A continuing source of frustration for me is the failure to apply logic and common sense to real-world conflicts and events.

Here’s an example: on June 4 of 2003, the Aqaba Summit resulted in a vow from both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen to end violence in the region and follow the U.S.-moderated Road Map, but Hamas and Islamic Jihad, vowing instead to continue the violence, killed four Israeli soldiers on June 8.

Or another one: as Secretary of State Colin Powell visited with Israeli and Palestinian leaders some time ago, calling for peace and for an end to the violence, Palestinians attacked Israeli settlers on the West Bank, straining any peace talks that could have occurred.

Now, logically, what does this tell us? It may be something of a brain teaser for the blindly liberal, but like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself it’s really not that complicated. Why would Palestinians attack Israelis more when Israel takes steps toward withdrawing from the “occupied territories” and toward finding a peaceful solution for the conflict?

It is because Israeli divestment from Palestinian land is not the goal of Palestinian terrorists.

In her letter to the Review on April 9, Kate Raphael, Oberlin alumna and activist, stated this: “I believe the attacks against Israel will cease when there is an end to apartheid and occupation.”

This is a nice thought. It’s also illogical and naïve and shows a surprising lack of insight into the common sense of the situation. History has shown this time and time again: any time Israel makes an effort to provide Palestinians with more land, any time Israel works towards a free Palestinian state — and that has been the goal in the past—it results in lost Israeli lives. The current more militant Israeli stance is a response to nonstop and nonsensical Palestinian aggression.

Raphael argued that “[Israel’s] goal is to steal the land.” If that’s the case, why exactly has Sharon proposed a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip and part of the West Bank? If that is the case then why is it Israel—specifically, Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky—asking Palestinians to “return to the negotiating table?”

If Israeli divestment were in connection with the goal of Hamas and such organizations, wouldn’t they support these notions rather than launching further attacks whenever Israel attempts to pull back? Again, common sense tells us that this is not their goal. What, then, is?

A March 23 Associated Press article titled “New Hamas Leader Vows More Attacks” states as fact that “all top Hamas leaders are pledged to Israel’s destruction.” Not to divestment, not to a free Palestinian state, but to Israel’s destruction. Israel wants peace. Hamas wants devastation. This should be obvious to all but the blind, but the blind dominate the issue.

“I believe the attacks against Israel will cease when there is an end to apartheid and occupation.” This is, again, Raphael’s quote, but here’s what I would say: I believe there will be an end to “apartheid” (and I use the term extremely loosely) and occupation (similarly) when attacks against Israel cease.

Logic suggests this would be the case. Israeli attacks are almost always provoked, and directed only against terrorist leaders, although civilians are often caught in the crossfire (not surprising when the leaders hide amongst civilians).

Of course, such a divestment on Israel’s terms—the only terms under which they could happen, because a country in Israel’s position cannot afford to be defeated — would not end the violence because, again, Palestinian terrorist groups are dedicated to wiping out Israel entirely.

Believe it or not, readers, the little guy isn’t always the victim. The powerful army is not always the aggressor. Sure, the blind left (whom I distinguish from those members of the left who, you know, think) would like to fit this situation into a more accessible mold, like South African apartheid or American Manifest Destiny, but none of these comparisons have any bearing in reality.

The white leaders of South Africa had no desire to leave their stolen land and the oppressed Africans were not vicious psychopathic suicide bombers. Europeans and Americans made a concerted effort to take away the land of the Native Americans, but most Israelis would prefer a free Palestinian state if it meant peace.

Besides, if conquest was Israel’s actual goal, would it really take this long? If that was really what Israel wanted, I’d give them a week and all Palestinians would be nonexistent. Israel is physically capable of this, but not morally.

According to Raphael, “anyone who cares about justice must support” Oberlin Students for a Free Palestine and their efforts to have the College cease investments in companies doing business with the Israeli military. And I do care a lot about justice. But justice, you see, is a product of what is logically right, not of groundless emotion.

I am not a fan of terrorists who kill civilians for the primary purpose of killing civilians. I do not think much of activists, groups and politicians who attack Israel for doing something they are not trying to do and who support Palestine in a goal that the Palestinian terror groups do not have. I do not, simply, care much for those who are so devoted towards doing what is nice and uniformly liberal that they forget to consider common sense. This is not a terribly complicated issue. Some people are just wrong.