Letters

The real racists

Editor:

I was disturbed to read of Keith Geffen’s disagreement
("Anti-Jew view," March 1) with Ron Richard’s assertion of being
anti-Zionist (i.e. anti-Israeli) and not anti-Jewish ("Not
anti-Jew," Feb.2). Geffen says, in more words, that anyone who is
anti-Zionist is anti-Jewish. He equates the two, while Richards, I
and other anti-Zionists try to keep the definitions clear.

Although a Zionist during Theodore Herzl’s time was someone who
desired a homeland for the Jewish Diaspora (the romantic concept of
Zionism that is often still naively/deceptively used today), since
1948, a Zionist is someone who supports the State of Israel as it
exists on Palestine.

Anti-Zionists, such as Richards and I, oppose Zionism NOT
because of its Jewish element, but for the fact that Zionism is
predicated on the superior claim of European Jews to the land of
Palestine over the indigenous Arabs. This is racism.

And don’t go on about how Palestine was once occupied by Jews.
If we’re going to admit land claims based on conquests of thousands
of years ago, the whole world would be turned upside down. (Is
Britain then to be returned to the Romans, and Spain to the
Muslims?)

Simply stated, Israel is a European settler colony based on the
unjust expulsion of native Palestinians from the lands of their
forefathers, and its policies have always been as "racially
controversial" (read: RACIST) as the former South Africa.

Admit it. We Bruins proudly protested the racism of South
Africa, but when the oppression is upon Palestinians rather than
Africans, and supported by several billions of U.S. tax dollars a
year, no one says a word. But I suppose it’s unfair to place the
guilt of hypocrisy upon Americans when no one knows how racist
Israel really is.

And why don’t they know? Because the media is universally
pro-Israeli (with the singular exception of Roxane Márquez’s
series), and every time anyone even begins to show opposition
toward Zionism (Israeli policy), they are labeled as anti-Semetic.
Are Jews that oppose Zionism, like Noam Chomsky, Ralph Schoneman
and Israel Shahak anti-Semitic? Ridiculous.

Ben Wang

Second-year

Microbiology and molecular genetics

Blatant bias

Editor:

In response to Roxane Márquez’s Feb. 28 article entitled
"Grounds for separation:" The article is devoted to an explanation
of the conflict over the different claims for Jerusalem. Instead of
an impartial summary of the religious and political claims to the
land of Israel by all involved parties, the article reduces itself
to a one-sided justification of the Palestinian position, with not
so much as a mention of the Jewish claim to the land and religious
foundations for such a claim.

This blatant partiality is confirmed by the fact that at the top
of the article, there is a box containing the words, "Middle East
in Transition," and a picture of the Palestinian flag. In an
article supposedly devoted to an objective summary of the facts, it
is highly inappropriate to post only the Palestinian flag, an
obvious preference for one group.

The article also states that antagonism between the Israelis and
the Palestine Liberation Organization has existed since Israel’s
independence in 1948, but "serious contention began in 1987, when
Palestinians in the occupied territories began an internal uprising
against Israeli occupation." The article then continues to
illustrate the seemingly unjustified repression of the Palestinian
people.

This is a distortion of the truth. "Serious contention" was
initiated the moment Israel was born, as every gulf state united
and bombed Israel, literally from the moment it became
independent.

During the wars of ’67 and ’73, the gulf states once again
initiated an unprovoked onslaught on the State of Israel. These
nations shelled preschools and temples, with absolutely no
differentiation in their attack between Israeli soldiers and
Israeli infants.

The PLO charter swears that it shall never rest until every Jew
has been murdered, and until the nation of Israel is pushed into
the sea. While the PLO has made great strides toward peace since
then, it is certainly not difficult to appreciate Israel’s wariness
of its neighbors and Palestinian inhabitants.

Josh White

First-year

Political science and French

Do your research

Editor:

I was concerned by Roxane Márquez’s Feb. 28 article,
"Grounds for separation." The ownership of the land situated
between the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea is
a very complex issue. As the only land bridge between Africa and
the Eurasian continent, it has been subject to conquest repeatedly
throughout recorded history.

Modern issues are deeply rooted in political, ethnic and
religious differences. It is difficult to begin to talk about the
current political situation in a newspaper article since the issues
are so convoluted.

Márquez’s article ignores the modern efforts made toward
peace in the region, choosing to highlight rather a few recent
violent acts.

An unfamiliar reader, relying on Márquez’s article for
information, would undoubtedly be confused by the quote "Judaism as
a political state … " or the reference to the Dome of the Rock as
the site where "the prophet Mohammed was resurrected … " Judaism
is a religion which sets forth a way of life, but it is not
synonymous with the (modern) State of Israel.

To my knowledge, Muslims do not believe the prophet Mohammed was
resurrected. From Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, he is believed to
have ascended to heaven and returned (Qur’an 17:1). To speak of
Mohammed as resurrecting is to confuse him with a Christian belief
in Jesus of Nazareth.

Márquez paints the current conflict as between Judaism and
Islam, and neglects to mention the other significant minorities in
the region, among them Palestinian Christians.

More importantly, Márquez’s article does not touch upon the
deep yearning for peace among many people of the area and the
notable achievements made in recent years. I write because this is
the second of five articles, and I hope Márquez will be more
careful with the remaining three.

Fr. Paul Dechant

Associate director

University Catholic Center

Get facts straight

Editor:

I am fed up with your paper misleading its readers about the
Middle East. The latest distorted article was "Grounds for
separation" (Feb. 28) by Roxane Márquez.

Márquez refers to "the hostility between native
Palestinians and Israeli Jews," implying that Israeli Jews are not
native to the region. But Jews have lived in the area since
biblical times. In 1844, for example, the Turkish census reported
that 7,120 Jews lived in Jerusalem, compared to 5,000 Muslims and
3,390 Christians.

Márquez writes that "yesterday, a mob of Israelis shot and
killed a male Palestinian American tourist after his rental car
jumped the curb and ran into a crowd of pedestrians, in what some
allege was an accident." As evidence has shown, it would probably
have been more accurate to say that the Palestinian American
deliberately mowed down innocent Palestinian Jews waiting at a bus
stop, after bragging that he would shortly make the evening news.
(Yes, innocent "Palestinian Jews" – Jews living in Palestine – have
as much right to be called "Palestinian" as Arabs do.)

Márquez also writes that "because of … Islam’s acceptance
of all things sacred to Christians and Jews … lasting peace is
only possible through either secular or Islamic rule." This is
ludicrous – like saying that since the Civil War, the Bill of
Rights has ensured the well-being of African Americans. Don’t judge
by words – judge by actions. For centuries, Jews living in Arab
countries have been massacred, persecuted and terrorized.

Until 1976, Jews in Syria were not permitted to have telephones
and driver’s licenses, to go more than four kilometers from their
place of business, to sell immovable property or to bequeath
property to heirs. As a result of persecution like this and much
worse, over 800,000 Jews living in Arab countries have been forced
to emigrate to Israel. Don’t take my word for it. In a May 15, 1975
article in the Lebanese daily An-Nahar, Sabri Jiryis, a Palestine
Liberation Organization official and former director of the
Institute for Palestinian Studies in Beirut, wrote: "Jews were
removed from Arab countries where they had lived for centuries;
they were ignominiously expelled after their property had been
confiscated."

Márquez writes that Jews "are recognized as ‘People of the
book,’ a term denoting mutual respect in Islamic law." This would
be nice if it were true, but it isn’t. The traditional Islamic
concept of "dhimmi" means "protected person" – meaning that others
are protecting him – granting that person permission to live with
them, doing him a favor. That favor can be revoked.

Again, don’t take my word for it. As Lebanon’s President-elect
Gemayel stressed in a speech on Sept. 14, 1982: "In the name of all
the Christians of the Middle East, we do not want to be citizens
existing in the ‘dhimmitude’ of others." Several hours later he was
assassinated.

Jews have learned the hard way not to rely on others for favors
or protection. Please don’t write any more articles on the Middle
East until you check the facts.

Marc Lange

Assistant Professor

Department of philosophy

News or opinion?

Editor:

I have several comments regarding Roxane Márquez’s biased,
poorly argued article of Feb. 28, "Grounds for separation."

First, to equate the Palestinian situation with past struggles
for independence in other parts of the world is misleading and
inappropriate. Especially considering the advances made in recent
years in the peace process, the characterization of the Palestinian
people as struggling for land against an oppressive government is
not valid.

More, to call the terrorist group Hamas an "Islamic resistance
movement" is a flagrant glossing-over of their terrorist identity.
In an article which masquerades as a straight news story,
Márquez should not take such a biased approach. And yet she
does so repeatedly.

Márquez quotes almost exclusively from Palestinian sources,
giving only one side of a story which is far more complex than the
"Muslim v. Jew" affair she describes.

Surely, as editor in chief of The Bruin, Márquez ought to
know the difference between a news story and an opinion piece!

When Márquez lists the reasons that Jerusalem is considered
holy by Jews, Christians and Muslims, she again proves her bias
against Israel. Noting that Jerusalem is holy to Christians as the
place where Jesus was tried and crucified, and that it is holy to
Muslims as the place where Muhammed rose to heaven, she chooses
what is ultimately only a superficial reason to show its holiness
to Jews: the fact that it was the capital of King David’s kingdom.
While this is indeed true, the Jewish attachment to Jerusalem is
far deeper than this.

I wonder why Márquez did not see fit to mention that
Jerusalem was the site of the Temple, or that it remains the true
spiritual heart of the Jewish people. By belittling the Jewish
claim to Jerusalem, Márquez seems to be trying to assert that
the Jewish claim to Israel is illegitimate; such a claim truly has
no place in an article which purports to be straight news.

If an article endorses a particular view as "right," it is by
definition an opinion piece. I find it appalling that such
ignorance as is exposed in Márquez’s article exists; equally
appalling is the fact that the Daily Bruin would print such a piece
under the guise of a "news" article.

Rebecca Bluestein

First-year

English

Skewing the Middle East picture.

Comments to [email protected]