Israel

[Regarding Scott McConnell's column of October 23, "An Open Letter to Arab Readers":]

I understand that Scott McConnell is very much opposed to Israel's policies. Fine. But, he seems intelligent enough; so why then, is it, when he implies Israel and its leaders are ethnic cleansers (as he did in this week's column) and murderers, does he also not cite facts about the Palestinians to balance out the story? Facts like how many Israeli's have been killed by groups like Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations over the years with their bus bombings, or this year's disco bombing that killed about 20 or so innocent teenagers or the recent Sbarro bombing that also killed innocent folks. Why are these facts buried? It makes it sound like Israel never has casualties either -- which is utterly ridiculous and completely untrue.

While I am disappointed with the way Israel carries out some of its policies and wish for nothing more than peace in the Middle East, you'd have to be completely blind and ignorant to not also admit that the Palestinian's are equally guilty of committing atrocities. I think your many intelligent readers deserve the whole side of the story -- don't you? I started reading your site because I thought an antiwar news site seemed like a great concept. Now I'm thinking the only "anti" thing you are is anti-Jewish.

~ Amy K., Massachusetts

Scott McConnell replies:

Amy K. laments that I don't spend enough words on cataloguing Israel's suffering at the hands of the Palestinians. I agree with her that events like the disco bombing are an outrage, but I generally try use my columns to make points that others aren't making. There are literally dozens of columnists who are much more one-sided than I am, and focus almost exclusively on the suffering of Israelis and the perfidy of the Arabs. In my own analysis I also can't overlook the fact that Israel is powerful and the Palestinians are not, and that Israel is currently engaged in an illegal occupation of Palestinian land. This doesn't, for me, excuse Palestinian terrorism against civilians, particularly "inside the green line." But neither do I expect the Palestinians to just sit there and passively accept the Israeli occupation. No self-respecting people would. Sad to say terrorism is a fairly commonplace type of warfare among groups fighting for "national liberation"-- the Algerians used it successfully v. the French, the Irish against the Brits, and of course the Israelis of an earlier generation against both the British and the Palestinian Arabs.

I acknowledge Israel is in a difficult position, difficult enough that I've recently heard intelligent American Jews question whether the whole Zionist idea -- to create a state where Jews are safe -- makes sense in a world in which Jews today are less safe in Israel than virtually anywhere else. That said, I do believe Israel should give up the occupied territories and let the Palestinians have a contiguous and viable state -- as President Bush has suggested. There might still be terrorism -- I know that -- there is a certain part of Palestinian irredentism which may never be appeased. But an internationally sanctioned solution, and a viable Palestinian state would go a long way toward giving Palestinians something more hopeful and humane to do than fight the occupying power by whatever means they can. It would also help considerably my country's standing in the Arab and Muslim world, which is of course my primary concern.

Re: "Collateral Damage" by Alan Bock [October 24]:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

The proposition that if the US attacks Afghanistan, it must bomb all countries with related shortcomings to achieve the dubious virtue of consistency is one of the more foolish arguments offered by the antiwar crowd. I give Alan Bock credit for at least recognizing how tightly the state of Afghanistan (represented by the Taliban) is wrapped up with the terrorists but no credit for failing to recognize that the standards of proof required to justify defending oneself against an ongoing threat (is Mr. Bock so certain that Sept. 11 was the pinnacle of bin Laden's plans?) is substantially less than the ironclad proof required at a jury trial. Even Moummar al-Quadaffi understands this principle.

My question about Bock's modest proposal is: how does he imagine that giving Sadam Hussein's unconventionally armed expansionist regime a free hand in the Middle East going to contribute peace and security in the region and in the world?

~ Jay D., California

Alan Bock replies:

Goodness! I point out that the United States initiated the attack without declaring war and doesn't seem to have a coherent strategy -- or even a coherent attitude -- toward terrorism and I get Ralph Waldo Emerson's gift to all people embarrassed about inconsistency (which, given the quality of education these days, is a substantial cohort ) thrown at me. Surely you could do better. I recognize that in practice the standard of proof for waging war is not necessarily the same as for convicting somebody of a crime. I even recognize that in most peoples' minds the standard for making war is lower than for convicting. Am I the only one to whom that seems curious? When you convict someone of a crime (unless it's a capital crime), your deprive them of freedom, often with the opportunity to reverse the judgment on appeal or if a subsequent DNA test casts legitimate doubt on the verdict. When you wage war you purposely wreak irreparable damage and destruction, and you know for certain that you are going to kill some innocent people (though probably not on purpose) who can never appeal their fate.

Perhaps it sounds naive, but shouldn't the standard for waging war be higher than for conviction of a crime? I'm sure it will not happen in our lifetimes, but the question is worth pondering. As for the Saudis vis-à-vis Saddam, let them use their vast oil wealth to protect themselves. I thought that at the time of the Gulf War and I think it now. I don't mind selling them weapons, but I don't think that corrupt and troublemaking regime is worth one drop of American blood.