Cartoon by Ossama Qassim
Caligula's reign
Sir-- I am an American and I agree with your editorial 'Grim echo' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 15-21 April).
Most Americans I know feel helpless about what our government is doing. As you know, we didn't vote for Bush -- the American people voted for Al Gore and Bush stole the election. We are going to try to get rid of him, but I am terrified that he and his crew will find some other way to cheat again and retain the presidency.
Don't think we aren't aware we have an American version of Caligula on our hands. I sympathise on behalf of about 75 per cent of Americans. It's all I can do.
Leslie Carl
Benicia, CA
USA
Oil and bombs
Sir-- In his latest tape message Bin Laden is absolutely right when he identified the reason for Bush's invasion of Iraq as to make "billions of dollars" in profit for defence contractors, and well-connected companies like Halliburton and Bechtel. Indeed, one of the principle objectives of the privatisation of military support operations during the first Reagan/Bush administration was that ex- government officials would enter these private industries and bide their time through the US political cycle until a return to power would allow them to cash in on the windfall. This made war inevitable upon the Republicans' return to the White House.
Bin Laden was tragically wrong, however, in his method of fighting the military-industrial exploitation of the Middle East, after he outlived his usefulness on the Cold War profiteering front in Afghanistan.
Extremists such as Bush's handlers, Ariel Sharon and Bin Laden only flourish when bombs, hijacked planes and helicopter gunships are used to slaughter innocent people. Would-be Bin Ladens should take careful note of the toothy grins on the faces of Bush and Sharon in their announcement of the shift in US position to support permanent Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In fact, the only pain the war in Iraq has caused Bush is that it has became a nuisance after he declared "mission accomplished" a year ago, and was ready to go back to his second real job after making a profit for his backers, i.e. getting re-elected.
But win, lose or draw, Bush and his handlers already have in their hot little hands a $405 billion dollar defence budget plus some $180 billion and counting for Iraq. To these guys, when the Iraqi oil starts flowing it will just be gravy; a bonus paid for with the blood of a dictator who outlived his usefulness, the innocent who got in the way, and somebody else's sons and daughters; not a single one of their kids will die in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Tom Winburn
Louisville, KY
USA
Honourable men?
Sir-- Now that a year has passed since the start of hostilities against Iraq, people are starting to reconsider their stances and views whether for or against the war. Personally, my view has changed beyond recognition. I admit I was deluded by Bush's media machinery and Mr Blair's sexed-up dossiers into believing that the war on Iraq was for a good cause and the world would become a better place with Saddam's ouster. After all, Mr Bush and his friend Mr Blair are honourable men.
So, what now? American WMD experts don't seem to have found one single proof that the regime of Saddam developed any nuclear weapons; yet Mr Bush and his friend Mr Blair are honourable men.
What now Mr Bush? Where are the WMDs you have been bombarding us with fake stories about? Your invasion of Iraq did not do the Iraqis any good; on the contrary, it turned their once rich country into rubble and a safe haven for militants of all sorts. Security is now lacking and sectarian strife is on the increase; yet Mr Bush and his friend Mr Blair are honourable men.
What good did the war do for the American and the British and the rest of the coalition countries? The war on Iraq caused cracks in the American national edifice, quite like those experienced during the Vietnam War. We haven't heard, for example, that security alerts are over and done with. Americans, and for that matter British, people are stressed out like never before; yet Mr Bush and his friend Mr Blair are honourable men.
Anti-Western sentiments are echoed everywhere because Mr Bush Junior was trying to please his dad; and you know at whose expense? At the expense of innocent Iraqi civilians and innocent American and British servicemen who believe deep down in the futility of their war endeavours; yet Mr Bush and his friend Mr Blair are honourable men.
Let not the honourable Mr Bush and his best friend the honourable Blair lull us into the belief that world problems came to an end with their aggression against innocent civilians.
Sameh Abdil-Galil
Al-Hassa
Saudi Arabia
Clouding hatred
Sir-- I was much impressed with Mohamed Sid- Ahmed's lucid analysis of the present situation regarding Huntington's Clash of Civilisations in 'The clash of civilisations revisited' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21 April). What is very difficult for us here in North America to comprehend is the hatred of the Arab world for Israelis, and now Americans, and how this hatred dominates their thinking. Many Westerners understand that Israel does many inexcusable things but we do not hate them, want them destroyed, nor do we hate Arabs nor want them destroyed.
Fuelling this hatred is the Arab world's view that the Palestinians have a legal right to a nation in the West Bank. They do not. Virtually all Westerners agree that Palestinians have a moral right to a land there but international law is clear that there has never been a legal Palestinian state notwithstanding UN resolutions, or that the area has been called Palestine among other designations. We are not naïve as to how Israel was formed nor the anger of Arabs, but a pragmatic view suggests that the Arab people would best put their anger behind them and work to improve their conditions rather than squander their exceptional talents in hatred. I have travelled extensively in the Middle East as well as many, many times to Europe and Asia so I have more than a North American insularity when it comes to the thinking and cultures of other peoples. Nevertheless, I am puzzled by the Arab view.
As for Bush and Sharon, Sharon may well be indicted before this takes place and, God willing, Bush will be defeated in November. Perhaps then some rationality on the part of the West will begin to take place. And that will place a great responsibility, as Mohamed Sid-Ahmed said, on the Arabs.
Robert Harper
Toronto
Canada
Exit strategy
Sir-- I agree with Mohamed Sid-Ahmed in 'The clash of civilisations revisited' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21 April) that the US occupation of Iraq should end. Will the Arab countries step in with policing forces or shall we just allow the civil war to commence?
As for 'Too late for victories' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21), Graham Usher is wrong. The US does have an exit if it is forced to take it, and it lies in the fact that Iraq does not have a common Arab identity. The groups fighting us in Iraq and their supporters in the surrounding countries should be warned that if our attempts to build a successful Iraqi state fail, we will retreat to the North and assist the Kurds in creating a state of their own.
Iran, Turkey, Syria and other Arab countries ought to seriously consider the consequences to their own interests if Iraq breaks into pieces. Americans are pragmatic; we will not stay forever where we are not wanted. Clearly, if Iraq disintegrates, we will be wanted in the newly created state of Kurdistan, your region's other Palestine.
You may think this would be an embarrassment to the US, but it's not. It would be so only to the Bush administration, which I do not support. We will elect someone else, and you will need to come to terms with the new political geography of your region and another missed opportunity.
Robert Lefevre
Beaverton, OR
USA
Crude and deluded
Sir-- One can't help but be captive to the incessant propaganda that's assailing the airwaves via television and the White House would like to call these "press conferences". In his frenzied worldview, Bush lumps the Iraqi insurgents in with the terrorists of 9/11. They are all "enemies of civilisation", he says, and they share "a fanatical political ideology". But many of those who are fighting against the US occupation are not Al-Qa'eda members who want to destroy America, and are not subscribers to the "ideology of terror". Rather, many are Iraqi nationalists who want to expel America from their own country because they have seen the brutality of the US occupation.
That's a huge difference and Bush makes a terrible mistake by conflating the two. He calls the Iraqi citizens opposing occupation murderers and evildoers; he thinks that all he needs to do is kill all the bad guys and victory is his. But he doesn't understand that his policy is creating new enemies by the thousands every single day. He warned that if the United States does not take "resolute action" and does not "stay the course" this would "recruit a new generation of killers".
By maintaining the brutal occupation, he himself is recruiting that generation. He calls it treason to raise the spectre of Vietnam: "That analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and to the enemy," he said. This is a, "historic opportunity to change the world". In his messianic military moments, he says, "I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom."
This is Bush saying that he is doing God's work in Iraq. That is a particularly inappropriate claim to make. Given that Bush has chosen to wage war in an Islamic country, it is unlikely that there are many Iraqis who are anxious to hear Bush's theological justifications.
Bush's rhetoric is proof once again that the government of the United States is in the hands of a crude and deluded leadership.
Nadhir Dean
Ontario
Canada
Massacres to come
Sir-- The genocide at Sabra and Shatilla, and in Jenin went without any real opposition or media coverage in the Arab world.
We hope you will do something about the future massacres in Falluja and Najaf.
Ali Khafaji
London
UK
Russian dimension
Sir-- Larry Everest wrote a one-dimensional analysis of events which may have contributed to the ouster of Saddam Hussein in 'All about oil' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 1-7 April). Mr Everest focusses solely on the US as a catalyst regarding petro-politics; this is a myopic view of the scale of interests which shape the world's oil market. The key player in oil policy is the Russian Federation -- cheap oil is not in the interest of President Putin or his oligarchs. Russia needs to make oil from the Middle East as costly as its own, and he cannot permafrost the sands of Arabia or smother the Equator with blinding blizzards; he can destabilise the politics of the region so that security concerns will mimic the costs of these natural impediments.
The strategy of Russian petroleum policy is to increase the cost of oil to a level which would force Europe to convert much of their oil consumption over to natural gas. Russia already has the gas pipelines in place to satisfy the energy requirements of Europe; all they need to do now is increase the demand, in order to make billions.
The European energy consortium in Europe were falling over each other to smuggle petroleum from Iraq during the UN sponsored oil-for- food programme. Europe's economies enjoy many favourable arrangements regarding the sales of their aerospace, military, consumer and financial service sectors in the oil producing nations of the Middle East. This would end if the cash flow shifted from north to south to the east. Yes, the Iraqi war was about oil: not American interests in oil but Russian and European interests in the black gold.
Europe was willing to tolerate a slow genocide in Mesopotamia to protect its own selfish need for cheap petroleum. Russia needs the price per barrel to rise in order to be competitive. That is why Russia will arm the Ayatollahs, support the Assads, advise and arm the Husseins; all the while, Russians will decimate Muslims in Chechnya, Afghanistan and anywhere else they would challenge domination from Moscow. Mr Everest needs to include more dimensions of petro-politics if he wants to explain its complexities with justice.
Mel Gagliano
Kew Gardens, NY
USA
The Israeli narrative
Sir-- The main thrust of Mr Sid-Ahmed's article 'The second Balfour Declaration' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 April) is that Israel's character as a Jewish state prevents the parties from reaching a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His argument rests on a number of utterly erroneous assumptions which lead predictably to equally untenable conclusions.
First, his definition of Israel's Jewishness is expressed in racial terms, claiming that George Bush and Ariel Sharon are attempting to create a "racially 'pure' Jewish state". To the extent that the concept of race has any meaning at all, it should be obvious that even if Israel were inhabited solely by Jews, there would be no "racial" purity because Israel's Jews are not from the same "racial stock".
Second, the article ignores the existence of Israel's 20 per cent Arab minority who are citizens with the same legal rights that Israeli Jews possess. Even if we accept Mr Sid-Ahmed's unlikely claim that the recent Bush-Sharon accord is an attempt to "purify" some land of Arabs, it clearly has no bearing on the land inside the Green Line, that is to say, it has no impact on Israeli Arabs.
A distinction is being made between Arabs inside the Green Line and those outside the Green Line, thus completely undermining the writer's lebensraum thesis. The question readers should then ask is: Why do the US and Israel make such a distinction? For starters, Israeli Arabs are not trying to kill other Israelis, while some of those in the West Bank and Gaza have spent most of the last 50 years trying to kill Israelis.
Because the writer sees the problem as one of race, rather than security or politics, the conclusions he draws veer off in that direction. The security fence Israel is currently building is "a clear expression of racism", we are told. Is there really no security rationale for physical separation from the Palestinians? Are Israelis imagining the sounds of bombs and the sight of torn bodies?
One can make a similar argument with respect to the so-called Right of Return. Is this a clear attempt by Israelis to ensure racial purity, or is the Israeli rejection of the Right of Return better seen as a policy intended to avoid an obvious threat to the Israeli state? Are the consequences of the fulfilment of the Right of Return so abstract that the writer cannot imagine the persecution of Jews under an Arab majority, and the replication of Arab dictatorship in yet another Middle Eastern state?
Typical of the writing in Al-Ahram Weekly, the basic problem with this article is that the author seems completely unaware of the Israeli narrative, while at the same time demanding that the US and Israel show greater empathy for the Palestinian experience. There will be no resolution of the conflict until Israeli security needs are met.
Daniel Horowitz
New York, NY
USA
Poor hyperbole
Sir-- Our repeated usage of the Berlin Wall in comparison to Sharon's wall is counterproductive. The Berlin Wall was erected to keep the East Germans from fleeing to the West. While the wall in Palestine is supposed to prevent "terrorists" from entering the Zionist state.
This is only one example of our misuse (and very often downright lies) of our propaganda machine. The intelligent public pays less and less attention to our claims because of our over-usage of hyperbole and inaccuracies.
Mustafa Amin
Montreal
Canada
All words,
no action
Sir-- Arabs are passive because in every battle (for instance, against Israel) every country in the Middle East has lost. Thus, leaders prefer to use arrogant words but do nothing -- from Jordan to Iran. Everything is passion, but no action; words have become the substitute. Even the people you interviewed in 'A time of discontent' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 April) about Arab passivity talked too much and had little to offer.
Lee Jacob
Chicago, IL
USA
Isolate the friendly
Sir-- The Iraqi problem can be solved, the bombings can be stopped as can the growing casualty figures. The solution may lie in the phrase "isolative autonomy".
The US government must learn to recognise the meaning of these words, which mean that the Coalition of the Willing must be ready to isolate the friendly communities from the hostile communities.
Isolate the people by providing them with a new community where they can live in peace.
Mel Terante
Manila
The Philippines
Syrian winter
Sir-- Regarding 'Damascus Spring' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21 April), it amazes me how events are completely twisted; of course blaming America for its problems.
The benevolent Assad killed how many of his own people in Hama and occupied Lebanon for 25 years with over 20,000 troops? Is it OK for Muslim to kill a Muslim but not a Westerner?
How about those Alawites who are only 11 per cent of population, but have ruled with an iron fist since the 1970s. These are plenty of examples of the incredible hypocrisy which the Arab world lives in, as they constantly sit on the fence to see who they can align themselves with.
Jacques Goddard
Val Thorens
France
Sham democracy
Sir-- This is a letter to Nabil Zaki [editor-in-chief of Al-Ahali newspaper]. I heard your comments about democracy in England yesterday evening on BBC radio four. How I agree with you.
Our governments since WWII have always favoured rattling sabres at countries and regimes whom we think cannot strike back. So, it was world opinion that forced us to abandon the disgraceful invasion of Egypt in 1956. We did nothing about the Soviet invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan or the behaviour of China in Tiananmen Square or Hong Kong.
On the other hand, we forced the Palestinians out of their homelands in 1948, invented a country called Kuwait, and generally re-drew the map of the Middle East in a way that we hoped would favour our influence in that region.
In the Far East, we have supported despotic regimes in Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Malaysia and Indonesia and then supported unwarranted American aggression in the former country when its people threw out their corrupt leaders. We have supported murder and pillage in Chile, Guatemala and Ecuador and then grandly went to war over the Falklands.
I hope you continue to speak out loudly against our government's behaviour and that of the US government.
For my part, even though I am a passionate supporter of Europe, which I think in the long run will help us to get rid of the kind of mad nationalism that deludes the British into thinking that they can police the world on Uncle Sam's coat-tails, I feel I will have to vote No to the European Constitution simply because it is the only way that I can make the point that if the prime minister of the UK can ignore his voters' wishes then we in turn can ignore his exhortations to vote Yes.
Thank you once again for exposing the democratic sham that the British and American governments are trying to foist upon the Iraqis.
Mike Ellis
Colchester
UK
Snapshot fan
Sir-- I love your newspaper. The cartoons and captions are some of my favourite parts of the paper. Keep up the great work.
Yaqutullah Ibraheem
Atlanta, GA
USA
Recommend
Comment
Printer-friendly
