Susan Taylor Martin, in her March 23 front page article (Hamas' wrath may now turn on U.S.), argues that Israel's elimination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin is not likely to advance the peace process. She then inserts a very misleading quote: "The goal of the Palestinian groups is to have a state of their own ..." This implies that this is the goal of Hamas, a Palestinian "group." While there are many Palestinians who earnestly desire peace and coexistence alongside Israel, Hamas in not included among them.
Sheik Yassin has made it clear, time after time, in countless interviews, that the goal of Hamas is the complete destruction of Israel. Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant states: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: "O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."' Furthermore, anybody can visit www.memri.org and read Yassin's statements regarding Hamas' goals.
It is certainly fair game to argue whether Israel's actions are productive or counterproductive in dealing with terrorism. It is not fair for Ms. Martin to mislead her readers about the clearly stated goals of Hamas and Sheik Yassin.
-- Geoffrey Parmer, Tampa
Assassination is also an act of terrorism
Israel proves yet again that it is not interested in peace. By assassinating the Hamas religious leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Israelis know the Palestinians will want to avenge this illegitimate killing, thus, perpetuating the circle of violence in the region.
As an American Muslim, I condemn all acts of terrorism, but let us not forget that killing religious leaders is also an act of terrorism, whether it is carried out by a "terrorist" or the government of Israel. Time and time again, the American media depict Muslims as terrorists. They are quick to seek condemnations from our communities whenever there is mere suspicion about any Muslim allegedly involved in anything related to terrorism. Why don't the media apply the same level of scrutiny toward Israeli acts of aggression and murder? The international community has condemned it. It is time to step up and call it like it is.
-- Layelle Saad, Tampa
Israel's actions reduce terrorism
Re: Militant's assassination brings vows of revenge.
Your article about Arabs vowing to avenge Israel's killing of Ahmad Yassin implies that terrorism against Israel or the United States is somehow inspired by Israeli or American actions. Frequently, the media link two events to show that the Palestinian terrorists have successfully retaliated. There is no way to know whether the two events are linked. Usually the terrorist attack was planned long before the alleged inspiring event and would have happened anyway.
The Palestinian terror organizations frequently threaten retaliation. With each threat their language grows more ominous. Yet the number of Israelis killed by terrorists diminishes each year, with half as many killed in 2003 compared to 2002. In 2000, the Palestinian Authority said it would be impossible to go a week without a terrorist attack. So far this year there has been less than one attack per month.
Making "nice" with terrorists doesn't reduce terrorism, it only increases terrorism by giving them more time and ability to plan attacks. Israel's actions have clearly reduced terrorism and should be supported by all nations committed to fighting it.
-- Jonathan Reich, Lakeland
More death will result
The assassination of Ahmed Yassin by the Israeli Defense Forces was not only a violation of international law, it was also monumentally stupid. Even those who support Israel's fight against Palestinians cannot possibly believe that this action will help bring about peace. What it will bring about is the certain death of more Israeli citizens at the hands of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon claims the killing was justified, calling Yassin and his Hamas organization "terrorists" for killing Israeli civilians. Since this IDF "targeted attack," as well as many others, took the lives of several Palestinian civilians, why shouldn't Sharon and the IDF wear the same "terrorist" label?
-- Sean P. Smith, Port Richey
A terrorist, not a militant
Hamas is a known terrorist organization. The leader of this organization was a terrorist. I find it in particularly bad taste that he is called a militant in your newspaper (Militant's assassination brings vows of revenge, March 23).
Why is it that when one murders civilian Jews, one is a militant, and when one murders civilian Christians, one is a terrorist? It is no surprise that the "world leaders" will sympathize with the terrorists, remain silent when there are attacks on Israelis and always blame the Jews, but it is a shame that a newspaper in the United States would take the same view. Will the St. Petersburg Times also report that Osama bin Laden is a militant if and when the United States captures and kills him?
-- Marie Cheine, Tampa
Speak out against Israel's actions
Since Ariel Sharon has been the prime minister of Israel, the Israelis have killed almost 3,000 Palestinians, including almost 1,000 children, using planes and bombs supplied to them by us. They have also built a wall, which they say is for protection but which is built on Palestinian territory, with money contributed by us. And now they have assassinated a religious leader who was confined to a wheelchair.
Yet, no American politician, from either major party, will criticize Sharon or his government because of a fear of being labeled an anti-Semite. The rest of the world is up in arms over Sharon's actions but, due to the cowardice of our leaders, soon their disdain for Israel will be replaced by a hatred of America.
-- Roger W. Gambert, Palm Harbor
Let's keep history straight
Re: Yassin: evil mastermind, or hero, March 23.
This article states that Sheik Ahmed Yassin fled to Gaza with his family in 1948 during Israel's war of independence. It wasn't a war of independence. It was a war of survival. Many Arabs fled, knowing that Israel's five neighboring countries were going to attack Israel with the intention to destroy it before it came to full birth. Israel had been proclaimed a legitimate nation by the United Nations. There was no need for a war of independence. People keep getting history mixed up these days.
-- Janet E. Strickland, Tampa
The audacity of Hamas
Let me be sure I have this correct: Hamas, an organization that repeatedly and publicly swears it will not tolerate peace as long as Israel exists, is angry because it's getting shot at?
What's the Arabic word for chutzpah, I wonder?
-- Max R. Loick, St. Petersburg
Two views of Iraq
At a glance, things would seem to be going to hell in Iraq. Occupying forces and civilian aid workers are killed every week, along with dozens of Iraqis. Iraqi democracy has hardly taken root. Daily life doesn't work, unemployment, although improving, is rampant, everybody hates the occupation.
Or is that all wrong? Is the U.S.-led Iraq operation, in fact, succeeding? Water and electricity are almost back to prewar levels, though only a few months ago, everyone pointed to the lack of electricity and water as proof of the failure of the invasion and the occupation. The Iraqi Governing Council has adopted a preliminary constitution that is impressive by global standards, revolutionary by Middle East standards. The Iraqi people are overwhelmingly glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power and soon to be tried. A recent major, credible poll of 2,700 Iraqis found that 48 percent think the invasion was right and fully 70 percent see their lives going well today.
The world looks at the situation in Iraq and registers two predominant views. It is either a failed project or a work in progress. The Spanish and Europeans hold the first view. The Bush administration holds the second, widely shared in America. Each view is, of course, driven by political interests.
What is wrong with the Europeans' view - besides conveniently overlooking many facts before them - is that it focuses on the the wrong entity, the Bush administration. The focus should be on Iraq. Unfortunately, the antiwar Europeans are so blinded by their visceral dislike of President Bush that they forget the larger goal: What's best for the Iraqi people. What matters now is how Iraq turns out, and how the Middle East and the world are affected, not who brings about the change, or how.
History, I'm convinced, will show that saving the Iraqi people was the right thing to do. With luck it may also show that liberating Iraq was the watershed that finally broke the downward spiral of a politically ignorant and economically strangled region whose only notable export, other than oil, is murderous jihadists.
-- Michael Giacalone, Lutz
Bush is no Churchill
In a letter published March 19, the writer stated "President Bush has honored Churchill's place in history by confronting evil" (Nations must unite to defeat terrorism). As an Englishman, I find this comment highly offensive.
Winston Churchill was one of the century's finest statesmen, who was able to unite the people of the United Kingdom, and the world, in the fight against Adolf Hitler. President Bush, in contrast, is a gun-toting cowboy who, thanks to his inflammatory rhetoric, has divided the people in his own country and isolated America from its allies. Opinion polls taken around the world, including the United Kingdom, have shown that President Bush is the most unpopular American president in living memory. His remarks - "Bring 'em on" and "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" - show his extreme ignorance of diplomacy. Referring to Germany and France as "old Europe" in an offensive manner, he has insulted millions of people around the world.
The way to defeat terrorism is to isolate the terrorists so they have nowhere to run. Thanks to President Bush, it is America that is being isolated.
Sir Winston Churchill was acknowledged by the world as a great statesman. By contrast, President Bush is globally considered one of America's most arrogant and divisive leaders.
-- John Lythgoe, Dunedin
Giving away our freedoms
Re: Small sacrifices for more security, March 18.
While Nicholas Kristof is certainly entitled to his opinion regarding the matter of national security, I hope that he and others who share his point of view give the idea of a national ID card the degree of contemplation it merits. We, as Americans, should dedicate a great deal of thought to the few liberties that we have not yet given away.
America was born with the idea of a government that was to protect our borders, along with the idea that "we the people" were capable of governing ourselves within our states. For nearly three-quarters of a century now, we have become so comfortable with our freedom that we believed it to be ironclad, unnecessary to defend or preserve, all the while we have given it away in nips and nibbles to this vast government of ours.
-- Carmen Rathbun, Spring Hill
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
