Attacks on Civilians Are Terrorism, Perfidy

Re “3 Killed by Palestinian Gunman Wearing Israeli Army Uniform,” Oct. 5: There are definitions of the word “perfidy.” It used to describe acts of war so heinous that they exceeded all the boundaries of human decency. The commission of such acts even in times of war is generally considered a crime. One example is an attack on an enemy while under the white flag of a temporary cease-fire. Another is the deliberate disguising of a soldier to look like an enemy soldier in order to slaughter as many enemy civilians as possible.

Both of those acts occurred in Afula, Israel, under Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s white flag, a cease-fire to which he agreed. Arafat’s own Fatah organization proudly took the credit. It is time to accept the realization that some political leaders will never compromise a single demand when negotiating with their opposites in a conflict. One such person is Osama bin Laden. Another is Arafat.

It is time to note that Arafat, as a substitute for compromise, resorts to violence against innocent civilians as his language of negotiation. Such a person is not a “partner for peace.” Arafat is quite simply a terrorist with nonnegotiable demands that, in effect, require the dismantling of Israel. It is his need, yet something to which he has no rights whatsoever. It is painful to think that there are such people as this, but after Sept. 11 we are all wiser. The sooner we recognize that Bin Laden and Arafat routinely sacrifice the lives of their followers to kill civilians, the sooner we can deal appropriately with the reality.

Gary Dalin

Venice

*

Letter writers on Oct. 5 continue the familiar theme that Arafat and the idea of an independent Palestinian state are evil. The writers might do well to recall how the Israelis canonized Stern Gang membership in 1947-48 and the United Nations Charter that founded their state. They would do even better to recall that, since 1967, Israeli Jews have felt justified in confiscating land from Arabs wherever they pleased. Later, of course, Ariel Sharon permitted the famous Lebanon massacre of 1,800 Palestinians.

Letters such as these, while claiming to argue for peace in the Middle East, merely perpetuate one of the root causes, that is, Zionist imperialism. Another root cause is perhaps the very shortsighted U.S. foreign policy and Western appetite for oil at the lowest possible price? Another, Muslim tolerance for terrorism in the name of Islam? The truth is that one man’s terrorism is another man’s struggle for freedom.

Personally, I am very worried by Israel’s efforts today, especially by Sharon, to exploit the Sept. 11 outrage in order to strengthen its territorial hold on Palestine.

Mike Strong

Corona del Mar

*

If Israeli Prime Minister Sharon feels that Israel can only count on Israel and that the U.S. is unacceptable, then it is time that Israel cease taking the $3.5 billion in support the U.S. provides each year.

Edward Saade

Poway

*

Re “Bush’s ‘Vision’ of a Palestinian State Is Meddlesome,” Commentary, Oct. 3: Robert Satloff’s term “meddlesome,” referring to President Bush’s vision of a Palestine state, is so inconsistent. Didn’t the United States and Great Britain “meddle” to help create the state of Israel in 1948? Why was it OK then and not now? Let us be impartial and meddle to correct wrongs that we have created. The world would be a much better place to live in.

Olga Hayek

North Hollywood

*

Re “One Country’s Terrorists Are Another’s Liberators,” Oct. 4: If Hezbollah is the liberator of Lebanon, then your follow-up article should be about the Ku Klux Klan’s patriotic missions in the South. No matter how you look at them, the Hezbollah bombings against Argentines and Israeli nationals in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 were acts of terrorism, not liberation.

Marina Elena de las Carreras

Northridge