JOLLY DAYS

Two Good Questions

The letters to the editor are often better than a newspaper's commentary. Here are two good questions asked on the letters to the editor page of the NYT:

First, to the moral equivalence chimps who write the NYT editorial pages — from Senator Charles Schumer:

One sentence in your Dec. 18 editorial “Timely Help for the Palestinians” betrays the subtle and inherent bias against Israel that pervades too much of Western thought. When supporting the removal of Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, you write, “While those checkpoints have undoubtedly reduced the number of attacks by suicide bombers, they have made it virtually impossible for average Palestinians to move freely, whether going to the polls or simply trying to go to work.”

Doesn't it make sense that Palestinians should be required to eliminate the suicide bombers in their midst before Israel is forced to open checkpoints? What other nation would be asked to put the ability of its adversaries to move freely over the need to protect the lives of its people?

And thence to another letter writer, someone beaming down to earth and coming to terms with the real United Nations (even if he still remains complacent about endemic corruption at the United Nations):

As a fervent supporter and defender of the United Nations and the concept of collective security, I have been inclined to overlook the negative comments emanating from the representatives of other countries concerning American policies, and the abuses of the oil-for-food program since greed and corruption are endemic in any organization when huge amounts of money are involved.

But when United Nations peacekeepers, charged with protecting the most defenseless and helpless members of Congolese society, become involved in the sexual exploitation and abuse of young girls, one must ask whether the United Nations is worth defending.

[It occurs to me Senator Schumer could get together with this fellow who has had his epiphany about the United Nations and ask him if he remembers that the United Nations was supposed to be overseeing the Palestinian territories — way back when — when these territories were being used chronically as launching pads for terrorist attacks; somehow those attacks against Israelis didn't tweak any moral outrage about the United Nations in our NYT correspondent.]

Two good questions:

… What other nation would be asked to put the ability of its adversaries to move freely over the need to protect the lives of its people?

…charged with protecting the most defenseless and helpless…one must ask whether the United Nations is worth defending.