Letter writers' claims about Sharon, Lebanon 'ridiculous'
In the mailbag section of Friday's Arizona Daily Wildcat, I noticed two different letters regarding Israel and its prime minister, Ariel Sharon. Both letters spouted unsubstantiated revisionism of Sharon and Israel. In his writing, alumnus Omar Garbareno went so far as to accuse Sharon of being a terrorist himself. A second reply, from self-proclaimed Lebanese student Bethany Slim, claimed firsthand accounts of Israel's "killing, torturing and imprisoning thousands of Lebanese citizens," and said, "I do not know of a single Lebanese citizen who holds any feelings but anger towards Israel." I wonder how many of the 3.8 million Lebanese citizens Slim has interviewed.
As an avid supporter of all things Israeli, including the Israeli Defense Forces and their role in Lebanon, I must say that these sorts of comments don't surprise me at all. When I first started school here in the fall, I immediately learned that wearing my Israel Defense Forces T-shirt on campus would elicit quite a bit of animosity from some students. Luckily, this anger is usually expressed in dirty looks, mumblings and other passive-aggressive methods common to the bumper sticker-loving college student "activist." I wear such a shirt because I believe in the cause of Israel, and value its unwavering support of our own country.
The truth is, I welcome letters such as the ones in Friday's Wildcat. Such ridiculous sweeping claims of atrocities by the IDF and conspiracy theory accusations of murder on the part of Sharon simply do more harm than good for that side of the argument. There are plenty of legitimate concerns about Israel and Sharon alike, none of which were mentioned in either letter. People who oppose Israel's role in the Middle East must learn to make such highly visible remarks far more reasonable and moderate, or they run the risk of sounding, as Slim and Garbareno did, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
James Carlson
undeclared sophomore
Letters on Sharon lack facts, merit
I take issue with Omar Garbareno's and Bethany Slim's letters of Friday. Slim: If you are concerned with the fate of Lebanon and the treatment of its citizens, Israel should not be the focus of your anger. Rather, look toward Syria, which has occupied Lebanon since 1976. Israel, which occupied only small parts of Lebanon for only a few years, did so with the sole purpose of combating the terrorists who run that nation, particularly Hezbollah.
Garbareno: Perhaps you should use the "slightest effort" in some of your fact checking. Sharon did not fight for Israeli independence in the 1950s, since modern Israel was established as a nation in 1948. Before you accuse others of being misinformed, perhaps you should further inform yourself.
Finally, Israel receives a considerable amount of aid from America because, among other reasons, it is a strong democratic and ideological ally in a region that is increasingly hostile to all things Western. It is the height of naļivete to think that if America stopped supporting Israel all of our troubles would go away. The only thing that would come of such a horrendous foreign policy decision on our part would be the eventual shame our nation would endure for turning our back on a trusted friend when it needed us most. I for one would rather America give that money to Israel, a solid ally, than have such an ugly stain on our nation.
Silas Montgomery
UA alumnus
Olson right to dismiss Rodgers
Even though I am in the minority, I must tip my hat to coach Lute Olson for dismissing Chris Rodgers. No one person is above the game or better than his teammates. The times I have watched the Wildcats in action, I have seen Chris Rodgers sulking on the bench instead of rooting for his teammates. Look at Isaiah Fox, who shows what a true teammate is. He has never publicly cried about having to sit on the bench; instead, he has been a man about it. And to those who think Olson made a mistake, remember the dude is a Hall of Fame coach and most importantly a classy guy.
Gabriel Bustamante
Family studies and human development senior
Bookstore employment policies unfair
I write the Wildcat to claim that within the UofA Bookstore employment policies there exists a degree of censorship that I find totally unwarranted. The policy in question requires that employees of the bookstore not discuss wages with other bookstore employees.
The policy is justified, says the management, because employees at the bookstore earn a variety of wages for a variety of reasons. And knowledge of these differences in wages could lead to a disruptive work environment if some workers decide to complain that they do not make enough, for example.
Indeed, the management stresses strict adherence to this policy under the threat of job termination. So they take it seriously. I do not claim here that they take it lightly, and I assume that they have employment laws to help legitimize their position. Furthermore, I agree there are reasons that student employees (who consciously trade a low wage for "book loans," etc.) make less than ancillary staff, to cite one example.
Suppose, however, that two ancillary employees are doing the same exact work for two different wages, wherein the difference in wages is more than two dollars an hour (it is true that ancillaries who come from "temp agencies" make less than UA ancillaries). Should we threaten these employees with their jobs if they should start to ask each other why one makes more than the other?
Thus, I am essentially asking if it is right to limit free speech at the workplace simply because the bookstore wishes to obfuscate its interest in low labor costs afforded to it by employment agencies, who in turn make the difference between their finder's fee and the wage of the temp agency worker.
Kent Walker
UA alumnus
(Editors's note: A UA phonebook search showed Walker is a UofA Booskstore employee)