|
washingtonpost.com
Puppets, Puppeteers And Israel
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.
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
