Letters to the Editor

Valuing war debate

"Undecided's [sic] are the only ones really wise enough to know that they have no good way of evaluating the truthfulness of either side's claims," writes Aileen Nielsen about the war in Iraq in her editorial. Maybe they don't, but please don't speak for the rest of us. In her article, Nielsen argues that the best stance is to be undecided because both the proand antiwar sides have reasonable arguments.

War is of course never clearcut, and there are always serious consequences. That is why it is important for us to look at the issues carefully and decide for ourselves the merits of this war. What would have happened if Roosevelt were undecided about World War II? What would have happened if Kennedy hadn't decided to avert war by confronting the Soviets during Cuban missile crisis? Sometimes we just cannot afford to be undecided. While we couldn't decide if genocide was occurring in Rwanda, a million people we slaughtered, and while we couldn't decide on what to do with North Korea, we now see them with an advanced nuclear program. War is serious business, and people on both sides of this debate deserve to voice their opinions. She's right about one thing — there are rational reasons on both sides of the argument. But instead of blindingly dismissing them and not forming an opinion, perhaps we should take the time to actually understand the issues and start seeing outside our Princeton bubble. Lev Reyzin '05

Israel shares blame

Nicholas Guyatt's column on the endless Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more candid, cogent, and responsible than the limited, evasive recent reporting and comment by The New York Times, Washington Post , and TV pundits. The media seemingly don't dare to draw attention to Sharon's ability to block any progress, or promise of progress, on this issue, or any U.S. policy position Sharon regards as not unqualfiedly pro-Israel.

For example, as soon as Sharon said he'd not support the latest version of the US-sponsored "road map" toward possible solution of the conflict, voices in Congress immediately chimed in to agree with Sharon and express "concern." Immediately thereafter, Bush is said to have told the Israelis privately not to worry; he's not going to push the "road map" scheme. This quiets pro-Israel critics of the U.S. proposal, and puts the issue again on a back burner, where the media will allow it to stay.

The American-Israel Student Committee's ad in this same issue of the 'Prince' seems to me disingenuous and deceptive. Ongoing and repeated actions of Israel, particularly the Sharon government, repeatedly have frustrated progress toward peace. These actions and policies have included: continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza in defiance of U.N. resolutions, destruction of Palestinian rural and urban property such as olive orchards and shops in the towns, and killing and wounding of thousands of Palestinians (often with the use of weaponry supplied by or purchased from the USA). Such actions and policies from the Israeli side do not "respect the rights of the peoples of the Middle East," especially the rights of the Palestinians. These and other actions frustrate any progress toward a two-state solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict (helped by the feckless efforts of the Clinton administration and benign neglect. by the Bush administration). With these and other actions, Israel daily risks its "right to exist within safe and secure borders." Practicing terrorism against those who have no ability to defend themselves encourages suicide bombings and the continuing stalemate. Charlton Price '48

Williams on the mark

I must applaud the editorial by Mr. Williams. It is unfortunate that our politicians have chosen to pursue the far more expensive route — more expensive dollar-wise and people-wise. Maybe some future grad that achieves some future political influence can change the present ridiculous system.

For the record, I do not use any illegal drugs but do use plenty of the legal kinds. Bob Medina '62

Survey timing counts

I found fascinating your survey comparing support among students at different Ivy League schools for military intervention. From my partisan perspective, it speaks well for Princeton. Unfortunately, I have reservations about the validity of the data. Harvard students, the least likely to express support, were surveyed before we were truly at war, and thus needed to decide whether to commence a full-fledged ground campaign. Columbia students, more likely to support the effort, were asked at a time when opposition meant not merely desisting from attack but pulling out and essentially admitting failure.

Finally, Princeton students, the most likely to support our involvement, were asked when we were not only already at war but after a more successful week than the one previous. Thus the timing of the survey may account for most or possibly all the disparity.

Please continue these comparative surveys, but do them in coordination with other universities if possible. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Mitchell Keiter