After reading Josh Anderson’s opinion piece (April 11) about the Arab/Israeli conflict that misconstrued facts, offered little to no evidence and was decidedly one sided, I felt the need to reply.

The policy of apartheid (legalized racial segregation) that occurred in South Africa was a disenfranchisement of its citizens by the minority white government.

This policy was a racist policy which differentiated between white and black.

Israel, however, is a sovereign nation that occupies the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Neither is a country and is not part of Israel. Non-citizens who live there are not given the same rights as citizens. Israel’s policy of checkpoints and its construction of a security barrier are designed to defend its citizens from violence.

The policy of apartheid was not meant for security. The issues underlying the creation a Palestinian state are very complex. One obvious issue is the terrorist groups, recognized as such by both the United States and Europe, that have considerable influence within the occupied territories. Terrorism should not be confused with nationalistic resistance.

Hamas is not dedicated to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state that lives in peace alongside the State of Israel; rather, its charter calls for the destruction and elimination of Israel. Negotiating with Hamas would be like negotiating with Al Qaeda, a group committed to the establishment of a universal caliphate.

Israel is a democracy that represents the myriad views of its citizens. Some are liberal, cosmopolitan and secular. Others are conservative and religious. Some are nationalistic and some Zionistic. Some are Arab. But all have a voice within the Knesset.

The same cannot be said for the autocratic Arab regimes that surround the Democratic, western State of Israel.

Given the complexity of Israeli politics, it is difficult to come to a satisfactory political solution. But it is all the more difficult when the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon, civilians, are subjected to errant missiles that land on their hospitals, schools and kindergartens. The duty of the state is to protect the security of its citizens. This necessitates action on the part of the Israeli army.

Israeli leadership has made poor decisions; but there is a robust, independent media that is there to point out the errors and plenty of social action groups to advocate on behalf of the Palestinians.

Where is the independence in the Arab media? Where are the social action groups decrying the deaths of Israeli civilians and lobbying their leadership for policy changes?

It is precisely this imbalance that Anderson fails to report. He claims that Israel treats every Palestinian as a terrorist, yet he treats every Israeli as a monster complicit in the supposed extermination of the Palestinians.

Failing to explore, in a balanced fashion, the nuances of what is really going on is what makes the column counterproductive to advancing a solution.

The cessation of funds from America to one of its staunchest allies is not going to solve the plight of the Palestinians.

—Daniel B. Moskowitz, University of Kansas School of Law