•••
The authors of the counterpoint "Cease-fire resolution neither distracting nor divisive" (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 16) apparently think that repeating the word "genocide" multiple times persuades readers. And that devoting zero words to what happened on Oct. 7 will cause them to forget it. And devoting zero words to what Israel should have done in response to the Hamas attacks will remove that issue, too. Perhaps give Hamas enough through "negotiation" to show that killing, raping and taking Jews hostage is a winning strategy?
If Israel's goal is genocide, it's doing a very poor job, since it has watched Gaza's population double in 20 years and increase eight-fold in 60, a growth rate higher than that of Israel itself.
Perhaps the authors' silence about Oct. 7 reflects their view that Israel deserved what happened because of its treatment Palestinian Arabs. What, then, did it do to deserve Arab attacks on Israel immediately following the United Nations' creation of the state in 1948? Or the surprise attacks by surrounding Arab states in 1967 and 1973? Or the indiscriminate Palestinian bombings in the Second Intifada following Israel's agreement to the Oslo accords in the 1970s?
The authors claim there is nothing divisive about their demand for an immediate and permanent cease-fire. Everyone should agree on it. Debaters call that assuming the conclusion. The tactic never persuades anyone. There is legitimate disagreement about what Israel should do, and no debate within our City Council will change or affect that.
Peter Lancaster, Minneapolis
•••