[Peace] response to DI

[raia fink]

I sent this only to the DI since its a response to an ongoing
dialogue. Its too long to be a letter, and who knows if it'll get
printed as a forum. And so I also send it on to you, assuming you've been
following the "news"
-Raia

     Mr. Bambenek's response to Ra Ravishankar's Sept 24th column
condemning Ariel Sharon is a prime example of the dangerous and
illogical premise that fuels the status quo.  It boggles my mind to hear him
complain that "we never seem to hear about Arafat's war-criminal
activities."  Considering that the assumption of Arafat's crimes is
thoroughly enmeshed in our collective political knowledge, you'd think our
persistent condemnation of his behavior wouldn't need to be trumpeted
by the media every day.  Don't worry though, it is.  In fact, its so
persistent that the information has long since lost its eligibility to even
be considered news (which makes me wonder what, exactly, the media is
reporting, in lieu of legitimate news). Obviously, it has become so
difficult for us to sort out the arguments we want to hear from the news
that the one example that does not bolster the status-quo is all we can
focus on.  Insisting that people include a big ol' heap of the obvious
every time they offer up a kernel of left-out information only decreases
objectivity with the over-saturation of common knowledge. Just for the
record, Ravishankar's words were presented to us in the format of a column
(read: opinion, editorial) not as an objective news article.
     Why, then, does Mr. Bambenek's response insist that "all sides need
to be considered," when, in fact, Ravishankar was doing us the service of
introducing another side to consider in the current non-argument?  The
actual percentage of the world population that does not think Arafat and
Saddam are criminals is so miniscule that our media has to artificially
magnify their voice just to give the illusion that we're actually fighting
against them. And thus, the media's ploy to enforce the status quo is
revealed.
     Where in the statement "Ariel Sharon is a war criminal" does it say that
Arafat is a real swell guy?  Where in the anti-war message is it revealed
that people think Saddam should stay on because he's such a nice fella?
Where, in the vast field of rational thought does it suggest that the best
way to overthrow an oppressive dictator is to declare war on his
debilitated victims?  And where does it suggest that wars can be fought
and won against ill-constructed conceptualizations of infinite nouns
(terror, drugs, poverty)?  I'm guessing this information is found in the
same textbook that proves the best way to establish peace is through war.
Well, I don't intend to buy that book especially when they've got their
'talking heads' giving it away for free on every corner.
     Concerning international law, I would desperately like to see Arafat,
Kissinger, Sharon, Saddam, and G.W. Bush (among countless
despicable others) all get their day in court. But until that day comes, I
doubt we'll be hearing about Palestine passing a UN resolution to kill our
unelected president.  With my political stance so glaringly obvious, who
does Mr. Bambenek think is going to benefit when I argue for the other
side?

Raia Fink
Senior in LAS
Urbana, IL