 |
|
     |
|
|
Support the troops I suggest that those militant campus Republicans who supported the war against Iraq and are calling for more pre-emptive attacks against other nations ("Right turn on Telegraph," June), deemed by one man and his advisers to pose a threat to the security of the United States, enlist in the military and do some of the fighting themselves. In this way, they can exhibit some courage to match their convictions and really "support the troops." As a combat veteran of World War II, I'm sure they will find military combat even more exciting than demonstrating on Telegraph Avenue. Phil Arnot '50 Lagunitas The chancellor speaks out Chancellor Robert Berdahl points out that a basic change has taken place in our foreign policy ("Chancellor's Report," June). Pre-emptive strikes may be required at times to preserve peace and stability in the world. Some of us remember 1939, when Neville Chamberlain announced to the world that he had achieved "peace in our time"; a few months later, Hitler invaded Poland. When World War II ended, the world had lost 50 million lives--all because we failed to act. Whether we like it or not, pre-emptive strikes are called for when negotiations fail and tyrants are on the loose. Lee Emerson '38 San Francisco We both felt a great deal of affirmation when we read the Chancellor's Report. It is one thing to agree that "we cannot make ourselves safe or secure by reliance on military superiority alone, as the Bush doctrine presumes, but by aligning ourselves with the hopes of people everywhere for peace, economic justice, the rule of law, and freedom from oppression." It is another to hear the same position expressed by a respected leader of a major university. Berdahl's belief that it is important for someone in his position to comment openly about the Bush foreign policy as well as other federal actions (e.g., the Patriot Act) and for the University to address the "black-and-white," "good-and-evil" dichotomy in discussions about issues is to be applauded. Chancellor Berdahl represents the kind of leader we can be proud of. Ann Muto '70, Arthur Muto '67, M.S. '69 Cupertino A Muslim perspective  As a rabbi who spoke out from the pulpit against the Iraq war, I was heartened by the Chancellor's Report, with its warnings about the consequences of the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. Chancellor Berdahl also spoke about the University as a place in which issues are discussed in a "nuanced fashion" and said that the campus had been "calmed" in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian issue because of such discourse. Thus I was saddened by, and then angered at, your interview with Professor Hamid Algar ("Q&A"), who merely spouted, in fancier language, the kind of anti-Jewish propaganda that is now all too common in the Muslim world--such as Jewish domination of White House foreign policy, Israel and "Zionists" as the source of Islamophobia, the Israeli Defense Force as Goliath versus the Palestinian David, etc. Either Algar is not an expert on these matters or he is so blinded by his hatred that he cannot distinguish truth from lies: how could he say that the "suicide bombings did not start until a considerable time after the beginning of the Intifada"? Some instances since the Declaration of Principles was signed in 1993: April 13, 1994, five killed in Hadera; October 19, 1994, 22 killed in Tel Aviv; November 11, 1994, three killed, etc., etc., etc. These were suicide/homicide bombings in addition to the "normal" terrorist attacks that have been going on since the founding of Israel in 1948. Professor Algar should be on the University's "list" as someone to investigate; he should be on the list of everyone who cares about Berkeley as someone to be peacefully demonstrated against and condemned as an enemy of the University the chancellor spoke about so eloquently. Rabbi Kennard Lipman '74, Ph.D. '79 State College, Pennsylvania I found your interview with Professor Algar most interesting and refreshing because he shed some light on mid-Eastern perspectives and contributed to the much-needed dialogue among intellectuals. Professor Algar suggested that Iraq should be able to choose, through majority will, a non-democratic form of government for reasons imbedded in its history and culture. He also suggested that this ought to be tolerated (if not accepted) in the name of global diversity. I would argue that much Western concern would be assuaged if the issue of minority rights in a non-democratic regime could be effectively addressed. William Trembour Belleair, Florida How sad that a distinguished Berkeley professor of Persian and Islamic Studies compares a suicide bomber (who deliberately kills innocent civilians) to "a soldier who...rushes upon the enemy." Any soldier who wantonly kills innocent civilians would be guilty of war crimes. However, instead of condemning suicide murderers, Palestinian society accords great regard to these sick individuals, promising them a better life in heaven as gratitude for their horrible deeds. How very sad. Stanley Schaffer Rochester, New York Although I agree with much of what Hamid Algar said in the interview, he ignores (or fails to grasp) the importance of individual rights in the American concept of "democracy." Algar says: "If democracy is to mean anything, it must mean respect for the majority and its wishes." But that is only half of what Western democracy means. Our concept of democracy does not allow the majority to interfere with the core rights of individuals. This is the great gift of the European Enlightenment and the Bill of Rights. Algar says: "...a total separation between the religious and the political is incompatible with Islamic culture." Just so. This is why Islam is tragically barred from the fruits of democracy. If the majority thinks it permissible to whip women with automobile antennas for wearing their head shawls too loosely, is such conduct "democracy"? No. Algar says: "If one genuinely believes in pluralism, then one should accept a plurality of cultures and of the political system that emerge from them." Really? Should we have accepted Nazism? Of course not. Pluralism only works when core individual rights are protected. Barry Goold '74, Boalt '77 Las Vegas, Nevada Professor Algar's point of view was convincingly and well presented until he lost me completely when asked about suicide bombers. "It seems to me that such actions are closer to the case of a soldier...." Having served our nation as a soldier, I find it incredible, as well as insulting, that a professor at Cal is unable to clearly recognize the difference between a soldier and a suicide bomber! I agree entirely with his final comment: "Berkeley, both the campus and the city, are different from much of the rest of the country." I then add my own "thank God!" Frank Travis '48 Bellingham, Washington In America, we gladly support Professor Algar's right to hold and express his "good-and-evil" brand of political opinions, no matter how biased and unfounded they may be. It is difficult to understand, however, why he deserves to be the June poster boy for California Monthly. Uri Berman '52 Palo Alto In response to Algar's claims about U.S. intentions and leaders like Woolsey, Perle, and Wolfowitz, I would expose his deliberate lie. These people sounded the alarm over a decade ago when the Islamic world launched its war on the West, starting in the 1980s against Americans in Beirut--a campaign financed and supported by [Algar's] friends in Tehran. As to Daniel Pipes, his academic credentials are superb and undisputed: he is as qualified, as educated, as recognized, and as renowned as Algar. What Algar detests is the fact that Pipes is willing to raise the veil on Islamicists like him and the other supporters of Islamic terrorism on U.S. campuses. Richard Stanaro '81 London, England Hamid Algar raises a profoundly important question and defines the issue exactly: "One would find a virtual consensus...throughout North Africa and the Middle East, with the possible exception of Turkey, that the state should in some sense be Islamic...[which means] that a total separation between the religious and the political is incompatible with Islamic culture and history and understanding." Here is the nub of the conflict: Liberal democracy means a wall of separation between government and religion. The state is a public institution, governing all its citizens equally, expecting the observance of public laws. Religion, whose freedom is guaranteed in America by the First Amendment, is a private matter into which the state may not penetrate. Algar says, and I agree, that there is a "great diversity of Islamic culture and the various expressions of Islamic religion." But Algar typifies all spokesmen for Islam. I have never heard one say that Muslims can live in a secular democracy, fully accepting and supporting the fundamental Jeffersonian democratic principle of total separation of the public state from private religion. Joseph Lifschutz '49 El Sobrante Instead of berating the West for a supposed conspiracy against radical Islam while enjoying the freedoms he finds in Berkeley, perhaps Professor Algar should reflect on the lack of such freedoms in the type of society he espouses. Tait Graves '94 San Francisco Plato Stephen Miller's article, "A Platonic relationship" (June), was a superb example of how research at Cal manages to cross disciplinary boundaries while still being tied to larger, outside concerns. At a time when the disciplines of both philosophy and classics are threatened, the piece on Berkeley's own Plato could not be more relevant--or delightful. Jane Miller Duran '68 Goleta |
| |||||||||||
| About
CAA Contact
Us
Update
your Address CAA Career Opportunities Privacy Policy |
©2009 California Alumni
Association. All Rights Reserved For questions about CAA: info@alumni.berkeley.edu Technical inquiries: web@alumni.berkeley.edu
|
Alumni House Berkeley, CA 94720-7520 Toll-Free: (888) CAL-ALUM Phone: (510) 642-7026 Fax: (510) 642-6252
|
