Negotiations not an option
Regarding “Don’t look away from Israel-Gaza conflict. Dig deeper. (Opinion),” (Oct. 20): When people discuss the current war between Israel and Hamas, they are appalled by the bloodshed — and rightfully so. But they also forget just why this might be happening. Hamas is a terrorist organization. They are the governing body of Gaza, and have one goal: The elimination of Israel. They use fear and intimidation to control people. The money supporting Gaza comes from various sources, including charitable organizations and countries such as Iran, but how it is spent is one of Hamas’ best-kept secrets. And from everything I have read, this money does not benefit the residents of Gaza very much. So, when I hear the words “negotiate,” I wonder how you “negotiate” with an organization whose primary goal is your elimination?
Israel and Egypt have bottled up Hamas and the Gaza Strip until this latest attack by Hamas. The only possible reason for an attack at this time, in my eyes, is to derail the talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel that, if concluded successfully, would likely benefit all Palestinians.
My own conclusion is that the goal of eliminating Hamas is valid for longterm peace in the Middle East. But massive humanitarian aid is needed now, followed by the creation of a stable Gaza government and economy that allows hope for a reasonably safe and secure life. This needs to be the province of a U.S.-led group that includes the European Union, other Middle Eastern countries and Israel. Can this happen? I don’t know. Nothing has been successful in the Middle East yet, but maybe this can be the first.
Harold Rocketto, Houston
I feel that anyone who uses facts and logic can easily agree with the following. Israel’s citizens were ruthlessly attacked and slaughtered without provocation. Israel has made concessions in the past (including turning over Gaza to the Palestinian people with the hope that this “land-forpeace” offer would work). The Palestinian people chose a terrorist organization (Hamas) to rule them. Hamas’ covenant calls for the eradication of the Jewish state. Finally, because Israel has been attacked, it has the right to defend itself. Since Hamas uses its own people as human shields, collateral damage to the civilians is the fault of Hamas, not Israel.
Jon Stern, Houston
The ideas in this opinion piece perpetuate the canard that Hamas attacked Israel only because they are Jewish, and that they were motivated by antisemitism. America was built on land already occupied. The vast majority of those settlers were Christian. When the Native Americans attacked those early settlements, did they do so because they were Christian? Or did they attack because we were occupying their land?
This situation is complicated enough without equating opposition to the questionable policies of the Israeli government with antisemitism.
Tom Pellegrini, The Woodlands
Many thanks to Regina Lankenau for her opinion column. The article is informative, moving and motivating.
I have been avoiding the daily barrage of news about the Israel-Gaza conflict, of which I have no control over. However, the opinion from Ms. Lankenau has motivated me to get educated on this critical situation so I can better understand the situation.
I have decided to read the books recommended in the article. I want to be in support of solidarity, and wellinformed about this long-running conflict.
Thanks again to the Houston Chronicle for its award-winning, nonpartisan reporting.
Tim Whipple, Spring
Regarding “Mourners in heavily Palestinian Chicago suburb remember Muslim boy killed as kind, energetic,” (Oct. 16): A 6-year-old in Chicago was stabbed 26 times by his landlord, allegedly for being Muslim.
As the intensity of war continues to escalate in the Middle East, the wildly opposing narratives among liberals are just as lethal. Social media is getting louder and louder: Right vs. wrong. Mine vs. yours. Good vs. evil.
We are seething and screaming at each other: Which peoples’ plights have been more oppressed over time? Whose struggles are worse now? Who is more worthy of survival? And who, among the U.S. left, is most committed to condemnation?
Meanwhile, more people are dying and the path toward peace feels untenable. The kidnapped and perpetrators of barbaric hate crimes are nowhere to be found. The strategy for retaliation isn’t helping unite the liberals who try to support each other. Those who have yet to voice an opinion are less likely to speak up now with the whiplash of back-and-forth trauma scores.
We’re focusing on politics over persecution and losing sight of the goal: to protect all human beings who want nothing more than to live in harmony and with dignity. That’s the goal, isn’t it? Or am I missing something?
Rachel Elam, Austin