Land First, Then Peace

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13turki.html?scp=1&sq=land%20first,%20then%20peace&st=cse

- Hide quoted text -

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Subject: re: Land First, Then Peace
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   In 1921, the British created the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan by partition of their mandate in Palestine. The remaining 23% of the land was then further partitioned by the United Nations in 1947 into three parts. These were to be a Jewish State, an Palestinian State and the International Enclave of Jerusalem. The proto-Israelis accepted this partition, the proto-Palestinians rejected it, and no one spoke for Jerusalem.  Now ambassador al-Faisal proposes that talks of peace should posit that Jordan, and the West Bank and the city of Jerusalem are eternally Arab lands, and only the remaining 12.7% of the land of the British Mandate is to be discussed.  From such a starting point, I can't see any prospect of peace.

Barry Levine

Pick for Lebanese Prime Minister Withdraws

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/world/middleeast/11lebanon.html?scp=1&sq=pick%20for%20lebanese&st=cse

- Hide quoted text -

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:05 AM
Subject: re: Pick for Lebanese Prime Minister Withdraws
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

    You will have noticed that a construction like "Syria, which dominated Lebanon militarily for three decades.." is stilted. An native speaker of English would call this a military occupation. As long as you reserve the language of military occupation to the Israeli presence in the West Bank, but find circumlocutions for the Syrians in Lebanon, the Chinese in Tibet and the Russian in Chechnya, your pose as an impartial reporter of the world's news is shaky indeed.

Barry Levine

Obama Faces Doubts From Democrats on Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/world/asia/11military.html?_r=1&hp

- Hide quoted text -

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:54 AM
Subject: re: Obama Faces Doubts From Democrats on Afghanistan
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

     In September 2001, peoples and governments around the world stood united to join the U.S. it our battle with Al Qaeda. Key allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recognized the common threat, to themselves as much as to our government.  President Bush preferred to assert broad war-time powers and proceeded to alienate allies on the front line by calling for "crusade".  It is against this background that president Obama now pitches his case for Afghanistan. There is no support for a military occupation, and scant support for nation-building.  If president Obama means to rally the American people, it must be for the original task of eliminating the threat from Al Qaeda.

Barry Levine

Big Food vs. Big Insurance

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=big%20food%20vs.%20big%20insurance&st=cse

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Subject: re: Big Food vs. Big Insurance
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   I was taught as a child that there are only three bargains in healthcare: potable water, sanitary sewers and vaccines. Anything else you can contemplate that improves human health and extends human life is vastly more expensive. Michael Pollan invites us to broaden the discussion to include a good diet. Like the classic big three, this also has no place in the current American paradigm of pay a lot when you get sick. Only when we have a national and universal healthcare plan will there be an incentive to pursue these bargains rather than sticking ever more tubes into the dying.

Barry Levine

Obama Faces a Critical Moment for His Presidency

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=1&hp

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Subject: re: Obama Faces a Critical Moment for His Presidency
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

    It would be a grave error to conclude that Obama's supporters have gone soft on him because healthcare reform and the economic recovery haven't happened swiftly. We are not so naive as to believe that either of these could be solved without a lot of effort and some real disagreements. Rather, Obama's backers have gone soft on him because he has gone soft on the simple things. Warrantless wiretapping is a violation of our constitutionally-guaranteed freedom from unreasonable search. Where is the investigation and prosecution? We have clear statutes banning torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners. Why are we still only talking about investigations and prosecutions?  It is because president Obama has not been clear and forceful on the clear and simple issues that his backers are coming to mistrust him on the broader ones.

Barry Levine

Advisers to Obama Divided on Size of Afghan Force

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=obama%20advisors%20are%20split&st=cse

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Subject: re: Advisers to Obama Divided on Size of Afghan Force
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

    Secretary Gates would do well to listen to admiral Mullen.  We will be welcome or unwelcome in Afghanistan according to our behavior, more than our numbers. I trust that General McChrystal has impressed this on all our troops. Unfortunately about half our force there--our contractors--don't report to him. Where there is not military discipline, what else can enforce proper behavior? Perhaps we need to rely more on Gurkhas, who bring a culture of sober probity and order, rather than on Blackwater and ArmorGroup, who bring the culture of drunken fratboys.

Barry Levine

C.I.A. Resists Disclosure of Records on Detention

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/us/02intel.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=cia&st=cse

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Subject: re: C.I.A. Resists Disclosure of Records on Detention
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

    We have been told that George Bush's detention policies are no longer the U.S.'s policy. What then is protected by sealing these documents about policies that no longer pertain? As in the Reynolds case that established the notion of a "states secrets privilege" these documents would embarrass some members of the former administration. That however does not amount to a threat to our national security. We, the sovereign electorate, deserve to know how our public servants are using our resources and abusing our reputation in the world.  

Barry Levine