NEIGHBORS

Roger Heacock ’62, profiled in the March Bulletin, lives not far from me. He and his family live in Ramallah. I and mine live little more than 14 miles south in Jerusalem. These days, it is not easy to travel back and forth between our homes because the Israeli army has been searching for Palestinian terrorists who have come into Israeli cafés, hotels, markets, malls, and discos and killed whoever had the bad luck to enjoy themselves there that day. Many have been youngsters, some have been survivors of the Holocaust, and others were Arabs or workers from China and the Philippines who came to help their families back home. The young Palestinians who blew themselves up in order to murder Israelis have been lauded as martyrs, assured they would be met in heaven by 72 virgins, and promised that their families would receive $25,000 from one of the world’s most vicious despots, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

Heacock describes himself as a “birthright Quaker.” I am a Jew by birth, a citizen of Israel, and a citizen of the United States. He says that he came to live in Ramallah to witness “the struggle and the hardships of the Palestinian people.” And he concludes that “the current violence will never end until the occupation ends.”

By “current violence,” I understand he means the terrorism launched immediately after Yasir Arafat refused Prime Minister Barak’s offer of a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the land under dispute. (Already, the Palestinian Authority controlled all its major cities and towns.) Using the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount—approved in advance by the Muslim authorities on the Mount—as an excuse to launch a new outbreak of terrorism, Arafat has made it clear to all of us here in Israel that he will not be satisfied without destroying the Jewish state. Having virtually everything in his hands to make a viable Palestinian state, Arafat threw it away and, with it, threw away the hopes of most Israelis that the Oslo peace process would lead to full acceptance and recognition of Israel in the Arab world.

Today [April 24], Israel still controls part of the West Bank and Gaza because it must protect its population from terrorism, because it cannot reward terror, and because there is no Palestinian who can be a negotiating partner. The vast majority of Israelis want to live side by side with a democratic Palestinian state, one that has never existed but that Israel is ready to live next to when the price is not Israeli blood.

Arafat, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, has desecrated the name of peace, impoverished his people, trampled their human rights, burdened them with his corruption, poisoned them with hatred of Israel, and deluded them with expectations that Israel would give up its land under an onslaught of Palestinian terror.

The Palestinian people deserve better. I hope Roger Heacock and his family know some brave and forward-looking Palestinians who may one day, when Arafat is long gone, emerge as the leaders of a democratic and peaceful Palestine. We wait and pray for that day.

SUZANNE FRIED SINGER ’56
Jerusalem

INJUSTICE TO ISRAEL

Somehow or another, Israel must survive, even though at this moment, in early spring 2002, the path to peace and security is not evident. Israel, a tiny country, is surrounded by Arab neighbors who are teaching their children that Jews are evil and that they should be exterminated. With this in mind, it is shocking to read in the March 2002 Bulletin that Roger Heacock ’62 and his family have chosen to live in “solidarity with the occupied Palestinians” in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

Professor Heacock must have forgotten that the reason for the “occupation” of the West Bank was a concerted—and nearly successful—invasion of Israel in 1967. He must be exceedingly isolated from his neighbors to be ignorant of the fact that it is they who send suicide bombers into shopping malls and hotels and buses to murder and maim and terrorize Israeli civilians. He seems to believe that the occupation of the West Bank is the sole source of tension in the region.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and Swarthmore has done an injustice to Israel—and to us all—in featuring this misguided man and his family.

JOHN WORLOCK ’53
Salt Lake City

NASTY SHOCK

It was a nasty shock to see the Bulletin featuring Professor Roger Heacock ’62 in an article that suggested that the Palestinian Authority, the havoc they have visited on Israel, and their betrayal of those who might have once imagined a nation somewhere in the Middle East for “Palestinians” were worthy of anyone’s work or witness. I thought that Quakers were peace loving on principle. Why is this man attempting to act out some sort of “solidarity” with those whose every breath is dedicated to destruction and murder? And why does our magazine choose to provide a frame for Heacock’s venom?

BART TEUSH ’64
New York City

A PLACE CALLED PALESTINE?

I was quite surprised to find a blatant factual error in the article “Professor in Palestine” (March Bulletin). Where on maps of the 1980s is there a place called Palestine? I can only surmise that the author of the article was identifying with Roger Heacock’s [’62] position about a most contentious geopolitical situation. Why not be honest and call this article an editorial?

RUTH HOCHMAN FRIEDER ’60
Great Neck, N.Y.

MORE THAN A DISAGREEMENT

After reading the March Bulletin, I feel I must respond with more than just an editorial disagreement with its anti-Jewish content. I have chosen to divert my annual contribution to Swarthmore—which I haven’t missed in 15 years—to the Magen David Adom Fund (the Israeli Red Cross).

I was especially taken aback by the content of the article “Professor in Palestine,” which ends with the passage “the current violence [in the Middle East] will never end until the occupation ends.” It is shocking to me that our magazine would feature a Quaker conscientious objector who protests Israeli “occupation” but has nothing to say about suicide bombings by Palestinians targeting Jewish civilians. (It is extremely unfortunate that he chooses merely to “bear witness” rather than to share his pacifist philosophies with his neighbors.)

It is also telling of our magazine’s bias that only David Fisher’s [’79] articulate discussion of a previous anti-Israel piece in the Bulletin [Fisher wrote to object to opinions expressed in an interview with Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology Farha Ghannam, which appeared in the December issue] was countered immediately with a “reply” (i.e., a last word—an out-of-place entry in a letters-to-the-editor section). I hope in the future the editors will do some soul searching on their true feeling toward Jews and take history into account before publishing unfair and harsh criticisms of the Jewish state. I intend to pass my message on to alumni and to encourage others to also withdraw their donations.

JULIE FELICE MARCUS ’87
Oxford, Ohio

STUDENTS SUPPORT GHANNAM

As students of Assistant Professor Farha Ghannam, we were upset by the baseless personal attack on her by David Fisher ’79 in a letter in the March Bulletin. Coming from a variety of religious and ethnic backgrounds, we cherish Swarthmore as a community that values diversity and respect for all people as individuals. Professor Ghannam is a fine teacher, who encourages us to question assumptions and to respect all viewpoints. We have enormous regard for her as a scholar and as a person, and we feel that her classes are a valuable part of our Swarthmore education. We regret that Mr. Fisher was unable to learn from her as we have.

JOHN ANDERSON ’03, ALYSSA BELL ’03, GUNES BENDER ’02, DEBORAH BISHOV ’03, EMILY CHAVEZ ’03, CAITLIN ENGELHARD ’03, DANIEL FINK ’03, MELANIE HIRSCH ’02, SONIA MARIANO ’02, TAMARA MANIK-PERLMAN ’02, KATE PENROSE ’04, BENEDICT SCHWEIGERT ’02, CHIKA WATANABE ’02, PAUL WULFSBERG ’03

PROMISED TO THE JEWS

Roger Heacock speaks of violence in “Israeli-occupied Palestine,” which, he says, “will never end until the [Israeli] occupation ends.” I know several things: This land and more is promised to the Jews. The Jews are still the Lord’s chosen people. They were driven into exile because they worshiped the false gods of the local people. The Palestinian Muslims are zealous in worshiping a false god. The Jews still will not recognize as Savior the One they crucified. But they will! And they will be restored, and the land will be theirs. That is the way the situation will be.

Anyone can know this by reading the Bible.

BOLTON DAVIDHEISER ’34
La Mirada, Calif.

MORE WAR AND PEACE

I was working on a comment about the “War and Peace” issue (December Bulletin) when the March issue arrived with many letters, including the outstanding one from David Fisher ’79.

I believe it is wrong to characterize the attacks on America as “Muslim,” as Fisher does. The perpetrators were renegades to their faith. Religious references ought to be avoided. In my study of the Quran, I find no support for terrorist activities, but I did find “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

The common thread in history is the acquisition and wielding of power. Leaders are to be judged by their motives as well as their accomplishments. Some leaders promote turmoil as an avenue to power.

In his introduction to The Quran Text: Translation and Commentary, Addullah Yusuf Ali recounts the trials of Muhammad in delivering his message of peace to the warring tribes of Arabia. Ali writes, “Islam meant the willing submission of [Muhammad’s] will to God, the active attainment of peace through conflict, and he gave that submission, not without effort, even as Moses did before him, and Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemanae.” Muhammad’s own tribe was from time to time under the influence of Jews, Christians, and pagans, who sought his destruction. The latter were defeated by his followers, who pressed Muhammad to become their temporal leader.

For several hundred years, communities and individuals of the several religions apparently lived in peace and, in some cases, prosperity. Strong leaders were able to develop religious zeal to their own advantage. Therefore, I believe it is wrong to describe the conquests of the Ottoman Turks as Muslim conquests.

In the past 200 to 300 years, pervasive, belligerent anti-Semitism has arisen and regrettably was not completely eradicated with the defeat of Hitler. Religion is not a sound explanation, despite past assertion of Christian condemnation for Jews at the crucifixion—and at present, Arab against Jew in the ethnic sense. The Arabs apparently harbor resentment that Abraham’s blessing was bestowed on Isaac rather than the first-born Ishmael. The age-old drive to acquire and wield power is alive and well. During this same period, a feeling of envy, jealousy, and resentment has arisen in the Eastern countries against the Western. Such feeling is contrary to the teaching of the Quran but, in my view, is the principal basis for the present contention. Although Islam has no hierarchy of priests, the judges of Islamic law have attained major influence along with professors of Muslim history and local prayer leaders. This provides a favorable climate for extremist leaders and hijackers of religion. The challenge is to reorient the teaching of the young, which may take several generations.

In conclusion, peace is a state of affairs devoutly to be wished, but it is not a natural state. To achieve and maintain it is a never-ending task.

THOMAS SPENCER ’37
Orlando, Fla.

OAKS WITH QUAKER ROOTS

Andrea Hammer’s “Families Strong as Oaks” in the March Bulletin provided evidence of how our college years have made their way into our hearts and minds and how Swarthmore’s influence continues to be felt through the years by so many alumni.

To the “117 with three or more generations,” we want to add the story of our family, which began in 1894 when Ida Palmer entered Swarthmore. With her subsequent marriage to Charles Stabler and then four children, we now have five direct generations totaling 19 family members as well as 10 in-laws who are Swarthmore alumni. The youngest in this line will graduate in 2003.

In 1935, this association with the College led to the appointment of our mother and grandmother, Eleanor Stabler Clarke ’18, to the Board of Managers. She was Board secretary from 1950 to 1967 and became an emerita member in 1971. In 1972, she was awarded an honorary doctor of humane letters degree and spoke to the graduating class about the history of Quakerism as it pertained to the College. As she pointed out, some customs of early Quakerism have been long outdated, but the major Quaker influence, which is as meaningful and important today, is the Quaker way of conducting business. She remarked: “The Quaker way of doing business goes beyond democracy, which is majority rule. The ‘sense-of-the-meeting’ procedure aims to find a solution acceptable to all concerned. The result is not a compromise but a search for a better answer.” This consensus way of making decisions can be lengthy, but “it is the surest way to have decisions acceptable to the whole group.” She added that “the emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual means at Swarthmore a concern for the development of the potential of every person who is a student.”

Unfortunately, the athletic decision of December 2000 was rushed. Not enough time was spent listening, discussing, and seeking the “sense of the meeting.” The result is that many alumni are angry and disappointed with the conduct of members of the administration and the Board, who rushed a decision that dismissed a certain category of students as being unworthy of the College’s resources, energy, and respect.

Swarthmore College is legally a nonsectarian institution but one that proclaims to be proud of its Quaker heritage. If a “commitment to essential values of the Quaker tradition” still exists, as expressed by Marjorie Thompson Mogabgab ’74 in the March Bulletin, and if a Swarthmore College experience instills in each of us a sense of personal values of tolerance, independence in spirit and thought, and respect for others—as also mentioned in the article—then we must return to our Quaker roots and believe that, as a College, we can continue to grow and change with the support of all.

Swarthmore College has been extremely important to our family over many years. But just as there was some strong disagreement and disappointment expressed about the athletic decision in the article, so also has our branch of the family been distressed. We hope the Alumni Council will be the catalyst for the healing process by spending time discovering creative solutions to this crisis. When this has been achieved, our family, among many others, can rejoin the larger alumni body with tremendous enthusiasm and loyalty and once again be “strong as oaks.”

CORNELIA CLARKE SCHMIDT ’46
Princeton, N.J.

ELEANOR SCHMIDT CLARK ’71
Farmington, Conn.

WRITE TO US

The Bulletin welcomes letters concerning the contents of the magazine or issues relating to the College. Address your letters to: Editor, Swarthmore College Bulletin, 500 College Avenue, Swarthmore PA 19081-1390, or e-mail bulletin@swarthmore.edu.