Dear Salon,

Just a few quick comments on the ports controversy. The questions that people are raising about Bush family connections to Dubai are legitimate. Even so, it strikes me that most of the opposition to this deal is, indeed, racially motivated, at least among the general public. The word "Arab" has been demonized by the American right and in the mind of the American public, and now the Democrats seem to be capitalizing on this for political advantage. Let me be clear here: I'm Canadian, I despise the Bush Administration, I'm hardly right-wing. But I also think that the element of ethnic discrimination that is driving the political agenda here is impossible to ignore. The left - or what passes for the left, since the Democratic Party is pretty right wing - in the US is walking a dangerous line here: capitalizing on the racism that it has, supposedly, condemned in the past, or being much more careful in how it questions the ports deal. Either way, the taint of bigotry won't go away.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

I have a very limited amount of sympathy for the Marines in this situation. Obviously, they were in a very difficult spot, and their vicious barbarism was an understandable reaction to their frustration and anger. But, no excuses - these men are war criminals and deserve to be tried as such. That being said, it's a foregone conclusion that they will get off with slaps on their wrists. Lt. Calley was the only American convicted of anything for the My Lai massacre, and I believe (if memory serves) that he ended up serving two years. Americans don't care that much when their troops kill other people. As one of the letter writers indicated, there is every reason to think that American troops have been slaughtering Iraqi civilians as a matter of course for this entire war. Haditha may simply be a "blip". Moreover, has there ever been a war in which the Marines have fought where they have not committed a massacre?

Iraq is a full-fledged insurgency right now. Insurgents blend into the population and use civilians as cover. That's what insurgency is, that is how it works, and that is why it is so effective. Americans have no right to complain when their enemies don't play by American rules. Whatever the motivations of the particular insurgent group, the bottom-line is that US troops are an invading/occupying army and they are, as a result, fair game. They should not be surprised that the population is against them, nor is there any reason to condemn insurgents for wanting to kill Americans. When you invade someone's country and occupy it, you should expect the people, at some point, to begin to resist. The reasons for that resistance may reflect particular ethnic/religious loyalties, but that is beside the point.

Finally, it is the hypocrisy of the Western world that is so much of a problem here. Western countries are very good at coming up with excuses to justify their barbarism. But the fact is that far more innocent people have been killed by American guns and bombs in Iraq than any combination of terrorist acts in the world for the previous century. Let's put this in perspective. If so many Americans can feel self-righteous about attacking other countries after the unprovoked attack of 9-11, why is it surprising that many Iraqis have few qualms about resisting American actions after George Bush's unprovoked attack on their country?

Shaun Narine

The almost (and in some cases, actual) hysterical reaction of some of your readers to Juan Cole's article is unfortunate, though not unexpected. Cole's essential point, I think, is that Israel's reaction to the Palestinian actions is grossly out of proportion to the actual attacks and to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier, which is the central pretense for the current invasion. It is grossly out of proportion even if some Israeli civilians have been killed by Qassam rockets. Killing dozens of Palestinians and forcing suffering on the whole population of Gaza is hardly justifiable as a reasonable response. And Dr. Cole is almost certainly correct in suggesting that Israeli actions are, in part, motivated by a desire to smash any chances of a viable Palestinian state or the creation of a "negotiating partner" that Israel would have to engage. This is very consistent with much of what Israel has done in the past.

The question of Israel's responsibility for the Palestinian situation is most interesting. Anyone looking with any degree of objectivity at the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict would have to very quickly conclude that the heart of the problem lies in the fact that the Zionist movement established Israel on land already occupied by other people. The only way to establish a predominantly Jewish, democratic state, was by displacing the land's original inhabitants. This was, simply put, grossly unjust, and the world has been dealing with the consequences of that injustice ever since. The fact that Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinian people does not justify terrorism today, but it certainly explains the origins of the conflict and the Palestinians' profound sense of grievance. They are correct to feel aggrieved. What was done to them was wrong. The Palestinians are, in a very real sense, the victims of the vicitms of European anti-Jewish hatred. Israel's (and its supporters) refusal to acknowledge this simple truth is, perhaps, understandable - the consequences of such an acknowledgement, in financial, moral and political terms, would be enormous. But a refusal to acknowledge a truth does not make it less true, it only makes it necessary to dig a deeper and deeper hole in which to bury your head as the consequences of the injustice play themselves out.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine