Opinion: Saudi prince should have been shown the door

Has there already been enough time gone by for our president to forget from what country the great majority of the Sept. 11 suicide bombers came from? Is he really standing with his arm on the shoulder of a Saudi Arabian prince who has just threatened the United States ?

What does it mean when Abdullah says the "United States must temper its support for Israel or face grave consequences throughout the Arab world"? Will the Arabs hate us less if we "temper"? Maybe they will bomb fewer targets in the future. It is appalling that Bush has embraced our enemy this way.

The Arab world doesn't care about the Palestinians. The Arabs care only about the destruction of Israel and the United States. They are not our friends. They are people we sell guns to and buy oil from. That's all. The Palestinians were not the only Arab people that applauded when the World Trade Center came down. They were the only ones caught on camera.

This prince should have been shown the door when he threatened us with "grave consequences." I hope the American public sees this for what it really is. A "please don't cut off our oil" attitude toward a Saudi Arabian prince who had the unmitigated gall to step off a plane in this country and threaten our sovereign nation, its people and its interests.

When it comes time to say goodbye to yet another Bush in 2004, we should remember how our president embraced this jerk. How lame!
-- Bruce Caplan, Redington Beach

The Saudis forget much

Re: Saudi ruler scolds U.S. for being too pro-Israel.

Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia employed the old technique of using "offense as a defense" when he lectured President Bush at his Texas ranch the other day. He leaned heavily on our president to become less biased toward our ally Israel in dealing with the Palestinians. Too bad the president did not send him back to Saudi Arabia to ponder his chutzpah in lecturing in this manner.

Apparently, the prince has conveniently forgotten Palestinians and their Arab allies' attempts to destroy Israel in their aggressive wars in 1948, 1967, 1973 and the intifada with suicide bombers attacking innocent civilians. Also, he conveniently forgets that 15 of the 19 terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Towers were Saudi citizens. An American military base was blasted to bits with the loss of many of our soldiers. Not only did the Saudis refuse U.S. requests to investigate but never found or punished those responsible.

The final insult was to present our government a phony peace plan demanding that Israel accede to all of the Palestinian and Arab proposals without giving Israel anything but vague promises of normalization of Arab relations with Israel.
-- Irving M. Hyman, Largo

Moral bankruptcy revealed

Re: Palestinian and Israeli violence.

Palestinian gunmen, dressed as Israeli soldiers, killing a 5 year-old girl by shooting her directly in the face discloses the real and important difference between Palestinian-originated violence and Israeli-originated violence. The differences need to be brought home to the local community that marches in support of these murderers. They are not soldiers. This is an outrageous and horrible act that cannot be condoned by any people who claim to be part of the human race.

Local Palestinian supporters from the Muslim community marched a few weeks ago and carried signs decrying violence against children. That took a lot of chutzpah, for we all know about the children who have long been prime targets of the murderous bombers and snipers sent by Hamas and the other Islamic terror groups. Now we read about "soldiers" wearing the uniform of their enemy -- a ploy that has carried the death penalty in any conflict of the past 100 years -- who shoot young children face-to-face. This reveals to all the moral bankruptcy of the Palestinian cause.

However much sympathy we might have had for the Palestinians over continued Israeli resistance to a Palestinian state, and our objections to Israeli settlements within land that should be that state, are now gone. The promoters of the Palestinian cause, if they have any honor left, must renounce this atrocity and publicly apologize to the Israeli people for these acts.

Contrast this behavior with the Israeli forbearance over the Palestinian occupation of the Church of the Nativity. Israeli military forces withhold fire to avoid harming innocent hostages within the building and do not use heavy weapons in order to protect the church, holy to Christians. The Palestinian forces ignored the sanctity of the church and invaded and use the church and its occupants as shields while they shoot at the Israelis.

The differences between the Palestinians and the Israelis are crystal clear. Unless and until the Palestinians renounce their murderous ways, they do not deserve a state. Can they not see that these horrible acts undermine their support within this country?
-- Ian MacFarlane, St. Petersburg

Press gives Israel a bad rap

From my point of view -- Jewish -- I feel that the Palestinians are at fault for the tension in the Mideast. But I am certain that if you ask Palestinians who is to blame for the war, nine out of 10 will say Israel and the Jews.

You can't blame the Palestinians, though, for their opinion, you must blame the press. The press has always given a bad rap to Israel and Jewish people everywhere. Since suicide bombings are not predictable, people are only able to see the effects of the blasts and the innocent victims. However, with the Israeli retaliation, people see the overtaking of cities such as Nablus and Jenin as they unfold.

When I watch the news, all I see are reports of the Israeli offensive and interviews with Palestinians who just came out of the holy church in Bethlehem after being stuck in their for two weeks. After suicide bombings, there are no interviews, just two-minute reports on what happened in Israel, as though the Israelis deserve what they got.
-- Brett Schuster, Tampa

Coverage looks different

Re: Media seem increasingly anti-Israel, by John Leo, April 25.

What a laugh! Could the media and journalists be more pro-Israel? Could they do any more to demonize Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian people?

It is my observation that the real demon, Ariel Sharon, and his backers have not now, or ever, had any desire to make peace. Thinking time is on their side, their desire is only for more Palestinian land and American dollars, public and private.

Is America going to continue to blindly back Israel's actions abroad and in the United Nations? When are our leaders going to put American interests first?
-- William Kelley, Spring Hill

Why do we just watch and wait?

Why are you being so quiet about Israel's refusal to let the United Nations investigate Jenin? The Israelis not only do nothing for the people they have savaged, they have refused to allow reporters, humanitarian aid, diplomats and the United Nations near the place while saying they have nothing to hide. If that's true, then why don't they simply let the U.N. team in?

How can our president be so completely cowed? How can we simply watch and wait for the next destruction? Why have we not followed through on the demand that Israel just stop? Ariel Sharon says he's doing nothing the United States hasn't done, but we don't leave innocents without basics like water, food and sanitation. The Israelis are on a terrorizing rampage. Why do we participate? Why do we not go there in force to put an end to it instead of wandering around Afghanistan blowing up caves?
-- Howard C. Batt, Clearwater

Patterns of anti-Semitism

Re: Close French elections shocked many, by Wilbur G. Landrey, April 24.

Landrey writes about the remarkable showing of Jean-Marie Le Pen in the recent first round of French elections and dismisses his significance with the following: "The World War II Holocaust in Europe is not the mere 'detail' he once called it."

Le Pen did more than that; he questioned the very legitimacy of the Holocaust, challenging the existence of the camps and gas chambers.

Landrey then writes, "Anti-Semitism exists in France. It is not a national characteristic, however, and probably not much, if any, stronger than in the United States. Anti-Semitism is also a convenient stone for some to throw at anyone who dares disagree with an Israeli policy."

First, let's look at Landrey's statements about the national character of France. Before World War II, there was the France of Alfred Dreyfus. During World War II, there was the France most modern Frenchmen and Landrey would have us remember, an ally. And, yes, there was the Resistance, which never tried to stop a single deportation train. There was also a Vichy France, which collaborated with the Nazis and set up its own concentration camp system and enacted its own racial laws against Jews without much, if any, German prodding. There is the France which in 1972 banned the Marcel Ophuls film The Sorrow and the Pity, which emphasized the fear, cowardice and anti-Semitism of the Vichy period. It was banned until 1981. There was the France that for years ignored the evidence against Klaus Barbie and refused to try him. There is the France whose school texts presented the roundups of Jews as a German operation until 1983. The national character of France is far too complex to dissect in a few columns -- but to suggest that anti-Semitism in France is really just disagreement with Israeli policy belies France's history toward the Jews -- its own Jews, as well as world Jewry.

Criticism of Israeli policy is not anti-Semitism per se. However, when that criticism fails to be applied to both sides equally -- the Palestinian as well as the Israeli, when there are different moral standards for the Palestinians and for the Israelis, when people and countries are willing to revise or omit historical fact, then the criticism of Israel is nothing more than anti-Semitism disguised as criticism of Israel, which is, after all, a Jewish state.

Landrey admits he has a duty to fight anti-Semitism, but how can he if he cannot see it? In the meantime, synagogues and Jewish establishments are burning all around France and around the world. See any patterns, Mr. Landrey?
-- Susan Segal, Palm Harbor

The effects of lingering hate

Re: Jews condemned for assertiveness, by Charles Krauthammer, April 26.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote: "An Israelite is never sure of his position or of his possessions. He cannot even say that tomorrow he will still be in the country he inhabits today, for his situation, his power and even his right to live may be placed in jeopardy from one moment to the next."

Richard Wright said, "There is no Negro problem in the United States. There is only a white problem."

"In the same way, we must say that anti-Semitism is not a Jewish problem; it is our problem. What must be done is to point out to each one that the fate of the Jews is his fate. Not one Frenchman will be free so long as the Jews do not enjoy the fullness of their rights. Not one Frenchman will be secure so long as a single Jew in France -- or in the world at large -- must fear for his life." These words were written by Sartre in Reflexions sur la Question Juive in 1946. In 1948 it was translated into English under the title Anti-Semite and Jew.

As long as we continue to hate "those people," the longer we will avoid looking at ourselves.
-- Judith Dunaieff, Seminole

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page