Letters to the editor
Shady deals
Sir-- Regarding the latest terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, how on earth could three gunmen escape from an area that is "sealed off" by hundreds of Saudi security forces? If they did escape, it doesn't say much for the Saudi Arabian government's ability to defend itself against an obviously dedicated and motivated foe. The news leaking out in the press is that the Saudi security services negotiated with the terrorists, settling for allowing them to escape in exchange for releasing the remaining hostages. If this is true, then the Saudi government should be ashamed of itself and should be held complicit in the murder of the over 20 innocent civilians.
If one was to use the same mentality that the Arab people use to dream up ridiculous conspiracy theories, blaming Israel for every ailment under the sun, then why did the Saudi government wait until the non-Muslim infidels had their throats slit before negotiating with the terrorists? Or was allowing them to slit their throats part of the deal?
On one hand, we have the Saudi government financing the export of extremist (terrorist) Wahhabist Muslim theology, and on the other, we have Saudi appeasement of terrorists operating within the Kingdom -- against the Kingdom. One doesn't have to be a brain surgeon to see that the Saudi Royal family's days are numbered. The question is: Can the US and the rest of the world allow themselves to be held economic hostage by terrorists who may end up controlling Saudi oil assets? And if the world does decide to intervene, will it be before the royal family falls or after?
Shep Fargotstein
Memphis, TN
USA
Last straw
Sir-- Let me say in the clearest possible terms that the Israeli army's offensive "Operation Rainbow" into Rafah was the straw that broke the camel's back. The horror the Israeli army unleashed on the defenceless people of Rafah, with their over-inflated claims of "armed gunmen", "sophisticated weapons" and "smuggling tunnels", has not only outraged me but many in the free world. When I think of how Mr Sharon and the Defence Ministry manipulated and exploited the simple mind of President Bush to endorse their bloody offensive, I am sick to my stomach.
But I am not the only one sick to my stomach these days; I saw my American friends cry and deliver coffins to their lawmakers to symbolise what our American military aid to Israel has come to represent dead Palestinians today, dead Israelis tomorrow. This relationship is so sick; like a cancer, it threatens to consume us both unless something drastic is done. The urgency to remedy this terrible ailment is felt in many quarters on this side of the Atlantic. We will not wait for the possibility that the Sharon government and the army has a change of heart in Israel -- that would be foolish indeed. Especially, knowing how comfortable and overloaded our American aid has contributed to their immoral complacency -- treating their neighbours like chickens by keeping them behind barbed wire and checkpoints. When they dare to complain or form a legitimate opposition towards Israel, the government claims they are "terrorists". I make a clear distinction here between suicide bombers/ Hamas/Islamic Jihad on one hand and legitimate Palestinian opposition on the other. While I would not deny anyone the right to defend himself in the face of death, this misuse and abuse of our American goodwill in Rafah is the straw that broke the camel's back.
To the people of Rafah, I pledge to use every democratic principle/tool to express my condemnation for the often insensitive government of Ariel Sharon and his army. His disregard for the human rights of the Palestinian people and the army's failure to properly employ and deploy the use of force under the Fourth Geneva Convention guidelines, has caused great harm to many innocent people. How shameful! This is contempt of our wishes for the Palestinian people.
Doris Cadigan
Natick, MA
USA
Broken alliances
Sir-- Another US/Iraqi invasion alliance gone bad (other than the Chalabi and the INC one) that is not receiving any mention by the US media -- for apparent reasons -- is the one with Al-Sadr and his militia, before the fall of Baghdad. The US military, as reported by the mainstream media, bypassed Baghdad and rushed to Saddam city, now called Sadr city, to be welcomed there as "liberators". The images of members of the Al-Sadr's Al-Mehdi militia dancing and shouting were replayed dozens of times, to show the jubilation of the "Iraqi people". Apparently, that early "alliance" has gone bad as well -- the wide scale looting of Baghdad and the plunder of its cultural heritage was a direct result of that alliance, nobody was stopped and most of the looters (as reported by the US media) were from that same area, Sadr City. In the light of these failed alliances, we should consider the new alliance of convenience the US is making by influencing the selection of those to whom "sovereignty" will be handed on 30 June.
Some members of the US military command have mentioned Fallujah as the "model" for the rest of Iraq. Fallujah is run by the former Saddam Hussein regime. It is thus an acknowledgment by the US military command that they are unable to control Iraq, and would rather have the former regime control it. This, if considered carefully, is an explicit admittance of defeat by the US military.
Moments after the fall of Baghdad, the Chalabi "militia" and the US military were going around town shooting up the images of Saddam Hussein on every corner. Now the same military raids Chalabi's compound and shoots up his photograph, which then makes the cover of Newsweek -- poetic justice or maybe just poetic?
M Asadi
Springfield, IL
USA
Upright by law
Sir-- Saddam Hussein was made to pay dearly by the US administration for the human rights abuses his regime committed in Iraq. He was thrown out of power through a war, a form of aggression that the "civilised" world had learned to scorn, until a US president launched his Gulf War. And his two sons were killed and his family members hounded by the invaders. Today, when the American soldiers who set out to "liberate" the Iraqis from the "oppressive regime" of Saddam Hussein stand guilty of violating the very premise that the US government used for advocating a regime change in Baghdad, we are told they represented just a handful of Americans, and that their acts were "un-American". Does this not make us stop and think whether what Saddam Hussein and his regime did in fact represent the acts of just a handful of the Iraqi people?
To hear the President of the United States of America George Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell speaking about the images of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, it is as if Americans have an inherent virtue that makes them act and behave better than everyone else. "This is not America," said Mr Bush on an Arabic language network. "This is not who American servicemen are," echoed Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. According to Condoleezza Rice, "Americans do not do this."
These almost parrot-like responses to such disgraceful acts show that Americans believed that they cannot do any wrong. If this is absolutely true, why the fierce campaign to exempt American troops from prosecution by the International Court? Despite all the rhetoric of absolute American purity, the truth -- and what the rest of the world knows -- is that Americans are indeed capable of evil acts.
History will show that America's inherent goodness has not always been self-evident -- just ask those people who are still around from the Civil Rights era. It was not so long ago that the United States of America had laws on their statute books that reduced blacks to little more than animals, where acts of murder by lynching and burning were committed on blacks because of the colour of their skin. The horrible treatment meted out to Native American Indians will also dispel the notion that Americans are immune to evil acts, even if it is under the pressures of war.
Thus, if America is not as fallible as other nations, it is not because of any inherent goodness. What makes all of us who live in democratic societies act differently and behave better than other less democratic societies, is a system of government that holds people accountable and restrains abuses. I believe the founding fathers of the American constitution knew the fallibility of the American mind, which would explain a system of such accountability and rigourous supervision and control.
The great Dr Martin Luther King also believed that laws could play a part in rectifying and suppressing such actions as committed by the American servicemen in Iraq, but he was also mindful that laws cannot change the internal feeling of man. The laws, he said, "only control the external demonstration of those internal feeling". Therefore, what President Bush et al should do is to modify the rhetoric about absolute American goodness and instead amplify what really makes America great -- an open political system that is accountable. As world leader, the United States will be judged by its actions and not its essence.
Nadhir Dean
Ontario
Canada
Changing reality
Sir-- I was shocked when I read a letter by Mr Steve Potempa entitled 'No problem' ( Al-Ahram Weekly, 3-9 June), especially when he said that it was a "few soldiers who humiliated a few Iraqis" because it shows that human dignity and pain mean nothing to him; the torture was done to thousands, not few. Mr Potempa, I urge you to imagine yourself in the position of all the Arab captives in American prisons, and I hope you get an idea of what happens to them.
I do not justify evil, as I am against the beheading of Nick Burg or the killing of any innocent. I am also strongly againist any torture taking place in the Middle East by the Arab governments. I think if all peoples stopped judging everything by race and origin, and instead preoccupied themselves with cooperating together for peace to prevail, maybe things will get better. We, the people, not governments, can change the pessimistic reality into an optimistic one.
Heba Hosni
Cairo
Egypt
Jammed airwaves
Sir-- Living in America makes it very difficult to obtain news and information that is not slanted by the chokehold the military-industrial-corporate complex has on national and international news. The Republican Party's rabid right-wing manages to control or otherwise dominate a large majority of the American media. For example, Fox News Channel is run by Roger Ailes, the former Republican Party chairman; and this is the channel that Vice-President Dick Cheney watches exclusively.
And if one turns on the TV to either CBS, NBC or ABC, one will be deluged with propaganda and outright lies about the "poor Israeli soldiers and the nasty Palestine terrorists". I am not a sheep nor do I have wool over my eyes, and I do not care for the fact that my tax dollars go to support an Israeli military machine that has become a very efficient killing machine of Palestinians.
On the radio, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have a siren-like effect on a majority of the American public, but one must give credit where credit is due: Limbaugh probably learned from the master of dis-information, Josef Goebbels.
So, it is with pleasure that I came across your on- line edition, to find a different take on the vital issues of the day -- such as Iraq and Palestine -- is most refreshing. To be able to read what leaders and people in the Arab world are doing, thinking and saying without it being tarnished by American spin masters is terrific. Thank you for publishing on-line Al-Ahram Weekly and never become infatuated or intimidated with the corruptness infecting most of the American media.
Greg Bacon
Ava, MO
USA
It's custom
Sir-- 'Moqtada Al-Sadr: Leader of orphans' ( Al- Ahram Weekly, 27 May - 2 June) is an interesting piece, but I wonder who wrote it? Not anyone who knows Arab ways and customs. He comments on the "soft" handshake and the lack of eye contact as showing that Al-Sadr is unsure of himself. I am only a woman who has visited and loves the Middle East, but even I know that a soft handshake is considered polite and our Western style firm grip is seen as an attempt to intimidate. Also, that direct eye contact is often considered impolite.
Karen Smith
New York, NY
USA
UN move
Sir-- For some time now, I have been proposing that if Beijing and London were to co-sponsor a United Nation's Security Council resolution that proposed the relocation of the UN headquarters from New York to Hong Kong, over some reasonable period of time, it would be a win-win for all concerned. I know of no serious observer who questions the fact that the UN, of which I consider myself a friend, will benefit from a fresh start away from current influences; or, that Hong Kong is in serious need of a new mandate and happens to be uniquely qualified to provide the requisite "neutral ground" so sorely needed.
Tom Sullivan
Princeville, HI
USA
Beneficial friends
Sir-- Regarding 'Russia re-visited' by Salama A Salama ( Al-Ahram Weekly, 3-9 June), I would just like to say that his article includes both good and bad advice for Egypt's future foreign policy. I definitely think relations with Russia, India, Latin America and Africa should be improved, however, Egypt must never lose track of its friendship with the US. After all, America is still the wealthiest, most powerful and most free nation on earth, and it has given Egypt over $40 billion in USAID over the last 20 years. It is certainly a friendship worth keeping.
However, I believe the true key to economic success is in finding friends in neighbours and relatives. Therefore, Egypt should look to the Mediterranean Sea that laps its shores. Italy, Turkey, Greece, the Balkans, Israel, Iran and Morocco are very culturally and ethnically similar to Egypt, and share a common history and geography. All have relative economic prowess and can bring Egypt huge economic potential. Let us never forget our Mediterranean heritage; we always need friends, but the closer, the better.
Patrick Elyas
Los Angeles, CA
USA
Arabs, pay attention
Sir-- Regarding Ms Dina Ezzat's 'Egypt's way of reform' ( Al-Ahram Weekly, 27 May - 2 June), as an American, I am concerned by the obvious reluctance of Arab leaders to act on reform, merely paying lip service to it only by forming consultative councils and repealing a law here or there. They criticise my country for not signing the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, while at the same time I can assure you they will never ratify it themselves; they criticise the human rights record of the United States only to avoid upholding human rights themselves; abuse in Arab prisons is worse than what happened in Iraq, yet nothing is said against the throat-slashing of Nicholas Berg, like a sheep in a Bairam festival. By reforming themselves and ceasing always to connect democratic rights at home with regional conflicts in Israel and Iraq, as though favourable geopolitics was an a priori to domestic rights, these regimes would become stronger and the world might start paying them some attention.
Criticising US neo-conservatives will not do the Arab countries any good. Let them spend more time self-evaluating themselves beyond merely bragging about being the oldest civilisations. What they contributed seven thousands years ago must be weighed against contributions in the last two to four hundred years; what counts is what you are doing today and tomorrow. FIFA, perhaps, proved as adept a political analyst as any in giving Egypt a big fat zero for its efforts.
Let the leaders ask their populations about their desires rather than speaking about "stability" (read stagnation) and reform from "within" (read at a turtle's pace). Frankly, Western pressure on Arab regimes is more than justified. Did we hear anything about reform before the democracy bomb was dropped by the West on the Greater Middle East Initiative, ahead of actual bombs from B-2s and F-16s? How could Egypt say no to both the G8 and NATO under the pretext that as Arabs the apt forum for coordination is the Arab League? At the League's recent conference Arab leaders refused to pass a resolution agreeing to act as one entity! Libya withdrew quite in a manner fitting more for the theatre than for serious political deliberations, while Egypt left before the reading of final statements was concluded. They behave like children who, if you do not do it their way, they quit playing ball.
Ms Ezzat fails to point out in her article the blatant dichotomy. Arabs speak from both sides of their mouths, extremely reluctant to accept criticism but only to their own detriment. They have to change or the world will change them by force in the interests of world peace and justice.
Izzy Latif
Los Angeles, CA
USA
Relevant as ever
Sir-- When I was planning my trip to Egypt to direct the recent production of Our Town at Al- Hanager -- reviewed by Nehad Selaiha in 'Brief reprieve' ( Al-Ahram Weekly, 3-9 June) -- I was warned that I would be in awe of Nehad Selaiha. I was when I met her, and I am now even more having read her thoughtful review of the production.
I observed many fascinating differences and similarities between our two cultures and theatre practices while I was in Cairo. One of the differences I noticed, is the very healthy seriousness with which theatre critics such as Ms Selaiha take each theatrical production. In the United States, I would never be held to the scrutiny Ms Selaiha holds me for the choice of production and its international ramifications. Critics in the United States are, in general, simply not as sophisticated as this. Here at home, my work is seen in a void. In Cairo, I am seen not only as a theatre artist but as a citizen of the world, with all the privileges and responsibilities such membership might suggest. I was honoured to be there and to work there, and to share Mr Wilder's story with the people who came.
Here is where Ms Selaiha and I must respectfully part: I do not believe Our Town to be escapism. Clearly, I can understand her point that Our Town does not deal with current events -- it is a 65-year- old play and so there can be no expectation that it would address recent crimes against humanity. And while Ms Selaiha argues that Emily's "final hymn to life" is banal when seen against today's world events (especially, as pointed out in the review, those caused by the same United States government that sponsored my trip), I would suggest that one is not looking at a play carefully enough if the text is taken at face value.
Mr Wilder's argument that life is precious is a credible one at any time, but especially during one where lives are thrown away, where certain lives are considered more important than others, and where small groups of people make singular decisions that cause the death of thousands. This point is made more forcefully than Ms Selaiha suggests. That people today still suffer terribly and die for concepts, for religions, and often today for someone else's cause having been in the wrong place at the wrong time, only makes these points contemporary. The idea that we must not take life for granted, nor do we have the right to throw it away, it seems to me, is the most important theme a play can have in Cairo, New York, Tel Aviv, or anywhere.
Perhaps a careful reading (or viewing) of Our Town is not possible for some Egyptian audiences today, due to the source of the work (the United States), but that would be unfortunate. I find it curious that Ms Selaiha's review, perhaps the most researched I've ever read, failed to mention that the original production was presented in 1939, as the entire world slid into a chaos, it is rather lucky to have survived at all. Are we perhaps approaching such a time now? Then why must audiences in Cairo not be able to look beyond the obvious in Our Town and see its deeper meaning, as so many have before?
Breaking through the hostility and mistrust described by Ms Selaiha's former student, who saw the production as an American "ploy", was my challenge, and perhaps I failed. But I'd like to think that the awe I feel for Nehad Selaiha includes a mutual understanding that great plays endure because they're not specious, and a mutual respect for playwriting like Mr Wilder's, which is eloquent and understated, and prefers that audiences meet in halfway.
I look forward to my next trip to Egypt, especially if it involves more interaction as stimulating as this.
Seth Gordon
Cleveland, OH
USA
Question of roots
Sir-- In 'Egypt in Nubia and vice versa' ( Al- Ahram Weekly, 20-26 May) you, like many Eurocentrically biased scholars, are making the usual mistake to dissociate Egypt from Africa. Ancient Egypt was an ancient part of Africa, with rites that are still found in today's African cultures. Ancient Egyptians were Africans, as is testified by the father of History, Herodotus, in his book The Histories : "...the Colchians thought to be descendant of a faction of Sesotris army, since like the Egyptians, they have black skin and wooly hair" ( Book II -1004).
Jean-Michel Vernes
San Francisco, CA
USA
Al-Ahram Weekly reserves the right to edit letters submitted to Readers' Corner for brevity and clarity. Readers are advised to limit their letters to a maximum of 300 words.
Recommend
Comment
Printer-friendly
