Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2002, pages 43-46

Other People’s Mail

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

Israeli Dissenters

To the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 6, 2002 (as published).

Regarding the article, “Israeli soldiers defy their battle orders” (Feb. 2): When dissenting reservists declare their refusal to “fight beyond the Green Line with the aim of dominating, expelling, starving and humiliating an entire people,” it’s time the United States took notice.

For anyone who is still wondering why so many millions of people hate us and consider us the great Satan, it’s not because we eat cheeseburgers, drive SUVs and live in a democracy. It’s because of our government’s foreign policies.

Though President Bush recently referred to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as his “friend,” many Israelis have joined the majority of the free world in condemning Sharon’s oppressive regime.

Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians don’t infuriate just the Arab world, but Israelis too. What if we Americans stood up and refused to let our government support Israel’s terror? It could create freedom and democracy for the Palestinians and a few million fewer enemies for the United States.

Hannah Miller, San Francisco, CA

More Pvt. Sharons?

To the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 6, 2001 (as published online).

Cheers to the Israeli reservists who refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. An Asia specialist once remarked that the British could not maintain their imperial enterprise in India because there were not enough Pvt. Winston Churchills in the British army. Let’s hope there will be too few Pvt. Ariel Sharons in the Israeli army for Israel to maintain its brutal control over all of Palestine.

Larry Waldron, Berkeley, CA

Here’s to Israelis Against Occupation

To The Keene Sentinel (Keene, NH), Feb. 6, 2002 (as published).

I write to salute the 50 Israeli officers and combat reservists of the Israel Defense Forces who said they will refuse to serve any longer in the occupied territories of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza Strip (The Boston Globe, Jan. 30).

They point out that they are ready to continue to fight for the Israeli state, but will have no part any longer in the occupation. Listen to their words:

“We shall fight no more...to rule, deport, destroy, blockade, exterminate, starve and humiliate” the Palestinian people. “The price of occupation is the loss of humanity in the Israel Defense Forces and the corruption of the whole Israeli society.”

The goal of this group is to collect 500 signatures from their military personnel to oppose the occupation that “becomes progressively uglier.”

I am sure this courageous action has not been taken lightly. I hope our government will take notice of their words and will work more vigorously to end the 35-year Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Karin Van Strien, Peterborough, NH

Jews Against Zionism

To the Guardian, Jan. 29, 2002 (as published online).

Dr. Tessa Rajak (Letters, Jan. 28) wonders why the “literary classes” have a “negative obsession with the Jewish state.” Obviously it can’t be anything to do with that silly stuff to do with human rights. The literary classes must be, she insinuates, following the old bigotries of T.S. Eliot et al. Can I suggest some other possibilities? The literary world these days has plenty of Jews in its orbit but, sadly for Zionists, many of us do not think of Israel as our homeland and we reject the merging of the word “Jewish” with “Zionist.” What’s more, having stood up to be counted in our opposition to, say, apartheid, we can see an obvious inconsistency in keeping silent on the Palestinians.

Michael Rosen, London, UK

Ethnic Cleansing a Frank Option in Israel

To the International Herald Tribune, Feb. 27, 2001 (as published).

Re: “Israeli Army suffers pair of sharp blows” by Lee Hockstader (IHT, Feb. 16-17)

It is reported matter-of-factly that a poll in the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv found Israelis “deeply divided” as to “whether to intensify the fight, fence off Israel to keep Palestinians out, negotiate with them or ethnically cleanse them from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” People may have ugly dreams in many countries, but only in Israel would a reputable poll propose crimes against humanity as a policy option, and only in Israel would a large proportion of respondents publicly admit to supporting such an option. If this is acceptable, what is Slobodan Milosevic doing in The Hague?

John V. Whitbeck , Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Israeli Attacks Are Ethnic Cleansing

To The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 18, 2002 (as published).

In “Demolitions not revenge” (Jan. 15), the statement that the demolition of houses in the Gaza Strip are not simply revenge is correct. But I don’t believe they have anything to do with Israeli security, either. Israel is not threatened by houses in the south of the Gaza Strip. Israelis cite security concerns when they kill Palestinians, demolish their homes, raze their orchards, or prevent them from checking into hospitals by stopping them at one of the hundreds of roadblocks.

The fact of the matter is, the Israelis are systematically trying to make life so miserable for the Palestinians that they leave the occupied territories of their own accord. This is otherwise known as ethnic cleansing. Slowly and deliberately, the Israelis have done this, sealing off villages and demolishing homes and property, thus changing the ethnic balance.

Gert van der Straaten, Nijmegen, Netherlands

Settlers Rule in Israel

To the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 11, 2002 (as published online).

After reading Oz’s commentary, one gets the impression that the existence of a “dangerous equivalent” extremist attitude on the Israeli side (i.e., a Greater Israel) is a recent development provoked by Arab terrorism. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

In 1977, when Anwar Sadat came to Jerusalem, he offered the two-state solution to then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The offer was soundly rejected. Instead, an extensive Jewish settlement program was undertaken in the West Bank, which continues to this day. Later, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir bitterly criticized then-President Bush for refusing to underwrite loan guarantees to build these settlements. More recently, the requirement of the Mitchell commission report to freeze the West Bank settlements has not been agreed to by the Sharon cabinet in principle, in spite of public noises to the contrary.

Unfortunately, Israeli extremists are now and have in the past been running the government in Jerusalem.

Irwin Grossman, Los Angeles, CA

Outraged Silence

To the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Jan. 20, 2002 (as published).

On page 2 of the Jan. 11 Herald-Tribune you published a photograph of two Palestinian women sitting in the rubble of their homes, demolished by the Israelis.

Their homes were two of more than 50 in the most recent demolitions done by the Israeli army, which have left 700 Palestinians homeless. The usual excuse is that they were hideouts used by gunmen, a statement that Israelis always use and no one ever seems to question.

Just a few days ago, five Palestinian children were burned to death in a tent in which they were living after their home was demolished by the Israeli army.

In December, two Palestinian children, ages 3 and 13, were killed in Hebron by Israeli bombs. Again in December, five Palestinian children on their way to school were killed by an Israeli booby trap.

These people are the poorest of the poor; they have nothing except their refugee homes and children, and these can be wiped out by a well-equipped army in the blink of an eye. The excuse is always the same: They are harboring terrorists.

Do our media or politicians ask for evidence? No, they wouldn’t dare. To question Israel puts them in danger of being labeled anti-Semitic. So they turn a blind eye and life goes on. When Israeli children are killed, they are outraged. But when Palestinian children are killed, they are silent.

Barbara A. Hammami, Punta Gorda, FL

Lost Opportunity

To Ha’aretz, Feb. 4, 2002 (as published online).

Regarding “Extending a hand to Arafat,” Jan. 28.

While I often agree with Gideon Levy, he is wrong when he writes that Arafat “is the initiator of the historical compromise the Palestinians accepted: Recognition of Israel and receipt of only half of what was once British Mandatory Palestine.”

The compromise Arafat accepted was to create a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which form only 22 percent of Mandatory Palestine. It is for this reason that when Israel offered much less than that at Camp David, not one Palestinian, even the most moderate, could accept it.

Not even the U.N. partition plan of 1947 offered the Palestinians half of their country—the one in which they were two-thirds of the population and owned all but a small fraction of the land.

When in history did a people willingly offer 78 percent of their country to their enemy? It is Israel, not the Palestinians, that lost an historic opportunity for peace when they turned down a settlement based on full withdrawal from the occupied territories. Now we are all paying the price for that unbelievable intransigence and greed.

Ali Abunimah, Amman, Jordan

Caterpillar Shamed

To Mr. Barton (CEO, Caterpillar, Inc.) and Ms. Marsha Hausser (Public Affairs, Caterpillar, Inc.), [n.d.]

Is it true that your company’s equipment was used in the destruction (in violation of the Geneva Convention) of the homes of 600 Palestinians on Jan. 10, 2002?

If so, why are you facilitating the violation of the Geneva Convention, in particular articles 33, and 53?

Do you really want your company’s name associated with the brutal racial oppression of Arab families?

Robert Burrage, USA

Taking Friedman at His Word

To The New York Times, Feb. 20, 2002 (as published).

Thomas L. Friedman’s Feb. 17 column, “An Intriguing Signal From the Saudi Crown Prince,” is the clearest policy statement from the Saudi government yet stated with regard to the Arab-Israeli dispute.

I urge Mr. Friedman to go to Israel and bring from there a clear statement to match the crown prince’s peace initiative.

We are ready for peace. Mr. Friedman got something started; he should not stop.

Hassan Y. Yassin, Los Angeles, CA (The writer was head of Saudi Arabia’s information office in Washington, 1971-80.)

Saudi Peace Plan Offers Mideast Boon

To the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 28, 2002 (as published).

Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s proposal of complete Arab peace with Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to its 1967 borders is almost too good to be true—a win-win on a par with the cultures it would benefit. Just the tourism dollars that would flow back into the region—mine included—should be sufficient reward to stop the violence and occupation, and officially recognize that one of the many post-Ottoman, post-British states in the Near East happens to be Jewish.

The incentives are staggering. The Palestinians would have a true chance at self-government, a first for them. The Jews, although giving up designs for a Greater Israel, would have a real opportunity to revitalize the region economically, enhancing the wealth and prestige of their country far more than what an expanded but precarious imperialism might.

The United States needs to do more than just make a phone call on this one. The benefits of Mideast peace to this country and the world would justify dropping the embargo of Iran, reducing threats against Iraq, pressuring Israel for immediate withdrawal and making significant financial investments in the depleted occupied territories even before the ink dries on the peace plan.

Hurrah to Prince Abdullah for having the courage to make this suggestion of comprehensive peace, and to the Israelis for being immediately receptive.

James M. Forbes, San Francisco, CA

Disturbing Interviews

To the Detroit Free Press, Feb. 18, 2002 (as submitted).

In his interview with the Free Press, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Collins insists that the nationwide interviews of Arab and Muslim men—including 300 in the Detroit area—are not an example of racial profiling (“It’s not racial profiling: Interviews helpful to everyone involved, U.S. attorney says” Feb. 8). But in explaining his rationale, Collins made a somewhat contradictory statement.

Indeed, he stated that “racial profiling is clearly wrong....But racial profiling occurs when someone is suspected of unlawful behavior based on race and not based on behavior....That’s not what’s happening here.”

Is that true? These individuals were interviewed based solely on race and ethnicity, and not on any perceived suspicious behavior or wrongdoing. There was no other justification for these interviews.

In George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, such statements as “two plus two equals five” were repeated until they became “truth.” Perhaps if our Justice Department officials repeat the claim over and over that the ongoing witch-hunt against innocent Arabs and Muslims is not representative of “racial profiling,” we’ll eventually believe them.

Riad Z. Abdelkarim, MD, Western Region Communications Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Anaheim, Calif.

Sensitivity Lesson for Ashcroft

To Attorney General John Aschroft [n.d.]

The American Muslim Political Coordinating Committee (AMPCC) is writing to express its dismay over comments that were attributed to you by syndicated columnist Cal Thomas. Your comment, “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you,” is offensive to our community due to its inaccuracy and divisiveness.

Furthermore, this public expression of hostility toward Islam causes American Muslims, in addition to other faith and civil rights groups, to question to what extent such views will reflect in policies coming out of your office that directly affect our community.

We respectfully ask you to clarify your statement publicly and to take a leadership role within the Department of Justice to sensitize officials regarding Islam and Muslims in an effort to allay concerns that an anti-Muslim culture has taken root in the Department of Justice.

American Muslim Political Coordinating Committee

Costly Dismissal

To Jack Wheat, the University of South Florida, Jan. 23, 2002.

Unfortunately, because of Ms. Genshaft’s decision to dismiss Professor al-Arian, I must reconsider any intention of future financial support to the University of South Florida. I recognize that standing behind a faculty member as controversial as Professor al-Arian currently is must be difficult indeed; however, in so doing, the University would be standing up for free speech; truly a battle, but few are more worth the fight. To dismiss Professor al-Arian is to dismiss a significant portion of the University’s integrity as well. Ultimately, it is my belief, that by standing behind Mr. al-Arian, you would attract more students and position the University in a, perhaps, more respectable light than that in which it is currently viewed. In terms of the safety issue, I suspect that there are ways of protecting students, administration and faculty (including Sami al-Arian) that could be utilized if the University were truly committed to supporting him.

I regret Ms. Genshaft’s decision and the position I am forced to take in response.

Neil Sims, Program Officer, Firedoll Foundation

Migration of Muslims to West Will Continue

To the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 28, 2002 (as published).

The Sept. 11 tragedy changed the world of migration. Combating terrorism and halting illegal migration coincided. A new enemy was created—Muslim migrants from the Middle East and North Africa. They were potential terrorists. They had to be kept out. Borders were closed. New walls were erected. The West closed its gates to migrants from the region. But the underlying causes of the migration of Muslims to the West persist. Thousands continue to venture into the dangerous journey of migration with the hope of finding salvation in the West. They flee war, political conflict, poverty and the hellish life under Islamic fundamentalism.

For many, international migration is the only escape from the cultural and political violence of fundamentalism. Plagued by unending wars and sociopolitical instability, and driven away from the possibility of a life of peace at home, many have become voyagers in search of survival in faraway lands. This seems to be the story of most Iraqi, Afghani and Kurdish migrants caught behind borders in the West.

Devastated by war and political violence, millions have also been subject to destructive economic changes beyond their control: the globalization of economics and culture. Displacement and migration have been the result. The introduction of market relations and the transformation of subsistence economies have changed the nature of work in many countries. Millions have joined the ranks of wage laborers, swelling the labor force in most urban areas.

In the past 30 years, the labor force increased by 176 percent in the Middle East and North Africa. The unprecedented increase in the labor force has not been matched by a growth in job creation and improvement in the standard of living. High unemployment rates persist in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Poverty has been on the rise in many countries in the region.

Intoxicated by the flashy images of the West, a large number of socially aspiring and culturally adventurous young men and women have joined the ranks of migrants in recent years. They, too, flee home for a better world.

The recent migratory movement of young Iranians is a telling example of this development. The Iranian youth echo the inner aspirations of millions of young people across the Muslim world—a desire for life with dignity, freedom and the possibility of work with livable pay.

There seems to be no reversal of the existing migration flow to the West from the Middle East and North Africa in the near future. A growing number of displaced Muslim men, women and children will be facing closed borders in Europe. The result will be increased clandestine border crossings, desperate use of more dangerous routes and methods of migration, exploitation and abuse by smugglers and human traffickers, and death. A policy revision is necessary to stop this human drama.

Behzad Yaghmaian, Associate professor of Economics, Ramapo College, Mahwah, NJ

Pearl’s Murder

To the Chicago Tribune, March 1, 2002 (as published).

I cannot find words to express my anger and disgust at the brutal murder of Daniel Pearl. The fact that it happened in my country and was perpetrated by people who call themselves Muslims makes it all the more painful. My head hangs in shame.

The sick minds behind this heinous crime must have taken particular pride in killing Daniel Pearl because he represented three things that they hate the most—he was a Jew, an American and a correspondent of The Wall Street Journal, a symbol of capitalism. My spirit is dampened when I think about Daniel Pearl, his wife and their unborn child.

Naved Musharraf, Oak Brook, IL

Kashmir Needs to be Heard

To The Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 7, 2002 (as published).

“Kashmir parties aim beyond war words” (Feb. 4) has indicated with clarity the sufferings of the people of Kashmir. However, it did not focus on the participation of Kashmiri people in talks held between India and Pakistan, wherein Kashmir’s future is decided. Any peace talks held can only be considered sincere when Kashmiris are acknowledged.

Numerous bilateral peace talks have been held between India and Pakistan without any results. Kashmiri people have suffered, sacrificed, and been subjected to brutal tyranny long enough. Today, when so much stress is being laid on human rights and freedom, the people of Kashmir are entitled to both.

Suraiya Siddiqi, Brampton, Ontario, Canada

Pentagon Considers Strategy of Lying

To The New York Times, Feb. 21, 2002 (as published).

Regarding your Feb. 19 front-page report that the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence may adopt a policy of providing false news items to foreign media to influence international public opinion, besides the fact that this would be unethical, wouldn’t it be far more effective to design more democratic and humane policies, and then tell the truth about them?

Eliot Katz, Astoria, NY, NY

Israel’s Invisible Nuclear Arsenal

To the Toronto Globe and Mail, Feb. 1, 2002 (as published).

Although not surprising given the nature of U.S. domestic politics, George W. Bush’s failure to include Israel in his list of states that pose “a grave and growing danger” due to their development of “weapons of mass destruction” is alarming and indicative of a seriously flawed foreign policy (Bush Warns Rogue Nations—Jan. 30).

It is common knowledge that, while refusing to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel possesses at least 200 nuclear warheads along with a missile system capable of delivering them anywhere in the Arab world and beyond. It is also known that Israel is producing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons.

For the Bush administration to continue to ignore Israel’s huge buildup of weapons of mass destruction is not only hypocritical but stupid, as it contributes to the hatred, and hence insecurity, of the United States.

Gary D. Keenan, Vancouver, Canada

The Business of War

To The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 29, 2002 (as published).

I believe neither the U.S. nor Israel really wants peace. Peace is not big business. War is. Today Bin Laden, tomorrow Arafat, yesterday Saddam Hussain. When does this madness stop? When does the quest for profit end and the quest for peace and the needs of people begin?

To hold Arafat responsible for every incident of violence is as accurate as saying all Americans are war-mongering, profit-seeking imperialists.

Frank Valdez, San Antonio, TX

Arming Israel

To The Washington Post, Jan. 22, 2002 (as published).

The Jan. 11 editorial “A Ship Comes In” did not examine the totality of weapons shipments to the Middle East.

Contrary to the editorial, the largest source of destabilizing armaments in the Middle East is the U.S. government, which spends more than $3 billion a year on Israel’s military.

Until we recognize the need for an immediate demilitarization of the Middle East, armed conflict will continue under the auspices of our tax dollars.

Amer Ardati, Washington, DC

War on Terrorism Lost in Afghan Quagmire

To the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 27 2002 (as published).

Re: “Afghans Selling All They Can Sell,” Feb. 25: The global crusade against terrorism launched with such flag-waving fervor after Sept. 11 has bogged down in the Afghan quagmire, as critics of the war policy hesitantly predicted at the time. Now what? Build an Afghan national army of 25,000 to 75,000 troops out of the ragtag soldiers and their rival warlords who switch sides for the cost of a U.S. government-issue sleeping bag or a set of camouflage fatigues in plentiful supply at the bazaar in Mazar-e-Sharif?

Combat terrorism? Of course we must, but with real consultation, full agreement and the total involvement of the U.N. and our allies. And while we’re at it, maybe it’s time to tackle that thorny question: What breeds terrorists and why do so many people around the world hate the U.S.? And where is Osama bin Laden anyway?

Saul Halpert, Studio City, CA

Redefining Evil

To The Times of London, Feb. 11, 2002 (as published online).

During a month’s holiday in Iran last summer I encountered nothing but generosity, with countless invitations to dine, picnic and stay. Not once were individuals openly hostile to America or its people. In fact, people wanted to forget the past, lift sanctions and restore relations with the United States.

If the Iranian nation is to be branded as “evil” (report, Jan. 31), then the word requires redefining.

Edward Hills, London, UK

Iran’s Positive Influence in Afghanistan

To The Christian Science Monitor, March 1, 2002 (as published).

Regarding “Iran Aids Afghans as U.S. Frets” (Feb. 25): Propaganda involves the manipulation of definitions to fit certain words. A case in point is “meddling,” which is the latest U.S. invective aimed at Iran in the context of President Bush’s “axis of evil” doctrine and the current state of affairs in Afghanistan.

Most observers agree that Iran is pursuing its legitimate interests in a neighboring country where in the past it helped ward off a total victory by the Taliban. It assisted the Northern Alliance for six years, until America finally called on its regional allies—such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia—to stop supporting the Taliban. Iran shares a common religion, culture, and language with much of Afghanistan. It is willing to work with other countries to rebuild this devastated land, and has pledged $567 million toward that end. Representatives of the U.N., EU, and various aid agencies are among those who have confirmed the positive role Iran is playing.

Kewmars Bozorgmehr, London, UK

Iraq’s Suffering

To the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 25, 2002 (as published).

The current administration is clearly preparing our nation for some manner of war with the nation of Iraq. Having recently returned from a 10-day trip to Iraq, I find this deeply disturbing.

I cringe at the thought of an assault against people who graciously welcomed our group of six Americans into their homes, churches, mosques and government offices, and who reminded us repeatedly of their respect for the people of America.

This welcome was made more striking due to the tremendous suffering caused by 11 years of economic sanctions against Iraq—an embargo UNICEF says has cost the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children.

Many of the people we met recognized that their government had made a mistake in the past—a reference to their invasion of Kuwait—but they couldn’t understand why we have inflicted such extended and severe suffering on a civilian population in return. We also learned that the sanctions have strengthened support for Saddam Hussain, as he has stood up to the West for these many years.

Certainly ways must be found to make the world a safer and more secure place for people everywhere, and this should include the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction—biological, chemical and nuclear. But should it not also include restraint in our impulses to seek the overthrow of other nations’ governments and the elimination of the use of devastating sanctions? Most often, it is the people who suffer as they are caught in the middle of this prideful clash of giants.

David R. Radcliff, Director, Brethren Witness, Church of the Brethren, General Board, Elgin, IL