TO THE EDITOR:
Yesterday’s paper contained three opinion pieces and a letter to the editor concerning David Horowitz’s speech. All of them were devoted to criticizing Horowitz.
I don’t know Horowitz’s views. Couldn’t someone have been found to offer a different viewpoint on his speech?
The column headed “Viewpoints” appeared to offer two conflicting viewpoints, but instead offered the very same viewpoint from UNC Hillel and the UNC Muslim Students Association. Could no one be found to defend anything that Horowitz said?
While congratulating itself on its embrace of “nuance,” the opinion piece from UNC Students for Justice in Palestine and J Street UNC began with, “Just this week, rocket fire from Gaza fell in southern Israel, and the Israeli Defense forces used tear gas on peaceful protesters in the Palestinian village of Nabi Saleh.”
Note that Israeli Defense forces used tear gas, actively, whereas the rockets from Gaza simply fell, passively. The rockets didn’t fire themselves.
Who did it, and what should we call them? The Palestinian villagers were “peaceful.”
What about the Israelis on whom the rockets fell? Weren’t they being peaceful, too? So much for the embrace of nuance.
Marc Lange
Philosophy
Department chairman
