4 OPINION Page 4 Thursday, February 18, 1988 The Michigan Daily Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan PLO is the real villain I Vol. XCVIII, No. 97 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board. All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily. Dems hypocritical reversal SPEAKER of the House Jim Wright (D-Tx) is sponsoring a bi-partisan effort to resume aid to the Contras. Though this new package is in- tended for "non-military" supplies, allegedly to be delivered by private agencies such as the Red Cross, it represents a hypocritical reversal in policy and further impedes on the sovereignty of Nicaragua. Although Reagan administration officials refuse to cooperate with Wright, House Democratic leaders are expected to propose a bill by the end of this week. The new package circumvents the earlier stand against aiding the Contra rebels as well as violate the spirit of the Arias Peace Plan. For seemingly political reasons, the Democrats are sponsoring a proposal similar to the one they re- cently worked so fervently to de- feat. They must be afraid that they will be blamed for " l o s i n g Nicaragua," especially in an election year. They also do not want to be accused of being soft or of leaving an "ally" in the cold. As a result, they lack the courage to pull out of Nicaraguan internal affairs. These are unacceptable excuses. Lives are at stake on all sides of the conflict and continuing aid only prolongs the suffering. Reagan's proposal called for $43 million dollars in renewed aid over four months. It also included $36.25 million dollars in non-mili- tary supplies, such as trucks and helicopters, and another $3.6 mil- lion dollars for weapons. In this context, "non-military" supplies means anything but the bullet. Wright proposes to send $3 mil- lion dollars a month over a three to nine month period. The aid would also be for non-military purposes, although it is unclear whose defini- tion will be used. Even if Congress approves strictly non-military supplies (excluding helicopters, etc.), the aid Sex laws SUNDAY'S PROTEST of Michi- gan's anti-sodomy laws, sponsored by the Lesbian and Gay Rights Organizing Committee (LaGROC), represents an ever-growing oppos- ition to laws, such as these, that violate the fight to privacy and other basic civil liberties. These anti-sex laws ban certain sexual acts deemed by the state to be acts of "gross indecency." The specific sexual acts included are oral and anal sex, mutual masturbation, and the practice of homosexuality. Breaking this law could mean up to fifteen years in prison with repeat offenders facing the possibility of a life sentence. In general the anti-sex laws of this state are ridiculous. They blatantly disregard civil rights and attempt to deny basic freedoms of choice. Further they try to dictate and regu- late non-violent private behavior that has not been proven to harm the collective good of the community. The laws are also feckless in other capacities; the enforcement of such laws is next to impossible. In order for law enforcement agents to make sure that everyone is abiding by these stipulations, they must moni- package will, nonetheless, most likely help the Contras obtain mili- tary supplies. The main cost of ob- taining arms is price the Contras pay for delivery. Since Congress would pay for the delivery of non- military aid, the Contras need only mix their cargos with military sup- plies. Hence they will have free de- livery for all military materials. Furthermore, since there is no ac- countability for the shipments, there is little reason to believe that the CIA will honestly send only non- military goods. Thus, the door is opened even wider enabling the Contras to receive unaccountable weapons from the CIA. The Contras could also sell the "non-military" aid to other countries or third parties in exchange for mil- itary supplies. Thus any shipment can be made into an opportunity to receive more arms and any non- military aid can be turned into mili- tary supplies. The ambiguity is too easily manipulated by those in charge of implementation. In addition, Wright's package is a violation of the Arias Peace Plan. The plan prohibits any aid to be given to an irregular force in Central America. Since the United States recognizes the government of Nicaragua and does in fact have an embassy there, the Contras indis- putably qualify as an irregular force. It is hypocritical of the Democrats to stand against the Contras one day and sponsor aid for them the next. If they are opposed to the Contras because of the atrocities the Contras have committed, then the Democrats should not waiver now. But if it's a political battle between the Republi- cans over who gets credit for send- ing aid to the Contras, then both parties should lose. Hopefully, no one will support Wright's proposal for Contra aid, basing the decision on reasons of principles, not poli- tics. discriminate By Noah Finkel For the sake of public consumption, it is often desirable to think of every conflict in terms of a villain and a hero, a bad guy and a good guy, a Goliath and a David. The recent violence on the Israeli-occu- pied West Bank and Gaza Strip has understandably resulted in Israel casted as the villain in its respective conflict. Now that we have our villain, a hero is needed. The PLO, and its peace-loving leader Yasir Arafat, has filled this hero vacuum. This is due to Arafat's recent implica- tion that he will negotiate with Israel in accordance with all U.N. resolutions. Now the Israelis have no excuse for continued oppression and the PLO, along with the "people it legitimately represents solely" (the Palestinians) are the ones who want peace. The PLO has become, at least in the public eye, the party that is the hero in its respective conflict. Isn't that strange after all those terrorist acts perpetrated by the PLO? Do not get me wrong: Arafat's implied concession is certainly welcome. But much skepticism is in order about his "heroic" gesture of goodwill. Doubt is also necessary regarding the new popular image of the PLO as the peaceful hero to the conflict. This is not to say that Israel should not be thought of as the villain. Yet many myths must be shattered in regards to the PLO as the conflict's "good guy:" 1. The PLO wants peace. Many have claimed that the recent fig leaf sent out by Arafat is not the first and that he and his organization have repeatedly sent out offers of conciliation. It is true that the PLO has told some that it wants peaceful negotiations in order to resolve its problem of lack of self-rule. But the PLO has not told anyone this who has any meaningful authority regarding the Mideast peace process. And for every statement about the PLO's desire for peace, the PLO issues at least two inflammatory statements of rhetoric. A look at the Palestinian National Council's Covenant's (written in 1968, reaffirmed in 1974 and in 1977) more bellicose articles attests to this: Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Article 15: The liberation of Palestine is a national duty to repulse the Zionist, im- perialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to eliminate the Zionist presence from Palestine. Article 19: The partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel are fundamentally null and void. (The Palestinian National Council, which authored this covenant, is the "parliament" of the PLO.) Which statements of the PLO should be believed? 2. Past Israeli actions have served to radicalize the PLO. This theory states that the terrorism practiced by the PLO is the fault of Israel's withholding of Palestinian human rights. But if one looks at the history of the PLO, a different result is found. Founded in 1964, the PLO originally served as a military organization with the purpose of buying time for the Egyptians, Syrians, and the Jordanians to wage a new war against Israel. At this time, Israel did not even possess the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 1968, the PNC came out with the covenant cited above which codified its terrorist actions.' The PLO did not need any time to be "radicalized." Indeed, the early seventies marked the high point of the PLO campaign of blowing up school buses, kindergarten classes, and Olympic teams. Since then, terrorist acts have relatively subsided. A possible cause of this may have been the strength with which the Is- raelis handled the PLO. Far from radicalizing the PLO, Israeli force probably has served to instead deter the PLO from further atrocities. . 4 3. Israel, not the PLO, has been the party which has historically impeded negotiations. There can be no question that the PLO is the party which has most often stonewalled peace efforts. In 1978's Camp David Accords, the in- volved parties offered the PLO a plan for a five-year autonomy period on the West Bank and Gaza Strip followed by negotia- tions on Palestinian sovereignty. The PLO declined on the offer. This should be no surprise. Extremist PLO members have done all they can to remove the possibility of any peaceful settlement of the conflict. In 1983, Issam Sartawi, a leading PLO-member and advo- cate of reconciliation with Israel, was as- sassinated by PLO radicals who disagreed with his "softness." These radicals are by no means a minority within the PLO. Reconciliation is in fact prohibited in the Palestinian Na- tional Covenant's Article 21 which states "The Palestinian people, in expressing it- self through the Palestinian revolution, rejects every solution that is a substitute for the complete liberation of Palestine." Add to this the Article that says Palestine is not just the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but the whole of Israel, and it is clear what the PLO's real goals are. This is not to say that under no situa- tion should Israel negotiate with the PLO. The point is that it is a misconception to view the conflict in the occupied territories as a case of "bad guy" Israel and "good guy" PLO. No conflict, this one especially, is that simple. Often, guilt is shared by many parties. And often a conflict is one of two "villains." "4 r4acism students and the administration in such a way that they couldn't avoid the issue. While it was only mildly disruptive it was nevertheless the kind of militant action it takes to get things done around here. A problem honkies have is that we're always so busy meditating on our navels or shooting our mouths off with our lop- sided opinions that it takes a crowbar knocked over our heads before we notice that someone else is trying to get out attention. We don't hear what minority students and faculty say about institutional racism, or if we hear we don't comprehend. Racism blinds us to the scope of its means of oppression because racism is a fundamental mechanism of our collective psychology. We remain blind to the results of our thinking, remain blind to racism and are in no position to judge what's racist or not, who's living up to Martin Luther King's legacy or who is not. Miller's glib attempt to place himself in the shoes of a Black man, just to support his gripe about the tactics of a young civil rights group, is pathetically presumptuous and annoyingly petty. It almost makes me wonder why UCAR ever bothered to apologize for the name-calling Miller reports. Noah Staffer. Finkel is a Daily Opinion Page Whites By A.C.Townsend As a Caucasian, I've lived all my life in the soul of white arrogance. Even though the multitudinous manifestations of this arrogance, its contempt for all things not Euro-American in origin, have at times been invisible to me, I still find myself flabbergasted that someone like I. Matthew Miller could ever have the audacity, under any circumstances,to appropriate to himself the suffering that my kind and his have perpetrated upon people of color in this country. While criticizing UCAR for blocking the Fishbowl's main entrance with their pickets this gentleman writes, "...they ac- costed others and infringed on their natural rights of choice. I felt as though I might have been a Black man in Mississippi punished for trying to sit in the front of a bus two decades ago..... Listen up - you haven't put in the time, you haven't faced the troubles, you haven't paid the dues that would allow you to say that and convince me that you know anything about what you're talking about. I've got friends from my hometown that never made it to class through the A.C. Townsend is a 1984 University graduate. blind to Fishbowl because my racist school system, undervalued their achievements, discouraged the expression of their talents and counselled them into a vocational track. The middle-class white brats were coddled through college prep and told that if they flunked algebra to get a tutor and try again because no one can get anywhere without lots of math. Now I'm talking about Black people loaded with savvy and intelligence who would have been college material if they had been white. One guy I'm particularly thinking of earned good grades through elementary and junior high and got turned off by the 10th grade with all the bullshit he and his cousins had to face day-in and day-out. The last I heard, he worked construction, supporting his wife and children in a half decent job, but far from making the contribution his potential promised. This man was a chum from kindergarten through graduation and it hurts- because I know the biggest reason why I've got a B.A. after my name and he doesn't is that after grade school people treated me differently than him and had different expectations of each of us. You had to go through the back door for once in your putrid life. He and other more deserving men and women never got in at all. UCAR's blockade confronted white dards and values on the people of this state. Voters should expect a better form of justice. More specifically the anti-sex laws focus on homosexuals, espe- cially gay men. The laws represent another attempt by the ruling majority to discriminate against a group that represents values and practices divergent from the so- called "norm" of society. The anti-sex laws only serve to perpetuate the public's indifference toward sexual diversity. Just as racism has become institutionalized in this country due in part to igno- rance and indifference, so has ho- mophobia. A clear example of this is the University's exclusion of homosexuals from Regental Bylaw 14.06 outlawing discrimination against people on the basis of race, color, or religion, and veteran sta- tus. Without the inclusion of homosexuals in this bylaw the Uni- versity fails to represent the entire community that is present on this campus. Pressure legislators to repeal the laws. Sex laws discriminate and perpetuate homophobia. They rep- resent the consciousness of an LETTERS UCAR needs thanks and criticism I To the Daily: What are people remember- ing when they think of MLK Day this year? Are we grateful for the work that UCAR put into the alternative education events? Are we appreciative of students who are willing to talk with us about difficult is- sues? Are we inspired by the 1500 people who honored Dr. King by linking arms and Cartoon is offensive marching in the tradition of non-violent protest? It is a sad fact that groups which chal- lenge the status quo are re- membered for the inevitable mistakes of a diverse organiza- tion, not fortheir philosophy and positive actions.] In a Friday, January 22 letter to the Daily, UCAR explained the intent of the events of MLK Day, including the pick- ets, and apologized for actions that were inconsistent with UCAR's purposes. UCAR un- derstands the importance of in- suring that its message is re- flected in its actions. In order to be supportive of continued work towards ending individual and institutionalized racism at the U of M, we need to commend UCAR's accom- plishments as we criticize its: faults. UCAR has given us the opportunity to learn of the: racism in this institution and begin to amend our general; lack of knowledge of the his- tory and concerns of people of color. For this, we owe UCAR our thanks. -Jennifer Lloyd January 25 To the Daily: We are shocked and outraged by the poor judgement of the Michigan Daily Opinion Staff in printing the political cartoon which appeared on January 13, 1988. The cartoon equates the plight of the Palestinians in the Middle East with the Jews in the Soviet Union. Granted, this sectinof the nner istc signed for free expression, however no parallel exists be- tween the two situations. The Soviet government suppresses not only therreligious rightssof Soviet Jews but their emigra- tion rights as well. On the contrary, Palestinians are not restricted in this manner by the Israeli government, therefore rx 'r .,. ., ,, ?_ f .... ... .. . A . . . .. .... kI