Letters to the editor:

Israel column poorly informed

In the column by Nick Dang, “Attack on Syria not
justified” (Oct. 9), Dang could not be more wrong on so many
points even if he tried. It seems as though Dang did no research
whatsoever and only wrote about what he knew off the top of his
head.

Chiefly, he states that Israel was wrong in attacking Syria,
especially without (as he claims) first trying diplomatic means or
at least giving prior warning. If Dang had done a proper amount of
investigating, he would have seen that Israel has diplomatically
pressured Syria to stop sponsoring terrorism and has asked the
United States to do the same. He would have also seen that Israel
has given Syria warnings. Last month, after a cross-border shelling
by the Syrian-backed Hezbollah terror organization killed a student
in northern Israel, Israel flew a fighter jet ““ undetected by
Syrian radar and other air defense systems ““ directly over
President Bashar Assad’s residence. This served as a very
strong message to Syria to stop supporting terror
organizations.

Further, Dang states that “Israel should and will
undoubtedly face a huge international backlash for its actions in
Syria.” Once again, Dang’s lack of research belittles
his argument. Israel’s actions were in accordance with
international law; it attacked a country after being attacked by an
organization that country supports. Why doesn’t he chastise
Syria for its actions?

The U.N. Security Council, of which Syria itself is a current
member, overwhelmingly rejected the Syrian-drafted resolution
calling for a condemnation of Israel. Most of the countries in the
Security Council, including Russia and France, adamantly opposed
the resolution. Dang also states “the Israeli government gave
no proof of any direct connection between the recent suicide
bombing and … the air strike.” Yet again, he is wrong. The
Israeli government has made public intelligence on Damascus’
involvement with groups such as Islamic Jihad, the organization
responsible for the bombing.

As an educated political science student at UCLA, I would expect
Dang to have done more research before writing about such a highly
sensitive affair. The lack of declaring these very obvious and
easily accessible facts in his column leads me to believe that Dang
intentionally left them out in order to further anti-Israel
propaganda.

Gal Sitty Third-year, international
economics

Nick Dang’s column, “Attack on Syria not
justified” (Oct. 9), on Israel’s air strike against a
terrorist camp in Syria seems not just naively utopian, but
ignorant of history. 

He states that Israel should make its case to the international
community. What good would that do? Israel has done that for years,
and the world has yawned. Never has the United Nations effectively
stopped terrorist and aggressive actions against Israel; rather, it
has spent a large portion of its time condemning Israel for
retaliatory measures.

Dang also said Israel’s actions will upset its neighbors.
Gee, its neighbors already want Israel dead and buried. He
continues that Israel should warn terrorists prior to striking
back. I hope Dang is never in charge of a military defending
me.

Also, he mentions that neither side realizes the futility of
violence. Well, the Israelis accepted a three-state solution
(remember, Jordan is essentially a Palestinian Arab state) in the
1940s, but it was rejected on the Arabs’ part, who responded
with military attacks. Or do you think the fledgling Jewish state
decided to attack five surrounding Arab countries for fun?

In the case of this recent military action, Syria had been
warned for years not to support terrorist attacks. But a country
that has executed as many as 25,000 of its own citizens will not
stop or clean up terrorist groups in its territory just because
they are asked nicely.

I’ve seen the areas in the Golan Heights where the Syrians
used to shell Israeli farms. Do you consider Syrian attacks on
farmers the moral equivalent of Israel going after militant terror
groups? The way to end violence between the Israelis and the Arabs
is for the Arabs to truly accept Israel’s existence and end
the attacks on it.

Jonathan Matthew UCLA alumnus

Bush unfairly linked to Web site

Lisa Concoff’s submission (“Bush intends only to
snub LGBT couples,” Oct. 10) was very interesting, but aside
from Bush’s statement that marriage is a “union between
a man and a woman,” I fail to see Concoff’s argument
for his hatred.

I see very clearly that a Web site set up by Bush supporters is
a “site spewing hatred,” but where exactly does Bush
give sanction to the site, or promote it? And why exactly is the
president not allowed to refer to marriage as being specifically
between a man and a woman? If his belief system dictates that this
is what marriage is, shouldn’t he be allowed to say so? He
doesn’t make a proclamation of sinfulness in non-heterosexual
couples. He doesn’t say all non-heterosexuals are heathens to
be banished beyond the borders of this country. He makes a
statement of his belief, not insinuating that anybody else should
believe what he does.

If the president of the United States can’t have his First
Amendment right to freedom of worship or speech, then what
guarantee is there for mine?

Nathan Deer Third-year, psychobiology

Progressives often close-minded

As a UCLA alumnus, I read Lisa Concoff’s Viewpoint
submission (“Bush intends only to snub LGBT couples,”
Oct. 10) with serious interest. At the end of the article, I felt a
sense of concern that often accompanies viewpoints similar to
these: Why is it that when a politician or any ordinary American
objects to legalizing gay marriage he is considered to be hateful
and narrow-minded, yet when a gay marriage proponent objects with
the same passion to a conservative policy like the one that
President Bush advocates, she remains immune from the accusations
of intolerance and discrimination? By advocating affirmative
action, gay marriage, and free immigration, one is considered an
activist; by opposing these policies, one is considered a racist,
homophobic bigot.

In my personal experience, this double standard appears
particularly acute on college campuses such as UCLA, as well as in
large urban centers such as San Francisco and New York. I am not
sure when our community (college students, professors, urban
dwellers) became so intolerant of those who dare to disagree with a
“progressive” agenda, but I do know that such militant
behavior does not typically serve our causes well.

How many more Proposition 187, Proposition 209, and Defense of
Marriage Acts need to be enacted before we recognize that advocates
of these policies deserve a minimum level of respect before we
begin raising the tired accusations of racism, sexism and
homophobia? Unlike the militant activists affiliated with many
progressive causes, at least Bush extends the courtesy of tolerance
and compassion to those who disagree with him.

We can continue to isolate ourselves on our college campuses and
in our big cities, dismissing those who dare to disagree with us as
ignorant, American-centric racist homophobes. Alternatively, we can
take back the stewardship of the progressive movement from the
radical militants and begin practicing the tolerance and
deliberation that complex issues such as gay marriage, affirmative
action, and immigration truly deserve. I hope we chose the
latter.

Daniel D. Walker Business economics, Class of
1997

Prop. 54 editorial misses the point

The editorial regarding the defeat of Prop. 54 gives the correct
assessment that the initiative was not defeated because of flawed
language, but then incorrectly assumes that the public defeated it
because the whole idea was bad.

The point of the initiative was to move toward a color-blind
society where we are all classified as human beings and not divided
by race. It was to protect us from our invasive government’s
classifications. The reason it was defeated was because the
propaganda against it portrayed it as ruining California health
care and law enforcement.

The editorial criticizes Ward Connerly for sticking to his
vision of a color-blind society. (He is working now to make clear
that health care and law enforcement will be exempted from a new
proposition he wants passed.)

What’s wrong with his dream? It is not up to the state to
stop racism, but the state should be as color-blind as possible. It
will never be able to change the way some people will feel. It is
up to us as private citizens to discourage racism by protesting and
boycotting those that insist on clinging to their bigoted ways.

Joseph Groff Fourth-year, history