Puppets, Puppeteers And Israel

[ What is Kerry's stance on Israel? -d ]

washingtonpost.com
Puppets, Puppeteers And Israel

Saturday, August 21, 2004; Page A17
An Aug. 14 editorial's juxtaposition of my words, taken from a statement
that was rooted in advocacy for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, was
shameful and unsavory. (Readers can judge for themselves by seeing the
full statement at www.votenader.org.) Your objection to my description of
the need to replace the Washington puppet show with the Washington peace
show reinforces the censorious climate against open and free discussion
about this conflict. When Israelis joke about the United States being
"the second state of Israel," it sounds like they are describing a
puppeteer-puppet relationship. Or, would your paper prefer using the
descriptor "dominant-subordinate?"
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman used stronger words than "puppet"
when on Feb. 5 he wrote: "Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir
Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he's had George
Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat
surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian
pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do
whatever Mr. Sharon dictates . . . all conspiring to make sure the
president does nothing."
That many other Israeli and U.S. peace advocates with impressive
political, business, academic, military and intelligence experience
receive no hearing in official Washington is further indication of bias
inside both political parties.
When the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) works to obtain
a recent 407 to 9 vote for a House resolution supporting the latest
Sharon strategy and rejecting any mention of an independent Palestinian
state, how would you describe such a surrender of the privately held
positions of House members who favor a two-state solution?
Half of the Israeli people and more than two-thirds of Jewish Americans
believe the conflict can be settled only by allowing an independent
Palestinian state together with a secure Israel.
Why does your paper object to a description of AIPAC as an awesome lobby
on Capitol Hill, labeling it "poisonous stuff"? AIPAC has worked hard
over the years to enlist the support of both Christians and Jews. Its
organizing skills are the envy of the National Rifle Association and
other citizen groups. Muslim Americans are trying to learn from its
lobbying skills to produce a more balanced congressional debate on Middle
Eastern policies. How does acknowledging such an achievement play on
age-old stereotypes? The bias may be in your editors' minds.
-- Ralph Nader
Washington
The writer is an independent candidate for president.

-----------------------------

Your Aug. 14 editorial criticizes Ralph Nader for describing the
relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Bush
administration and Congress as one of puppeteer and puppets. But instead
of picking apart Nader's speech, perhaps your editorial board could tell
us how providing billions of dollars of U.S. military and economic aid to
Israel, which supports a 37-year military occupation of Palestine, is
consistent with U.S. principles and interests. The Arab and Muslim world
resents U.S. support for that oppression. This fuels support for
terrorism. Is this sufficient reason to reassess the United States'
uncritical support for Israel?
-- John P. Salzberg
Washington
The writer is a member of the Washington Interfaith Alliance for Middle
East Peace.

_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/