The letter by Joshua S. Katz ’06 [Dec. 3] in response to a column by Aimee L. Smith PhD ’02 about Amer Jubran [“Speaking While Palestinian,” Nov. 22] demonstrates that Katz is himself a master of what he accuses Smith: lying for political purposes.
As a member of the New England Committee to Defend Palestine (of which I am also a member), Amer Jubran supports the Palestinian people’s right to resist an unjust occupation (a right recognized as a basic human right). He supports a one-state solution: a secular and democratic Palestine. Many people do not agree with these political opinions, but that does not make the man who holds them “a threat to national security,” or a “terrorist.”
Mr. Katz’s efforts to dehumanize and discredit Mr. Jubran by calling him names are terrifying (Mr. Katz would like to see an honest, outspoken man, innocent of any crime, locked up because he disagrees with his politics) as well as pathetic (Mr. Katz disagrees with Mr. Jubran’s politics, but rather than arguing on political grounds, he would rather silence his opponent by slandering and jailing him).
Mr. Katz is also mistaken when he states that the government always has a good reason for jailing people indefinitely without charges. If he truly believes that, he should read some histories of the FBI (like The COINTELPRO Papers by Churchill and Vander Wall).
Was our government right to promote the harassment and death of Martin Luther King Jr.? I am sure that if Mr. Katz had been a government agent at the time, he would have found ample justification by stating that MLK was a “terrorist” and “a threat to national security.”
There can be no good reason for jailing people based on their political opinions. The fact that Mr. Katz advocates this only proves that he is unworthy of living in a democracy.
Julia Steinberger G