Al-Ahram Weekly | Readers' corner

		29 August - 4 Sept. 2002 Issue No. 601 Readers' corner	Current issue Previous issue Site map
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Recommend this page

What is it called?

Sir-- Why is it when Palestinians fight against people taking their land, houses and farms, with stones and guns, they're called "terrorists"; but when Israel sends in tanks and helicopters to blow up or bulldoze people's homes, roads, factories, radio stations, power supplies and sewage system it is called "defence"?
What is it called when Israel (with no proof) openly assassinates alleged militants daily? What is it called when Israel arrests and imprisons over 1000 people without trial or contact with the world? What is it called when Israel continues to build settlements on illegally occupied Palestinian land?
What is it called when Israel keeps almost one million people under a nearly full-time curfew for over the last 100 days? What is it called when because of that curfew you are unable to work, go to school or even shop for food, until you are ordered to? What is it called when an 11-year-old boy is shot by an Israeli sniper for going onto the rooftop of his house? What is it called when Israel kills an average of three Palestinians (men, women or children) a day, every day?
I could go on and on. Bush is talking about more war, more killing, more of the same, and we, the sheep, go along with it.
Ken Murphy
Alexandria
Egypt

Listening to the other

Sir-- As an Israeli and a student of Middle East studies, I feel it is important for me to read what "the other side" says about me, and I feel Al- Ahram Weekly is an important source for Arab voices and opinions.
Thank you for giving me this good work tool.
Nir Malik
Hod-Hasharon
Israel

Simply stated

Sir-- I'm really fond of Al-Ahram Weekly and its wonderful topics and am writing in response to the letter by Casey Brennan 'Vitriolic thunderbolt' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 4-10 July 2002). I would like to ask the writer what they know about Islam to brand it with "terror"? If you want to read about Islam go to the right books. In our holy book the Qur'an, God doesn't forbid us to deal unfairly with non-Muslims who have no intention of driving us out of our homes or religion, and asks us to be just in dealing with them, since God loves those who are just. This is a principle which was unknown to humanity before Islam.
As for Israel and the attacks, I want to ask you a question: if the British are still in the United States what would you do? Would you leave them to occupy your country, killing children, killing women, killing people or putting them in jail, putting them under siege and starving them? Israel is responsible for the state of despair which the Palestinians have reached; people without homes, without food, medicine or milk for their babies. They have deprived the Palestinians of life and led them to the only choice they have left.
Over 50 years ago the Palestinians had a state, homes, olive groves, raised their families and educated their children in a peaceful environment. When the migration of European Jews began with full force after World War II, the Palestinians were pushed off their land and out of their homes savagely, and became refugees in their own land. Palestinians don't hate Jews, as you said, they hate what Israelis are doing. What started out as a way to give Jews a homeland, turned into a Holocaust for the Palestinians. Is this justice? Is this democracy? Is this 'human rights'?
Simply stated, no.
As for the attacks in the US, this has nothing to do with Islam and these people don't represent Islam or Muslims. They have a personal grudge against US foreign policies, and even so there is no real evidence to say they were the culprits. The US army attacked Afghanistan before getting any evidence. Is this right? Is this democracy? Is this 'human rights'?
Simply stated, no.
Muslims don't hate the US. They may just hate its policy and bias towards Israel.
Ashraf Ramadan Fathi
Minya
Egypt

Perverse prejudice

Sir-- The term anti-Semitism has commonly been applied to refer to prejudices that shaped cultural attitudes and values towards Jews, particularly in Europe over the last several centuries. In its most virulent form these sentiments became expressed in the horrific events of the Holocaust. Use of the same term to describe recent statements and even acts of violence to Jews is worrisome on several counts.
Most importantly it pre-disposes both Jews and non-Jews alike to identify the present situation of Jews to that of Jews in Nazi Europe. It thus perversely leads to another prejudice, namely that there is no point to Jews negotiating with adversity, which must instead be met with violent response in 'do or die' fashion. That might have been true then, it is not now.
It also ignores an essential element in the situation today, in that many statements and acts termed 'anti-Semitic' are informed by concrete and particular actions of Jews and the state of Israel, and thus by definition are not 'pre- judgments'. It is hard to alter peoples' pre- conceived notions of you, but if they are responding to what you are actually doing to them change is possible. For the Jews of Nazi Europe change was not possible.
It harms the memories of those victims of genocide in the last century, both Jew and non- Jew, who died without dignity, redemption, or purpose as a result of racial prejudice. There is still much we have to learn from these atrocities, but we need to keep a perspicuous view of them and the racial prejudices that shaped them.
It may be good public relations in the short term to call anything and everything said or done against Jews 'anti-Semitic', but in the long run it will confuse debate on the Arab-Israeli situation, and detract from the prospect of peace between them.
Rienk Lakeman
Calgary
Canada

Headline change

Sir-- Your choice of title for the article 'Fear and loathing in America' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 25-31 July) about Dr Asali of the ADC made absolutely no sense, considering the wisdom and pragmatism of Dr Asali's remarks.
Victoria Zaper
Chicago, Illinois
USA

Mimicking the roots

Sir-- Thank you for taking the time to investigate the ADC issue in 'Crosscurrents into the mainstream' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August).
As an Arab American activist and former ADC volunteer (12 years as ADC Washington DC chapter president, and two years as ADC director of organising), I can say that ADC is like any Arab government.
Omar Kamhieh
Annapolis, Maryland
USA

Right to education

Sir-- I work for the Student Union at Concordia University so I would like to help remedy the situation that Edward Said points to when he writes in 'Punishment by detail' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 8-14 August): "I have yet to see one academic organisation either in Israel or in the West make a declaration about this profound abrogation of the Palestinian right to knowledge, to learning, to attend school."
The Concordia Student Union (CSU) has already declared its opposition to the Israeli occupation and has called on the Canadian government to act on this matter, but as an academic organisation, the CSU certainly has a role to play in this matter of Palestinians' right to education.
I would be grateful for any suggestions as to the wording of a resolution of support for this right and condemnation of the Israeli state's abrogation of it.
David Bernans
Montreal
Canada

Paying the price

Sir-- Regarding your article 'Caught in the middle' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August) about Dr Saadeddin Ibrahim. At last one action by the Bush administration which I can agree with. It is defending the freedom of one of its citizens (regardless of his dual nationality, which Egypt by the way does not recognise, except in military draft and less frequently in its institutions) and signifies the values of democracy.
No more sacrificing the freedom of one person even for the benefit of all -- which is not even the case here.
Dr Ibrahim did not commit any crime, even according to the EU which supplied the funds. He only dared to investigate/document electoral practices in Egypt and it was considered a crime by the powers that be.
If the Egyptian regime does not release Professor Ibrahim, then they will suffer a deserved popular reaction due to US aid cuts. It is about time that all aid is subject to institutional and constitutional reforms. There is no development without democracy.
Nabil El-Khodari
Toronto
Canada

Correct reading

Sir-- I am an Israeli currently living in Canada, and trying to find a way to stop the cycle of needless violence. I have read the article by Edward Said 'Punishment by detail' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 8-14 August) about Sharon's policy and found it incredibly accurate. I wish his article was posted in all the news papers in the West.
It is great to find someone calling a spade a spade.
Smadar Carmon
Toronto
Canada

Bad economic image

Sir-- It appears from the article 'Waiting on the cash' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21 August) that Egypt does not actually need the money. Why are we then approaching these organisations? There is a perception in the international investor community that if a country has to go to the World Bank or the IMF for money, then that country is in trouble, or at least it is in a weak situation. This is particularly the case if the country asks for fast disbursing resources.
Asking for this type of money creates a bad perception problem. The Egyptian people feel that the economy had been made stronger earlier, so that it could evade borrowing from these international organisations. Now, they will feel that the economy is in bad trouble because we have to go back. They will blame the present government for this.
Mohamed El-Alfi
Arlington, Virginia
USA

Bombs away!

Sir-- I am writing in response to Salama A Salama's story, 'Oil and war' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21 August). I believe Mr Salama did an excellent job in reporting what America's true motives are in the impending war in Iraq. However, being an American, I completely agree with the validity of these motives.
Of course a regime change is necessary in Iraq, not just for our interests, but for those of all in the region surrounding Iraq. While it may not be primary, the US (or at least its citizens) are honestly concerned with what Saddam is capable of. And, let's be honest, it's not as if there's standing room only on the Iraq bandwagon; I wouldn't say that the rest of the Arab nations have been particularly supportive of Saddam, and nor should they be.
To any Arab reading this, I ask of you to suppose what you would do given the United States' predicament. By buying so much oil from Saudi Arabia, we are in effect sponsoring terrorism, the Saudis love to throw money at their phony 'martyrs'. If we don't buy the oil, our country collapses. However, it's not such a one-sided situation. I've read hundreds of editorials and stories about how it's all about oil with the US, how all we care about is getting Arab oil, and so on. Where would these Arab countries be today if the US stopped purchasing oil from them? How small would their already small Gross National Product (GNP) be if the most consuming nation in the world stopped needing your product?
The Arabs need the United States, it's just that it sounds like heresy to say it. Now I ask, which world is a more stable world, one with Saddam or one without him? I'd say that's a pretty easy answer, one even the most hardline Muslim extremists would have a hard time finding one of their silly arguments for. Without the US, the Middle East would have turned into one giant bomb-making factory by now, and most Arabs are too ashamed or misguided to acknowledge it.
What happens if we leave Iraq unchecked? How would you like it if Iraq decides in a few months to lob some missiles at Israel? Israel has nuclear capability and a bad attitude. Do you want Saddam to eventually get you all killed? That's the path he's leading the Middle East down.
The truth of the matter is, America should not have to take care about your business, but it is painfully obvious that none of the stronger Arab countries are willing to take Saddam out themselves. I guess if you can't take care of things on your own front, you have no business meddling in others' affairs.
Arabs should support the United States going into Iraq. It will make the world a safer and better place, not to mention the prosperity it will bring for the rest of the Middle East.
Jason Kennedy
Boston, MA
USA

Inherent faults

Sir-- In response to Professor Hassan Nafaa's 'Can the catastrophe be averted?' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August), I would like to point out the following:
Saddam Hussein proved time and again that he is not to be trusted; his ambition to totally dominate the Arabs -- oil in particular -- was obvious. The man is a dictator to the fullest meaning of the word. Back in the early 1990s, as well as today, Saddam Hussein concerned himself with his personal glory. Neither the Arabs nor any other entity would have been able to change his mind. His real goal was to keep going to take over the entire Arabian peninsula.
True, the US is only concerned with the danger that Saddam may pose for Israel, and this is the real reason behind the war drums which we hear today from George W Bush. Meanwhile, the influence of the Israeli lobby is beyond comprehension. They use their money very wisely to support candidates who will side with their cause, while Arab money goes to unnecessary luxury.
The absence of democracy throughout the entire Arab world is the main reason behind the sad situation they suffer from now. Oil money invested in the US is, by reasonable estimates, over the trillion dollar figure. Corruption is taking over in every facet of the Arabs' way of life. Yes, the US has its own corruption, as evident by the recent news, but it can survive due to its enormous economic and military power.
The author says 'free elections' and 'general political amnesty' but my question is: how can any Arab country, including Egypt, preach something that they themselves lack? For example, how can Bashar Al-Assad, for one, preach elections while he inherited the presidency of the 'republic'?
Awni Sammakia
Elkin, NC
USA

Delusions of democracy

Sir-- In responding to the letter 'A Western education' by Larry Fogelberg (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August) stating that war against Saddam Hussein is a good first step to achieve US goals and making Iraq an ally in the region. I would like to question the rationale that a war against Iraq is a good first step. It is absolute nonsense. War against Iraq spells out destruction, bombing and the killing of many innocents. It is a mistake to think that a war will achieve peace and make Iraq a democratic state.
Furthermore, the US is the last state to speak about a democratic state. In the aftermath of 11 September, it is disgraceful that your country should speak about democracy and civil liberties. America's pretense of democracy has been stripped to many Arab and Muslim Americans who are subject to possible suspicion and arrest without real evidence.
So, is your democracy to kill innocents, destroy lives and remove regimes? It is surprising that the US is trying to topple the Iraqi regime out of fear of its weapons of mass destruction, while Israel possesses chemical and biological weapons, as well as nuclear weapons and no one gives it a second glance.
My advise to the Americans is to change the Israeli regime instead of this war-torn state under siege. And to Mr Fogelberg, I suggest you look up the word democracy in the dictionary.
Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab
Cairo
Egypt

Open invitation

Sir-- I would like to invite Mr Fargostien, the writer of the letter 'Worthwhile killing' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 1-7 August), to visit Egypt and see the truth. You will find out that you missed a lot of points.
I can host you personally in my own home in Cairo. What do you think?
Mohamed Galal
Cairo
Egypt

EgyptAir turbulence

Sir-- I have been living in Japan for almost 10 years studying and working as a researcher after receiving my doctorate degree. Each year, I attend one or two meetings overseas to present my work. I always try to use EgyptAir during my travel to Egypt or Europe, but I have come to discover the astonishing fact that Egyptian nationals are discriminated against by EgyptAir by being deprived the right to buy discounted tickets.
This situation has happened to me many times, but whenever I requested it, I was not given any official EgyptAir document which states this discriminative policy in writing. Travel agents are verbally ordered by EgyptAir not to sell discount tickets to Egyptians.
I did not intend to send this letter, but new developments have taken place in the market which could damage the future and reputation of our national carrier. In the past, EgyptAir monopolised the market and offered expensive prices because there were no competitors, but now Air Korea has flights to Cairo twice a week and the prices are much cheaper. So, the wisdom of EgyptAir's policy is highly questionable.
One needs to know the following:
What are the benefits of discriminating against Egyptians living abroad? Do EgyptAir officials think that selling cheap tickets to non- Egyptians will bring more tourists and more hard currency to the country? Don't they know that a fairly large amount of hard currency comes from Egyptians who are working abroad? Is it acceptable to fly with a few non- Egyptian passengers on board, rather than selling more tickets to Egyptians just because they are Egyptian nationals? Who decides such policies and imposes them in a way which tarnishes the reputation of the national carrier? Is it logical to expect that Egyptians will continue using their national carrier when there is a cheaper competitor available? Or does EgyptAir believe Egyptians living abroad to be richer than foreigners?
Mohamed Gad
Tsukuba
Japan

Weekly delight

Sir-- I would like to take this opportunity to briefly say that your newspaper is my favourite on-line. I am currently beginning my Masters degree and reading your coverage, from domestic politics to culture and people sections.
Your newspaper is a rare delight to find and offers both sides of the story. Keep up the great work.
Shereen Sadek
Montreal, QC
Canada

Armchair pundits

Sir-- Regarding: Mazen Khiami's letter (Al- Ahram Weekly, 27 June-3 July) asking you to publish a list of American/Israeli firms in order for people to boycott them. I see he resides in Manchester, England. I wonder if he will do the same there? Will he boycott all American goods in Manchester? 100 per cent completely? I very much doubt it.
My message to him is please practice what you preach. I also know that quite a number of Arabs living abroad used to call in at Al-Jazeera satellite station, crying blue murder, throwing insults at every head of state in the Arab world, demanding protests and on some occasions war. I suggest to them to either leave the country they are in and go back to help those who are afflicted and in need in the Middle East -- or shut up.
Talking zeal is easy, especially when you are far away in comfort, like those who demand war and have never seen or lived through it. I have never seen or lived through one, but I know it is not your traditional street fight or boot camp training. It destroys the economy and sometimes vital infrastructure.
War is not an option, and I very much appreciate President Mubarak's remarks on this subject a few months ago. They were concise and right to the point.
Sherif Ahmet
Surrey
UK