Complexity challenges coverage

Regarding “Gaza civilian deaths don’t make Israel safer. Imagine peace. (Editorial),” (Nov. 6): Media bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as seems to be the case here, is driven by its complex nature, which involves historical, political and religious factors.

This complexity can make accurate reporting challenging. Terror groups exploit this, leading to selective coverage and misleading narratives.

It’s crucial to note that there is no moral equivalence between the two sides.

Israel has said that it takes measures to minimize civilian casualties, targeting Hamas infrastructure. In contrast, Hamas seems to deliberately endanger Palestinian civilians by launching attacks from civilian areas.

Hamas, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization, seeks Israel’s destruction and targets Israeli civilians. The term “militant” inadequately describes Hamas, which is recognized as a terrorist group by dozens of countries.

Some media wrongly attribute the conflict to Israel’s “occupation” of Gaza. However, Israel withdrew in 2005, aiming for peace. This move was followed by Hamas’ rise to power and attacks on Israeli civilians.

Since 2007, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and infiltrated Israel to harm or abduct civilians.

Israel, along with Egypt, enforces a blockade to prevent weapon smuggling.

It doesn’t control Gaza. Accurate terminology and context are vital in discussing the conflict.

Rachel Schneider, assistant director, Houston Regional Office of the American

Jewish Committee

This editorial is the most balanced, sane, sympathetic and appropriately contextualized commentary on the Israel-Hamas war that I have read.

Thank you for your care in expressing both awareness and concern for the parties involved.

George M. Atkinson, retired pastor, United

Methodist Church, Houston

As a longtime subscriber to the Chronicle, I was extremely disappointed to read the Chronicle’s editorial on Israel and Gaza.

With what naïveté does the Chronicle assume that humanitarian aid will reach needy Palestinians and not be diverted to Hamas? That ambulances are not carrying weapons or Hamas terrorists inside them?

Does the Chronicle really believe that peace can be made with an organization whose charter calls for the obliteration of the Jewish state?

Why are other Arab countries not being called to task for expressing sympathy towards Palestinians while generally opposing resettlement and naturalization of Palestinian refugees in their countries?

I hope the Chronicle will reconsider its opinion and publish a retraction or a better considered policy for reaching a peaceful resolution.

Tracy Stein, Houston

I write to address the critical issue of historical context often missing from recent editorials.

Israel’s roots stretch back thousands of years, as documented in the Old Testament, and hold profound religious significance.

In 1948, Israel embraced a two-state solution, but the Arab world rejected it, sparking war. Israel expanded its territory as a defensive measure.

Yet, between 1948 and 1967, there was no Palestinian state and the remaining territories were administered by Jordan, Egypt and other Arab nations.

Throughout its history, Israel has endured numerous attempts to conquer it, from the Romans and Assyrians to Ottomans, Greeks, and Arabs, consistently defying the odds.

The tragic Oct. 7 massacre of Israeli citizens and foreigners by Hamas should not be forgotten. Supporting a two-state solution is legitimate, but endorsing a terror organization that disregards all life except its own is concerning.

The calls for “Palestine from the river to the sea” and the surge in global anti-Semitism in the name of “Free Palestine” raise serious questions and endanger innocents.

Humanitarian aid desperately needed in Gaza often falls victim to Hamas’ political machinations. Aid deliveries are limited, Hamas prioritizes its interests, and Palestinians’ and foreigners’ movement is restricted.

The Israel-Palestine issue is far from simple.

Acknowledging its intricate historical and multifaceted dimensions is vital to promoting a more informed understanding and pursuing a peaceful solution.

Brian Strauss, rabbi, Beth Yeshurun,

Houston

This is my first letter to the Chronicle since I sold subscriptions as a high school student. I have been proud of the paper for being balanced where other media are slanted.

Until now. Everyone is appalled by the loss of life in this conflict. That is no excuse to be slanted in the facts and ignore the region’s complexities.

Israel has supported a two-state solution and negotiation to end conflicts peacefully.

But as former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir is often quoted as saying, “You cannot negotiate peace with someone who has come to kill you.” Same situation today.

Why is it OK to support a cease-fire when military victory is all but certain when the same standards do not and have not applied in prior U.S. wars? Why do we ignore the fact that billions of dollars in foreign aid have poured into the Gaza Strip to enable its somewhat independence, only to be thwarted for terrorist purposes?

And, potentially, to enable a terrorist act so brazen and so evil that Israel has no choice but to cut off the very water and electricity that keeps people in Gaza in economic stability?

Make no mistake. The people in the Gaza Strip who were born there and do not agree with Hamas are innocent. What is happening to them is absolutely horrible. But the editorial, besides being condescending about what is good for Israel, seems to completely ignore what has happened on the Israeli side. We expect more thoughtful authorship. Looking forward to your next piece. Victoria Lazar, Bellaire