Letter to the editor, The Financial Times - 24th August 1991

 Dear Sir,

In times of world crisis, you judge people who claim to be leaders of nations. However, if these leaders constantly adopt views that vary from the standards acceptable to the civilised world, are they not denying themselves the right of recognition? Are the leaders of the "Western" world not obliged to refuse such recognition in the present, so as not to face humiliation in the future? It seems that the leadership of the Palestinian people (be it the PLO or Hamas) is constantly supporting the wrong side, ignoring International justice, and supporting cruelty and instability. In other words, the "Palestinian Leadership" as they claim to be, is supportive of cruelty, anarchy, and all that is not valued by the civilized world. In August, and all through the crises in the Gulf, it was the PLO and Hamas who supported Saddam Hussein, in an ugly demonstration of ungratefulness towards Kuwait, a pillar of support for the Palestinian People. During the attempted coup in the Soviet Union, did it support the "committee of eight", together with such individuals as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi? Only two days after the return to power (?) of Michael Gorbachev, did Arafat proclaim that he too belongs to the civilized world. Let the world remember with whom it is dealing, and act accordingly. The "good guys" did make mistakes in the past; let us not repeat them.

Zalli Jaffe.

World leaders Can Also be Mislead

 Two countries were invaded by strong neighbours. Iraq made every possible mistake in public relations and invaded Kuwait, a country treasured by the West for its wealth and petroleum. Syria invaded a country ruled by anarchy and civil war, Lebanon. Who cares?

The world reacted militarily to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. (It did not respond in a similar way to protect the Kurds in the North or the Shiites in the South. The late ethnic groups lack power, money, and petroleum. Syria's invasion was "forgotten".

Did Germany sign an agreement with the newly installed government in Lebanon, just as Nazi Germany signed an agreement with Austria on the eve of the Anschluss?  Lebanon lost its sovereignty to Syria. As Lord Lloyd of Dolobran, the British High Commissioner of Egypt, wrote,  "To tell a country she is independent while you keep an army of occupation is only a contradiction in terms but a fraud" (quoted in ZUES, by Keith Kyle). Assad succeeded in this manoeuvre, diverting the world's attention from Lebanon (the first stage in the implementation of the policy of "Greater Syria") by confusing all with a qualified, conditional, vague "yes" to James Baker's initiative.

Why did the world decline to accept Kuwait's puppet government in Kuwait, ruled by Saddam, which government called for the "merging" of Kuwait with Iraq, and is welcoming the puppet government in Lebanon ruled by Assad?

Why is James Baker ready to negotiate with the world's greatest supporter of international terrorism, whilst Americans, Britons, and others are held in Lebanon by groups influenced by Syria?

On what basis does the US offer political credit to a ruler whose record of civil rights is a contempt for the civilized world?

Why is Assad accorded niceties while Manuel Noriega is in jail, in Miami, after being ousted by the USA? After all, Assad's involvement in international drug trafficking (from Lebanon, with the help of his brother Rifat) is no less destructive and involves no less amount of Dollars than the business conducted by Noriega.

Assad succeeded in Lebanon, whereas Saddam failed in Kuwait, as the former is a master in deception and Washington champions naivete.

In his new book HITLER AND STALIN PARALLEL LIVES, Allen Bullock points to a conclusion Hitler "drew from his Viennese days. One was the ease with which the masses could be manipulated by skilful propaganda". Assad understood better. World leaders can also be misled. And there is always Israel to pay for it all.