Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Barrier's hardships can't compare to terrorist violence

I appreciate Susan Taylor Martin's Feb. 15 report, At barrier, real life is rerouted. It does present some of the hardships Palestinians are experiencing. But those hardships do not compare to the agony of learning your loved ones have just been blown to bits by a terrorist while riding a bus home from work or school or while eating lunch at a restaurant.

We all remember the day - 9/11 - when we experienced that same feeling of fear fueled by a terrorist attack. Yet in Israel, the horror of terror is experienced all too often. Would we in the United States leave our borders open if faced with that same dilemma time after time? I think - in fact, I know - not.

In retrospect, I have to wonder if the security fence would ever have been erected had the Palestinians themselves demanded a stop to terrorism by their own people. Whatever its grievance, a civilized society does not permit its own to act in an uncivilized way.

The apartheid cannot continue

Re: At barrier, real life is rerouted.

Susan Martin's article was excellent and to the point. What Israeli politicians have to realize (in addition to the tremendous suffering they inflicted on the Palestinians who own the land) is that this barrier will bring them misery as well. The only way Israelis will be both safe and prosperous is when the Palestinians get their legitimate rights in independence and freedom. This will open all Arab markets for the Israelis.

If the problem is not solved, it won't take much for mortars and rockets to fly over the barrier or attacks to get more high-tech. Israelis must understand that the policy of apartheid and racism cannot continue.

Remember Palestinian responsibility

Re: At barrier, real life is rerouted.

Conspicuously absent from any of Susan Martin's reports from the Middle East is some acknowledgment by Palestinians that they have any responsibility at all for their sad plight. One looks in vain through dozens of interviews recounted by her in the last year for any comment like: "We made a mistake in supporting the terror attacks on the Israelis; it hurt us as much or more than it hurt them".

In fact, Yousif Khataib's gas station was successful - not just in 1956 when his grandfather opened it - but in 2000, when Palestinian commerce still thrived under the Israeli "occupation." And Qassem Sourchi was still strolling the 500 yards to his campus in 2000, without interference. But when the Palestinian leadership decided to unleash a campaign of terror and violence against Israel, Israelis suffered the attacks, and Palestinians suffered the consequences.

So what course did the Palestinians choose in their long-awaited election two weeks ago, the first in a decade? Overwhelmingly, they voted for Hamas, whose creed makes no distinctions between an Israel with a "wall" or without a "wall," an Israel within 1967 borders or 1948 borders. None of it makes a difference: They are committed to the total destruction of Israel.

So long as the Palestinian people and their leaders reject the path of negotiation, peace and reconciliation, they forfeit any legitimate claim to the world's sympathy.

Wall makes matters worse

Re: At barrier, real life is rerouted.

I commend Susan Martin for stating the facts in her article. This is reality for many Palestinians, and I know this for a fact because, although I am not a Palestinian, I have been to Jerusalem recently and have seen the wall firsthand and its effect on the Palestinian people.

Many Palestinians echoed accounts very similar to those revealed in this article. What was once a 10-minute drive to work is now, at best, an hour and a half drive and what was once a short walk to visit family is now a checkpoint nightmare.

Israel is wasting American taxpayers' money on building this "antiterrorist wall," only to isolate the Palestinian people from the rest of the world when it should be spending our money wisely building peaceful bridges.

It upsets me to hear about the hardships this wall has caused. Imagine how the people this wall affects feel. This wall is not the solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. If anything, it makes matters worse. This "antiterrorist wall" is a terrorist in itself because it terrorizes the lives of thousands of innocent Palestinians.

Fence is well worth it

Re: At barrier, real life is rerouted.

As Susan Martin writes: "Attacks . . . have dropped as much as 90 percent" from areas where the barrier is completed. The Israeli government says that upon completion 97 percent of the barrier will be fence, 3 percent wall. Given the barrier's success at reducing the number of suicide bombings, the difficulties it causes Palestinian travel is regrettable, but well worth it.

Israeli barrier crosses the line

Re: At barrier, real life is rerouted.

I had no idea that the mentioned wall has caused so much "daily" misery and hardship to Palestinian people. I can understand building an Israeli wall on Israeli land, for reasons even less than security. What I can't understand is building it on Palestinian land. While we debate in the United States building a fence on the U.S. side of the Mexican border, no one ever considered putting it on the Mexican side.

No wonder the European Union has condemned the fence. Even the Israeli courts have deemed parts of the fence illegal in June 2004 stating that "it causes too much harm for Palestinians." The article informed me that an Israeli human rights organization confirmed the negative impact on 500,000 Palestinians. There must have been another way of making it a legal fence.

The fence should be taller

Re: At barrier, real life is rerouted.

Last week I was in Israel, including some of the same areas Susan Martin writes about, and this is what I saw: Israeli citizens (including pregnant women) undergoing security searches just to enter restaurants; Israeli children growing up behind the protection of barbed wire and armed guards; Israelis living in terror that the next stranger walking past will kill them.

Susan Martin's heart goes out to a student whose commute to college is far less than the distance from Pinellas County to USF, and to a gas station owner whose business is suffering. Give me a break. Earlier this month, a terrorist got past the fence, pulled out a knife and stabbed five people because they were Jewish. Doesn't this matter?

The people I met in the vibrant, America loving Israel are sick of the violence and want freedom from fear. They want their real lives rerouted back to safety. I looked at the security fence and thought it should be taller.

Barrier remains necessary

Times senior correspondent Susan Taylor Martin has presented readers with a fine analysis of the "barrier" between Israel and the Palestinians. Her column does motivate a number of observations.

Israel realizes that to retain its integrity as a tiny Jewish state it must separate itself from hostile Arabs. Unlike the Palestinian Hamas, it favors a two-state solution. Hamas, of course, continues the objective of "wiping Israel off the map." It should be noted that the current Arab population of Israel is some 18 percent. Israeli Arabs have the same rights as all Israeli citizens. It should be obvious that Israelis have no obligation to provide jobs, medical care, etc. to people who wish to destroy them. Our current border problems should allow us to understand this.

The Palestinians blame everyone but themselves for their plight. They have had the corruption of Arafat. Now they have chosen the terrorists of Hamas. Israel is willing to have them live in their own state. Meanwhile a "barrier" must continue.

A disheartening gap in understanding

I've been waiting a little over four years for Muslims worldwide to rise up in anger and indignation. The wait is over but I am thoroughly disappointed that their target is paper-and-ink cartoons and not the men of the movement that hijacked their religion as well as the planes that shattered the World Trade Center and so many lives!

All I feel now is an emptiness and sadness that such a wide gulf in understanding and tolerance exists today and into the foreseeable future!

Free expression shouldn't fuel hate

As an organization whose mission it is to promote dialogue and respect among cultures and religions, we deplore the offensive publication of representations of the prophet Mohammed and the violence generated in response.

Whereas freedom of expression is a pillar of democracy, the exercise of this right carries with it a responsibility of good judgment. The use of stereotypes and labeling that insults deeply rooted religious feelings does not contribute to the creation of the type of inclusive environment that is conducive to constructive and peaceful dialogue.

Over the years, our world has become more global. The diversity of our cities, our schools and our workplaces is an irreversible reality and one that we believe enriches us tremendously. However, the changing face of our communities also raises the critical question of how to uphold one's own traditions, values and beliefs, while at the same time respecting (or not offending) the traditions, values and beliefs of others who have become our neighbors. Managing the inter-group dynamics of a diverse community is a very delicate task that requires sensitivity, openness and tolerance.

Maybe when the dust settles, we will begin to realize that building harmonious relationships between the different religions and cultures is a very serious matter in which we carry both a collective and an individual responsibility.

The limits of a religion's power

What is missing in all the stories I read about the extreme Muslim reaction to the Danish, and other European, publications of drawings of Mohammed, is that no religion has the right to tell nonbelievers how to behave as long as that behavior is within the laws of the country in which it occurs. Hindus have no right to tell me to adhere to their practice of not eating beef. Catholics cannot tell me to avoid birth control practices. Muslims have no right to tell me not to make a drawing of Jesus or Mohammed.

In all cases the only right that any religion has is the right to require its own practitioners to behave as they wish, and, if some practitioner or believer does not properly follow those beliefs, then that religion has the right to exclude that person. No religion has the right to tell the people of Europe or the United States that they must give up one of their most basic rights - the right of free speech. Muslim prayer leaders have the right to forbid only their own believers from making or publishing those depictions of Mohammed.

That needs to be made clear to all, and our government should be doing that.

Changing minds at Guantanamo

Re: In legal limbo, editorial, Feb. 13.

The sub-headline reads: "A majority of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have no history of aggression toward the United States, and no hope of being released any time soon."

If they had no thoughts of aggression toward the United States in the beginning, I'm sure they do now!

Go to the Koran directly

Re: DVDs, books to inform about Islam's holy one, Feb. 15.

In this Times item, the Council on American-Islamic Relations announced it is offering to tell the truth about their prophet Mohammed.

I wonder if it will be the whole truth.

If you want to know the truth about Mohammed why not go to the Koran directly? Especially Chapters 8 and 9.

We don't have to rely on edited materials to know about Islam. The Koran is short and readily available online and in bookstores.

Fort De Soto Park is perfect as is

Re: Serving up relaxation, by Jake Stowers, Feb. 17.

The Fort Restaurant is long gone, so is Maas Brothers, Webb's City, and Aunt Hattie's. They're called memories, and I have fond ones of the city I grew up in.

If Stowers wants to "kick back with a grouper sandwich and a cold beer," let him stop at Billy's on Tierra Verde.

As for Fort De Soto Park, leave it alone! It's perfect just the way it is.

Leave us some unspoiled areas

Re: Fort De Soto Park.

Why not develop the camp ground and put in some condos? We can't have an unimproved parcel of waterfront property in this county now can we? While you're at it, why not start on Egmont Key, too?

I hope that the sarcasm comes through in writing the same as it does in speaking. Whoever came up with this nonsense needs to be fired or voted off the County Commission. Please leave one unspoiled area for those of us who want to enjoy a natural setting that you do not need a boat to get to.

Go elsewhere for that beer

Re: Serving up relaxation.

Jake Stowers makes the mistake that people of his ilk in county government always seem to make. The mistake is: If some is good then more has to be better. In the last decade the coastline in Pinellas County has morphed from smaller mom-and-pop type businesses to corporate/developer interests that have obliterated the soul of that area.

My Northern friends who come here every couple of years can't believe what they see regarding the growth of what they remember from their last visit. These same people who prefer to live up there in big cities and small towns alike will eventually have enough and spend their vacations somewhere else. I'm sure that will be fine for Stowers because those medium-income folks will be replaced by the higher-income people who think asphalt and concrete instead of sand along an ocean are just swell.

So here's the deal, Mr. Stowers: For a grouper sandwich and a beer at a beach go to St. Pete Beach or better yet Clearwater where county administrators have made sure there is an abundance of both.

Too much has already been bulldozed

Re: Who wants all that icky nature stuff at a park?

Cannot the county keep a beach in its natural state? They killed Sand Key and now want to do so with Fort De Soto Park. I grew up in Largo and visit constantly. I've seen all the "improvements." Why is it up to the residents to save the local history? Too much beauty has already been bulldozed. It is past time to stop! Fort De Soto is a place I want to take my grandchildren to, in its current state.

A quiet tropical paradise

I was disappointed to read that the Pinellas County Commission is considering making changes to Fort De Soto Park. My husband and I are currently in an RV park in Largo and have spent several months in this area. In the city we are close to any and every thing commercially possible, including the ice cream truck!

We had the opportunity to camp at Fort De Soto for 10 days in December. It was wonderful! A quiet tropical paradise! Please don't change it. People need an opportunity to spend time in nature, enjoying the birds and sea life. There aren't many places left this way. Once it is changed, you can't go back.

A discouraging crossword

Re: The home of the Devil Rays.

When we built a baseball stadium and searched for a team for it, we often told ourselves that one of the benefits would be publicity for St. Petersburg and for Pinellas County. Then Vince Naimoli named the team the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and the name of the stadium was changed to Tropicana Field.

So, where does the country think the Devil Rays are located? The 32 Down clue in the Feb. 11 Daily Crossword on page 2F of the St. Petersburg Times was "Home of the Devil Rays."

The answer was Tampa.

[Last modified February 18, 2006, 02:00:25]