Readers Write: Israel/Hamas war protests
The key: We’re funding this war.
•••
There are several problems with the claim made by a letter writer who argued that protesting Israel’s slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza while not protesting the terrorist crimes and genocides committed by Hamas, Hezbollah, Russia, China, Syria, Sudan and Myanmar must be the result of antisemitism (”Not all suffering seems to matter,” Readers Write, April 27). First, this suggests one must protest every injustice or none, which is nonsense.
Second, there’s an alternative explanation that seems obvious: The United States is not financing the atrocities of those other organizations and countries, and none of them are our allies. We’re sending billions of dollars in money and armaments to Israel, aid it’s using to carry out the extermination of Palestinians. Thus, we are complicit in Israel’s crimes against the people of Gaza in a very real way.
First and foremost, the protesters are trying to bring about the end of U.S. military support of Israel’s actions.
Stephen Lehman, St. Paul
•••
Lydia Polgreen, a New York Times columnist, reports that the protests on college campuses are nonviolent but acknowledges that “problematic things are being said” (”The student-led protests aren’t perfect. That doesn’t mean they’re not right,” StarTribune.com, April 29). These problematic things being said are called hate speech when directed at other minorities and are widely and appropriately condemned. When directed at Jews they are merely become problematic and are shrugged at, as antisemitism yet again rears its ugly head.
Ken Cutler, Edina
•••
How can we be for the victims and against those who victimize? Is calling for the death of the other the only way?
It is the historic way. It is the oppressor’s way to organize and control mobs. It is the way guaranteed to create generations of victims and avengers. It is the way guaranteed to keep weapon-makers wealthy.
It is also the way protesters hide themselves from the fact that the instant they call for the death of the other they, too, have blood on their hands. They drench themselves in blood even if they never fire a weapon. Horror begets horror. Revenge demands revenge. Yes, protest wrong, but do not call for death.
Is there another way? Perhaps not. But perhaps people who care about people can stop to at least talk about it. Perhaps people who care about people can stop for a moment and realize that this endless cycle of victim becoming victimizer is futile.
John M. Widen, Minneapolis
•••
The misguided University of Minnesota students who camped out on university property were not supporting Gazans (”At U, protest camp goes up again,” April 30). They were supporting a terrorist group of murderers (1,200 killed on Oct. 7), rapists (shown on their own cellphone cameras) and kidnappers (over 200 hostages dragged back to Gaza). Gazans themselves are becoming angry with their Hamas government that is continuing their misery for no purpose.
Would that the students at the U, at Columbia and so many other colleges and universities think about what they’re chanting (”From the river to the sea” means wiping out Israel and all her citizens, Muslim, Christian and Jewish) and what kind of group they are supporting. Maybe they’d support actual peace rather than more slaughter.
Elaine Frankowski, Minneapolis
•••
Buried in an article about hopes for a cease-fire in Gaza is a brief paragraph about an Israeli Defense Forces airstrike on a home in Gaza that killed a man (likely a member of Hamas, or at least an active sympathizer), his wife, their three young sons and a baby in a neighboring house. Another strike that killed seven people, including six members of one family, is also mentioned (”Hamas says it’s reviewing Israeli cease-fire proposal,” April 28). The IDF defends attacks like these by saying Hamas uses civilians as human shields.
But I’d ask you to engage in a thought experiment. Imagine if a former member of a U.S. mercenary force that committed atrocities overseas was located by forces of the country he violated. Let’s say those forces knew the ex-mercenary was at home with his wife and children. Would we find it acceptable for them to drop a bomb on the residential home, killing the entire family along with a neighbor’s child?
Since it was no doubt a U.S.-made bomb, funded by U.S. tax dollars, that caused the carnage, U.S. citizens need to decide if we support killing spouses and kids because a person in the house may be a terrorist. If the victims were Americans, we would see the crime for what it is: a disproportionate act of vengeance against innocents.
Peace and security cannot be won by committing atrocities. Why then do we accept or make excuses for the IDF when many thousands of those killed by U.S.-supplied bombs are non-combatant women and children?
Philip Deering, Minneapolis
•••
I’m getting tired of reading/hearing about the Palestinian campus protesters over the Israel-Hamas war. It’s not that I’m in disagreement with their cause, but I am about their tactics. First, they have no legal standing to make their “demands.” They are not engaging through normal channels of democracy, but instead are squatters on public and private land. They are taking over and say they won’t leave until their “demands” are met. We are spending precious resources to control the crowds, and this puts the police and the public in potential danger if violence breaks out.
Second, these protests only strengthen Hamas’ position, because Hamas wants to call for maximum disruption to U.S. and Israeli society. These protests are causing that. Hamas has reduced interest in settling this because they are holding the hostages and have refused to give them up. There have been numerous proposals to end the violence by Israel, but Hamas keeps saying it won’t end until there is a permanent cease-fire for a war it started. How does that make sense?
There are similar injustices all around the world in China, Russia/Ukraine, Africa, Iran, Syria, etc. Why is there no outrage for these events that go on everyday for years if not decades? This war was not about Palestinian rights. It was started from a brutal attack on the citizens of Israel. I am not in favor of the destruction of Gaza or the killing of women and children. Hamas put all this in motion by embedding itself in the Palestinian society, including the hospitals. Hamas did not provide and safety methods for the greater population — only its fighters in the tunnels. Yet I don’t see any protests about Hamas. Where is the moral outrage for that?
Casey Zimmerman, Plymouth
•••
I would like to ask these questions of those who are demonstrating about the current Palestine/Israel conflict:
Do the Israelis have the right to exist with a sovereign independent nation with defensible borders and access to the sea?
Do the Palestinians have the same right?
If the answer to either is no, then a solution to the conflict is very far in the future. If the answer to both questions is yes, then where should these nations be located?
R. James Krueger, Bloomington
•••
As a University of Minnesota professor emeritus who has taught hundreds of students over the past 30 years, I stopped by the protest site this morning to learn for myself how students were responding to the conflict in the Middle East. As a Jewish American who is also personally opposed to the policies of the Benjamin Netanyahu government, I was gratified to not see a single evidence of antisemitism; instead I saw students camped on one patch of ground, talking, peacefully organized to express their concern over the horrific toll the war has taken on the people of Gaza. Given the public fervor over these campus protests, a word of caution to all sides: To university administrators, what I saw is consistent with the highest purposes of a university, to allow and even foster debate and peaceful protests where injustice is believed to occur. To students on all sides of the debate, the job of the university is not to make students feel reassured or vindicated; rather the job of the university is to make students feel uncomfortable in the search for knowledge, trading facile slogans or hate speech for a deeper understanding of complex issues, and willingness to engage in respectful dialogue and acceptance of cultural, political and academic differences of opinion.
Alan Lifson, Minneapolis
