Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Recent Star Tribune coverage on the issues surrounding the City Council's veto of recruitment and retention bonuses for the Minneapolis Police Department has been superficial, creating more division than illumination ("Council vote rejects bonuses for police," Nov. 18). A deeper look is needed to resolve the contention among city officials, police and residents about how to create a safer Minneapolis for all.

What happened to former Chief Anthony Bouza's vision of a more effective, accountable police force that was more integrated within communities? I remember in the 1980s and 1990s when large numbers of young people were going into law enforcement. Why is the Police Department having difficulty attracting and retaining officers? I think some of the reasons are obvious: First, no amount of money can compensate police officers or their families for the physical and emotional injury from facing potentially life-threatening conditions every day in a city awash with guns and organized crime. In the breakdown of the relationships that officers used to have in their communities, they often don't have the trusted relationships that helped them navigate their territories. Second, there has been a rigidly hierarchical top-down management style that has hindered flexibility, accountability and innovation. I am certain the officers themselves can think of many more reasons for poor recruitment and retention.

The Minneapolis Police Department undoubtedly needs more money given the expansion in self-monitoring and other demands being placed on it. I would like to see officers rewarded for their difficult work. Similarities to the recent pandemic are abundant. People in front-line service positions experienced high rates of burnout. A tremendous amount of money went to compensate businesses and institutions for loss of revenues. A tremendous amount of money was also spent on fraudulent or peripheral businesses. So, handing out money irresponsibly does little to solve problems. However, the largest driver of loss of medical personnel before, during and after the pandemic is principally a result of the bureaucratic erosion of the core principle of healing in medicine, which cannot be achieved by applying checklists to humans and ignoring the multiple factors contributing to their chief complaints. As in medicine, many of the remedies to the problems plaguing the police will come from the officers themselves. I'd like to hear from them.

Sara Langer, Minneapolis

•••

Journalists and opinion writers frequently cite the city charter's requirement for a minimum level of police officers. Specifically, the city charter says, "The City Council must fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident." It is not clear that "employees'' means licensed officers. In today's environment, a "police force" needs to be more diversified, with armed officers responding to violent crime and other more dangerous calls, while other community safety services respond to nonviolent calls.

Thank you to our City Council for your service to our community.

Ben Auckenthaler, Minneapolis

I am writing because I do not like it when a letter writer misleads or mistakes the facts about what they disagree with. I am horrified by the killing going on in Palestine and Israel, and I support the resolution by the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers calling for an immediate cease-fire to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza and to de-escalate the conflict. The Monday writer I refer to wrongly stated that the MFT resolution failed to condemn the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas. But if you read the resolution, you will see it does condemn the Hamas attack and mourns all loss of life. (Opinion editor's note: You can read the resolution at tinyurl.com/MFT-statement.)

The letter writer is especially concerned over the fueling of antisemitism as she is the daughter of Holocaust survivors. I am not that personally involved, and I am concerned both about the rise of antisemitism and the rise of Islamophobia. This may be taken as hurtful, but when a person only expresses concern for Israeli or Jewish life and not concern for Palestinian and Muslim lives — with the reality that 10 times more Palestinian lives have been taken, with millions of Palestinians suffering and in serious danger, the majority of these lives being children and innocents — people who are horrified by the devastation of Palestine (most people are also horrified by the Hamas attack) who fail to respect the facts and then wholeheartedly side with Israel can, very unfortunately, fuel brewing resentment toward Israel and Jews. Of course, the same is true when facts are denied and someone wholeheartedly sides with Hamas and Palestine.

Paul Rozycki, Minneapolis

•••

Israel is fighting a war against Hamas, an enemy whose committed goal is to kill Jews and destroy Israel. Hamas escalated its commitment on Oct. 7, by the horrendous massacre of close to 1,200 Israelis. Israel has retaliated and protesters are now calling for a cease-fire. But what do the protesters mean by "cease-fire"? Is Hamas also to cease fire? What exactly would a Hamas cease-fire look like? Is Hamas expected to renounce its goal of destruction? Who would make that concession on behalf of Hamas, and how would it be reliably shown to be a substantial and enforceable commitment? How would Hamas cleanse the minds and hearts of its members who have long been committed to Jewish destruction and killing? Is Hamas to demonstrate its commitment to a cease-fire by releasing its hostages and destroying its tunnels of war? Or, do the cease-fire protesters just want Israel to cease fire? Are the protesters just calling for Israel to stop fighting against an enemy committed to its goal of erasing Israel from existence? Do the protesters believe that if Israel ceases fire that Hamas will suddenly relinquish its weapons and renounce its goal of destruction?

Normally, we should expect that a cease-fire results in a reasonably mutual and enforceable peace. What exactly do the protesters contemplate to be a mutually just cease-fire?