The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

69° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mailbag

    Candidates should reaffirm commitment to Israel
    With the presidential election in less than a month, it is important to be informed of where each candidate stands on specific issues so we as voters can make informed decisions on who we think should be the next president of the United States. One issue not receiving a lot of media coverage in recent weeks due to the world economic crisis is the issue regarding the Middle East. I’ve always been fascinated to know where the candidates stand on all the issues. Don’t get me wrong, the economy and health care occupy top positions on my list of issues, as does having a complete understanding of where each candidate stands in regards to the Middle East. It is critical for the United States to have allies in that part of the world in order to perpetuate democracy and stability in the region. Central to maintaining our strong position in this part of the world is our connection to the only true democracy in that region, Israel. I know that having a friend and ally in Israel is important to bringing about a lasting peace to that region.

    For many voters this November, the topic of the Middle East remains a hot issue. The policies espoused by the candidates are crucial in helping to secure votes when it comes election time. I, for one, know that having Israel as an ally is crucial in maintaining peace and stability in that region. It is ultimately going to be up to voters to make an informed decision on who the next president will be and who can move us in the right direction.

    A strong Middle East policy is important on a number of different levels. First, supporting Israel lets our enemies know we are serious about the role this tiny democracy plays in the region. Enemies of Israel and democracy are put on notice that we believe strongly in Israel’s right to exist, even though these enemies have called for extermination of Israel and “”Death to America.”” Second, the democratic bonds between the United States and Israel have benefited both countries in numerous fields including science and technology, medicine, defense and business. We have also worked closely with Israel on humanitarian levels, something often overlooked because of the Palestinian issues that have plagued the region.

    Even though some people may have their opinions when it comes to the Palestine issue, they know Israel is here to stay. During modern Israel’s 60-year history, the Israelis have done much good for the Palestinians yet they often respond with violence. Such behavior can be directly linked to poor Palestinian leadership and an inability to recognize the existence of the Jewish State. If there is ever going to be peace in Israel, the antagonists must recognize that Israel must remain a Jewish democratic state. For the U.S., Israel is the only true friend in that part of the world, and it is important that we maintain a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.

    The earliest pioneers of Israel turned her vast desert landscape into thriving cities and communities where Jews strove to live in peace with their hostile neighbors. It is up to us to make sure our friendship remains strong and it is up to us to be informed on where each candidate stands, not only on this issue but many others as well. Regardless of the pressing economic issues confronting the United States, as a democracy, we should never lose sight on the importance Israel plays as a strategic partner in the Middle East, the war on terror and its position in the world as a leader in medical, high technical, agricultural and other disciplines designed to make the world a better place to live.

    Daniel Ference
    CatPAC (Cats for Israel) Campus Liaison

    Prop 102 debate won’t change anyone’s mind
    There have been a lot of letters written about Proposition 102, and I must say that I don’t really understand it. In the Oct. 14 edition of the Daily Wildcat, Laura Donovan wrote her take on it. I didn’t really understand it because anyone whose spouse has died, kind of by definition, isn’t married anymore. There have been people who say (I paraphrase) that without 102 passing, the country will begin to unravel, and those who say that people who support it are close-minded bigots. I’ve got news for both sides here: no one is convinced by your arguments.

    I can’t imagine any anti-102 reading a pro-102 letter and saying, “”Oh my gosh! God is against this, so I should be too!”” I also don’t see any pro-102ers reading an anti-102 letter and saying, “”I really am being a close-minded bigot! I need to change.””

    This all boils down to a matter of personal morality. What do you think is right and wrong? That’s the way you’re going to vote, and no amount of debate is going to change that.

    Josh Gordon
    computer science senior

    More to Discover
    Activate Search