Mail Call

Readers saw deeper implications in the recently concluded Lebanon conflict. One declared the fighting a proxy war between America and Iran. Another agreed: "Israel may yet have to extend the war to Iran and Syria, if only to show there is a price to be paid for supporting terrorists."

In general, wars have been localized affairs. But this 2006 Middle East war ("The Wider War," Aug. 7) could have widespread ramifications on the global scene, particularly because one of the parties is a guerrilla force fighting without any borders to defend. Iran, which was facing a diplomatic onslaught over its nuclear status, with its back to the wall, appears to have pulled off a coup of sorts by entrapping Israel in a bloody war. On the surface, Israel and Hizbullah are fighting it out, but strategically it is a duel between the United States and Iran. This one stroke from Iran has shocked the United States and made its position in Lebanon, where it was slowly establishing a foot-hold, untenable. Iran also appears to have, to an extent, succeeded in not only polarizing Islamic opinion against the United States and its global initiative on terrorism, but also in bridging the gap between various Sunni and Shiite terror groups. Perhaps this war shouldn't have taken place. Now that it has, the terror-ists should not be let off the hook and a viable diplomatic initiative against the conditions that sustain terrorists and their modus operandi ought to be undertaken. While the terrorists need just one rally-ing point--Israel--the saner rest of the world would have to start afresh the herculean task of bringing to a common platform many divergent viewpoints arrayed against it.

R. K Sudan

Jammu, India

I am highly disturbed by NEWSWEEK's coverage of the Middle East, which is far more critical of Israel (a Westernized Middle East democracy that is an ally of America's) than it is of Hizbullah (a band of medieval terrorists and thugs that has killed hundreds of Americans, hijacked Lebanon and attacked America's ally). I cannot understand the need to be so critical of Israel and the United States in the battle against terror, especially as this recent violence was initiated by Hizbullah. There is no moral equivalency here; sometimes there is a right and a wrong. Your article's questioning of America's support for Israel and doubting that the battle against Hizbullah is part of a larger battle against terrorism was the last straw.

Ira Kornbluth

Columbia, Maryland

To make a comparison, France, during WWII, was not a sovereign country because it was occupied by the Germans, who attacked England from French territory. England had the right to respond and eventually landed in Normandy together with America to expel German troops from France. In doing that, England and the Allies held no grudge against France, and the Allies' military action was not a "conquest," though they didn't ask permission. During the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Bosnia had no sovereignty, being occupied by the Serbs, who attacked Croatia from Bosnian territory. Croats had the right to defend themselves, which they did by entering Bosnia and expelling Serbian troops. Lebanon today, unfortunately, is not a sovereign country because it was occupied by Syria for years, and now by Hizbullah, which recently sent missiles into Israel. Why is it so hard for "public opinion" to understand that Israel had the right to defend itself by entering Lebanon to neutralize Hizbullah? Boris Radovan

hrvatska, Croatia

president bush's backing of israel unconditionally is creating more hatred toward Jews and America. It's not reasonable to fight terrorism with more and more billions squandered on bombs and military hardware in a world in which there is so much injustice, inequality and violence.

Edward Penchi

Santa Cruz, Bolivia

Your Middle East photojournalism policy is so un-evenhanded, it needs serious review. Your recent issues covering the war in Lebanon (Aug. 7 and Aug. 14) make a simple, unjust distinction. All photos about Israel are of the military while all photos about Lebanon portray civilian hardship, including the special four-page spread ("True Pain," Aug. 14). Judging by the photos, one would never know that it is Hizbullah (without Lebanese opposition) that was the aggressor in this war, and that only Israeli civilians and homes were deliberately targeted for ceaseless bombing. Surely you aspire to more-balanced journalism, in word and picture.

David Resnick

Jerusalem, Israel

We hear a lot about the rockets hitting Haifa; that they come from Syria and Iran. Strange that no one talks about where the bombs come from that are devastating Lebanon.

Rafiq A. Tschannen

Amman, Jordan

Never before in the history of moviemaking has a human tragedy of this scale been transformed into something so touching ("Natural Born Heroes," Aug. 7). So powerful is the interpretation of the 9/11 disaster that it speaks volumes about the cinematic skill of Oliver Stone as a director. I'd like to thank him for choosing courage over controversy in "World Trade Center." Kris Sahay

Manitoba, Canada

Why should hollywood be any different from politicians, oil companies and arms contractors? September 11, 2001, has been used to fuel political campaigns and to justify war, torture and domestic spying. So of course Hollywood sees no problem in making millions off it. Here's a thought: what if Americans refused to turn America's national tragedy into a war cry or campaign slogan or record profits or cheap entertainment? What if Americans simply mourned the dead with dignity?

Paul Lemrise Jr.

Cary, Illinois

Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" trailer opens with the statement that it has been "approved for all audiences by the Motion Picture Association of America." I question the MPAA's authority in determining whether all of America is ready for exposure to this movie preview. As an occupational therapist, I counseled patients for whom life, as they knew it, ended on 9/11. Their stories gave the disaster a sickening reality. Many survivors still grieve deeply and suffer flashbacks of burning flesh, suffocating dust, falling bodies and severed limbs. Those who waited for loved ones are also survivors, and many still struggle with memories of worry, grieving or saying goodbye on cell phones. While the movie's positive story line and inspirational message will certainly bring closure and hope for many who choose to see it, for others, acceptance and healing can't be rushed.

Sandra I. Bostwick

Parsippany, New Jersey

The opposite tone of two articles in your Aug. 7 issue shows how little America has learned from 9/11. In the report on Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" we get a deeply emotional story of individual suffering and heroism as buildings collapse. In the story on Lebanon ("The Wider War") we get a callous uninterest in individual suffering and accompanying heroism as buildings collapse on innocent civilians thanks to American bombs delivered by American airplanes, albeit piloted by Israelis. Why is the suffering that matters only our own?

David Allen

Romney, West Virginia

I am not a New York City firefighter or police officer. I didn't know a single person who was killed in the inferno of 9/11. I am, however, a New Yorker, and my city was attacked on that nightmarish day. When I saw the picture of Oliver Stone standing on the "set" of his latest film, my blood ran cold. I watched those buildings go down less than five years ago. For Stone to take this tragic event and turn it into what amounts to entertainment for profit--while there is still a scar in lower Manhattan--is unconscionable. I understand that the film is memorable and honors the heroes of that day as well as the victims. There will be a time when things settle down and such a film may be appropriate. But now is way too soon.

Jonathan Frisch

Brooklyn, New York

We were pleased to read "How American Myths Are Made" (Aug. 7), which touched on a matter receiving growing attention in psychological research. But stories about 9/11 aren't told just by filmmakers like Oliver Stone. Every American has a story about that day. As psychologists interested in ways people make meaning of their experiences, we have been studying stories people tell about 9/11. In our nationwide sampling of Americans, collected within two months of the terrorist attacks, we found that individuals who crafted stories of national redemption--a style of storytelling that recent research suggests is particularly American--were psychologically better off than those who storied the events differently. This work reminds us that we all shape national myths, and that the way in which we tell these myths matters for our psychological well-being. Jonathan Adler Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois

Although creating a story linemay be comforting to the people of a nation coping with tragedy, mythologizing America's history hinders Americans' ability to analyze current events and respond to them in a wise manner. Mythology glosses over imperfections and leads to feelings of superiority. This perverted sense of America's role in the world greatly weakens democracy because it allows American leaders to merely evoke myth rather than present hard facts. As painful as it is to take a good look in the mirror, it will make Americans more rational and therefore a stronger country. Julian Kauffmann

Brooklyn, New York

Those who give their lives on the battlefield are rare souls of extraordinary grace ("Probing a Bloodbath," June 12). When I served in Vietnam as a Red Cross hospital worker in the 1970s, many Americans had forgotten this and stigmatized their own countrymen as "baby killers." During the Vietnam era, as with Iraq today, the majority of those sending troops into battle never fought in a war. They have no concept of the stress of making life-and-death decisions in seconds. As an investigation is conducted into the alleged massacre of Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines, it is essential that we do not again make outcasts of all who are so honorably serving this nation because of the action of a few.

Joan M. Maiman

Chicago, Illinois

In "The Big Meltdown" (June 12) Al Gore warns against an "eight-meter sea-level rise" because "glaciers are melting down." Let's relate this to the brain teaser of an ice cube floating in a glass of water where the water level does not rise as the ice melts (Archimedes, and the anomalous expansion of water). Clearly Gore's glaciers are not floating (in which case the sea level will not rise), but are frozen oceans grounded on solid earth.

Jan Maarschalk

Villiersdorp, South Africa

Your global-climate-change article was informative. However, projected sea-level rises will not be due to the melting of polar ice. Climate-change models in fact show that sea-level rises from this effect will be much smaller than those due to the thermal expansion of the ocean waters, which are associated with projected temperature increases of the world's oceans. In either case, we need to take action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

Bob Bornstein

San Jose, California