all conflicts, one side is seen as the aggressor and the other the victim, and the roles depend solely on which side one is on. In this conflict, Israel views Hamas as terrorists and detests the Palestinians, whereas Hamas sees the conflict as a religious jihad. The exaggerating factor here is the view of Hamas and Palestine in the eyes of other international bodies. Because continued violence persists not only against the Israelis, but also against Americans, the international community can comfortably support Israel — the U.S. especially.

The current cease-fire brings thoughts of a resolution, thoughts that remain little more than far-fetched dreams. Because the U.N. requires an unified state with a central leader in order for a new nation to be formed out of an existing one (i.e. Palestine from Israel), and because Palestine still consists of a myriad of warring factions within its own “borders,” it cannot become a state in its current condition. However, it could be recognized as a state and work toward membership in the U.N. This recognition would provide the various parts of Palestine a goal to rally around and toward.

Prone to flare-ups and notorious for obscene and obsessive violence, the conflict does nothing except confuse me. The United States and Israel have been allies for decades, and I still fail to see what good such a partnership brings for the U.S. weapons? The United States remains the world’s leader in arms manufacturing. We supply countries with rockets and help them design their own missiles. The surface-to-air missiles currently being used in Israel were produced by the U.S. intelligence? Israel has connections throughout the Middle East, perhaps supplying the U.S. with important intelligence information. With the changing world of intelligence gathering, however, externally collected information may not be as necessary as it was during the early years. Strategic position in the region? Ignoring the question of whether the U.S. should occupy countries outside its own borders, Israel acts as a base for U.S. military in the region. Not only does this strain the United States financially, but it strains U.S. relations as the conflict grows, Israel becomes more of a strategic liability than an asset. By withdrawing or limiting support for Israel, the United States could gain support — and therefore improve relations — with other countries in the region.

I do not pretend to have the answers, or to know how such a massive international conflict should be resolved. But the United States needs to be able to approach the conflict without an unfounded bias and instead work toward a humane and rapid response to the atrocities afflicted on both parties. Only when the United States, the United Nations and the world as a whole can look through an untainted lens will Gaza become a place of peace.

Sarah is a senior in LAS. She can be reached at [email protected].