Letters to the Editors

Focus on rights makes peace in Mideast elusive

© St. Petersburg Times, published August 5, 2000

Re: Breakthrough on peace eludes Clinton, July 26.

Peace in the Middle East is much sought but ever elusive despite billions in American taxpayer dollars spent there.

A paragraph from Thomas Friedman's book, From Beirut to Jerusalem sticks in my mind. He said that "the first obstacle it (the initiative of Anwar Sadat) overcame was the traditional obsession of both Arabs and Israelis with their "legitimate rights,' as opposed to their legitimate interests. As long as any party to the Arab-Israeli conflict is focused entirely on obtaining his historical or God-given "rights' as he sees them, he is not going to be able to make decisions exclusively on the basis of interests. This always creates problems because rights are derived from the past, from gods or ancestors, and are therefore immutable and do not allow for compromise, while interests derive from today, from the ephemeral and from immediate needs and limitations. Therefore, they invite compromise."

His analysis of the Middle East did not give me much hope, yet the reality is constantly reinforced. As an example, a July 26 letter (Don't let myths determine the fate of Jerusalem) falls into the same antediluvian trap. The writer cites historical record and God-given rights, instead looking to the present and future to help resolve the issue. This thinking, by its very nature, must lock Arabs and Israelis in a circular war.

If the parties are not committed to peace, an infinite amount of foreign aid will not purchase peace. There are far too many organizations and people who are trying to push their own political agenda, and until this ceases, there will be no permanent peace in the Middle East.

I've heard the "national interests" argument as a reason the U.S. must pay billions in foreign aid, but I'm not convinced. I'd really like to know why we must pay other countries to do what is in their best interests, to "play nice!"
-- Kathryn L. van Heyningen, Palm Harbor

An alternative to war

Re: Mideast talks end in failure, July 26.

When I was a child, I would often fight with my brothers over something.

"You can't have it. It's mine." "No. I had it first."

Then my mother would appear and say, "Now, none of you can have it, unless you share it."

How often I thought of that childhood squabbling when I read about the adult negotiations that finally broke down at Camp David. The words are really still the same as they were in my childhood. Then, it was about a toy. Now, it is about the holy city of Jerusalem.

It's clear to me there will never be peace in the Middle East as long as Jews and Palestinians have conflicting claims to sovereignty of this sacred place. Jerusalem must be shared. While it may sound naive, that radical notion was actually explored at Camp David. How in the world, you may ask, can they share when they can't co-exist? They can share only by acknowledging, not denying, each other's claim, and placing the peace and security of all the people above those claims. Share and they have nothing to fight about.

How? Why not make Jerusalem an international city? The United Nations proposed this in 1947. And, recently the pope renewed his request that international status be granted to the holy sites in the "old city." Create a body that would govern the whole city. The heart of Jerusalem would have no boundaries, no borders. Its soul would be open to all.

It's an exciting possibility. War is a frightening alternative.
-- Jack Bray, Dunedin

Injustice answered with injustice

Re: Passage of time doesn't diminish memories of home, July 29.

Susan Taylor Martin's excellent reporting from the West Bank on the displacement of Palestinians by Israelis in 1948 puts a human face to an injustice rarely seen in the American media. After the unspeakable tragedy of the Holocaust, the Israelis were surely justified in doing everything in their power to create their own state, and they have indeed succeeded.

However, it is too often forgotten that the 1947 U.N. partition plan was forced through the United Nations by the Western powers. Most Arab states were not members of the United Nations, and all Arabs opposed partition. Thus the Western powers, in their attempt to rectify the enormous injustice done to European Jewry (an impossible task), allowed a great injustice to be perpetrated on the Palestinians.

Until Israelis and their American supporters accept this fundamental historical fact, true reconciliation and peace will be impossible.
-- Arthur L. Lowrie, retired U.S. Foreign Service officer, Lutz

A negative picture of Palestinians

Re: To be Jewish in Gaza, by Susan Taylor Martin, July 25.

Unfortunately, the article focused only on the point of view of the Jewish settlers who were surrounded by "angry Arabs." As a Palestinian-American, I was very offended by the language of the piece, which depicted the Palestinians living around the "exclusive gated community" as irate, irrational and ready to threaten and injure their neighbors for no good reason.

The article did not disclose the fact that the land the Jewish settlement was built on was almost certainly previously owned by Palestinian families who not only lost their homes but also their lives as well.

I visited Gaza in July 1998, and although I was only 16 at the time, I recognized injustice when I saw it. The beautiful homes of the Jewish settlement that were pictured in your paper probably seem like million-dollar mansions to the majority of Palestinian families living in the dirty, despondent Gaza neighborhoods.

When writing articles such as this, one must look at things in a historical perspective and not give readers a one-dimensional view. Too many Americans don't get to hear a Palestinian voice, and I believe this is so because the American media in general is very biased when it comes to this issue.
-- Laila Al-Arian, Tampa

A refreshing perspective

Re: Passage of time doesn't diminish memories of home, July 29.

How refreshing to have an article in the paper written by Susan Taylor Martin telling us how the Palestinians feel and how they are treated. I'm sure many Jewish organizations will write and complain. You see, we're not supposed to care about the Palestinians, only the Jewish people. They, the Jews, are the only ones who have been treated badly.

The minister, who is an Arab from the West Bank, and his wife tell of waiting to fly to Canada. He tells us of his home, which has been in his family for generations, being taken from them. Jewish soldiers tell them to leave.

How sad that the atrocities that were seen and experienced by this Palestinian as a child growing up were done by people who have suffered terrible atrocities themselves.

The article ends with the minister and his wife telling of being questioned and searched for three hours at the Ben-Gurion International Airport, and then being escorted by Israeli security agents to the plane for Canada where he was to officiate at a wedding.

Susan Taylor Martin, I hope you will always be free to write what you wish to write.
-- Cynthia Kamp Boadway, St. Petersburg

Making Israel the villain

Re: Passage of time doesn't diminish memories of home, about the bitter experience of a family being forced from their land in Israel 50 years ago.

As she usually does, Susan Taylor Martin slants her story to the utmost to make Israel the villain. At the start, the headline suggests that the Palestinians were forced from their lands. Later in her story, she quotes a Dr. Efraim Inbar who states that only a quarter of those who fled were ordered to go.

The number of people who were forced to go is immaterial, however. The facts are that hordes of Arabs from five different Arab countries were invading Israel with the intention of killing the Jews or driving them into the sea. Lod was in their path, and people like the Rantisis would certainly help the invaders in every possible way. Therefore, they were the enemy and had to be treated as such by people who were fighting for their existence.

The Arabs miscalculated. They thought these Jews would just lie down and let them walk all over them. Apparently they never heard the words "Never again."
-- Marvin Katz, Oldsmar

Some do not want peace

Re: Passage of time doesn't diminish memories of home.

Certainly there have been regrettable incidents on both sides in Israel's struggle to stay alive despite the pressures of the Arab world.

However, spotlighting only the incidents blamed on the Jews (or, for that matter, on atrocities committed only by the Palestinians and their allies) serves no purpose.

I would call Susan Taylor Martin's attention to an article in the July 30, New York Times, which notes that Hamas is still active and still demands that Yasser Arafat give up his efforts for peace and plunge back into a "holy war" to exterminate Israel. The political spokesmen for Hamas say they have no connection with the bomb throwers. If you believe that, I will introduce you to the tooth fairy.
-- Norman Howard, Clearwater

Many things were left unsaid

Re: Passage of time doesn't diminish memories of home, by Susan Taylor Martin, July 29.

This article is so biased with hearsay that one does not know where to start. Martin did not mention that when the United Nations partitioned the land in 1947, the Jewish state was the smaller and less productive of the two parts. She quaintly refers to the control of the lands conquered by the Israelis, but minimized the Arab nations' attack on the new state, including Palestinian participation. Nor does she mention the attempt of the Jewish state to live in peace with its neighbors while constantly being bombed, shelled, sniped at, until the reaction of the government became to hit back.

She forgets to mention the double standard of values by which the Arabs and Israelis are judged. But worst of all is her bleeding heart, one-sided account of a family's travail as if this did not happen to Jews historically.

To paint a picture of murder, during a time of war initiated by the Arabs and Palestinians is unjust. The Palestinians would not even be in the West Bank if Israeli forces did not want an accommodation.

Concerning the Israelis who are "rethinking history" of past events, those are the few fringe groups who appear in every democratic free society. Their truth is not and will not be accepted except for those looking to continue the scapegoating of Jews throughout history.
-- Sy Ginsburg, Hudson

Castro remains Cuba's problem

Re: Coming to our senses on Cuba, Other comment from the Chicago Tribune, July 26.

Are we really coming to our senses with Cuba, or is human nature a more powerful force than moral fortitude? While there are many well-intentioned reasons to lift the embargo, it seems that the balance has finally shifted as a result of good, old-fashioned greed. The argument now that the embargo is somehow hurting American farmers and manufacturers is a hard one for me to swallow.

For anyone willing to do business with Fidel Castro's Communist government and overlook its miserable history of human rights violations, Cuba is a wonderful land of opportunity. European developers own the finest hotels on the island while Spain 's Altadis owns a $500-million investment in Cuba's Habanos S.A., the government's tobacco and cigar export marketer. Canadian industrialists own the rights to nickel, oil and gas and electricity generation, while Telecom Italia owns a $400-million share of Cuba's national telephone company. Unfortunately, the only ones that are being left out of this gold rush are the Cuban people.

It is clear that a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba is imminent. I believe improving relations with Cuba will ultimately improve the lives of ordinary Cubans, but not because they will not have access to U.S. products. It won't matter to the average Cuban whether his rice comes from Vietnam or Kansas if he still has to buy it with a ration card.

While the embargo has clearly failed in its primary objective, we should not lose sight of the fact that the problem in Cuba is Castro, not the embargo.
-- Raul Quintana, St. Petersburg

An armed citizen

Re: Carwash turns into shootout, July 26.

I would just like to say hats off to Raymond Wojtkielewicz for defending his and his wife's lives from a street thug. The concealed weapons permit was designed for this type of situation and again has proved its worth.

This criminal will think twice, if not caught, before attempting this crime again. If caught he faces life imprisonment thanks to Gov. Jeb Bush's 10-20-Life law. This shows that the laws on the books can work, and more gun control is not the answer. I guarantee this criminal did not go through the background check or waiting period required by law. The definition of a criminal is one who does not abide by laws.
-- Craig Smith, Largo

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.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.