Jimmy Carter and Israel

Dear editor:

Our esteemed former president, Jimmy Carter has traveled to the Middle East in an effort to “solve” the conflict between the State of Israel and those living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Outwardly we have to think that his plans to insure the peaceful safety of Israel and a separate state for the Palestinians are sincere, but we question the true feelings of the man who has accused Israel of genocide. This from the man who’s brother (of Billie Beer fame) represented Arab countries even during the oil embargo of the 1970s. If he is so sure that Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history and is the homeland of the Palestinians, and Israel is guilty of occupying it, we have to ask the following questions:

When was it founded and by whom?
What were its borders?
What was its capital?
What were its major cities?
What constituted the basis of its economy?
What was its form of government?
Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat, excluding the Grand-Mufti who sat out World War II as a guest and supporter of Hitler?
Was Palestine ever recognized by another country?
What was the language of the country of Palestine?
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
What was the name of its currency?
And finally, since there is no such country today,…what caused its demise and when did it occur?

Please, Mr. Carter, avoid the temptation to trace the modern day Palestinians to the Biblical Philistines. That just isn’t so.

While we agree that there can be, and should be, a homeland for these people, we wonder why they have turned down every opportunity that has been presented to them. In 1937, the Peel Commission under the British Mandate ruling the holy land after the First World War offered a plan that gave over 70% of the territory to the Palestinians, less than 20% to the Jews and the balance to remain under English control, including Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Ramallah. The Jews accepted the plan and the Arabs categorically rejected it, demanding all of the land be placed under their control and that most of the Jewish population be “transferred” out of the country.

In 1947 the United Nations planned a partition of Palestine (for lack of a better word) giving the Arabs half of the land area, including all of Judea and Samaria (Jerusalem, Beersheba, Hebron, Bethlehem) and the West Bank. They turned it down, the Jews accepted it, Israel was born, and the Arab nations surrounding the new state attacked and tried to drive the Jews into the sea. What later followed was the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Except for Jordan and Egypt all the Arab nations are still at war with Israel.

I am all in favor of a homeland for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. I am all for a peaceful solution that guarantees safety for the State of Israel and a peaceful, fruitful life for the Palestinians. But Mr. Carter (and his friends in Hamas) is more of a one-sided hindrance than a help, and he refuses to recognize the fact that Israel is not an occupying power. He seems to want to ignore history and not solve the future.

I'm thoroughly confused

Dear editor:

I’m confused. Someone needs to explain the new troop strategy to me.

We have heard consistently from military leaders that our troop strength and their constant equipment use is stretching our volunteer army and marine crops to a dangerous level. It has also been in the papers that mid-level command positions in both the officer corps and senior enlisted are seeing a loss of experienced manpower. This is in spite of the financial awards being offered for reenlistments.

In the face of this problem, the president announced that he is halting the reduction of forces in Iraq and that our force level will hold at roughly 140,000 troops, which is actually an increase of 10,000 when compared to the pre-surge force announced a year ago. On top of that, he has politically announced that service in Iraq will be limited to 12 months as opposed to the present 15 and 18 month rotations and troops will stay at home for a minimum of 12 months before redeployment.

All of that sounds wonderful for our service people, but how do you maintain a stretched force of 140,000 with those new limitations on deployment rotations? It seems one and one does not equal two.

Did I Miss Something In The News?

Dear editor:

Somewhere along the way I must have missed or misunderstood a lot of the news about the war in Iraq. Every time I hear an update from a member of the administration or the military leaders of our country it is in complete contradiction to what has been said previously, which leads one to question the honesty and competence of these people. And the sad part is that they think you believe, without question, everything they tell us.

Take for instance the latest testimony of General Petraeus, a much decorated and respected officer and leader, before the Senate committee hearings recently held in Washington. The general, if anyone, should (and I mean should) have a clear understanding of what is going on in Iraq. General Petraeus explained that pulling more troops out of Iraq at this time would be a major mistake because we have made too much progress to withdraw additional troops. Sounds reasonable. But the only problem with that is that he previously told Congress that we hadn’t made enough progress to withdraw additional troops. Talk about complete reversals. Do we make up reasons as we go along?

President Bush told us over a year ago that the “surge in troops” will make Iraq safe enough for that country’s legislative and executive bodies to make great political headway in order to secure that country and give the United States a successful campaign and war. Well, we’ve had over six months of reduced violence and death but the expected goals set forth by our president haven’t happened. (However, we have seen an uptick in violence and American deaths.) As a result, our definition of success has once again changed, which it has done many times since his selling the country on the necessity of a pre-emptive war to safeguard our country.

On May 1st, almost five years ago, President Bush stood on that aircraft carrier and proclaimed for all to hear and see that our troops were victorious and it was “Mission Accomplished.” Of the over 4,000 Americans troops killed in this war, almost 3,900 have died since that famous misplaced scene and speech. This is to say nothing of the almost 30,000 wounded.

We were told that the major purpose of attacking Iraq was to free the country of the despot ruling it, namely Saddam Hussein. Since Saddam was captured on December 13, 2003, almost 3,600 of the over 4,000 Americans were killed. So now we backpedal to come up with a new definition of success.

How are we the American public supposed to understand and believe the information and protestations of our leaders when the stories keep changing to fit their incompetence? When can we have a firm, unadulterated reason for our continuing loss of life and raping of our treasury? Just saying that they will recognize “success” when it happens isn’t good enough. And by the way, what does the word “success” mean when applied to the debacle in Iraq?