Backtalk, April 26, 2006

Why We Cannot Talk With Hamas

It always amuses me to hear the phrase “the Palestinians don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist.” As if Israel ever seriously considered an independent Palestine as having a right to exist. Allowing the Israelis to divide the historic Palestine between themselves and the Palestinians would be like allowing a person to divide a piece of Swiss cheese between themselves and a rival.

The divider will take that which is cheese and leave that which is holes.

~ Richard Vajs, Franklin, W.V.

Ran HaCohen replies:

Right – this was more or less the point of my previous column (“Hamas and Israel: Rival Twins“).

The Billion-Dollar Baghdad Embassy

Gee, a gigantic, culturally alien mini-city, excluding the locals (except perhaps to work as maids), armed to the teeth, plopped in the middle of someone else’s impoverished desert land, hogging the local water and other resources for its swimming pools and wet bars and air conditioners – kind of sounds like a SETTLEMENT, doesn’t it?

~ Mark Williams

Amid Threats, Some Republicans Seek Talks on Iraq

Mr. Lobe writes:

“Bush’s remarks followed a threat voiced earlier Tuesday by Ahmadinejad during an annual military parade. The Iranian army, he said, ‘will cut off the hands of any aggressors and will make any aggressor regret it.'”

It seems that even’s opposition articles get subsumed by an an overall Christian/Western/American take on the Iran debate.

Bush declares that Iran (the country) is “evil” and an “enemy” in the war on terror. He goes on to say that “all options are on the table” regarding what actions the U.S. might take (presumably at any time he so chooses) against our stated enemy, Iran, up to and including nuking them.

Do you realize you called what Bush said to Iran’s leaders “remarks” and Iran’s professing its completely legal intentions to defend it’s territory and severely punish an aggressor “threats”?

What would a non-threatening Iranian statesman say? Maybe “If our country is bombed we will write respectful but strong letters encouraging the aggressor to cease.” …

~ Jim Stevens

Ritter Gets It Wrong

Aumand and Breyman’s criticism of Ritter is typical of the laissez-faire, nonchalant attitude of the wine-sipping antiwar avatars that would rather lament in perpetual self-pity than adopt different ways that might cause them some measure of inconvenience. May I ask you, Messrs. Aumand and Breyman, what the antiwar movement in its present form has prevented thus far?

The invasion of Iraq?
The continuing of killing of thousands of civilians in that country by our armed forces?
The destruction of one of the world’s oldest archeological sites, Babylon?
The irrevocable loss of civilization’s most ancient artifacts?
The unconstitutional and illegal detention of thousands in concentration camps?
The institutionalization of torture in these concentration camps?
The planned building of 250 new thermonuclear warheads at Sandia and Los Alamos?
A new United States Defense Posture that allows it to use these warheads preemptively and threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear strikes, in direct contravention of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?
The preparations for continuous aggression to control humanity’s natural resources?


Perhaps we should give some consideration to the suggestions of this brave soldier who risked it all to oppose the new Caesar.

~ Stanley Laham

Previous Backtalk