Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
‘Suicidal?’
The New York Sun’s excellent editorial excoriating the New York Times’s editorial that blamed Prime Minister Sharon of Israel, rather than Palestinian terror groups, for the continued carnage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ended with a plea for someone to tell the Israelis that the vast majority of Americans know who is to blame [“Suicidal?” September 3, 2004].
As a long-time supporter of Israel and only half-Jewish – and only on my father’s side – I think I can speak out for the majority of Americans on this issue.
This is because I believe that almost all Americans can be sane neutral observers when it comes to assessing the historical facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And any sane neutral observer of these facts must conclude that the Arabs simply have not reconciled themselves to the permanent existence of Israel as a country.
As Barbara Amiel has so eloquently put it, they cannot abide Jews living even in the pathetically tiny “strip of sand” that constitutes the country of Israel.
Assuming that the Arabs would really allow the Israelis to live in peace within its pre-1967 borders, the width of the country shrinks to under 10 miles in the general area of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. But each time Israel starts to negotiate a withdrawal to these boundaries – the Oslo process – or to do so unilaterally – the current Gaza policy proposal – the terrorists respond with increased attacks – the entire Intifada II with Oslo and the current crude rockets out of Gaza.
While visiting Israel recently, I asked my Israeli guide why the Palestinian leadership does not prevent these terror flare-ups so that progress toward a two-state solution could be made? His answer was that Yasser Arafat does not want to go down in history as the Arab who gave up on the blessed objective of driving the Jews out of the Middle East. Some bargaining partner.
Since almost all Americans are sane, those who blame Israel in the face of these historical facts can only be hopelessly biased against Israel.
Why should some Americans, including some American Jews, be biased against Israel? Who knows. But one thing is for sure. The great majority of Americans are sane and neural observers and are on Israel’s side.
DAVID M. O’NEILL
Manhattan
‘Candidate Kerry’
Senator Kerry is wrong about President Bush. For one thing, he is running a “Bash Bush” campaign and flip-flopping on various issues [“Candidate Kerry,” Editorial, September 8, 2004].
He is wrong to assume that by belittling our allies in Iraq that he has superior diplomatic skills. He is wrong to think that the best defense is a timid offense that waits on other nations to get on board.
He is wrong to think that he must cater to the pacifists, expand welfare spending, and talk about a new direction when he doesn’t project specifics and has a Senate record to which he doesn’t want to admit.
Mr. Kerry is wrong about the nature of the war on terrorism. He thinks different allies would somehow come to our side and pay the bills and send troops to Iraq. This is worse than wrong thinking. It is fantasizing and risks America’s security.
Mr. Kerry is wrong to think he can divert Americans from their concern for safety and security with a platter of government handouts that were taken from productive taxpayers.
Senator Miller pointed out Mr. Kerry was wrong. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth pointed out Mr. Kerry was wrong. The American people will tell Mr. Kerry that he is wrong.
He is wrong for the office and wrong on projected policies. He was wrong in the past. He is wrong for the future. The biggest wrong he will find out is his belief that he can be elected. It won’t happen.
DALE NETHERTON
Farmington, Iowa
Intelligence Chief’s Budget
President Bush is now acceding to the demands of those who wish to give the new Director of National Intelligence – essentially the current director of central intelligence writ large – budgetary authority over the bulk of the intelligence services that now are under the control of the Secretary of Defense [“President Backs Plan to Give New Intelligence Chief Budget Control,” Eli Lake, September 9, 2004].
It is worth a moment to pause and ask why this is being demanded, who are making these demands, and what motives, other than allegedly increased efficiency, those demanding this course may have?
There is a war going on in Washington between the Pentagon on one side and the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department on the other. No holds are barred in attempting to destroy Secretary Rumsfeld and his staff by partisans of the pre-September 11 status quo at Langley and Foggy Bottom.
Under the old regime, they ran America’s foreign policy and they bitterly resent their loss of power. The efforts of Ambassador Wilson and his wife from the CIA to discredit the Iraq war were one salvo in a campaign to remove America’s current government.
What is clear is that the greatest failures leading up to and during the current war were not in the Pentagon but in fact in the CIA and the State Department.
It would be irrational to reward those who have been proven incompetent, manipulative, and possibly disloyal by putting them in charge of the people and organizations who have so far performed honorably.
It would make more sense in fact to place the CIA’s operational as sets under the Pentagon and shift the analysts into the Department of State.
ROSS P. WEINER
Rego Park, N.Y.
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.
