 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hitchens' Innuendo In "So This Is War?" (October 15), Christopher Hitchens suggests, via insinuation and innuendo, that in essence the United States brought this attack upon itself because the United States is supporting a "racist" Israeli government that has brought untold and undeserved woe upon the innocently suffering peoples of the Middle East—the Palestinians in particular. That in the Middle East conditions exist in which anti-Semitism, religious fundamentalism and the ethos of jihad have melded into a self-defeating and all-encompassing "worldview," has more to do with the reactionary character of the Arab governments and clerisy than it does with either Israel or America's support for the latter. That the nations of the Middle East subsist in poverty and hopeless political impotence is directly attributable to authoritarian political regimes which find it easier to blame their woes on Israel than face up to the complexities and demands of contemporary politics. By whipping up anti-Israeli sentiment, which nowadays blares from the minarets of almost every mosque, they are employing a classic technique of modern political authoritarianism: identifying an "other" qua political scapegoat to unify the "volk" for bellicose, racist ends. Ensuring that a people are maintained in a state of political immaturity, moreover, is one of the classic techniques employed by authoritarian political regimes to perpetuate their rule. If Hitchens were really concerned with the welfare of Arab peoples, he would address some of these concerns. Richard Wolin
Sharing the Blame "A Tinderbox in Palestine" by Charmaine Seitz (October 15) was an interesting article, but surprisingly one-sided. Seitz left out many facts, including that Palestinian celebrations were more widespread than reported, due to the Palestine Authorities intimidation of foreign journalists. The foreign press association has filed complaints about such intimidation. Seitz also underplays the extent to which the Palestine Authority in its Arabic-language media incites hatred and violence. An impressive recent example was the praise of suicide bombings that was printed in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, the Palestinian Authority's official newspaper, on September 11. Israel is far from blameless in creating a classically colonial, nasty economic and territorial oppression. But you should give more balanced accounts. There is plenty of insanity to go around on both sides. Adam Sragovicz
Our Choice Whether many of the U.S. citizens now crying out for retribution know it or not, they are sharing an emotional bond with Palestinian parents who cannot stop crying after their 8-year-old son was killed by rockets fired from a U.S.-supplied Israeli helicopter; a Jewish mother who lies overwhelmed by grief in a hospital bed after seeing her infant daughter killed by an Islamic extremist suicide bomber in Jerusalem; the Nicaraguan teen-ager who watched helplessly as a contra guerrilla fighter financed by Washington raped his sister and slit her throat. This toxic emotion can be found in millions of people across the globe who have experienced the raw and destructive passion that consumes victims of repression and violence. If we are to make progress as a civilization—or, more critically, survive as a species—we face the stark choice. We must either build a new global culture of compassion or continue to ignore our current system, guided only by market values, that cultivates inequality, militarism and the degradation of human life. Without fundamental change, the forces that see violence as the only method to address legitimate grievances, symbolized in the carnage of Lower Manhattan and along the Potomac, will inevitably grow and become more destructive. Scott Harris
|
