Wednesday, August 20, 2014 Av 24, 5774

Letters Week of Sept. 16, 2010

September 16, 2010
Posted In 
Comment0
Was It Prejudice or Truth in Review of 'Lebanon'?

In his piece titled "On the Lebanon Front: Firing Up Controversial Memories" (Sept. 9), Michael Elkin went far past a mere historical error or simple personal opinion/prejudice, when he declared that the Israeli military knew full well what horrors their Arab Lebanese Maronite allies were committing in the Sabra-Shatilla refugee camps 18 years ago.

To add insult to that injury, Mr. Elkin went further to tell us that the Israelis actually "watched" the murder, mayhem and other atrocities.

This is what the Arab propagandists wanted the world to think, but detailed, proper and professional boards of inquiry showed this to be all total lies, written by, and for, the Arab hate-filled propaganda mill.

Dr. H. Zigerman
Philadelphia

The Opposition to Mosque Has a Number of Layers

The Aug. 26 issue printed two articles on the editorial/ opinion page that presented different views of the cause for opposition to building a mosque near the site of the twin towers.

As a psychologist, I tried to understand my opposition to the plan, since freedom of religion was a nonfactor and the opposition came from such a diverse population. It was far too easy to describe the opposition as part of the Tea Party cause and have the matter closed.

I felt my resistance arose from Islamic behavior in the past, which is linked to the Cordoba Mosque name. The practice followed by Muslims in their history was to build a mosque in a land they conquered to celebrate their victory over nonbelievers.

The Cordoba Mosque built after the conquest of Spain is such an example. Any American who knows of this practice would be against the construction of a mosque near the site of the mass destruction of Americans.

The United States wants to permit religious practices to be free, but that does not mean we must allow individuals to establish a monument to their conquest of nonbelievers.

Synagogues and churches have not been allowed to be built on certain sites because of a presumed increase in traffic on weekends and holidays. Where was the outcry over religious freedom in these situations? Is there a double standard at work here?

Julius Romanoff
Newtown

How to Get the Message to Iranian 'Man on Street'

The cover story on the question of a possible Israeli strike against Iran ("Article Fuels Speculation of an Israeli Strike Against Iran," Aug. 19) dealt with the politics involved and with the relative costs.

It pointed out that Iran's nuclear capability was where we were 60 years ago, and concluded that in the event of a nuclear showdown within the next decade Israel would be able to survive and rebuild. Iran would not.

The article made two other points. First, the ruling Iranians (government, scientists and such) are well aware of this and unlikely to start a nuclear war. Second, the average Iranian apparently doesn't know these facts.

We know that many Iranians already feel that their government is illegal. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to posture and wave vague nuclear threats about. How would the ruling mullahs feel if the population was distraught over the direction their government (questionably elected as it was) was taking them? Stealing an election is one thing. Getting me bombed to "kingdom come" is quite something else.

Is it wise to assist the "Iranian man in the street" to become more knowledgeable as to the dangers of the course on which Mr. Ahmadinejad is taking him? And if it is wise, then how does one do it?

David Perelman
Lafayette Hill

Comments on this Article

Advertisement