Viewpoint is disheartening

When I scanned Wednesday's Viewpoint page, I was honestly impressed with the brilliance of juxtaposing a Jewish member of the Tufts community arguing for divestiture in Israel, and a member of the Middle Eastern Student Society arguing against it.

I was genuinely awed, but then I got to the column on the same page written by David Eil, entitled "'Evil' vs. Evil." What he argues for in this essay is incredibly offensive. The column suggests that examining situations in the world, such as Israel's actions in the West Bank, etc., should not be judged by our morals. He writes that "international politics have little to do with morality and everything to do with security." As evidence for this he cites the fact that very few political science or international relations professors have been supportive of divestiture. This is the most cynically depressing and jaded view of the world I've ever seen published in an editorial, as Eil is basically saying that to judge actions based on the human life lost is inappropriate. America's avowed enemies, such as Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein, have used the word "security" to justify any expansion or repression. Afrikaners in South Africa during apartheid could have formed a much stronger argument against American div

The column leaves me sad and disheartened with the willingness to argue that morality holds no place in the sphere of international relations. How is it not apparent that, when it comes to people's lives, morality is always an issue? I'm willing to examine all opinions on an issue but when someone suggests I check my morality at the door because, I get sincerely scared.

What bothers me is not that these article were printed, but that these sort of extremely controversial views have become the norm in the Daily over the past few months. I speak as one person, but I don't think the Tufts community is expecting this sort of thing when they open their paper.



Robert Sierakowski

LA '05