To respond to Ms. Foughty’s misinformed view on the state of Israel (“Palestinians aren’t the main problem in Israel,” page 8, Nov. 2) and her attack on Tara Stroll is a task of Herculean proportions. Nevertheless, I will attempt to repair some of the damage she has caused by pointing out the fallacies and omissions in her response to Ms. Stroll’s opinion. Ms. Foughty points out that “Arab states had good relations with Jews prior to the creation of the Israeli state.” That is quite a shock to me as in 1937 (pre-Israel) the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem expressed solidarity with the Nazi Third Reich, opposing Jewish immigration into Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state.
Subsequently in 1941 he aided the pro-Nazi revolt in Baghdad and spent the remainder of World War II in Berlin airing radio broadcasts to the Arab world calling for the destruction of Jews. Historically, his actions were in no way unique and in fact do reflect the Arab opinion of Jews before and after the creation of Israel.
I believe Ms. Foughty should recheck her references before claiming that “one could probably make the argument that Arabs have often been more accepting of Jews than Europeans from an historical perspective.” Here’s a news flash: Historically they were equals in the immense persecution they inflicted on Jews. Ms. Foughty asks “Why do the Palestinians bear the brunt of past crimes against the Jews? … What would drive a people to such a point where young men and women would blow themselves up?” She answers “the complete lack of future prospects because they can’t easily trade across the Israeli border, the fact they are still living in refugee camps in sordid conditions …” Ms. Foughty may be inclined to know that the Palestinians were offered peace countless times by Israel (along with allotments of land for their own state). This includes the extravagant gesture by Ehud Barak in 2000. This included Israeli redeployment from 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip, the creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal, the removal of isolated settlements and transfer to Palestinian control, Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City, and “Religious Sovereignty” over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967. Such a peace offer was unprecedented. The world was further shocked, however, when Yasser Arafat flat-out rejected the offer (which was everything the Palestinians asked for short of actually erasing Israel) and began the Intifada that Ms. Foughty is now blaming on the Israelis. Many of these Palestinians who now live in poverty had wonderful jobs in everything from the service sector to the “Israeli Silicon Valley” but for obvious security reasons could no longer pass between Israel and the territories on a whim.
Further, Ms. Foughty’s support of a Palestinian state is welcomed by this reader; however she may not realize that most Israelis would welcome this. They do have the best interests of themselves and the Palestinians at heart. This war (let’s call it what it is) is not your typical instance of “it takes two to tango.” While Israel is far from perfect (nor will it pretend to be), it does not attack innocent civilians. It attacks terrorist leaders. Ms. Foughty will also be pleased to know that Israel is an American value, not a “conservative” value which many Boston University liberals enjoy. Claiming that Stroll presented a misinformed one-sided view is just … wrong. When Ms. Foughty understands this, she may have her “unbiased” view of this war.
Samuel Ashner CAS ’07
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
