ON WEDNESDAY, you may have been assaulted on your way to class with facts about the "evil occupier" Israel or a model of an Israeli checkpoint. I am sure that this made many people uncomfortable as well as confused. You must forgive them, because what you must understand is that the students who carried out this protest had no choice but to shock and confuse you. Otherwise the truth may have shown its ugly face, and for their cause that would be the worst thing that could happen.
I know that when people try to understand what is happening in the Middle East, it is terribly sad and confusing. I also am saddened and horrified by the loss of life on both sides. However, it is important to remember why the current Intifada began. In July 2000, at Camp David, the Palestinians were offered far more than ever before. This does not mean that they should have accepted the offer; I would not have accepted the offer either. This is understandable and certainly acceptable in negotiations. What is neither acceptable nor understandable is not to make a counter offer, but rather to resort to violence as a negotiating tactic. A tactic sworn off by the Palestinian Liberation Organization as a fundamental aspect in the 1993 Oslo accords.
If you believe Palestinian violence was only a reaction to provocation, you are wrong. According to Imad Faluji, Communications Minister for the Palestinian Authority, those who think the Intifada was a spontaneous response to the visit of Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon to the al Aqsa Mosque are mistaken. At a rally in Southern Lebanon, Faluji said, "The Intifada was planned at the moment Arafat returned from Camp David where he rejected the proposals of President Bill Clinton."
Today, the current situation has deteriorated into a "cycle of violence," as American diplomats like to say. This is misleading because it implies a moral equivalency between the two sides. Only the Palestinians are targeting innocent civilians in schools, discos and restaurants, while Israelis are using their military to demolish terrorism. The Israeli army, contrary to popular belief, does not walk around the territories looking to kill Palestinians. Rather they are on specific operations to destroy the infrastructure that leads to terrorism. Israel only targets those that they know are involved in terrorism. Are there mistakes? Yes, innocent people always die in military operations. It is tragic, but it happens. But do not for one minute confuse the fact that one side specifically is targeting innocent civilians and one is acting to defend its citizens.
One need only look at President Bush's speech and our military's actions in the wake of Sept. 11 to understand what the Israelis are trying to accomplish. Though Israel's actions are constantly called offensive in the media, they are strictly defensive. Israel's army is collecting weapons and arresting those that help to carry out and harbor terrorists. In the words of Bush on the evening of Sept. 11, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Israel is doing no more and no less than this simple statement.
Yesterday, pro-Palestinian students tried to simulate an Israeli checkpoint. What they forgot to tell you was that these checkpoints save lives. Though I understand that the Israeli army sometimes takes their searches too far by embarrassing Palestinians, these checkpoints are a necessity for the security of Israel. There is no difference between the checkpoints that are set up in Israel and the metal detectors that we all go through at the airport. Not everyone is a terrorist who wants to hijack a plane, but it is important to check every person for our safety nonetheless.
Finally, I would like to address the constant comparisons between Israel and the Nazis. Yesterday, an Israeli flag with a swastika appeared chalked in front of Garrett Hall. This sort of comparison is not only horribly offensive but also impossible to make. The Nazis systematically killed innocent Jews with the sole purpose of destroying an entire group of people. This is completely different from a country that is trying to protect its citizens. If this comparison were true, I challenge anyone to explain why the Israelis proposed an independent Palestinian state. This seems like a funny action for a state to take that is trying to annihilate an entire people.
I constantly hear, "if only there was a peaceful solution to this conflict." I pray every day that there can be a peaceful solution to this conflict and that no more lives, Palestinian or Israeli, will be lost. Unfortunately, the truth remains that Yasir Arafat and the Palestinians were engaged in a peaceful process and rejected it for violence, and now Israel has a right and a duty to protect its citizens from terror.
(Samuel Jacob Rubin is a fourth-year College student.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
