Israeli Soldiers in Action
I was very interested to read your article “A Shark Hunt in the Night” (World Affairs, July 15) but, with regard to your description of Israeli soldiers in action, I felt that you were trying to portray these men as heroes of the war on terror. That they certainly are not. I think your report would have been far more balanced and much nearer to the truth if you had shown these same soldiers uprooting olive trees, destroying civilian infrastructure; showing them also terrifying and humiliating the Palestinian population for years and years and years, showing them suppressing the Palestinian revolt in a bloodbath. I believe the heroes in Israel are those brave soldiers who refuse to fight in the occupied territories. They are despised and insulted by their fellow citizens, they are even imprisoned, but they are the honor of their country. I salute their courage. Michel Hartinger St-Jean-de-Marienne, France
I have just finished reading your article “A Shark Hunt in the Night” and I found it to be excellent. You reported the range of opinions that exist in Israel, even among its most highly trained soldiers. There was only one thing missing. You were given free access to these soldiers; you even accompanied them on military maneuvers. You reported their diverse opinions even when they criticized their government. Would the same have been true if you had been trying to report from the other side? Are people allowed to freely criticize the Palestinian Authority without fear of reprisal? Can print and media reporters live and broadcast freely from the other side as they do from Israel? The government in Israel is democratic and the press is free. I think you should have worked that into your story. Judith Chwalow Paris, France
In your ongoing coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the sole reliance on the Israeli Army as a source of information betrays NEWSWEEK’s strong bias. Even the use of the term “war on terror” to describe Israel’s actions is taking Ariel Sharon’s words at face value, ignoring the reality of the situation on the ground. Information from international agencies, such as the Red Cross Society and Human Rights Watch, has provided substantial evidence that Israel is not fighting a war against terrorism, but rather that it has expanded its campaign to strangle every aspect of Palestinian life. Blockages of ambulances and the destruction of civilian infrastructure; attacks on human-rights organizations and nongovernmental organizations, and the excessive use of force by soldiers are all condemnable events that seem to have escaped NEWSWEEK’s eye. While more than 1 million Palestinians live under perpetual 24-hour curfew, losing all sources of income and educational or medical access, it stuns me to find that you choose to focus your reporting on following Israeli soldiers on their missions. When will you send reporters to spend a day with Palestinian families lined up for hours trying to pass checkpoints in the Gaza Strip? Or show how West Bank residents manage to entertain themselves while locked in their homes all day? Benjamin Dov Granby Madison, Wisconsin
It is either two-faced or naive to suggest that in the Middle East, justice is inherently on the side of parliamentary democracy (“Sharansky’s Quiet Role,” World Affairs, July 15). This would mean that the Palestinians have to carry all the blame simply because they’ve never had parliamentary elections. If Israel is democratic, it’s because since its founding, it’s had all the support it could possibly ask from America. But the way its governments usually slip from one crisis into the next hardly makes it an example of a thriving democracy. As for America, it’s in no position to pontificate: barely half its citizens cast their votes in presidential elections and, last time, it took six weeks to decide who won Florida, with a decision taken by a court whose majority favored George W. Bush’s party. Werner Radtke Paderborn, Germany
From the media to the defense department to the judiciary to the Federal Reserve, the upper echelons of America’s power corridors are filled with prominent Jewish leaders. This makes the absence of Muslim counterparts all the more striking. Your article begs the question, how can the United States claim to be a neutral mediator in the Middle East? When private talks in the woods or behind closed doors can lead to significant policy changes, such as Bush’s suddenly dropping the elected Palestinian leader, it makes one wonder who’s running the show. American, Israeli and Arab peoples all desire their leaders to uphold the democratic values of freedom of speech and equality, not to mention transparency and accountability; but can behind-the-scenes coziness, as demonstrated by Perle-Sharansky-Wolfowitz, allow for it? Until Jewish leadership starts behaving more democratically, what’s the point of their calling the Palestinians undemocratic? Rebekah Baeckelmans Shanghai, China
Sharansky believes in democracy for the Middle East? Recently, Dori Gold, an Israeli minister, spoke on the BBC. A reason he gave for not allowing Muslim refugees to return to their homes, in what is now Israel, was that there would no longer be a Jewish majority. Like Israel’s former apartheid friends in South Africa and like Slobodan Milosevic, Israel’s policy seems to be: after we have completed our ethnic cleansing, we’ll introduce democracy. Brian Holland Koblenz, Germany
In Praise of a President
Your July 15 article “Delhi’s Dreamer” (Asia) brings out, in substantial measure, what makes A.P.J. Abdul Kalam so special. But your snide subhead–“Skeptics wonder if he pretends to be someone he is not”–is out of sync with your story. When did Kalam claim or pretend to be anything other than an Indian dedicated to making India strong, self-reliant, united and at peace with itself? Besides, why give India’s reactionary mullahs the right to determine who a “proper Muslim” is by quoting their views? Kalam is, above all, an Indian and a humanist, which is how he’d want to be recognized–and humanism is the greatest of all religions. You remind us that the president of India is the constitutional head of state. True, but it is not essential for him to be a constitutional lawyer. Expert advice is available to him. He does not have to draft the laws he signs. India’s most eminent president, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, was a philosopher, not a lawyer. The president is above political parties and for him to “toe the party line” is not a job requirement. In fact, quite the contrary. Finally, that Kalam, the son of a poor Muslim boat owner, befriended and helped by his father’s friend, a Hindu Brahmin temple priest, has risen to the pinnacle of the Indian establishment through sheer merit is an inspiration to all Indians, but especially to Indian Muslims who are not “largely alienated.” The rapturous public response in India to his nomination is proof of two things: huge relief at the departure from “business as usual” in such selections, and deep admiration for a self-made man who has few material possessions, seeks none and is prepared (even at the end of a successful career) to work for the general good. Shyamala B. Cowsik Wassenaar, Netherlands
It’s surprising to note the words “blind, illiterate, obsequious deification” when referring to A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. Surely, a person who is the recipient of so many national awards and of India’s highest civilian award, the Bharat Ratna, cannot be blindly fawned over by the masses? To deem so is to insult the people of India. And why should his proposition to establish tolerance as the basis of public discourse seem flimsy and uncertain? I think Kalam’s mantra–“Dream, dream and dream, and convert these into thoughts, and later into actions”–is inspirational. Jaideep Lachman Nanwani Barcelona, Spain
Remembering Warhol
Congratulations to Peter Plagens for a very well-written article on Andy Warhol (“What Andy Saw,” Society & the Arts, July 15). As a journalist, I met Andy Warhol just a few days before his untimely death when he had come to Milan for the opening of an exhibition of his huge photographs of Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper.” At that mobbed press conference, I asked the first question: “Mr. Warhol, have you seen the original ‘Last Supper’? Do you think your copies could be considered real art and if so, what was Leonardo doing?” Everyone was stunned by Warhol’s response. “I would never buy my stuff. My cellar is full of works made by old, classic painters. I am a good collector, not an artist. I like to spend my money well.” I will never forget his sparkling eyes as they stared at me through his thick lenses, his lips moving into a small–a very small–smile and that ridiculous wig on his head. For the first time, I thought Andy Warhol was great–not for his works that I think he used to show the stupidity of our times–but as a person. Daniela Cohen Milan, Italy
Peter Plagens’s article is another nail in the coffin of the American press’s credibility–it follows the all-American tendency to see no further than its own navel. Yes, Warhol is the most influential pop artist, possibly even the most influential one of the second half of the 20th century. But to claim any artist other than Marcel Duchamp as the most important to the last 100 years of art is, in my opinion, to betray a shallow and amateur knowledge of the fine arts. All of the most daring, innovative and revolutionary movements of the 1900s (including conceptual art and pop art) benefit more from Duchamp’s work–especially his work with Dada–than from any other’s. Finally, before depicting Warhol as a martyr who “cheerfully allowed his name to be attached to the titles of bad movies” in order to embrace commercialism, how about considering the great deal of opportunism behind his Factory patronage? Examples like the aforementioned films and Warhol’s involvement in the Velvet Underground’s debut album show that not only was he one of the most influential artists of his time, he was also the greatest art opportunist since Salvador Dali. Celso Lazaretti Porto Alegre, Brazil The World’s Best-Loved Sport
I applaud your in-depth reporting on the business side of the 2002 World Cup (“The World Cup Falls Flat,” Business, June 17). But I really missed the thrills inherent in the game itself: the individual players’ prowess, the teams, the collective interest of the qualified countries (excepting only the United States) and the latest scoreboard. Dom Sales Barcelona, Spain
A red card for your World Cup coverage! This was the best football tournament in 20 years, with lots of exciting, fresh talent–including Americans. Why concentrate on something as trivial as tickets? Who cares? Your story just shows the Yanks still don’t know anything about football. Thomas Knemeyer Cape Town, South Africa
It’s a shame that the only reports you filed about the world’s best-loved sport were totally negative: one piece on empty seats, another on “Hooligaphobia” and a third on the madness of those who watch the World Cup. Curiously, too, your pieces were filed in your business section, not under sports. Is this all your reporters see in the World Cup? There are many positive aspects of the sport that you could have mentioned–your own U.S. team miraculously reached the quarterfinals. Were you too busy calculating the empty seats and lost revenues for your business report to notice the momentous events that were taking place on the football pitches? Kenneth Tendo Mdoe Kampala, Uganda
I was disappointed to see your cover story condemning the World Cup as a failure. Yes, there were problems in organizing ticket sales for the matches. But the World Cup is now primarily a televised event. It was a fantastic festival of what the world knows as “football” but the United States quaintly calls “soccer.” There were brilliant skills, tension and shocks. This was, arguably, the best World Cup ever. It is time that NEWSWEEK admitted that the World Cup is simply the greatest sports tournament in the world, even though it is not an American sport. Don’t fight it, embrace it. If you do, maybe in four years the U.S. team will be ready to do even better. Lol Ross London, England
“The World Cup Falls Flat”? No, it did not–it was simply wonderful. It was easily the greatest show on earth, as always. When will America bring anything but its petty jealousies and inferiority complex to the biggest sporting event on the planet? Frank Coughlan Dublin, Ireland
Your “Hooligaphobia” article paints an incomplete picture of English football fans. English and Japanese police virtually eliminated the presence of hooligans, resulting in what has been described as a “love-in” between the English and the Japanese, who see Britain as a sister nation having the same island mentality. You might have mentioned the legions of face-painted Japanese supporters of England, schoolgirls on the street posing for photos alongside their “hooligans” and the pop-star cultlike status of England’s captain, David Beckham, as he signed endless autographs and caused sensations talking in Japanese schools. Kerry Marshall Brighton, England
I see nothing but good coming from this World Cup. It’s introduced the game to millions, it has shown that inexperienced but focused and enthusiastic teamwork can beat prima donna superstars, and in a year when nations threaten to destroy each other, the fact that it’s possible to compete without killing someone is a good message to spread. I think the staging was a brilliant tactical move by FIFA to get football into Japan and South Korea. Now America must be brave enough to allow a championship on TV, and it must understand that real football is played without shoulder pads. Michael Smith Singapore
Editor’s note: Soccer (pardon, football) is “the beautiful game,” and we celebrate the sport’s grace and excitement as much as anyone. But when the Japanese prime minister orders an official investigation into the unavailability of tickets, promised World Cup windfalls fail to materialize and local merchants lose out on millions, this is news worth reporting to our readers. We’re glad that it’s yesterday’s news. Now that the competition is over, the lasting memories are South Korea’s great run, Germany’s gutsy determination and Brazil’s stellar victory.
