I am writing to express my concern over Nathan Alday’s Sept. 16 opinion piece concerning the ongoing struggle in the Middle East.
I feel that he has an obligation to represent at least some truth in his writing, particularly given the potential to influence the students of this great university.
His piece, as I saw it, asserted two concepts:
1. Israel’s response to terrorism is morally equivalent to the terrorist actions it is trying to combat.
2. Israel is inciting more violence through its commitment to target leaders of Hamas, an organization known to plan and execute acts of terror.
Unlike Hamas, Israel attempts to avoid the bloodshed of innocents. The strikes that are carried out target specific individuals that are known to belong to Hamas. These strikes do not target buses of women and children on their way to work and school.
There is no denying that many of the Israeli strikes have incurred an unacceptable amount of collateral damage, but Hamas has killed far more innocents than Israel.
Alday’s suggestion that targets of Israel’s most recent strikes might be innocent is absolute nonsense. Those targeted were known members of Hamas, the same organization that routinely takes credit for attacks on Israeli citizens.
Regardless of what “wing” of the organization the targets claimed to represent, they were still members of a terrorist organization, and could therefore never be classified as innocent.
The alternatives he offers to Israel’s current policy are unacceptable. Attempting to apprehend Hamas leaders would mean sending Israeli forces into Palestinian neighborhoods that would likely offer heavy resistance. This strategy would simply lead to more deaths of non-combatants, caught in the crossfire of an unnecessary street war.
Furthermore, his suggestion that Israel has an obligation to protect the rights of these Hamas leaders is indefensible given the total disregard Hamas displays toward the Geneva Convention.
If Israel were to extend the rights of combatants outlined in Geneva to an organization that makes no effort to follow its provisions, then what reason would any group of combatants have to follow its provisions in the future? Geneva was meant to protect soldiers fighting under the banner of a given country and abiding by the rules of combat, not to extend rights to terrorists who recognize no rule of law.
Hamas committed hundreds of murders before Israel ever started its current round of targeted strikes. Hamas’ stated objective is the elimination of Israel as we know it, and its leadership will not stop the cycle of terror until this goal is reached.
Israel’s only hope for survival is to root out those that orchestrate terror.
Israel’s new policy is simply a response to Abbas and Arafat’s unwillingness to fulfill the Palestinian’s obligation detailed in the Roadmap to Peace.
I do not suggest that Israel is in anyway perfect or that I even support the totality of its foreign policy. However, I do feel strongly that the truth must be told.
It is my sincere hope and prayer that the new Palestinian leadership will show a greater degree of willingness to combat the terrorist infrastructure, including Hamas, and that a true and lasting peace might be reached.
In the meantime, we should avoid equating Israel’s defense policy with terrorism.
Simon Bailey is a student in biology.