9/11, U.S. has a better idea of Israel's plight

Re: Our support of Israel hurts us in Iraq, by Nicholas Kristof, May 27.

Nicholas Kristof's criticism of American support for Israel - not President Bush's alone, since every poll shows that he is expressing the views of the American public - ignores two facts.

Point One: Twice in four years Israel has acceded to pressures from an American president to come to the peace table with major concessions - only to find itself sitting alone. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to Yasser Arafat the most generous package ever contemplated by an Israeli government, there was no pressure from the Arab world on Arafat to accept. When his response was to launch a war of terror on Israel, the Arab governments did not do anything, publicly or privately, to deter him. And two years later, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon acceded to the "road map," even though it would require painful concessions from Israel, the Arab governments did nothing to encourage Arafat to comply with the very first requirement of that peace plan: dismantling all terrorist organizations and establishing security systems that would deter terrorism. In fact, when the Palestinian political process actually produced a leader who seemed willing to take those steps, the Arab governments stood by and watched Arafat remove him without a word or gesture of concern.

In short, those in the Arab world cannot complain of one-sided support by America for Israel when they have done nothing to promote peace on their side.

Point Two: After 9/11, the world looks different. President Bush, and all Americans, began to understand what it is like to live with the knowledge that you face an implacable foe who is committed to your destruction, and who will violate every norm of civilized behavior to attain that goal. And President Bush, and all Americans, have a better understanding of why Israel cannot again delude itself into thinking that rhetorical flourishes and handshakes (the "Geneva Plan") can substitute for a true commitment to accept Israel's right to exist, a determination to stop attempts to destroy Israel through terrorism, and a willingness to sit down and work toward a true peace, and not a facade designed to disguise the continuation of the 56-year effort to drive Israel into the sea.

Mideast policy imbalance makes sense

Re: Our support of Israel hurts us in Iraq, May 27.

I can only agree with Nicholas Kristof's opinion piece on one item: U.S. Middle East policy is unbalanced, and justifiably so. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and it is surrounded by neighbors bent on its destruction. The leadership of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Islamic Jihad and other Arab terrorist groups have sworn to destroy Israel. They educate their children to hate Jews and encourage them to kill Jewish women and children. The Arabs resort to terrorism while the Israelis resort to force to defend themselves from terror. In light of our own country's war on terror, this "imbalance" is in our best national interests

It is hard to take the rest of Kristof's article seriously. He hurls his opinions without facts. He provides no evidence for his premises that our support for Israel "severely undermines our efforts in Iraq." His assertion that a "lofty aim of the Iraq war was to achieve a Middle East peace" is totally absurd. As I recall, the primary aim (whether justified or not) of the Iraq war was to protect the United States and other countries from WMDs. The secondary and unspoken aim of the war (whether justified or not) was to remove Saddam Hussein and replace him with a democratic government. Never was it an aim of the Iraq war to achieve Middle East peace.

Hopefully, one day Kristof will come to grips with the fact that our enemies are engaged in a world war against the entire non-Muslim world. We must understand the depths of their hatred. We, Israelis, Americans, Jews and Christians worldwide, constitute the front line in the war, wherever we are. It is our free democratic way of life, our very existence that provokes our enemy. But first, Kristof must abandon his "knee-jerk" reaction that, when in doubt, blame Israel for everything.

A naive point of view

Re: Our support of Israel hurts us in Iraq.

Nicholas Kristof has swallowed Palestinian/Arab propaganda regarding Israel hook, line and sinker. To honestly write that "everywhere I've been in Iraq ordinary people have asked me why Americans provide the weapons Sharon uses to kill Palestinians" shows Kristof's extraordinary naivete. "Ordinary people" in Iraq have not had a free and open press in decades. Their understanding of the Palestinian/Israel problem is totally one-sided. Why isn't Kristof asking about the U.S. weapons George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan provided that killed Kuwaitis, Iraqis and now (probably) American soldiers?

To state so uncritically that "Sharon has done more to undermine Israel's long-term security than Yasser Arafat ever did," shows how Kristof has been manipulated by Yasser Arafat and slick Arab public relations. Ariel Sharon is a duly elected prime minister of the Israeli people. He can be voted out at any time. Yasser Arafat walked away from the most generous offer the Palestinians ever had.

It is not the policies of Sharon that have caused Palestinians to become or embrace Islamic extremists, but Arafat's corruption, stealing the money sent by Arab nations, the European Union and the United States. It is the Palestinian Authority's fault the Palestinian people have no infrastructure, no future, no hope, no state. Arafat is the leader of cronyism, bribery, murder and duplicity.

What is costing U.S. credibility is our prison abuses, a false premise for starting the war, dead Iraqi civilians, and our own unilateral actions, not our support for Israel.

Seduced by Arab propagandists

Re: Gaza at a crossroads, editorial, May 28.

This editorial blames both President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for the current stalemate. An examination of the facts is needed.

It is a fact that every administration since the birth of Israel has seen fit to support democratic Israel. To ask President Bush to support Palestinian terrorists is absurd. To reward the supporters of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein who danced joyfully in the streets at the occurance of 9/11 is ludicrous.

Apparently the Times has been seduced by Arab propagandists, including the local of followers of the jailed Sami Al-Arian, into denouncing Ariel Sharon as "heavy-handed." Sharon's sin is defending his people against the same kind of terrorism which we face.

Sharon has taken the most courageous step of announcing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and leaving it to the Palestinians. Yet Palestinian terrorists, supported by Arafat, refuse to allow it to happen.

Finally, why is it necessary for our United States "to rehabilitate its own image" to satisfy the Arab tyrants who have supported terrorism?

An outrageous cartoon

Re: Michael Ramirez's "Sticks and Stones" cartoon, May 22.

Exactly what is Michael Ramirez thinking? He depicts an innocent(?) pebble being thrown and an out-of-control Israeli answering it by "kabooming" him into the next world.

A suicidally trained Palestinian can himself, or in a vehicle with a bomb, aim at a building, a crowd of Israelis, or board a bus and blow himself and 30 or so innocent people to kingdom come. There will be an article about it on Page 5 or 6 but no "cartoon" to indicate the insanity of it.

No such respect is shown to Israelis in his hateful, tasteless, outrageous and, as far as I'm concerned, anti-Semitic "cartoon."

Knowing as we do the Palestinian radicals' suicide/murder agenda, how is the man in the tank to know that the "poor little Palestinian" is simply throwing a pebble or something far more dangerous?

Wake up and smell the blood, Mr. Ramirez. War is disgusting for all concerned and tragically sad for many. It is many things but, definitely not funny.

We are engaged in a religious war

Just because the learned modern moral relativists don't want to recognize the war with terrorists as a religious war, we should. The overly educated elites believe that we can reason with Muslim terrorists, to, shall we say, jawbone them out of their beliefs. I am willing to fully acknowledge the Muslims' rant: It is a war to the death with persons having antithetical beliefs to our Christian and constitutional writings.

Any leader who will not treat this as a battle to the death (ours or theirs) is not worthy of support. You know who you are. You want to reason with nonreasoning religious zealots. Let's give them their desire, death. Death to them in Iraq rather than more of our blood in the streets in the United States. What kind of choice is that? It is that stark a choice.

Undermining support for war effort

Journalistic terrorists? There is no better description of the St. Petersburg Times, whose editors, staff writers and cartoonist demean the efforts of our soldiers in Iraq. Thousands of acts of kindness, goodwill and charity by our servicemen have been well-documented and supported by photos. Yet the Times gives front-page coverage to the prison scandal and follows with a gruesome article about Marines who take care of dead bodies (Mortuary duty fills Marines with pride, dread, May 23). This is a deliberate propaganda effort aimed at changing the attitude of the American public and providing comfort to those who oppose our efforts in Iraq.

Constructing playing fields and providing uniforms for Iraqi soccer teams; building open-air malls for Iraqi shopkeepers; painting and fixing classrooms for Iraqi teachers and schoolchildren; restoring public utilities; helping Iraqi families with carpentry, plumbing or electrical problems; setting up district councils - these acts of compassion and kindness are never reported.

There are many Iraqis who do not want our troops to leave. They are afraid that another tyrannical government will come to power. Their views are never heard. The Times does a great job of undermining public support. I am ashamed to call it my hometown newspaper.

Support for administration is outrageous

I cannot cease to be amazed at the "outrage" voiced by pro-Bush readers who take not only the press to task for reporting facts, rather than the fiction perpetrated by the Bush administration, but also the television networks that chose not to interrupt their regular programs in order to carry the president's "important" speech.

I am more outraged at the writers' blind acceptance of the myriad lies, inefficiencies and misrepresentations of the Bush administration, its ill-judged attack on a sovereign nation (uninvolved with 9/11), the horrible record on the environment, economy, education, across-the-board arrogance, the dangerous plunge of world opinion for our country, and other actions/inactions that are detrimental to all of us.

Frankly, I do think that the networks' normal programming was more relevant than the president's address, which I diligently watched on CNN in the soon-destroyed hope that something newsworthy or at least "new" would come from the mouth of our leader. (By the way, I had been a registered Republican for more than 30 years - until last month!)

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 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.

Opinion

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times 490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 Contact the Times | Privacy Policy Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright