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.