Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona • Page 7

FINAL STREET EDITION A22 Saturday, January 19, 1991 STANTIS The Arizona Republic Founded in 1 890 Published since 1 946 by: Phoenix Newspaper, 120 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, Ariz. 85004 EUGENE C. PULLIAM 1889-1975 Publisher, 1946 1975 EUGENE S. PULLIAM President JOHN P.

ZANOTTI Publisher WILLIAM P. CHESHIRE Editor of the Editorial Pages JOHN F. OPPEDAHL Managing Editor CONRAD KLOH Director of Sales and Marketing BILL SHOVER Director of Public Affairs Where The Spirit Of The Lord Is, There Is Liberty II Corinthians 3: 1 7 EDITORIALS WAR IN THE GULF The Israel factor 5 Off I LETTERS Seat belts save lives and money coalition to take care of Saddam Hussein without any undue complication. As accomplished as it is, the Israeli air force is no better prepared to deal with the Scud threat than are U.S. forces.

Any response by Israel would be little more than revenge. Nevertheless, should it come under further attack, Israel can be expected to react. What that might mean for the coalition would depend on the proportionality of Israel's response. Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have acknowledged that all countries have the right of self-defense, and probably these Arab states would wink at an Israeli tit-for-tat. Jordan's situation is more precarious.

King Hussein has taken a tough stand, warning that Jordan would defend its airspace Israeli aircraft probably would overfly his kingdom to strike at Iraq and would regard any intrusion as an act Of war. (Does this mean that because the Iraqi Scuds crossed Jordanian territory King Hussein is now at war with Saddam Hussein?) The king's position is almost certainly rhetorical. Fearful of incurring the wrath of Iraq, he must be seen to resist Israel. Also, because Jordan's population is more than 60 percent Palestinian, a majority of whom sympathize with Saddam Hussein, the king cannot afford to be viewed as soft on Israel. If Israel were to attack Iraq, Jordan would bluff and bluster, but probably would do little else.

Israel has nothing to prove. It has demonstrated time and again that it will defend itself with ferocity. Saddam Hussein's missile attacks are acts of terrorism. While they are barbaric and bothersome, they are militarily insignificant and pose no threat to Israel's existence. Surely in this instance Israel could resist the temptation to exact an eye for an eye for the sake of aiding the U.S.

in its war against the common enemy. IRAQ'S missile attacks on Israel hardly came as a surprise. For months Saddam Hussein threatened that he would attempt to drag the Jewish state into any war, to widen the theater of conflict and transform it into an Arab-Israeli contest. Israel showed admirable restraint in not responding immediately to the initial attack by Iraq's Scud-B ballistic missiles. Surely the minimal damage and few injuries caused by the conventionally armed missiles and pressure from Washington tempered Jerusalem's response.

It is all but certain, however, that further "attacks, especially if they involve chemical weapons, would provoke Israeli retaliation. Ever since the onset of the gulf crisis, the Bush administration's worst-case scenario contemplated Israel's involvement. The international coalition arrayed against Iraq includes several Arab powers most notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria that could hardly be expected to side with "the Zionist entity" against another Arab state. To its credit, Israel stayed out of the dispute, thus enabling President Bush and Secretary of State Baker to assemble the multinational force now deployed on the Arabian Peninsula. And what if Israel now becomes involved? Is the anti-Iraq alliance strong enough to endure? The answer depends in large measure on how Israel responds.

In the best case, Israel would stay its hand no matter how grave the provocation. Its long-term national interest surely lies in the ultimate defeat of Saddam Hussein. If, by striking back at Iraq, Israel were to jeopardize that outcome and widen the war into a multisided regional imbroglio, its own interests would be damaged. Furthermore, it is not too much to expect America's "only reliable ally" in the Mideast to stay out of the fight and allow the U.S.-led GRAND CANYON PROTECTION ACT Feeling no sympathy Editor: After serving 24 years in the Air Force medical service and seeing our reservists take advantage of the system commissary, base exchange, hospital and getting paid for four days for each two days of active duty I hear them complaining about getting called to active duty. These reservists knew all along where they would serve in time of need, how long they would serve and what the effects would be.

I often heard active-duty troops complain about numerous things, but the reservists struck a sore spot. The reservists had the option to quit any time they pleased; the active-duty troops did not. 1 find it hard to feel sorry for the reservists, especially when they are replacing active-duty troops here. To those who were along for the free ride, the system is now charging them a fare. That pleases me, many other retirees and active-duty personnel.

RICHARD T. ANGLIN Glcndale losses, exceeded $26 million in 1989 paid by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System and funded by Arizona taxpayers. This does not include rehabilitation expenses, which can exceed $100,000 per victim. Do Mr. Davis and others feel their freedom of choice is being taken away because speed-limits restrict how fast they can drive? Are they upset by stop signs at intersections? What about all the other restrictions imposed by law to make our highways safer? No citizen of our country should be allowed to exercise his personal rights to the detriment of others, and that is exactly what is happening on the streets of our state on a daily basis.

Thirty-three states have mandated seat-belt laws, with usage rates running from 67 percent to 87 percent. About 35 percent of Arizona drivers are wearing the restraints. If we have the success shown by other states, about 250 lives will be saved each year, along with $25 million taxpayer dollars. We are responsible in Arizona so we will buckle up. JIM MILLER Phoenix Editor: I continue to be amazed at people like Ron Davis, who feels his individual liberties and freedom of choice are being taken away because we have mandated the use of seat belts in Arizona.

He apparently has no understanding of the costs imposed on him and the other taxpayers of Arizona by those who don't wear seat belts, besides the tremendous loss of lives. The medical expenses for those injured in automobile accidents requiring hospitalization average about $5,000 for those wearing seat belts, against $16,000 for those not wearing the restraints. A 1987 Supreme Court ruling allows insurance companies to be liable for only medical expenses incurred if wearing a seat belt. Those involved not wearing a seat belt have to pay the additional $11,000 medical expenses. Medical centers demand payment for services performed from the state when insurance coverage is inadequate.

Their reasoning is that the state, county or city brought the accident victim to them, so they are responsible for the medical bills. These expenses, along with the economic No time to wait Public-land grazing a privilege, not a right the total 83 grazing allotments could be improved through better range management. You also reported that Mr. Kleckncr's spokesman said that the bureau would fight any attempt to raise the price of grazing permits. The prices of these permits are currently set so low that they don't even cover the government's costs of administrating them.

Apparently the "right" the American Farm Bureau will be defending in 1991 will be the privilege to abuse public land at the taxpayers' expense. JEFF BURGESS Tcmpe Editor: In your coverage of the American Farm Bureau's convention, you reported that the organization's president, Dean Kleckncr, declared that the big political issue for 1991 would be to fend off environmentalist assaults against the "right" to graze livestock on public lands. Mr. Kleckncr is wrong. Public-land grazing is a privilege, not a right.

And it's a privilege often abused. For example, the Bureau of Land Management is currently circulating a management plan draft for its Kingman Resource Area, which documents that the conditions of 57 of Troublesome nominee Editor: Batten down the hatches, fellow conservatives; we're in trouble. President Bush's latest nominee to run the Republican National Committee, Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter, was described by White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater as "a President Bush conservative." Now, any real conservative worth his salt recognizes that as an oxymoron. Mr. Yeutter is a liberal in sheep's (conservative) clothing.

And Bill McKenzic, executive director of the liberal Republican Ripon Society, said, "I now look for a party umbrella large enough to include freedom of choice on abortion." Yes, it's going to be a long dry spell for conservatives until the elections of '92. But then, with the president's abandonment of his campaign promise's, we should be used to it by now. Pat Buchanan, put down that pen. We need you. ROBERT HOHL Laurel, Md.

difficult to fathom why the preservation of the Grand Canyon's ecosystem should be so contentious. Years of environmental studies have established that the dam's peak-power flows have contributed to the destruction of aquatic wildlife and habitat and to beach erosion. There is every reason to think that an environmental study currently under way will provide additional evidence, providing one more reason to change the thoughtless way Glen Canyon Dam is now operated. Recently National Park Service officials have detected another distressing consequence of the notorious peak-power system. Erosion was found to have unearthed the ruins of a prehistoric Anasazi settlement along the banks of the Colorado River.

Pottery, other artifacts and even buildings had been washed away before the sites could be studied or preserved. Only the big power and water interests and their bureaucratic toadies resist efforts to establish interim flows. Until now the interior secretary has dawdled on forcing Glen Canyon Dam to operate in a way that takes into consideration the downstream consequences. In the absence of strong leadership in the Interior Department, Mr. McCain's tireless efforts are to be commended.

Congress should not blow another opportunity to protect the Grand Canyon. LET there be no mistaking the rationale behind Arizona Sen. John McCain's introduction of legislation that would force Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan to implement interim minimum flows from Glen Canyon Dam. Mr. McCain wants Congress to act on the measure with dispatch, and with good reason.

The chances of having the legislation fail would increase appreciably if action on the bill were to be delayed until the session's hectic final days of horse-trading and politicking. Indeed, the Grand Canyon Protection Act was a casualty last November when it became entangled in California gubernatorial politics and insipid gamesmanship on the part of several members of Congress. The heavy was California Rep. George Miller no piker at savaging the Bureau of Reclamation for allowing wildly fluctuating flows from the dam, the primary cause of continuing damage to the Grand Canyon's fragile ecosystem. In spite of Mr, Miller's previous advocacy of canyon protection, he disregarded Mr.

McCain's entreaties and the pleas of other members of the Arizona delegation to cut the bill loose from a controversial reclamation measure. Mr. McCain is working hard to avoid a replay of last session's disaster. Setting aside Secretary Lujan's foot-dragging and opposition from the water and power lobbyists, it is Cartoon was neither clever nor original compared to the systematic of more than 6 million Jews? In the past several years, many thousands have died in civil disturbances in many nations, yet your Nazi comparison is reserved for Jews. Why? One wonders whether American police forces faced with rioters wielding stones, axes, knives, chains and Molotov cocktails would exercise the restraint the Israel forces have exhibited.

You owe the entire community an apology. MARCIA AND RANDY YAVITZ Phoenix Editor: Perhaps your cartoonist Scott Stantis thinks that it is clever or original to compare Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to Adolf Hitler. He should consider that the cartoon analogy of Israelis to Nazi originated with Soviet propagandists in the 1960s. The defamation was so villifying that the Arab press gave it wide dissemination, and it eventually gained currency in some peripheral Western press. As for the accuracy of the analogy, can the deaths of 750 Palestinians during the riots.known as the intifada really be LETTERS POLICY Your letters are welcome.

Please include your name, address and daytime telephone number. Please keep your letters brief. All letters are subject to editing. Short letters will be given priority. Arizona needs a King holiday for the future of its children i JOEL NILSSON Editorial Writer The Arizona Republic and in that faith let us, to the end, do our duty as we understand it." Her desire that the Legislature enact a MLK holiday patterned upon the federal model combining the now separate holidays for Lincoln and George Washington into one observance and establishing a MLKCivil Rights Day on the third Monday in January ought to be acceptable to a majority of Arizonans.

Her plan alleviates the concern of giving state workers yet another paid day off. It also lets the people have a second crack at it in November 1992, which is only right given last November's well-documented confusion. She also wants an interim holiday to be celebrated next January, before the public vote. Therein lies the rub, at least to some conservative Republicans. They worry that were they to vote for an interim holiday, two things could happen.

One, a faction of angry anti-King forces could try to recall individual lawmakers. Or two, the public might get testy at lawmakers implementing a holiday temporary as it might be so soon after the voters rejected one. This wrath could materialize into an anti-King vote in 1992, or cause a petition drive to be launched to put some other initiative on the ballot, with the aim of ballot confusion. GOP House Speaker Jane Hull backs the interim holiday, but at the same time is leery of its ramifications. "Just let's not screw it up this time," she says.

It is that fear that prompts Senate GOP leader Tom Patterson to say, "Even though it would be nice to do, we should forget about the interim holiday and just be content with something safer." This is not the time to play safe. If legislators were less worried about their hides, Arizona would've had a MLK holiday long ago. Just as Dr. King's unyielding commitment to civil rights brought success, so, too, can a Legislature that recognizes its responsibility. how hard we might wish.

Then there is the matter of personal self-esteem and dignity. Is Dr. King's dream of people living "where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" alive and well in Arizona? The economic issues will resolve themselves in time, "but what about that little boy?" the mayor asked. "How docs he think of his future? He's one child who's wondering if he has a place here." That the young boy was black really didn't matter. The child could've been of any race.

"That's what we lost," Mr. Johnson said with intensity, passion and yes, a bit of eloquence. "We lost that little boy's hope for his own future. We have to get it back because that's what it's all about." This week, in her State of the State message, Gov. Rose Mofford borrowed some good advice from Abraham Lincoln: "Let us have faith that right makes might, Obviously, some of the opponents of an MLK holiday had what he called "twisted' motives," but a majority did not.

I sensed that Mr. Johnson's audience some 3,000 people who yesterday packed the Phoenix Civic Plaza for the 5th annual city-sponsored breakfast in Dr. King's honor was wondering down which path the mayor was heading. The answer wasn't far behind. "It's that little boy, not the Super Bowl; that is why we need this holiday." Mr.

Johnson talked of perception. In politics, perception can be the same as reality, and just as devastating or just as beneficial. Yes, Arizona voters rejected a paid MLK holiday by a scant 15,000 votes. Yet the perception of Arizona as an intolerant state of bigots is what the nation and the world have been given. We know better, but precious little good it does.

We've been to the briar patch and we can't get out. Our sullied image isn't about to change, no matter Paul Johnson, the boyish-looking Phoenix mayor, tells of a brief conversation he had with a young boy not long ago. The child asked the typical kind of questions that you might expect your own child to pose. What docs a mayor do? Do you like your job? Anybody who knows the mayor is acutely atoare of the genuine enthusiasm he brings to his job. If not strapped for time there is no telling how long he could goon.

The little boy listened intently to the mayor's answers. But he had something more on his mind, a question that my sons have asked me and probably one that your children have posed to you. Do you believe people voted against the Martin Luther King holiday because he was black? Mr. Johnson replied that he didn't believe that was what the vote on Proposition 302 was all about..