Letters to the editor
Heikal as required reading
Sir-- The transcript of Mohamed Hassanein Heikal's talks "The enduring winter of our discontent" was one of the most percipient analyses of the Middle East situation that I have seen for a very long time.
The history of American colonialism exactly mirrors the Zionist attitude in Palestine: first a friendly approach to the "natives", then a conquest of territory accompanied by military "defence", followed by treaties that were invariably broken on one pretext or another, so that eventually the Native Americans were reduced to a meagre existence on "reservations".
I don't think there was any master plan for the conquest. Rather it was more like a game of chess -- a generally defined objective with each individual move made improving the general position in pursuit of it. It is exactly what is going on in Palestine at the moment.
Little wonder then that there is a symbiotic relationship between the USA and Israel. The American objective seems to be to gain dominion over oil, not just to ensure supplies for themselves but to dominate most of the world by the threat to cut off supplies to anyone who does not accept their hegemony.
As Heikal points out, that was how Churchill and Roosevelt managed to persuade Japan to attack the USA, giving them the excuse to bring America into WWII. It also explains US sensitivity towards any nation, such as Iran, starting a peaceful programme of nuclear energy.
Israel's long-term objective is equally obvious. Some years ago an Iraqi colleague remarked that he was concerned about Jewish settlement on the West Bank -- of the Euphrates! A few days ago a BBC2 TV programme on the Bible had a rabbi rejoicing at living in the land "which had been given to us by God". I suggest that "a verbal promise from God isn't worth the paper it's written on" -- to misquote a less fanatical Jew, Sam Goldwyn.
It was such a relief to see such clear analysis as that made by Mr Heikal. I only hope his words are read carefully at foreign ministries throughout the world.
Charles Hughes
Felixstowe
England
Stop the insanity
Sir-- I am deeply moved by your editorial "Into the heart of darkness" on the year just past. Empathy is indeed turning into a conundrum. How can so many of the same people who are sending millions of dollars in relief to the thousands devastated by the Tsunami not feel an equivalent empathy for the thousands who have been devastated by bombings and tanks and suicidal terrorism in this world gone mad?
How can human beings treat each other this way? Why do we not follow Gandhi's example of massive peaceful protest around the world. I fear for the planet earth and all its denizens. A way must be found to stop this insanity.
Patricia Towers
New York City
USA
The right thing
Sir-- Regarding the amount of aid the US will deliver to those people devastated by the Tsunami, I presume you will keep your readers up to date as the story unfolds.
This should not be a contest to see who can do the most. We will all do all we can to help our human brothers and sisters. I'm sure Muslim and non-Muslim nations alike will do their best.
Please allow your readers to hear about our generosity -- not just our government but our citizens. This disaster is unprecedented and we, along with the rest of the world, are eager to do the right thing.
Buster Quin
North Carolina
USA
Where are the Arabs?
Sir-- You deal critically with American aid in South East Asia. Of course they use it to clean their slate. But where is the help from the oil-rich Arab world?
Was it Dubai or Bahrain who provided 25 million? Even more than Saudi Arabia... And is that the most they can come up with? The poor people of Indonesia and Sri Lanka et al are not concerned with what motive the money is given, so long as it arrives and helps them.
Ilie An
Cologne
Germany
The mouse trap
Sir-- The article entitled "Brain- wake" by Tarek Atia is fantastic. This is because of the deep thought that went into the subtle comparison he makes between a situation where you have a simple tool of communication like the old telephone, and want to send only the important part of the message, and a situation when you have tools like satellites that can communicate high definition TV at very high speed -- thus having the resources to mix the important with the not- so-important.
The program producers themselves might end up emphasizing the unimportant, in order to provide viewers with hype at the expense of more important messages. I would say that viewers are like a mouse trapped in a house with the owner (the media) using a slow poison. The mouse will keep eating away it because it tastes so good, but eventually it will kill him.
Khaled Riad
Georgia
USA
Recommend
Comment
Printer-friendly
