Letters to the Editor

Nurturing terrorists

As a pediatrician, allow me to object to Claude Salhani’s use of statistics to imply that both Israelis and Palestinians are equally guilty of injuring children in this conflict (“Let the children live,” Commentary, Thursday).

Though video evidence of children strapped to explosive devices have only recently become widely viewed, the Palestinians have been producing videos glorifying terrorism, naming streets for terrorists and otherwise encouraging children to engage in terror for three years. Mr. Salhani’s report of 255 Palestinian children under 15 killed in this conflict is also misleading. There is no evidence that Israel intended to kill anyone except combatants.

If the Palestinians are willing to use children as suicide bombers, is it unreasonable to think they are also used as combatants or to provide cover for combatants?

DR. JONATHAN D. REICH

Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics

Assistant professor

University of Florida School of Medicine

Lakeland, Fla.

The cause is Israel, the effect is Hamas

Rima Mutreja’s letter to the editor (“The cause is Israel, the effect is Hamas,” Tuesday) chastises an editorial (“Gaza’s Capone,” March 25) as not showing an understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I urge Miss Mutreja to read history, as well. Hamas did not evolve, as she contends, as an organization resisting Israeli “occupation.” It evolved as a counter to the secular Marxist influence of Yasser Arafat and Fatah. Miss Mutreja forgets the election for Palestinian autonomy that was held under Israeli auspices in the early 1970s, when real moderates were elected and there was such hope for a cooperative society. Fatah, following the example of the grand mufti of Jerusalem in the 1930s, started a campaign of assassination and intimidation, which resulted in the collapse of this noble initiative.

Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, tried to counter the strong-arm tactics of Fatah, which was viewed as a threat to Islam, just as the Brotherhood was fighting against the secular socialism advocated by the Nasserites and Anwar Sadat in Egypt.

Two events helped radicalize Hamas. The Iranian revolution began to export its version of Islamism (along with money and arms), gaining adherents in Gaza and southern Lebanon with Hezbollah. And the Oslo accords introduced Mr. Arafat to the scene, who entered Gaza, the seat of Hamas, blazing guns and flying Fatah’s flag.

Before Mr. Arafat launched his intifada against Israel and his own people, the economy of the Palestinian Arab territories was one of the fastest-growing in the world. After the intifada and the rule of the Palestinian Authority, the economy collapsed. Hamas capitalized on the instability and “gangocracy” that evolved under the Palestinian Authority to assert its position in a more forceful manner among its adherents by attacking Israelis and collecting vast amounts of sums from Arabs living in the West.

Jews, Christians and Muslims have suffered from Hamas, including the many thousands of Arabs caught in the vice between the Islamofascism of Hamas and the Marxist gangsterism of Fatah. This is the real cause of Palestinian suffering — not Israel.

WILLIAM S. BARKER

Arlington

’Rev.’ John Kerry

Tony Blankley took the words right out of my mouth (“Getting sick, tired of Kerry,” Op-Ed, Wednesday). I would add former Kansas Gov. Alf Landon to Mr. Blankley’s list of “side-splitting” presidential candidates — Thomas Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.

I have noted shades of the Rev. Al Sharpton in Sen. John Kerry’s campaign stops. Apparently remembering the positive audience reaction to Mr. Sharpton’s quips during the Democratic caucuses, Mr. Kerry is now using such zingers as “If the gas prices keep rising at the rate they are now, Dick Cheney and George Bush are going to have to car pool to work” and “If Condoleezza Rice can find time to do ’60 Minutes’ on television before the American people, she ought to find 60 minutes to speak to the commission under oath.”

Sorry, Mr. Kerry. Paraphrasing James Carville’s slogan relating to the economy: It’s the delivery, stupid.

WILLIAM SMITH

Lakewood, Colo.

The secret to talk-radio success

Conservative radio has been successful because people are looking for alternatives to the liberal bias that is so pervasive on network television (“Liberal talk-radio network set for debut,” Nation, Tuesday).

It is quite amusing that the left complains about the so-called right-wing rhetoric that comes out of the Fox News Channel just because there are some conservative commentators on that network. Unlike ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and the BBC, Fox News actually has two sides debating the issues. It also reports the stories that the mainstream media outlets neglect, such as some of the good things that are happening in Iraq and our economy. Perhaps this is because good news on the war on terror and our economy is bad news for Democrats.

Liberals had a monopoly on all of the media outlets until Rush Limbaugh came onto the scene 16 years ago. In addition, radio talk-show hosts such as Mr. Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are quite entertaining and don’t just spew vitriolic rhetoric, as left-wing kooks such as Al Franken and Michael Moore tend to do. Besides, I thought there already was a liberal radio network funded by our tax dollars. What do you call National Public Radio?

DANIEL HAYES

Setauket, N.Y.

A squeaky clean public-charity world

“Political expression is as indispensable as it is forever necessary and appropriate” (“Politics and charities,” Editorial, Tuesday). I could not agree more. To suggest that 501(c)(3) organizations should be foreclosed from debating their issues in an election year underscores partisan contradiction.

The allegation that “soft money contributions” to public charities support the election of particular candidates or parties is pure fiction.

Let’s be clear — 501(c)(3) public charities can engage in legitimate advocacy activity in the form of legislative advocacy and voter education.

For example, the law allows public charities to criticize the Medicare bill, just as it allows them to encourage voters who are underrepresented at the polls to register and vote. Public charities are permitted to encourage people to exercise their right to vote as long as they don’t tell them how to vote.

The IRS has a severe penalty already in place for any public charity that supports or opposes a candidate for office — namely the revocation of its tax-exempt status. This consequence keeps the public-charity world clean, and, barring any evidence to the contrary, this threat works. So let nonprofits get back to work advocating on behalf of millions of Americans on today’s most critical issues.

NAN ARON

President

Alliance for Justice

Washington