U.S. using Middle East situation as a "steppingstone"

While many of the letters to the editor have been either pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, I'm going to go ahead and attack the third party that many people have been beating around but not coming to direct conclusions about.

For some background on myself, I have served in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) for six months and have friends on both sides of the conflict. I personally believe the U.S. media offers a very skewed perception of what the situation in the Middle East really is. I will also honestly say that I feel that while Mr. Navabi was right (and wrong) in some statements, I also believe the people ridiculing him are no better.

Many people have attacked either the Palestinian or Israeli viewpoints. I'm going to go ahead and take the third view saying that the United States has no grounds taking interest in the affairs of the Middle East. When Bush first came into office "peace in the Middle East" had no real place in his agenda.

Now, in a post-9/11 world where the United States is interested in attacking Iraq ... again ... their need for Arab support has caused the U.S. to take a very hypocritical stand (not that this entirely surprises me). On one hand, the U.S. urges Israel to cease military actions and asks Palestinians to stop terrorist attacks. On the other, the U.S. bombs targets in Afghanistan on our own sort of holy war. Military actions the U.S. takes are no different from the tactics Israel is using against the Palestinians. (Discrediting Mr. Navabi's claims ... the two are very alike). How can we be so ignorant as to claim that Israel is any worse or better? If anything, the U.S. needs to take a definitive stand, or no stand at all. This constant fence hopping is likely to aggravate the situation more than it already is. The U.S. is merely using the situation as a steppingstone for its own ambitions. We cannot afford to question either side of the debate until we analyze what our own country is doing first.

I could be wrong though. Granted I have only 19 years of experience here on this lovely place we call Earth, and I am still likely very naive. However, I feel that none of us are good judges of the state of affairs in the Middle East.

Samuel Sroka
pre-business freshman

What is "gun violence"?

I have some questions for Kendrick Wilson after reading his March 28 commentary, "Gun violence is still here." Since the crime of battery is not known as "fist violence," a stabbing is not referred to as "knife violence," and rape is not called "penis violence," what is meant by your use of the term "gun violence?" Which of the following would be counted as gun violence? A killer shooting innocent citizens at a Denny's? Innocent citizens shooting a killer at Denny's? A criminal shooting a cop? A cop shooting a criminal? A cop shooting an innocent citizen? Since police appear to be capable of gun violence, should their access to firearms be controlled?

If licensing or banning guns reduces crime, should we apply these bans to police? If not, is this to say that police officers are morally superior to the rest of us? Do they have an exclusive right to self-defense? How can a people that cannot be trusted to own firearms be trusted to elect a representative government that is to maintain order? How can a government that cannot trust its citizens to own firearms be trusted?

Considering that the Denny's shooting involved a .22 caliber rifle, why is this shooting being used to start a discussion about banning "assault rifles" and "Saturday Night Specials?" What does this shooting say about labeling certain firearms as assault rifles, or about firearms in general? What does this say about the tendency to use an unrelated crisis as a restriction on the freedoms of others?

Some estimate that governments have killed approximately 170,000,000 people this century alone, with at least 56 million being carried out by authoritarian states after they enacted gun control, such as Ottoman Turkey (against the Armenians), Stalin's Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Nazi occupied Europe, Communist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Uganda (against Christians) and Guatemala (against the Mayas). Does this suggest a link between gun control and genocide? What does this say about giving government a monopoly on the use of force? (Reference: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SYL.HTM).

Being that a side-by-side comparison of the texts of the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 shows that the two have similar roots, what does this say about gun control in this country? (Reference http://www.jpfo.org/gateway.htm).

Chad McNichol
U A alumnus