Better a shack in Palestine than a palace in Kuwait

Here's a letter in today's Independent criticising earlier zionist efforts in the same paper that I posted here:

Sir: Mr Daniel Naftalin (letter, 20 September) argues that your presentation of the facts of Israel's killing of Palestinian children is "a subject used throughout the years to marginalise and dehumanise Jews". He is misguided on two counts. Firstly, the photographs on your front page do show children who had been killed by Israelis. This is an incontrovertible fact and cannot be seen as being biased against Israel.

Secondly, the argument that every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is wearing very thin indeed. It is also highly disrespectful of those Jews who suffered so much simply for being Jews. Their suffering had nothing to do with the State of Israel and should not be used to justify every argument in support of that state.

On the same day Professor Reuben suggests "if the notably underpopulated Arab states had compassion for their compatriots, every refugee could live in a palace". The arrogance of such a statement is unbelievable. I am a Palestinian. I wish to live in my homeland, on my father's land in Netanyah in Palestine. I would much rather live in a free and democratic Palestine in a small shack than in a palace in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

DR F H MIKDADI

DORCHESTER

The first letter on Israel in today's edition says that Israel wished the Palestinians well when it "withdrew" from Gaza. Strange when one recalls that Ariel Sharon called the withdrawal "a punishment and not a reward for the Palestinians." Maybe the writer didn't know he said that.