On Iraq, Israel's borders, Quebec, Republican voters, Turkey and turkey
The year's big issue, again
SIR ? The ghosts of Lord Raglan and Sir Douglas Haig must be roaming your corridors late at night, because I detect the spirit of Balaclava and the Somme in your rejection of the Iraq Study Group's report (?Don't do it?, December 9th). In striking contrast to your ?stay the course? position, the cry of sauve qui peut is now resounding through the offices of Republicans hoping to be elected in 2008, and congressional and popular support is eroding in line with the deterioration in our position on the ground in Iraq.
Maybe we should view superpower America as being a pitiful, helpless giant. The technical wizardry of the invasion was awesome, of course, but that is in stark contrast to the occupation, where an undermanned, underequipped army assigned to embody the neocons' nation-building dream has proved itself incapable of handling the job.
The prospect, then, is for some version of ?cut and run?, however well disguised, and however dishonourable. It would not be the first time in American history: Bill Clinton in Somalia, Ronald Reagan in Lebanon, and Gerald Ford in Vietnam come to mind?not to mention the 1876 election compromise that withdrew Union troops from the South, condemning Southern blacks to almost another century of servitude. And for a worst-case scenario, there was Britain's abrupt withdrawal from the Indian subcontinent in 1947, which forced millions to flee their ancestral homes, with roughly 1m dying in the attempt.
William Burke
San Francisco
SIR ? You argue that the announcement of an American withdrawal will weaken our leverage over the internal politics of Iraq. However, the opposite is equally plausible. As long as Iraq's leaders think America will keep its forces in the country indefinitely they will continue to refuse to compromise and turn a blind eye to sectarian violence. Maybe the prospect of American forces being pulled out will concentrate Iraqi minds. But because either option could fail, isn't it sensible for the United States to choose the one that will minimise costs and the loss of American lives?
Richard Greene
Hopewell, New Jersey
Marking the line
SIR ? It is incorrect to refer to the ?Green Line? as ?Israel's internationally recognised border? (?Rowing Rabbis (cont.)?, December 9th). The Green Line represents the ceasefire lines drawn up in 1949 after the Arab-Israeli war, and up until 1967 Israel's Arab neighbours never recognised this as an international border. Following the Six Day War, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242 that called for Israel to withdraw from ?territories occupied in the recent conflict? (note it did not say all territories) in return for a permanent peace agreement and termination of all hostilities. It did not call for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line, nor recognise this as Israel's permanent border.
The language of the resolution was carefully drafted to allow for territorial adjustments as part of any peace negotiations, and this is reflected in the agreements that Israel eventually signed with Egypt and Jordan, the Oslo Accords signed with the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Ehud Barak's proposals to Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000. The recent proposal made by Ehud Olmert to resume negotiations with the Palestinians is also consistent with this principle.
Raphael Lerner
Glencoe, Illinois
Not a nation apart
SIR ? You completely missed the subtle nature of the motion on Quebec passed by Canada's Parliament (?Nation bidding?, December 2nd). It recognised that the Québécois do form a nation within a united Canada, but because Québécois are French-speaking Canadians, tied to French culture and ethnic ancestry from France, the motion refers only to a people with no mention of provincial boundaries. Many Quebeckers are not Québécois. As such, the prime minister, Stephen Harper, has assuaged the pride of the separatists, yet given them no ground to further their ends of separating the province of Quebec from Canada.
Matt Hurst
Ottawa, Canada
SIR ? A few years ago I sat next to a young Quebecker on an aeroplane and she explained to me how she saw herself as living in a distinct society, but one which was not simply French. She had once visited Paris, where she had been treated to haute cuisine at a restaurant of the utmost elegance, causing her to feel part of something very superior to Anglophone Canada. After the meal she slipped down to the ladies' room and there, in a moment of horrified revelation, she had understood that she was also a North American.
Edward Lidderdale
London
Primary state of mind
SIR ? Regarding Lexington's thoughts on whether the Republicans can become a national party again (?A national party no more?? December 2nd). I'm a ?Live Free or Die? New Hampshire gun-owning libertarian fiscal conservative Republican-leaning independent who has voted a straight Democratic ticket for two elections in a row now. That makes me just the sort of voter Lexington had in mind. I have always found the way that the GOP won the South distasteful, but under George Bush the party has finally become an organisation I would be ashamed to support in any way. Karl Rove is not a genius and now his luck is running out. Perhaps the Republicans need to remember their first and greatest president, who proved conclusively that the South, for all its delusions, doesn't amount to much alone. Otherwise, we'll just have to bring back the Whigs.
Bruce Morley
Jaffrey Center, New Hampshire
A bird's tale
SIR ? Naile Berna Kovuk's indignation at Turkey being named after poultry is misplaced (Letters, December 2nd). The bird was actually named after the presumed country of origin, not vice versa. When first encountered, the turkey was confused with guinea-fowl, known then as turkeycocks. They were introduced to Europe from their native Africa via Turkey. The rest is (etymological) history.
Michael Metcalf
New York
SIR ? English merchants in Turkey discovered a most delicious bird to eat and exported it back to England, where it became very popular, and was known as a ?Turkey bird? or simply a turkey. There are odd names for a turkey in other languages as well, where the bird always seems to have come from somewhere else. In Turkey itself it is known as hindi (meaning from India), in Italy tacchino (peacock) or pollo d'India (India again); in Arabic it is called an ?Ethiopian bird?.
Tony Allwright
Killiney, Ireland
SIR ? The Poles call the same species indyk, perhaps after the French name for it, dinde (of the Indies). The Portuguese call it peru. The turkey is a truly global bird and should be used as a fitting symbol for the next round of World Trade Organisation talks.
Konrad Brodzinski
London
SIR ? The ghosts of Lord Raglan and Sir Douglas Haig must be roaming your corridors late at night, because I detect the spirit of Balaclava and the Somme in your rejection of the Iraq Study Group's report (?Don't do it?, December 9th). In striking contrast to your ?stay the course? position, the cry of sauve qui peut is now resounding through the offices of Republicans hoping to be elected in 2008, and congressional and popular support is eroding in line with the deterioration in our position on the ground in Iraq.
Maybe we should view superpower America as being a pitiful, helpless giant. The technical wizardry of the invasion was awesome, of course, but that is in stark contrast to the occupation, where an undermanned, underequipped army assigned to embody the neocons' nation-building dream has proved itself incapable of handling the job.
The prospect, then, is for some version of ?cut and run?, however well disguised, and however dishonourable. It would not be the first time in American history: Bill Clinton in Somalia, Ronald Reagan in Lebanon, and Gerald Ford in Vietnam come to mind?not to mention the 1876 election compromise that withdrew Union troops from the South, condemning Southern blacks to almost another century of servitude. And for a worst-case scenario, there was Britain's abrupt withdrawal from the Indian subcontinent in 1947, which forced millions to flee their ancestral homes, with roughly 1m dying in the attempt.
William Burke
San Francisco
SIR ? You argue that the announcement of an American withdrawal will weaken our leverage over the internal politics of Iraq. However, the opposite is equally plausible. As long as Iraq's leaders think America will keep its forces in the country indefinitely they will continue to refuse to compromise and turn a blind eye to sectarian violence. Maybe the prospect of American forces being pulled out will concentrate Iraqi minds. But because either option could fail, isn't it sensible for the United States to choose the one that will minimise costs and the loss of American lives?
Richard Greene
Hopewell, New Jersey
Marking the line
SIR ? It is incorrect to refer to the ?Green Line? as ?Israel's internationally recognised border? (?Rowing Rabbis (cont.)?, December 9th). The Green Line represents the ceasefire lines drawn up in 1949 after the Arab-Israeli war, and up until 1967 Israel's Arab neighbours never recognised this as an international border. Following the Six Day War, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242 that called for Israel to withdraw from ?territories occupied in the recent conflict? (note it did not say all territories) in return for a permanent peace agreement and termination of all hostilities. It did not call for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line, nor recognise this as Israel's permanent border.
The language of the resolution was carefully drafted to allow for territorial adjustments as part of any peace negotiations, and this is reflected in the agreements that Israel eventually signed with Egypt and Jordan, the Oslo Accords signed with the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Ehud Barak's proposals to Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000. The recent proposal made by Ehud Olmert to resume negotiations with the Palestinians is also consistent with this principle.
Raphael Lerner
Glencoe, Illinois
Not a nation apart
SIR ? You completely missed the subtle nature of the motion on Quebec passed by Canada's Parliament (?Nation bidding?, December 2nd). It recognised that the Québécois do form a nation within a united Canada, but because Québécois are French-speaking Canadians, tied to French culture and ethnic ancestry from France, the motion refers only to a people with no mention of provincial boundaries. Many Quebeckers are not Québécois. As such, the prime minister, Stephen Harper, has assuaged the pride of the separatists, yet given them no ground to further their ends of separating the province of Quebec from Canada.
Matt Hurst
Ottawa, Canada
SIR ? A few years ago I sat next to a young Quebecker on an aeroplane and she explained to me how she saw herself as living in a distinct society, but one which was not simply French. She had once visited Paris, where she had been treated to haute cuisine at a restaurant of the utmost elegance, causing her to feel part of something very superior to Anglophone Canada. After the meal she slipped down to the ladies' room and there, in a moment of horrified revelation, she had understood that she was also a North American.
Edward Lidderdale
London
Primary state of mind
SIR ? Regarding Lexington's thoughts on whether the Republicans can become a national party again (?A national party no more?? December 2nd). I'm a ?Live Free or Die? New Hampshire gun-owning libertarian fiscal conservative Republican-leaning independent who has voted a straight Democratic ticket for two elections in a row now. That makes me just the sort of voter Lexington had in mind. I have always found the way that the GOP won the South distasteful, but under George Bush the party has finally become an organisation I would be ashamed to support in any way. Karl Rove is not a genius and now his luck is running out. Perhaps the Republicans need to remember their first and greatest president, who proved conclusively that the South, for all its delusions, doesn't amount to much alone. Otherwise, we'll just have to bring back the Whigs.
Bruce Morley
Jaffrey Center, New Hampshire
A bird's tale
SIR ? Naile Berna Kovuk's indignation at Turkey being named after poultry is misplaced (Letters, December 2nd). The bird was actually named after the presumed country of origin, not vice versa. When first encountered, the turkey was confused with guinea-fowl, known then as turkeycocks. They were introduced to Europe from their native Africa via Turkey. The rest is (etymological) history.
Michael Metcalf
New York
SIR ? English merchants in Turkey discovered a most delicious bird to eat and exported it back to England, where it became very popular, and was known as a ?Turkey bird? or simply a turkey. There are odd names for a turkey in other languages as well, where the bird always seems to have come from somewhere else. In Turkey itself it is known as hindi (meaning from India), in Italy tacchino (peacock) or pollo d'India (India again); in Arabic it is called an ?Ethiopian bird?.
Tony Allwright
Killiney, Ireland
SIR ? The Poles call the same species indyk, perhaps after the French name for it, dinde (of the Indies). The Portuguese call it peru. The turkey is a truly global bird and should be used as a fitting symbol for the next round of World Trade Organisation talks.
Konrad Brodzinski
London
Clearday-TRForce tarafından gönderildi saat:
9:47 ÖÖ
0 Yorum:
Yorum Gönder
Kaydol: Kayıt Yorumları [Atom]
<< Ana Sayfa