U.S. aid to Israel goes to reconstruction, not murder

In Ali Scotten's yesterday guest commentary he states that "Many in the Middle East ask, ĪSince when has the United States been interested in the lives of ordinary citizens?'" and then goes on to talk about how the United States arms Israel and gives them aid. Well, my suggestion is that instead of using rhetoric about the "occupation," look at the fact that the United States also gives money to the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, the United States played the role of broker in the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2000 Camp David summit in which Israel offered the Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, plus partial control over Jerusalem.

Of course this was before the Intifada that broke out because of the rejection of the Camp David offer. The weapons the terrorists used were received because the Palestinians accepted the Oslo accords that allowed the PA to import weapons for a police force. The aid the United States gives Israel helps to rebuild the crumbled economy (a result of terrorism), not to kill innocent civilians, as the commentary would have you believe. And despite the fact that in the past Israel has found no true partner in peace, Israel is still willing to work with the United States to activate peace in the region.

A fact lost on Mr. Scotten when he chose to bash the United States and Israel, and put the blame of terrorism on the victims, not the perpetrators.

Avi Margolin
political science freshman

Wildcat columnists buy into untrue ASUA stereotypes

I would like to respond to this week's "Issue of the Week: Is ASUA relevant to the student body?" opinion column that appeared on Wednesday, March 12. I must say that I was quite appalled at some of the ignorant stereotypes printed in this display by Wildcat columnists. First, I am not a participant in the greek system. As a member of the ASUA Appropriations Board (which reviews requests for club funding) since spring semester 2002, I would like to say that ASUA does not cater "to cutthroat business majors and lawyers-in-training," as columnist Caitlin Hall put it. Rather, it is a group of individuals working together to ensure that this campus is conducive to the undergraduates and their needs.

For instance, many people are unaware of the countless hours spent this year by the Associated Students of Arizona Directors Melanie Rainer, Ryan Patterson, and Nick Green organizing lobbying sessions with the Arizona Board of Regents in Phoenix and here in Tucson in collaboration with NAU and ASU. These countless hours were spent while simultaneously taking the same midterms and doing the same assignments that you and I were doing. Such lobbying efforts are the reason the students were so heavily involved in the tuition proceedings, and without the dedication of these three people (among others) to this task, next year's tuition hike would likely be much higher.

Additionally, many people are unaware of the time spent by various irrelevant ASUA members to put together the Club Olympics last fall, or to organize the contest that gave the student section at McKale Center the name of "Zona Zoo." Many students probably do not know that this year's annual Spring Fling has been in the planning stages since last summer. These events and ideas do not come out of nowhere, and they take much more time and energy to plan than a spectator might think. Finally, club funding is a large part of ASUA, and without such funding being allocated to various clubs, these clubs would often be hard-pressed to attain the necessary funds for competitions, conferences, and special campus-wide events.

If after this, you can still say that you feel that the members of our student government "are irrelevant" as Erik Flesch puts it, then I would encourage you to spend a day in the ASUA office to see for yourself that this is far from true.

Mike Shoemaker
accounting senior

Flesch argument unsound; aggression not a solution

I want to address two issues: First, I think Erik Flesch's argumentation in yesterday's column, "Our choice: containment or Armageddon" is not very sound. I agree that terror is often motivated by "ideological rage or ethnic hatred­" or in some cases out of bare desperation, yet "aggressive defense," as Mr. Flesch suggests, will not reduce the motives for terror, but cause the opposite.

Let's face it: There are plenty of countries around the world illegally possessing weapons of mass destruction, or with connections to terrorists. Some of them are called enemies, some allies. Mr. Flesch's suggested policy of aggressive containment might make it more difficult for terrorists to get dangerous weapons, but not impossible. The war on Iraq, as well as future wars without United Nations approval (meaning without the approval of the majority of the other countries on this planet) will be seen not only as a war between the United States and Iraq, but also as a war between Christianity and Islam, causing "ideological rage or ethnic hatred," and Mr. Flesch pointed out where this will lead. Maybe international politics are a little more complicated than making defeated-check-marks on your list of rouge states.

Secondly, the illustration for this article is just wrong in every detail. The person on the right seems to represent the American people threatening Mr. Saddam with a gun. Well, when you look at the opinion polls, it is instead the Bush-Rumsfeld-Powell-trio who want to fight Iraq, not the American people. Second, the war will not be against Saddam, but against Iraqi people. But the most striking contradiction is the comparison of the policy displayed and the Anglo-American policy in reality. What we see is the old hands-up-show-me-your-pockets-strategy, which can be compared to the proposition of the majority of countries threatening Iraq, but giving the inspectors time to check or empty his pockets. America's aggressive defense strategy could be compared to first shooting him, and than checking his pockets. But that doesn't sound logical, does it?

Marc Schillgalies
physics graduate student

Wildcat should not publish stories on wasting money

Since when has the Arizona Daily Wildcat become an outlet for people's validation of money wasting projects? On Tuesday, there were not one, but two articles applauding wastes of money. First and foremost, the "Conference on Subtle Discrimination," is a laughable waste of money. When one asks himself, "What is the most pressing matter concerning UA?," I highly doubt any student or faculty member would place any form of discrimination on their list. Secondly, there is a "Live Culture," section in which you attempt to argue for public art at the university. The fact that one half of one percent of project funding is set aside for public art is laughable at best. Think of the possibilities of what that money could have accomplished if put to some productive work, e.g. getting the Student Union Memorial Center finished on time.

Dan Norwood
physics sophomore

Activities of war protesters go too far, hurt movement

Many anti-war supporters across the country have overstepped their bounds while protesting a potential war. Over the last month or so, grade school children of military parents have been ridiculed in schools, college-aged students have been penalized for not doing anti-war assignments, and Wednesday, anti-war protesters destroyed a Sept. 11 memorial in California. Some who support the war have labeled all anti-war protesters anti-American. I am one supporter who does not classify all anti-war protesters as anti-American, however, when individuals within the anti-war group go too far, as they clearly have in the above instances, the anti-war movement cause is hurt. As a pro-war supporter, many might think that I think it's great that the anti-war movement is hurt because of an extreme few. Although I cannot disagree more with most of the premises against a war to oust Saddam, these acts of extremism hurt everybody; they cause embarrassment to those who support the anti-war cause and further enrage those who don't.

Randy Crisler
Near Eastern studies senior