Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 8, 2004)
Opinion The Battalion Page 5B • Thursday, April 8, 2004 it scree:! Withdrawing hostilities Israel s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is only way to achieve peace in region t is unfortunate that one of the world’s most sacred lands is also one of the most Hoel$cf;Biolent. Israel is important to sso/2}; three of the world’s major reli- ions, yet it continues to be ocked by an endless cycle of violence, terrorism and hatred. Recently, Israeli Prime llinister Ariel Sharon proposed i plan for Israel to unilaterally ithdraw from Palestinian-con- i t havt tied ; Wmi _ ■ • iddyom mderstar itisasii )licantsr JniverA i Battaio e sectft Importa' stute A&MA i vis# Hi irds: ‘b rnisa he rest (I ere is ) quafe skin cob mefitlrar ady bet' iwritette ithepaf ow nfc jonei bei volM oiled territory. This move will make Israel a afer place, and it appears to be the only way to chieve lasting peace with the Palestinians. Sharon’s plan for disengagement involves dis- lantling most of the Jewish settlements in the iaza Strip. However, most of the Israeli settle- lents in the West Bank will be left in place. The also calls for the continued use of the con- ;oversial security fence, which has isolated the ’alestinian-occupied West Bank from the rest of srael. Unilateral withdrawal may not be the best olution to the problem, but Israel has no other hoice. British Broadcasting Corporation News eported that Israeli polls show a decrease in sup- wrtfor Sharon due to a failure to end violence hrough other means. Peace talks with the Palestinians have contin- ly failed, and pressure from the international :ommunity has not been successful in bringing ibout change. The Israeli government and people lave decided that the violence must be stopped lyany means necessary, and this is the way to ichieve it. But for a mutual agreement to be reached, loth sides must be willing to work together to top the violence, as so much of the success of milateral withdrawal is up to the Palestinians. J.S. officials pressed for a return to President Bush’s Road Map for Peace. However, this iuld require Palestinian leadership to crack wnon terrorism, which simply won’t happen, fb/mer head of the Palestinian Authority Yasser Arafat has been accused of inciting vio- ence in the region. The International Herald [ribune reported that it is for this reason that the lush administration has refused to work with lim for almost two years. Arafat is a highly espected figure in the Palestinian world, and his dions severely cripple any hope for peace. Additionally, current Palestinian Authority eader Ahmed Qorei has little influence over ter- MAIL CALL rorist groups. He and other prominent Palestinian figures have urged an end to violence but it has had no effect. Hamas and other fundamentalists operate independently of the Palestinian Authority, and there is little that can be done, short of military action, to stop them. The Israeli government has finally realized all this and has taken steps to end the violence in its own way. Military operations against the terror ists have only led to more retaliation and an escalating spiral of violence. So, the Israelis have decided that if they can’t work with the Palestinians to create peace, they are prepared to work alone. A unilateral withdrawal would give the Palestinians much of what they want, which is a stepping stone toward peace. The Gaza Strip would be almost completely free of any Israeli influence. While there would still be Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Israel plans to expedite completion of the security barrier to reduce vio lence there. Sharon wants to keep three large Israeli settle ments in the West Bank. However, the placement of the security fence would give the Palestinians control over most of the West Bank. According to CNN, the relocation of Jewish settle ments would “reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians.” The Israeli mili tary would no longer need to maintain a presence in Palestinian controlled areas, so forces would be redeployed along new “security lines.” The new plan gives the Palestinians what they want and helps ensure Israel’s internal security. Critics argue that this move is merely an act of appeasement and will only encourage further ter rorists attacks. In response, Sharon has announced that he will no longer honor his agreement not to harm Arafat. He is using this threat as a deterrent against terrorist attacks. Additionally, Sharon has made it clear that his unilateral plan will delay the creation of a Palestinian state for several years. Not only will this encourage cooperation with Palestinian leadership, it gives Israel a bargaining chip to hold against the Palestinians, should the vio lence escalate. The message being sent is clear: Israel wants to put a stop to the bloodshed in the Middle East. It will do it with or without the cooperation of the Palestinians. However, cooperation and a crackdown on terrorist activ ities will be rewarded, while renewed violence will be punished. The one constant theme throughout the Middle East peace process is that for both sides to get what they want, the violence has to stop, and this plan makes that much easier to accomplish. Daniel Rossell is a junior nuclear engineering and political science major. Graphic by Tony Piedra l in Fee Misconceptions exist about VIP program In response to an April 7 mail call: As the interim assistant provost for enrollment, I am compelled to espond to the misinformation in the letter that appeared in mail all about the VIP Program. The letter stated, “If certain students are given special bene- itsthat assist them in being admitted into A&M over other stu- ients, is that fair?” It goes on to say, “There is a double stan- lard being set with the message that special programs that issist applicants in being admitted are only okay if the applicant s not white.” The first point I would like to make is that the VIP Program is for students who have already been admitted to Texas A&M. Therefore, no one is getting special benefits that assist them in )eing admitted to Texas A&M. Secondly, the program was developed to bring admitted students ind their parents who have not had the opportunity to visit Texas \&M to campus. In accordance with Dr. Gates’ directive to increase diversity natriculation, the VIP program targets first generation as well as ninority students. Though these two groups are the target groups, we do not limit the visits to these groups. I would like to encourage students to seek factual information )efore their opinions are formed and presented in a public forum. Sincerely, Frank B. Ashley III, Ed.D. Interim Assistant Provost for Enrollment 9-11 commission results in partisanship and little else st E veryone knows President Bush was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. In fact, he probably orchestrated it. Wait a minute, correction; that was for mer President Bill Clinton. That’s right. Terrorists gained strength during the eight years he held office and his administration did NICHOLAS nothing. Sound right? No, per- DAVIS haps the first assertion was cor rect. Ahh, it’s so confusing! Does this sound familiar? It should. The independent commission investigat ing the 9-11 attacks is doing it right now. The panel’s Democrats blame Bush and Republicans blame Clinton. Round and round they go. Sadly, the commis sion has little chance of uncovering any salient information regarding the mishaps leading up to 9-11, since ideo logues only have interest in manipulat ing the details to suit their respective party’s interest. America has become so polarized ide ologically that each side wishes to exploit the 9-11 attacks for political gain. That is, Republicans tout it to exemplify Bush’s leadership during crises, while Democrats use it to cite negligence and trivialize Bush’s success in the war on terror. It’s pathetic. Let’s consider what is known of each administration. First, take Bush. The most devastating terrorist attack on America occurred under his watch. Why? Bush underesti mated the threat terrorists posed, and neg lected relevant reports handed over by the Clinton administration. Clearly, this is the most plausible reason the administration remains reluctant to testify. Moreover, The New York Times reported that the administration even withheld three-fourths of the Clinton administration’s 11,000 page report containing terrorism intelligence. Again, why? The answer is simple: Some information might not reflect well on Bush’s pre-9-1 1 counter-ter rorism policies. Nonetheless, this doesn’t mean culpability resides solely with this administration. Remember Clinton? For eight years Clinton’s administration did, arguably, little to combat terrorism. For example, consider the Sudanese offer to deliver the infamous Osama bin Ladin in 1996, which Clinton never pursued. On Feb. 15, 2002, Clinton stated, “At the time, 1996, he (bin Ladin) had com mitted no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.” Still, even after Clinton himself con firmed the Sudan offer, Democrats and Republicans continued to disagree over the credibility, further illustrating how worthless the commission is. Were the Sudanese serious about deliv ering bin Ladin? Who knows. Is it possi ble that 9-11 could have been avoided? Perhaps. It all depends on how one defines “is.” Surely, some partisans will rebut with, “the world was different then; al-Qaida hadn’t done anything yet, and blah blah blah.” Whoever you are, congratulations; you are completely clueless. But cheer up, you’re not alone. Some ignorant columnists, such as Peter Bergen of The Times, also give Clinton a pass and ascribe blame dispro portionately on Bush. Often they imply Bush ignored al-Qaida, the Taliban and intelligence citing terrorists planned to use airplanes as missiles. In hindsight, the Bush administration should have acted preemptively on the threats. But, honestly, how would Bush, who controversially “won” the election, have been perceived if he initiated attacks on the Taliban in Afghanistan, pursued al- Qaida everywhere and enhanced airport security? He would have been labeled a paranoid war monger. Think about it, how much did the aver age citizen know about the Taliban, Afghanistan or al-Qaida? Nothing at all! That is, except that Rambo helped Afghan rebels fight the Russians. Preemptively striking the Taliban/al- Qaida spelled political suicide. Recall some imbeciles didn’t even want to retaliate after 9-11. Furthermore, if it was so imperative to quell the threat immediately, why didn’t Clinton do so during his tenure? It’s the same answer: political suicide. As for airport security, even after the attacks, some people criticize the time- consuming security measures. Consider the response if no attacks had occurred to justify beefing-up security. Nevertheless, the manipulation of facts continues. Now the Panel calls for sworn testimony from Condoleezza Rice. Again, Democrats hope to catch her in a lie and make her appear incompetent, while Republicans want her testimony to under mine Richard Clarke’s. Most likely, each will find what they’re looking for. Unfortunately, congressmen and mem bers of the commission all have one thing in common: They are blinded by their ideologies and remain unwilling to swal low a little pride to reach some agreement on the facts. Here’s the truth: Both administrations share responsibility for 9-11. No com mission is needed to tell us that. In the end, Americans must realize a false sense of security, a lack of agency communica tion and governmental inaction enabled the terrorist attacks, not just one presi dent’s administration. Nicholas Davis is a senior political science major.