Articles
Letters to the Editor, Pages 5-6
Joe Stack, the IRS and the T-Word
IF SOMEONE flew an airplane into a building full of people to protest the Afghan war, it would be called a terrorist incident. However, when Mr. Joe Stack flew his plane into an IRS building and killed people, the news media calls it “the accident,” and “the incident.” The local Texas prosecutor claimed specifically that Mr. Stack was not a terrorist. But what should you call it when a man pens a manifesto proclaiming, “violence is the only answer,” then kills people because they work for the government? Mr. Stack’s wife apologized on the news to “everyone affected by the incident,” but was careful not to use the term “victim,” when referring to the people her husband murdered.
Regardless of the media’s politically correct posturing, the simple fact is this: Joe Stack was a suicide bomber. Even though his name was Joe, and not Mohammed, and even though he was protesting taxes, not Israeli foreign policy, Mr. Stack was a murderer of the innocent.
Arthur Plum, via e-mail
As was Scott Roeder, convicted on Jan. 29 of murdering legal abortion provider Dr. George Tiller at the doctor’s Wichita, KS church. We do not recall Roeder, who expressed no regret for taking a human life, being referred to as a “Christian terrorist.”
The Mabhouh Assassination
There has been considerable speculation in recent Israeli press reports of a strong desire in Israeli “security circles” to launch another onslaught on Gaza—and, for good measure, on Lebanon as well. The only problem in both cases is that, for a very long time, those whom Israel and its obedient servants choose to call “terrorists” have not been engaging in any activity which could, with any credibility, be deemed “terrorist” and thus worthy of a typically “disproportionate” Israeli response in “self-defense.”
There has always been a tried-and-true way for Israel to solve this problem—killing Palestinians of a stature or in numbers which proud Palestinians believe cannot go unavenged, regardless of the predictable consequences for themselves. The most recent example was Israel’s unprovoked killing of six Palestinians in Gaza on Nov. 4, 2009 (America’s election day, when all the world’s eyes and media coverage were elsewhere), thereby ending the long-holding truce with Hamas which Hamas was willing to extend. Predictably, this led to the launching of the usual home-made rockets in the direction of Sderot, thereby permitting Israel to claim “self-defense” as it launched its long-planned assault on Gaza, killing some 1,400 more Palestinians and destroying the Strip’s infrastructure.
If Hamas chooses not to fall into this trap in reaction to the assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, one can be certain that further targeted assassinations or random killings of civilians will be pursued until the desired retaliation is finally provoked, thereby giving Israel the excuse it seeks to unleash another “self-defense” onslaught and ensuring that the minimal threat posed by any resumption of even an utterly bogus “peace process” will be kicked well down the road again.
How many times does the world have to watch this sorry spectacle before it wises up?
John V. Whitbeck, Paris, France
We thank you for the Saleh Al-Naami article which accompanied your comments, and which can be found on p. 12 of this issue.
Not All Reasons “Legitimate”
I was in a Border’s book store today and read your latest publication. I had never heard of your magazine before. To say that I was shocked would be an absolute understatement. You so eloquently demonize Israel without ever presenting another point of view. But I guess from reading your articles this method works best for your readership. I have long condemned Rush Limbaugh’s radio talk show, not so much for his rantings, but for the huge audience that is only too glad to believe that whatever he says must be the absolute truth! I must admit that your writers are more intelligent than Rush could ever hope to be but nevertheless, your readers must either be totally ignorant of the situation in the Middle East or, even if they realize that you are biased, don’t care because you tell them what they want to hear. Some people love to be in denial.
For you to even suggest that the Christmas Day bomber or al-Qaeda may have legitimate reasons for killing thousands of innocent people is beyond the pale.
I certainly don’t expect to change the slant of your publication in any way, but not presenting balanced articles only contributes to the anger and rage that is so prevalent in the world today.
Linda Drum, New York, NY
We’re sorry you seem to equate the search for a reason behind an horrific event with legitimizing it. To discover, for example, that a series of fires were set by an arsonist is not to say that arson is a “legitimate reason.” In response, would you advocate building hundreds more fire stations and buying thousands more fire engines for decades on end instead of finding and stopping the arsonist?
More on Gaza Suffering
Thanks very much as always for your work.
I’m writing in connection with your articles in the March 2010 issue on Gaza including the article focusing on the Egyptian Wall at the Gaza border.
I’m wondering if you’d consider an article focusing on the terrible ongoing suffering caused by the continuing blockade, including statistics of how many trucks are allowed in daily with supplies, etc.
Such an article would focus on the U.S./Israel responsibility for the continued blockade and the ensuing suffering. It would argue that the policies of the Obama administration, at the highest level, the president and the chief of staff, and surely elsewhere, suggest that there exists the same bitter abhorrence and disgust for the Palestinians as existed in the Bush administration especially in the offices of the president, vice president and their Middle East adviser, Elliot Abrams.
Such a theory might explain why little improvement in U.S. Middle East policy—including pressure to attack Iran—can be expected.
Ronald Bleier, New York, NY
The other article by Mohammed Omer in our March issue, “Life Upside Down: One Year After Israel’s Winter War on Gaza,” portrayed the sufferings of Gazans one year after Israel’s 22-day assault and nearly three years after Israel imposed its devastating siege on the Gaza Strip, following the failed June 2007 attempt to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government by U.S.-trained Fatah forces. We fervently hope that the concept of U.S.-Israeli collaboration is not a foreign one to readers of this magazine!
Correcting a Misattribution
I am writing in regard to your September 2009 article, “How the War in Afghanistan Undermines Obama’s Other Goals” by Rachelle Marshall. In the article, Marshall attributes the Vietnam-era quote, “It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it” to my late father, Lt. Col. James Dare. To my knowledge, my father is not the officer who said those infamous words.
Marshall cites Peter Arnett’s February 1968 Associated Press article as her source for the quote. This article does include a quote from my father—however, he is quoted as saying, “We will never know for sure” in reference to the number of civilians who died. He is not quoted as saying, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” According to the original AP article, it was an “unidentified U.S. major” who spoke those words. Because Arnett famously never identified the officer, many people have come to question whether this statement was actually made. (Please see <http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2010/02/it-became-necessary-to-destroy-town-to.html>.)
I have seen this quote referenced over the years, but your recent article is the first time this statement has been attributed to Lt. Col. James Dare. Since the publication of your article five months ago, there are now at least two other sources attributing this quote to Lt. Col. Dare based on the likely erroneous information found in your article. Brittanica.com (the web site of the Encyclopedia Brittanica) and usa.mediamonitors.net are two examples.
If you have a source that positively identifies my father as the officer who said, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,” I would like to see it. Since my father’s death, my siblings and I take great interest in any historical references that mention our dad.
If the quote has been incorrectly attributed to him, I ask that the article be corrected online and that a correction be printed in your next print issue.
Thank you so much,
Michele Dare de Miranda, via e-mail
Rachelle Marshall responded to Ms. de Miranda as follows: “I am in the process of moving and therefore have thinned out my files on Vietnam. Consequently, although I remember the AP article on Ben Tre I no longer have it. However, on seeing the attachment you included I realize that I must have mistakenly associated your father, Lt. Col. Dare, with the quote you cite. I also realize how hurtful such an error must be to you and your family. Therefore I hope you will accept my most sincere apology, and I will ask the editor of Washington Report to print this letter retracting my association of your father with what you so rightly call ”˜that infamous statement.’”
The Washington Report sincerely regrets the error as well. We shall certainly correct it on our Web site, <www.washingtonreport.org> and contact the other sites you have identified. Please do not hesitate to let us know if the misattribution continues to appear, and we shall do all we can to rectify the matter.
Angels Among Us
The enclosed check is my donation for 2010. Please indicate it is in honor of Rachelle Marshall.
I wish to acknowledge her longevity with the Washington Report and her instructional value to me vis-Ã -vis the issue of Palestine for many years.
Eugene V. Fitzpatrick, Wheat Ridge, CO
We thank you for your continued membership in the AET Choir of Angels (see p. 57), and enthusiastically endorse your appreciation of author Rachelle Marshall!
