Opinion: Israel's military policy is not based on religion

I was shocked and disappointed at the decision to include the opinion cartoon by Don Wright in your Aug. 25 edition. It was an invidious and misguided comparison between the Koran and the Torah and their respective relationship to recent actions by Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli government.

While I am not an expert on the Koran's teachings and cannot comment on the veracity of Wright's claim, it is a fact that many Palestinian terrorists do use the language of religious martyrdom and jihad (holy war) to suggest that their actions have religious sanction within Islamic tradition. We have all read the remarks of Islamic religious leaders exhorting their followers to such acts of terror. Wright's cartoon critiques the Palestinian terrorists who claim that the Koran includes a foundation for their terrorist activities.

However, there can be no question that the cartoonist is, at best, unfair and biased in his parallel critique of the actions of the Israeli government. Wright suggests that the government's actions have no basis in the words of the Torah, as if anyone claimed that they did. The recently developed military policy is that Israel will respond to terrorist attacks by targeting key terrorist leaders. This is a decision of political policy and military strategy. It is not based on any interpretation of sacred text.

Israel is a secular nation-state. Its laws and political policies are not determined by the teachings of the Torah. No one defending the current Israeli response to the war of terror being waged by the Palestinians has suggested that Israeli military actions are to be defended by the Torah's words. Any suggestion to the contrary is a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Israel's standing in the world of nations.

In the complex realities of both politics and religion in this region of the world, it is at times difficult to distinguish between religious conflicts and those of political and nationalistic concerns. Nevertheless, to confuse the political action of a nation-state with the religiously motivated acts of individuals results in misleading the public about the nature of the struggle between Israel and the Palestinians.

I hope the St. Petersburg Times will make a greater effort in the future to depict events as they unfold with greater balance and accuracy.
-- Rabbi Michael Torop, Temple Beth-El, St. Petersburg

No moral equivalence

Don Wright's Aug. 25. cartoon is an affront to thinking individuals. Palestinian children are taught from a very early age that dying for "the cause" is a step to heaven. Palestinian parents are proud of their children who give up their lives. They become martyrs, with huge funerals, banners, prestige for the parents of the fallen bomber. The bombers target teenagers going to a dance club or babies with their parents eating pizza. To make sure injuries are great, nails are propelled when the bomb is detonated, and death, mutilation, decapitation follows.

Removing from a civilized society individuals causing these disasters is not quite the same. There is no moral equivalence in targeting individuals responsible for these attacks and the deliberate attack on innocent civilians.
-- Elwin and Lita Saviet, Tampa

An erroneous equation

Don Wright's Aug. 25. cartoon depicting the Koran and Torah erroneously tries to equate the Palestinian suicide bombings to Israeli military defense moves. According to international laws governing terrorism, no one disputes a country's right to use all means necessary to combat such terrorism. It is a principle accepted by the U.S. military, and at times, innocent civilian may be harmed. But defending innocent citizens, at times calls for strong responses.

However, Israel does not turn to Torah for vindication of its plans to eliminate the terrorists behind the bombings, although the Palestinians do use the Koran to encourage the massacre of innocent civilians. Israel (and Torah) does not promise martyrdom and heaven for those willing to massacre innocent women and children; it denounces and punishes those who do. Those who cannot see the difference between the two are no better than the terrorists themselves.
-- Susan Segal, Palm Harbor

Only a Christian church

Re: Israeli tanks move in, Aug. 29., about Israeli troops taking over a Christian church.

Can you imagine the outcry there would have been from the Jewish community if those tanks had crosses on them instead of Stars of David and Christian soldiers had taken over a Jewish Temple. There would have been cries of anti-Semitism from one end of the media to the other.

But since it was only a Christian church that was taken over, the press has been relatively silent. And to use the 45 children from the church's orphanage as human shields is despicable. What will the Israelis do next, kidnap priests, nuns and ministers and use them as shields when they go after Palestinian children?
-- Tom Bennis, Sun City Center

Story was slanted

Re: Israeli tanks move in, Aug. 29.

This front page account of the continuing violence in the Middle East once again illustrates a lack of responsibility in reporting. Once again selected captions critical of Israel are utilized. This amounts to editorializing. The accompanying photo of an Israeli tank in front of a church is also a means of slanting the story against Israel.

The story refers to the experience of 45 frightened Palestinian children. No effort is made to show similar pictures of frightened Israeli children in Gilo, which has been under mortar and sniper fire by Palestinian terrorists. The article glosses over the reason for the Israeli response.

Readers need to be reminded that Israel annexed Beit Jala, the town in question, in the so-called Six Day War in 1967. This war was an attempt by the Arabs to destroy Israel. The Arabs were crushed in their effort. It should also be noted that the areas in question were part of the original mandate occupied by Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Their right to the areas was, indeed, questionable. As for the Palestinians, their plight under their brother Arabs' rule was much more severe.

Finally, we should heed the advice of 42 American generals and admirals who proclaimed:

"We . . . believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel Defence Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of a Palestinian Authority that deliberately pushes children and civilians to the front lines." -- New York Times, Oct. 17, 2000.

More recently, nine retired admirals and generals observed after a May 2001 trip to Israel that, "The Palestinian Authority is unquestionably the aggressor. Yasser Arafat controls the level of proactive violence; Israel controls only the scale of retaliation."
-- Norman N. Gross, president, Primer (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting, Palm Harbor

Don't mix propaganda and facts

Re: Israel's temple of conspiracy, Aug. 27.

While I respect your effort to present a balanced view of the ancient history of this contested site, I am surprised that when it comes to its recent history, you print as fact a number of statements that represent what I believe is undocumented propaganda or fantasy.

For example, your correspondent asserts that: "Israeli leaders have used archaeology to justify Israeli conquests." In fact, the only Israeli "conquests" have resulted from its dearly bought success in defeating four attacks in 25 years dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel. Israel's people did not need archaeologists to advise them that the territories through which these attacks were launched should not be returned to their enemies without a firm commitment from them that they would not be used a fifth and sixth time for the same deadly purpose.

And how about: "Arafat begged Barak to prevent Sharon's visit to avert a catastrophe." Sheer fantasy. The fact is that Ariel Sharon's visit had been notified to -- and approved by -- the security director of the Waqf (the Muslim trust that administers the site). The intifada was being prepared and planned long before Sharon's visit.

Finally, in 1967 "Israel annexed East Jerusalem, stormed on the Mount, and then handed over daily administration of the site to the Waqf." Missing from that thumb-nail sketch is the fact that Israel "stormed" the Mount after Jordan -- which had occupied East Jerusalem since 1948 -- declared war on Israel in 1967. When Israeli troops prevailed in the bitter battles for control of the city, they did indeed "storm" to the Temple Mount -- in order to pray and dance for the first time in 20 years at the their holy site, the Western Wall of the Second Temple, from which all Jews had been excluded under 20 years of Jordanian rule. And unlike the occupiers of East Jerusalem, who had destroyed historic Jewish landmarks and synagogues, the Israeli "occupiers" magnanimously agreed to allow the Arab administrators to retain control over their untouched holy site, while guaranteeing freedom of access for worship to all holy places under their control, Christian and Muslim.

If you are going to write about history, I think you need to make sure you to study it first.
-- Ronald Diner, Largo

Look to the root cause of the conflict

Re: Israel needs to employ a short war and high wall, Aug. 19.

I write in response to George Will's horrific call to war in the Middle East. I am shocked that the Times would publish such a blatantly hateful and provocative piece that would promote more violence and never once mention peace in this highly sensitive situation. Moreover, Will places complete blame on the Palestinians, while giving Israel the green light to engage in a full-scale war, armed with American tanks, aircraft and heavily armed soldiers against an unarmed civilian population.

Israel has created an incredibly intolerable situation for the Palestinians in which apartheid, poverty and military occupation reign, while freedom, equality and justice are nowhere to be seen.

As a result, many desperate Palestinians have chosen to resist such horrid conditions with stones as their only weapons, while in some extreme situations, individuals find no recourse but to commit the ultimate act of despair, blowing themselves up among innocents. Such violence should not be condoned, but the root cause must ultimately be addressed.

Instead, Will has shamelessly exploited such tragedies to suit his own purposes and add more fuel to the proverbial fire burning endlessly in the occupied territories. In a conflict that has seen nearly 800 casualties, more than 600 of whom are Palestinian, I ask George Will and others supporting such a despicable stance of all-out war, how many more people must perish before we acknowledge the unending injustice and persistent occupation that is the root of this conflict?
-- Nahla Al-Arian, Tampa

Share your opinions

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.

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