“Europe’s Blindness” (Editorial, Feb. 12) gave new meaning to the September 11 phrase “intelligence deficits”. Many Israeli Jews support the creation of a Palestinian state. Are they guilty of anti-Semitism? Many of Israel’s political leaders appeared in the 1940’s in British wanted posters for terrorist acts. Many Palestinians still have keys to the homes that Israeli terrorists stole from them.
While you noted an unacceptable increase in terrorists killing Israelis, you didn’t note the larger number of Palestinians who’ve been killed or had their homes bulldozed by Israel. In 1994, Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said: “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”
By your failure to condemn the Israelis for their terrorism against innocent Palestinians, you are insensitive to the anger of the Arab world over Perrin’s outrageous remarks. Where is your discussion of the trial in Europe of Ariel Sharon, known as the “Butcher of Beirut”? The Zionists learned, after driving the British out of Palestine, that many in the world would no longer call you a terrorist when you have your own state. The advantage of having your own state is that you can claim that your actions are acts of war, rather than acts of terrorism.
You mentioned Ehud Barak’s offer, but failed to refer to Arab leaders’ 1996 support for his opponent, Shimon Peres. U.S. foreign policy should support a new generation of anti-terrorist Palestinian and Israeli leaders, support advocates of peace and prosperity and oppose Israeli settlements in Arab land.
Paul Sheldon Foote, California State University, Fullerton, Calif.
Letter to the Editor published in Investor’s Business Daily, February 28, 2002, page A16.
More Dual Loyalties
“A Rose by Any Other Name: The Bush Administration’s Dual Loyalties”, by Kathleen and Bill Christison, named some members of President Bush’s administration who have worked for Israeli leaders and some of the links between American and Israeli media and think tanks (Counter Punch, December 13, 2002, www.counterpunch.org and Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2003,http://www.wrmea.com ). The authors noted a few neoconservatives, other than John Bolton and David Wurmser, have made inroads at the State Department. The best example of the struggle in the Bush administration over dual loyalties, not mentioned in the article, is the struggle between those who support and oppose an Iranian Marxist terrorist organization (as classified by the State Department) with an army and tanks in Iraq. In the September 12, 2002 background paper for President Bush’s remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, “A Decade of Deception and Defiance”, the White House named Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK or MKO) as one of three terrorist organizations supported by Saddam Hussein. Al-Qaeda was not on this list. While the American media have reported that more than 200 members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans) have signed letters of support for this Marxist terrorist organization (with a registered office in the National Press Building in Washington, D.C.), where are the American media reports of the American military operating near the National Liberation Army of Iran camps in Iraq? If the neoconservatives support the Marxist terrorist organization named in the White House’s background paper, then the neoconservatives are neither conservatives nor Republicans. The term “dual loyalties” is much too polite for use in discussing anyone claiming to be a conservative or a Republican who supports Marxist terrorist organizations anywhere in the world.
Paul Sheldon Foote
Published: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Volume XXII, Number 4, May 2003, page 94. http://www.wrmea.com