Home >  Opinion >  Letters

Sunday, April 14, 2002

Want to promote understanding? Present balanced views

I was outraged by your side-by-side commentaries concerning Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat in the March 31 Forum. The Arafat article ("Yasser Arafat: Terrorist, Victim or Peacemaker?"), written by Joel Singer, an American lawyer who spent three years representing Israel in the Oslo negotiations, portrayed a complex man, both praiseworthy for his "shrewdness and tactical skills" and subject to criticism for his lack of leadership skills, based upon his inability or unwillingness to sway Palestinian opinion with regard to a final settlement with Israel. The article is balanced, thoughtful and is absent of vitriolic language.

By stark contrast, the Sharon article ("Israel Plays With Fire"), written by the Palestinian-American journalist Ray Hanania, contains the most slanderous and strident descriptions of Sharon, the Israeli government and Israeli supporters that could be imagined. Sharon is a "murderer," the army is a "women-beating" force, the government one of "arsonists" and those who support Israel are "wild-eyed apologists . . . dancing to Israel's insanity."

Is this your attempt at balance on this issue? I would be surprised if you printed such statements in a letter to the editor; I am stunned at your (lack of) editorial discretion in printing this "analysis" as a legitimate opinion piece. We all pray for the day when a negotiated peace will come to the Middle East.

If you intend to promote our understanding of this ancient and complex conflict, please do so with reporting that is free of hatred and bias. There are plenty of Internet sites for those who seek that form of expression.

MELVIN VATZ
Mt. Lebanon

Let's review history

In the April 7 Forum piece "Why They Die to Kill," Wendy Pearlman states, "The root cause of Palestinian terrorism is Israel's 34-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and none other." One assumes that she is referring to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, during which Israel took control of the West Bank of the Jordan valley. Since she believes Israel is the cause of the misery of the Arabs residing on the West Bank, logically they must have been happy and living in dignity before 1967, or perhaps they were not so happy.

The Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in 1964, three years before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Israel has always been its main target for terrorist activity, and its charter calls for destruction of the state of Israel. One must assume, therefore, that it was neither control of the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem nor Arab governance that made the West Bank Arabs unhappy before 1967, but rather the very existence of the state of Israel.

Ms. Pearlman further undermines her credibility by noting that "I never once came upon anything you could call terrorist infrastructure" in Ramallah. To what would she attribute the numerous violent groups that proudly claim credit for the murder of more than 400 Israelis? If this association is too tenuous for Ms. Pearlman, perhaps Palestinian Authority-sponsored television, which trains children to become suicide bombers, is more obvious?

Ms. Pearlman has simplistically misrepresented history and has forgotten how to subtract. She has exposed her bias by refusing to see the obvious. Just as the Arab-Israeli conflict did not begin in 1967, nor are the West Bank and Gaza Arabs the innocent victims of an occupation government.

In their desire to destroy Israel, Arab leaders have created a culture that glorifies murder and death. The seeds of violence sown over the past 38 years have grown into twisted plants.

The solution to the conflict lies in the willingness of the combatants to live with each other in peace. Plotting the destruction of Israel is a tactic that ultimately will lead to disaster for West Bank and Gaza Arabs and to the entire region.

YA'AQOV ABRAMS, M.D.
Squirrel Hill

How to lose my vote

With election time just around the corner, it is disgusting to hear one candidate criticizing his opponent. I don't want to hear what the other candidate did wrong, but I want to hear what the accuser is going to do for the voters.

So, in my opinion, the more a candidate uses smear tactics, the less chance he has to get my vote and support. If both candidates wage negative campaigns, then I just won't waste my time to vote, period. Enough is enough.

EDDIE STANKO
White Oak

Revamp postal delivery

The U.S. Postal Service will implement a 3-cent increase in the cost of first-class postage ("Stamps to Cost 37 By Summer," March 23). I am old enough to remember when the total cost to send a letter was 3 cents and the cost of a penny postcard was -- well -- a penny! City delivery was twice a day (three or four times a day during the Christmas rush). Of course, in those days the post office was heavily subsidized with tax dollars, while today the agency is run as a pseudo-business. But it still doesn't have the full incentive of private business because every time it runs into financial trouble, Congress bails it out or the Postal Service just raises the rates.

What the Postal Service really should do, in addition to modernizing operations and employing new technologies, is to "think outside the box," as the creative thinkers like to say. It must abandon the sacred cows and traditions of the past. For example, just how many of us really need to have our mail delivered daily? Very few, I'd think. I certainly don't. By changing to a Monday/Wednesday/Friday and Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday split, it could (theoretically) cut the number of carriers in half. Businesses that think they need mail every day can pay extra if they want daily delivery, although I suspect many already use P.O. boxes or engage private carrier services.

The agency also should break with tradition and eliminate the house-to-house walk-up deliveries. How long must this "grandfather" service last? True, some dense city areas may not be conducive to curbside delivery, but they could incorporate more cluster mailboxes, such as the ones used in newer apartment and townhouse neighborhoods. In fact, it also could reduce the curbside deliveries in outlying suburban developments and incorporate clusters at street corners.

The financial pressures are only going to worsen as mail volume decreases. It's time for the Postal Service to stop the fine-tuning and start turning the big knobs to make some major changes if it wants to reduce costs, avoid rate increases and put itself on the path to a successful future.

JOHN H. NICOLAUS
Plum

A win-win tax increase

State governments are always concerned about budgets. One overlooked source of added state revenue not only could relieve any shortfalls but could reduce future state expenditures, improving the state budget in two ways. On top of this, tapping it would improve public health.

This "manna from heaven" is an increase in the state tobacco tax. Pennsylvania's neighbors are moving full-speed ahead to increase their tobacco taxes. Recently, New York's state cigarette tax increased to $1.50/pack, and Connecticut's increased to $1.11/pack. Maryland's Senate approved legislation increasing its cigarette tax to $1/pack. And the governor of New Jersey has proposed increasing the state cigarette tax to $1.30/pack.

Pennsylvania's tax? Thirty-one cents, less than one-third its neighbors'. The tax hasn't increased in more than 10 years. Yet, raising it to match these other states' taxes would generate more than a half-billion dollars per year.

Moreover, increasing the tax on cigarettes would discourage kids from starting to smoke and encourage adults to quit. Fewer adults smoking means lower health-care costs to the state. For example, the American Legacy Foundation determined that a decrease of 25 percent in the number of adults who smoke in Pennsylvania would save the state nearly $40 million per year in lower Medicaid expenditures.

What could the state do with all this extra cash? Using it to further improve tobacco control efforts would continue this beneficial cycle of reducing smoking and reducing health-care costs. Every dollar spent on tobacco control earns back at least $2 in lower health-care expenditures.

So, this simple step by the Legislature could do more good for the state' s budget and public health than all the year's other legislation put together. For those who complain that it's a tax increase, remember that it is voluntary. No one is forced to buy cigarettes.

KENNETH A. PERKINS, Ph.D.
Squirrel Hill

Politicians' main concern is securing their futures, all the while ignoring us

Surprise! Surprise! The congressional redistricting is political ("Congressional Borders Tossed Into Uncertainty," April 9). And let's not forget the mess that is the Allegheny County Council redistricting plan.

The problem is that the new aristocracy is too concerned with remaining in power, and the local communities they are to serve suffer. Unfortunately the politicians in Harrisburg are more concerned about the next election cycle than the future of our state and our children.

It is bad enough that the Republican and Democratic parties try to discourage competitive primaries, or that many incumbents run unopposed, but for the princes and princesses of Harrisburg to establish fiefdoms for 10 years at a time is unacceptable.

Until the two "established parties" are willing to do what is best for the commonwealth or an independent redistricting committee is established, the peasants will continue to suffer.

GREG PARKS
Pleasant Hills