With the recent events in Israel getting worse with each passing day, I can't help but wonder: Why the bloodshed? There is no doubt that literally thousands of years of contained pressure and prejudice are exploding in the region. Yet, even in the face of severe and alarming terrorist activities, the Israeli government has yielded maximum restraint, and for that I extend my deepest respect and praise. While I do not approve of the escalation in terror and, in turn, the escalation in retaliation, neither can I tolerate the excessive loss of life. My sympathies are not just intended for the Israelis, but the Palestinian and all Intifadah-related volunteers as well.
Israel is currently tackling the extremely delicate balance of restoring a sense of security to its citizens, while at the same time maintaining agreements such as the momentous Oslo agreement. However, I have sensed an ever-growing nucleus of anti-Israeli government sentiment in response to the Palestinian terrorist attacks. What this community needs to realize is that one cannot force the American societal acceptances and standards upon other international communities.
Sure enough the US was built on a basis of freedom from tyranny, with a remarkable governmental document that has stood the test of time. The vast number of people that make up this country have learned to tolerate, to become familiar with one's differences, and to fulfill the societal make-up of the "melting pot." However, it is very different in the Middle East for obvious reasons. Nowhere else in the world has such commitment to religion and faith been recorded as bringing such unrest and psychological terror. The State of Israel is a young one, and history can remind us that a country in its infancy is susceptible to various degrees of internal and external pressure. I agree that the violence needs to end, and it needs to end quickly in order to restore peace. Nevertheless, I approve of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his policy to restore security to the Israeli people.
No matter which way you look at it, the Palestinian uprising is in direct violation of the very peace accords that Arafat and his associates have slaved for. The very ownership of mortars, which has been the weapon of choice to terrorize small Jewish settlements in Israel, is in direct violation of the Oslo agreement.
Let us be rational for one moment. Who is to believe that exercising violence, terrorism, and death is going to get you anywhere? Is the goal to instill fear in the very government with which you are negotiating? I understand the concept of standing up for a cause and for what you believe in, but when are the Palestinian people going to understand that the very actions that they are entertaining are only going to make their cause defunct, and bring more hardship and pain upon their people?
The continuation of such violence and bloodshed proves to me that some Palestinians are simply not going to pay attention to the societal standards and ideals that are institutionalized in the modern world. Instead, continued violence and disruption of peace will only lead to more precise, and more powerful retaliatory responses. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has proven time and time again that it will not stand idly by and watch as Israeli citizens are terrorized and forced into a state of fear. I do not wish the death of any Palestinian; I do not wish the death of any individual. I truly believe that peace can be established, but it will come with a price.
In a survey that was recently conducted by the Jerusalem media, over 80 percent of Palestinians are in favor of continuing the holy war. Some 62 percent are in favor of continuing the armed struggle against the State of Israel. Forty percent believe that the peace process is dead, with only 13 percent believing that the peace process is still alive. What will it take for the two sides to reach towards each other with open hands and a mature conscious? The unnecessary terrorist shelling of Jewish settlements needs to end immediately, for it will only bring more mundane asperity, pain, and suffering.
I believe the Israeli people do not want immediate retribution for the uprising. Yet if their sense of security is waived, Prime Minister Sharon will unleash a defense program that will make "pinpoint operations" such as bulldozing evacuated Force 17 headquarters, Palestinian police stations, and other havens that serve the terrorist cause that pale in comparison. I do not intend for this to sound like a threat, only to serve as a potent reminder that the IDF is the most advanced and technologically capable army in the world. It has the will and the means to strike down any further escalation in violence in a swift and decisive manner. Yet I do not agree with to see further military escalation.
The proponents of terror need to understand that the Israeli people will not embrace the threat any longer. Yet, I fear this message will only be learned through loss. Sadly, the death of 390 Palestinians, 64 Israeli Jews, and 19 others, 473 in total, have been gravely overlooked. The urging of Palestinian children and adolescents to take to the streets and put themselves at extreme risk do not make logical sense. History has proven to us, and to the world, that the day of armed aggression against a political entity will no longer be tolerated. If the Palestinians are to assure themselves of any political gain, and entertain the notion of a Palestinian state, they need to understand that the Israelis can prove to be both a positive, and a negative influence on their cause. Stop the death. Stop the aggression. Be true to the powers of conscience, to the very core values that we ascertain in life. Learn to engage in the free exchange of words and peace, rather than the exchange of blood and sacrifice.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict stands at a new crossroad in history. One road surrenders the cause and embraces the very evils that prevent compromise. The other extends security and tranquility, and embraces the true reverence for understanding. Let us wait and see.
Wes Sandler is a junior majoring in political science.
