Letters

Readers weigh in Gary Kamiya's "A Tale of Two Miseries," Catholics' view of the presidential election, and Sen. Zell Miller's recent attack on Bush's critics.

Apr 1, 2004 | [Read "A Tale of Two Miseries," by Gary Kamiya.]

This is the first letter I have ever written to an online publication, but Gary Kamiya's "A Tale of Two Miseries" is just too fine a piece of writing to go unheralded. Like Adam Smith, who famously coined the expression, I am a citizen of the world, neither Jew nor Arab yet sympathetic to both.

Kamiya captures the tragedy of the Israeli-Arab conflict in the most balanced piece of journalism I've read on the subject in a long time. It brought a tear to my eye, made me angry, and caused me to reexamine my faith. Not bad for one short story based on an international horror show that has been unfolding for as long as I've been alive.

Kamiya offers a commonsense solution to the problem, which, he correctly points out, affects us all. His optimism is gratifying and necessary, a refreshing tonic to the usual pessimism. But with the current players on the world political stage, I fear his message of hope will go unheeded.

-- Valerie Gregory

I hear pro-Palestinian activists complain about the road blocks. I couldn't care less.

I hear pro-Palestinian activists complain about settlements, i.e. a Jew building a house somewhere they don't like. I couldn't care less.

I hear them complain about Muslim humiliation. And I couldn't care less.

Especially when these trivialities are used to justify war and murder. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

Gary Kamiya is a fool if he thinks the Palestinians made it "clear" that all they want is the West Bank and Gaza. Maybe some do, but Arafat clearly does not, and if he wants to pretend that Barak's offer in 2000 didn't happen, then he can keep pretending. But it did.

He's a creep if he wails about the Palestinians in 1948 who were "wronged" by the founding of Israel. A nation is founded by refugees from the great mass murder of the Holocaust, and this is an injustice? I continually hear the pro-Arabs claim that the Holocaust wasn't "their fault" (in spite of the fact that they sided with the Nazis.) So why should they "suffer" the "indignity" of living near Jews who rule themselves?

-- Benjamin Epstein

Gary Kamiya's article was a welcome profile of that calamity known as the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Particularly refreshing to me was that, in his previous articles on the region, I had the feeling that Kamiya had no sense of the genuine brutality Israelis face. The occupation is corrosive and cruel. It never was pretty. But it has become increasingly cruel for a reason.

Israelis are facing forces that aren't just desperate but nihilistic as well as narcissistic. Something sadly endemic to an era where nationalism, modernization, and religious faith all seem to have congealed to go amok. And this particular firepot of geography has for years been fueled by an ideology that goes beyond the immediate situation. Too often I see leftists do to the Israelis what the right did to the Palestinians for years: simplify their pain by dismissing it with ludicrous and ignorant, easy answers. Translated, they basically came down to "Just be nice and nobody will hurt you." Having spent time there in the late 1970s, I always felt that what was most tragic was you had two enormously creative groups of people, fueled by their past but also outside actors (cheerleading foreigners left and right) leading them to deny the other's existence.

There are no easy answers. Kamiya does an amazing job of capturing the psychosis and pain. If nothing else, that's a start. He showed a lot of courage for going to be witness and returning with his lucid report. For that he deserves a lot of credit.

-- Jonathan Field

Sure, life is tough for the Palestinians. Think about some of the following:

1. In 1948 the U.N. passed a partition law quite unfavorable to the Yishuv (the Jewish population of Palestine). The Jews accepted it; the Arabs didn't. Had they accepted the partition, Jerusalem would have been an international city, and there would have been an Arab Palestine. Instead, the Arabs rejected the partition, thinking they could invade and sweep the Jews into the sea. They lost. This created the first wave of Palestinian refugees. In the 1940s there were lots of people uprooted. Does anyone now agitate for the legitimate right of the Sudeten Germans? As many Jews left Arab countries with only the shirts on their backs as Arabs left Israel. They were absorbed into the new country. But the Arabs failed to absorb their refugees, leaving them to fester in squalid camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Gaza.

2. The Arab countries swore to obliterate Israel and continued to swear it until 1967, at which point they threatened war. (Nasser ordered the U.N. peacekeepers out and closed the Gulf of Akaba to Israeli shipping: an act of war.) They lost again. When the refugees lived in Jordan, there was no talk about giving the West Bank to the Palestinian Arabs. Now that they live in Israeli-occupied territory they talk about Arab Palestine.

3. Barak offered to give back 93 percent of the occupied territories. Arafat turned him down flat.

4. Sheik Yassin, the spiritual leader, had as his goal the obliteration of Israel, not a return to the 1967 borders. If you substitute America for Israel, and bin Laden for Yassin, you get identical statements. Would anyone wring his hands over the assassination of someone who has sworn to destroy the United States? Why should Israel not be able to deal with Yassin the way the U.S. wants to deal with bin Laden?

5. Emmanuel Kant spent his entire life in Koenigsberg, a city now in Russia, named Kaliningrad. Countries do lose territories when they lose wars. If Jordan had not invaded Israel in 1967, they would own the West Bank still. Nonetheless Israel is willing to evacuate most of the territories (except for a few places around Jerusalem) if they could get peace. But no Arab leader has, in the Arab press, stated that Israel should exist.

6. The Palestinians do have a choice: They can abandon their terrorist tactics, truly come to the peace table, admit that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, allow Jews who want to live in Jewish holy places in the West Bank to do so in peace and safety under a Palestinian government. Or they can continue their present course until the last Palestinian Arab is dead.

-- Michael Goldberg

Thank you so very much for writing something sane about the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I lived in Jerusalem last year for 12 months, and I still cannot watch American TV news on the subject -- it's all too flip, too stupid, too bent on selling soap-flakes to talk about the real suffering on both sides of the tragedy.

You touched on something that informs the Israeli side in profound ways: the spectre of the Holocaust. Keep in mind that many of the people who lose their children on a blown-up bus are children themselves of families that were decimated by the Holocaust and its aftermath. For all the (tattered) trappings of middle-class life, this is a country which has been at war for its entire existence, which came into full statehood in the shadow of genocide. Hamas still has as its stated reason for existence the obliteration of the State of Israel. Take that context, then try to decide what day to go to the grocery store. Forget cafes: just figure out how to get to work, and how to get milk for your kids.

I appreciate that Mr. Kamiya remembered that his was a tourist's-eye view of life on both sides. Mine is only a student's-eye view -- I expected to be going home at the end of a year, and courtesy of my U.S. passport, I could go home anytime. Neither of us really knows what it is like to call either side of the fence our home.

-- Ruth Adar

Amid all the hate-filled rhetoric on both sides, Gary Kamiya's article distilled the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a compact series of truths: Both sides are suffering past the point of human toleration; both sides have leaders that are incapable of making peace; and the United States is the only entity capable of doing so, provided that our government look past its own myopia and greedy self-interest.

Americans should insist that the Bush administration take the following steps to get the peace process back on track:

1. Ensure that both Arafat and Sharon leave their respective positions and are replaced by persons each side can trust.

2. Pledge support for an Arab Palestine, with borders based on the 1948 U.N. partition plan. Israeli settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza would be abandoned but not destroyed, so they could be useful homes for displaced Palestinians. Jerusalem would be a shared city, containing the seat of both governments.

3. Pledge massive reconstruction and investment and development aid for Palestine.

4. Call for a U.N. peacekeeping force that would concentrate on disarming both Hamas and their followers and right-wing Israelis.

-- Ira Lacher

Next Page: "A warrior is not someone who sends other people's children off to die for a pack of lies"

• View blog reactions