I am writing this in response to Alexandra Gekas' article on March 1, 2004, \Wall not the answer to Middle East conflict."" The first sentence in the fourth paragraph states, ""Since 1948 Israel has slowly acquired more and more pieces of the land that was allotted to the Palestinians for a state by the United Nations."" Common sense would normally dictate a follow up to this sentence stating the reasons, if any, Israel has ""stole"" from the Palestinians. Unfortunately, Gekas does not give any reasons.
She fails to mention that the Palestinians refused to accept the U.N. agreements in 1948, dividing land in the Middle East into two separate states, and that the day after Israel's independence, that country was attacked by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Though almost surrounded and attacked by five nations, Israel won the war. In 1956, the government of Egypt illegally nationalized the Suez Canal, prompting military responses from not only Israel, but Britain and France as well. In 1967, Egypt's government ordered U.N. troops out of their territory, (they had been placed there as peace-keepers after the 1956 war) and illegally began to militarize the Sinai in preparation for an attack on Israel. The Israelis responded with force and defeated the Egyptians in six days, but gave the conquered land in the Sinai back to Egypt. In 1973 Israel was again attacked by Egypt and Syria on Judaism's holiest day, and again the Arab forces were defeated.
Another question for Gekas is why don't the other Arab states in the region donate some of their land to the Palestinians? If they care enough for the Palestinian cause, why not realize they cannot defeat Israel and just give the Palestinians land for a state? Also, does Gekas not realize the peace process will always stall so long as the Palestinians continue to bomb civilians in Israel?
And since Gekas feels so much sympathy for displaced Palestinians, I am sure she would be happy to agree that the other Arab states such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan give back the land they stole from Jews after World War II, when each of these newly independent states forced Jews from their homes, took all their possessions, and forced them to leave the country. When the Arab countries agree to that, I will be screaming along with Alexandra for Israel give land to the Palestinians.
We are writing in response to the opinion piece, ""Question the validity of women's studies,"" by Nitin Julka. The women's studies program is not just ""political indoctrination,"" but rather an interdisciplinary study of law, theory, history, literature, biology and psychology. The assertion that women's studies classes are all ""male-bashing"" and ""therapy sessions"" is not only incorrect, but rather reflects the male-centered notion that women's studies is actually about men.
The women's studies program aims to create a critical framework about all hegemonic notions in society to foster a more inclusive environment for people of all races, classes and sexualities. Just as in other academic disciplines there is often heated discussion and deliberation, but women studies fosters an environment for critical debate and analyzes all viewpoints.
Julka's use of sources is out of context. He cites Marilyn Frye, who said, ""women are rigorously required to be sexual with and for men,"" and inferred it to mean that heterosexuality is a social construction. Frye's point was that women's sexuality is too often defined by and for the male gaze, instead of giving women sexual agency.
Furthermore, Julka attempts to demystify the ""myth"" of the gender wage gap by saying that it does not take into account education, hours worked, or experience. However, Julka is missing the point that the wage gap is evidence of the inequality in education, childcare and business hierarchies that keep women from high-paying positions. Women's studies works to find and expose these underlying problems, and this is a valid, serious and important academic discipline.
Nathan Arnold had no basis whatsoever for his article Tuesday, berating the Vote 2004 Coalition's honorable effort to register and educate voters [""More than a patriotic experience: Vote 2004 increases turnout but shortchanges students""]. His first mistake was assuming that the coalition (which everyone knows implies a collaboration of groups) is solely an ASM venture. WisPIRG, the New Voter's Project, the student Republicans and Democrats, and WUD are just a few of the major organizations equally involved in the coalition. Secondly, Arnold also failed to mention that the coalition's two goals are voter registration and voter education. The Democratic primary was a great opportunity for the coalition to register voters, but since the coalition is required to be non-partisan, providing information solely about Democratic candidates would be against policy. The coalition did, however, organize an informational session that highlighted representatives from all student groups dealing with political issues. The organizations could answer questions, distribute information and recruit volunteers. Part of voter education includes helping students learn where and how to vote and register, something ASM has worked hard to teach. Arnold, in his naivete of ""all things vote,"" is also obviously unaware of the effort to create a voter guide for distribution next fall. Since the election is in fall, the voter guide will surely be most relevant next semester. It will include information about presidential, senatorial and city council candidates. Arnold should do some research next time before submitting his opinion, for he has made himself look like a fool, while harming the worthy efforts of the Vote 2004 Campaign.
UW-Madison junior
Jessica Rane Gartner's article on Tuesday regarding student athlete violence [""How do student athletes get away with violence""] ignores one of the basic tenets of our society's concept of justice, i.e., that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. It would be a violation of this basic ideal for them to be punished by the state (which, of course, includes the university) before they have been found guilty in a court of law. Simply because Wade, Smith and others have been charged with a crime does not mean that they are guilty. They deserve due process, just like anyone else in their situation.
If and when any of the athletes mentioned in the article is convicted, then I fully support his expulsion from the team and university and punishment up to the maximum penalty under the law. Nothing is more sickening in our culture than when athletes or celebrities receive lenient sentences after conviction. That is the real problem that ought to be addressed, not increasing punishment for individuals that, as far a we know, are innocent. It hurts the players and the university to suspend them based solely on allegations; it is our responsibilty as citizens not to give into sensationalism and immediately assume every athlete accused of a crime is guilty.
