Letters to the Editor, December 4, 2003

Aljazeerah Info Center needs your support

Send donations by check to: Al-Jazeerah Info Center, P.O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30722-0724, USA.

or through PayPal, using credit cards or bank transfers

I agree with some of Hardiker's words but like most intelligent commentaries, he offers not even a hint of a credible solution.

This clause: " renunciation to the right of return of some four million Palestinian refugees"

You should suggest to the Palestinian people to expel Mr. Aabed Rabbo and his associates, from Palestine and then apply the clause to them. Perhaps the signatories will change their minds about denying a person the right of a 'Patria". There's nothing like giving people a treat of their own medicine.

Mr. Sharon, the Premier of the State of Israel, more known in the Middle East as the butcher of Beirut, has been and still is committing atrocious acts of murder against the Palestinian people for all of his military and political careers.

As far as he is concerned, it seems not only natural to kill the descendants of the Hamites, Canaanites and the Amonites, it is his sacred duty and calling from the Lord for the sake of the Promised Land, originally the land of Canaan and Philistine before it was promised by God to Abram's descendants, the Semites for the sin of the Amonites has not yet reached it's full measure. The Holy Bible Genesis 9 to 15-19.

Around 1250 BCE, the promised land, the land of Canaan, was invaded by Joshua the son of Nun, servant of the Lord, the leader of the Egyptian Jews, the descendants of Jacob, the grand son of Abram.

Joshua, followed the commands, decrees and laws of the Lord taught to him by Moses to the letter (Deuteronomy 6 & 7). When the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally, make no treaty with them and show them no mercy. Read also Joshua 1 to 12.

Now anyone who has read the Holy Book properly cannot help but see Sharon having a ball in getting his sword drunk with the blood of the Phalastinians in preparations to continue his holy mission all the way to the great river, the Euphrates.

Someone must awake this guy up, the Holy Book was never meant to be taken literally.

Editor: Most Jews of European origin, like Sharon, are not descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their ancestors were converted to Judaism, like the Khazars. So, the Holy Land has never been Promised to them. More important is that the Palestinian people are the descendants of all the people who lived in the Holy Land for thousands of years, including descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So, the contemporary irony is that non-Semite European Jews are claiming the land of the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Read my editorial about the Promised Land).

The British government's decision to provide political asylum to Chechen resistance leader Ahmed Zakayev is a welcome development. This decision, announced on November 29, was taken despite strong pressure from the Russian authorities to extradite the Chechen leader to Russia, where he would have, in most probability, face torture, harassment and imprisonment, human rights violations routine for citizens in his strife-torn homeland.

We feel the British decision is politically positive and significant for two reasons. It treats Chechnya's resistance and dissenters as legitimate political refugees escaping violations of human rights in their country of birth. Additionally, unlike the United States, which has branded the Chechen struggle “terrorism as part of al Qaeda”, the British government has upheld the rule of law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We also applaud the European Union's consistent critique of Russian human rights violations in Chechnya, and urge Moscow to reverse its wrong policies there by seeking a political settlement that accords the Chechen peoples’ aspirations for a better, freer and peaceful future.

As I read through the letters sent to you I was dismayed to note a tendency towards extremism. It isn't possible to have a dialogue and come to any sort of resolution of complex issues without exploring both sides of an issue and finding the elements of truth which fuel both sides of the debate. Unfortunately I find moderation and reason lacking in discussion of the issues of the day. Those on the left seek to vilify Bush and American policy without any willingness to acknowledge the good and potential benefit towards that policy. Regardless of your position certainly a world with fewer dictatorships and more individual freedom must be seen as a positive. Similarly those on the right seem too ready to dismiss the now hollow claims of WMD as a reason for involvement in Iraq as well as wanting to avoid looking at the casualties from the military actions and policies of the US.

I despair when I see how polarized the arguments have become. The only way to resolve the current conflicts in the world are for people to see both sides of the argument and realize that many of these issues do not have a single, simple solution.

The British in India. The Shah of Iran. Marcos in the Philippines. Solidarnosc' struggle for change in Poland. The Velvet Revolution in Chechoslovakia. The end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall. Pinochet in Chile. Milosevic in Serbia. Now Shevardnadze in Georgia...

Contrast Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Afghanistan and Iraq - where military intervention and bombings brought neither peace nor hope.

But there is no celebration of non-violence as a means of struggle. And as democratisation by democratic means. No headlines such as "Victory for non-violence - again"?

Why is there so little research on these historic changes? Why are no journalists "embedded" with the civil society groups that planned it? Why are there so few books about non-violent change? Why don't we see TV documentaries about these dramatic turning points? Where are the films on non-violence - compared with all the war films and the entertainment violence? And why do wars and battles fill history books?