Letters to the Editor

Self-serving ploy does not reveal truth

To the Editor:

In "Ending Syria," Esterhazy makes discomfiting if unctuous remarks about attacking Syria for the sake of the Syrian people. ["Ending Syria: The next step in the war against terrorism," by Nicholas Esterhazy, Oct. 25, 2001] His justification of Israeli targeted killings and his incongruous association of Palestinian resistance with recent attacks on U.S. soil (all under the aegis of Syrian foreign policy) is a self-serving ploy to hide the human rights catastrophe perpetrated by IDF incursions, sniping and state sanctioned murder in the occupied Palestinian territories. Despite propaganda stating otherwise Israeli political intransigence and terrorism are in fact two sides of the same coin.

The struggle that has consumed Minister Ze'evi (who according to the Oct. 20 Economist as "an ultra-right Israeli minister who had just resigned from the government at the very prospect of fresh peace talks") is distinct from Osama bin Laden's brand of violence. A false analogy between the two hides 50 years of Palestinian oppression and perverts the cause of America against bin Laden.

Lastly, Hafez al Assad's destruction of Hamma in 1982 was initially aimed against the fundamentalist Muslim Brothers. It was the sort of extrajudicial murder that Esterhazy sees as fair game for the sake of "security." It was "targeted killing" supersized. Funny that he should legitimize Israel's use of this strategy, and then criticizes its use by Assad's regime, while ignoring sensible points like UN resolution 242, which requires Israel to return the seized Golan Heights to Syria. "To justify himself each relies on the others crimes" and as long as Israeli criminality fosters Syrian scheming, Israel's hands are bloody.

Sincerely,

HS Malek

Esterhazy over-simplistic in his arguments

To the Editor:

I would like to make a few points in response to Nick Esterhazy's uninformative, overly simplistic "Ending Syria" editorial. ["Ending Syria: The next step in the war against terrorism," Oct. 25, 2001]

First, he justifies Israel's extrajudicial assassinations, or in his words, "targeted killings," a sterile misnomer for a savage policy. While these acts are indeed killings, they are hardly "targeted," claiming as collateral damage the lives of innocent civilians (read children). In fact, Israel has incurred international (as well as Israeli) condemnation for this policy, yet it seems Esterhazy has succumbed to Israeli propaganda that conveniently labels its opponents as terrorists and hopes no one will notice as it brutally eliminates them, with no proof whatsoever of terrorist activity. Semantic acrobatics aside, a rose by any other name is still as sweet. Or in this case, a murderous policy still stinks.

Finally, people in America are beginning to realize that while we may have isolationist attitudes, we are perceived to be interventionist. Our policies are often determined more by our economic interests as opposed to principles of justice and fairness. But many Americans, including our leaders are beginning to reevaluate what would serve as our best compass in determining our foreign interactions, in order to best assure the safety and security of our people. I cannot help but wonder why Esterhazy asks us to subordinate U.S. interests to a costly and unjust vindication of Israel. Should the U.S. observe Palestinian and Syrian lands and dismantle its settlements completely? In this sense Israel would be "losing out." But these were never Israel's lands to lose, and surely such compliance would gain Israel more security than the tactics of Ariel Sharon. Esterhazy, however, concerns himself more with PR for unilateralist Israel, whether its policies be illegal or inhumane, than with doing what it takes to make America truly secure. This is not only disturbing; it is also irreverent to the dead of Sept. 11.

Sincerely,

Samar Malek

Esterhazy needs to get his facts straight

To the Editor:

Week after week Mr. Nicholas Esterhazy's articles are published in the newspaper with all their biased and insulting content.

I understand Mr. Esterhazy's support for Israel and I understand that he has the right to have an opinion about the Middle East problems and to voice his opinion. I am a regular reader of some of the most prominent pro-Israeli journalists even though I have a different opinion.

However, his clear solicitation for attacking Syria (with aggressive titles such as "Ending Syria") ["Ending Syria: The next step in the war against terrorism," Oct. 25, 2001], his ruling that the plane crash in Ukraine was a terrorist attack (which was latter proved wrong) ["Munich revisited: A look into current U.S. foreign policy," Oct. 11, 2001], and his direct and indirect insults of Arabs are not really a worthy material to be published in the Johns Hopkins News-Letter. Mr. Esterhazy's articles never contain any analysis or information. They are always full of misinformation (I would be glad to provide numerous examples) and are always extremely one-sided and biased.

As an Arab student at Hopkins, I think I have the right to ask for some respect for me and for my intelligence as a reader. I don't think you publish opinions of people affiliated with the American Nazi party, Al Qaida Network or the KKK, so I don't know why Mr. Esterhazy's racist articles are published in JHU News-Letter.

Sincerely,

Elie Bou-Zeid

Environmental problem needs clarification, not complaint

To the Editor:

The headline of Jeff Novich's Oct. 25 column, "A plea for the environment: Don't simply turn a blind eye to the facts" led me to believe that he would present facts about the environment. Boy, was I wrong. Instead, his column features a collection of panicky environmentalist canards which have no basis in fact.

Novich complains, "It seems as though we listen to the predictions by economists more than we do those by scientists." Rather than clarify all the statistics on global warming and environmental degradation (for that, I recommend reading Bjorn Lomborg's new book, The Skeptical Environmentalist), let's just consider the Kyoto Treaty, one of Novich's primary examples. For Kyoto, scientists and economists are in agreement that the Treaty is useless. Over the next 50 years, full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all countries (the US included) would reduce global warming by a negligible 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit. At the same time, the trend rate of U.S. GDP growth would fall three percentage points, putting the U.S. into permanent recession, or zero growth (the long-run trade rate of U.S. GDP growth is about three percent). Zero growth, or recession, means more unemployment, growing poverty, declining per capita income and a potentially massive exodus of international capital.

Being in recession for the next 50 years is not worth a negligible reduction in global warming. Those are the facts. Perhaps Mr. Novich will consider some before writing next time.

Sincerely,

Matt Sekerke