Israel, Lebanon and the South Brunswick Post

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:

  1. Disagreement with the piece and a defense of Israel
  2. 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

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Calling out the president

This column is an example of why Dan Froomkin has become a must-read on Washington politics. Froomkin cuts past much of the bunk that characterizes news coverage of the White House to lay bare the lie at the center of his assertion about Iraq — namely that leaving would embolden the terrorists:

Most of the violence in Iraq today has little if anything to do with al-Qaeda or the global jihad; it involves rival Muslim sects killing each other and, all too often, American troops caught in the middle.

National security experts overwhelmingly see Iraq not as a killing zone for terrorists, but as an incubator — both because the occupation arouses anti-American sentiment among many Muslims and because the current lawless violence makes for a perfect training ground in terror tactics.

Indeed, there’s a powerful argument to be made that leaving Iraq would make the American public safer. It certainly would put an end to the horrible daily toll on Americans in uniform.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury PressThe Blog of South Brunswick

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

False optimism

The Asbury Park Press continues to view the MOM Line through the prism of its own NIMBY-ism. In an editorial today, it attempts to paint a new — and as-yet-unreleased — study by Monmouth County of ridership projections as the final bit of evidence that will turn a losing case into a slam-dunk.

The editorial ignores the existing ridership figures, which show that the Monmouth Junction alternative is more expensive and calls for a longer commute than the others, are unlikely to be affected by the Trans-Hudson-Express Tunnel. All three routes would run to Newark, under the existing figures, and all three would now run through the tunnel into New York. To assume that the tunnel would have a greater impact on one alternative than the others fails the basic test of logic.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.