He proclaimed that in doing so we would merely be reacting to others’ actions, and would thus have little control over the situation ourselves. Part of American’s problem is that, in this way, it feels the need to have control over all global situations. Saletan’s argument is fundamentally flawed when he compares this action-reaction scenario to classical conditioning, reasoning that by changing our foreign policy, we would be relegating ourselves to the "weak" position of the dog in Pavlov’s experiments; while I agree that the terrorists were completely unjustified, Americans must way the possibility that our actions and mentalities in the first place, over the past fifty or more years, were inherently unjustified.

On the other hand, this is not to say that the terrorists had any justifiable reason for committing the acts that they did. Such gratuitous violence is never acceptable, nor should it ever be a justifiable means to an end. For most Americans it is difficult to see that there were in fact humans behind these subhuman acts. It is difficult to look past the hurt and passion for revenge to see that further military attacks will only prolong the vicious cycle of victimization and revenge, in which we are getting caught. This cycle has presented itself in individual regions of the world in the past century as imperialism and struggles for revolution have either unintentionally or corruptly affected other regions and peoples.

Never before have the negative consequences of American policy affected Americans so profoundly. In the wake of the tragedy, the media has put much emphasis on the fact that Americans have a feeling of invincibility and comfort which this series of events may have shattered. But there may be a deeper American mentality which needs to be modified. Although it may be impossible for most Americans to see or admit that we have been living in a bubble, it is important for us to try to keep open minds about this experience. While the media refuses to ask the question "why?", we on this campus need to attempt to answer it, and if we can’t do that we should not lash out at those who wish to ask it. If we do not see this merely as an excuse to exact revenge on a faceless killer, perhaps something positive can come out of this horrific event.

It is difficult for me, like most, to look beyond the hurt and see the other side, to see the human side behind the literally faceless killers. Although reasons do not imply justification, I know in my rational mind that there are reasons which must have fueled such intense rage and irrational determination. I am glad, especially now, to be attending Cornell, where such open-mindedness is sought by faculty and students, rather than a similarly intellectual or resourceful school whose students now espouse militant and revengeful thoughts and words. It is times like these that the school’s popularly despised motto "Such Diversity in one University," oft mocked in many an a cappella song, seems uniquely apt. The particular horror of this tragedy is that, there is not one right answer on either side. I feel personally torn between two sides which both have human rights in their interest. It seems difficult to express concern for the causation of militant anti-American feelings while still adequately mourning the loss of life which is still raw both physically and emotionally.

Luckily, I have not experienced a multitude of people here who narrow-mindedly wish to bomb Afghanistan, repaying the "damn Arabs" for what they did. I feel grateful for the insight with which Cornell students and faculty speak and behave. However, this revengeful attitude is the opinion expressed in much of this country. And while most people put on their red, white and blue clothing and proudly sing their patriotic songs and cheers of war, others, who know the real story are disturbed by these stirrings. Deeply disturbed. Like these few, perhaps more in such an open-minded place as Cornell, I imagine Afghani babies dying in their mothers’ arms. What will happen to the people of Afghanistan if we begin a massive bombing campaign or invasion of all those countries who harbor terrorists? Will thousands of their innocent civilians be killed, in much the same way that our friends, relatives and neighbors were? As Western media forges a bond of patriotism and military strength amongst Americans, it continues to commit a sin of omission, by neglecting to inform us of the conditions in the country we plan to bomb. We are told that President Bush wishes to "smoke [the Afghanis] out of their holes," and we are constantly reminded of the victory and sense of safety we will feel when every last one of "them" is killed, but nowhere are we told that much of this has already happened. Afghanistan is already a ravaged country. The few terrorists who are harbored there by the Taliban do not represent the people of Afghanistan, nor does the Taliban government itself. It is difficult for us to understand the plight of a people who are not represented by their government, because most Americans have either grown up in or come to love this country where we democratically elect our government. As angry as we were over the undemocratic way in which our last election was decided, we should keep in mind that it does not begin to compare with the horrendous violations and committed by the Taliban rulers.) The Taliban government, coupled with the intense famine which has been afflicting Afghanistan, has left most of the Afghanis, a largely peaceful and devout people, destitute beyond our wildest imaginations. Will our war efforts lead to further suppression, further killing of innocents?

However, the other side seems equally compelling. Not the warmongering side which speaks of pure revenge, but the side in which I don’t envision the starving or bleeding Afghani baby. Instead I see my dad, a Jew, trapped on the seventy-third floor of his building, unable to escape before the building in which he and many of the 50,000 other innocents had worked for 20 years or more collapsed. Fortunately, but with no credit to the terrorists, my father, who did work in One World Trade Center, was half an hour late to work on Tuesday September eleventh; ironically he was saved for democracy’s sake, he was voting in the NY Primary. I have heard countless similar stories of other doctor's appointments, car accidents and missed alarm clocks which saved people’s lives.

Another stumbling block which prevents me from imagining the other side of this tragedy as a human oppressed side is that as a Jew, I feel especially targeted by this attack. Many believe that this attack came as a result of the fact that the U.S. did not represent itself at the UN Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa. Unfortunately, many of the people who keep open minds about international feelings towards America and are concerned about human rights, also feel that Israel is just a manifestation of American corporate, racist power, and that it consistently employs anti-human tactics against ordinary Palestinians.

Perhaps one of the reasons that as a Jew I feel more the target of Islamic hatred of the West, is that, somewhat unjustly, some see Israel in a light which is unfair to its ideals. Unlike the United States, it merely struggles to exist and does not attempt to project its values onto the entire world. Although some Palestinians have been oppressed due to the sub-human actions of their compatriots, Israel is not an evil, corporate empire and Zionism is not a racist ideology, propagating the oppression of Arab civilians or nations. As Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "And I say let the truth ring from the mountain tops. Let it echo through the valley of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism they mean Jews...Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land...And what is Anti-Zionism? It is the denial to the Jew of the fundamental right that we justify claim for the people of Africa and freely accord to all other nations of the globe. It is discrimination against Jews because they are Jews. In short, it is Anti-Semitism."

It is not only ideal but necessary for Cornellians and Americans to be receptive to ideas which may counteract the typical patriotic, revengeful zeal by which the United States seems to be operating. Clearly, international tensions have now escalated to a level where they are strongly affecting Americans for the first time in fifty-six years, and it would be extremely negligent and intolerant if we were to relegate this month’s tragedy to the mere actions of a few irrational zealots. Though zealotry was clearly present and is not to be accepted, it does not come without a cause, and all causes, no matter how unreasonable, have some element of truth to them. We need to ask ourselves whether it is easier—and whether it is more humane—to eliminate the terrorists, or to remove the causes of terrorism.

Perhaps the recent violent attacks against Muslim students (and even those who just "look" Islamic or Arabic) should be an indicator to Americans that they are reacting to this tragedy in a distinctly racist, isolationist manner. When several American students committed equally sub-human attacks against their fellow students, the immediate response of our nation was not only to prosecute those responsible, but also to determine what was making these adolescents so upset as to cause them to wish to reek havoc on their peers. There were no widespread attempts made to exact physical revenge on the criminals or those who look like them. Because they were white and resembled a majority of Americans, we almost empathized with them. Clearly, nobody is asking Americans to empathize with these terrorists, but because they are presumably of a different race and religion than most Americans (or at least those in power), they are considered merely an enemy to be combated. We lack the curiosity for the causation for these feelings of hatred which was ever-present with the school-shootings.

Here at Cornell, a liberal institution, we must never forget that even though America is a superpower, it should not and in the end does not have control over the rest of the world. By blindly seeking revenge upon those who ravaged human life within our borders, we are continuing the American practice of denying American freedoms and rights to non-Americans. We are continuing to ignore the plight of those who may have values and ideals different from our own. As Professor Richard Falk of Princeton, a foreign policy scholar, said, "The responses for which support is being mobilized are not going to address the true character of this challenge. This is the first war for which there is no military solution. And without a military solution our leaders lack the imagination to understand what is happening and what to do."

William Saletan ended his article by quoting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s September 18th comment, "We have a choice: either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable; or to change the way that they live. And we chose the latter." I found this quote particularly ironic, because while Rumsfeld intends to say that changing the way Americans live would be unacceptable, he never even considers the fact that perhaps to citizens of other sovereign nations, the way in which Americans themselves live is equally unacceptable.