On July 15, 2014, Bill Chappell writing for WLRN, NPR website, wlrn.org, wrote a blog entitled: Israel Resumes Airstrikes On Gaza, As Cease-Fire Chance Slips Away.

Chappell reports: “After Hamas rejected a proposed cease-fire that would have ended eight days of fighting, Israel has resumed its airstrikes on Gaza.

“The development comes after Israel had agreed to an Egyptian-brokered deal to stop hostilities. But leaders of Hamas didn’t back the plan, and militants continued to fire rockets into Israel from Gaza this morning after Israel suspended its airstrikes.”

The reason Hamas did not back the Egyptian request for the hostilities to cease between the two parties is because Hamas will not quit firing the rockets at Israel as long as they are unable to get something they want out of the cease-fire.

If Egypt or any other country is interested in brokering a deal that would end the fighting if accepted by the two combatant countries, there has to be consequences if one country accepts it and the other one refuses to cooperate and “go along with the program.”  In other words, any deal that is brokered by a “neutral” power to stop the warring nations from killing one another must have terms which have “teeth” in it; that’s so the nation not willing to sign the agreement to cease and desist from continuing with the hostilities must realize there is a price to pay for not cooperating.

We must realize that what I’m suggesting requires a real sea change in how each United Nations’ permanent members view one another, as well as how they view themselves, and the function and role that world organization should play in international relations. In order for the UN permanent members of the UN Security Council: China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States will be able to serve themselves and the individual nation members in the best possible way, which is to preserve peace and tranquility between and among the other member nations, the respect and right to exist and prosper must be guaranteed as being a national right simply because of being a member of this international organization.

We must remember that when these nations ratified the UN Charter, creating the Security Council and establishing themselves as its five permanent members, they did so knowing they had a moral responsibility toward their nation and their world at large, to put forth their best efforts possible to maintain peace and tranquility throughout the nations of the world. When any nation is obstreperous and pugnacious at the expense of jeopardizing such mandate, then it’s the responsibilities of the nations that comprise the UN Security Council to band together and prevent such aggressive and fractious behavior from continuing to occur.

With respect to what I just said, we must remember that Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni Islamic organization which, in 2006, won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament; consequently, since 2007, has won the right to govern the Gaza Strip.

Having said that, Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel and a number of Western and non-Western governments; the United States, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, Egypt and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. However, other states including Iran, Russia, Turkey, China, and many Arab nations do not.  This fact alone creates the potential for two warring camps literarily “fighting” one another; the countries that believe Hamas is a terrorist organization vs. the other camp who may view Hamas as an organization that is fighting for reasons that are rightfully theirs to pursue.

In my next blog I plan to give you a specific recommendation as to what we might do to put some “teeth” into the current request that has been made by Egypt to terminate hostilities currently existing between Israel and Hamas.