We’ve received some response from readers to this op-ed piece by a 17-year-old student at the Noor-Ul-Iman School in Monmouth Junction. Her piece is fairly well-written, considering she’s in high school, and she makes some interesting points about the crisis at the Lebanese-Israeli border. While the focus of her piece is on Israel, she does not shy away from criticizing Hezbollah.
The responses (so far) can be summed up in two categories:
- Disagreement with the piece and a defense of Israel
- Criticism of the paper for running it because (a) the paper never allows for a more conservative or pro-war or pro-Israel point of view or (b) because nonlocal issues should not show up in the paper.
Let me take these one at a time:
- Disagreement with the piece is not only accepted but encouraged, as it is with everything we run in the paper. No one gets the last word and every opinion has a place on our editorial and op-ed pages (as the letters this week will no doubt show).
- The paper does run opposing viewpoints a often as they come in. Just because the paper — or I, in my column — have taken a particular viewpoint does not mean that other views are excluded. I invite all to write either a letter or a full-fledged op-ed (just give me a headsup so we can talk about the rules) at hkalet@pacpub.com or PO Box 309, Dayton, NJ 08810. Letters and op-eds have to be about local issues or by local readers.
- There never has been a restriction against nonlocal views or issues provided they come from local people or are localized in some way. This criticism too often is just a way to avoid engaging in the debate — I’ve only heard this complaint from people who have disagreed with me, or an op-ed writer.
A caller to the paper yesterday wanted to know my view on the topic at hand, because I’ve avoided writing about it in the paper. Not such an easy thing, really.
I am a supporter of Israel’s right to exist, but I think the policies of the Israeli government have been antidemocratic in recent years and brutal. I think there needs to be a solution to the issue of Palestine — either a two-state solution or one in which Israelis and Palestinians can live together in a larger Israel sharing equal rights and responsibilities.
I think that in this case Hezbollah was the provacateur, but that Israel’s response was well out of proportion to the initial attacks. I think Israel mistakenly played into Hezbollah’s hands, overreacting, engendering further ill-will around the globe and strengthening Hezbollah’s image in the Arab world.
I think it is dangerous to lump all Islamic-based movements under one umbrella — they all have different aims and must be dealt with in different ways.
And I think that American Jews — especially liberal ones — too often have approached Israel with blinders on, accepting behavior from the Israeli government that they would never accept from anyone else. American Muslims are guilty of something similar, painting Israel as the bad guy in all circumstances.
I think the United States government made a huge mistake in not pushing for a cease-fire early in the process, which helped the fighting drag on for 34 days. And just as importantly, the decision not to push for a cease-fire damaged American credibility, if what I’ve read from the foreign press is accurate, which can only hurt us in our fight against al-Qaeda.
And finally, I think that we need to either accept and meet the requirements of all the United Nations’ resolutions on the table — those regarding Lebanon, Hezbollah, Israel, etc. — or stop talking about the resolutions. Selective enforcement does no one any good.
Write me and tell me what you think.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 
Specifically to the cease fire concept.As with most hard questions, the truth is somewhere hard to find. A cease fire, while laudible in saving lives, settles nothing. A pause allows BOTH side time to regroup, reorg, and resupply. There is something to be said for knock down drag out fight that ends when one says \”uncle\”. At least something gets settled. Perhaps, as the Egypt Israeli Six Day showed the way, it can lead to \”peace\”. As we see from WW1, the \”armistice\” (a glorified cease fire), setup WW2 and it\’s abuses. Whereas McArthur\’s unconditional surrender, led to Japan being our \”buddy\”. For my own policy, I say the US policy should be MYOB. Stay out of other people\’s fights. A lot of the problems there are due in a large part to America\’s almost-random interventionist policy. First we like Sadam, then we topple him. Taliban good to oppose the USSR, bad when we don\’t need them. Free trade with everyone; troops stay at the water\’s edge. And, it\’s \”your paper\” run it as you see fit. Anyone who doesn\’t like it should set up a competing effor and see how easy it is. In this country, we seem to have a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacks. To them I say \”quit griping and do something about it\”! When I have had enough, I won\’t subscribe any more. That\’s the American way. The free marketplace. Where everyone gets to vote with their pocketbook!P.S. I still have a gripe with the use of the word \”democracy\” as an ideal. Democracy is two wolves and lamb voting on what\’s for dinner. A republic means that everyone has INALIENABLE RIGHTS! Let\’s be worthy of what those dead old white guys created for us. \”A repulic if you can keep it!\” We haven\’t done so well since 1860. And it\’s really gone down hill since 1913. And lately, it been dropping like rock in a well.