The question your editorial ("Washington fiddles, Lebanon burns," July 15, page 8) failed to address is whether or not you believe Israel does, in fact, have the right to defend itself.
Imagine if the Mumbai bombings had occurred after many years of "militants"operating freely in Pakistan with the government making no effort to reel them in. Imagine if, instead of just testing missiles, North Korea were to have deliberately targeted and successfully hit towns in Northern Japan.
Imagine if Taiwan were to routinely suffer attacks from China with China refusing to accept responsibility because the attacks were coming from so-called "individuals acting independently."
Imagine if these "individuals" were not interested in simply discouraging Taiwanese independence but were acting with the stated purpose of seeing Taiwan "wiped off the face of the Earth."
Imagine if the government in China were to insist on describing these individuals as being part of a "legitimate resistance to aggression" from Taiwan.
Imagine if these attacks came from parts of China formerly occupied by Taiwan which had recently been unilaterally returned to China after pressure from the UN.
Would you argue that Taiwan didn't have the right to defend itself? I think the Taiwanese people would probably unanimously agree that it was a mistake to return territory to China without the guarantee of a peaceful settlement. I think Taiwanese people would see retaliation against China as a fight for the very existence of the nation.
In any case, the US is not in a very good position to criticize Israel. The US invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban regime following the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington.
However, it wasn't the Taliban that planned the 9/11 attacks: it was Osama bin Laden. The Taliban's mistake was in refusing to turn bin Laden over to the US authorities. The US invaded Afghanistan and still couldn't capture bin Laden.
Frustrated, the US invaded Iraq. Why? In retrospect, it appears that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had plotted to kill President George W. Bush's father while he was visiting the region might have had something to do with his decision to invade and topple the Saddam regime. It was very personal. By comparison, Israel has shown remarkable restraint in a situation where the danger is quite real and not simply imagined.
It is true that Israel has negotiated with Hamas and Hezbollah in the past. See how well that turned out for Israel? The Israelis see no reason to want to negotiate with these people and are demanding that they abide by previous calls for them to disarm and recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist.
By condemning Israel's acts of self-defense, this paper, along with UN diplomats from France and Russia, are effectively siding with Hezbollah and Hamas and encouraging their acts of aggression against Israel. Israelis will never be safe so long as Hezbollah and Hamas are allowed to act with impunity while Israel is the one being pressured to show restraint.
When a conflict occurs, putting pressure on the aggressors to lay down their arms is the only way to promote peace. Doing the reverse, asking the victims to show restraint in defending themselves, will only result in more bloodshed and more casualties as the aggressors become bolder, convinced that they are acting with international support.
Martin Phipps
Taichung
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry