Palestine does not deserve all the blame I felt
compelled to respond to Matthew Knee’s column
(“Attacks
on Israel are really aimed at Western society,”
Viewpoint, Jan. 18). Even though I’m also sorry for the
enormous sufferings on both sides as a result of the
conflict, I must say his definition of the conflict is simply
wrong and outrageously biased against Palestinians, the real
victims of the conflict. The Arab-Israeli conflict which has
continued since the Zionist migration to Palestine in the early
20th century is not the so-called clash between the West and East.
The nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the conflict between
colonists (or occupiers) and the indigenous population who opposed
the Zionist colonization of Palestine and later the Israeli
occupation of West Bank and Gaza. I acknowledge that there is
Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians. I strongly condemn
any attacks on Israelis. However, the Israeli government is
not innocent either. The Israeli government, especially under
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, did everything to escalate the
conflict and make it more bloody. The Israeli military has
destroyed the facilities of the Palestinian Authority, bulldozed
Palestinian houses, imposed the blockade on West Bank and Gaza, and
conducted an assassination policy in retaliation to the attacks on
Israelis. All of this was condemned by the international community.
In February 2000, Amnesty International strongly condemned the
Israeli government for its assassination policy. Hundreds of people
from Western Europe went to the West Bank and had a demonstration
with Palestinians last month. The seed of the bloody Arab-Israeli
conflict is the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and
the Palestinian humiliation from the Israeli occupation. It is the
Israeli government that expelled hundreds of Palestinians from
their homes in 1948 and 1967 and has inflicted greater suffering on
Palestinians since then.
In Kyu Noh Political science
Regents must leave Burma I was extremely
disappointed by the editorial the Daily Bruin wrote about the UCLA
Free Burma campaign (“UC
sanction of Burma will hurt the innocent,“ Viewpoint, Jan
16). It is obvious the editorial board did no research before
writing the editorial. How could The Bruin claim the Free Burma
movement is not an international effort and therefore ineffective
when the U.S. recently banned new businesses from entering Burma? I
find it odd that the Daily Bruin did not mention the democratically
elected leader of Burma’s call for all businesses to leave
Burma and for all other enterprises to divest from these companies.
In addition, The Bruin neglected the fact that companies such as
Levi-Strauss, Pepsi, Tommy Hilfiger and ARCO have already left
Burma, claiming “it is not possible to do business in Burma
without directly supporting the military government and its
pervasive violations of human rights.” If the UC Regents
divested from all Burma-related stock, they would not only be
withdrawing their financial support, but also setting an example
for other universities, councils and businesses. Perhaps the
editorial board should have become more educated about the campaign
before jumping to erroneous conclusions.
Jaime Rapaport Third-year International development
studies
Divesting will not hurt Burmese Your
under-researched editorial against the University of California
Regents’ action to support democracy in Burma is notable in
not giving voice to those you purport to help. (“UC
sanction of Burma will hurt the innocent,“ Viewpoint, Jan
16). In the case of Burma, the people even have a legitimate,
elected leadership. And that leadership has a policy on the issue
of foreign investment. Their policy is that investments ““
particularly by companies such as Halliburton and Unocal ““ do
not help the average person, so imposing restrictions on such
investments will not hurt the average person either. I suggest you
look more deeply into the situation in Burma if you choose to write
about it again. Those of us who support the Burmese peoples’
quest for freedom are used to hearing arguments that begin,
“In Cuba…”, “In Iraq…”, “In
Vietnam…” or “In China….” But ignoring the
Burmese and the reality of Burma when pontificating on Burma is
nonetheless a lousy way to act like you’re interested in
helping.
Larry S. Dohrs Seattle
Horowitz’s claims unsubstantial In
response to David Horowitz’ letter, “AA
HREF=http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/archivedarticles.asp?ID=17924&date=1/17/2002
TARGET=_NEW>Coverage of rally shows leftist fear,”
(Viewpoint, Jan. 17): Horowitz states UCLA has no conservative
professors, blaming political hiring bias favoring liberals. He
cites his own group’s “investigation,” saying
Democratic UCLA professors outnumber Republican ones by a 15:1
margin. Neither his center’s site nor his site’s
“magazine” list this supposed article, his
investigation’s design, data or findings. Dave, Marketing
101: if you’re gonna mention your site, ya gotta follow thru
the sizzle with the stake! Democrats equal “liberal?”
Have you traveled in the Southern U.S.? I’m leery when ratios
are mentioned without raw numbers ““ 15:1 ratio? Did 16 UCLA
professors list their political affiliation? 32? 64? How many
professors declined to state their preferences? And regardless of
how they vote, how would it impact their teaching and research?
I’m straining to figure out how, for instance, a computer
science professor would inculcate his class into lockstep leftist
ideology. Despite all of this, there probably are more liberal
professors than conservative ones at nationally ranked schools.
Conservative thought is pretty vapid, once you dig a little deeper.
Conservatives in general aren’t gifted at handling nuanced,
complicated ideas. Thus, they do a pretty good job of weeding
themselves out for the running when competing for UCLA’s (or
any reputable school’s) academic posts. That’s why we
have BYU, Oral Roberts University and that place that had to be
sued to let in African American students. Finally, you again whine
about the Daily Bruin choosing not to run your paid ad: What do you
have against free enterprise? The Bruin chose not to run the ad, in
a similar way that a number of other conservative colleges chose
not to run paid ads advocating rational family planning. If you
want complete control over a newspaper, I suggest you buy one and
embrace the capitalist system you’re supposedly in favor
of.
Jeff Estes Graduate The Anderson School