Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2000, pages 72-75

Other People’s Mail

Some letters by or to other people are as informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves.

Representative Murtha’s Reply To Mr. Ackerman

To Mr. Robert L. Ackerman, New Alexandria, PA, Nov. 24, 1999.

Your postcard is very much appreciated, and I thank you for your comments and observations on the USS Liberty.

Mr. Ackerman, I well remember this incident, though I didn’t realize there had never been a full investigation. I’ll check with the Defense Department on what records and information they maintain, and I’ll also ask the Library of Congress to track down for me any information they can find on investigations done independently.

If there’s something beneficial to learn from a reinvestigation of this event, Mr. Ackerman, I’m glad to pursue it in the interests of U.S. security policy. The strength and security of U.S. defense policy and personnel are always my top priorities, Mr. Ackerman, and I’m glad to try and help reach this goal.

Thank you again very much for contacting me, and all best wishes.

Representative John P. Murtha, House of Representatives, Washington, DC

Mideast Coverage Important

To the Saint Paul PioneerPress, Dec. 26, 1999 (as published).

Thank you for your consistently fair-minded coverage on the Middle East, Arabs and Muslim issues.

As recent visitors to the Arab world, we were impressed to find no fewer than six articles concerning Syria in the Dec. 10 Pioneer Press, several by Nomi Morris of Knight Ridder Foreign Service. Despite the obviously poor economy there, our own travels in Syria left impressions of friendly people, safe streets and warm hospitality. This is a far cry from the images usually projected in the U.S. media.

Understanding Syria is important, if not for other reasons, because the American taxpayer will be expected to pony up much of the cost of persuading Israel to withdraw its 17,000 settlers from the Golan Heights. The annexation of this territory, captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day war, is not recognized by the international community at large. Nonetheless, estimates run as high as $20 billion to accomplish an Israeli pullback (as reported by BBC World Service).

It is in our interest as American citizens to keep well-informed. We are fortunate to be living in St. Paul where this is possible.

Aref and Barbara Jabr, St. Paul, MN

Double Standards

To In These Times, Nov. 14, 1999 (as published).

I commend you for the publication of “The New Military Humanism” by Noam Chomsky (Sept. 19). According to President Clinton, as Chomsky cites him, the military action against Yugoslavia was necessary to stop ethnic cleansing. Additionally, he said, “The Albanian Kosovars would have become a people without a homeland, living in difficult conditions in some of the poorest countries in Europe.”

How similar this description is to what happened to the Palestinians, beginning in 1948 and mercilessly intensified in 1967. It is something to think about that President Johnson and his successors were blind and could not see any ethnic cleansing taking place in Palestine. While our governments headed an international movement to guarantee the return of the Kosovars to their homes, we have not heard in 50 years one single word from our Congress or White House in support of the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland. What a gigantic double standard.

René Espinosa, Falls Church, VA

Dusted Weed

To the New York Press , Dec. 8-14, 1999 (as published).

After reading Adam Heimlich’s “Seven Days in Israel” (11/24) and an article about evangelicals on the same day:

A strange ominous mating is taking place before our eyes. Here’s the bride in Boobus Mall waddling through aisles stacked high with wretched excess. Along comes Zion. Despite a yokel distrust of the city slicker, his advances were not rebufffed, because the Holy Rollers, too, anxiously await the longed-for Final Solution of the Palestinians. Why? What’s in it for them? Well, everything! Here’s the deal. Jesus will come only when the world’s Jews are foregathered in Jerusalem at last (driving Muslim and Christian Arabs and other Christian sects out). And when He comes, don’t you just know it? He’ll cast every man jack into Hell (and good riddance!), except the Believers. As for the Jews—so goes this demented scenario—exactly 144,000 of them will convert and be saved. But best of all, during the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth at Armageddon, the Believers, instead of suffering the death we all deserve, will just skip the undignified event altogether and be “raptured,” chrolesterol and all, instantly skyward, where they’ll waddle down endless aisles in Heaven Mall forever, gawking at junk.

T. Weed, Jersey City, NJ

Respect for Muslims

To The New York Times, Nov. 30, 1999 (as published).

Re “Measure of Good Will Toward Muslims Backfires in House” (news article, Nov. 24): Congress should be leading our nation into the next century, but its failure to adopt a resolution grounded in respect for the Muslim and Arab-American communities shows that it is not yet ready to do this.

The Arab-American community is a vibrant participant in our national life, but its members too often suffer from stereotyped suspicions. It is time that we actively work to enhance mutual understanding among and between us.

In addition to creating and supporting enforcement of laws that provide equal opportunity and due process for all, congressional leaders have the special responsibility to use their visibility to enhance intergroup relations.

Sanford Cloud, Jr., President, National Conference for Community and Justice, New York, NY

Pakistan Change of Government

To Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Washington, DC, Nov. 8, 1999.

As a U.S. citizen who closely follows the news coming out of Pakistan, I consider it quite ironic that the U.S. government is now calling for a timetable for the restoration of democracy and a civilian-based government. It is also unfortunate that the United States can no longer conduct “business as usual” with Pakistan, in the wake of the recent takeover of the government by the military.

I have read the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights. I consider the Constitution of the United States to be a noble document, with its guarantee of freedom, liberty and justice for all. I am sure the United States has called for a return to democratic rule in Pakistan, keeping in view its noble Constitution.

What really perplexes me, however, is that this country has a record of supporting the most ruthless and tyrannical despots (I will not name any, but the list is long). These despots were given every kind of diplomatic, economic and military support by the U.S. government to carry out their reign of terror against, mostly, average and ordinary citizens. Quite ironically, this support was given in the name of “promoting freedom and democracy around the world.”

Given America’s role of involvement in the political affairs of Pakistan, it seems rather strange that it (i.e. United States) wants a speedy return to democratic and civilian rule. Does America forget the fact that it was actively supporting dictatorial rule in Pakistan, while the Soviets were occupying Afghanistan?

For a person who follows the news of Pakistan, I must say this present military takeover was very humane and benign and in the best interests of the country. A few days ago Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraff, in answering some foreign journalists, said that deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is in good condition and is being treated and looked after very well. He also stated that he is not a “vindictive man.” Rulers and leaders of Pakistan, in years gone by, like Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Bhutto and Zia ul-Haq can hardly be described as being non-vindictive.

The point I would like to make is that the United States needs to follow a consistent policy. It should either support tyrannical government or support governments that honor their citizens’ inalienable rights and freedoms. It cannot have a mixture of both nor can the United States shift gears when and as it pleases.

Jeffrey Sayed, Alexandria, VA

Is the ADL Hypocritical?

To Mr. Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League, New York, Dec. 7, 1999.

According to the ADL’s 1913 charter, your organization’s “ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike, and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against, and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”¹ Again in its position statement of 1980, the ADL made “ending racial discrimination” one of its main objectives.”² In keeping with these stated moral principles, your alleged civil rights organization sponsors activities which urge people “to resist racial division,” and condemns discrimination against Jews in housing as an “insidious form of anti-Semitism.”³

Others, however, have claimed that this ADL “moral agenda” is in reality a hypocritical ideological façade, a method by which to surreptitiously advance Jewish-Zionist interests under the guise of morality. According to this viewpoint, public opposition to racial discrimination is being used in the service of the ADL’s Jewish-Zionist racial nationalism. ADL preaches universalistic equality and racial mixing for non-Jews while maintaining an exclusivist-separatist group identity for Jews.

Fortunately, we are offered a situation where we can test these two rival, competing hypotheses: Israel.

As the Jewish scholars Ian Lustick and Simha Flapan have shown, far from working for an integrated society in which Jews and Arabs functioned as social and political equals, the Jews who founded Israel created a society in which Israeli Jews dominate “Israeli” Arabs, a separate and unequal society in which discrimination is part of the established social order.⁴

For example, 90 percent of Israel’s territory has been legally defined as land which can be leased and cultivated only by Jews. Key institutions such as the kibbutz are reserved exclusively for Jews, as Israeli scholar Uri Davis has reminded us in his thorough study, Israel: An Apartheid State.⁵

Let us now look at a specific case of anti-Arab racism in Israel.

Adel Qa’adan is an Israeli Arab who wanted to move his family into the predominantly Jewish town of Katsir, Israel. He was told that Katsir does not accept Arabs into the community, and the Katsir local council informed him that they will not sell houses or land in Katsir to non-Jews. In an attempt to remedy this injustice, Mr. Qa’adan has taken his case to the Israeli supreme court.⁶ (See enclosure.) Clearly, this is a case of racial discrimination which the ADL should loudly and clearly condemn.

Here is my proposal: I would like for you to publicly denounce Israeli racism and offer your support for the Qa’adan family in their attempt to move into the predominantly Jewish neighborhood of their choice. A gesture such as this would prove that you truly are sincere, and the ADL really is against all forms of discrimination and bigotry. After all, as previously documented in this letter, the ADL has condemned discrimination against Jews in housing as an “insidious form of anti-Semitism.” By the same token then, Jewish discrimination against Arabs in housing should also be condemned by ADL. “Diversity is our greatest strength” has become a standard slogan of the ADL.⁷ If this be so, then let’s make Israeli neighborhoods stronger by integrating Israeli Arabs and Jews.

I look forward to your response.

Paul Grubach, Lyndhurst, OH

Footnotes

1Quoted in Lee O’Brien, American Jewish Organizations & Israel (Washington, DC; Institute of Palestine Studies, 1986), p. 93.

2Ibid., p. 98.

3ADL On the Frontline, Sept./Oct. 1997, p. 13; ADL On the Frontline, June 1998, p. 7.

4Ian Lustick, Arabs in the Jewish State: Israel’s Control of a National Minority (Austin, Tx., University of Texas Press, 1980); Sima Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities (New York, Pantheon Books, 1987).

5Uri Davis, Israel: An Apartheid State (London, Zed Books Ltd., 1987).

6See Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/Aug. 1999, pp. 14, 20.

7ADL On the Frontline , Summer 1997, p. 8.

Director Foxman Replies

Dear Mr. Grubach, Jan. 5, 2000.

I hesitate to respond to your letter which reflects such an animas toward Israel and ADL. Let me be clear that I believe you do not write in good faith.

However, because the issues of civil rights in Israel are indeed legitimate concerns, I am writing this letter. ADL is proud of its work in supporting Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, as well as working toward peace between Israel and its neighbors. At the same time we have engaged in programs and have issued statements trying to work for greater tolerance among all of Israel’s inhabitants and toward a society where all minority rights are protected.

Israel is a great democracy, but not a perfect society. We hope that the coming of peace will enable all of us to focus on Israel’s becoming an even more democratic society.

Meanwhile, what is so stark is that there is no other democracy, no other country in the region that has the fully independent parliamentary judicial and journalistic institutions which offer the only real hope for freedom. If you were sincere in your concerns about inequalities and nondemocratic manifestations, you would be focusing on the far greater Arab problems throughout the region.

Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League, New York, NY

A Reply To Mr. Foxman

To Mr. Foxman, Jan. 11, 2000.

The following is my response to your letter of Jan. 5, 2000.

You begin: “I hesitate to respond to your letter which reflects such an animas toward Israel and ADL.” You falsely confuse “hatred” with “justifiable anger.” I am indeed angry with ADL and Israel, and rightly so. In 1993 I was informed by the San Francisco Police Dept. that ADL seriously wronged me—your group illegally spied on me. Suppose the tables were turned, and I hired a private detective agency to illegally spy on you. Would Abraham Foxman then be hostile toward Paul Grubach?

Your intense Jewish ethnocentrism blinds you to the fact that much anger directed at ADL is in fact a normal psychological response caused by the collective behavior of the people within the organization.

The totality of evidence shows that Israel is responsible for numerous wrongs against the United States. For example, in June 1967 the Israeli military knowingly attacked the American naval vessel USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans. All of the evidence strongly suggests this was a premeditated attack, designed to prevent the American government from finding out sensitive information concerning Israeli war plans. Political officials are so terrified of the Jewish-Zionist power elite that Congress is reluctant to launch a determined effort to expose this act of blatant murder of American citizens and the subsequent coverup.¹

Your claim that Israel is a democracy is balderdash. Israeli Jewish scholar Israel Shahak writes: “The principle of Israel as a ‘Jewish state’ was supremely important to Israeli politicians from the inception of the state and was inculcated into the Jewish population by all conceivable ways. When, in the 1980s, a tiny minority of Israeli Jews emerged which opposed this concept, a Constitutional Law…was passed in 1985 by an enormous majority of the Knesset. By this law no party whose program openly opposes the principle of ‘a Jewish state,’ or proposes to change it by democratic means, is allowed to participate in the elections to the Knesset. I myself strongly oppose this constitutional principle. The legal consequence for me is that I cannot belong, in the state in which I am a citizen, to a party having principles with which I would agree and which is allowed to participate in Knesset elections. Even this example shows that [Israel] is not a democracy due to the application of a Jewish ideology directed against all non-Jews and those Jews who oppose this ideology.”²

Abraham Foxman, you yourself have highlighted an anti-democratic aspect of Israel: there is no separation of church and state, as the Jewish religion is forcibly imposed on Israeli society. In a speech on Feb. 13, 1998 in Palm Beach, Florida, you let the cat out of the bag: “Pluralism as we know it, separation of church and state as we know it, are not the same for Israel [and the United States]. Israel decided…that the state should have a religious nature. It established itself not like other nations, but as the only Jewish state. Israel has a Ministry of Religion; we [in the U.S.] have separation of church and state…What does it mean to have a Ministry of Religion? It is like having a Department of Religion in the United States, something we vehemently oppose.”³

Furthermore, Israel is not a democracy in the ADL’s sense of the term. Where different ethnic groups exist in the same nation, ADL is a strong advocate of an integrated society in which all ethnic groups function as social and political equals. ADL preaches racial integration, racial equality and multiculturalism. None of this exists in Israel. In fact, quite the contrary.

The title of Uri Davis’s book says it all: Israel: An Apartheid State. Ninety percent of Israel’s territory has been legally defined as land which can be leased and cultivated only by Jews—Arabs need not apply. Key institutions such as the kibbutz are reserved exclusively for Jews.⁴

Jewish scholar Ian Lustick has pointed out that the Israeli military is by and large a segregated institution. Most Muslim Arabs, who constitute the overwhelming majority of Israeli Arab citizens, do not serve in the armed forces—they are not conscripted, nor are they permitted to volunteer for service. This has important social consequences. In Israel, participation in the armed services is a prerequisite to social advancement and mobility. Cut off from the military, they are cut off from access to one of the main avenues of social advancement.⁵

“We [ADL] have engaged in programs,” you claim, “and have issued statements trying to work for greater tolerance among all of Israel’s inhabitants and toward a society where all minority rights are protected.” Many believe that ADL rhetoric such as this is meaningless, insincere lip service, designed to fool the public into believing that you really are a “civil rights” organization and not a bunch of Zionist hypocrites. I’m offering you a golden opportunity to publicly disprove this claim.

Adel Qu’adan is an Israeli Arab who wanted to move his family into the predominantly Jewish town of Katsir, Israel. He was told that Katsir does not accept Arabs into the community, and the Katsir local council informed him that they will not sell houses or land in Katsir to non-Jews. In an attempt to remedy this injustice, Mr. Qa’adan has taken his case to the Israeli Supreme Court.⁶ Clearly, this is a case of racial discrimination which the ADL should loudly and clearly condemn.

Your letter to me has missed (or consciously evaded?) my bone of contention. The issue is not whether Israel does or does not have a free press or “independent parliamentary, judicial and journalistic institutions.” Rather, it is that ADL ardently promotes racial integration, multiculturalism and racial equalitiy everywhere in the world except for one place—Israel. Here, ADL most ardently supports an apartheid, racially segregated state.

Mr. Foxman, I would like for you to disprove what I say by lending ADL support to the Qa’adan family in their attempt to move into the Jewish neighborhood of their choice. A gesture such as this would show that your organization does not harbor a hypocritical double standard.

ADL has condemned discrimination against Jews in housing as an “insidious form of anti-Semitism.”⁷ By the same token then, Jewish discrimination against Arabs in housing should also be condemned by ADL. “Diversity is our greatest strength” is a stock-in-trade ADL slogan.8 If this be so, then let’s make Israeli neighborhoods stronger by integrating Israeli Arabs and Jews.

Finally, you aver that if I were sincere in my concerns “about inequalities and nondemocratic manifestations, I would be focusing on the far greater Arab problems throughout the region.” Wrong again, Mr. Foxman. The ardently pro-Zionist U.S. mainstream media focuses heavily on the autocratic, anti-democratic features of the Arab societies of the region, but they rarely mention the numerous sins of the Jewish state of Israel. In order to help correct this media bias, I choose to focus my writing energies on exposing the many sins of Zionism and Israel. If and when the day arrives that the mainstream American press devotes equal time to the inequities of Israel and Arab states, then I will gladly devote my writing energies to the problems of the Arab world.

In this context, let us discuss racial hostility, something which ADL purveys. I’ve asked numerous Arab intellectuals this question: “Why do so many in the Arab world hate the U.S.?” The answers are all the same. American foreign policiy in regard to the Middle East, they say, is made by white American politicians in collusion with Jewish Zionists. The American government is the major supplier and financier of Israel, which in turn uses American aid to oppress Arab people in the region. It is for this reason that so many in the Arab-Muslim world are hostile toward European-descended Americans. They see a Euro-American political bureaucracy united with a Jewish-Zionist power elite oppressing Arabs throughout the region.

And, Mr. Foxman, my Arab friends are basically correct. It is politicians of European descent, in collusion with Jewish Zionists, who have created the U.S.’s totally irrational and destructive unconditional support of Israel.

Just as it is socially and morally acceptable for you as a Jew to work for the best interests of the Jewish people, so too, it should be the same for Americans to work for their best interests. By exposing the oppression of Arab people in Israel in my writings, I can help to bring it to an end. This in turn will help to alleviate Arab-Muslim hostility toward Euro-Americans.

Paul Grubach

Footnotes

1See Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Dec. 1999), pp. 28-34; James M. Ennes, Jr., Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship (Random House, 1979).

2Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (Pluto Press, 1994), p. 3.

3ADL On the Frontline, June 1998, p. 10.

4Uri Davis, Israel: An Apartheid State (Zed Books Ltd., 1987).

5Ian Lustick, Arabs in the Jewish State: Israel’s Control of a National Minority (University of Texas Press, 1980), pp. 93-94.

6See Washington Report (July/Aug. 1999), pp. 14-15.

7ADL On the Frontline, June 1998, p. 7.

8Ibid, Summer, 1997, p. 8.

The Women of Bosnia

To The New York Times, Nov. 21, 1999 (as published).

The international community continues to fail the people of Srebrenica, the Bosnian Muslim “safe area” that was overrun by Bosnian Serbs in July 1995 (news article, Nov. 16).

Survivors of the massacre came to Sarajevo in disorganized groups. Because of the war no one had prepared collective living centers for these families, and most women and children were left to manage on their own.

The women of Srebrenica continue to live with little assistance and no hope for justice. Many may never return to their homes, and many of their male relatives were killed or are missing. They do not have permanent housing in Sarajevo, lack money for living and schooling, and have only fear of the future.

Zineta Rasavac, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (The writer is executive director of Corridor Organization for Psycho-Social and Humanitarian Assistance, a Bosnian group.)

Anti-Terrorism or Neo-Imperialism?

To The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 29, 1999 (as published).

That Russia has come to fear the threat of Taliban-backed revolutionary movements (“U.N. Sanctions of Taliban May Hamper Effort to Bring bin Laden to Trial in U.S.,” Nov. 12) would be laughable if the plight of the Afghan people were not in such a serious state of affairs. Lest we forget, it was Russia that killed up to two million people in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989, and it was Russia that assassinated the president of Afghanistan in 1979 prior to its invasion.

During the war with the Soviets the Afghans had the opportunity and justification to launch terrorist attacks against the Russians, yet they chose not to do so. A quick review of Afghan history will demonstrate that the Afghans have never in their tumultuous history countenanced the export of terrorism.

Today, Russia prosecutes a war against the tiny Chechen Republic with massive artillery and air bombardment, inflicting thousands of civilian casualties. Russia raises the specter of the Muslim terrorists as justifications for the bloody, genocidal policy. But this so-called anti-terrorist policy has become nothing more than neo-imperialism.

Bruce G. Richardson, Topsfield, MA

On Chechnya, A Stifled U.N.

To The New York Times, Jan. 20, 2000 (as published).

I applaud William Safire’s views regarding how Russian and United States political shenanigans have threatened innocent civilians in Chechnya (column, Dec. 27). We should also be concerned about reforming United Nations policies that have allowed the situation in Russia to continue without debate.

The fact that one Security Council member—Russia—can stifle United Nations discussion of the many possible Russian war crimes and atrocities in Chechnya demonstrates that the organization is in serious need of change. The permanent membership of the Security Council should be expanded, and the ability of just one member to control debate should be abolished.

Currently, the only way to focus world attention on Russia’s actions is through the media and international organizations like Human Rights Watch. For this I am grateful, but the United Nations needs to become more effective in dealing with such situations.

Charles J. Tripp, Salt Lake City, UT (The writer is a professor of political science at Westminster College.)

Peace Dreams

To the Arab News, Feb. 1, 2000 (as published).

Asked on TV what their wishes for the new millennium were, most people said, “peace on earth.” But how do we achieve peace when there is too much greed, hatred, violence, inequality of wealth, terrorism, hostile neighbors and oppressive governments?

Peace is elusive in the Middle East, where a belligerant Israel adamantly believes that a dominant position for its armed forces will give it security and, thus, peace. For the Arabs, there will be no peace without regaining what they lost and until Israel respects the rights of its neighbors. The main issue here is what should come first, security or peace? Basically, nobody trusts the other, so nobody wants to give it all without the clear assurance of the other.

Those who were fighting with legitimate causes were forced to adopt terrorist methods to draw the world’s attention to their plight; however, they gained only the ire and condemnation from the world when innocent lives were lost. In such cases, sympathy often goes to the oppressors, which gives them the impunity to retaliate with much greater evil.

The alleged bombings in Russian cities is the justification Russia gives for its gruesome assaults on Chechnya. The IRA’s bombs did not change the stand of London and the Unionists—it only bred hatred and more army offensives. Soldiers and civilians everywhere want peace but become pawns in the hands of their leaders and are compelled to settle the issue with guns and bombs.

If only they could compromise and resolve their differences through nonviolence and peaceful negotiations. If only there were a stronger U.N. that could effectively mediate before any conflict turns into a full-blown catastrophe and if there is willingness on the part of everybody involved to make compromises for the sake of peace, then the dream of many for the new century will come true.

Serg’s Urbinal, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Mediate in Kashmir

To The New York Times, Jan. 19, 2000 (as published).

You conclude your article “You’ve Got the Bomb. So do I. Now I Dare You to Fight” (Week in Review, Jan. 16) on a pessimistic note:

“For now, at least, it is difficult to see a way out of the bitter cycle of violence over Kashmir that seems to endlessly repeat itself.”

What India and Pakistan now need is a push to accept outside mediation. The United States and the United Nations should provide the push by imposing economic sanctions against both countries until they accept outside mediation and until they resolve the Kashmir issue.

Because both India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, which affect the security of other nations, the United Nations would be justified in taking this drastic action.

And as it has done in other parts of the world, the United States, the sole superpower, must initiate the process at the United Nations before it is too late.

Muhammad Saleem, Larchmont, NY

Bring Peace to Kashmir

To The New York Times, Jan. 11, 2000 (as published).

Re your Jan. 5 editorial “A Hijacking’s Dangerous Fallout”: As you assert, the United States or the United Nations must help negotiate permanent and peaceful resolutions of chronic and escalating Indian-Pakistani disputes, especially the 52-year-old Kashmir conflict.

Indeed, the solution was suggested by the United Nations Security Council with the approval and participation of both India and Pakistan by self-determination resolutions adopted in 1948 and 1949. The solution broke down when the Council defaulted on its implementation responsibilities and left it festering with India and Pakistan. The festering continues, as the recent hijacking demonstrates, and proves the danger of international aloofness, especially when the two possess nuclear weapons.

Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council, Washington, DC

Opening for Peacemaker

To The New York Times , Jan. 9, 2000 (as published).

The Clinton administration’s global agenda (news article, Jan. 3) should include the eastern Mediterranean, where Greece and Turkey have improved relations markedly after intensified military cooperation during NATO’s Kosovo campaign and the mutual outpouring of public sympathy after earthquakes last summer. Their long rivalry is being transformed into a working relationship that can begin to resolve their differences in the Aegean and Cyprus.

President Clinton’s intervention helped secure progress in the Middle East and Northern Ireland He now has another chance to achieve a historic breakthrough to a once-intractable problem.

John Sitilides, Executive Director, Western Policy Center, Washington, DC

SIDEBAR

If you don’t have time to write, telephone those working for you in Washington.

President Bill Clinton

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20500

White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111

Fax: (202) 456-2461

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

Department of State

Washington, DC 20520

State Department Public Information Line:

(202) 647-6575

Any Senator

U.S. Senate

Washington, DC 20510

(202) 224-3121 • (800) 505-0145

Any Representative

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

(202) 225-3121 • (800) 505-0145