When I read Jeremy Burton's column on Wednesday, ("Understanding the Bulldozer," Feb. 1) I was disheartened to find that for a guy whose writing is usually so on-point, the piece completely missed the boat in terms of its political implications. While attempting to present a case against The Beast's recent, unflattering article on comatose Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he falls into the trap of becoming an apologist for Sharon's despicable past actions (and yes, despicable is the correct term for what is, for all intents and purposes, genocide).
To rationalize "the brutal massacre of between 800 and 2,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon" under the banner of nationalism is not only unjust for those who died, but also sets a dangerous precedent in the way we as Americans view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
We are constantly bombarded with images on the news and in our papers of Muslim terrorists attacking Israeli civilians, but what our narrow scope is not privy to are the Israeli attacks - many of them perpetrated by their army - on Palestinian civilians. Political biases in the media aside, this is often due to the fact that a loud suicide bombing often makes for a better story than Israeli soldiers discreetly "disappearing" Palestinians. When larger atrocities are publicized, it is counterproductive to the peace process to sweep them under the rug as political maneuvers.
Burton squarely hits the nail on the head when he says, "To deny that Ariel Sharon was a complex character does nobody any good." The same goes for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There is no "good" and "evil" in the situation, only two cultures living together - one occupying the state of the other - in a shaky, indefinite state of violence. Neither side deserves our sympathies, and neither side deserves our apologies - the only thing that we owe them, especially as members of the press, is a balanced and unflinching account of their ongoing strife that can be used to work towards a peaceful coexistence in the future.



