May 12, 2008

Letters

Arab-Israeli conflict

Dear Editor: Jagjit Singh's April 24 letter to the Daily News is misinformed. The Arab-Israeli conflict proportionately gets more press coverage than other disputes. Why does Mr. Singh relegate Tibet to a lower tier? Why does he fail to mention Kurdistan, Darfur, Chechnya or other groups for example? None of these peoples have had their leaders turn down repeated offers of statehood like the Palestinian leadership did. Perhaps terrorism works.

America's monetary outlay toward Israel is one her best investments in the world, about $2.55 billion annually from Mr. Singh's figures. The U.S. has the formidable Israeli army stationed next to enemy nations, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, proxy and ally of Iran.

Bad investment? Ask Warren Buffet, who made his first high-profile foreign investment in Israel. Compare that to hundreds of billions of dollars and 140,000 U.S. forces so tied up in Iraq that they cannot serve as a deterrent to Iran.

Taxpayer money sent to autocracies like Egypt and perhaps even Jordan is not well-spent unless some steps are taken to have these countries fold in the disputed territories into their borders as they did from 1948 to 1967. The most recent breach of the Gazan border into Egypt should serve as an opening to this reunification.

How can Mr. Singh talk of a Palestinian "holocaust" when the endgame scenario for the Palestinians will be to achieve what they have not been able to by force, the eradication of the Jewish state by the inundation of "refugees?"

Gur Hoshen,

Cupertino





-------------



Dear Editor: Jagjit Singh tries to compare Tibetans to his favorite non-stop melodrama, "the siege and suffering of the Palestinians."

Perhaps Singh is unaware that the Tibetans never did any of the following: wrote a charter vowing death to China and all the Chinese, wherever they reside in the world; waged a campaign of murder, terror, violence and mayhem against the Chinese in support of the previous goal; turned this campaign against fellow Tibetans as part of internecine political strife; trashed valuable Chinese greenhouses rather than use them as part of what could have been a thriving economy; turned down more than a dozen significant opportunities for a sovereign state of their own, preferring instead to destroy China from the Sea of Japan to the Bay of Bengal; anyway, this list goes on and on, but you get the idea.

It would be helpful if Singh could address some of these fundamental issues of Palestinian terrorism and "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity," rather than continue his ongoing kvetching.

Larry Yelowitz,

Sunnyvale