Articles
December 2011, Pages 36-37
Other People's Mail
Compiled by Jean-Pascal Deillon and Dale Sprusansky
Palestinian State Is Right
To the Charleston Gazette (WV), Oct. 12, 2011
I'm sure you'll take some flak for your editorial about Palestine. I'd like to applaud it. Backing Palestinian statehood is the right thing for Palestinians, the right thing for America, and, well, it's just the right thing to do.
David N. Ryan, Spencer, WV
Uneven Strength Unfair
To The Minnesota Daily, Sept. 25, 2011
For a two-party negotiation to succeed, the two sides need to be approximately equal. When one side is totally dominant, as Israel is over Palestine, you get dictation, not negotiation. That is why Obama's absurd comment at the U.N., "Ultimately, it is the Israelis and Palestinians, not us, who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them," was met with stony silence.
Support for Palestinian statehood by the leaders of countries such as France and Brazil received standing ovations.
Meanwhile, the world watches as a helpless American president fawns over the small country that holds his electoral mortgage. I can't believe that this president is the man I voted for.
Rolf Westgard, St. Paul, MN
Pushing on for Mideast Peace
To The New York Times, Sept. 30, 2011
When President Harry S. Truman recognized Israel, he defied his secretary of state, resisted "logic" and opposed many of his "experts." Some believe Truman was right; some believe that we are still paying for a premature decision. Subsequent presidents have launched peace initiatives, peace missions, peace plans, peace accords, peace conferences, peace summits, peace talks, peace solutions and peace proposals. Has this worked for anyone?
Perhaps it is time for President Obama to defy his experts and recognize Palestine. Can things be worse than the Middle East wars, occupations, assassinations, massacres, suicide bombs, refugee camps and security barriers of the past 63 years?
This might be the wrong time, this might be the right time, but if we incline to hope, it might be the perfect time to defy logic and the experts—and try something different.
Felicity O. Yost, New York, NY
Walk in Palestinians' Shoes
To The Tennessean, Sept. 24, 2011
The article "Abbas could gain from U.N. gambit" fails to consider the dangerous gambit the U.S. will make if it vetoes Palestine's bid for recognition by the U.N.
Our government might, in effect, be painting targets on the backs of American citizens because many people in the Muslim world strongly disagree that the U.S. has the "right" to deny Palestinians equal rights and representative government. Our own Declaration of Independence says that if people are denied equal rights and representative government, they have the right to resist their oppressors. So our government takes a terrible risk when it denies rights we cherish to other people.
What would American men do if a foreign oppressor interfered with the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of millions of our children? Well, other men love their children, too, and will never agree that hypocritical Americans have any business forcing them to be serfs.
Mike Burch, Nashville, TN
Settlements Are a Big Problem
To the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 2, 2011
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calls the Israeli government's approval of 1,100 new housing units in East Jerusalem counterproductive. I would say this is part of Israel's repeated, unmitigated and arrogant slaps in the face to the United States, the United Nations and to the entire Arab world. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu acts with impunity.
What I have the most trouble accepting is why our nation continues to stand with Netanyahu—and how we can consider the Palestinians' attempts at self-determination to be less valuable than those of Egypt's, Tunisia's or Libya's.
Netanyahu ignores the fact that building new settlements, whether in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem, violates international law. Is Israel above the law?
Marilyn Goodman, Santa Monica, CA
U.S. Should Cut Aid to Israel
To The Washington Post, Oct. 23, 2011
Walter Pincus' Oct. 18 Fine Print column, "U.S. must reevaluate its assistance to Israel," was courageous and correct. As the United States struggles with its budget and as Israel acts to increase taxes and reduce its military spending, we should cut back on the huge sum we provide to Israel for its military.
But there is another reason for a cutback: The money is being used for bad purposes that damage U.S. standing throughout the Mideast.
We have lived and taught in Palestine. We know what the occupation does to young people. We have witnessed Israel's theft of land for settlements, its theft of water for its profligate uses and its denial of freedom to an indigenous population.
The United States has stood with Israel as it denies basic rights to Palestinians. Of course the United States is not seen as a friendly nation in the Middle East. If there was any problem with Mr. Pincus' article, it was that he did not go far enough.
Gordon K. Davies and Elizabeth S. Brinson, Richmond, VA
Palestinian Statehood
To The Oregonian, Sept. 22, 2011
In his Sept. 20 column, Thomas Friedman skewers Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his "strategy" of suffocating any U.S. condemnation of Israel's human rights abuses by having the Israel lobby "force the administration" to ignore its own national interest ("Israel's intransigence: A security crisis blooms in isolation, stubbornness"). Friedman also speaks frankly of the lobby "hammering" Congress, and threatening politicians with "losing the Jewish vote."
Never mind Netanyahu's mistakes; why does any lobby have this kind of power and control over a government that is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people" and that has previously been a strong advocate of freedom and equal rights for all peoples?
How can the Israel lobby force Congress to do an Israeli leader's bidding when it overrides American values and interests? Shouldn't AIPAC and other members of the Israel lobby have to register as agents of a foreign country?
Why is our Congress representing Netanyahu and Israel instead of us?
June Forsyth-Kenagy, Albany, OR
Palestinians Victims, Too
To The Australian, Oct. 14, 2011
It should be remembered that Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier to be released, was stationed inside his armored tank on the Gaza-Israeli border when he was captured.
Tal Ellinson (Letters, 13/10) neglects the truth and perpetuates the myth that Israel is the victim in this torrid saga. Let us not forget that it is Israel that is occupying the Palestinians and not the other way around.
Since 2000, Israeli military courts have detained and prosecuted about 7,000 Palestinian children, with 87 percent of them being beaten or tortured, according to Defense for Children International. Almost every one of these children is denied access to their parents, a guardian or legal representation—an obvious abuse of international law.
Further, the entire court proceedings and list of criminal charges are in Hebrew, thereby not allowing the child, without representation, any ability to understand why they're incarcerated. Why is there no outrage on this front? Where is the indignation over human rights abuse here?
Moammar Mashni, Melbourne, Australia
Killing of a Cleric in Yemen
To The New York Times, Oct. 1, 2011
Regardless of whether Anwar al-Awlaki was a serious loss for al-Qaeda, killing him adds up to a serious loss for us.
The action fuels a growing perception that we, like al-Qaeda, are violent and lawless. In Mr. Awlaki's case, it cheapens American citizenship. And using drones to take down human targets looks more like computer gaming, with other people's lives at stake, than responsible international behavior. For all these reasons, attacks of this kind strengthen our adversaries.
Our strongest suit as a nation is our tradition of respect for the rule of law and for the rights of our fellow human beings. The cost of this attack is far higher than any return it could possibly offer.
Mary R. Holbrow, Cambridge, MA
Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki
To The Denver Post, Oct. 9, 2011
President Obama campaigned on a pledge to restore the rule of law after the awful abuses by the executive branch under George W. Bush. Instead, Obama has now endorsed the mind-boggling premise that the executive can unilaterally authorize extrajudicial execution of a U.S. citizen.
I suspect there is ample evidence to have sustained a conviction and death sentence for Anwar al-Awlaki. But that determination cannot be made by the very branch of government that generated the evidence. An independent judiciary is indispensable for preventing abuse of authority by the executive. It is universally recognized that no system of justice is legitimate in which a single authority serves as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
Chris van den Honert, Boulder, CO
When U.S. Kills an American
To The New York Times, Oct. 12, 2011
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen, with constitutional guarantees of due process of law. Indeed, if our courts were empowered to strip any of us of citizenship, all our "rights" would be merely boons granted at the courts' pleasure. Unless he walked into a United States courthouse or embassy to renounce his citizenship, American law permits only one scenario in which he would not be entitled to a full trial (whether in person or in absentia).
Our law provides that we can infer that one has renounced American citizenship by "serving in the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States."
Name that state and show that Mr. Awlaki served in armed forces, and you have a case for denying him a trial. Until then, he's a murder victim.
Barry Haskell Levine, Lafayette, CA
Apply Iraq's Lessons to Libya
To the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 24, 2011
I agree with the Times about rebuilding Libya. But I would like to remind the Times that much of the turmoil in Iraq was a result of how the U.S. handled things once Saddam Hussain was overthrown.
Instead of being liberators, we were occupiers. We disbanded the Iraqi armed forces and lost the trust of the Iraqi people.
This time, let's help the people by building bridges between tribes and fostering education and public works projects. No Halliburtons. No U.S. soldiers. Build bridges, literal and otherwise.
Paul L. Hovsepian, Sierra Madre, CA
Wrong About Wars
To [Louisville] Courier-Journal, Sept. 26, 2011
Nearly a decade ago, I wrote to the C-J to voice my support for both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. Today, with our nation bankrupt and falling behind in a fast-paced and competitive world, where we cut firefighters and educators, and where we discuss with straight faces sending octogenarians out to shop for medical coverage with a discount coupon, I have changed my opinion and believe now is long past the time to reconsider.
Early in the wars, the Bush administration fired the chairman of the National Economic Council, Lawrence Lindsey, for suggesting that the war in Iraq could cost as much as $200 billion (more than three times the administration number). Today, with costs in the thousands of billions of dollars, we continue to spend money that we don't have, and we continue to sacrifice the lives of young Americans who have heeded the call to volunteer.
As Ron Paul and others have said, it's time to bring the troops home. Our country has suffered serious damage to its prosperity and to its future. Our limited resources are needed to keep our elderly out of the streets, to maintain what's left of our once grand infrastructure, to fund the advancement of science, etc.
As much as I hate to say it, Code Pink, you were right. I was wrong.
Gerald Patrick O'Bryan, Louisville, KY
