Tully missing facts about Israeli actions
To The Editor:
In his recent editorial, Jeremy Tully ["US News coverage of Israel tainted by bigotry, " Apr. 4] complains about the "misrepresentation or outright suppression of the facts" in reporting on the Middle East, using this statement to support his attack on the policies of the IDF and the "racist" portrayal of the Palestinians in the American media.
He argues that the American public is unaware of the supposed atrocities of the Israeli army. The one cited is the fact that Israeli soldiers have fired on Palestinian ambulances and that they have been detained at checkpoints for extended periods. What he doesn't mention is the fact that many of these ambulances are used to transport suicide bombers and gunmen (clearly a violation of international law) and that some of the drivers and medics are themselves terrorists.
His second claim, that the Camp David Accords offered the Palestinians a raw deal, is ridiculous. The statement "it did not include a contiguous state" is simply a show of geographic ignorance - the West Bank and Gaza are not connected, and cannot be without splitting Israel. Finally, his accusation of racism is simple slander. The Palestinians are not their own race, they are Arab. The fact that they haven't shown any signs of preparation for peacetime is a wholly valid observation.
In the middle of the article, Tully states that "a press that fails to fully inform its readers of the facts does not live up to its self-prescribed role as a check against the state." He would do well to heed his own words.
Sincerely,
Joe Brownstein
Writer ignorant of Middle East conflict
To The Editor:
Regarding the Opinions column ["Middle East peace talks are futile," Apr. 4]:
1. The first paragraph was replaced by text from another item. Therefore, the author's name is unknown. In addition, the article is not on the News-Letter Web site.
2. Above all else, the author proves his/her ignorance of the Middle East conflict.
3. The bold statement "The creation of Israel in 1948 was a huge mistake...", besides raising questions on the author's opinion of Israel's right to exist, suggests that Israel's creation resulted from an instantaneous UN resolution, while that clearly is not the case.
4. The author writes "regional conflicts have rarely, if ever, resolved simply by negotiation." As a counter example, we can take Israel's peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), which ended decades of war. This at least shows, that peace can be negotiated and can last, even when Israel is one of the parties.
5. In the last paragraph, the author suggests solving the conflict by "Eliminating Palestine as a nominally independent nation." Israeli prime minister Sharon declared his support of creating a Palestinian state, and to my knowledge, most Israelis believe Israel should not control millions of hostile Palestinians, for obvious reasons. If Israel is not to rule them, who else should? I don't see any volunteers...
6. 250 words are barely enough for this concise set of objections. I have more to say, but no more room to write.
Sincerely,
Ofri Sadowsky
Living Wage needed for employees at all Hopkins campuses
To The Editor:
When asking for a Living Wage for Hopkins employees, we are referring to everyone under ALL of Johns Hopkins. It is misleading to say that all University employees receive $8.20 per hour and all contract employees $8.07, because while this might be true for the Homewood campus, it is not representative of the Institution as a whole.
There are currently employees at the Hospital making $7 an hour, $1.20 below the Baltimore Living Wage. While these employees will be receiving $7.75 by July, this will still be $.75 below the new Living Wage starting in July 2002 of $8.50.
Another little-known fact is that Hopkins owns a for-profit corporation called the Dome Corporation. A subsidiary of the Dome Corporation is a temp agency called Broadway Services, which contracts workers to Hopkins.
The majority of Hopkins' contract workers are indirectly hired by Hopkins from Hopkins itself to avoid paying direct employee wages.
The position that the Hopkins administration has taken regarding why they cannot afford to pay a Living Wage is equally absurd. They say they cannot "allow part of its expenditure base to be determined by others outside the University."
Yet every year when the budget is calculated they take into account external figures that help them decide how much to charge for tuition and housing, how much to pay their doctors and professors, and how much expansion they want to undertake, so why not how much they pay their workers?
Sincerely,
Susie Schweigert
SLAC Member
Class of 2005
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.