Al-Ahram Weekly | Readers' corner

		5 - 11 September 2002 Issue No. 602 Readers' corner	Current issue Previous issue Site map
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Recommend this page

Cartoon by Ossama Qassim

Occupied Palestine Money problems

Sir-- Your article 'Waiting on the cash' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21 August) on Egypt's desire to borrow from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), requires a comment.
The IMF will require the fulfilment of certain conditions. In the case of Egypt, the minimum conditions are likely to be further depreciation of the exchange rate and opening up the financial, especially banking, sector. If Egypt wants to borrow quick disbursing money from the World Bank and not from the IMF, it will still have to meet conditionalities.
The World Bank and the IMF have an agreement that the former can only lend quick disbursing money, if the country has a programme in place with the IMF. Even if the IMF has only to be "on board", it will still require action on the areas I mentioned above. Furthermore, Egypt will have to show that it has a balance of payments problem.
Egypt must consider whether these actions are in its national interest at the present time because they are likely to create uncertainty and discourage investors. It would be better to encourage the return of tourists (which is already happening) and to increase exports.
Robert Armstrong
New York
USA

Hard to find

Sir-- As an Englishman who has recently moved to Canada, I am every day astonished at how compromised and biased the mass news media is here -- particularly the newspapers (with the exception of a few free local papers). It is even harder to find out what is going on in Palestine than it was in Britain.
I find myself now in a situation where I remember somewhere at the back of my mind that what Israelis and Americans do to other people is far worse than what is done to them, but I can't remember why I know that. Every now and then I meet a Mexican or a Yugoslavian who tells me in exasperation how naive "the Canadians" are, but I have found that over the course of the last few months here, I too have become more and more naive.
This is why I feel compelled to write to you to commend you for publishing Edward Said's 'Punishment by detail' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 8-14 August). To write with such beauty and feeling about something so vile, to write with such force, clarity and thought (but not hatred or hysteria) is a rare thing these days. It is reading the work of courageous thinkers and journalists like Edward Said that gives me the intellectual and poetic tools to conduct dialogue for peace with my neighbours and acquaintances, in a country that is so heavily influenced by the United States.
I too pray for Professor Said to recover his health as quickly as possible, both out of gratitude for what he has done in the past and because we (everybody) really need him now.
Robert Persson
Vancouver BC
Canada

Arab isolationism

Sir-- I am writing in response to the article by Edward Said 'Disunity and factionalism' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 15-21 August). I would like to share the following comments I had concerning the article.
He made some very important political/ sociological observations, however I wonder if there is a more fundamental weakness which goes deeper and starts long before Arab rulers have effectively destroyed the citizens' "capacity of understanding what personal commitment to a cause bigger than ourselves might mean"? I am not quite sure what its exact roots are, but a lack of vision stemming from an isolated mentality -- perhaps exasperated by arrogance -- may contribute to the outcome of lacking the capacity to understand personal commitment in a struggle.
Regarding the Palestinian struggle, I would say that correct actions are a result of correct understanding/intentions. I would question the understanding of those who utilise, condone, appreciate or support suicide missions. But this too is a result of dire desperation. But is Islam incidental in the Palestinian struggle or is nationalism at its forefront? This too will help diagnose the maladies which exist within the Palestinian struggle.
The first thing that returning to religion will show the Arabs is that they are truly not that special (a most important distinction if one acknowledges the effects of widespread isolationism and arrogance). They are only special in regards to their God-consciousness.
As a non-Arab Muslim, I for one am not moved by the Arab appeal. And considering that Arabs make up a small percentage of the total Muslim populace, they may wish to dispense of their ethnic isolation. Is this not where their problems began in the first place?
Melissa Nikolic
Georgia
USA

Who are the Arabs?

Sir-- The problem of 'Disunity and factionalism' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21 August) which Professor Edward Said seems to lament, is like the problem with the UNDP report about human development in the Arab World.
The concept of an "Arab" is basically an expedient political notion, of disparate entities which speak formal Arabic in formal exchanges, which may share some history, but are quite different ethnically and sociologically. They are like the concept "African", which include the countries of North Africa, which do not see themselves -- and are not seen as -- the same as sub-Saharan Africans, anymore than the Afrikaaners can consider themselves African, or the non-aligned nations which include many very aligned ones, all of which can easily disunite and factionalise if subjected to the "stress tests" the so-called Arabs were subjected to. They are like cardiac patients, who look normal, but can collapse with stress tests.
Those who call themselves Arabs do that often and unintentionally, to attribute to themselves glories and achievements which non- Arabs had contributed to. This is different from the European Union which, despite differences in languages, standards for admission, orientations and standards of societal management, do guarantee homogeneity.
Ikram Youssef Sayed
Cairo
Egypt

Two in the dock

Sir-- I read with some interest Samir Amin's article 'In the beginning is the end' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August). However, I have several questions. First, in the article the writer states that Israel should be expelled from the UN and that Sharon should be tried for war crimes under international laws. However when addressing the action of Palestinians, he says that violence used by Palestinians is a response to this and is, therefore, fully legitimate. Does the writer truly believe that the indiscriminate killing of civilians -- sometimes very young children -- is acceptable under international law?
If international law is to be applied, it should be equally applied to all, and Chairman Arafat should sit in the defendants bench next to Sharon.
Ori Bach
Tel Aviv
Israel

Seen Exodus?

Sir-- Although no doubt most readers of Samir Amin's 'In the beginning is the end' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August) gleefully devoured the writer's blatant distortions of historical facts and disingenuous identification of Israel as the crime of the 20th century, I respond for the sake of the more discriminating public. Amin states: "Israel as a state is a fabrication of the major Western imperialist powers, of Britain initially and thereafter the US." And Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, and the rest of the world's dysfunctional regimes are not the result of Westerners playing a life-size game of Risk? If artificial borders are the hallmark of illegitimacy, most UN members would have to turn in their membership cards.
Amin writes: "An imperialist US subsequently assumed the 'protection of Israel'". The 1967 War was planned in Washington during 1965, its aim being to destroy the Nasserist attempt at an independent development. The writer is so eager to see the world through passé Marxists lenses that he runs wild with unsubstantiated assertions. There is no evidence for a US role in the Six-Day War. Even if there had been joint military planning, ultimately the war began because Egypt and Syria threatened to destroy Israel and mobilised their forces at the border toward this end.
The British authorities did not energetically support the building of a Jewish state within colonial Palestine. On the contrary, the British severely limited Jewish immigration and harshly suppressed radical factions on both sides. Hasn't anyone seen the movie Exodus?
Amid his misdirection and liberal handling of the historical record, his real voice can occasionally be heard: "Israeli occupation, its daily actions, are based on violence and terror. Violence used by Palestinians is a response to this and is, therefore, fully legitimate. Resistance to oppression is one of the fundamental rights of peoples."
Ah, yes. The brutal Israeli-Nazis oppress the Palestinians and the sole recourse of the latter is to blow themselves up along with a pizza parlor, and this is legitimate form of resistance. We're all in trouble if every lunatic with a gripe and fertiliser is a moral actor.
Daniel Horowitz
Ottawa
Canada

Britain's blunder

Sir-- I would like to raise a mild protest at Samir Amin's claim in his excellent piece 'In the beginning is the end' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August), that Britain was initially responsible for the creation of Israel. I accept that Britain has a shameful responsibility for Jewish immigration during the period of the Mandate, and for the acceptance of the concepts of the grossly abusive Balfour Declaration.
Nonetheless, Britain did realise before 1947 that partition and a separate Zionist state was not possible, because the Zionists could not be trusted not to indulge in the awful ethnic cleansing which will remain a blot on the face of Israel forever -- no matter how many lies might be told about the Arabs attacking the Jews.
In fact, Britain did not vote in favour of the 'fixed' UN resolution on partition, which was only carried because of bribery and blackmail by US. I would like to humbly apologise for the part my country played in the creation of Israel.
Christopher Leadbeater
Oxford
UK

Not so sure

Sir-- Galal Nassar is much too pessimistic in 'Preparing for war' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August). It is not likely that the US will attack Iraq. There is no support for it around the world, and no support in the US either. Many top members of the President Bush's own party, including his father's closest advisors, are opposed to it.
Chris Condon
The Woodlands, Texas
USA

Decisions, decisions

Sir-- I read 'Preparing for war' by Galal Nassar (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August), and it seems that Egypt needs to decide which side it is on. Will you pacify the radical Islamic movement or join the civilised world? Egypt can no longer accept US aid and also be a safe-haven for radical and violent jihad. Stand up for what you believe.
As a recent visitor to your country, I can only see hypocrisy. If you continue to try to stand in the middle of the tracks, taking no position, the train will run you over.
C Boyd
Atlanta, Georgia
USA

Master plan

Sir-- The story on Iraq's preparations for war with the US and Britain 'Preparing for war' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August) is laughable. To suggest that the Republican Guard is a threat to the US ground forces is a huge strategic mistake.
The US Army can engage targets from ranges that the Iraqis can only dream of. Our air and sea forces will destroy all communications before any Allied boot touches the ground. Our attack helicopters and armoured divisions will mow through any remaining enemy tanks like a knife through butter. We will then conduct a direct assault on Baghdad. We will starve the city and block all communications, while we drop precision guided bombs on every worthwhile target in that doomed city.
If there is anything left moving after that we will destroy it. Then we will find out with electronic sensors and satellites if the tyrant is alive or dead and then Delta Force will proceed to extract. Case closed.
Mission Time: 30-60 days for initial phase with 3-6 months-worth of mop-up operations.
Dave Schneider
Texas
USA

The Saddam solution

Sir-- It seems to me that the US will go to war by launching a big scale operation against Iraq, whether they accept the return of arms inspectors or not. The question is what the Arabs are going to do about it. Like Sudan, I think we are witnessing another attempt to divide an Arab country. The US wants to divide Iraq into three small states; one in the north for Kurds, another in the centre for Sunnis and a third in the south for Shiites. It is a big conspiracy against the oil-rich Arab countries.
Egypt, under the leadership of President Mubarak knew that since the beginning, and that is why Egypt warned Iraq in 1991 to withdraw peacefully from Kuwait. Unfortunately, they did not heed the advice, and now the second chapter of the Gulf will be written by Bush's son. That is why they invited the Iraqi opposition to Washington recently, despite knowing that for years that they are weak and have no support inside Iraq.
Washington has realised that President Clinton's dual containment policy did not work, and therefore they want to change the regime in Iraq by force, whether they have a mandate from the Security Council or not, whether they have an alliance or not.
I think the US is going to carry out its strikes unilaterally in order for it to be the sole beneficiary of Gulf oil. Hence, the last minute diplomacy pitch by Arabs is useless, and so is Iraqi diplomacy. The only solution is for Saddam Hussein to resign from power.
Ahmed Nouby Moussa
Luxor
Egypt

Countdown begins

Sir-- In the United States, the War Powers Act allows the president of the United States to wage war for 60 days before explaining himself to Congress.
I have been hearing reports that US special forces are in Northern Iraq building up local support and airbases. If this is true, then the clock on the 60 days needs to be ticking. Otherwise Bush is undermining the War Powers Act.
Chris Meyer
Altoona, WI
USA

So-called objection

Sir-- As an Egyptian Muslim living in the US for over 20 years, I was appalled to read Diaa Rashwan's 'Impossible to fight' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 8-14 August). It is biased in opinion, narrow minded, inflammatory, and lacks actual fact. The war on what you refer to as "so-called" terrorism is not against Islam as you claim to understand it; the problem is Muslims, not Islam. As George W Bush stated in his speech, "Islam is a religion of love and peace". The administration made it clear form the beginning that this is not a religious war.
With regard to the curriculum of Islamic countries, the intent should be to teach tolerance, not hatred and fundamentalism. As our Prophet taught us, "You have your religion; and I have mine". This is not a war of religions, but a time to define the differences between good and evil. If Islamic countries are teaching hatred instead of tolerance, then it is time for a change. Hatred breeds hatred and love breeds love.
In addition, I don't like the way you refer to "so-called" terrorism. There are rules of war and definitive specifications of terrorism, the US has been doing its best to react to an act of terrorism. If Egypt was attacked the same way, I wonder if you would call it "so-called" terrorism. After all the evidence, the tapes, and the common knowledge, do you really think that the "so-called" Bin Laden had nothing to do with terrorism? And how would you like to define terrorism?
I wish you were a bit more informed about the treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, and before you make comments please compare their treatment to the treatment of political dissidents in Egypt or any Islamic country.
Regarding Al-Ahram Weekly's coverage of the Israeli and Palestinian issue, I have noticed your perspective is not objective. You consistently stress the Palestinian casualties and the Israeli cruelty, but always fail to mention the suicide bombings and the Palestinian cruelty. I have learned that losses on each side is a loss for humanity.
Articles like yours are the reason for hatred and separation.
Sal Shariff
Southampton, NY
USA

In sheep's clothing

Sir-- I have read the letter by Mr Scott Kovis where he said that the Americans know "full well that when the Arabs have the upper hand over Israel, they would not hesitate in killing every man, child and woman".
It is obvious that he knows nothing about Islam and Muslims, because our Prophet ordered us not to terrify people of other religions. The most important problem lies with the Zionist media, which tries its utmost to provide all the world with bizarre and false ideas about Islam in order to support the Israeli occupation in the region.
The message which this media is trying to convey is that Israel is a mild-mannered lamb, living within a jungle of wild animals.
Mohamed Ibrahim Fraig
Kafr Al-Shiekh
Egypt

A bull's nature

Sir-- Concerning the article by Hussein Ahmed Amin 'Living by the sword' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 29 August - 4 September). I like to think most Americans understand the plight and despair suffered by the people of the Middle East, and we try to understand the reasons for the rage felt by their perceived helplessness in the face of Zionist and American policy. But we cannot understand the passage that follows:
"If colonists and despots call acts carried out in defence of the legitimate right to self- determination 'acts of terrorism' when they occur off the battlefield and involve civilians, then it should be remembered that freedom fighters and dissidents are not always capable of facing their enemies on the battlefield, or of avoiding the killing of innocent people. Violence is not intended to terrorise the persons attacked but to cause society, or governments, or the world at large, to take notice of grievances suffered, and of the reality of large-scale struggles."
When a bomb is placed three thousand miles away, in the midst of a crowd which is unaware it is the targets of a group of "freedom fighters", and those same freedom fighters state that they can't avoid killing innocents or that they don't mean to terrorise those attacked, that's absurd. All this accomplishes is to rouse anger in the American people, an anger that can't be squelched by words like "to take notice of grievances".
Such acts only can lead to a terrible loss for the region as a whole, as a blind bull cares not who he gorges, he just gorges.
Wayne Campbell
Arizona
USA

Exposing evil

Sir-- It is so sad that very few Americans know about what the Israeli army has done and is doing to the Palestinians. I was there 12 years ago, and came back to the US and told my friends that what Israel was doing to the Palestinian people is similar to what Hitler did to the Jews. They wouldn't believe me.
Now, it is 100 times worse than 12 years ago. My friends just believe what the TV and government tells them, and they think I am a liberal. I am ashamed of most of the American people, and when I saw an Israeli laugh about a dead Palestinian baby, it made me sick. This evil should be exposed, but the American people will never see the other side. I try to tell my friends that the media is one-sided, but they say they read different articles and determine what is true -- it is the same story, just different opinions, because we are controlled, but the Americans don't realise it.
I really admire you for standing up for the Palestinian people, and my heart goes out to them. I hate to see this meanness and know God's love sustains them.
Loretta Ferguson
Houston, TX
USA

The forgotten dead

Sir-- As 11 September approaches, the US and many other countries are making their last minute preparations in memory of the event.
It's a shame that all the innocent children and mothers of Palestine who died at the hands of the Israeli government don't even get a mention.
S Khodary
Sydney
Australia