Jimmy, Kofi: Any suggestions?
Intended or not, two items Friday meshed perfectly: “Jimmy’s party” (Op-Ed) and “Kofi’s cover up” (Editorial). Together they illustrate how it would have been impossible for anyone — President Bush or candidate Sen. John Kerry — ever to get a better coalition, much less get the United Nations involved.
Not only was France (one of the most opposed to action) benefiting from keeping Saddam Hussein in power, but so was the top level of the United Nations.
So the question arises: Knowing what we do about this (and learning more as time goes by), just how do people such as Jimmy Carter and Mr. Kerry think they could have done better? There are only two possible answers: Either they are totally and dangerously deluded and should be discredited and ignored, or they know better but are using a trumped-up charge to buy points for their own benefit.
In either case, no one like them should ever be handed the reins of power or given any credibility by the public.
Too bad the major media outlets will never inform the public of any of this.
The people involved at the United Nations and in France (and elsewhere) will be covered, and there will be no need to explain ousters. The fix is in.
Enough ‘incompetence’ to go around
“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, criticized what she said was the president’s ‘incompetence’ in leading the nation to war.” (“House votes to delay base closings until ‘07,” Nation, Friday).
Mrs. Pelosi should take a closer look at her own choice of candidate before she casts stones at our president. Sen. John Kerry changes his mind more often than most of us change our socks. In between, he is naked and vulnerable, but that does not stop him because he is arrogant enough to believe he will be chosen in November.
It is frightening to consider what would happen if he became emperor (oops, president).
Unfortunately, all of the so-called Bush haters cannot or will not see that Mr. Kerry’s chameleon maneuvering defines what he really stands for: nothing.
MARY ANN SWEENEY
Israel’s Gaza presence
A Washington Times editorial stated that despite the results of the democratically held referendum in Israel on May 2 that rejected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to evict Jewish communities from their homes in Gaza, it still would be a good idea to push ahead with the plan because Gaza was not a significant area pertaining to Israel’s security (“Sharon’s challenge” May 5).
In fact, news reports have stated that President Bush plans on supporting Mr. Sharon in going ahead with the plan despite the vote.
It is interesting that President Bush, who invaded Iraq to bring democracy to the masses, suddenly is ignoring the results of a democratically held election in the Middle East. Something is wrong with this picture.
With all due respect, in the summer of 1967, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a report that concluded that Israel needed to retain substantial portions of the Golan Heights, Judea-Samaria, and all of Gaza. With regard to Gaza, the Joint Chiefs wrote the following: “By occupying the Gaza Strip, Israel would trade approximately 45 miles of hostile border for eight. Configured as it is, the strip serves as a salient for introduction of Arab subversion and terrorism, and its retention would be to Israel’s military advantage.” Other facts that you and the public probably are unaware of include the following:
1. Throughout history, foreign armies have used Gaza as a springboard for invading the land of Israel, from Pharaoh Sethos I in the 13th century B.C. to Napoleon in 1799 to Egypt in 1948.
2. Gaza has been part of the land of Israel since biblical times.
3. Throughout the centuries, there was a large Jewish presence in Gaza; in fact, it was the largest Jewish community in Israel at the time of the Muslim invasion in the seventh century.
4. The Jews of Gaza were forced to leave the area when Napoleon’s army marched through in 1799, but they later returned. The Jewish community in Gaza was destroyed during the British bombardment in 1917, but later it was rebuilt. When Palestinian Arabs threatened to slaughter the Jews of Gaza during the 1929 pogroms, the British ruling authorities forced the Jews to leave. In 1946, the Jews returned, establishing the town of Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip, which lasted until 1948, when Egypt occupied the area.
5. Since the start of the Oslo peace process, Israel already has given back 90 percent of Gaza to the Arabs and 42 percent of Judea and Samaria in the “land for peace” deal. In return, Palestinian Arab terrorists have carried out numerous terrorist attacks against Israel, murdering more than 1,600 Israelis and maiming many more. These terrorists are demanding that these peaceful, hardworking Jewish residents of Gaza be expelled from their homes and towns because they’re Jews. For Israel to withdraw from Gaza and expel the Jewish residents would be immoral, as well as rewarding the terrorists.
6. Finally, establishing a state in Gaza would not satisfy the Palestinian Arabs’ goals. The aim of a Palestinian Arab state would not be to live in peace next to Israel, but to serve as a springboard for terrorism and invasions aimed at annihilating the Jewish state. The last thing Mr. Bush, Mr. Sharon and peace-seeking nations of the world need is yet another totalitarian, anti-American terrorist state. If Mr. Bush goes ahead and ignores the results of last week’s democratically held elections in Israel and pressures Mr. Sharon to expel the Jews from their homes in Gaza, it will be a reward for terror and will undermine everything Mr. Bush has done thus far in his supposed war against terrorists.
The answers to Arnold Beichman’s re-asking of Lord Patrick Devlin’s three questions from his book “The Enforcement of Morals” should be obvious to any first-year political science student (“Values devaluation,” Commentary, Thursday).
To answer the first two questions, “Has society the right … to legislate moral behavior?” If yes, “Has it also the right to use the coercion of law to enforce it?” Society has no rights; only individuals possess rights. Society is a majority of individuals acting through the instruments of government. This is not a right — it is power. Governments can legislate using only the coercion of law. Therefore, the legislation of morality is by definition an act of coercion of the minority by the majority.
Now comes the third question: “[W]ith what principles should it employ the weapon of law?” Our Founding Fathers were quite clear on the principles involved in the majority coercing the minority: It was to be avoided by constitutionally guaranteeing the rights of individuals. Society can only legislate morality by stripping individual members of society of their constitutional rights. This should be recognized easily by all as tyranny.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not redefine marriage. It stopped the tyranny of the majority. This is exactly what the judicial branch of government was designed to do by our Founding Fathers. Our government was never designed to legislate individual behavior. The likes of Mr. Beichman and Mr. Devlin should stop trying.