This past Wednesday, Hillel sponsored a speaker from Israel to defend the war crimes committed by the Israeli army in Jenin in 2002. Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a study documenting many such crimes, including "a fifty-seven-year-old wheelchair-bound man who was shot and run over by a tank on a major road outside the camp on April 10, even though he had a white flag attached to his wheelchair," a "paralyzed man who was crushed in the rubble of his home on April 7 despite his family's pleas to be allowed to remove him," the repeated use of human shields by Israeli soldiers, the targeting of medical personnel, and the bulldozing of hundreds of homes.

While HRW concluded that the "Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes," the speaker denied that any such acts were perpetrated. Why? Because Jacob Dallal is a Captain in the Israeli Defense Forces Spokespersons' Unit, a "media liaison." That means he is a PR guy, a propaganda tool. He has no function other than to persuade people that the administration he works for is righteous. In his own word, his task is to provide "spin."

Our problem is this: Hillel purports to represent Judaism on campus, describing themselves as "not a political organization." Yet they consistently bring speakers who, without question, whole-heartedly support the military and political policies of the government of Israel. In addition, being on the Hillel email list, one frequently receives emails from an entirely separate organization that openly and unconditionally supports Israel. As Jews who would like to attend Hillel functions, but do not support military oppression, we are alienated. Hillel fosters an atmosphere that says that to believe in the Jewish faith, you must defend and deny the human rights abuses committed by Israel.

Can we not believe in Judaism and also challenge the policies and military actions of the state of Israel? Can our campus please distinguish between being Jewish and doggedly supporting Israel? If Hillel insists on taking part in the politics of Israel, can they please also sponsor speakers from organizations such as Jewish Voices for Peace?

Noah Charney '02

Davi Lakind '06

Zachary Mason '08

Sarah Sorscher '05

Dallal's views are short-sighted

I hate terrorism. I find it morally deplorable. In this I am in agreement with Jacob Dallal, a spokesman for and captain in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), who spoke at Amherst last Wednesday. Beginning by criticizing the media's inflation of the death toll in the 2002 incursion into Jenin, Dallal went on to justify the Israeli military's methods in the "Israeli–Terrorist" conflict.

Anybody catch that? Here I thought Israel was in a conflict with the Palestinians, but Dallal seldom referred to the native inhabitants of Palestine, framing the conflict entirely between Israelis from within and terrorists from without.

In his conclusion, Dallal challenged each one of us to create our own definition of terrorism-his was the wanton killing of civilians for a psychological end, namely fear-to agree that it is morally unacceptable. Ten minutes earlier Dallal had emphasized Israel's military objective in the occupied territories: to convince the Palestinians that they will achieve nothing through terror. And how did they hope to achieve this psychological effect on the Palestinian people? There is the "security fence" for starters, then the bulldozing of homes, the 24 hour curfews, the checkpoints, the identification cards, the lack of food, water and medical supplies and, oh yes, the military occupation. But-Dallal emphatically stressed-the difference is that the Israeli military has never intentionally killed a Palestinian civilian. Oh, of course not, because that would make it state-sponsored terrorism, right? Hey, you said it, not me.

The Amnesty International executive summary of the Jenin incursion, 2002, cites the bulldozing of a middle-aged disabled man, despite his family's pleas and legitimate documentation that he needed help from soldiers to move him: "The soldiers refused to help and soon after a bulldozer approached the house. The family yelled at the driver to stop. He did not, and Jamal Fayed, still trapped inside the house, was killed."

In another incident, two little boys were killed despite a public statement by the IDF that the curfew had been lifted.

According to the Amnesty International report, 54 people died in the Jenin incursion, with an estimated half being civilian. This number is only two greater than the IDF's estimate. I don't know how many civilian deaths are required to earn the title "massacre." I guess more than 27.

Beware the rhetoric of the "war on terror." Beware the coloring of complex realities with simple language: Good versus Evil, Freedom versus Oppression. American opinion-your opinion-has tremendous influence in the actions of the Israeli government. It is no surprise then that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been repackaged for an American audience, in language borrowed from Bush's speech writers, tapping into a post-9/11 feeling of vulnerability, and comparing the "collateral damage" of Israeli human rights abuses to those in our own occupation of Iraq. It is this kind of rhetoric that disregards the lives of the Palestinian people, halts constructive dialogue, and stands resolutely in the way of peace.

Michael Page '05

Sharaf took pot-shot at Bearcats

Was it really necessary for Mr. Sharaf to take an unwarranted shot against the overachieving University of Cincinnati Bearcats in his March 23 column? Unheralded and unranked prior to the season, not only did the Bearcats end the season ranked in the top 25 in the polls, but in the completely objective RPI as well. They should have and could have beaten the hated Kentucky Wildcats but for some bad decisions by their point guard towards the end of the game. While their record against rated teams was admittedly disappointing, all of their games, except against Illinois, were competitive and in doubt until the closing moments. My fellow Bearcat fans are still grieving and seeing them called "overrated" in such a dismissive way was a case of receiving the proverbial kick while being very, very down.

Stephen R. Bruns

Network upgrade currently unneeded

I'd like to thank Jenny Kim for showing interest in the College's decision to not upgrade to Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) at this time, in her article in the March 23 Student, "College has no plans to upgrade network." There are, however, a couple of points I'd like to add.

This coming summer or fall, the College will upgrade its network by connecting to Internet2. We will be able to support connections to resources on Internet2 without regard to whether we are running IPv4 or IPv6. We will not go to the difficulty and expense of that upgrade without ensuring we can connect our community to any Internet2-based services and resources our network users need. If one of those connections requires IPv6, we will have ways to ensure the connection can be made. And, everyone should realize that IPv6 is already in wide use in Europe and Asia. Wherever addresses are in short supply, the option of using the IPv6 address schema is available and within the reach of anyone needing to use it. Amherst College will start using IPv6 when it needs to. In the meantime, staying on IPv4 is not a barrier to anything anyone on our network needs to do and does not disenfranchise others.

Thomas A. Warger

Interim Director

Information Technology Services