Moral stand is needed against Hamas brutality

I disagree with Jim Slushers' editorial piece on coverage of the Israel/Hamas war. Sometimes it is necessary to take a clear moral stand on one side or another when it comes to right and wrong.

The plight of the residents in Gaza has been a long-standing issue for which no solution has been possible. This is primarily due to the intractable position of Hamas and other terrorist organizations who refuse to accept Israel's right to exist. No meaningful dialogue is possible when one side is dedicated inexorably to the killing the another. Such is the case with Hamas.

Under these circumstances, when savagely attacked, Israel had no option but to respond and retaliate. Israel has rightly called the Hamas attack its 9/11. When that horror struck our homeland, there was no question that al-Qaida was responsible and we stood united in supporting our military response. We did not wring our hands about whatever grievances might have motivated al-Qaida.

Similarly, we acted strongly and remorselessly (and still are) to destroy ISIS, which adopted scorched-earth, barbaric practices now emulated by Hamas. Once again, Israel and our other allies did not equivocate in their support for our efforts.

Slusher's column spoke to the difficulty in taking sides in the current conflict due to such considerations as the lack of visual evidence available showing comparative suffering and destruction on both sides, and a concern over taking sides which at some future date 'could suggest an appearance of favoritism that isn't intended or true.'

Really? I would have hoped the newspaper would have taken a clear stand in favor of Israel combating the evil of Hamas, all other considerations aside. In no world could anyone pretend that what Hamas has done (and continued to do using Gaza residents as human shields) is justified or acceptable.

Stephen J. Gohmann

Huntley