Letters | Fighting terror, seeking peace in Mideast   Philadelphia Inquirer, April 17, 2002.
Sending U.S. troops to the Middle East would light the spark of a festering powder keg that would lead a trail back to our homes. With our tarnished image in the region, our presence would incite more acts of aggression against our interests at home and abroad. With our war in Afghanistan still in progress, our military is stretched to the limit. We are low on resources and manpower. Even if we did decide to send troops, it could just lead to events that would make Beirut look like a carnival.
Nicholas Kupsey
Upper Darby

I am amazed at President Bush's demand for Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank. This stance is clearly hypocritical. Israel is facing a barrage of homicidal bombers whose attacks and aims are analogous to the attacks on the World Trade Center, that of killing civilians, albeit on a smaller scale. Given the means, there is little doubt that these groups would carry out attacks on the same scale of Sept. 11. The response to these terrorist acts is fully justified to root out and kill those who are responsible for violence and who plan attacks.
Elad Bicer
Philadelphia

It's time to impose peace on the Middle East. Send a sizable international force, including U.S. military and CIA, to impose law and order in Palestine. Set up boundaries as proposed by Ehud Barak two years ago. Israel should reimburse its citizens in the settlements and turn the properties over to Palestine as reparations for the refugees. Establish a program to disband refugee camps as soon as possible.
 The international force will seek out all persons involved in terrorism, and checks that are sent to reward the families of terrorists will be confiscated.
  Be prepared for the international force to be there for decades.
Fred Wilson
Merchantville

William Raspberry questions whether there is a moral distinction between the Islamic-inspired suicide bombing and the Israeli incursions in response (Commentary, April 11). A big part of the answer is right on the same page, in a letter: "The bomber intended to kill and maim as many defenseless Israelis as possible." And though the Israeli soldiers "have killed Palestinian civilians over the last 18 months ... it has never been their intent to do so." The key word here is intent, and it is an essential distinction.
The ends do not justify the means, especially when the means are against all moral and civil laws and the very foundation of civilized life on this planet.
Mitch Davis
Maple Glen

If the Israelis massacring Palestinian people is not terrorism, what is? I cringe when I see American-made tanks and warships killing people who have no such weaponry. It is shameful that our administration would support the regime of a suspected war criminal. If the Israelis really want peace, they will pull out of their illegal settlements and bring an end to this tragedy.
Kathleen Pfoutz
Maple Shade

The purpose of the Israeli army's current actions is to root out the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, not to inflict mass civilian casualties (Commentary, April 11). There can be no moral equivalency between a country's defensive actions to protect its citizens and the deliberate murder of civilians by suicide bombers. Israel is imperiled by a Palestinian leadership that has turned its back on peace and reconciliation in favor of terrorism, war and deluded "martyrdom." Each day, innocent Israelis are brutally murdered while eating in cafes, going to the supermarket, even attending a Passover seder.
    The assumption that the Palestinians were ultimately committed to a negotiated settlement with Israel has been proven tragically misguided. Israel, who has extended its hand again and again in peace, has no choice but to take whatever actions it deems necessary to protect its population and destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure.
Barry Morrison
Regional Director
Anti-Defamation League
Philadelphia

Jane Eisner's defense of Ariel Sharon has sunk to protesting that a comparison of "Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler and the Israeli government to the Nazis displays either a woeful ignorance of history or a willful mendacity" (Commentary, April 14). Eisner may be right: Hitler is probably more evil than Sharon. But how about likening Sharon to a second-tier war criminal such as Slobodan Milosevic? Would such a comparison still smack of "woeful ignorance of history or a willful mendacity"? After all, proceedings are underway in Brussels to try Sharon as a war criminal for his involvement in the 1982 Sabra and Shatilla massacres of more than 800 Palestinians.
    Sharon may not be a Hitler, but he may very well be a war criminal all the same.
Ahmed Bouzid
President
Palestine Media Watch
Wayne

Charles Krauthammer has identified ("Lebanon serves as warning for further disasters that could befall Israel," April 12) the fundamental flaw in the "land for peace" argument. The Palestinian Authority refuses a cease-fire until Israel "withdraws," ignoring that Israel's actions are a response to terror that provoked the incursions. But it is never quite defined from "where" Israel must withdraw for Palestinians to cease murdering Israelis. In Lebanon, despite pulling back to borders recognized by the U.N. Security Council, the Arabs claimed "not enough" and continued attacks on northern Israel.
     Also, the Palestinian Authority demands an innocuous sounding "international force" because it knows it would be as useless as the one that has been in Southern Lebanon. It would create a blue-helmeted wall that would control Israel, but provide a safe base for continued Palestinian terrorist killings.
John R. Cohn
Narberth
johncohnmd@hotmail.com

Everyone talks about getting Israel and the Palestinians back to negotiations. Have they forgotten that the intifada and suicide bombings were Yasir Arafat's final response in the Camp David negotiations two years ago? Ehud Barak offered him the most that could be expected and much more than anyone else before, but, rather than accepting, Arafat left and started the intifada.
     What is there to negotiate? Arafat has nothing to give except peace so the negotiations would only be about how much Israel should give to make Arafat peaceful. But he can't deliver peace since, as he says, he can't control the bombers.
     Israel is justified in trying to destroy the bomb-making infrastructure, as well as the leaders of the attacks who dress like civilians but must be regarded as soldiers.
Ernie Jellinek
Cherry Hill

I personally am hard-pressed to see a difference between the use of suicide bombers by one side and the use of military forces and organized armed
violence against civilians by the others.  All violence, no matter its form, is wrong but once violence is used, all forms of violence become legititmate.
    It is no longer a question of who started the violence, it is a question of how and who will stop it.
Carl Dassbach
Progressive Sociology Network