Readers' corner
Before Eritrea's time
Sir-- "Israel supported the Eritrean independence movement, backing the faction led by Isaias Afwerki. In 1990, an Israeli delegation visited Asmara with the purpose of assessing the situation in Eritrea and the southern Red Sea" ('Divide, undermine and conquer', 15-21 April, Al-Ahram Weekly ). Asmara was in 1990 under Ethiopian control. How could Israel have visited Asmara at that time?
Israel supported Ethiopia not Eritrea during the emperor's time and later in 1990 delivered napalm bombs to Ethiopia to destroy the EPLF led by Afwerki.
"...to strengthen the Israeli military presence in the Red Sea, along the Eritrean coast and in Ethiopia (already, 1,700 Israeli military experts had been sent to Eritrea in 1990 to train the Eritrean army)."
To train the Eritrean army? There was no Eritrean army at that time. Eritrea became a nation in 1993.
"On 13 February 1993, a security and economic delegation paid a five-day secret visit to Asmara."
Why would an Israeli delegation visit Asmara secretly? There is an Israeli Embassy in Asmara.
"Asmara would permit a full Israel military presence in Eritrea and freedom of movement to Israeli military and intelligence personnel throughout the country. In addition, Asmara would refrain from entering into cooperative arrangements with Arab countries and indefinitely postpone the idea of joining the Arab League."
Eritrea has more cooperative arrangements with Arab countries than with others. To name some: Libya, Qatar, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. How do you explain that?
Could you also please explain to your readers how Eritrea became a victim of the US if it is so Israel-friendly as you claim?
Efrem Abraha
Asmara
Eritrea
Be satisfied
Sir-- Arab nations should press the US to offer West Bank Jewish settlers the opportunity to fast-track immigration to the United States as a way of freeing the area for a peaceful settlement (Cabbing for Israel, 1-7 April, Al-Ahram Weekly ). The Israeli aim to turn the clock back 2,000 years while they acquire all land is wrong and they should be content with what the UN gave them (even this was undeserved).
John Hayes
London
UK
Nothing under occupation
Sir-- Re 'I was a candidate!' (25-31 March, Al-Ahram Weekly ) so democracy under occupation works, does it? Did it work in Vietnam?
I just heard that the Iraqi government is to slash rations in half while we have eight million people in Iraq who suffer from food insecurity (oxfam/wfp). These are the conditions of the IMF. Iyad Allawi was the first PM to shackle Iraq with IMF loans unnecessarily. He will hand over all Iraq's remaining assets to the occupiers; he has always been their blue-eyed boy.
I did not take part in the farce called elections, neither in 2005 nor 2010, not in any elections under occupation. I also have no faith in the honesty and integrity of the organisers.
As to the writer, you allowed yourself to be used to give credence to this man who should face trial for his sanctioning of the Falluja crimes. You must not allow your obvious anti- Kurdish sentiments to cloud your vision.
I hope you will reflect on your mistaken decision instead of blaming intellectuals who did not vote for you.
Tamara Numan
Kent
UK
Blind war
Sir-- I was curious about Katherine Bigelow's The Hurt Locker. Was the first woman ever to win an Academy Award for directing out to glorify war or deplore it? Now that I've seen the film, I still don't know the answer.
It offers only two clues to her personal point of view: the film's epigraph, "War is a drug", and its title. Bigelow focussed her artistry on the personalities of the men at war without seeming to question what brought them -- or their nation -- to this particular place of pain.
Mary Liepold
New York
USA
Moscow terrorism
Sir-- Re 'Black widows and lieutenants' (1-7 April, Al-Ahram Weekly ), the matrix of these terrorist attacks is Wahabist; the reference centre of Wahabism is located in Saudi Arabia. It is the same kind of terrorism of Al-Qaeda, the group led by Bin Laden. The secular and secessionist movements were overcome by those Islamist ones. They can get absolutely nothing because the Kremlin and the government are determined to stop and eradicate the terrorism. The Kremlin and the government have no intention of giving in to Islamic terrorism, as firmly exposed by Medvedev and Putin in their latest talks.
Paulo Tiberio
Milan
Italy
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.
Recommend
Comment
Printer-friendly
