Different Reflections on Thursday's Intifada Rally
To the Editor:
Had I known my picture would appear on the front page of Spectator's Friday, Sept. 29 issue ("Passions Flare at Intifada Rally"), I think I might've smiled for the dear readers. But then again, the sad reality still is that for many American reporters a smiling Arab rarely serves the purpose of "true" representation of the orient's passion, let alone a Palestinian refugee's passion. I was angry that day, as I am today. More to the point, the whole event, the sixth anniversary of the Intifada, was set to commemorate the frustration and anger of my people: of refugees denied their right to go home, of students getting harassed at checkpoints daily for years on end, of mothers not being able to feed their children because of the unjust international embargoes. The night of the event, one more Palestinian was killed by the Israeli "Defense" Forces. She's Palestinian, so no one should care to know her name, her age, what she was doing, or where. The few who do care already know: Ram, 14, sleeping, home in Gaza.
Spectator deliberately misled its readers. We were told nothing of the main disturbance of the event: the tearing off of a large "Free Palestine Now" banner by a student who, when confronted, said the sign meant, "You hate Jews"! Nor was the reader told of the paranoid and unruly behavior of my now to-be-sympathized fellow front-pager, who called an event-attendee a "German" for holding a "Long Live Intifada" sign. The same person repeatedly screamed, "You hate Jews, admit it," and, "Why don't you condemn suicide bombing, now ... here?"
While some engaged in debate, even humorously at times, the behavior of others was only reminiscent of condescending Israeli soldiers on West Bank checkpoints-some were even sporting IDF T-shirts. Here I must extend my gratitude to campus security that the ban on M16s is still in place.
Ahmad Diab, GSAS
Oct. 2, 2006
To the Editor:
The Sept. 29 article "Passions Flare at Intifada Rally" neglected to address the cause of the so-called "flaring." When Students for Justice in the Middle East declared their support for the Intifada, they did not limit their support only to those groups engaged in the Intifada who are interested in a two-state solution, a peaceful end to violence, or civil negotiation. By declaring (unqualified) support for "the Intifada," waving the Palestinian flag, and not suggesting otherwise, the group gave passersby every reason to believe that it supports the organization that takes credit for starting the Intifada and that governs the people represented by that flag-Hamas. The Hamas charter currently reads: "Israel will rise and remain standing until Islam eliminates it ... Our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave ... The time [of Allah] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them!"
Sure, Hamas is only part of the Intifada, and it may even have some goals other than the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. But if a rally for the 50th anniversary of a Ku Klux Klan lynching were held on College Walk, I would not think that the KKK's support for more secure borders would excuse its racism and violence. I told a member of the SJME to "go blow yourself up" on Thursday, not because I am a racist, but because that is what he was supporting: hate-mongering, murder, and racism.
Etan Yeshua, GS
Sept. 30, 2006
Support for Israel Does Not Equate With Inherent Liberalism
To the Editor:
The authors of the piece "Questioning the Anti-War Coalition" (Sept. 28) stated that they are worried "about what it means to be liberal," and indeed, they should worry. I am a moderate conservative, but I oppose the Iraq War and have serious doubts as to the authors' suggestion that support for Israel's actions vis-a-vis its neighbors is an ideological companion to opposition of the Iraq War. Just as I recognize that the Bush administration's (often) radical neo-liberal foreign policy has been grafted onto true conservative ideology, and thus am able to separate the two, the authors of this article should recognize that perhaps their vested interest in-and sympathy for-Israel is in fact not part-and-parcel of liberal ideology. To say that most liberals on campus are pro-Israel is a dubious claim, at best.
Miguel A. Lopez, CC '08
Sept. 28, 2006