The meaning of
Sir-- It would help heaps if Mr Haniyeh clarifies once and for all what he means by "Israeli occupation". Is it the lands Israel occupied during the 1967 War, i.e. Gaza and the West Bank, or is it "all of Palestine" which includes also Israel within the 1967 borders? If he means the former and makes it clear-cut, there is hope for a peaceful solution. If he means the latter there will only be more war and suffering for the Palestinians. Such ambiguity will harm more than anything the Palestinian interests.
Sir-- Peace and progress will never move forward as long as Hamas says they are going to destroy Israel or the US ('Peace can only be the fruit of justice' Al-Ahram Weekly 13-19 April). Make your goal to improve the lives of your people, not the destruction of others or the world will never support you.
Stating the case
Sir-- The prime minister of the Palestinians only stated the pure reality of what is happening in Palestinian everyday life and their history.
Sir-- The notion that the West is punishing the Palestinian people is propaganda (''Democracy' at work' Al-Ahram Weekly 13- 19 April). The truth is there are consequences of elections. We know in the US that better than most. We know putting Bush in office is a prime reason we are perhaps the most hated country on Earth. That is a consequence we have to live with, in effect we brought it upon ourselves. I congratulate Hamas on their victory. Unfortunately the consequences of that victory are real. With all the oil wealth in the Gulf, Muslims should be the sole providers for the Palestinians. I can't think of a single reason the West should provide a single dollar or euro.
Sir-- Your writers spend a great deal of time implying that the US and the EU are trying to undermine the will of the Palestinian people because of a freeze on certain kinds of aid.
The Palestinian people are certainly free... to vote in a democratic election but the American taxpayer is not morally obligated to help pay the bills. I humbly suggest that you use more of the great resources of your newspaper to scold those great "friends" of the Palestinians, the Arab states, to deliver on their promises.
Live with it
Sir-- Hamas won the elections, and so they govern. But the way that they govern is something for which they will have to live with the consequences.
Sir-- The USA, Israel and the EU do not support an organisation that calls for the annihilation of Israel. Besides, it would be madness for Israel to give Hamas economic aid when Hamas is sworn to destroy her.
It's our money
Sir-- I read the interview with Abdul-Aziz Duwaik and hear just another politician twisting the truth and leaving much of it out ('Hamas plans ahead' Al-Ahram Weekly 13-19 April). Politicians are the same throughout the world. The Palestinian people were in a very difficult position in the last elections. They either re-elect a corrupt government or elect a more honest one but one that stands for violence and the destruction of Israel. The people elected the more honest one. Now Hamas blames the Americans and Europe for their financial crisis because the Western countries won't contribute money to Hamas who will use some of it for the destruction of Israel. I'm an American. I'm against my government contributing money to any regime that wants to destroy another country.
Also, why does Duwaik feel we are obligated to contribute money to anyone? If we do contribute money, we can pick and choose or contribute to no one. It's our money. I would like to contribute to the Palestinians but only if I knew it would go towards the building of a country that could eventually stand on its own feet, support itself and stand for peaceful co-existence. Why doesn't Mr Duwaik support this? He says that the Palestinian people are the most educated in the region. With that talent, why don't you concentrate on building a country rather that focussing on destroying another and blaming everyone but yourself for your situation?
Look over your shoulder
Sir-- While Iran is still attempting to develop nuclear capabilities, the United states is orbiting the earth with anti-nuclear warheads and atomic weapons that will disrupt navigational instruments loaded on long-range nuclear warheads by detonating an atomic weapon in the ozone layers and knocking out all radio signals. What do you think the space programme is for?
It's a fact
Sir-- William Beeman of Brown University in the US gave a wonderful account of some of the deals the US did with Iran in the past. It is a fact that the US gave Iran nuclear technology in the 1970s.
Sir-- Very impressive article by Gamil Matar ('Smooth transition' Al-Ahram Weekly 13-19 April). In spite of the deficiencies in the Arab world that Mr Matar delineates that hinder democracy, all Americans hope that some day most Arab countries will be democratic. We honestly thought that Iraq might become the first, but as Iraqis descend into civil war, that hope fades. Under Saddam, and eventually his brutal sons, Iraqis had no chance at democracy at all. And no Arab nation would help them. Arabs will blame the US, as they blame us for everything. We have made mistakes, but none that would prevent true democracy. The truth is that we gave Iraqis an opportunity for democracy and they blew it. If Iraq isn't ready for democracy, how much further from it are other Arab nations?
Almost like them
Sir-- As one who lives in the US, there are many who get the feeling there is no more democracy. Many are expatriating to other countries that can afford it. What of those left behind? As long as people like Bush is in power, we are no better off than the countries he attempts to occupy.
Past or better?
Sir-- While I believed in removing Saddam from power I do not believe in this long occupation ('Divorce American-style' Al-Ahram Weekly 6-12 April). If you go back in time to the French, US or any other revolution, it would have looked like Iraq looks today (war, chaos, death). Is France or the US better off today or before their civil wars?