To the editor,

In regards to both the editorial cartoon and the editorial piece in the February 7th issue of the Lanthorn, we have some serious concerns to address. First, the more visible and obvious of the two offenses. The cartoon depicts a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood re-stating their staunch anti-violence issue, and then highlights the Brotherhood’s alleged association with Hamas. This has serious implications, including the idea that a Muslim organization cannot possibly be peaceful, and that being ideologically similar to another organization makes you similar to them in every way. For now, we will set aside the idea that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but a guerrilla force reacting to military occupation. Regardless of ones opinion on this matter, it cannot be said that the Muslim Brotherhood is similar in tactics or strategy to Hamas. The cartoon is inaccurate and offensive.

Second, the editorial piece states that the only way Egypt will come out of this revolution with a free and democratic state rather than another oppressive regime is with United States involvement. This statement at once invalidates the courageous and powerful action by Egyptian citizens, and ignores the fact that Mubarak has remained in power with the support of the United States. In fact, the United States gives around two billion dollars annually to Egypt in military aid – that is aid to the same military that has been threatening what have otherwise been peaceful protests. United States involvement in Egypt would not be in order to foster democracy and freedom – it would be to maintain an alliance, and, inevitably, help protect Israel. Both the United States and Israel are terrified of the impact a new government in Egypt would have. This, by itself, makes US interest in the matter biased and therefore diametrically opposed to a democracy voted on by the Egyptian people.

We wish we could say that he editorial and cartoon are astounding in their ignorance, arrogance, and falsehood. However, this is not the first time the Lanthorn has demonstrated this kind of irresponsible journalism. We hope that, in future, the editors will be more careful in what they allow to be printed. Although discussion and debate of differing opinions should be encouraged, this should not come at the expense of accuracy and respect to the parties impacted.

Respectfully

Amy Simpson

Ahmad Shiber

GVSU Students