Letters To the Editor

Despite Claims, LionPAC Reflection Should Be More Objective

To the Editor:

Contrary to Mujib Mashal’s assertions in “A Reflection on the LionPAC Rally,” speakers at the Jan. 26 LionPAC rally did indeed acknowledge the victimization of innocent Gazans during the recent war. They also pointed out, as Mashal should have but did not, that the Hamas terrorist organization is responsible for those victims. I know of no authority that disputes the fact that Hamas terrorists brought the warfare to Gaza population centers by establishing military bases, ammunition dumps, weapons factories, etc. within and adjacent to residential complexes. They also used civilians as human shields, behind whom they fired their lethal rockets into Israel. According to international law these are war crimes, plain and simple. What about the Israeli casualties—among them a mother of four and a seven-year-old boy—which Mashal does not mention? Are Israeli Jewish victims of no concern to him? An honest dialogue must emphasize the total disregard for Palestinian and Israeli civilian lives, demonstrated by the elected terrorist regime that rules Gaza. Hamas makes no secret of its aims to destroy Israel, but the Jewish people have faced threats to their existence many times throughout history. Israel is a successful, modern, and technologically sophisticated country that has greatly improved the quality of life of Jews and Arabs. Gazans could share these dividends if they recommit to peaceful coexistence and repudiate the hateful Hamas agenda that has caused so much ruination.

Dr. Leonard M. Druyan, senior research scientist and member, Scientists for Peace in the Middle East
Jan. 30, 2009

Although Creative, Idea To Defend Apathy Is Not Worthwhile

To the Editor:

In “The Stench of Politics,” columnist Philip Petrov writes sardonically, “the arguments [against apathy] form a trinity so holy that few of us are profane enough to openly defend apathy.” People who care about politics, he continues, are afraid of people who don’t. It follows, according to Petrov, that since no one expresses that fear, we are “ashamed” to admit our “paranoia.”

The editorial overcomplicates the issue on one hand and oversimplifies it on the other. It overcomplicates what politics is and oversimplifies its application. Politics is a fancy way of describing a compromise. It’s just the best way we know of handling any issue in which lots of different people think lots of different things. Politics isn’t any particular idea. Democratic policies—and the politics that surround them—are how any group coordinates, as best it can, the group’s aggregate best interest. An interest in politics is an interest in the results of those policies. Politics, then, isn’t something to disdain as a means of “hid[ing] the fact that one has nothing to say” as Petrov states, because representing your own interest isn’t saying nothing.

The issue of who participates and to what degree makes a difference. By ignoring this fact, Petrov oversimplifies how democratic policies work. The more active the participation in the decision-making process, the more accurately the final group decision will reflect the desires of each member of the group. In other words, the more apathy there is, the more likely the policies decided upon by the group are to disregard the best interests of the apathetic in favor of the involved.

Political apathy is a somewhat creative idea to defend at Columbia, where so much of the institution’s history consists of political activism. But when you defend political apathy, you defend your right to exclude yourself from decisions about your own well-being. And what makes that worthwhile?

Richard Falk-Wallace, CC ’12
Feb. 2, 2009

Article Misconstrued Criticism Of Bollinger and Its Context

To the Editor:

The article “Coalition Rallies For Gaza,” published Jan. 28, completely misconstrued the context of my remarks about Columbia’s President, Lee Bollinger. My comments about Bollinger had nothing whatsoever to do with “the University’s role during the attacks” in Gaza, nor with Bollinger’s presumed failure to condemn them. It would be rather naïve to expect the president of an elite U.S. university to do such an honorable thing as condemn Israel’s unrelenting holocaust against Palestinians, and it certainly makes little sense to demand that an academic administrator resign for his perfectly predictable silence regarding such obscene brutality.

What I did refer to was Bollinger’s aggressive response in 2002 to the faculty-initiated petition for divestment of the University’s funds from businesses involved with the Israeli military. Asserting his official role as University President, Bollinger disparaged the analogy between Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people and South African apartheid as “grotesque” and “offensive.” Thus, on that occasion, Bollinger established himself publicly as an apologist for the state of Israel’s war crimes and genocide. Indeed, Bollinger thereby positioned himself far to the right of even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and CBS’s 60 Minutes, who have frankly characterized Israel’s systematic confinement, degradation, and deprivation of the vast majority of the Palestinian people as, precisely, apartheid.

For his truly flagrant abuse of the power of his office, and the coercive and silencing force of intimidation he thereby exerted against dissent on this campus, as well as his numerous subsequent transgressions against free speech—for this disgraceful legacy of offenses against our faculty and students—Bollinger should be called on to resign. At minimum, he ought to apologize to the Columbia community and retract his craven apologetics for Israeli apartheid. Until then, Bollinger has truly earned the title “President Grotesque.”

Nicholas De Genova, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology
Jan. 28, 2009

LionPAC Seeks Peace For Both Sides, Not Just For Israelis

To the Editor:

Mujib Mashal’s Op-Ed featured in Spectator last Wednesday, “A Reflection on the LionPAC Rally,” claims that the rally’s statements connoted “a lack of concern for the lives of over a thousand Palestinians.” Instead of showing solidarity with the Palestinian victims, it claims, “they have expressed unequivocal support for those who took innocent lives in Gaza.” This narrow-minded, demonizing, and scathing reproach towards the rally approaches slander. Did the rally’s detractors break away from their Low Steps counter-protest for just 10 minutes to see what they were protesting?

From its title, “Rally of Solidarity and Peace for Israel and its Neighbors,” it is clear that the rally was not only concerned with Israel’s security against Hamas terrorists, but also LionPAC’s hope for a lasting peace and coexistence with its Middle Eastern neighbors. The rally commenced with a moment of silence for both Israelis and Palestinians who have died from the fighting, which is indicative of LionPAC’s unshakable support and empathy for the Palestinian people. Signs held by pro-Israel supporters expressed nothing but peaceful and proactive messages. Signs saying, “Free Gaza from Hamas,” “Israel Wants Peace,” and one presenting a peace symbol constructed out of an Israeli and Palestinian flag dominated the scene. Contrast these signs with those from the “Speak Out for Gaza” rally that yelled “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” and “End Israel’s 60-Year Occupation,” implying support of the complete obliteration of the State of Israel. LionPAC’s rally concluded with a prayer exclusively dedicated to the children of Gaza.

LionPAC representatives at the “Rally for Peace for Israel and its Neighbors” vociferously insisted that they were both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, but most importantly, pro-peace. As stated during the rally, LionPAC “looks forward to the day when Palestine can develop as a vibrant and prosperous neighbor to Israel.” It seems that those opposed to LionPAC’s rally simply chose to ignore any peaceful messages it conveyed. The rally’s messages and objectives were strikingly twisted and misrepresented by its detractors and it is crucial that those against the rally know what it truly stands for. Mashal asserted that “our personal biases become obstacles on our way to comprehending a situation thoroughly,” and it seems his own biases did indeed interfere with his ability to comprehend our messages of compassion and solidarity. The truth of the situation is that LionPAC wants peace and prosperity for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

Loren Berman, GS/JTS ’12 (List College)
February 3, 2009