Al-Ahram Weekly | Reader's corner

Trading places
Sir-- In response to Mr Henry Saltiel's letter 'Twenty questions' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 30 October - 5 November), it may be quite good for him to ask only two question and save his time and clear his mind from illusions, lies and facts which were distorted to build world consent to swallow Palestinian rights. The question are, why is Israel occupying Palestinian land and why do they continue to steal the best Palestinian land to build settlements? If Mr Saltiel had the misfortune to face the same problem as the Palestinians -- where some armed foreigners drove him out of his home, declaring ownership over his property while any attempt by him to restore his rights was depicted as terrorism, and what is worse is that the police (the US in the Palestinian example) sides with the thieves -- could he explain to us how he would take back his home?
Ayman Ghozlan
Cairo
Egypt

By other means
Sir-- As has become clear in the passing three years, for better for worse, the government of the United States stands in a unique position in attempting to wrestle a peace from the Palestinians and the Israelis. Another year looms in the Al- Aqsa uprising and yet the Palestinians are, at the least, a step back from where they started. It amazes me that the tactics and politics of the "human bomb" have not been cast off as utter failure. Simply put, the moral high ground has been surrendered to the Israelis. It is clear that the United States' support of the Israelis has enraged thousands in the Arab world, perhaps rightly so. But you must understand the wildly different definition "suicide attack" took on in post-September 11 America. The images of street celebrations in the camps of the West Bank and Gaza after the attacks replay vividly in the memories of Americans. There is no sympathy for the Palestinian plight when it is inter-played with masked jihadis shaking their smuggled rifles at the cameras, celebrating the death of another human bomb.
In any case, it is puzzling why the examples of more successful "revolutions" have not been copied. It is abundantly clear that the Palestinians cannot match the firepower of the modern army it faces, it is reduced to "moral" victories and posturing in front of slogans. Has anyone even briefly considered the use of tactics and activities akin to those of Martin Luther King or Gandhi? Say what you will about them, but they made fundamental changes to the most powerful nations this earth has ever seen, a hundred-fold the power of Israel. The United States and United Kingdom were never the same.
There were hundreds of nameless, faceless activists who suffered with them. But is that any less honourable than getting your farewell video played on Egyptian TV for a day or so before you are a forgotten face in the endless stream of martyrs? Is it better to enter a club or a restaurant with a bomb against your ribs or to quietly refuse to obey an immoral law? Is a martyr who stabs a settler and her child to death more interested in statehood than the young American student who died standing in front of a bulldozer?
Many would be hurt, many would be killed; but I promise you that the billions watching around the world would be far, far more sympathetic to your cause. Do not misinterpret this as a dictum that the activities and choices of the Palestinian cause must contort themselves to suit the American public -- that is not my purpose. But I ask you not to underestimate the power of public opinion in a democracy. By making Hamas and Islamic Jihad obsolete, you will bring the pressure of the American Congress onto the shoulders of Israel. Perhaps by the blood of true martyrs will Palestine be free.
Brian Weis
Louisville, KY
USA

Lost facts
Sir-- I've noticed that you are getting many new readers from the US. I put out a local newsletter and regularly reference your excellent Web site. The quality of your commentaries and writers is exemplary, but it is obvious from reading Readers' Corner that many new readers are not aware of the sad history of Palestine. Many were not even aware of the occupation there until 9/11 spurred interest. I know it is repetitious to your regular readers, but may I suggest that some reference to the usurpation of Palestine -- the history of Irgun and other Jewish/Zionist terrorists in cowing the victors of WWII into sanctioning the invasion and colonisation of Palestine -- be included in some form on a regular basis.
Many Americans are only aware of Palestinian 'suicide bombers' and know nothing about Jewish/Zionist terrorism in establishing Israel -- or the atrocities that accompanied the Jewish invasion. The US media rarely gives any mention to the origin of Palestinian hostility such as the horrific slaughters by Zionists and the violent expulsion of Palestinians from their ancestral lands. Those of us old enough to remember the truth have little access to large audiences; propaganda promoted by Israel and its American collaborators must be countered or the truth will be forgotten. As a respectable, moderate sponsor of Middle East commentary, you can help remedy this deplorable situation before it's too late.
As a child, I couldn't understand why the supposedly 'civilised world' -- fresh from a devastating bout with Japanese and German imperialism -- did not denounce the Zionist incursion. (I had the same problem with Vietnam under French occupation.) Today, the children of America are not learning the facts about Palestine; they are being taught that Palestinians are being imprisoned in 'the world's biggest concentration camp' as punishment for vicious, unprovoked terrorist violence against 'innocent Israelis'.
This abomination is an affront to the morals, principles and decency of humane and caring citizens the world over. This egregious demonisation of an entire society can be equated with the malevolent treatment of indigenous peoples in America and Australia, where they were dehumanised, slaughtered and the survivors imprisoned under the most lamentable conditions.
Sandy Lambrecht
Menomonie, WI
USA

Land for all?
Sir-- This is in response to Mohamed Hakki article 'It's Palestine, stupid' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 30 October - 5 November). I agree with most of what the article said and have a couple of additional observations. If you were Israel, there is no way you could go back to the 1967 border. The original borders encompass too small a geographical area for two states to co-exist, especially if you also consider the Palestinian right of return. If the Arab countries would like to give away additional desert land, then Israel might go back to the 1967 border with a Palestinian state. Are Arabs who currently surround Israel willing to exchange "land for peace"? It's easy to say land-for-peace when you were on the losing end of the 1967 war.
Steven Potempa
Arizona
USA

Leader wanted
Sir-- In 'Nuclear hypocrisies' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 30 October - 5 November), the logic, rationale and fairness of your argument for a Middle East totally free of WMD is impeccable. Lamentably, such rational thinking is not to be found, or is well concealed, in the "free and objective" media in my country -- nor is the point ever made by our aspiring politicians. Objectivity and even-handedness have seldom, if ever, been the hallmark of US policy in the Middle East; the only exception and bright spark of hope that comes to mind occurred in Eisenhower's administration. It is doubtful that my country can contribute significantly to hopes for peace and development in your region until we are blessed with another leader of his integrity and courage.
M H Longmire, Jr
Morristown, TN
USA

False idea
Sir-- I have read your editorial 'Nuclear hypocrisies' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 30 October - 5 November) on Israel's nuclear weapons. Your editorial relies on specious reasoning and no facts. It is not an established fact that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, but rather a speculation. Second, in the environment of the Middle East, in which the surrounding nations have waged war against Israel on at least 5 separate occasions and maintained a virtually continuous war against it, would it not make sense for a small country to develop whatever protections it can against its numerically superior foes? Israel no more oppresses its Arab non citizens than Muslim countries do their ethnic minorities. A good deal less, I am sure.
W A Gerber
Jerusalem
Israel

A people hijacked
Sir-- The article 'Traces of poison' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 27 February - 5 March) -- which will be denied by every Jew, Zionist and brain- washed lemming in the Western world -- is in my opinion a concise expose of the treachery that the Ashkenazi forced upon the Palestinians and other Arab cultures for the last century. The only people who have anything to hide in the Middle East are those who by the design of their own doctrine must destroy every Palestinian to the last child. For 50 years before Ben Gurion and for 50 years since his brutal invasion of sovereign soil occupied by peaceful farmers, craftsman and family tradesman who occupied the land for thousands of years, these Zionist madmen have systematically engaged in a Holocaust of their own. They have controlled the media around the world, infiltrated governments to control public opinion in other countries, ignored every rule, law, treaty and convention in the name of exterminating the Palestinian people from this planet.
We all know this, and yet somehow the world sees poor little Israel as the weak oppressed state being picked on by the big bad Arab states. This is ironic seeing as how the Israelis have enough NBC power to obliterate everything for 3,000 miles in any direction from their Knesset. I will never know why the world doesn't intervene in the genocide. Why won't the Israeli people wake up and see that the Ashkenazi have stolen their religion, their way of life and the future of their children -- the sons of Abraham, the true Jewish people. The only real terrorist in the Middle East are the Ashkenazi who stole the land and everything else in a bid to eventually occupy all lands from Iran to the Mediterranean, from Turkey to the Indian Ocean. Unless the true Jews and the rest of the world come to their senses and stop them, it will continue until all Arab cultures are reduced to nothing more than slave labour for the mighty Ashkenazi who will then turn on the Christians.
Boyd Appplegate
San Diego, CA
USA

Diverging agendas
Sir-- In response to 'Garroting Galloway' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 30 October - 5 November), I wonder how much support Mr Galloway would receive from leaders in the Middle East who seem to be oblivious to the suffering of the Palestinians and the Iraqi people, especially that you all seem to be cuddling up to the Americans. I also wonder why we all went out on the streets to try to stop the war against the people of Iraq. I salute Mr Sonallah Ibrahim's refusal to accept the prize, and I am sure Edward Said was smiling. The story seems to be the same all over the world -- the people want peace and understanding, while the leaders are only interested in their own power games.
Johanna Moren
Karlstad
Sweden

Preempt everywhere
Sir-- In 'Reclaiming the streets' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 30 October - 5 November), you write: "The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found yet in Iraq has angered many who felt cheated by the Bush administration's claim that Iraq posed an 'imminent threat' to the US, regional and world security." If you read President Bush's pre-war speeches, you'll see he never said Iraq was an imminent threat. He said just the opposite, in fact, that in the post-9/11 world, we can't wait until threats become imminent. It's obvious the writers of this article are hardly objective. But with this misstatement, they replace the truth with fiction.
Thomas Loughran
New Orleans
USA

Destructive dialogue
Sir-- Regarding 'Reclaiming the streets' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 30 October - 5 November). The people at these protests are anti-Bush and anti- American. They are ashamed and embarrassed that the United States is a lone super power. They feel that if we could just sit down with the Muslim extremists and talk, we could work it all out. They do not listen to what is said to the global Muslim community by Bin Laden and his peers. I do. The vast majority of Americans do. We believe him, because 9/11 was his opening dialogue. The message: the destruction of Westerners and Zionists is the only goal. We Americans who support our president are determined to continue the dialogue in the language in which it was presented to us, ie death and destruction.
This may not be a war against Islam, but it is a war against the ideas of radical Islam.
Sean Mahoney
Boston
USA

Hero or terrorist
Sir-- Sometimes I wonder. As a Muslim, should I hate this man or should I admire him? Bin Laden, the man who faces the most powerful nation in modern history and does this alone. This can make me admire the man, but on the contrary the man has given Islam an image of violence and blood. He let people all over the world prejudge holy Islam as the religion of savages and barbarians, which is totally a wrong idea of this peaceful religion.
It goes without saying that I totally condemn the 11 September attacks which resulted in the death of innocent people, but everything is for a reason. When it comes to violence, we should especially think wisely and deeply. Violence is a reaction for an action, namely the total bias of the American administration in favour of Israeli state against Arab countries, especially on the Palestinian issue. Justice is the key for any stability and this is something the American administration doesn't consider in the game of politics. They think that power, in parallel with economic superiority which the American nation has, can save the US society from the dangers of terrorism. This is totally a wrong concept. Any country can save a lot of its budget, which is spent for weapons and arm forces, if only it uses the right and just political decisions. In my opinion, military action must be taken in only two cases: when politics fail to achieve a fair and just solution; when there is lack of deep and wise political direction, which is the case of the American administration right now.
Going back to the issue of Bin Laden, is he a hero or a terrorist? It goes without saying that he is a terrorist who disfigures the bright and beautiful image of Islam. Though there is no justification for killing innocent people, any fair analyst might find justification for Bin Laden's actions as he tries to punish the country which, according to Bin Laden, is in charge of all the injustice and aggression in the world, a country which uses its money to do what it wants, and if money fails uses its massive military weapons as an alternative.
The above resolves the question about Bin Laden. He was a terrorist, until America made him a hero.
Maged Eldeep
Cairo
Egypt

US of Israel
Sir-- After passing the anti-Syria law at the US Congress and seeing how far the Jewish lobby and Israel can affect and influence the legislature of the superpower, it would be correct to call the US Congress, the US Knesset
Omar Radi
Amman
Jordan

Lessons learnt
Sir-- I am writing this letter as a tribute to Dr Adel Abu Zahra who departed from this world a few days ago. Sad and shocking as death usually is, it wasn't a surprise to hear of his death since it was subconsciously present when I last saw Dr Abu Zahra last. Memories are constantly flashing back; his voice, words and image are at the back of my mind all the time and in front of my eyes.
I have known Dr Abu Zahra since I was 14 years old and always admired his eloquence, his articulation, his passion about music and art, and his superb skills in making an argument and campaigning for a cause. As an adolescent, he so often simplified and beautified music and art to make them more accessible to my blooming soul. As a young reporter struggling to write a story, he was always there to provide me with authoritative information and connect me with other sources.
But I have also knew him much more closely for three years. That well-known activist, campaigner, speaker in intellectual and media circles gave me many chances to speak my mind at important venues, as well a seat on the first board of the Egyptian Friends of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina Association. In many instances he stood firmly behind me to encourage and defend me when necessary. I have thus had the chance over the years to watch him and debate with him how he conducts his 'struggles' on various fronts, and it taught me a lot about perseverance, adopting a cause and fighting for it effectively.
Along the way, there have also been many things with which I disagreed, mainly about how to do things and some beliefs and values. But today, as I am grappling with his departure, I only find myself remembering the wonderful things about this man, what I admired in him and what I learnt from him.
Farewell Dr Abu Zahra, may God bless your soul.
Shahira Samy
Department of Politics
University of Exeter
UK

Constructive criticism
Sir-- I attended the lecture at AUC on 20 October in which US Ambassador David Welch criticised Al-Gomhouriya newspaper for calling the suicide-bombing of a Haifa restaurant "a brave commando operation". Mr Welch's remark was not an attack on Al- Gomhouriya, it was firm criticism by one professional of some work done by other professionals. Such criticism is inherently respectful because underlying it is the assumption "we expect better from professional journalists."
The Press Syndicate should welcome such challenges as indications that Egyptian journalists are being taken seriously and their work is being judged by reasonable standards. Correspondingly, the Press Syndicate should be concerned if it ever finds that it is being ignored, that the most irresponsible statements elicit no response. Then the Press Syndicate will know that it is being viewed with what President Bush has called "the soft bigotry of low expectations".
Eugene McGovern
Cairo
Egypt

More fire
Sir-- I commend you on your title 'Loose cannon' for a recent letter (Al-Ahram Weekly, 23- 29 October) by Mr Ali Alarabi, the National Director of The United Arab American League, Chicago. Mr Alarabi obviously is misunderstanding an incident that happened in the US, where an army leader was talking about his personal experience in combating the famous savage bloody war in Somalia, which was led by a well-known bloodthirsty warlord who happens to be a Muslim. This warlord was cruel and evil by all human standards, including of any peace-loving and compassionate Muslim who is well aware of the crimes he and his army committed against humanity, including murder and rape of tens of thousands of women and children, the mass killing of poor innocent villagers in Somalia for the sake of his "idols" -- power and money.
This man, or any warlord, should receive nothing more than despise and contempt from any reasonable person including Mr Alarabi himself. But unfortunately Mr Alarabi seems a very emotional person who confused the matter by interjecting religion into it because the warlord was a Muslim. He even made it worse by threatening that such a "misunderstood action from his part" can lead to a war between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East. What Mr Alarabi wrote is called "playing with fire"; his choice of language and threatening the already volatile situation in the Middle East for something misunderstood, is far from logic, but a "good fire" for the many extremists in that region.
Mr Ali Alarabi is really a loose canon who is not needed in the Middle East or in US.
Nancy Zakhary
British Columbia
Canada

Good sportsmanship
Sir-- The story 'Topping the table' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 23-29 October) leads with "Nigeria was declared the winner as the eighth All- Africa Games came to an end in Abuja." Since when did the All-Africa Games have a winner? It's the competing that's important.
Mike Barton
London
UK

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.
C a p t i o n :

Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 6 - 12 November 2003 (Issue No. 663)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/663/letters.htm