“˜Occupied’ lands rightfully won in defensive
war
Ghaith Mahmood, along with other Anti-Zionist thinkers, states
that Israel should leave the “occupied territories” to
solve the Mid-East crisis (“Israel’s
occupation, siege must end,” Viewpoint, April 4). But no
one asks why or how Israeli forces ended up in the West Bank. Did
they, as the Palestinians portray, invade the West Bank in conquest
because they were stronger than their Arab counterparts? The clear
truth is that in 1948 the Arab countries, which include Lebanon,
Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq, invaded Israel with the intent to
destroy the state and expel or exterminate its people.
Again in 1966 the same countries positioned themselves for an
invasion of Israel and shelled Israeli targets. Finally, in 1967,
Egyptian forces moved into Sinai and expelled the U.N. peacekeeping
forces from the Israeli border. Learning their lesson from 1948,
Israel decided to take pre-emptive action and, in what is called
“The Six Day War,” Israel captured the Gaza strip and
Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank. Israel then fortified
those borders. This would prove to be a beneficial move since many
of the same Arab countries would attack Israel again in 1973.
Naturally, the Israelis would want to move into the West Bank
and economically develop it. Now the Palestinians want all Israelis
to leave a land that was rightfully taken during a defensive war
and in which the Israelis have already developed an infrastructure
worth a great deal of money.
With a little history lesson, we can see that Israel has not
instigated violence, but simply defended itself against the the
hate of the Arab countries. It is this context that has led up to
the “occupation” of the West Bank and the current
conflict with the Palestinians.
James Kim Second-year Business economics
Israeli censorship hides atrocities, distorts
truth
I applaud Mahmood’s contribution (“Israel’s
occupation, siege must end,” Viewpoint, April 4), yet he
does not bring to light Israel’s concerted effort to stop the
press from reporting what is happening on the front lines of the
reoccupation of the West Bank. Israeli troops have intentionally
fired stun grenades and rubber bullets at journalists in Ramallah
who did not immediately disperse after Israeli troops ordered them
to leave.
Censorship through limiting press coverage and opposing the
presence of international observers suggests that Israel is hiding
ongoing atrocities and human rights violations. Currently, it
appears that Israeli troops have no qualms about intentionally
targeting journalists. Even the press are not spared indiscriminate
attacks and harassment by the Israeli military.
This country has been galvanized to support the war on terrorism
globally. Americans find terrorism to be unethical and wrong
precisely because its attacks are indiscriminate. The same critical
analysis must be applied to Israeli attacks on journalists and
civilians.
Terrorists are to be held accountable for the innocent lives
that they brutally take ““ whether they are Palestinian
suicide bombers armed with bombs or Israeli soldiers armed with
American weapons.
Darren Ibrahim Wang Third-year Political
science
Law encourages, not harms, speech
Contrary to David Burke’s slippery slope characterization
of hate crime legislation (“Hate
crime laws punish free thinking,” Viewpoint, April 5)
anti-hate laws have no basis in “Orwellian” thought
conditioning.
Thinking along racist, sexist and homophobic lines are all
protected by the First Amendment. A homophobic evangelist can stand
on Bruin Walk and spew as much fire and brimstone against gays that
he wants. Furthermore, no hate crime law before Congress contests
the right of anyone to be as swinishly ignorant as they please.
Federal and state hate crime legislation, rather, is designed to
acknowledge certain egregious aspects of crimes which are already
recognized as felonies or misdemeanors.
When homophobia is the impetus behind one murder, then the act
of killing is combined with a message sent to all gays and/or
lesbians as a group.
Hate crimes also spark trends of victimization against
population groups, thereby hindering their participation in public
actions.
Voting, boarding a school bus, or simply holding hands are all
public actions which are shadowed by a constant potential for hate
crimes targeted at the identity of entire groups as well as
individuals.
I challenge Burke to acknowledge the universal threat hate
crimes present to civic participation before speaking again on the
issue.
Ryan Graham Alumnus Class of 2002