Issue No. 603
Readers' corner
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
12 - 18 September 2002 Issue No. 603 Readers' corner |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Wake up call
Sir-- On the first anniversary of the heinous attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, it saddens me as an Egyptian-American, that the truth is yet to be told. I almost lost a son who lived and worked close by, and only by a miracle is he still alive -- but 3,000 families can't say the same. Ten thousand children are still, and will always be, looking at the empty chair on the dinner table where their beloved mother or father (or both) used to sit. I have yet to hear from an American official or a Congressman as to what was that all about and why.
We heard a lot about terrorists who hate our way of life, about Muslim hatred for the West, the vital importance of attacking Iraq, containing Saddam and Arafat, but surely, we never heard the truth.
The sad and naked truth is that we, Americans, are paying dearly for our government's unlimited and unconditional support of Israel. Angry Arab youth are watching the daily slaughter of Palestinian men, women, children and newborns, the destruction of Palestinian homes and their life of humiliation, the displacement of an entire people from what used to be their land and country to make space for fanatics from Russia, Brooklyn, California, and the death, birth defects and starvation of 100,000s Iraqi children caused by a US-lead embargo.
The state of Israel can never get away with all these crimes if it wasn't for the unlimited financial, military and political support of the United States. America is reaping the wrath of the entire world, not because of us Americans, but because of our government, Congress and media. The killing of thousands of innocent civilians can never be condoned or justified -- but for God's sake, wake up America!
Fikry Salib
Stamford, Connecticut
USA
Scoring for justice
Sir-- I am a regular reader of Al-Ahram Weekly and have been reading with interest your section on the rising opposition to the war in Iraq. I understand that your newspaper is widely read, therefore I am taking this opportunity to inform your readers of two events of opposition to both the war in Iraq and the Israeli occupation in Palestine.
On 4 September 2002, the Scottish Under-21 football team played against the Israeli Under-21 side. Five hundred demonstrators assembled at the game to protest that 21 of the 22 players were soldiers in the Israeli army and were therefore guilty, either directly or by association, of war crimes and murder against the Palestinian people. Despite threats of arrest if the Palestinian flag was flown, we managed to fly four or five Palestinian flags. Demonstrators highlighted the issue of why Israeli soldiers are allowed to enter the UK to play football, when Palestinian children are not allowed to play the game in their own streets. We thus made the point that where the Israeli government is concerned, sport is political.
The good news is that BBC radio announced during the game that it was impossible to continue the commentary on the game because of the noise of the demonstrators. Also, Scotland won 2-1. Scotland does not presently have a team capable of qualifying for the World Cup, so we, the demonstrators have fair claim to some of the credit for their victory over the Israelis.
The second point relates to the looming war against Iraq. We are currently mobilising for a massive demonstration in London on 28 September against the war in Iraq and for freedom in Palestine. We intend to have a massive demonstration in London -- virtually on Blair's doorstep -- on the eve of the Labour Party (government) Conference. We intend to make him listen to the majority of British people who oppose the war -- in the latest poll 72 per cent oppose war.
I hope this information may somehow filter through to the people of Iraq and Palestine and let them know that they are not alone.
Linda Jones
Scotland
UK
By any other name
Sir-- Michael Jansen writes in 'Estranged allies' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 29 August-4 September) that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia put forward a peace plan proposing "normal relations" between the Arab states and Israel, if the latter withdrew from "all the territory occupied in 1967". So what is considered a change in Arab policy, except for the fact that the Saudi proposal was more demanding of Israel than UN Resolution 242?
What are "normal relations"? Rather than get inconveniently bogged down in specific, technical diplomatic and legal definitions that could quantify and certify compliance, this vague term could leave Israel with an Arab world which considers "hating Israel" as a normal relation. Is Israel supposed to just jump in with both feet, trusting that Arab promises are to be kept?
The very concept of Saudi Arabia conducting "diplomacy" on the global stage, refusing to deal directly with Israel, and deliberately using misleading terms and conditions that misrepresent the true nature of their "offer", is a laughable affair not worthy of even minimal consideration by Israel.
When the Arab world wants to really negotiate a peace agreement with Israel, the Egyptian and Jordanian models have, as fragile as they are, proven to hold up under the test of time. Amateurish attempts to influence public opinion by means of deception, under the guise of "peace", degrades the relationship between the parties even further than before.
Shep Fargotsein
Nashville, TN
USA
Filtering the air
Sir-- Do you think that the oxygen of debate constitutes poisonous gas, or do you prefer the suffocating atmosphere of silence? I am referring to your lack of coverage concerning the situation in Iraq. I have heard on the news in England that President Mubarak has warned Bush of the possible consequences of an attack on Iraq, and I am sure he is justified in believing that Islamic militants may force themselves into government. However, remaining silent on this issue will achieve nothing.
Personally I am suspicious of the Bush administration's intentions. I don't believe that Saddam poses a threat to the West (only to his Middle East neighbours), and I am sure that moral considerations do not play any part in these issues. Consequently, I must conclude that oil reserves are what matter.
So tell your readership the whole story, objectively, independently and leave the rest to history.
Robert Francis
London
UK
Testing the debate
Sir-- Ibrahim Nafie's article, 'Repercussions from disaster' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 5-11 September) is quite insightful with regard to what is happening to the mentality within the United States. Nafie correctly observes that after 11 September the US was cataclysmically shaken, and security began to reign uppermost, chipping away at long-held rights and freedoms. But what he does not stress sufficiently is the degree to which this reaction has been managed by the Bush administration, with the collusion of the Democrats and the great majority of the mass media. From day one, all dissenting voices were attacked with accusations of lack of patriotism.
Within the Congress, very few Democrats were, and continue to be, willing to challenge the basic assumptions of the 'Evil Empire' approach. The newspapers and journals of my country also are almost uniformly supine when it comes to presenting us with the bare information needed to challenge the general line and tone set down by Bush and Cheney.
If not for the Internet, where I can read such publications as The Guardian from Britain, Dawn from Pakistan and Al-Ahram Weekly from Egypt, I myself would have little to balance what I read and hear every day from the US media. This, I submit, is necessary to understand what has happened to the tenor of the debate within my country.
Eugene Glickman
Brooklyn, NY
USA
Feeling others' pain
Sir-- Regarding Ibrahim Nafie's thoughtful column 'Repercussions from disaster' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 5-11 September), I take issue with one phrase or assumption in an otherwise well-thought and insightful piece. Nafie has failed to distinguish between the wishes of the American government and its people. He says "the shift in American priorities has widened the gulf between the US and Arabs." While it's true that our current US administration has shifted priorities towards vengeance for the attacks against our homeland, I think the American people as a whole are closer to the people of the Middle East.
On 11 September, we felt a small dose of the insecurity and danger to ourselves as a people that residents of numerous Arab countries have had to contend with for centuries. This has put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for one, in terms that Americans can finally understand.
Prior to 11 September, numbing levels of violence in that region were a distant problem for most Americans. Now having felt the pain of violent loss on that day, Americans are sympathetic towards our Arab peers and their struggle for security and safety. I hear American people talking about conflicts in formerly far off places they will never visit, lamenting the deaths of people they never could have known. 11 September has brought the violence and instability of these parts of the world home to us, and we are better people for waking up to it.
The next step toward peace is twofold: to create a thoughtful dialogue between individual peoples without the rhetoric of their governments in formats such as your newspaper; to recognise the difference between what a nation's political leaders do, and what their people feel.
I look forward to more wonderful editorials from writers such as Mr Nafie.
Jack Matlaga
Arizona
USA
A US vote
Sir-- It seems the USA is adamant on attacking Iraq and killing its people heedless of all protests from all parts of the world. The attack against Iraq will increase the hatred surge against the United States and plunge the whole region into decades of violence and terrorism. All the Arab countries are against the attack.
Are the weapons of mass destruction a threat to the Arab neighbours, but the Israeli atomic bomb is not? Resisting occupation in Palestine is terrorism, but the daily massacres of Palestinians are acts of self-defence? Sharon is a man of peace, but Arafat is not? And those who object or dare to complain are branded as rogues and enemies. If Saddam is the target, I think there are many options to get rid of him. This has been done a number of times to many leaders in the world.
I suggest that with the new world system, every country should have a vote in the presidential elections in the USA. This is certain to create a better world to live in.
Sobh Azab
Damietta
Egypt
Arabs must rise
Sir-- Arabs of the Middle east must unite under one voice. Enough is enough. Every day all we hear is deaths of innocent Palestinians and now we are hearing the threat of war against Iraq, where thousands of innocent children have already died since 1992 and more will die because of the Americans.
I hope Mr Blair does not fall in the trap of Mr Bush who is only interested in war -- a là typical American cowboy style. World leaders are silent, so it is the duty of all the Muslims of this world to unite and boycott both American products and Israeli products, until there is peace in that region and justice is done.
What surprises me most is when Iraq refuses to abide by UN resolutions, and America and Britain are ready to roll their sleeves and threaten with war. When Israel breaks the resolution, both Mr Bush and Mr Blair bury their heads in the sand.
Arabs must rise.
A Merchant
London
UK
Wait and see
Sir-- In response to Dave Schneider's letter 'Master plan' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 5-11 September). I would like to tell him, remember what happened to the Red Army in Afghanistan. Remember what we did to the Israeli army in 1973. Remember what happened to the Americans in Vietnam, Somalia, and later in Afghanistan.
Just wait and see, and then regret.
Saleh Gamal
Alexandria
Egypt
Who started it?
Sir-- Mr Bodi in 'Imposing the writ' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 5-11 September) writes that the US's self- assigned mission to root out terror, is in fact a pretext to suppress Muslim liberation movements that stand in the way of Washington's quest for global dominance.
He writes, "This motive dovetails neatly with the desire of other nations to snuff out their own Muslim insurgencies and separatist movements; from India in occupied Kashmir, China in Xinjiang, and Russia in the autonomous republic of Chechnya, to the Zionists in Palestine, the list is endless."
Why is the list endless? Could it be that Islam was already at war with everyone else?
Harold Carpenter
Salt Lake City, Utah
USA
Reichstag fire?
Sir-- The theory which was put forward in undue haste after the 11 September events was that the mastermind behind it was clearly Osama Bin Laden, acting on behalf of the Islamic world. It is however very relevant to note that not an iota of acceptable evidence has been presented before any US or international institution which could have been called upon to pass judgement.
It is equally relevant to note that though one year has passed, there is just one person in the whole world who has been duly indicted for involvement with the planning or aiding and abetting the various events. Even he has confessed only to providing accommodation for the culprits.
It is crystal clear that the search for the truth as to who masterminded the events has been very conveniently wiped under the carpet. This is primarily because the powers that be do not wish the actual culprits to be found out. They prefer action to be pursued actively on the basis of the theory that the Islamic world should be held liable.
It is accordingly not surprising that some people suspect that 11 September could very well have been a replay of the burning of the German parliament, just before the declaration of World War II. Those who masterminded the burning of the German parliament were those who wanted to expedite the declaration of war, and were the same people behind the Holocaust. The hurried attack on Afghanistan -- which is yet to be justified -- and the threats soon thereafter on Iraq and Iran, add considerable credence to such a suspicion.
To those who see the close similarity between 11 September and the burning of the German parliament, it is clear that there is a threat of a Holocaust-style attack on Islamic people under the pretext of fighting terrorism. This is particularly so because large sections of the Islamic people believe that they are now being treated the way the Jewish people were treated in the 1930s and 1940s. They also feel that the alleged Islamic threat is very similar to the alleged Jewish threat at the time, and that a final solution -- similar to the one against the Jewish people -- is being blatantly and ruthlessly sought.
Bernard Wijedoru
Hong Kong
China
In total agreement
Sir-- I read the article 'Can the catastrophe be averted?' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August) by Hassan Nafaa for my college class Global Perspectives, and I fully agree with him. I think the United States government has its own agenda, and I don't believe that it's for the better good of the world. I think that it's self-serving and down-right arrogant. I don't believe that invading Iraq would be good for anyone, and I'm glad that other people feel the same way.
Thanks for printing the article and making me realise that I'm not the only one who thinks invading Iraq is a bad idea.
Lauren Thomas
Wisconsin
USA
Simply put
Sir-- I would like to mention an essential weak point in Al-Ahram Weekly. The language you use is not simple English, which discourages many non-native English speakers from reading your newspaper.
Would you kindly simplify your expressions and sentences as much as possible, to allow all your readers to enjoy reading this newspaper, and enhance their language abilities?
Kaled Karkuly
Tilburg
The Netherlands
Dimwit coverage
Sir-- Regarding 'Euro road map' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 5-11 September) for an Israel/Palestine peace agreement, I think your reporter was being absurdly naive. There is a road map to this solution. It's called following the UN Security Council resolutions. This entails pulling every last Israeli tank and evacuating every single settlement immediately.
Besides, you're living in a fool's paradise if you think Europe has adopted the Arab peace plan. All they are doing is reiterating what Bush said last June: no Arafat, protect your occupiers, and perhaps a provisional state after three years (what on earth is a "provisional state"?).
In that time, Sharon and his ilk will pack up the West Bank and Gaza with as many Old Testament-thumping settlers as possible, before or after they have expelled most of the Palestinians into Jordan.
I read Al-Ahram Weekly to get intelligent and inquisitive points of view not found in the Western media, now I realise you're just as dimwitted as they are.
Dina Jarvis
Washington
USA
Voice for suffering
Sir-- I just read your coverage on the Israeli policy of humiliation and denial of rights to the Palestinian people under cover of the 'war on terrorism'. It is a duty that such balanced articles be written and published in the face of the radical, mindless extremes of orchestrated belligerent propaganda by the Bush and Sharon administrations and calls to violence within the Arab world so that people can reflect more deeply on what is happening in the Middle East.
Congratulations on harbouring such a wonderful journalist as Graham Usher, and for affording such a powerful voice to the expression of Palestinian suffering in the face of blatant injustice.
Paul O'Doherty
Dublin
Ireland
Good read
Sir-- I would like to take this opportunity to thank Al-Ahram Weekly for allowing myself and all your readers the pleasure of witnessing the generosity, humour and hope of Hani Shukrallah.
Lawrence Mayer
Philadelphia
USA
Refreshing perspective
Sir-- I would like to commend Al-Ahram Weekly for its fair and balanced portrayal of the descendants of enslaved Africans in the Americas and throughout the African Diaspora. The article by Gamal Nkrumah 'A debt to be paid' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August) on the Reparations March, as well as all of his other writings, are a shining example of the high quality of your publication.
As a doctoral candidate at the Nelson Mandela School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Southern University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana -- who is studying African American political development and connections with Diaspora and the African continent -- it is most refreshing to have an international publication, that does not succumb to the slanted news perspective of many of the Western world publications.
Again, I would like to commend this publication and its writers, for doing such an outstanding job.
Ambakisye Dukuzumurenyi
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
USA
Sins of the fathers
Sir-- The idea of paying reparations for slavery 'A debt to be paid' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 August) is ludicrous at best. No one alive today directly took part in the slavery system that our American ancestors chose to use.
To say that any people today should pay money for an act committed over 150 years ago in which they had no part in, is absurd. There aren't words to say how atrocious this time period was, but it wasn't the choice of the people living today. You can't get justice from money, and you can't get money from a long gone generation.
Mary Stanton
Bloomington, IL
USA
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
