In reference to the Jan. 8 letter “An Israel gone mad,” let’s do a little rewrite.
As a human being, I am deeply disturbed that anyone should attempt to defend the actions of the terrorist government in Gaza — over 2,000 acts of randomly directed terror aimed at killing and maiming innocent civilians and destruction of a neighboring country, Israel. As any sovereign nation should, when a state of war exists, prevent resupply, not enable the attackers to continue their unrelenting attacks.
The government of Gaza knowingly set the stage for collateral damage (civilian casualties) by waging an unlawful war from densely populated areas, using mosques and hospitals as munition dumps, schools as a shield to launch rocket and mortar attacks, etc. When Israel attacks the military assets of the government of Gaza, they cry out with “moral indignation” to the human costs to the world. A purposeful, perpetual victim that creates and authors its own destruction and agony.
We put ourselves at risk, as Neville Chamberlain did when he proclaimed, “peace in our own time” by attempting to placate another terrorist, Adolph Hitler. Tranquility and peace must be a mutual goal of both parties. Unfortunately, the Hamas-run government of Gaza is not a party to peace. This Muslim hate group is bent on the absolute genocide of the people of Israel. I don’t believe that some people fully grasp the concept. The philosophical poetry of the letter was meant for those who will always walk away from confrontation, even when in the right, rather than stand fast in the face of threats to one’s very being.
I believe that the people of Israel acted foolishly by waiting so long to respond to these attacks, until they reached a fever pitch by the Hamas government in Gaza. Hamas must have known that the Israeli Army, the IDF, would eventually show up at the doorstep.
Trust me, the Israelis never show up to a gunfight armed with a knife. Sorry, but the people of Israel, unlike the writer of “Israel gone mad,” will not go quietly into the night with the wimper of a foolish coward.
Michael Wirth
Kipling
---------------------------------------
It was with great surprise that I noticed a 90-10 split in the Jan. 11 letters to the editor concerning the current Israeli Gaza operation. Moreso, the lack of historical understanding of the situation by some of the writers was surprising.
The writer who suggested Israel give the Gaza to Egypt is obviously unaware that a) Egypt controlled the area from 1948 to 1967 and created the camps located there; b) Israel tried to give it to Egypt in the 1979 Peace agreement (where they gave back the Sinai desert), but Egypt refused.
Those who claimed that the occupation of Gaza is illegal fail to note that in 2005, Israel forcibly removed all of its own people whom it had previously asked to settle within the Gaza Strip. This was done because Israel was “told” by the EU (and others) that the rockets would stop being fired if it allowed the Palestinians to control all of Gaza. All the withdrawal did was allow the Hamas rocket launchers to get closer to the Israeli border — there was no abatement of rockets, and Hamas claimed it had chased Israel out of Gaza.
Civilian deaths should be avoided at all costs, but when Hamas claims victory by attacking Israeli civilians and when Israeli responses accidentally kill Palestinian civilians, one has to wonder whether Hamas has any concern its for civilians. Israel’s first female prime minister was quoted as saying, “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but we cannot forgive them for making us kill their sons.” Show me a Palestinian leader who feels anything other than satisfaction when killing Israeli civilians.
Recent reports from reporters who do not work for the New York Times or the Associated Press have reported that:
a) Hamas killed 35 Fatah members, wounding twice that many by identifying them as informers for Israel during the first week of Israel’s current operation — note that these numbers were then included in the rising civilian casualties, making it seem that they were killed/wounded by Israel;
b) A U.N. convoy of 100 trucks, allowed in during the three-hour humanitarian lull by Israel, was hijacked by Hamas, and the contents were sold to the highest bidder. This is an example of how Hamas is truly concerned with the welfare of Gaza civilians.
The last point I want to make concerns the claim of disproportionate use of force. Israel really has only three options: 1) continue to allow rockets to fall and not respond; 2) use the same strategy and launch rockets indiscriminantly into Gaza — without a concern for where they land (a proportionate response?) or 3) attack those causing the problem — similar to when you are bothered by a fly, first you swat at it to chase it away and when it returns you repeat, but eventually you get frustrated and get a bug spray or fly swatter and eradicate the fly that is bothering you.
With 1.5 million people living in the Gaza strip, one would have to be taking lots of care when bombing to avoid civilian casualties — which Israel is doing. The fact that a) Hamas wins sympathy when Palestinian civilians die; and b) it uses civilians as human shields is what has led to the number of deaths we’ve seen.
I feel much sorrow for the Palestinians, but actions have consequences. They voted for Hamas, giving it legislative power, and then Hamas took power in Gaza via a military coup over Fatah. You reap what you sow.
Jerrold Heyman
Raleigh
---------------------------------------
We cannot consider a solution to the violence in the Middle East without considering the history of the Middle East. Today, the area goes by names such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel, but 10,000 years ago it was called Mesopotamia. It was the birthplace of human civilization.
Since that birth, it has been fought over by the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Muslims, and Christians, and for no real successful outcome. Fighting between two or more countries has persisted there all of my lifetime with only a tenuous cease-fire settling one squabble while another fight begins with two different countries. If one country is not fighting its neighbors, then two factions are fighting within one country.
Whether people are fighting over land, religion or both, one thing is clear: Fighting is not the solution. Death is not a means to peace. The solution has to be a compromise between the countries involved with the understanding that the real estate is a limited resource and claim to it has to be settled at the bargaining table, not on the battlefield.
As far as U.S. involvement is concerned, we need to be in it equally for all countries or out of it completely for all countries. The United States clearly favors Israel, and that is part of the problem. We cannot continue to provide Israel with munitions and war supplies and then wonder why peace is so elusive.
The solution will ultimately be compromise, and the sooner the Middle East realizes that the better — or should I say the sooner the Middle East governments realize it the better.
Edward M. Marsh
Assistant principal, J.W. Neal Middle School
Durham
---------------------------------------
I am sick of hearing how Israel has a right to murder Palestinians because of Hamas’ rockets. Since 2000, it is estimated that over 8,600 rockets have landed in Israel from Palestinian territories. All these attacks have resulted in fewer than 35 Israeli deaths. Compare that with the two recent military actions. The Israeli apologists’ argument is always, “What if your neighbor were firing rockets at your house? Wouldn’t you attack them?”
However, that is a false argument. The rebuttal would be, “What if I cordoned off my neighbors from the rest of the neighborhood, shut off their water and gas, and prevented groceries from being delivered to their house? What if I also refused to let them go to work on a regular basis? What if they were reduced to eating one meal a day because food was in such short supply?”
I ask any American: What would your response be to a foreign country that would try to do that to the United States? Would it be to roll over, or to fight back? What was America’s response after 9/11? The Palestinian response, while not appropriate in that it attacks civilians or helpful to the cause of peace, is a natural nationalistic response to an affront by an outside, hostile force.
Has anyone ever bothered to ask why, in 60 years, the United Nations has never sent peacekeepers to the region? Doesn’t this seem like a logical use for them? Since the United Nations’ creation, its troops have been stationed practically everywhere in the world except in Gaza and the West Bank. Ever wonder why Palestinians have requested peacekeepeers, but none have been authorized? (The Palestinians say that the presence of U.N. troops would expose Israeli atrocities, things the Western, pro-Israeli press never reports; and, to be sure, Israel has taken great pains to restrict media access.) The Palestinians claim that whenever a U.N. vote to authorize peacekeepers was taken, Israel asked the United States to use its veto power to reject the plan.
I don’t know whether this is true, but the absence of troops and America’s kowtowing to Israel’s every demand makes me suspect it is. Otherwise, what’s the reason for not stationing peacekeepers? They should be authorized immediately.
Rick Gagliardo
Pinehurst
---------------------------------------------------------
Should Israel stop the bombing in Gaza? Maybe the answer is for Israel to intensify the bombing and eliminate the people of Gaza once and for all. Why kill them slowly through starvation and disease? Just put them out of their misery once and for all.
Why does Israel insist on playing its deceptive, torturous and deadly games? The games of surgical strikes, smart bombs and the moral dispensation of military might? The myth of an Israeli Defense Force that fights so carefully that only the bad guys die is a lie, as is the notion that Israel is incapable of ever doing wrong. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of the Israeli army’s discriminating bombs knows of the human devastation the Israeli government has unleashed on the Palestinian people over the last several decades. Almost always backed by the United States government, Israel continues the killing of the innocent, while attempting to claim the humanitarian title.
The truth is that the Palestinian people have been prisoners of a brutal Israeli occupation for years. It is time for Israel to allow the Palestinians a life with rights equal to the Israeli people. Only then will there be peace.
Tariq Nasir
Chapel Hill
---------------------------------------------------------
Did Israel need to invade Gaza again in order to halt the rain of rockets? The answer is clearly “no.” If stopping the rockets was the real intent, a well-known negotiation strategy called tit-for-tat would have been much more effective
The tit-for-tat strategy would have worked like this: When the firing of rockets into Israel began, the Israeli government should have announced publicly that Israel would on a certain date begin firing an equal number of rockets (or mortars or shells) into Gaza and continue until the barrage from Gaza ceased. If the rockets from Gaza stopped, that would be the end of a successful negotiation. If the rockets continued, Israel would carry out the threat.
If that did not spur negotiations for a cease-fire, Israel would up the ante — perhaps two for one. It would announce publicly that Hamas was ignoring the opportunity to stop the bombardment. At some point Hamas would have to negotiate because the people of densely populated Gaza would certainly suffer much more than the Israelis. Hamas would lose face and public support if it ignored the chance to stop the carnage.
I am certain that Israeli officials were aware of this strategy. Why was it not used? Why did the government of Israel allow the rockets to fall for years without any substantive response? My best guess is that the real objective was not to stop the rockets but to destroy or cripple Hamas. The government of Israel allowed the rockets to fall in order to create an excuse for an invasion. You may judge for yourself whether that was a good choice, but they clearly had a choice.
Lane Tracy
Cary
The writer taught a college course on negotiation for 15 years.
---------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of thousands murdered in Sri Lanka. Possibly many more murdered in Darfur. Rockets slamming into Sdeirot and Ashkalon. The silence from the United Nations, from world capitals and from the streets is deafening. Suddenly the U.N. springs to life, world capitals thunder condemnation, the Muslim streets in the Middle East, Europe and the United States are alive with the sound of protest. What horror is taking place? Israel has begun to defend herself! So many Arabs killed, so few Israelis. It must be stopped. It is disproportionate!!
No. What is disproportionate is 300 million Muslims in 21 countries surrounding the 5 million Jews in tiny Israel. The silence when bombs are falling on Israel to the outrage when Israel defends herself. The world’s belief that it is peace when Jews are being killed to the cries for peace when Arabs are being killed. This is the disproportion.
I do not relish the thought of people being killed, but despite Israel’s many more peaceful attempts to put an end to the terrorism of Hamas and others, it has continued. My hope is that this will be the last war seen in that region.
Victor Mallenbaum
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------
The barbarity of Israel’s attack on Gaza and its people must be stopped. It is a massive insult to the sense of humanity of civilized people. That insult was demonstrated clearly when the headquarters of the United Nations in Gaza was bombed and destroyed at the very time the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Ban, was in Israel trying to broker a cease-fire.
Although our political leaders are virtually unanimous in mouthing justifications of Israel’s actions, it’s no use pretending that Israel has the unwavering support of the American people. In the so-far silent heart of a great number of the American people, as among the many protesting throughout the world, is a powerful sense of the awfulness of what is taking place in Gaza, and an anguished appeal to simple decency to stop it.
Robert DeLong
Chapel Hill
---------------------------------------------------------
Israel proved it wants peace by unilaterally disengaging from Gaza in 2005. Israel has made peace with former enemies Egypt and Jordan. But Hamas is different; they seem not to want concessions of land but rather the total destruction of Israel. How can Israel then negotiate with Hamas?
Like any country, Israel must protect its citizens. 7,000 rockets have flown from Gaza into Israel since the Israelis left, and their range has increased 300 percent, hitting Beersheva with “Grad” rockets smuggled in through tunnels from Iran via Egypt.
This must stop. No rockets fired, no rockets imported and stockpiled for later use. Hamas has caused this humanitarian problem, and it alone holds the key to solving it. If Hamas will give up its rocket stockpiles and agree not to attack its neighbor Israel, then I am sure Israel will agree to cease hostilities and support rapid relief efforts in Gaza.
I wish world opinion had paid attention to the rocket attacks during the last three years that provoked the Israeli action, and maybe the Gaza intervention would not have been necessary.
Susan Behrend
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------
The battle in Gaza is the latest in the continuing struggle between the Israeli government and the Palestinians whose land it occupies. The history of that land provides insight into what each side will reap unless they change course. Nearly 2,000 years ago another conflict pitted well-armed troops, the Roman army, against armed militants and innocent civilians. Roman economic and religious policies led to desperation. Jewish militants, the Zealots, advocated violent resistance, murdering Romans and those viewed as collaborators. In 66 CE this escalated, paralleling events of the current intifada. The Romans responded to this terrorism with communal retribution against militants and civilians alike, often by crucifixion.
This culminated in the siege of Jerusalem. The Roman army surrounded the capital, cutting it off from all supplies, leading to mass starvation. Ultimately they entered and destroyed the city, and the death toll was staggering.
Who won? Certainly not the innocent Jews caught up in the struggle. Not the Zealots, whose violent revolt led to their destruction. However, I feel the Romans also lost. This policy of scorched earth had devastating effects on the government and people of Rome.
Is that the sort of nation Israel wants to be?
Mark Peifer
Chapel Hill
