Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Anti-Semitism charges block rational Mideast discussion

Re: Anti-Semitism in antiwar mom's words, Aug. 24.

In her column, Susan Estrich labels Cindy Sheehan anti-Semitic for saying her son's death in Iraq was ". . . for a neocon agenda to benefit Israel." Estrich's hysterical reaction demonstrates precisely why there can be no rational discussion of Middle East policy in this country.

Perhaps Estrich would also call Brent Scowcroft anti-Semitic. In an October article in the London Financial Times, the national security advisor to George H.W. Bush criticized current U.S. foreign and Middle East policy, including the "failing venture" in Iraq. He said "Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized . . . He (Sharon) has been nothing but trouble."

If Estrich wants to debate Middle East policy, let the debate finally begin. It won't have a chance, however, if any and all criticism of Israel's policies, and unquestioning U.S. support of them, automatically come with the ugly accusation of anti-Semitism.

Reflexively blaming the Jews

Re: Anti-Semitism in antiwar mom's words, by Susan Estrich, Aug. 24.

Your Aug. 24 editorial pages trot out the usual anti-Israel (read "anti-Semitic") suspects while Susan Estrich adds a new one: Cindy Sheehan who, if Estrich quoted her correctly, erodes our sympathy for a mother who tragically lost her son in the Iraq war by attributing his death to "a neocon agenda to benefit Israel." Sheehan dishonors her beloved son by making his memory a pawn of her own prejudice.

As a Christian who speaks to other Christians about 2,000 years of religion-inspired anti-Semitism, I am especially saddened by Christians like Sheehan who reflexively blame Jews for all that goes wrong in the world. We're not in Iraq to benefit Israel but, rightly or wrongly, to defend our nation against religion-inspired terrorism that targets not just the United States but every democratic nation, including Israel.

Distinguish among critics

Re: Anti-Semitism in antiwar mother's words.

Susan Estrich's labeling of Cindy Sheehan as "anti-Semitic" fails to distinguish among anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism and secular critiques of U.S.-Israel foreign policy. As a nation-state since 1948, Israel has all of the rights and responsibilities of any other legitimate state. Those who believe Israel does not have a right to exist as a state are both anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic. Sheehan gives no evidence of being either.

It is a fact that in terms of our Mideast foreign policy we have followed a course that what is good for Israel is good for the United States. Israel is our most strategic ally in that part of the world. Since 1948 we have provided more than $104-billion in aid and loans (most of it to purchase U.S. armaments) to Israel. This represents a third of our total foreign aid budget.

Israel's future, and its relationship with the Palestinians, is central to our policies with the Arab world. To recognize that fact is not being anti-Semitic. If Estrich knee-jerks to any criticism of Israel, she should listen to the arguments raised by the 14 different parties in the Knesset. Yes, even Zionists can criticize Israel.

When is anti-Semitism going to stop?

Does Cindy Sheehan really believe that Israel had anything to do with her son's death? It is unbelievable that anyone thinks little Israel had anything to do with the deaths of their sons or daughters in this horrible Iraq war. There are two reasons for the war in Iraq: George Bush's stubborn reaction to his father's acts in Iraq and oil.

When is this anti-Semitism going to stop? Are the Jews and Israel forever going to be the scapegoat for everything negative in this ugly world? Sheehan is not the only one who lost a child in this war. Why blame Israel for the loss?

A legitimate political question

Since when is it "anti-Semitic" to assert that the United States may be supporting Israel? It may be wrong to say our soldiers are dying in Iraq for the sake of Israel, but that's not an anti-Semitic statement; it's a legitimate political question. And why is it "foolish" to ask why we can invade Iraq, Grenada and Panama and still condemn other governments that do the same?

I have wondered for a long time why we are the moral arbiters of who may have nuclear weapons. It looks to me as if the decision is based on two principles: If you're too tough for us to fight or if we like you, you may have the bomb, but if you are small and we don't like you, you may not. Politically this may be prudent, but let's not confuse such a policy with morality. It seems to me a more reasonable rule would be that the people who have the most bombs and who have used them are the ones who should be controlled most stringently.

Sheehan is living in a dream world

Cindy Sheehan has the right to protest the war, but she is in a dream world. She and those like her have no suggestions for what we should do about the terrorists who have vowed to kill us all. What would they have us do about those responsible for 9/11/01 and all the terrorists actions since then, such as London, Madrid and others? Just sit around and hope the terrorists will go away?

Sheehan has not only lost her son, who volunteered for the service, but also her husband and other family members who strongly disagree with her. She and her supporters should be thankful we have a president like George Bush and our military who have taken the actions necessary to maintain our freedoms.

A call for women's equality

Today is Women's Equality Day.

It's ironic that our brave servicewomen are fighting overseas to bring democracy and equality there, but they return home still to be denied.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has noted that almost every post-World War II constitution says that men and women are equal before the law. But not the U.S. Constitution.

In 1982 America barely missed its chance to be among progressive world nations when legislators of just three required states refused to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Florida was one. Now is the time to fix that.

"Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Ask working women or fathers seeking child custody why we still need it here.

Anyone can phone their Florida legislators and call for their votes to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

[Last modified August 26, 2005, 01:36:21]