Letters To The Editor
By
I was deeply saddened and disgusted with last issue’s editorial regarding the decision to no longer run ads from our military. Every day, American soldiers, our age and younger, are fighting and dying to protect the rights that we as Americans hold dear. Just a few months ago, Lt. Joshua W. Gross, ’98, was killed when the helicopter he was piloting went down. It is a sad tribute to his memory, and to the memory of all the other Amherst men who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country when every other avenue of life was open, for the paper to withdraw support from the military during a time of war. The monument at the top of Memorial Hill, so often walked past yet so rarely reflected on, is adorned with the names of those men who chose to join up with the same organization that the paper chooses to no longer respect; perhaps a tarp should be thrown over it until every military policy is in line with the school’s views?

All politics and ideologies aside, adopting a subjective stance towards advertisement is simply bad policy (not to mention bad business; if any of the editors plan to someday seek employment at a private paper, you probably shouldn’t mention that you turned away a major customer with limitless pockets). If the paper is to be biased towards a certain idea, let it be biased in the opinion and editorial sections; do not let it pervade the very pulp that the paper is printed on. In four years, there will be a new editorial staff. You have provided them, and future editors, with a way to block any advertisements (that you might consider entirely legitimate and worthy), that they consider inconsistent with their “belief in equal treatment under the law.” I imagine that you will feel the same frustrated outrage that I am feeling now. To establish the paper itself as favoring of one side of an issue is not journalism; it is advocacy.

I agree that the Don’t Ask, Don’t-Tell policy can often be unfair and unjust; to make a blanket condemnation of the entire armed forces, however, is arrogant, foolish and short-sighted. I am ashamed to have my name associated with a publication that equates the military with “Injustice,” as you did in the so-very-bold title of the editorial, and if conservative voices weren’t so hard to come by around here, I would likely resign my post. An apology is owed to our servicemen and women. I would urge you to reconsider the policy; if not for the sake of patriotism, than for the sake of journalistic integrity.

Nick Mancusi ’10

Staff Columnist

I decided to overlook Louis Sallerson’s Feb. 27 column and attribute its numerous fallacies to an off-week. Even the best columnists have them. Sallerson’s March 12 column, however, exhibited what is becoming an unnerving trend of deeply flawed opinion pieces.

Sallerson’s fallacies are too numerous to delineate in one letter. I will attempt to boil them down into something manageable, however. In his Feb. 27 piece, Sallerson stated that Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister of Israel, is “retarding the peace process in ways that are extremely detrimental.” This implies that Olmert has a ready and willing peace partner, which is far from the case. Hamas has stated repeatedly since its founding 20 years ago that it seeks nothing less than the utter destruction of Israel.

On the other hand, we have Mahmud Abbas. First, he is no man of peace. His billing as the “moderate” is laughable. Dr. Abbas (yes, he holds a Ph.D.—his dissertation was about how the Holocaust never happened) is quoted as saying “I had the honor of firing the first shot [against Israel] … we [Fatah] had the honor of leading the resistance and we taught resistance to everyone, including Hizbullah, who trained in our military camps.” Next, Abbas is not the Palestinian PM. Haniyeh is. Why negotiate with him? Does Ted Kennedy negotiate peace treaties for the U.S.? How about Howard Dean?

In his March 12 column, Sallerson states that “the only solution” to the thousands of Kassam rockets that have poured into Israel is “to wait.” Wait until when, Mr. Sallerson? Ten thousand rockets have streamed into Israel since the withdrawal of every inch of Gaza in 2005. That is about 10 per day, if you are counting at home. Israel ended the occupation. The response was increased terror. Until when shall Israel wait, Mr. Sallerson? Hamas replenishes their supply from buddies elsewhere in the Middle East. Sallerson urges Israel to exhibit restraint and not react on par with what they have endured. If I am not mistaken, a proportionate response would be to fire 10,000 rockets into Palestinian kindergartens, offices, parks and homes. Israel has shown immense restraint.

The notion that a peace agreement with Abbas “would cause the Hamas regime to implode” has no precedent, and is mere wishful thinking. When the late, great Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, Israel faced two years of bus bombings and blown-up pizzerias from Hamas. The Israeli cities of Sderot and Ashkelon are experiencing similar terror today. Sallerson naively assumes that a leftist or centrist PM would win the votes of Israelis were elections held today. But the terror of the mid-1990s saw hardliner Bibi Netanyahu take office as Israel’s PM. Sadly, like many of Sallerson’s notions, this straddles the line between mistaken and fantastical.

Justin Epner ’08

Issue 21, Submitted 2008-03-26 06:56:10