Article was informative

Letters

Editor: I wish to commend the Economist for its very thoughtful, factual, informative and fairly balanced article "Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double Standards," published on Oct. 10. It clearly explains the difference between binding and non-binding UN resolutions, and points out that Iraq is clearly out of compliance with binding UN resolutions, whereas Israel is not. It further explains that UN resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the land gained in the 1967 war and, in fact, that the resolution drafters envisioned that through negotiations Israel would likely keep some of the land.

Why does the UN not discuss Arab aggression against Israel? Why do they not mention about the 6,000 Israelis who perished at the hands of five invading Arab armies? Palestinians were not the only victims in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Why is there deafening silence on the Arab world's role in creating and perpetuating the plight of the Palestinian refugees in refugee camps for the past several decades?

The surrounding dictatorial and corrupt Arab states have used the Palestinians as political pawns, with their ultimate goal to destroy Israel. It is about time they take responsibility for contributing to the Palestinian misery.

Until radical Arab nationalists and Islamists realize that the route of killing innocent people leads only to dead ends, Israelis are forced to take self-defensive measures to protect its citizens from deadly hostile neighbors. Israel is prepared to coexist with its neighbors. Sadly, the Palestinians and most Arab states want to exist without Israel.

Kudos to the Economist for educating the public about important issues on this subject that has been neglected by most others in the media. Again the Economist should be commended for explaining the conflict in a fair and factually balanced manner.

Josh Basson
Seattle, Wash.

This letter was originally sent to the Economist and is reprinted with permission.

^TOP