Letters
Clearer distinction
Sir-- Azmi Bishara's article 'Back to context' ( Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21 July) made a great deal of sense to me.
The people you wish to influence, those who are still open to education, might very well feel the "wall" is legitimate, while considering "those parts of the wall situated in Occupied Palestinian Territory" illegal and an outrage.
The article might even be more powerful if that distinction was clear.
John Kerr
Ohio
USA
Vicious 'victim'
Sir-- The callous but predictable rejection by Israel of the recent opinion of the International Court of Justice, is yet another indication of the flagrant violation of International law by the government of Sharon. Even though the ICJ's ruling is non-binding, yet it sends a loud and clear message to Israel that the separation wall is not a security necessity, but rather an act of aggression whose sole purpose is an enormous land grab and the imprisonment of many thousands of Palestinians behind a concrete apartheid wall.
Israel claims to be a small island of democracy in a sea of hostile nations and is the victim of Palestinian terrorism, but the fact is that the "victim" has been brutally occupying other people's land for the last 37 years, and has killed over 3,000 Palestinians in the last four years including women, children and the wheelchair- bound elderly. It has demolished over 10,000 Palestinian homes, robbed banks, bombed schools, destroyed crops, confiscated thousands of acres to establish illegal settlements, poisoned wells and murdered in cold blood young people from Britain and the United States, whose sole crime was to help the helpless.
That same "victim" has the world's fourth most powerful army and an advanced nuclear programme which is not subject to the international non- proliferation agreement. While Israel, the "victim", receives close to $15 million a day, 70 per cent of the Palestinians live on less than $2 a day.
Fikry Boulos Salib
Stamford, CT
USA
Name one
Sir-- Mr Usher's article 'Creating facts' ( Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21 July) regarding the so-called "separation fence" is lopsided (for a change) and unsettling. Israel thwarted an invasion in 1967, and in the process -- like any other nation in the annals of history -- kept the land. I would like Mr Usher to name one country, just one, that has given back land after it won a war.
Having said that, Israel, unlike the East Germans, isn't keeping people in, but keeping them out. Like any other nation, Israel has every right to defend itself. The fact that the "commission" is a farce in itself doesn't even begin to explain its being no surprise here that they condemned Israel. With its anti-Jewish, yes anti-Jewish lobby, not anti-Zionist (which is the same thing translated), we find this act repelling indeed.
Brant Strunin
New York, NY
USA
Another criminal
Sir-- While I was reviewing Al-Ahram Weekly 's website this week, I stopped before a cartoon by Al-Hayat 's Habib Hadid in which he portrayed Sharon as sticking out his tongue and flaunting the ICJ ruling on the wall of separation. My comment is, if the US administration is frank in trying the ousted Iraqi president and seeks the favour of the Iraqi people, why it is not doing the same with other criminals like Ariel Sharon who arrogantly orders his soldiers to kill innocent people daily?
And if the US is taking Saddam Hussein to court for his crimes against the Kurds, Iranians and Kuwaitis, why doesn't it also take Sharon to court for his confession that Egyptian prisoners of war in Sinai were run over by his tanks, and that many innocents were slaughtered in Sabra and Shatilla.
I absolutely agree that Saddam Hussein was a criminal, but there is another free criminal that must be taken to court. Those type of criminals must be confronted with their crimes against humanity.
Ahmad Abdel-Tawwab
Cairo
Egypt
Howard's complicity
Sir-- Consensus is growing in Australia that our Prime Minister John "Coward" Howard should be tried for war crimes.
That a grudge against Saddam Hussein by George W Bush is construed by others as a legitimate cause for invasion and pre-emptive war, is sufficient indication that the invasion of Iraq was morally and politically indefensible. Bush was quoted as saying that "Saddam tried to kill my Daddy" and Coward Howard, as he is known in Australia, was known to be fully supportive of this emotional claptrap. Thus, the invasion and terrible suffering for Iraqis.
Australian Muslims and non-Muslims abhor this conflict; only fools and thieves relish this war.
Adrian Keefe
Tabulam
Australia
Monster, take two
Sir-- Why hasn't Al-Ahram Weekly covered the story about Iraqi PM Allawi shooting prisoners in cold-blood. According to an article at this website: www.informationclearinghouse.info Iyad Allawi, the new prime minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station.
Are we, once again, going to sit and do nothing then later cry foul? Stop this before it has a chance to start; the US created Monster, Part Two.
Marcia Visanji
Rome
Italy
Abu Ghraib fraternity
Sir-- Concerning the Abu Ghraib "atrocities", I'm astonished at how unfair the Arab media has been. Did US soldiers abuse Iraqi prisoners? Yes. Was the abuse widespread? No. A small handful of soldiers acting illegally in one prison committed the acts. Do those half dozen people represent the character of all Americans? Not more than the criminals of any society represent the whole population. Should we judge all Arabs by the conduct of their criminals?
There is evidence that some Iraqis might have died in prison because of the illegal activity of a few people, and those found guilty should be tried for murder. But the prisoners at Abu Ghraib did not suffer atrocities; they weren't even injured. They were humiliated in much the same way that pledges to college fraternities are humiliated as part of the initiation process. To describe these acts as atrocities, only diminishes the real atrocities in the world, such as the mass murder of innocent people in Sudan at the hands of its Arab government.
Roger McKinney
Broken Arrow, OK
USA
Principled reason
Sir-- Intolerance, that is, fanaticism, has some historically unmistakable trade marks: it is a blight to any people -- those who are in favour and those being submitted to it. Technological advancements coupled with socio- economic and political factors make this kind of enthusiasm indescribably dangerous, as the lengths for achieving "success" are unlimited. Already, US occupation in Iraq -- done in the name of liberation -- has claimed the lives of at least 11,000 civilians.
Blind faith and dogmatism, as manifested in religious and political fanaticism, stand witness to the importance of human reasoning. Without the corruption of extremist action, the Muslim faith speaks of the principle that "reason", rather than unexamined faith is the source of truth, and that human intelligence and experience are capable of guiding our lives.
Fundamentalism seems to discourage freedom of thought and expression, but to encourage it is the only way to combat fanaticism of any kind. Misguided members in Christianity and Islam, the two most powerful religions today, are using the same battle tactics to quell the other under the common heading of terrorism. Regardless of how applied in a fight, terrorism amounts to the use of "indiscriminate force against innocent people in order to send a message or to coerce particular choices by a government or society at large".
Our own Canada has a better world view than most others through the lack of direct involvement. This makes the principle of teaching how to think, rather than what to think, crucial to our own existence and longevity. With the crusade coming closer to home -- Bush getting tougher on all kinds of linkages to Cuba for instance -- it becomes more important a tenet to live by and to practice.
Nadhir Dean
Ontario
Canada
Afro-Descendant reparations
Sir-- We, the Afro-Descendant Muslims in the Lost-Found Nation of Islam in the USA, have been waging a legal battle inside the United Nations to establish our Human Rights and secure Reparations for all Afro- Descendants in the Western Hemisphere. White America began stealing our foreparents from Africa, a significant percentage of whom were Muslims, on 1 April, 1555. The European slave masters completely robbed them of their original language, religion and culture.
In many interventions before diverse UN bodies, including the Human Rights Commission, our scholars, led by the Honourable Silis Muhammad, have documented how long- term and ongoing US policies of ethnocide and forced assimilation blatantly violate UN covenants. We are calling on the United Nations to place a reparations sanction upon the guilty US government. We want your readers to know that both Senator Kerry and President Bush fiercely oppose reparations for Afro-Descendants, while fiercely supporting reparations and massive military aid for white Israel.
There are Afro-Descendants in the USA (including Christians and Muslims) who condemn the US government's unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; who condemn Israel's oppression of our Palestinian brothers and sisters; and who condemn the US government's intensifying persecution of ourselves inside the world's only so-called super-power.
We are committed to waging legal and spiritual warfare until we receive full justice.
Malik Al-Arkam
Boston, MA
USA
Recommend
Comment
Printer-friendly
