|
|||||||||
Posted August 8, 2001
Scary World
I began checking out and occasionally perusing Antiwar sometime last year. Thank you for maintaining an excellent site. However, you do claim to publish a "representative sampling" of the many letters you receive in Backtalk. I'm wondering if the recent letters by J. Kandeel ["ZionistMediaTool.com?," August 4] (on Ran HaCohen) and B. Callinan ["Recompense," August 6] ... are truly representative of the letters received by "Backtalk." And if they are, then I can't help but think it must be a scary world out there.
Mr. Kandeel is probably an Arab, and being one myself, you cannot imagine the glowing embarrassment I felt after reading his "response." As for B. Callinan, whom I assume is American, I can discern an almost psychoanalytic form of denial in his utterly idiotic "argument" that the Holy Land belongs to anyone of Jewish blood. And we all know who the real owners are of the land he lives on.
~ K. Faraidooni
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
We do publish a representative sampling of the letters we receive. Mr. Kandeel was not the only reader who misinterpreted the irony in Mr. HaCohen's "The Chosen Pariah" (July 31).
Aggressive Antics
[Regarding Bevin Chu's column of May 9, "The Real China Threat":]
["The Real China Threat"] is complete BS. The PRC is communist, is it not? As long as they maintain that stance they will always be a threat to the USA. They have stolen secrets from the Los Alamos labs and their aggressive antics during that EP-3 incident were un-excusable. General Xiong Guangkai even told an American diplomat in 1995 that America risks nuclear strike if we intervened between a China and Taiwan conflict and that Washington cares more about Los Angeles than Taipei. They will always be the enemy with acts of aggressing and statements like that.
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "aggression" as (among other things): "unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another." Whether or not China is communist is a question about political and economic conditions within Chinese territory. For the USA to eliminate this so-called "threat" would require violation of China's territorial integrity.
The one person charged with the alleged Los Alamos theft, Wen Ho Lee, was found innocent.
The EP-3 collision occurred in the South China Sea, at a distance from China that the US government would not allow if the roles were reversed. After the collision, the spy plane made an unscheduled landing on a sensitive Chinese military base. China's territorial integrity was violated.
General Xiong Guangkai was (at most) threatening to retaliate against the US if the US military attacked China during a China/Taiwan conflict. The US government officially views China and Taiwan as feuding parts of "one China." If we accept this, then US intervention in a conflict between the two must be viewed as an "unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another"?
While remembering a Chinese general's six-year-old quote, Mr. Snapp appears to have forgotten that the US military bombed Chinese territory (their embassy in Belgrade) two years ago.
Trespassing in Canaan
[Justin Raimondo's column of August 3, "Is Zionism Racism?"] is deeply flawed.
The Jews are God's chosen people. The land of Palestine isn't really Palestine at all. The land itself originally was called the land of Canaan, and it was given unto Abraham and his descendants, through Isaac according to Genesis Ch 12, 15, 17, 21 & 22 to name a few. The name "Palestine" was never even heard of until 70 AD, when Rome burned Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, and the city, just as it was foretold by Jesus Christ 40 years earlier. After the city was destroyed, Rome renamed the land "Palestine" to further humiliate the Jews. Palestine is actually a derivative of "Philistine." The "Palestinians" are really Arabs and they're related to all the Arab nations that surround Israel. But, according to God (not by man until much later) the land belongs to Israel, and the Arabs are trespassing.
The UN Relief and Work Agency defined a Palestinian as an Arab who had lived in Palestine a minimum of only two years before 1948. Palestinian rights to the land aren't substantial, but there's been a Jewish population in Palestine since Moses. (See From Time Immemorial, Harper & Row, 1984.)
Neighboring Arab countries refused to absorb Palestinian refugees. In 1958, director of the UNRWA Ralph Calloway declared, "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die." These billionaire Arab kings could easily fund the Palestinians, and absorb them into their population, but instead they use them as pawns against Israel.
Instead of Mr. Raimondo promoting hate for Israel, he should "light a candle instead of cursing the darkness," be an instrument for peace, and try to stop it. Israel is in a very pivotal position, and everyone needs to support her now. If she does not prevail, it's doubtful the rest of the world will either, and it could be the beginning of the Apocalypse.
~ S. Ortha