It's interesting that the Oct. 9 letter "President Ahmadinejad," which offers insight into why Iran's president may sometimes speak as he does, was met by the Oct. 24 response, "Iran's leadership of hate," which is mainly a defense of Israeli governmental policies since 1948.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements seem most objectionable to Israel when he questions the reality of the Holocaust. The Holocaust, horrendous as it was, has been immeasurably helpful to the founders of the state of Israel.
To question the Holocaust may be seen by supporters of Israel as questioning other pronouncements it makes, such as "Palestinians are largely responsible for their own refugee status," or, more recently, "Israel wants peace but has no partner for the process." Israel probably does want peace if it can set the terms, but otherwise, it will stall until the international community comes down upon it, a reality I hope the Goldstone report will initiate.
From the beginning, Israel has wanted control of all of Palestine and continues to work tirelessly toward that end. Current examples -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to call a halt to Israeli settlement expansion (settlements built on Palestinian land are considered illegal by the international community) and the confiscation of old Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. One such neighborhood, Sheikh Jarrah, has residents whose deeds go back to the Ottoman Empire. No matter -- if they resist eviction they are subject to (and have been) dumped out on the street. Israeli settlers move in.
JEAN B. HOPSON
Winston-Salem
Much different
In the Oct. 28 Journal, the writer of the letter "A more perfect union" attempted to justify nationalized health care with a quote from the Constitution, saying, "promote the general Welfare -- allow me to repeat that -- "promote the general Welfare." The key to this entire phrase in the Constitution is the first and most important word, "promote."
This includes actions such as encouraging healthy lifestyles, eating right, not smoking or drinking and driving, etc. This is much different than "provide," which is definitely not what the Founding Fathers had intended to say. Thus, I am sorry to say that his argument is fundamentally flawed.
SCOTT KINCAID
Winston-Salem
Thoughts on incentives
A couple of thoughts on incentives:
First, a specific comment in response to the Oct. 28 letter "Too much spin," the author of which may be the very best example of a substantial number of disgruntled people who were really, really hoping that Dell would fail to repay anything to the city of Winston-Salem, Forsyth County or the Millennium Fund. The apparent reason for this wish was some combination of the creation of additional political mud for slinging and simply an opportunity to say "I told you so!", which my father always called the meanest words ever spoken.
More generally, there is only one solution to avoid a future of endlessly listening to opponents of incentives decry "corporate welfare," and the risk of taxpayer money, while proponents espouse the absolute necessity of incentives for growth and economic development (the side I take). That solution is for the Congress of the United States to outlaw incentives throughout the country, except for the provision of infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer costing up to some reasonable, limited amount defined as a percentage of the overall cost of the project.
Some argue that this would simply drive more projects out of the country, but I fail to see how that movement could get any worse.
MURRAY C. GREASON JR.
Winston-Salem
Good writers
I would like to applaud the writers of the three Oct. 24 letters in The readers' forum, "Investments in the community," "Republican economics" and "Iran's leadership of hate." Thank you, gentlemen, for outlining the facts so clearly.
EDITH RIDDLE
Winston-Salem
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement