Resisting occupation is not terrorism

I would like to respond to Keren G. Raz's column yesterday, in which she tries, either ignorantly or deceivingly, to equate the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with Palestinians resisting inhuman and illegal occupation by Israel. Here are few facts: A report to the British Foreign Office in December 1918 revealed that Palestine consisted of 512,000 Muslims, 61,000 Christians and 66,000 Jews. So the Jews were less than 10 percent of the population of Palestine.

Now, Israelis control more than 90 percent of the country. This is occupation, and according to international laws, Palestinians have the right to resist. This is very different than what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists came all the way from another continent to attack the United States. Can you see the difference?

Second, the United Nations had issued several resolutions (including 242 and 338) asking Israel to withdraw from the West Bank (which includes Jerusalem) and Gaza strip. Third, the International Court of Justice has ruled that the wall that is being built by Israel is illegal. However, Israel is going ahead with building the wall. Why doesn't Israel respect the unbiased International Court decision?

I agree that Palestinian suicide bombing is inhuman just like the everyday Israeli assault on Palestinian children and elders, but please be realistic and do not compare resisting occupation to the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001.

Alaa Muqattash
electrical and computer engineering graduate student

Israel is not responsible for Arab dissatisfaction

This is a response to Eric Austin's letter "Israeli wall not a solution to peace in the Middle East," printed yesterday. It is not fair to paint the Israelis as unwilling to cooperate in the effort to establish peace in the Middle East when history clearly dictates the opposite.

Since Israel's birth in 1948, there have been six major wars on Israeli soil, all defensive. At one point, Israel had occupied the Sinai Peninsula but gave it back to Egypt as a trade for peace. For peace. The land is nearly twice as large as Israel. That's crucial when you think about the fact that the only natural water source that comes into Israel flows through Lebanon and it has been poisoned on more than on occasion.

Another example: Israel accepted something like 95 percent of all the Arab demands in the late '90s to pull out of the demanded territories. Guess what happened? The Arabs refused ... Why? If the Arabs truly did want to pursue the peace, logic would dictate them to approve. They didn't.

Actions speak louder than words. Just yesterday I read an article detailing how six 10-year-olds were stoned to death by older Arab kids. The counter-argument? Our homes were demolished. How can Israel, which occupies one-sixth of one percent of the lands called Arab, be responsible for the political dissatisfaction of 22 Arab countries? Israel is just trying to protect itself, and a wall is the most basic means of protection. America does it with laws, but it is nearly 768 times larger than the state of Israel.

Perhaps the wall is the best possible defense. Also, every day Israel lets in countless Arab employees to work within the Israeli borders. Walls are not permanent; hate is.

Ari Lerner
theater arts and computer science junior

Sharp pencils, rocks all 'lethal' weapons

If even part of your story is accurate about a student who lost his dorm privileges because he had chopsticks in his room, we are dealing with a true outrage. Here are the weapons that I have in my university office:

•sharpened pencils (much more dangerous than blunt chopsticks)

•chopsticks

•a rock shaped like a tomahawk head. Actually, my sister thought it looked like a tennis shoe, so she painted it to look like a tennis shoe.

•A very sharp, very lethal, stainless steel letter opener. This was given to me 20 years ago by the University of Arizona for 10 years of service.

Richard Demers
professor of linguistics, retired

Non-coverage as significant as biased

I thank Keren Raz for yesterday's passionate pro-Israel editorial. It sheds some light on the Wildcat's campus coverage last semester, when Keren Raz was news editor.

On April 5, Ali Abunimah, founder of ElectronicIntifada.net and a renowned speaker on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict visited the UA, at the invitation of four academic departments and three student groups.

All of his visits to other campuses were covered by the local campus press, which is not surprising, as he has appeared on every major network and regularly writes for several national dailies. His two lectures to packed auditoriums were deemed newsworthy enough to warrant two articles in the Arizona Daily Star.

Yet the Wildcat, despite being informed well in advance, never mentioned the story. It also refused to print any letters on the subject or to meet with concerned students to discuss the omission.

Perhaps the Wildcat thought the campus community was not interested in the Middle East. However the week after (April 13), the Wildcat gave front-page coverage to an Arizona Israel Alliance event, two weeks before the event actually occurred.

On March 3, the Alliance for Peace and Justice in the Middle East (www.apjme.org) held an exhibit about the separation wall. This was covered in a local paper (the Tucson Citizen, but not our campus paper). APJME informed the Wildcat in advance, and a reporter did attend. However, the story the reporter wrote was never published.

In fact, none of the events APJME organized last semester were deemed worthy of a mention in the Wildcat news section.

Is there a pattern here? Could this have something to do with Ms. Raz's strong opinions on the issue? If so, Ms. Raz should ponder her lack of journalistic ethics, and the Wildcat should take a hard look at this as a lesson for future coverage, and everyone should take home a message: Do not trust the press automatically, as it often has an agenda. And non-coverage may be as significant as biased coverage.

Giorgio Torrieri
UA alumnus and former APJME president

Comical twist on rape sickening

Once again, you have managed to show your class and sophistication by printing these so-called "comics" in your fish wrap. The fact that you, as a "responsible" entity, have decided to put a sickening portrayal of comedy in your paper putting a comical twist on "rape" is pretty fucking amazing.

I don't know how any of you manage to keep your jobs.

Did any of you boneheads notice that your humor only helps to increase the stereotypical imagery of women being objects and lesser beings than men? Is it just a coincidence that the person being "roofied" was a woman?

Did it ever occur what it would have been to see a picture of a man in that situation? Probably not. Seeing how it would not have been that funny to most since women are the ones associated in most cases as being taken advantage of by drugging and assault. That is the sick society you help to maintain!

It has become so commonplace to associate the ills of our society on anyone but ourselves. If they have AIDS, probably gay. If they robbed the store, probably black. If they smoke marijuana, probably stupid. Not one of these premises holds up when actually investigated.

The tragic thing about all of this is that you will never just come right out and say that these things are wrong to speak "lightly" of. Even the writer should realize that the reason you never see comedians joking about themselves being raped or their family being sexually assaulted is not because of political correctness or offending anyone, it's because they have enough IQ to know what is funny, and what is not.

Malik Hawkins
sociology senior

Weapons policy 'misinterpreted'

After reading about the residence hall evictions for weapons violations Wednesday, it is apparent that more and more, policies meant to protect the student body are being woefully misinterpreted. The hollow interpretation of hollow policies by role crazy police not only increases animosity towards authorities, but is further evidence of the university's inability to grasp that restricting student's civil liberties in policy does nothing but make criminals of ordinary students.

Are baseball and hockey players to be prosecuted for possessing the various weapons of their trade? Do the 20-pound dumbbells or large obsidian rocks in my room now qualify me for prosecution if anything made to be a weapon will be considered a weapon?

With the implementation of the ridiculously strict new policy regarding classroom conduct and last year's crackdown on underage drinking, it seems as though the university is willing to make felons of us all in order to combat the phantom threats of security that have been sweeping the country.

Brooks Kary
journalism junior

Who would Osama vote for?

A couple days ago Russian President Vladimir Putin made an interesting comment. He said "International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term. If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power.''

This is a very simple and telling analysis of current events. Furthermore, Putin's motivations are not in question as Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, strongly opposed an Iraq invasion. Putin has even stated he will not favor either President Bush or Sen. Kerry in the election.

It's clear his outside voice gives us as objective an analysis as is possible. So now ask yourself - W.W.O.V.F? Who Would Osama Vote For?

Michael Badowski
microbiology and immunology graduate student