Taking Sides on Terrorism

Avi Davis (“A Sharon-Peres Pas de Deux,” Commentary, Oct. 9) suggests that Yasser Arafat holds the baton orchestrating the role of the Israeli unity government, and his failure to control terrorism will ensure the existence of a united front against him.

Return of occupied Palestinian lands confiscated since 1967, the elimination of military force oppressing the Palestinians and full cooperation in forming an independent Palestinian state would be a far better role for the Israeli unity government to play, and it appears that Shimon Peres, not Ariel Sharon, is the better man to hold the baton.

The U.S. can assist in these ends by invoking the U.S. law that bars military aid to countries that use American arms for purposes other than self-defense and eliminating the $3.5 billion in support we provide each year.

Jay McGarrigle

Huntington Beach

*

Re “Call a Terrorist a Terrorist,” Commentary, Oct. 7: Todd Stern tries to define the word “terrorist” by drawing a parallel between American and Israeli victims of attacks. This is the problem with our foreign policy--the value we place on lives is not equal throughout the world; but this extends well beyond Israeli victims.

Stern argues that terrorism strictly means violence against noncombatants. I would commend that position if only he had honestly stuck with it and also applied it to the despicable actions of longtime allies.

To his credit he briefly mentions that terrorism is also the work of Israeli extremists like Baruch Goldstein, who murdered Palestinian Muslims as they prayed, but he says nothing of the many acts of the Israeli Defense Forces, which have deliberately killed more innocent Palestinians than settler extremists have.

The fact remains that far more Palestinians, including many children, have been the victims of acts of terror by Israel itself than Israelis by terrorist groups. To ignore this and suggest we should not ally ourselves with the Palestinian Authority while we continue to support Israel is to only increase the number of victims on all sides, including our own.

It is often said that violence begets violence. Perhaps a more appropriate slogan for our time is that acts of terror breed future terrorists.

Without openly addressing the root causes of terror in the world and adjusting our policy based on them, we will never contain the new cancer of the world, let alone destroy it.

Alia Hasan

Vacaville, Calif.

*

The legal U.S. definition of terrorism that Stern provided was most appreciated: “The term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets.” The confiscation of land, nighttime forced evictions and the bulldozing of homes fit within this definition of terrorism. Thus, the Israeli military occupation of Palestine is terrorism, state terrorism.

I regret that young Palestinians, despairing of living the good life that they see Israelis live in the houses built on what is Palestinian land, decide to blow themselves and Israelis up. I condemn the cause of their anger, the occupation.

Thus, to avoid linguistic appeasement, President Bush’s vision of a Palestinian state that recognizes Israel’s right to exist must be formed. That would end the terrorism of Israel’s military occupation and the source of motivation for most of the terrorism against Israel.

Arch Miller

Arcadia

*

Re President Bush and the need for a Palestinian state: I agree with Bush--to an extent.

Israeli Arabs (formerly Palestinians) do need a state. However, they already have one. Its name is Israel, and it has been the United Nations-recognized and sanctified name of that tiny piece of land, less than the size of New Jersey, for over a half-century.

If, indeed, it is the predominant governorship by Jews that disturbs some Israeli Arabs, perhaps their brother Arab nations might want to take them in (and govern them with equal rights, of course)--at long last--Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al.

Beverly Simons-Morse

Manhattan Beach