Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2003, pages 75-77

Other People’s Mail

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

Uniting for Peace

To The Guardian, Jan. 31, 2003 (as published online).

As the Security Council meets to consider the interim report of the U.N. weapons inspectors an awful prospect is looming: one of diplomatic deadlock in the council, followed by the unilateral invasion of Iraq by Britain and the U.S. (“U.S.: Iraq is spying on inspectors,” Jan. 30). We should prepare for this eventuality by drawing on the experience of the 1956 Suez crisis. On Oct. 30 that year, the U.S. tabled a resolution condemning both the Israeli invasion of Egypt and the Franco-British intervention to occupy the canal zone.

This was promptly vetoed by France and the UK. Yugoslavia, a temporary member of the council, then invoked Resolution 377, which had been passed in 1950 to overcome Soviet obstructionism.

Known as the “uniting for peace” resolution, it enables the council to call an emergency meeting of the full General Assembly, which can then decide on U.N. strategy by majority vote. In 1956, this meant that Britain’s and France’s immoral and illegal actions were condemned by the assembly, which subsequently became the primary forum for agreeing to the action to resolve the Suez crisis.

This time around we must also be ready to rouse the General Assembly if an inability to agree in the council looks set to be used as a cloak for unilateral aggression. If Britain and the U.S. decide to go it alone, other members of the council should consider reviving Resolution 377 as a way of maintaining the integrity of the U.N. and international law.

Nick Robins, London, UK

Cuban Missile Crisis

To The Boston Globe, Feb. 7, 2003 (as published).

During the Cuban missile crisis in the early ’60s, the United States, at a decisive moment, presented clear, photographic evidence to justify its claim that Russian missiles posed an imminent threat to its national security. The evidence profoundly affected world opinion—and war was averted.

Today, we do the opposite. We claim that Iraq poses an imminent threat (“Powell tells U.N. Iraq hid arms, deceived weapons inspectors,” Page A1, Feb. 6), but present no clear-cut proof. In the meantime, we prepare for war as if we need no profound justification to attack a country that hasn’t attacked us.

If we attack Iraq without meeting the standard we set in the Cuban missile crisis, then it must be asked: What has become of us? Where are we going? Truly, who are the terrorists?

Jeffery Wilkinson, Brookline, MA

The Rumsfeld Soundbite

To The Guardian, Feb. 11, 2003 (as published online).

You may have thought Germany was in the heart of Europe, one of the founding members of the EU and thus in the heartland of diplomatic international relations. I’m afraid not. According to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Germany is a rogue nation, in the same category as Libya and Cuba (“U.S. fury at European peace plan,” Feb. 10).

Anyone with an actual grip on reality is aware Germany is actively involved with recent global military conflicts, both financially and physically. Moreover, there is no doubt Germany would not abandon the people of Iraq after a war—there are German doctors in Iraq now.

It seems that Americans can say what they want, never mind how insulting, and we have to put up with it, while anyone who criticizes the U.S. government—Herta Däubler-Gmelin, former German minister of defense, Canada’s Françoise Ducros, neither of whom made critical statements in public—are forced to resign. Not Rumsfeld, though. Are we to take Donald Rumsfeld seriously at all?

Uta Waller, Saarbrücken, Germany

Flawed Evidence

To The Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2003 (as published).

I was amused by the choice of words in the headline “Blair Acknowledges Flaws in Iraq Dossier” [news story, Feb. 8] regarding three instances of plagiarism. “Flaw” suggests a problem in the flow or logic of the argument, not a fundamental problem such as copying from a graduate student’s 12-year-old paper.

I am a college instructor, and if one of my students turned in a term paper with three instances of plagiarism, I would consider it more than a “flaw.” It would cause me to question every other piece of that student’s work, and a failing grade would likely follow.

This is another example of the administration’s misinformation. We should give it the grade it deserves.

James Noon, Frederick, MD

Buying a Coalition

To the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 11, 2003 (as published online).

I am writing in response to Joseph Knight’s Feb. 8 letter suggesting that your paper and letters contributors cease calling U.S. military action “unilateral” now that 18 European countries have signed on to support such action. I suggest that Knight and others ask/ investigate what the U.S. government has promised to or threatened to revoke from those countries, which may have influenced them to sign on. The U.S. government, with its emissaries the IMF and the World Bank, has many countries in its pocket and/or under its very powerful influence due to loans, aid, etc., especially Eastern European countries.

Mary Ann Brewin, Berkeley, CA

Weapons Declaration

To The Times of London, Feb. 13, 2003 (as published).

Jack Straw claims that Iraq’s declaration about its weapons of mass destruction, submitted to the United Nations in December, “was neither full, accurate, nor complete” (Comment, February 5).

The elected members of the United Nations Security Council will have to take Mr. Straw’s word for it, since we understand that more than 8,000 of the declaration’s 11,800 pages were omitted when it was circulated to them.

The full dossier was given to the United Nations and transported to New York, where by some mechanism it came into the hands of the United States administration, which promised to copy it for members of the Security Council. In the event, two-thirds of the declaration were withheld from the 10 non-permanent members.

I wrote to these members asking whether British press reports on these matters were true (an inquiry to the office of the secretary-general had produced no response).

The current president of the Security Council, Joschka Fischer, confirmed these facts. In a letter dated Monday, Feb. 3, his office writes:

“The facts of the case as you present them are correct. In fact the Iraqi statement of around 12,000 pages of 8th December was given in full only to the five permanent members of the Security Council.”

Who authorized this substantial deletion?

Ken Coates (Chairman), Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, London, UK

The World Has Spoken

To The Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2003 (as published).

All over the world, as well as here at home, millions of people are saying no to the Bush administration’s rush to war against Iraq [front page, Feb. 16]. Most know what a tyrant Saddam Hussain is and what horrors he has wrought on his people. But they are equally aroused about the “new unilateralism” proclaimed by those beating the war drums.

The notion that we can withdraw from international treaties when it pleases us, that we alone can decide who is a threat and then attack preemptively, that we can jettison allies developed over decades and reject their counsel out of hand and that we can, for the second time in 60 years, wreck the one forum that offers the possibility of peaceful diplomatic solutions (remember the League of Nations?)—these arrogant policy decisions are destroying our once premier standing in the world.

We are risking our future and that of the Middle East, as well as risking an escalation of terrorist attacks, to prove—what? That we have an adolescent impatience with diplomats, inspectors and heads of state who want to avoid war, the most horrible of human experiences?

We need more inspectors, more U.N. backing, more flyovers, more of everything except blood in the streets.

Toni and Marvin Thalenberg, Annapolis, MD

Bush Will Force a War

To The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb. 3, 2003 (as published).

The last paragraph in Jay Bookman’s column catches the essence of President Bush’s attitude when he comments that “war is not being forced upon us, we are forcing war” (“Are we willing to force a war? I can’t imagine,” @issue, Jan. 30). It has seemed obvious for many months that war was Bush’s intent. It is hard to find the justification for this path, and certainly not for going into hostilities unilaterally.

On another tack, Bush’s lack of focus on the dreadful situation in Israel is lamentable. The failure to push for a cessation of growth of settlements or for withdrawal from existing settlements, and the continual curfews and destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank show a complete disregard for the human rights of the Palestinians. The election of Ariel Sharon for another term does not hold promise for any hope of resolution of the conflict there.

Mary Elizabeth Etheridge, Atlanta, GA

War for Peace?

To The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 31, 2003 (as published).

Tuesday night’s speech had little to offer for those looking for some good news in these stark times. President George Bush asked us to trust in his vision of achieving peace through war, while Israelis re-elected a man who has spent a lifetime demonstrating the futility of this formula.

Ken Galal, San Francisco, CA

Apology Requested

To Benjamin Netanyahu, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Israel, Feb. 13, 2003.

On Thursday, you declared that the Belgian Supreme Court made “a scandalous decision, which legitimizes terror and harms those who fight it. This turns the tables—when those who fight terror turn into the accused and the terrorists are victorious.”

As counsels of the plaintiffs, 28 Palestinian and Lebanese survivors of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, we cannot accept your language, tone, or the characterization of yesterday’s landmark ruling. Our clients are not “terrorists,” but ordinary people who were raped, tortured, and wounded; who were forced to witness—and relive everyday since—the slaughter of their children, parents, husbands and wives, or who had their close relatives “disappeared.” By calling these victimized survivors “terrorists,” after all that they have endured for over 20 years, you have brought shame upon yourself as foreign minister, and upon your country, which, to its great credit, acknowledged the responsibility of Israeli politicians and military in this crime against humanity two decades ago, yet has never gone one additional and crucial step further by legally prosecuting the perpetrators and compensating the victims.

As minister of foreign affairs of Israel, you should not accuse the Belgian Supreme Court of legitimizing terrorism simply because it accepts the principle that Belgian courts have universal jurisdiction over perpetrators of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Your country was the very first country in the world to endorse universal jurisdiction for such crimes in its national legislation. Israel arrested war criminals like Eichmann in other countries, or sought to have suspects extradited.

Israel has failed, however, in respecting and discharging its clear obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention to arrest and prosecute those responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre, expressly qualified by the United Nations as an act of genocide and perpetrated in territory then under the control of the Israel Defense Forces.

Your statement gratuitously inflicts additional pain and suffering on our clients. The Middle East has been plagued by violence and revenge for over half a century. Our clients’ legal action constitutes the very first attempt by victims of mass violence in the region to seek redress through non-violent legal action before an independent court, and we expect any decent person in the world to respect this choice.

We are issuing this public request that you apologize for your cruel remarks.

Luc Walleyn, Michael Verhaeghe, Chibli Mallat, Brussels/Beirut

U.S. Interests First

To the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 15, 2003 (as published online).

Congratulations for printing George Bisharat’s commentary on this government’s underlying motivation for getting involved in a war that will bring nothing but disastrous results any way you look at it. Neither in terms of what will be a tremendous loss of life and future for the Iraqi people nor in respect to the future economic and international political turmoil our own country will surely fall prey to.

The conundrum of why we are involving ourselves in such a costly and heavy-handed engagement, from whose outcome we surely have more to lose than to gain, becomes crystal-clear, however, when the critical puzzle piece is laid snugly into place. That piece being the prioritization of Israel and its needs in all foreign policy strategizing that might in any way impact this “democracy.”

Unfortunately, it appears that lately, more often than not, Israel’s own interests subsume, and are very often antithetical to, our own. It’s time we shake ourselves out of denial and start conceptualizing our foreign policy and relations in accordance with what is first and foremost in the interests of the United States and the Constitution it is supposed to honor.

Winifred Dajani, San Francisco, CA

A Sanctuary Shattered

To The Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2003 (as published).

Not mentioned in the Jan. 26 news story about Israel’s raid in Gaza was that one of the missiles fired by Israel hit St. Philip’s Episcopal Church.

The missile shattered the church’s century-old stained-glass windows and caused major structural damage to the building, which had been renovated with the help of Anglican and other Christian communions in 1996.

For Muslims as well as Christians, St. Philip’s, located in the Ahli Arab Hospital compound, represents a place of peace and healing in the middle of hostility. It is surrounded by buildings flying Red Cross and Anglican flags.

I am ashamed that my tax dollars helped pay for the missiles that killed 12 Palestinians and damaged this place of worship. Such attacks might win votes for Ariel Sharon’s Likud Party, but they will do nothing to encourage the Palestinians to consider a negotiated settlement.

Paul A. Wee, Alexandria, VA

Financing Israeli Terrorism

To the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Feb. 7, 2003 (as published).

Israeli aggression and suppression of innocent Palestinian people goes on and on—with the help of our U.S. tax dollars. And now, the Israeli government is asking for a huge increase in aid.

By making U.S. taxpayers accomplices to Israel’s apartheid, “Jewish-only” version of democracy, theft of Arab land, torture of Arab prisoners, bulldozing of Arab houses, group punishment of Arabs, and openly discussed policy proposal for ethnic cleansing of Arabs, the Bush administration is ignoring the principles that unite most Americans and undermining our own democracy.

The time has come for the United States to stand on the side of justice. We must end our support of Israel. No more U.S. tax dollars should be provided for terrorism against the Palestinian people.

Mary Bader, Wayzata, MN

Too Much Aid to Israel

To the New Richmond News (WI), Feb. 6, 2003 (as published).

Last Nov. 25, Israel quietly asked the United States for $4 billion in new military aid, plus $10 billion in loan guarantees to bolster its economy.

This is in addition to the $2.7 billion already earmarked for Israel in the 2003 U.S. foreign aid budget. The total request of $6.7 billion amounts to more than $1,100 for each of Israel’s six million people, even though Israel has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

Israel is already by far the largest recipient of U.S. aid. Over the past 54 years the U.S. has given Israel $86 billion.

While Americans are told that Israel never has defaulted on a loan, the truth is that Washington automatically forgives loans to Israel, so that our money is never repaid.

Recently, the Bush administration rejected a United Airlines request for $2 billion in loan guarantees to help it stave off bankruptcy.

Why should we give five times as much to a foreign country? Think of what the federal Housing and Urban Development agency could do with $10 billion in loan guarantees to provide affordable housing.

Facing a budget deficit of $200 billion in 2003, the Bush administration cited the national emergency, serious economic conditions, and budget restraints to limit U.S. government employees to a 3.1 percent raise—saving an estimated $13.6 billion. Will those dollars go to Israel instead?

Citizens should let their representatives and senators know that this request for extra aid is outrageous.

Until Israel agrees to obey international law by dismantling its illegal settlements and ending its 35-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, American tax dollars should be used to benefit another failing economy—our own.

William Coughlin Hunt, Somerset, WI

Kashmir and Palestine

To the International Herald Tribune, Feb. 11, 2003 (as published).

A growing relationship between India and Iran is a welcome development. Nevertheless, stability in the Middle East and South Asia will remain elusive unless the long-standing issues of Palestine and Kashmir are settled peacefully. One wonders how stability in these two volatile regions can be secured when Israel and India continue to oppress the Palestinians and Kashmiris in violation of U.N. resolutions. America may forge a strategic partnership with India. That, however, should not give India carte blanche to continue prevaricating and procrastinating on Kashmir.

Tanver Ahmed Khawaja, St. Gallen, Switzerland

Home Schooling for Muslims

To The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 16, 2003 (as published).

Regarding your Jan. 14 article “Muslims craft their own curriculum”: I should not be surprised, but I certainly am depressed by the extent of misunderstanding, intolerance, and outright hate Muslim students have received in U.S. schools.

Neither America, public schooling, nor Christianity are well served by the kind of bigotry and intolerance Muslim students apparently endure. There is nothing patriotic in abusing followers of Islam, who are at least as diverse as the followers of Christianity.

To presume that the desperate, deluded, and insane individuals who on Sept. 11 flew those planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are typical of or speak for all of Islam is like presuming David Koresh of Waco insanity fame was a good example of typical Christianity.

I am sorry that these Muslim families have opted for home schooling, as we lose such dedicated, intelligent, energetic, and caring people from the public school system.

On the bright side, several of these Muslim families seem to have created vibrant Web sites that are accessible to all—a true image of American openness and tolerance.

Katharine Wiley, Rockland, MA

INS Round-Up

To the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 11, 2003 (as published online).

We applaud the recent Senate vote to cut off funding to the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s program National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS (“Senate votes to halt INS registration,” Jan. 25). The round-ups and detentions last month of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Muslim men and boys by the INS confirm our initial fears about the Department of Justice’s mandatory special registration program. The program is primarily directed at men from Middle Eastern, African and South Asian countries, many of whom are students, businessmen and visitors.

We strongly oppose NSEERS, which targets individuals based on ethnicity, religion or country of origin, rather than specific evidence of criminal activity or connection with terrorism. As the next deadline for mandatory registration looms and the Senate and House begin deliberation on the NSEERS program, we call upon our California congressional representatives to urge Attorney General John Ashcroft to immediately suspend the program until Congress can conduct an independent review of it.

Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director , ACLU of Northern California

Internment Is Wrong

To the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 13, 2003 (as published online).

Rep. Howard Coble, R-NC, commenting on the internment of Arab Americans (Chronicle Feb. 6), said that he agreed with President Roosevelt’s incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II, saying: “…Japanese Americans were an endangered species…it wasn’t safe for them to be on the street.”

All I have to say is that Roosevelt ignored basic civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and arbitrarily placed us in concentration camps. As for doing this to protect us, I saw the rifles of the soldiers in the guard towers pointing at us, not out at those who would harm us.

We should not perpetrate the same actions on our Arab-American citizens. It is a violation of our Constitution, the basic laws under which we exist as a democratic nation.

James Hirabayashi, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, San Francisco State University

Afghanistan Overkill

To The Washington Post, Feb. 8, 2003 (as published).

Apparently, in this age of high-tech warfare, the concept of a blocking force has been forgotten. The Jan. 29 front-page article “Allies Rout Rebels in Afghanistan” has our military using 350 troops with B-1 bombers, F-16s and AC-130s to launch 19 J-DAMS 2,000-pound bombs and two 500-pound GBU bombs and thousands of rounds of lesser firepower. A few hundred thousand pounds of jet fuel were burned, too—all to kill some 18 rebels.

That’s one 2,000-pound bomb per kill, with all the other munitions for show. Thank goodness we aren’t going up against China. How many more of these missions can we afford?

Stephen James, Ashburn, VA

Despicable Fear Tactics

To The Washington Post, Feb. 15, 2003 (as published).

During the Afghan war, the Bush administration tried to prevent broadcasts of Osama bin Laden’s messages, saying that they contained secret instructions for his followers.

Yet when a message could be used to heighten the fears of Americans regarding terrorism, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was the first to trumpet a communication from Osama bin Laden calling for Iraqis to mount suicide attacks against America.

Iraqis don’t have the bus fare to Baghdad, let alone passports and plane fare to America.

The administration is desperate to maintain a bare majority of support for an Iraq war. Its fear tactics are despicable.

George Laumann, Arlington, VA