Putin the powerful
Sir-- I enjoyed Eric Walberg's 'Recess games' (18-24 October 2007), especially his colourful description of the French president. It reads like an overview of the Russian president's diary, probably written before the Tehran conference. But Walberg misses the point of all these visits to Moscow by Rice, Gates, Sarkozy and Olmert -- Russia has to be dealt with before the missiles fly to Iran. Meetings with human rights activists are additional means of pressuring Russia. Now we know that Putin was not stopped, that he went to Tehran and proclaimed the right of Iran to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Olmert went to see him afterwards for another bit of pressure and blackmail, with little success. Putin after Tehran and after his decision to stay in power is a new Putin, much more powerful than before.
Sir-- The Nobel committee's decision to award the 2007 Peace Prize to Al Gore and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is disturbing because both are alarmists with exaggerated views that are based on scant evidence. Certain claims made by Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth even contradict those given by the UN panel.
It is difficult to see Gore's contribution to peace when he blames humans for his so-called "imminent apocalypse" and then offers as a solution anti-life legislation that includes birth control and abortion.
Gore has in the past praised the Gaia cult, the earth, and the revival of primitive pagan cults. Hence, his agenda seems religiously motivated. Gaia supporters are anti-Christian because in their view Christianity freed the earth from pagan myths and set in motion a process of unrestrained exploitation of nature. In reality, environmental disasters are the result of a society that has moved away from God, a world of enlightenment that sees itself as the "master" rather than "keeper" of the earth.
The two must stop
Sir-- I truly believe that the vast majority of world leaders are missing their opportunity to structure resolution by remaining silent on very important international issues. I feel that peace between both Israel and the Palestinians is better than the current situation. I do not support either side of this issue; instead I support only the civilians of both sides because they need constructive mending of their crisis. I believe peace can be achieved but leaders need to recognise their faults, the neglect of their citizens and their lack of compassion for each side.
As the years have passed, countless lives have been lost in both Israel and Palestine because of the abundance of politicians and lack of true statesmanship. If I were an Israeli or a Palestinian I would demand a brighter future for both sides. Logically, I perceive the absence of compassion on both sides, though merited, must not remain this way for a brighter future. I blame the world's leaders, the Palestinian and Israeli politicians, and bias news media outlets. They are the ones who only project one-sided opinions, not the two sides, to learn how each one perceives the other. There is a lack of public outrage demonstrated by its citizens to project a compassionate resolution to this conflict. I believe speech is far stronger than bullets when people remain open-minded to change. I understand that some of you feel revenge is better in your hearts, but truly that is not commendable towards progress. You do not support your future generations with these actions. Think of the legacy you are providing for your children and their offspring. Currently, the issue has gotten far worse than desired for either side.
Terms of surrender
Sir-- The pan-Arab and pan-Islamist goal is to overpower the Israeli state and exterminate the Jews who have dared to live on Arab Islamic land. In order to accomplish this goal, it is necessary for Arabs to unequivocally defeat Israel in a war. All of the "peace terms" announced by Arabs/Muslims to date are in fact surrender terms. Israel must give up territory, pay reparations, apologise, hand over control of the agency that regulates Israeli citizenship, disband the army, replace Hebrew with Arabic as the language of the state and make Islam the state religion. These are surrender terms.
Sir-- Just a few months after the termination of the USSR in which America had a big influence, the US got a new rival; the EU. This rival will become more influential and more powerful than any other country or union in the world, more powerful than the old USSR.
Two questions arise: Did world rulers decide to put the EU instead of the US as the leader of a free world and first superpower? Second, who are those rulers? The answer to the first question is yes, they did, and secondly, we will never know who they are but they definitely come from Germany. They are not Jews as many believe; if they were, then they would have had their own state a long time ago.
If we look back at European history, Germany was not defeated as many thought. They played very smart, waited and planned to return stronger than ever, and they did through the EU, as its leader and strongest member state. Germany was, and still is, the union's biggest net contributor, with the biggest economy, responsible for about 23 per cent of the EU budget. The same is true of Japan and the US. It looked like Japan was also not defeated in the US-Japan war. Now, Japan is the strongest independent economic and industrial power on earth. Most Japanese products are represented in the US. In contemporary days, power is not measured by weapons but by the strongest industry.
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.