After reading Stephen Day's opinion piece in the Orlando Sentinel on Monday, I couldn't let a number of his comments about Israel and Hamas go unchallenged. The loss of lives in that part of the world is tragic but unavoidable. Let me explain by addressing some of Day's comments:
*". . . Israeli mortar shells struck the site of a U.N. school in the Jabaliya refugee camp where hundreds of civilians had sought safety."
Along with the civilians were members of Hamas, who assumed that the Israelis would either (a) not bomb them and their mortars because civilians were there, or (b) bomb the site, knowing that they would anger others but would eliminate Hamas terrorists. Day goes on to say that Hamas uses civilians as human shields; they also stay with their weapons in civilian homes to discourage Israel from bombing Hamas terrorists.
It seems that the intentional practice of Hamas using innocent people for protection is not as unacceptable to Day as Israel unintentionally killing civilians. Here we disagree.
*"Days earlier tens of thousands of protesters took to London's streets . . . "
Given the growing fundamentalist Muslim population in London, I wonder how many of the protesters were Muslim? The newspapers rarely make those distinctions. And if many were Muslim, were they protesting on behalf of the Palestinians, or against the Zionists, which many believe is analogous to practicing anti-Semitism?
*"The official Israeli explanation is that it was a response to rockets and mortars fired by Palestinian Hamas against Israeli citizens." Day then goes on to say " . . . Israel portrays its actions as part of the outgoing Bush administration's 'war on terrorism.' "
I don't think the Israelis need to piggyback on the Bush administration's goals. The fact that Hamas has been lobbing rockets into Israel for years, where men, women and children repeatedly have to run to bomb shelters, seems reason enough for Israel to bring this constant life-threatening situation to an end.
*"Where such criticism may once have been frowned upon, it is nearly impossible to teach Middle East politics today without expressing ideas critical of Israel."
I don't have the impression that criticism of Israel is discouraged in academia. From my research, U.S. universities have received extensive funding from the Middle East to establish Middle East studies departments. Although universities have reassured the public that their benefactors have no influence on whom they hire and what they teach, many Middle Eastern professors have been shown to present that part of the world in a less-than-balanced light; the Middle East and Islamic studies focus on the positive and downplay the negative.
I believe Day has done something similar in his column; that is, he has focused on Israel and downplayed the devastating effects of the actions of Hamas on Israeli civilians and the Palestinian people.
Finally, I think that Israel can and should be criticized for some of its actions; however, a balanced view of the issues is more important than taking sides. The world has little sympathy for the overwhelming effects on Israel of living next to countries and groups whose mission is to drive them into the sea; even before 1948, the Arabs repeatedly attacked Jewish settlers.
If Day reads the mission of Hamas, he will find that its goal is still to destroy Israel. If the world is not willing to take a balanced view of this tragic situation, Hamas may yet be successful.
Susan R. Quinn, principal of The Quinn Co., works with organizations to help them resolve conflicts. She lives in Poinciana.