Letters to the Editor

A mature word on the Middle-East conflict

This is in response to Noam Shoresh's letter of July 25th, calling Israel an immoral monster.

Surely Israeli society and Israeli law have their warts, but I think calling Israel an immoral oppressor suggests one has not studied the history of oppression very carefully.

When I was in Israel, I met an Arab lawyer who was licensed to practice law in Israel. How many East German lawyers were licensed to practice law in the Soviet Union? He represented Palestinians who had grievances against the Israeli Defense Forces, and had argued them before the Israeli Supreme Court. He was two wins, two losses and a tie. Not a bad record for an oppressed minority; certainly better than Hong Kong lawyers do in the Chinese Supreme court.

We met an Israeli army officer, who was responsible for court-martialing Israeli soldiers who violated field discipline. It was hard for him, but he did it. Think of the American prosecution of the Mi Lai Massacre, but smaller.

While it is true that Israel has no constitution, its declaration of independence is a legally binding document (the U.S. Declaration of Independence is not binding -- you have no legal right to the pursuit of happiness, for example), and the Israeli declaration of independence guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship (except for Jews), and all of the other freedoms we Americans take for granted. If there is any Arab country with a comparable legal document, then I am unaware of it and would like to be informed.

The real problem is that four times the Arabs have started wars (1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973) and four times the Arabs have lost those wars. History shows that, since the industrial revolution, very few countries that have started wars have won them. Making war is an irrational act; it is attempted thievery on a national scale. It is far better to work for peace. Israel has the kind of liberal democracy that is conducive to peace. Israeli schools teach Arab history. Palestinian schools don't even show Israel on their maps. I went to Jordan in the spring of 2000; I saw this for myself.

Yes, Israel could do a better job of dealing with the Arabs. But it has in place the processes and the institution to make that possible: rule of law, freedom to protest government actions and unfettered access to information. It is time for the Arab countries to take similar actions, create similar institutions and processes.

Jeff Silverman

staff member, electrical engineering

Give Taylor a medal

Bravo, Omari! The race is human. A person's innate value is no more determined by skin color than it is by height, weight or hair color (thank you, Miss Clairol).

Renee Layden

Office of Admissions

Federalist Papers #10

I read David Greenspan's article "Who is this Guy?!" (July 25) with interest; it's unfortunate that he fell a bit short of the point. Tim Eyman has technically done nothing wrong. He has acted fully within the bounds of the initiative system. The problem is that when we leave the lawmaking up to anyone, we run the risk of people acting in what they believe to be their own best interests without investigating or advertising the potential repercussions of these actions.

From there, such a person need only convince a sufficient number of people that the given initiative is in their best interest. That's actually the easy part: Paying fewer taxes always sounds like a good idea, same with universal health care, spending caps, etc. The fact is, with the modern media it's easy to convince these lemmings to do anything, especially when it sounds good.

While I'm no fan of career politicians, letting the masses pretend they have free will and exercising that at the polls isn't a bright idea -- in fact it's un-American, this being a republic and all. Anyway, if we're looking for someone to blame, it's not Tim Eyman -- he's just using a flawed system.

Kevin Selkowitz

junior, computer science

"Species-ism"

There are several types of hawks, and in human terms we might refer to each type of hawk as belonging to a particular "race" of hawk. Often different types of hawks will have differences in feather coloration, body type, etc., and these differences are akin to our own differences in skin color, body type, etc. Hawks, however, are a different species than, say, mice.

Humans do not have an equivalent, except with regards to the animal world at large. Humans, not surprisingly I hope, are all one species. One. Our perceptions of [racial] differences are valid, but are a poor basis for hating others of our kind. Hitler, however, did not advocate eating the Jews, nor did Stalin advocate eating the Chechens, though both did their best to eliminate all traces of either group. Both dictators used negative propaganda to dehumanize the humans they most hated, but they never really crossed the line into believing that Jews, or Chechens, or Cambodians under Pol Pot, were so un-human as to be edible. Cows we eat freely, because they are not human. We do not hate cows, per se, but we do find them tasty. Hawks do not hate mice, though they too find them tasty.

As humans we all understand, no matter how much we may hate certain other groups of people, that nevertheless we are all people: We are all human beings. If this were not true then we'd have a much wider selection on our restaurant menus.

Jon Organ

secretary, educational psychology

Editor's note: The brackets around "racial" are the author's own. Their presence indicates that the intended word is "special," as in the adjectival form of "species." The word "special," however, has adopted a different meaning over time.

Thompson causes ejection of stomach contents

This is a response to Brian P. Thompson's imprudent July 25 opinion piece. Brian referred to the Palestinians as Muslims, but didn't refer to the Israelis as Jews. I personally can't say much about Judaism because I don't know much about it, but I think he shouldn't have alleged anything about Islam, because obviously he has no clue what he's talking about.

Further, he's misinformed about the history. Most of the Palestinians -- mind you, the majority are Muslims, but there are plenty of Christians as well -- were not living primitive lifestyles. They were leading prosperous lives. Its location at the junction of trade routes linking three continents means that it was a melting pot for religious and cultural influences. His idiotic remark about the Muslims oppressing women and that Palestinians should drop their "laughable" religion is nothing but a senseless notion. I think Brian needs to learn how to respect other religions, cultures and people so that he'll have some respect for himself.

Finally, a lasting peace shall be one that is just and fair for all, and, as long as Israel is enforcing peace their way, the Palestinians have to fight for theirs.

Moataz Karawi

graduate, dentistry

What Mr. Taylor doesn't want you to know

Omari Taylor makes the faulty assumption that the concept of race is inseparable from racism. Racism is the laughable idea that an individual is superior to another solely based on their race. Race, on the other hand is merely the recognition that some people share enough of a common genetic heritage to have a similar physical appearance. Mr. Taylor's true goal is to twist the definition of race to meet his political ends. Undoubtedly, he supports programs that perpetuate racial distinctions to build up group solidarity, and bitterly resents efforts to institute color-blind principles. Race is and will continue to be very real, but it need not be relevant in our interactions with others. First we must reject demagogues such as Omari Taylor.

Paul Hamar

senior, history and political science