Readers' corner
Not so complex
Sir-- The Israel-Palestine problem is not complicated: we have an occupying power (Israel) and an occupied people (Palestinians), and a huge disparity of power and control between the two, all within the context of international law and the UN which has already decided upon the solution.
If the occupying power desires peace, it can be readily achieved, given its dominant position. So why has peace not become a reality in almost half a century? What is distasteful to the US and Israeli elite is peace in the Middle East, and the resulting effect that might have on regional development in the Arab world and US hegemony in a resource- rich region. In their uneasy alliance with corporations, whose leadership positions they normally hold when they are not posing as politicians, the neo-cons in the US (Israel's strong supporters) have found a dual fulfilment of purpose. The terms of the "long-term solution" to the "Palestinian problem" are what they do not want to face. If that can be avoided, any "practical problems" that a new war or a new Intifada might bring are easier for them to handle. In all such alliances to further power and wealth, human suffering and misery become at best, background noise.
The US and Israel together (and not only Israel), are to blame for the lack of peace and development in the Arab world. I do not think that peace in the Middle East will ever become a reality as long as US hegemony in the current world system continues to exist. Even if (in an imaginary scenario) the Palestinians voluntarily hand over their land to Israel on a silver platter, Israel will invent a new war in the region, in tune with the desires of the US elite. There will still be no peace. Peace is possible only if the current world system with its structure of power and manipulation is altered to one that places humanity and its well being before wealth, resources and profits. Peace, working within the current system, dominated by the US power elite, is impossible to achieve. History bears witness to the fact that regardless of the face or political label of the person in power, or the terminology used for the various "peace plans", there has been no peace in Palestine and no end to the Israeli occupation.
Muhammad Asadi
Springfield
USA
NATO can help
Sir-- NATO should be brought in as a security umbrella over Israel and Palestine, depressurising the Golan Heights, which Israel presently occupies. If NATO forces were to be placed along the Lebanese and Syrian frontiers after an Israeli pullout, then the Golan Heights could be overseen by a regional super-national water and irrigation authority, preferably chaired by a neutral nation such as Finland or Sweden. The majority of land area could be considered a land reserve or trust, as this is a primary water source as well a strategic military vantage.
If NATO were to come in and conduct an inventory of the nuclear facility in the Negev Desert at Dimona and at other military facilities in Israel, as well as becoming a full partner in the day-to-day management, command and control there, it would greatly lessen pan-Arab anxieties in the area and could lead to disarmament. It would demonstrate Israel's regional goodwill and would lessen the argument for the nuclear option regionally. This could have a far-reaching effect in countering increasing militarism in Southwest Asia. It could also lead to a greater international peace and a new direction for NATO.
NATO could be a stabilising force politically as well as militarily. Given the apprehensions of the numerically superior Arabs and the advanced and highly capable Israeli IDF, NATO's inclusion of Israel and Palestine would stabilise both the internal and external insecurities.
A prime example of two former adversaries becoming equal partners in NATO has been demonstrated by Turkey and Greece.
Craig Scott Aberle
Montana
USA
Every week
Sir-- For over a year many Palestinian villages have been demonstrating against the fence that cuts them from their land and schools. These demonstrations are non-violent and are conducted with Israelis. Some, as in the village of Bilin, run for almost a year -- every week -- despite strong opposition from the army.
Joseph Gad
Jerusalem
Israel
Keep it inside
Sir-- We have an expression here in the United States: "Politics stops at the water's edge." It means that even though we Americans have our political disagreements -- and those disagreements can get rather heated -- we do not take them to foreign countries. Our belief rests on three principles. The first is that taking our internal concerns outside of the country compromises our sovereignty. The second is that we believe our people and our democracy are strong enough to resolve any such problems fairly and in accordance with the principles of justice that under gird our social fabric. The third is that it is disloyal to our nationhood.
Richard Benkin
Chicago
USA
WMD forgotten
Sir-- In 'Bringing it home' ( Al-Ahram Weekly 29 September-5 October) it says in part: "at least we're fighting the battle over there and not here in America... [The demonstrators] are putting our soldiers in danger by protesting against what the president's trying to do, which is trying to make peace by setting up a democracy... These people don't appreciate that the Iraqis are so much more free and better off than they were before."
Some people appear to really believe this. How quickly it has gone from WMD to setting up democracy. One can only wonder if they truly believe it, and if so how they apply this belief to the thousands of dead civilians.
John Woodward
Tokyo
Japan
Sudan's history
Sir-- With all due respect to Mr Assem El-Dessouky and the Egyptian historians whose views are featured in 'The Making of a modern hero', ( Al-Ahram Weekly 13-20 September) their views in defence of Muhammad Ali's conquest of Sudan are unsubstantiated. The view that in Islam, a Muslim cannot possess and thus conquer another Muslim is out of context since Sudanese Muslims died fighting Muhammad Ali and his troops when they forcefully entered Sudan in 1821. In Sudan, in all historical objectivity, Muhammad Ali's entry into Sudan is viewed as a conquest. This is evidenced by the fact that the Sudanese in their vast majority rallied around the Mahdi so as to liberate their lands from the foreign occupier. Equating Egyptian "annexation" of Sudan to English "annexation" of Scotland on the grounds that the latter was not challenged is extremely difficult to correlate with the history of the wars of Scottish independence.
Mustafa AlBaqir
Washington DC
USA
There are women
Sir-- In 'New Sudanese government formed' ( Al-Ahram Weekly, 21-27 September) you state that the absence of women in Sudan's new government is conspicuous. This might seem to suggest to those uninformed of Sudanese affairs that Sudan's unity cabinet has no female members. Sudan's unity government includes two female ministers, Tabita Shwkaya, the minister of health from the SPLM and Samia Ahmed Mohamed, the minister of welfare and social development from the National Congress Party.
There is also the Minister of State for Agriculture and Forestry Ann Iko from the SPLM as well as a female adviser to the president, Farida Ibrahim Ahmed Hussein.
Two out of 28 ministerial posts going to women might not live up to the Western ideal, however in Sudan's immediate African and Middle Eastern vicinity, such representation is not sub-par.
Bakri Lateef
Khartoum
Sudan
Flawed knowledge
Sir-- When an Egyptian opposition leader inquired why Mr Bush mentions God in his speeches, Bush's deputy at state Karen Hughes asked him whether he was aware that "previous American presidents have also cited God, and that our constitution cites 'one nation under God'." The truth is the US constitution says nothing about God. God is simply nowhere to be found in the US constitution.
Hughes' first trip through the Middle East will hopefully be her last. If her knowledge of the founding documents of her own nation is so flawed -- it is petrifying to ponder her ignorance of Middle East politics, history and culture.
Richard Kastelein
Groningen
Netherlands
Boat mystery
Sir-- I would like to know why the Greenpeace ship was prevented from sailing into the Nile to Cairo on a peaceful energy tour. Something must be done because this will help us all to unite and understand how to live in peace and stop the dangers of climate change.
Ahmad Rayyan
Amman
Jordan
Recommend
Comment
Printer-friendly
