Policy of violence

To the editor:

I have just been looking at dreadful, heart-wrenching photos from Palestine. I know there are similar pictures available from Israel, though not nearly as many. The warfare in Palestine, Israel and Lebanon is almost as unbelievable as it is sad and painful.

Leaders of the two sides were communicating and actually talking of peace. That, of course, may be exactly what caused a relatively few individuals from militant groups to attack Israel in a way designed to provoke retaliation. The viciousness of the Israeli response may have surprised even them, but some on both sides will be pleased with the return to seemingly permanent war.

As usual, it is the non-combatants who suffer most. The militants of both sides do what they know best: creating destruction and suffering. Our president only suggests that they try to kill as few civilians as possible. Of course, he is not in a position to be critical of the unconscionable waste of war.

I am very distressed that my government and my tax money provide more support for violence than for peace. Moral questions aside, the use of violence and threats just is not an effective way to achieve lasting change. It doesn’t work well in interrogations, with raising children, with suppressing political opponents or with nations.

Violence provokes passive-aggression and/or more violence. Our part in this insanity will continue as long as we elect leaders who believe aggressive warfare is a reasonable part of our foreign policy.

Joe Douglas,

Lawrence