Letters

Kim, Palestinians both mistaken

James Kim’s claim (““˜Occupied’
lands rightfully won in defensive war,” Viewpoint, April
9) that Israel rightfully won the occupied territories in a
defensive war ignores the hypocrisy of Israel’s position.

On the one hand, it claims that the West Bank and Gaza are now
part of one big Israel. Yet the Arabs who lived on that land when
it was taken were not included in that vision of Israel. By
annexing the land but not the people who live on it, Israel is
trying to have it both ways.

Israel should either grant the Palestinians full Israeli
citizenship or pull out and let them form their own country. No
people should be without a state or without a voice in how their
government is run.

This however, does not excuse the Palestinians’ perverse
glorification of terrorists. In choosing leaders of stature like
Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, the blacks of South Africa took
the moral high ground and rallied world opinion for their cause. By
choosing instead to perpetuate a pointless cycle of revenge and
call for the destruction of all Israel, the Palestinians have
failed to learn the valuable lessons that the South Africans taught
us. The Palestinians will never gain their freedom by destroying
the freedom of others.

Chris Norlin UCLA alumnus Class of 1988

Reparations aren’t unconstitutional

One would think a second-year political science student like
Gail Mootry would have learned the value of attention to detail
when attempting to make a cogent argument. But, in her letter
(“Reparations
are unconstitutional,” Viewpoint, April 5), she
incorrectly interprets the United States Constitution and
misconstrues the point of the letter she criticizes.

Mootry claims that recovery in reparations suits is prohibited
by the U.S. Constitution as an “ex post facto”
punishment. She is only half-correct. While the Constitution does
indeed prohibit ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court has
determined that this provision only applies to criminal sanctions.
The government may not make a particular action against a criminal
violation after it has been committed. Because the reparations
lawsuits are not criminal proceedings, the ex post facto argument
is moot.

Additionally, Mootry seems to believe that the letter she is
bashing (“Reparations
suits not baseless,” Viewpoint, April 3) is making the
contention that reparations lawsuits should succeed. However, the
letter in question merely disputed Bruin columnist Ben
Shapiro’s assertion that such lawsuits are
“baseless”. This is a very low standard. Even a lawsuit
that is prohibited because of a statute of limitations would not
fall into the “baseless” category. The letter simply
stated that reparation suits are not utterly without merit, or
“baseless”. A determination of the validity of the
reparations claim would require a considerable amount of research
into legal precedent as well as a critical review of the propriety
of procedural posture.

Finally, Mootry’s attempt to distinguish slavery in the
United States from the persecution of Jews by the Nazi regime fails
because its essential contention is false. Mootry says
“Hilter’s crimes were carried out with the endorsement
of the national government, but slavery in the United States was
essentially the action of individuals or groups of
individuals.” This is far from correct. The U.S. Constitution
counted slaves as a fraction of a person each, and fugitive slave
laws required non-slave states to return slaves to their owners if
they escaped. Most would concede that these laws and others
constitute government endorsement of slavery.

Dan Hernacki First-year Law