Last week, a letter from Noah Charney '02 and three current Amherst students accused Hillel of exhibiting a blindly pro-Israel bias that alienates Jewish students who are critical of Israeli policies. As the current president of Amherst Hillel, an active member of Hillel for the past two years and a Jewish student who does not blindly support the actions of Israel or any other nation, I find this accusation to be false.

Although Hillel is not a political organization, the reality of Judaism today is that Israel is always a topic of Jewish thought and conversation. To stand as the sole Jewish organization on campus and not say anything at all about Israel-the only Jewish state in the world, to which we have undeniable religious and cultural ties-would be to overlook an important part of our role on campus. Not to bring speakers and hold discussions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a major subject of interest to Jewish students, would be to neglect our responsibility to the Jewish community at Amherst.

Charney and his fellow signatories' claim that Hillel does not welcome diverse views is entirely based on misinformation or distortion of the facts. They purport that students on the Hillel e-mail list automatically receive e-mails from "an entirely separate organization that openly and unconditionally supports Israel." This is simply not true. Hillel distributes its e-mail list to no other organization and never has, and if more than one of the four signatories had expressed enough interest in Hillel to have been on the e-mail list, perhaps he or she would have known the facts.

During my two years at Amherst, Hillel has invited a number of speakers who represent diverse views on the state of Israel, including speakers who do not "consistently" and "without question" support all of Israel's policies. In addition to the recent talk by Jacob Dallal, the other speakers from the past two academic years were Etgar Lefkowitz, a reporter for The Jerusalem Post who spoke last October, a representative from Tikkun, an organization highly critical of Israeli policies, who spoke at an interfaith event in February 2004 and Sharon Shenhav, an Israeli women's rights activist who spoke in October 2003. Hillel has also spearheaded an ongoing effort to plan a panel discussion of Amherst professors with a wide and balanced spectrum of views on Israel, enabling students to discuss Israel in an unbiased forum. These are not the actions of an organization that stifles dissent, but the actions of one that supports a wide range of student opinions through a wide range of events.

The atmosphere Hillel fosters is inclusive of students with diverse opinions, faiths and backgrounds. Rather than expressing discontent without knowledge of the facts or the organization, I strongly encourage any student with an interest in being involved in Judaism on campus to attend Hillel events and to get involved in planning Hillel programming. You will find that Hillel does, in fact, go to great lengths on this campus not to alienate a single Jewish student.

Hilary Palevsky '07

Bush should not be grouped with Israel

Congratulations to Mike Page '05 for getting to the real core of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Turns out it isn't the Israelis or the Arabs themselves who are the problem, but those meddling Americans. Page asserts that "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been repackaged for an American audience, in language borrowed from Bush's speech writers, tapping into a feeling of post-9/11 vulnerability." See the sleight of hand? Page implies that if you disagree with Bush, then you must automatically disagree with Israel, because the U.S. and Israel are allies, right? Disregarding the fact that the current Intifada began before 9/11 and before Bush was in office, it should be noted that Israel has its own legitimate grievances against terrorism quite apart from the American sense of "post-9/11 vulnerability." The number of terrorist attacks in Israel over the past 4.5 years exceeds 300, including over 140 suicide bombings. The attacks have killed over 800 Israeli civilians in a population of only six million. In terms of per capita loss of life from terrorism, it is as though Israel has experienced America's 9/11 more than a dozen times over.

Nonetheless, I am in complete agreement with Page's assertion that we should "beware the coloring of complex realities with simple language: good versus evil, freedom versus oppression." Terrorism does not give Israel free reign to do whatever it wants militarily. Yet, if Page had studied the facts of Israel's Jenin campaign more closely, I believe that he would have found that the Israeli army took steps unprecedented in the history of warfare to protect innocent Palestinian civilians. Israeli soldiers went door-to-door to fight Palestinian militants rather than bombing them from afar and accepting the collateral damage of killing innocents. As a result, Israel lost 23 of its soldiers to Palestinian ambushes in Jenin. Yet, looking at comparable engagements in other countries-for example, the U.S. battle in Fallujah or the Russian army's leveling of Grozny, a city in Chechnya-one would be hard-pressed to say that the Israeli army did not act better than its peers in similar situations.

As Captain Dallal of the IDF conceded in his speech last Wednesday, mistakes were made in Jenin. Yet, it was not the Israelis but the international media which was guilty of "coloring complex realities with simple language." For example, the UK's Evening Standard, which was loathe to call Darfur a genocide until recently, nonetheless printed an article calling Israeli actions in Jenin, "a massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide," despite never having sent even one of its correspondents to enter Jenin! The BBC ran a report by a similarly uninformed "expert" during the conflict, who stated that "evidence of a massacre is growing." A UN Report later found no evidence of a massacre, but in the vacuum of information created by reporters not being able to enter Jenin due to heavy fighting, news outlets around the world automatically accepted the scenario that put Israel in the worst possible light. It is biased rhetoric like this that prevents any discussion on how to achieve lasting, fair peace in the Middle East.

Chris Pochon '07

Hillel reflects national positions

In last week's issue of The Student, two separate letters discussed the visit of Israeli soldier Jacob Dallal to Amherst College on March 30. Although I disagree with some of the sentiments of Michael Page '05's letter, I do respect his comments and consider them an acceptable reaction to a lecture about a controversial topic. I would, however, like to focus on the other letter, written by Noah Charney '02 and undersigned by three current students. In the letter, the foursome asserted two things: that Mr. Dallal's remarks were inappropriate and erroneous, and that Hillel, as a student organization, should be careful not to alienate Jews on campus by supporting Israel. I find these suppositions to be surprising, especially since not all the contributors to the letter even attended the lecture. Nonetheless, as co-chair of programming on the Hillel board, I feel it is my responsibility to respond to them.

While I do not intend to engage in a political discussion, I do want to rebut the argument that Hillel is discouraging Jews on campus from participating in the organization because it hosts such "controversial" events. I believe such an argument brings us to the core of the purpose of Hillel. The mission statement of Hillel, straight from the national Web site, is "to maximize the number of Jews doing Jewish with other Jews." This statement is a fundamental consideration for all Hillel programs, including Mr. Dallal's lecture.

At Amherst, Hillel actively attempts to reach out to all Jews on campus who want to do Jewish things. We run many programs each month that supplement our weekly Shabbat dinners. We publicize each of these events throughout the campus. But each event is actively Jewish. Our purpose, taken straight from our parent organization, is not to accommodate every Jew; it is to accommodate every Jew who wants to be Jewish and do Jewish things. The Jewish events we have held this year include a Hanukah party, a Jewish speed dating event and interfaith events. Each of these events served a particular, Jewish-oriented need, i.e. celebrating a holiday, matching Jews up or sharing religious traditions.

And we also invited a pro-Jewish, pro-Israel speaker. While I will be the first to admit that there are many sides to this Israeli-Palestinian debate, I cannot see how someone can argue that Hillel would be "doing Jewish" by ignoring their brethren in Israel, especially considering that Israel is the first homeland for Jews in thousands of years. On the contrary, it is "doing Jewish" to allow a fellow Jew to speak on the difficulties of dealing with an enduring conflict in his homeland.

Let me also direct you to the official Hillel Statement of Principles on Israel at http://cms.hillel.org/Hillel/Israel/Hillels+Statement+of+Principles+on+Israel. These policies outline the stance a college's Hillel is expected to take on issues regarding Israel. I realize that these positions may not echo the sentiments of every Jew, but no single organization could. Hillel's responsibility remains to provide the cultural and/or practicing Jew the opportunity to continue doing so during his or her college years. And I can comfortably say we do so.

Joshua Stein '08

The Church must avoid stagnation

Jamie Montana '08's article on the future of the papacy and the state of the Catholic Church was insightful, but I am dismayed that Mr. Montana seems to support the Church's current state of affairs. Mr. Montana's attitude is that, in choosing the next pope, the College of Cardinals knows best, and their judgment is inscrutable to laymen. It seems to me, however, that the choice of the next pope should be motivated by more than just dry theology if the Church wishes to remain a relevant and influential institution. Geographic and political considerations should also be taken into account. Latin America is home to the largest minority of the global Catholic population-some estimates state that Latin America has nearly half of the world's Catholics. Europe, the home of every pope in history, now contains only about 30 percent of the world's Catholics.

The Choice of a Latin American pope would not only recognize the importance of Catholics outside of Europe to the Church, but will also bring attention to the problems of political strife and poverty that plague too many Latin American nations. Mr. Montana's emphasizes Europe's failures to uphold human rights; what about the failures of dictatorships in the developing world, and the world's failure to care about these atrocities?

More disturbing than Mr. Montana's unwillingness to take a stand about the choice of the next pope, though, is his opposition to Church involvement in social progress. Mr. Montana rightly criticizes the Smith College Radical Catholic Feminist Alliance; neither "radical" nor "feminist" traditionally comes to mind when one thinks of the Catholic Church. Historically, the Church has only retarded social progress, and it remains inexcusably reactionary on many issues. Its anti-contraceptive stance is positively inhumane in the light of the AIDS pandemic. The Catholic priest's antiquated vow of celibacy has certainly not helped keep pedophiles out of the Church. The Church's refusal to ordain women and it's unconditional opposition to abortion is as anti-feminist as any institution can get. The Church's anti-feminist stances and it's hostility towards homosexuals, most recently displayed by Church officials' condemnation of the WorldPride 2005 Festival in Jerusalem, openly contradict Mr. Montana's assertion that the Church is the world's last defender of human rights.

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Church has been moving towards reform, and these remaining reactionary policies represent obstacles for the Church to overcome, not something to cling to. Pope John Paul II acted very much in the continuing spirit of Vatican II in his work for religious and cultural acceptance in the world and in his apologies for the Church's past failures; it would be folly for the Church to abandon this spirit of progress. Mr. Montana, however, would rather let the Church go stagnant than continue its movement towards reform and adaptation to modernity, and thus Mr. Montana's position is fundamentally anti-Catholic.

Patrick Harrison '08

Childish pranks are not 'civil discourse'

Last week, an employee of the College was perusing brochures at the Keefe Campus Center. She picked up a flyer by Birthright Israel advertising a free trip to Israel. She was stunned when she opened the first sheet of the handbill to find anti-Zionist graffiti scrawled on it. She opened each of the others in turn and found that all had similar expressions written on the inside of the front flap. Some of the statements were:

"Chosen people or chopped liver?"

"+ dead Arab souvenirs"

"Come see the new wall!!!"

"Theocracy rules!"

"U.S. citizenship isn't enough"

"Mine! Mine! Mine!"

"Who cares if they've been there for centuries?"

"To hell with the neighbors"

"Win a ride in an apache helicopter"

The "This week in Amherst history" section of the April 6 issue of The Student says that "Professor of American Studies Leo Marx stood up for a speaker's right to freedom of speech" in April of 1967. Amherst College has long promoted freedom of speech and the expression, debate, critique and development of ideas. Civil discourse is at the foundation of education.

Unfortunately, the statements quoted above are neither "civil" nor "discourse." This is not a freedom of speech issue, nor is it an appraisal of the validity of the comments. The problem here is methodology. The graffiti on the handbills were a form of aggressive verbal fire. They defaced the property of someone else. The statements allowed for no possible dialog because the writer failed to identify him or herself.

The Palestinian-Israeli tensions are some of the most important issues facing our world today. Thankfully, there has been progress recently with the new Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon entering into negotiations. I hope that we will be able to have reasoned discourse about these issues at Amherst and that feelings will not be inflamed by this unfortunate, childish prank.

Paul Sorrentino

Coordinator for Religious Life and Christian Fellowship Advisor

Host a student for the open house

In the Feb. 23 edition of The Student, the newspaper wrote an editorial entitled "Show Pride in the College: Host a prospective student." Thank you for offering this challenge to the student body. This weekend, on Sunday, April 17, Amherst will host its Admitted Students Open House, and we expect to house nearly 300 students for an overnight stay. With a student population of just over 1600, it is quite an undertaking to get futons and floor space for this many high school seniors. To the College's credit, we have always been able to find enough student volunteers to host all of our visiting accepted students. We write this letter not just to thank the staff of The Student for their encouraging editorial, but also to express our gratitude to those students who have been kind enough to host, and thereby share their Amherst experience with prospectives.

Again, on the behalf of the entire staff down in Wilson, thank you.

Eli Bromberg '02, Timothy Jones '05E, Julian Michael '04, John Quigley '04

Admission Fellows