|
Pulse of the Twin Cities Login |
|
If you do not have an account yet
Create One.
|
|
|
Twin Town High (vol. 8) |
|
|
|
|
Letters to the Editor and a Correction
Wednesday 02 October @ 09:42:04 |
 Re: Alan Kvasnik-Pulse 9.25.02
Correction - Re: a quote in last week's issue
Re: Alan Kvasnik-Pulse 9.25.02
Alan Kvasnik and Stanley Berg appear to be reading from the same playbook. After I identified numerous instances of the Palestinian leadership’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist and its expressed desire for a negotiated settlement, Mr. Kvasnik retorted that I have “fallen victim to the Palestinian propaganda machine” and that “the P.L.O.’s willingness to accept peace is murky at best.” Apparently we disagree on the meaning of “murky.” When leaders of the Palestinian movement repeatedly indicate a willingness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel on terms consistent with the international consensus—a record I cited in considerable detail [Pulse of the Twin Cities, September 18, 2002, pp. 4-5]—that seems to me like a clear, not “murky,” sign of P.L.O. accommodationism.
According to Mr. Kvasnik, “To truly understand the P.L.O.’s attitude towards peace with Israel, one must consider what is said in Arabic, when the Western ear is turned the other way.” What is most interesting about this allegation is not its substance—it is a dubious charge often leveled by apologists of the Israeli occupation—but that Mr. Kvasnik, like Mr. Berg before him, failed to identify even a single instance in which the mainstream Palestinian leadership has contradicted itself in Arabic, English, French, or any other language.
Mr. Kvasnik’s comments about the P.L.O. Charter are meritless. Citing the document as evidence of P.L.O. rejectionism is like citing the U.S. Declaration of Independence as evidence that women and non-whites in this country lack the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Political documents are products of their time, and their clauses are often superceded by subsequent developments.
Mr. Kvasnik closes his letter by dismissing actions “made on the U.N. stage” as “meaningless overtures.” He is of course entitled to his opinion, but the relevance of his statement is unclear to me. Of the approximately half a dozen offers for a negotiated settlement that I cited last week, only one involved the United Nations.
Scott Laderman
Correction
Two writers wrote last week to criticize me for not attributing the quotation at the end of the feature article last week: “Just last week a member of Congress was asked by the press, “What about the opposition of our European allies?” “That's fine,” he said, “Keep it up and they won't get any of the oil.”” Actually, the quotation was from James Woolsey, former CIA Director and Navy Admiral, during House Foreign Affairs Committee hearings on Iraq. He was asked by a member of Congress about the reaction of France and Russia, and he said if they didn't go along with this, then their companies could forget about their contracts for Iraqi oil. The hearing was two weeks ago last Monday, as I recall, and it was broadcast live on public radio.
Sorry to have mangled the original. Thanks for the opportunity to restate and set it straight.
Ed Felien
|
|
 |
|
|
Comments -
Post Comment |
|
The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content.
NO comments yet! Be the first!
|
|
|
