Submitted by Aharon Goldberg, Nov 26, 2007 08:39

Dear Editor; The head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury, compares US and British foreign policy and believes British colonialism was much better than what the US is doing today in Iraq.
He states that the British colonial policy was to "pour energy and resources into administrating it (the colony) and normalizing it", whereas the US approach is "a quick burst of violent actions" that will clean up the area and let others "put the area back together."
The Archbishop seems to have forgotten that it was British policy that divided permanently, at times, certain areas which it administered. The US policy was not to divide, as in Iraq. The British and French divided Syria and established Lebanon to be a Christian state and thus separate Christians and Muslims and stop the violence there. The British detached parts of India and established Pakistan, in two unconnected parts, in order to separate Hindus and Muslims. While administrating the Palestine Mandate, in the name of the League of Nations, Britain cut of about 79% of the area, the whole area east of the Jordan River, and gave it to the Arabs in the hope of stopping Arab/Muslim violence against the Jews ( who were supposed to set up a Jewish state under the League's mandate).
In these cases, as in others, the British did not "normalize" the countries but planted seeds for future violence. The Archbishop is recalling something that never was. The US, on the other hand, is trying to preserve Iraq as a single entity while other forces are trying to divide it into separate countries.
Aharon Goldberg
Hatzor Haglilit
Israel

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.