Letters

Jones’ actions don’t represent DB or
SURE I am writing in response to the two letters published
Tuesday regarding my actions during last Thursday’s
election-night festivities (“Jones exhibited inappropriate
behavior,” “Empowerment! does not stoop to
insults,” Viewpoint, May 7). First, my actions in uprooting a
SURE sign and bringing it to the steps of Kerckhoff Hall were my
own. Any imputation that may have reflected on me as a columnist,
as a Daily Bruin staffer, or the paper itself, are simply wrong. I
took a personal action that has resulted in the strongest possible
sanction ““ my firing as a Daily Bruin columnist ““ and
there is nothing more to it than that. Second, my actions had
nothing to do with the SURE slate, or any alleged affiliation I may
have had with them. I never campaigned on their behalf, and with
the exception of a single sentence in a column, never even
advocated for them. My criticism of Student Empowerment! does not
imply any favoritism for the opposing slate. In fact, I only stood
with the SURE supporters that night because I was collecting
information for a post-election column. The Student Empowerment!
group, it must be noted, met my early requests for comment with
hostility and silence. Last, both letter writers have deliberately
altered the sequence of events. I was not heckling their side
before I uprooted the sign. In fact, placing the sign at the top of
the steps was a sign of silent support for the SURE slate’s
brave stand against a numerically superior group. It was not
intended to antagonize anyone physically or verbally. Also note
that both letter-writers neglected to mention Student
Empowerment!’s reaction to the peaceful display of the SURE
sign. Hardly missing a beat, they immediately began chanting
“Bullshit!” for several minutes. That was the point at
which I said out loud (though certainly not at a
“shout”) “Hate me because I hate you!” It
was a visceral reaction to their unreasoning hostility. My actions
of last Thursday were not the most well-considered, and led to a
huge personal loss for me. But I will not tolerate the spread of
misinformation about my actions, and I will not stand by while the
SURE slate is wrongly maligned for any alleged association or
masterminding of my actions. I alone took the actions, I alone have
paid the consequences, and I will not let the truth be distorted by
partisans from another slate.

Andrew Jones Third-year Former Viewpoint
columnist

Israel has shown regard for civilian life In
his submission, Al-Samarrai harshly criticizes the United States
and Israel in what he calls their “alleged” wars on
terrorism (“Actions endangering civilians wrong regardless of
perpetrator” Viewpoint, May 7). Al-Samarrai virtually ignores
these two countries’ rights to self defense and completely
ignores the fact that these countries’ civilian populations
were continually and brutally attacked. Further, Al-Samarrai blames
the United Nations’ Oil for Food sanctions program for
starving the Iraqi people when it is explicit in its name that the
program is designed to do otherwise. Al-Samarrai fails to mention
that Saddam has been illegally building up his army, developing
weapons of mass destruction, and sending $25,000 to the families of
homicide bombers in Israel, all the while claiming he doesn’t
have money to feed his people. Al-Samarrai attempts to make us
believe that Iraq did not pose a threat to the entire middle east
during the Persian Gulf War and that it only attacked Kuwait
because of oil related issues, yet Saddam himself said that the
attack on Kuwait was to regain land that truly belonged to the
Iraqi people. Continuing on Israel’s war on terrorism,
Al-Samarrai states that Israel’s actions are
counter-productive and that Israel is trying “to win support
of the Palestinians by imitating the U.S.” This could not be
a more inaccurate interpretation of the truth. Israel’s only
reason for conducting Operation Defensive Shield was to protect
Israelis and not to gain the support of the Palestinians, and if
Israel were actually imitating the United States it would have
carpet-bombed the West Bank as the United States did in
Afghanistan. Instead, Israel risks the lives of it soldiers to hunt
out only those responsible for terror. The fact is that never in
history has any military force conducted an operation with as much
regard for civilian life as the Israel Defense Forces did in its
counter-terror action. Al-Samarrai claims that his critics are
trying to justify killing civilians as a by-product of war, yet it
is exactly those he opposes, the Israeli military, who attempt not
to kill civilians and those he supports, the Palestinian Authority,
who openly and publicly try to kill as many civilians as they
can.

Gal Sitty First-Year Bush’s leniency with
Israel is good policy In his heart, I think Bush knows that there
will be no peace in Palestine until Arafat is somehow
decommissioned. Bush allowed Powell to stick his neck into the fray
and declared, emptily, that “enough is enough,” which
only served to placate pro-Palestinian critics who see Bush’s
handling of the situation roughshod and simplistic. To demonstrate
his administration’s neutrality, and as a show of good faith,
Bush expressed disdain regarding Israel’s actions but has not
followed through with any action, which is a clue to his true
convictions about the conflict. He knows any efforts to negotiate
with Arafat and his all-or-nothing agenda will fail, just as they
have in the past. What the Bush-bashers don’t understand is
that it is possible to be a neutral intercessor and still recognize
the culpability of the aggressor. Bush knows that entertaining
demands of terrorists, like Arafat’s followers, and
maintaining that a nation should not be able to defend itself is to
hold an undue bias for the terrorist regime. Israel has never
booby-trapped its homes to avoid justice, slain civilians for
murder’s sake, or strapped bombs to its children and sent
them out to kill. The same cannot be said of the
“Arafatians.” Israel is a sovereign state that has a
right to exist, and has seen all attempts at peace with Arab
Palestinians fail miserably. Bush, who I believe values moral
equality over anything else, in spite of what he says to
detractors, knows that the Palestinians are wrong for resorting to
suicide bombing civilians and sponsoring terrorism to make a
political statement. His apparent leniency with respect to the
Israeli incursions speaks louder than words. In this way, Bush is
perfectly justified in accepting Israel’s efforts to protect
itself. J. Daniel Williams First-Year Chemical
Engineering DB editorial on nurses shows lack of
research I have been a registered nurse since 1968. Your
editorial regarding the nurses’ possible strike was obviously
not based on facts or statistical data (“Money tight for all;
nurses no exception,” Viewpoint, May 7). I recommend that you
do some research on this subject before printing
something. The results will cause you to change your point of
view. It is obvious that none of you has ever worked with a nurse
at the bedside or been a patient in a hospital. The Daily
Bruin usually does an excellent job of investigative
reporting. I recommend you do it before writing another
editorial.   Karen Martin, MN,RNCS
Increased party nightlife will not help Westwood
I’m writing in response to your May 7 editorial (“Crest
Bailout will not save Village economy,” Viewpoint, May 7).
I’m a bit unclear on the Editorial Board’s intent. As I
understand it, the Westwood ban on activities such as dancing and
billiards, and the limited bar scene in general, is a direct result
of several incidents in the 1980s where Westwood’s quite
rowdy atmosphere was blamed in multiple student deaths. Since then,
the community completely curbed the out-of-control party atmosphere
of the Village and the fraternity system, which occurred
simultaneously with UCLA attracting a more elite academic student
body. UCLA’s jump from party school to exceptional university
went hand in hand with Westwood’s transformation from
gin-soaked college town to chic dining hotspot. I don’t think
the answer to Westwood’s problems are more big-screen TVs. If
the community wants to preserve its rich picture palace history, it
should support the local theatres, restaurants, and boutiques that
make Westwood such a charming Los Angeles destination in what I
find to be an otherwise lackluster city when it comes to quaint,
welcoming nightlife environments. In my four years at UCLA I was
known to patronize the likes of Maloney’s and Westwood Brew
Co. several times a week, but for those who really want a better
party town, transfer to San Diego State. If the author’s
point was actually that businesses south of Wilshire need to draw
more upon the UCLA student body, both as patrons and employees, I
agree wholeheartedly. Robert Bucksbaum, whom I ““ and about a
dozen other Bruins ““ worked for while attending UCLA, also
agrees, which is the reason he plans to hire as many Bruins on the
Crest Theatre staff as possible and create new student prices and
more frequent college-targeted content in the films he plays. I
think drawing on the 30,000 plus students less than a mile away is
a great step towards some of these businesses increasing their
traffic, and that’s what will really save the Westwood
economy. Adam Farasati Alumnus (2001)
Another suicide bombing proves Israel right The
last suicide Palestinian terrorist attack that killed 16 people and
injured more than 60, is the best proof that Israel has to take
back the territories that were given to the Palestinians in past
peace negotiations. No attacks were perpetuated while Arafat was
confined in his headquarters in Ramallah. Only after Israel
destroys all the terrorist organizations protected by Arafat can
negotiations for the disputed territories restart and only then can
Palestinians have a chance for their statehood. Gabriel
Patrich Vancouver B.C.