Opinion: Israel's military actions seek only self-preservation

In its continued pursuit of Operation Defensive Shield, Israel's goal is not to embarrass or alienate the president of the United States, as your editorial suggests. Rather, the leaders of Israel have in mind priorities of a higher order: the security of its citizens and the very existence of its nation. We would be hypocritical as Americans to deny any sovereign country its right of self-defense: The United States has sent its armed forces 10,000 miles around the world to Afghanistan and beyond, and rightly so, in retribution for Sept. 11.

President Bush has correctly condemned terrorism, threatened any country that supports or harbors terrorists and acted on those threats with an all-out war.

I ask the editorial board of the Times, then, why is there a different standard being set for Israel? This tiny nation, surrounded by historic enemies, is being asked to "pull back" from taking action against a terrorist infrastructure that is not half a world away, like the Taliban, but in its own back yard. On a proportional population basis, the Israeli loss of life thus far would equate to more than 25,000 American dead. This would be intolerable here. How would the United States react if the week after the World Trade Center attack, the Sears Tower in Chicago fell, followed two weeks later by the destruction of the Peachtree Center in Atlanta? Would we, as Americans, practice self-restraint and proceed with negotiations? Would we even care what our allies had to say about our actions in response? I hardly think so! Yet, Israel has been asked to not retaliate, to not defend itself, and to continue to allow its citizens to be slaughtered.

I would also add that Israel's recent defensive actions to root out terror, like the United States' war, are in fact a tremendous act of courage for the benefit of the entire civilized world. By responding so forcefully, Israel has declared that maniacal homicide bombers are not an effective means of achieving any political end. For that alone, the world owes Israel its gratitude.
-- Jay H. Epstein, Pinellas Park

Peace has been available to Palestinians

Amid all the casualties carnage, and loss of life in the Mideast, perhaps one of the biggest casualties is truth. Apparently, people see what they want to see, and much of the media report what they want to report. Accordingly, there are myths being established about Israel's war of survival, a defensive war despite charges of Israeli "aggression."

First, there is the myth that the suicide bombing comes from the desperation of the Palestinian people, people "without hope" who have no other option. Palestinian Arabs could have had peace and their own country any time they wanted, and can still have it today. They could have had peace and safety in 1948, but chose instead a massive invasion by many Arab armies intent on destroying the legally established Jewish state. They could have had peace in 1957, but chose instead to blockade Israeli shipping and to line borders with Israel with troops, tanks, and artillery.

They could have had peace in 1967, and maintained the very same borders that they now demand Israel return to; they chose instead to instigate the Six-Day War. Because Israel gave them a bloody nose in that war and had the chutzpah to win, they now bemoan their loss of the West Bank and the sacred sites in East Jerusalem. The Arabs could have had peace in 1973, but chose instead to invade Israel in a sneak attack on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur.

They could have had peace when they signed the Oslo Accords, and Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin had their famous handshake on the White House lawn; instead of building peace with their neighbor and having them both make the desert bloom into a garden, they chose instead to continue to pursue their dream of utterly destroying Israel through terrorism. They could have had peace when former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered them almost all of the West Bank, an independent Palestinian state, and a part of Jerusalem as their capital. And they could have peace today.

It is a myth that Ariel Sharon started this current mess by visiting the Temple Mount. While visiting a holy site in his own country could be construed as "provocative," did that justify sending Palestinian youth to blow themselves up and in the process deliberately murder hundreds of innocent Israeli citizens?

Finally, there is the myth that Israel is inflicting "massacres" on the Palestinians. Of course, the loss of civilian life in any war is tragic, but if the Israelis' goal were to wipe out Palestinian life, they could have carpet bombed the West Bank cities. Instead, they are going from house to house, risking their own lives in an attempt to minimize casualties. Is it the fault of the Israelis that the Palestinian terrorist groups use their own women and children as human shields and set up military headquarters in refugee camps?

The Palestinians could have just about everything they are asking for, and they could have it momentarily. All they need to do is stop the terrorist murders, observe a cease-fire, and come in good faith to the negotiating table.
-- Norman Orenstein, Clearwater

Holding Israel to a different standard

It is amazing to me how the St. Petersburg Times holds Israel to a different standard than any other country in the world. Israel is often criticized for things that are permitted by other nations, including our own.

Case in point is your recent editorial, A message ignored (April 10) in which you contend that Israel should immediately pull back from its campaign against terrorism. When suicidal terrorists attacked our country last September, we launched the full might of our military forces against Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida forces thousands of miles from our border. The United States went to war to protect its citizens from future terrorist attacks.

Why should Israel not have the same right to eradicate terrorism within miles of its borders in order to protect its citizens? Why should Israel give Yasser Arafat yet another chance, as your editorial suggests? It should be remembered that Arafat supports, finances and encourages terror and in doing so, has violated all the promises he made to Israel and the United States.

If the Israeli army is forced to withdraw, it will only allow terrorists to retake Israeli streets and murder innocent men, women and children. Should Israel not be permitted to finish its war on terrorism, Israel might not survive as a nation, and as it goes with Israel, so it will go with all of us.
-- Jenny E. Alexander, Largo

U.S. is taking wrong approach

Re: The war between Israel and Palestine.

The stance the United States is taking in this war encourages the suicide bombers to blow themselves up, thinking they are driving a wedge between Israel and the United States.

The United States should have offered to help Israel weed out terrorists. Are we against terrorists and terrorism or not? Is a person considered a terrorist if he wraps himself with explosives and blows himself up in the middle of civilians? Why isn't the United States asking for the condemnation of these acts from the rest of the world instead trying to interrupt the attacked country?

Also the Palestinians are trying to throw a guilt trip on the Israelis for the killing of civilians. Isn't it civilians who are loading themselves with explosives and killing civilians? Lets open our eyes and look at the facts.
-- Donald F. Kelly, St. Petersburg

Unanswered questions

Re: Palestinian suicide bombings.

Why is it that no one is asking, "Why do these people feel so desperate as to blow themselves up and take as many people with them as they can?" Why is our government only scolding Yasser Arafat? Why is our government supporting Ariel Sharon in the genocide of the Palestinian people? Why do we question why other nations hate Americans?

Why are the Israeli Defense Forces not equivalent to the Taliban? Why does the United States support such horror?

I'm sure the Palestinian suicide bombings will stop when Israel withdraws and gives the Palestinian people back their land and their dignity.
-- Michelle D. Smith, Port Richey

Isn't it a small world?

Re: Mideast peace talks.

Having just returned from four days at Disney World, where people of every race, religion and ethnic group were sharing food, laughter and joy, an idea came to mind. Why not have the leaders of the Mideast countries take a "cruise" on the Magic Kingdom's It's a Small World? I guarantee they'll make more headway than they are making now.
-- Paula Isler, Palm Harbor

Oil and foreign policy are too mixed

Once again we are going to make the same mistakes that were made in the '70s. We allowed our country to be blackmailed by the oil-producing countries. Our foreign policy is too intertwined with oil supply.

With all the technical know-how we have at our disposal, we are going to let the Japanese automakers beat us to the punch with fuel-efficient cars as they have done in the past. There is a four-month waiting list for their hybrid cars. The Japanese will have a fuel-cell car on the market within a few years, if not sooner. It seems as though immediate profits are blinding our long-term interests.
-- Jack Levine, Palm Harbor

A bias against big vehicles

Re: Mini is mighty for BMW, April 12.

While the article on the BMW Mini was entertaining (was it meant to be entertaining or news?), a bias showed through in the "Times art" graphic accompanying the article.

While the fuel economy of the Mini is in little doubt, the caption naming the Chevy Suburban as a "SUV behemoth" shows where the political/environmental concepts of the Times lies. While the Suburban does get fewer miles to the gallon, some people need the carrying space of this type of vehicle for their lifestyles. There is also the established fact that larger vehicles provide safer transport for the passengers. Some people like to tool around in a roller skate with a motor. I certainly don't, and I have no intention of selling my mini-behemoth (a GMC Jimmy) and getting a small vehicle. I have driven small vehicles in the past and prefer large ones.

As far as any argument concerning vehicle size, consider the following: There will always be larger vehicles around. You need trucks to deliver and support our economy, so even in my relatively large vehicle I cannot see around a delivery van and certainly not around a cement truck or an 18-wheeler. And they don't get very good mileage either.
-- Joel M. Sears, Clearwater

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com. E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, you must use its "Save as'' function to save it as a text file, then import it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page