Articles
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2008, pages 59-60
Other People's Mail
Compiled by Kate Hilmy and Delinda Hanley
Did They say “Change”?
To the San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 5, 2008
What am I missing here? The Republicans claim that only they can make us safe. Did they take office on Sept. 12? They tell us that Washington is broken and needs fixing. Was some other party in power over the last eight years?
I don’t get it.
Paul R. Wrubel, Half Moon Bay, CA
History’s Verdict Will be Harsh
To the International Herald Tribune, Sept. 3, 2008
Rupert Cornwell makes a valiant effort to recast George Bush as a great success (“Bush: Have we misunderestimated him?,” Sept. 1). Nice try, but he is over-misunderestimating Bush’s failures in the Middle East.
Instead of a prosperous liberated post-Saddam Iraq, Bush has inaugurated a fractured, unstable, divided, blood-soaked country that has been plundered by corruption, not least from American companies. The dire post-war management will be the textbook for decades on how not to run an occupation.
Similarly, Bush could have hardly done more to thwart an Israeli-Palestinian peace process for the past eight years. When Bush finally initiated the Annapolis process, the immediate Israeli reaction was to accelerate its illegal colonization program as a public V-sign to its main patron. Bush effectively gave up.
The U.S. was also instrumental in blocking any Israeli-Syrian rapprochement, and Bush’s disastrous policy on Lebanon has seen the country agonizingly revisit its civil war past. All this, together with ramped-up tensions with Iran, has contributed to record high oil prices and a global economic downturn.
Bush’s legacy is one of conflict, division and increased support for extremism, compounded by the shredding of international law and human rights. His successor will need more than four years to turn this around.
Chris Doyle, Council for Arab-British Understanding, London, UK
Perceptions Affect Tourism
To The Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 7, 2008
Regarding the story on the drop in U.S. tourism by foreign visitors: One element that was either overlooked or obscured is the direct antipathy that most foreigners have to the United States government as run by George W. Bush. Pre-emptive wars, torture, environmental neglect, treaty abrogations—the list goes on. In my travels in Europe and Central America, I have run into many fellow tourists who have sworn off visiting the United States while Mr. Bush is in office. Good news? Tourism may rebound quite nicely next year.
Matthew O’Brien, Milpitas, CA
U.S. Airstrike in Pakistan
To The New York Times, Sept. 10, 2008
What unpropitious timing for America to attack Pakistan at the dawn of new democratic elections (“U.S. Attack on Taliban Compound Kills 23 in Pakistani Border Area,” Sept. 9).
In a Pentagon-commissioned, five-missile airstrike that was hardly coincidentally timed, Washington’s agenda was clear: to alert Islamabad that allegiance in the war on terrorism is a nonnegotiable item.
How the airstrikes resonated among the Pakistani public, however, was far different: the new president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, remains a United States stooge. Is this an effective way of supporting a fledgling democracy, by undermining its leadership mere hours before taking office?
Furthermore, this is hardly an effective way of undermining fundamentalism; if anything, the airstrike breeds more, not less, extremism. Give the tribal regions, instead, an alternative to militancy and help Islamabad do the same.
Where illiteracy and unemployment abound, give them something to work toward. And do it more strategically than with ill-timed airstrikes.
Michael Shank, communications director of the Insitute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, Arlington, VA
The War in Georgia
To The Washington Post, Aug. 18, 2008
I was amused to read John McCain’s remark regarding the South Ossetia war in the Aug. 15 news story “After Warnings to Moscow, U.S. Has Few Options”: “In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
Perhaps he has forgotten an invasion he supported just a few years ago. In that case, the name of the invading nation was the United States. The name of the invaded nation was Iraq.
Nabil Hassein, Alexandria, VA
Wagging the Dog in Georgia
To the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 20, 2008
Re: “Who got Georgia into this?” Rosa Brooks’ excellent column points out the connection between Randy Scheunemann, John McCain’s foreign policy adviser, and the current hostilities between Russia and Georgia. Scheunemann’s lobbying firm is being paid handsomely by Georgia, which obviously expected the U.S. to rescue it when it picked a fight with Russia.
I see another, more sinister connection. The U.S. has nothing to gain in Georgia. Our cozying up to Georgia, and McCain’s supporting their claim to South Ossetia, are only aimed at provoking Russia. The U.S. is being drawn into a local tiff on the other side of the world to further McCain’s presidential ambitions. McCain hopes the public will see him as the next wartime president.
We should worry that this lame-duck administration will see a political advantage in pushing us into a local argument. This affair has the odor of another Iraq.
Robert Feinstein, West Hills, CA
Deterrence, Israeli-Style
To The Washington Post, Aug. 19, 2008
It is amazing how nonchalantly Richard Cohen dismisses Israeli aggression as a “deterrent” (“Brutality to Make a Point”).
While civilians are found on all sides of the Middle East conflict, Israel’s actions are always justified no matter what the cost. Russia’s attacks in Georgia are as disproportionate and unjustifiable as Israel’s military actions toward the Palestinians living in a prison called Gaza or the Lebanese civilians who suffered Israel’s wrath in 2006. Russia has displaced almost 100,000 Georgians, and overwhelming Russian military might has left the city of Gori in ruins.
Similarly, Israel destroyed Lebanon’s infrastructure, displaced a million people, killed more than 1,000 civilians and created an ecological disaster in the Mediterranean Sea. Thousands of bomblets from cluster bombs were left for children and farmers to deal with, for the sake of Israeli “deterrence.” If that isn’t punishment, I’m not sure what is.
Tony Kutayli, American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Washington, DC
Where Was the Outrage?
To the San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 16, 2008
The comments from Sen. John McCain, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, President Bush, et al., regarding Georgia are unequivocal. The situation is simple and clear; they strongly reference “international borders,” “aggression against sovereign nations,” “disproportionate force.” These worthy tenets are the catalyst for their reactions.
Yet one wonders how solid would be their will if the situation were somewhat altered, if the “aggressor” were one of our allies and the oppressed a people we don’t care about. Wait, no need to wonder, we just need to recall their reaction to Israel’s recent invasion of Lebanon.
None of these lofty principles were mentioned, no calls for restraint, no condemnation of the killing of civilians or obliteration of much of that country’s infrastructure. So much for principles...
Gavin Murphy, San Francisco, CA
Poor Israeli Policy
To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 4, 2008
Re: “Door shut on foreign study for Gazans.” Israel’s siege of the Gaza Strip is a violation of international law—it prevents food, fuel and commercial goods from entering or leaving; has pushed the population to the brink of starvation; and has destroyed the economy, causing massive unemployment and resentment.
But Israel’s policy of not allowing Gazans the opportunity to study in foreign universities goes beyond violating law to sheer stupidity. By not allowing Palestinians to study overseas, Israel is preventing future moderate leaders to emerge and instead is assuring that radical leaders will emerge.
The United States is committed to being friends with Israel. To be a good friend, Condoleezza Rice and President Bush, as well as presidential nominees Barack Obama and John McCain, must make it clear to Israel that allowing students to study overseas is in Israel’s best interest. It is in everybody’s best interest.
Jeff Warner, La Habra Heights, CA
Frightening Away the Women?
To The Sacramento Bee, Sept. 3, 2008
Barack Obama’s predictions prior to the war in Iraq demonstrated a keen understanding of the complexities of the Middle East. John McCain, despite his many years in Washington, thought we’d be greeted as liberators. Still, his experience has been his trump card against Obama. In selecting Sarah Palin, McCain has thrown that card away.
With this attempt to pander to women, we have another Republican who believes politics matter more than governance. Fortunately for our country, women are smarter than McCain gives them credit for. While Palin’s nonexistent foreign-policy résumé is dangerous, her views on domestic issues may be even more frightening. The next president will appoint from one to three Supreme Court justices.
In selecting Palin, angry Clinton supporters now know that McCain cannot be trusted. He chose a running mate who is opposed to stem cell research, who thinks creationism should be taught in schools and who doesn’t believe humans cause global warming. Last, but not least, she thinks a girl who is raped by her father should be forced to have his child.
With the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, McCain’s selection of Palin will frighten away the very women he hoped to attract.
Laura Fisher, Sacramento, CA
Place of Worship Renews Faith
To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 7, 2008
Re: “A new mosque, just in time for Ramadan.” I would like to commend the Times for its coverage of the new mosque in Rancho Cucamonga. As an avid mosque-goer myself, I appreciate the acknowledgment of the importance of such facilities to members of the Muslim faith, especially while mosques in Milan and several other areas in Europe are being threatened with closure because of nearby residents’ unwarranted fear of their occupants.
Articles like these are refreshing. They show that the true followers of Islam are not the bomb-happy terrorists most people generalize them to be, but are like any other peaceful human beings, trying to make a living for themselves while managing to practice their faith.
Shahid Siddiq, Tustin, CA
Giuliani and Muslims
To The New York Times, Sept. 9, 2008
As a Muslim-American elected official, I am appalled that Rudolph W. Giuliani chose to equate all terrorists with members of the Islamic faith during his GOP convention address.
He said: “For four days in Denver, the Democrats were afraid to use the term ”˜Islamic terrorism.’ I imagine they believe it is politically incorrect to say it. I think they believe they will insult someone. Please tell me, who they are insulting if they say, ”˜Islamic terrorism.’ They are insulting terrorists!”
Sorry, Rudy. That statement doesn’t insult terrorists; it insults all hard-working, loyal Muslim Americans. Worse still, none of the convention pundits or commentators for any major paper or network called him on it.
Several Democratic speakers, including Barack Obama, did address the serious issue of the fight against terrorism, but they did it in a way that did not imply that all Muslim people are terrorists. Mr. Giuliani doesn’t seem to know better.
Every day, Muslim Americans serve our country in the armed forces, help us create tighter security systems that protect all Americans, and create jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans.
The fight against terrorism should be directed toward real terrorists and those who support them, not toward people trying to live the American dream but who follow a different faith.
Whatever happened to the principle of religious freedom upon which the United States was founded?
Saqib Ali, Annapolis, MD (member of the Maryland House of Delegates)
