Alumnus supports divestment from Israel

To the Daily:

I would like to thank the Daily for printing the article,
Israeli commission criticizes police force (09/02/03), which
reports that “the Jewish state has systematically neglected its
Arab minority.” Last May, the Israel Democracy Institute, an
Israeli research institute based in Jerusalem, released its annual
report studying the quality of Israeli democracy and how well it
functions. Describing their findings as “alarming,” the IDI
concluded that “Israel has not yet acquired the characteristics of
a substantive democracy.”

While the American public is constantly inundated with claims of
“democracy” as an umbrella justification for all of Israel’s
intransigencies and war crimes, we are now seeing that in fact
Israel fails in a main tenet of any democracy: equality under the
law. That non-Jewish citizens of the state are systematically and
institutionally discriminated in all areas, such as land
dispossession and allocation, education, language, economics,
culture, and political participation, is further evidence. This
does not even take into consideration the disenfranchisement of 3.6
million Palestinians living under a brutal Israeli military

Many scholars and academics have begun to brand this political
system as an “ethnocracy.” Universally, this is known as apartheid.
In 1984, the University divested from apartheid in South Africa.
Given this precedent, there are more than enough reasons for the
University to now divest from Israeli apartheid.

Fadi Kiblawi


Editorial blurs distinction between bias and opinion

In the editorial Opine here (09/02/03), the Daily defends
itself against criticisms of bias by claiming that biases, while
improper in news articles, are necessary to argue an editorial
opinion. The Daily has blurred the distinction between bias and

I must concede that the Daily is technically correct. By
definition, an editorial should be biased. However, too many Daily
editorials blindly justify their arguments. They often acknowledge
the opposing viewpoint, but rarely reason their viewpoint in
relation to the opposing viewpoint. Daily editorials tend to say,
“Here’s what I think, not much else exists and I’m correct.” Yes,
editorials should express strong opinions, but they should not
cursorily analyze the opposing view. I agree with the Daily that
editorials should be opinionated, outrageous, and even biased
(technically defined). However, the Daily is missing the point of
the readers’ criticisms. Readers aren’t criticizing the content or
opinion of editorials; they are criticizing the style. We readers
love shocking editorials. However, we ask that you put more thought
into your editorials and write them without the non-technical bias.
Please consider the opposing point of view more and tell us why
your point of view is superior. This will keep your opinionated
editorial free of bias.

Scott Schlimmer

LSA senior














Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.