Arabs want destruction of Israel, not Īthe ending of occupation'

Carrie Brown says a lot of half-truths in her guest commentary of Dec. 3, "Ending Israel's occupation: a moral obligation," but what she fails to point out is that this is the way things stand: Israel offered peace, and got war as an answer.

President Clinton was reported as saying to Yasser Arafat at the Camp David talks in July 2000: "If the Israelis can make compromises and you can't, I should go home. You have been here 14 days and said Īno' to everything. These things will have consequences. Failure will end the peace process · " Israel relinquished land for peace with Egypt (and Ariel Sharon dismantled settlements as part of that deal) and got peace. Israel even gave up small bits of land for peace with Jordan, and got peace. Israel relinquished land for peace with the Palestinians, and all it has gotten Israel is bloodshed and sadness.

When the Palestinians had the ability to act against terrorists, they did not do so faithfully (essentially, it was a "bars in the front, open door in the back" sort of effort). The head of the Palestinian Authority's Preventive Security in the West Bank, Jibril Rajoub, has been quoted as stating, "We will not arrest the sons of our people in order to appease Israel. Let our people rest assured that this won't happen."

Israel does not use military force in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for fun; it does so because the Israeli government has an obligation to protect its people. Terrorism against Israel was rampant before the 1967 war, when those territories were occupied by Egypt and Jordan (who, by the way, illegally annexed the West Bank). Terrorism against Israel stems from Arab unwillingness to accept Israel as a permanent fixture in the Middle East, and Palestinian groups such as Hamas publicly state that their goal is not the ending of occupation but the destruction of Israel.

The question is not how much of anything Israel has to give up for peace with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world. It is actually how willing the Arabs are to recognize Israel on any land it holds and how willing they are to end incitement and violence against Israel, and allow their people to focus their anger where it really needs to be focused: against their own oppressive regimes.

Jeremy Slavin
political science junior

Muslim terrorism record behind the blame, not discrimination

In response to Omar Shahin's guest column Monday concerning unfair discrimination of Muslims: We are scared!

Instead of taking responsibility for your people and acknowledging the epidemic within your religion, Shahin deflects the obvious: Most terrorists are Muslim, not Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc. While most Muslims are law-abiding, good-hearted citizens, there needs to be a confession among its leaders and a strong condemnation of terrorist acts.

Don't tell me that the people who "propagate hate" and "drug dealers" are the real terrorists. Please! When there are hundreds dead in Bali, countless murdered Israelis and thousands dead on Sept. 11 and all are at the hands of Muslim "fundamentalists," I can't help but tempt you to realize that there is a problem here and it's not the crack dealer down the street.

And why shouldn't I be afraid? If there were a sudden surge in the number of people with blue eyes bombing civilians, I would be afraid of them, too. Who wouldn't?

It's not discrimination that leads us to blaming Muslims; it's fear.

Jacob Levy
pre-business freshman

O'Reilly represents those views unheard in America's heartland

In response to Caitlin Hall's article yesterday, "The ĪSpinning-Out-of Control Zone,'" I would like to remind everyone that the people on the left end of the political spectrum who most often criticize Bill O'Reilly as being "bad for America" are the self-same people who are the first to reiterate the right to freedom of speech. I argue that just because one does not like what is coming out of his mouth does not mean that he is not allowed to voice his opinion.

O'Reilly has become the new pecking doll for Democrats alongside Rush Limbaugh. I see it as quite hypocritical for Democrats to be so up at arms over him, simply because he often presents a conservative viewpoint. For a long time, the political elite of the East and West coasts have controlled the media, and largely neglected the rest of the United States. Democrats will argue that there is no liberal bias to the media, but simply look at the facts: The centers of media, New York, Boston and Los Angeles, are stalwart Democratic cities, in states which nearly always vote for Democrats.

Another fact: Look at the anchors for major cable stations. Many of them worked in Democratic administrations or for Democratic Congressmen (Chris Mathews ÷ Carter Administration and under Dem. House Speaker Tip O'Neil to name one).

Another important point is that all O'Reilly says is not conservative; for example, his stance on the death penalty is remarkably close to that of John Kerry, who by all accounts is on the left of the political arena. Finally, no one forces a person to watch him; but O'Reilly's high ratings seem to indicate that he speaks for a great number of Americans.

I do not pretend to say that O'Reilly is in the political center, but I do maintain that he speaks for a large number of people who are often left out in the political debate because they live in the heartland of the United States. And O'Reilly's presence as a political commentator provides a place for debate ÷ like in a college newspaper in Tucson ÷ so he cannot be that bad.

Ryan Wicks
ecology and evolutionary biology
and history sophomore

U.S. responsible for Palestinian deaths by arming Israeli soldiers

I would like to thank Carrie Brown for her wonderful commentary yesterday, "Ending Israel's occupation: a moral obligation." She is right. As American citizens, we should definitely be held responsible for the deaths of innocent Palestinians that are caused by the United States' supplying of weaponry to Israel.

And we should also hold our government responsible, in part, for the deaths of innocent Israelis killed by suicide bombers, since we have done more to inflame the conflict than mediate it.

The fact of the matter is, the United States is not an unbiased mediator, and our heavy lending of support to Israel only increases the desperation that terrorist recruiters feed off of.

I also think that it is absolutely ridiculous for people to accuse those critical of Israeli government actions of being anti-Semitic, or even anti-Israel for that matter. First off, it is a government that is criticized, not its people.

Individuals who hide behind their ignorance of the conflict by attacking supporters of peace as anti-Semitic are only contributing to the problem.

Ali Scotten
Near Eastern studies and
anthropology senior