January 1990, Page 40

Other People's Mail

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

A Growing Nuclear World

To Newsweek, Nov. 27, 1989

Whether or not Israel is allied with the repugnant regime of South Africa to develop missiles, there remains little doubt that it has a nuclear-weapons capability. Thus, continued US economic and military aid to Israel violates the Symington amendment of 1978, which stipulates a cutoff of all such aid to countries that have manufactured or received "a nuclear explosive device." So, when America decries nuclear-weapons development in Iraq, North Korea or other "hostile" nations, our hypocritical words will ring with hollow effect. We cannot allow the nuclear arsenal of our allies to hold us hostage, forcing us to ignore our laws and sit by as the world becomes nuclear armed to the teeth.

Richard Blake, Coordinator, Worldwide Nuclear Freeze, Fairplay, CO

Palestinian Land

To the Winston-Salem Journal, Oct. 28, 1989

The letters to the editor by Frederick Groth and David Levy criticizing the Journal for not supporting Israel's request for more American money to settle Russian Jews in the West Bank and Gaza shocked me. How can civilized American condone occupation and support expulsion of any people from their homes where they have lived for thousands of years? How can these gentlemen support giving Palestinian land to a Russian Jew who has never seen the land before?

There is no limit to the amount of money the Zionists would like to ask our government to send to Israel even when they know that many programs and projects in this country are suffering because of limited resources. I am sure that the letter writers know that the annual cost of direct taxpayer aid to Israel is approximately $12.50 per capita. For the operation of the Commission on Civil Rights, Americans pay only two cents each. Currently at $3 billion a year, aid to Israel is a large expenditure by any standard and amounts to approximately $715 for every man, woman and child in Israel.

Americans have the right to ask why Congress allocates more money to Israel than to the Marines or the FBI. According to Richard Curtiss, the editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, the only reason that congressmen give Israel $3 billion every year is that they fear the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel's well-heeled lobby. He adds that the reason is not strategic because it is very easy to prove that Israel is a liability, rather than an asset to America. Unconditional aid makes possible Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights that are contrary to everything that Americans stand for, at home and abroad.

Jamil A. Fayez, President, NC Chapter, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Winston-Salem, NC

Welcome Arafat to UN

To the Herald & Review, Decatur, IL, Nov. 7, 1989

Once more Congress has demonstrated its near monolithic support for Israel. Upon reconvening in September, both the Senate and House immediately circulated letters urging that, should Yasser Arafat request a visa to address the United Nations, it be denied. Sixty-eight senators signed such a letter addressed to the secretary of state, and so far 58 members of the House have signed a similar letter addressed to the president.

To date, Arafat has neither applied for nor has he indicated any intention of applying for a visa to address the UN.

Since a 26-member UN human rights panel announced on Aug. 31 that Israel had been found guilty of serious violations of the fourth Geneva Convention ("war crimes" under international law), Arafat has been busy strengthening Palestine's position in the world community.

In September, Palestine was welcomed as the newest member of the 103-member NonAligned Movement and Arafat—appearing as president of Palestine—spoke for all of Asia at the movement's opening session. Since Palestine was officially proclaimed a state nearly a year ago by the Palestine National Council and formally recognized by 91 countries, Arafat and his PLO envoys have been upgrading their relations with several European nations, including Great Britain.

In September, while Israeli Minister Ariel Sharon did the rounds of US "talk shows" calling for the "elimination" of Yasser Arafat, PLO special envoy Bassani Abu Sharif had a meeting with the British foreign secretary and a number of Jewish leaders, from Holland, France and Britain, including a former president of the European Jewish Congress.

Yet, today, two countries still defy international consensus and resist world momentum toward a just peace in the Middle East. One is Israel, the other is the United States.

Kenneth R. Crouch, Decatur, IL

Eyewitness Corrects Newspaper Account

To the Atlanta Constitution, Nov. 17, 1989

On Nov. 6, your World Report from Bethlehem, Occupied West Bank, stated that "troops dispersed about 100 Americans who prayed with Arabs on Sunday and held a sitin." This was misleading. The dispersing came after a march and a prayer-in involving about 2,000 people had already taken place that Sunday, Nov. 5.

The prayer-in involved Christians, Jews and Muslims. In a very moving moment, the elderly Mufti of Jerusalem was led into the church. Mind you this was in a church in the predominantly Christian, middle-class village of Beit Sahour, under siege by Israelis for nonpayment of unfairly levied mafia-type taxes in an illegally occupied territory. When the Mufti came slowly down the aisle, the entire packed-in congregation stood up and cheered, then there was rhythmic clapping until he got to the altar to speak. A spokesman for former President Jimmy Carter spoke in support of the solidarity that day between Muslims, Christians and Jews. People wept. Just the dream of peace was emotionally charged.

Unfortunately, the Atlanta Constitution did not print the details of this peace movement, where another 2,000 plus a Swedish diplomat were turned away from Beit Sahour that Sunday morning. But to say the group was dispersed and not follow through with the fact that the mission was very complete, was unfair.

My husband and I were just two of four Atlantans, out of 120 Americans, from as far away as California, who were privileged to go. We saw places tourists do not see. We spent the night in a village under siege. We were welcomed into camps of displaced native Palestinians. We sat in rooms devoid of furniture and were served coffee and treated, ironically, in the manner of the almost-dead southern hospitality all of us native Atlantans recall so well. We were humbled.

Remaining behind, at the church where the march would end for the final prayer service, I walked across the street with two small Arab children also dressed for Sunday service. While we stood on an open porch, waiting for the people to return, one of many passing jeeps occupied by Israeli soldiers stopped in front of us and a soldier got out with his M- 16, got down into firing position behind the jeep and, from about 20 feet away, and for what seemed an eternity in slow motion, aimed his weapon, in a bullet spraying simulation, across the roof, across the middle of the building and then across us, twice. I thought he was going to kill us, and I knew I was the only American there.

Petrified, I crossed the street with the children as the jeep left. No words of warning preceded the incident, and I asked someone if that happened often. Yes, it did, when I was not there, they said. But I was there, and it happened, I said. Why? Because I was wearing a scarf (plain), and had two Arab children with me, I was mistaken for an Arab woman, I was told. Of course, sometimes they shoot.

Soon, hundreds of people of many colors, including my husband and the other Americans, arms locked in what is now internationally recognized as a peaceful solidarity sign, rounded a corner, marching peacefully toward the church. Obviously, I was very glad to see them.

There is a lot more to the story, about this cross-section of Americans (physicians, teachers, Vietnam vets, students, Christians, Jews and Muslims previously unknown to each other) who took off from their jobs and families to do their small part in the name of peace. But you chose not to cover it. That's really too bad, especially for Atlanta.

Dr. and Mrs. James V. Rogers, Jr., Stone Mountain, GA

Beit Sahour as Sister City

To the San Jose Mercury, Nov. 4, 1989

A lightning rod to gather the power and force of non-violent resistance by both Israeli Jews and Palestinians has been hoisted by Beit Sahour, a Christian Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank.

Like hundreds of other West Bank villages, Beit Sahour has been occupied since the 1967 war by the Israeli army.

Beit Sahour is administered by the Israeli military governor and is severely restricted in tree-planting, home-building, water usage, school sessions and commerce. This places an unfair and onerous burden on the people of Beit Sahour, and on other Palestinian communities.

The Israeli military government imposed on the people of Beit Sahour broad and unreasonable taxes covering all aspects of their life.

So the residents vowed to resist the military occupation of Israel by refusing to pay taxes unless they receive equal representation, freedom and justice.

This was in the true spirit of Gandhi.

The Israeli military government responded by breaking and entering Beit Sahour homes and businesses and carting off beds, tables, chairs, stoves and fixtures.

The resistance was in the tradition of our own Boston Tea Party. What could be more in keeping with our revolutionary history and with the approaching celebrations of the Prince of Peace and Hanukkah than for the citizens of San Jose to adopt Beit Sahour as a sister city?

Solomon Zeltzer, Sunnyvale, CA

Modern Saudi Arabia

To the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 13, 1989

As an American woman whose business takes her to Saudi Arabia, I found your article "Riddle of Riyadh: Islamic Law Thrives Amid Modernity " (Nov. 9, 1989) quite interesting. However, the author, Ms. Geraldine Brooks, seems to believe that despite technical advances, Saudi Arabia's adherence to Islam keeps it in the philosophical, sociological dark ages. Several of Ms. Brooks' assertions are open to interpretation at best.

Saudi Arabia is indeed an Islamic society. However, the observation of the law of Islam in no way makes the country a threatening place. Yes, there is capital punishment in Saudi Arabia. Capital punishment also exists in the United States. Most Saudi women do manage the home, but many Saudi women are doctors, shop owners and journalists. Moreover, as the family is the primary concern of most Saudis (men as well as women), the woman's role as home manager is critical to the society and respected and supported by Saudi men.

Saudi law is strict. If the law says no, it means no. However, contrary to Ms. Brooks' implications, beheadings do not occur on a regular basis. Nor does the common thief automatically lose a hand. On the other hand, there is very little crime in Saudi Arabia, and rape, child molestation and murder are very rare. Punishment for these is indeed sure and swift.

As far as religious freedom is concerned, Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as "religions of The Book." Saudi Arabia itself is an Islamic state, but foreigners are free to practice their religion privately. Saudi shops do close at prayer time, the way to Mecca is displayed on airlines, and no alcohol is served—in other words, they practice what they preach.

Should an American woman be afraid to travel to Saudi Arabia? In my experience, no. But like any traveler anywhere, she should be aware of the laws and practices of the area. As she should riot walk nude down Wall Street, so she should take care to be very conservatively dressed in Saudi Arabia. It is a question of degree, not of kind. Everyone (not just women) needs a Saudi sponsor in order to visit Saudi Arabia, and one must be sure one's papers are in order.

But worry beyond that? I'd rather be alone at night in Riyadh than on Wall Street.

Irene Hansen Saba, Champaign, IL

Israeli 'Democracy'

To the San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 1989

I read with an enormous relief the assurances in M. Franzblau's letters (July 2 1) that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. I reached the opposite conclusion after reading the same Chronicle issue about an American mother having been arrested because her 3-year-old daughter flashed the V-sign to Israeli border guards, apparently hurting their feelings. They are known for their gentleness and sensitivity. The American mother was saved from a lengthy prison term by her passport—3 billion per year was more important than holding her in jail. Obviously, Israel's democracy is similar to Athens in Old Greece. It is limited to Jews, including Rabbi Kahane, but excludes Semitic Palestinians (is such a democracy, therefore, anti-Semitic?), just as in Old Greece the slaves and women were excluded. To preserve such a democracy should not the US taxpayers double the foreign aid to Israel to at least $6 billion per year?

Ibrahim Wilson, Stanford, CA

Three billion dollars a year, taken from our taxes, go to help Israel perform its "democratic policies" of killing innocent children, women and men, blowing up houses of suspected stone throwers and jailing or deporting anyone who demands his or her freedom and basic human rights. Then, we stand as the only country in the world not to condemn these policies. Is it surprising that our Mideast policies have failed? And to those who still think that Israel is a democracy, I say-wake up and smell the teargas!

Eyad Ghani, South San Francisco, CA