Editor, the Gauntlet,
[Re: "Escalation not the answer," editorial, July 27, 2006]
The conflict now raging between Israel and Lebanon is a tragedy, one that should have never happened in the first place. Here we are in agreement. Nevertheless, the university is a place where issues should be debated, with both sides analyzed and examined. The article in question failed to do any of that.
From reading this article, one comes to the conclusion that Lebanon, Lebanese, and Muslims are the main sufferers, and that the violence has a root Israeli cause. Israel is literally compared to by all but name to a rampant Mongolian horde, and that if Israel were to somehow stop, with a United Nations' sponsored ceasefire, all problems would somehow "disappear". The article fails to mention that with UN observers already on the ground in Lebanon, thousands of rockets have hit Israeli cities, towns, and villages, causing billions of dollars in damage, and that for the first time in fifty years, two million Israelis who live in the north of their country are living in bomb shelters in a state of perpetual fear (equivalent in proportion to about ten million Canadians).
The article fails to mention the state of complete uncertainty that many Israelis live in, where often enough they cannot go to school without fear of being rocketed, go to work or visit family due to the threat of the air-raid siren, and enter public places without wondering whether they will ever live to see home again. Indeed, close to half a million Israelis have fled south, becoming war refugees in their own country. Hezbollah started the current conflict, with most international law experts certifying the kidnapping of soldiers as an "act of w ar." Israel withdrew from Lebanon six years ago as a hope to gain one more peaceful border.
Israelis, like any other people in the world, deserve to live in peace. While any civilian killed in war is a tragedy, the plight of the Israeli is completely ignored in this article. I hope future articles will provide a clearer and less openly one-sided perspective of the situation.