There seems to be something terribly amiss in Adrienne Yeganeh's condemnation of the US's aborted decision to support a Palestinian state ("Switching Sides," 10/4). Her argument rests on the fact that the US is ready to switch sides as it pleases, based on where its interests lie. She pleads that the US not give up its support of democracy in the Middle East simply because the Sept. 11th attacks spawned a new need for allies on the Arab side. I am confused. I thought that the US was ready to back a Palestinian state before the bombings, and is now reconsidering in light of the Sept. 11th actions. How is this reversal back to our original policy self-serving? Aren't we once again alienating powers in the Middle East that perhaps have the ability to help us? Isn't the US now standing strong by its original policy of supporting Israel when a change of sides could seriously help sway opinions of those who are aligned against us? Ms. Yeganeh speaks as though in its desire to protect itself, the post-attack US is ready to sign a treaty with the Palestinians that calls for the abolishment of Israel, when clearly this isn't the case. I would also like to say that if Ms. Yeganeh can't find "one individual who wasn't horrified by the idea of our support being swayed," maybe she should be looking harder for opinions different than her own.
- Jonathan Lieber, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
