Israel willing to work for peace, safety

Imagine this scenario: In the process of living your everyday life, you are bombarded with an average of 13 rocket attacks per day. This is unimaginable for most, but to Israeli citizens living near the Gaza border, this is reality.

For most countries, the response would be: Who is responsible, and how quickly can we react? Instead, Israel gave repeated warnings to the Palestinians that if the attacks did not stop they would be forced to respond. Following the 400th rocket fired into Israel this January from Gaza, Israel finally responded. The response was not to fire rockets back into Gaza at innocent civilians, like the Palestinians have done so many times, but instead Israel restricted resources entering Gaza with this message to Palestinians: Your goals will not be achieved through terrorism.

On Jan. 23, thousands of Palestinians entered into Egypt after breaking holes in a barrier separating Gaza from Egypt. However, it was not the Israelis who repaired the border and forced the Palestinians to return to Gaza, but rather it was the Egyptians, because as history shows, bordering Arab nations do not welcome Palestinians into their countries.

Looking beyond the most recent events, Israel is trying to negotiate peace. This is difficult when your negotiating partner, Mahmoud Abbas, controls only 60 percent of the land he claims to control. The other 40 percent is controlled by Hamas, an organization that is on every terrorist watch-group list.

In order for peace to occur, the terrorism and incitement of hatred must stop. This includes not only the continuous rocket attacks but also the suicide bombings of busses, nightclubs and restaurants. Israel wants peace and security for their innocent civilians and is willing to do anything, within reason, to see that this is accomplished.

Sincerely,

Aaron Dollinger

Leawood freshman

Story does not provide needed context

Columnist Joshua Anderson’s Jan. 25 editorial fails to provide the context or balance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in doing so, simplifies an extremely complicated issue. While Anderson criticizes Israel’s military excursions, settlements and checkpoints, he fails to mention the Palestinian suicide bombers who target Israeli citizens — not soldiers — and Hamas rockets that are shot into Israel on an almost daily basis. Nor does Anderson address the fact that Hamas, the organization now in control of the Gaza Strip, is still committed to Israel’s destruction. The editorial also fails to address how the corruption within the Arafat regime and the internecine fighting between Hamas and Fatah has not only hurt the peace process but has also harmed the lives of Palestinians who hope for a better tomorrow.

Critics of Israel in both Israel and America are neither muted or intimidated. Critics of Israel policy, such as Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu, are given ample opportunity to air their opinions. Carter’s book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” was a New York Times Best Seller, and most major cable outlets, including CNN, interviewed Carter about his views expressed in the book. The former president, however, was rightly criticized because of the book’s significant factual errors, omissions and misstatements, which ultimately failed to provide an appropriate context and balance to this conflict.

Israel has a large and vocal peace movement, which regularly criticizes the government’s policies toward the Palestinians.

An honest and balanced appraisal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict strongly suggests that a lasting peace will only be achieved when both sides make tough but necessary concessions, such as the end of Israeli outpost settlements and checkpoints in the West Bank, but also a true commitment by all of the Palestinian leadership to end the indiscriminate use of violence on Israeli citizens.

Sincerely,

Andrew Shaw

University of Kansas School of Law, Class of 2009