January 1991, Page 68

Other People's Mail

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

The Truth Beyond the Camera

To the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Aug. 27, 1990

Noel Holston deserves praise for his August 24 piece, "TV Ducking the Hard Questions on Mideast, " which substantiates that television journalists have generally been ignoring "the principles underlying US policy " and relevant historical background in their coverage of the Iraqi crisis (much as they did during the Iranian crisis a decade ago, according to Edward Said's 1981 Covering Islam).

American journalists, policy-makers, and citizens would do well to consider two points as we reflect on events in the Gulf.

1) Much as we prefer to think otherwise, the Iraqi seizure of Kuwait—from the perspective of many in the Arab world—is not so different from Israel's occupation of Palestine and invasion of Lebanon or from our own government's invasions of Grenada and Panama and interventions in Central America.

2) The US must be careful about measuring the validity of our own actions (i.e., sending a massive troop force to Saudi Arabia before serious diplomatic efforts) against what we perceive to be the evil of Saddam Hussain and the Iraqi actions to which we are responding. The US citizenry (and fighting personnel) deserve to have "hard questions" about current US approaches considered by both journalists and Washington strategists.

Carol Schersten LaHurd, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN

Living in America

To Tulsa World, Sept. 16, 1990

A man woke up to find all his tires slashed, a professor was severely beaten, suffering a concussion, phone calls came late at night threatening the lives of people who came to America fleeing the very violence they are now suffering. These are the Arab Americans. One man said, "If a terrorist in Lebanon kills an American, I am accused of being a terrorist. If an Iranian kills an American, I then become an Iranian. Even though an Iranian is not an Arab, it makes no difference. Now, I have become Saddam Hussain, again they feel I should be killed." To add insult to injury, a US senator said, "The Arabs do not place the same value on life as we do."

We know very little about other people, and living in a multiracial society we are isolated from those with different cultural as well as religious views. Jewish and Black organizations strike back at such bigotry; it seems that the Arab is fair game, and the press does not take a strong stand against this type of discrimination. Cartoons on TV and the press usually show violent Arabs with long curved knives.

The Arabs are in America because it is better than where they came from ... or is it?

Terrence Peterson, Nowata, OK

Hiding Behind Words: An Exchange

To Mr. William Safire, March 13, 1989

This is a character question.

According to an article in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs by Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal, "Back in the late '50s, when (William Safire) was an assistant on the famed 'Tex and Jinx' radio show, broadcast from the Waldorf Astoria's Peacock Alley, I appeared on the program. I had brought with me a devastating rebuttal to the then current Zionist propaganda which I had intended to read at an appropriate moment. The moment came, I reached for my written rebuttal, and found that both it and Safire had vanished from the studio."

Question: Did you take Dr. Lilienthal's manuscript?

Lewis K. Elbinger, Khartoum, Sudan

To Mr. Lewis K. Elbinger, April 1989

The good doctor is as wrong now as he was then.

William Safire, Washington, DC

To Mr. William Safire, May 15, 1989

Greetings from Khartoum, Sudan.

Your response to my letter of 13 March 89 (copy attached) does not answer the question of whether you took Dr. Lilienthal's manuscript.

The way I see it, there are four possible answers to the question posed in my original letter:

1) Yes, I took the manuscript.

2) No, I did not take the manuscript.

3) It was so long ago, I cannot remember (the Oliver North defense), or

4) It's none of your damn business.

There may be a fifth possible response, but the one you gave is not it.

You may have used words in your political career to conceal or obscure facts more often than not, but in your new role as national English teacher I hope you champion clarity over rhetoric.

So what is it: did you take Dr. Lilienthal's manuscript?

Lewis K. Elbinger, Khartoum, Sudan

The Price of Occupation

To the Cleveland Jewish News, Nov. 30, 1990

Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election with the question, "Are you any better off now than you were four years ago?" I think the time has come to ask the people of Israel, "Are you any better off now than you would have been if you had negotiated sincerely on the occupied territories?"

In the CIN, Nov. 23, analyst Helen Davis wrote that Israel may be contemplating a preemptive strike against Iraq. At what cost of young Jews? Of all Jews?

Assume the strike is successful. Then what will life in Israel be like? Life faced by aggravated guerrilla activity. Constant tension with angry neighbors in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and all the Arab countries.

Was it worth it to maintain those few miles? Does anyone now really believe that they enhance Israel's security? Isn't the promise of American and UN support worth more than those strips of land?

Wouldn't it now be in Israel's interest to be a party to international negotiations to solve the conflicts of the Middle East, sponsored and guaranteed by the UN and the US? This would defuse Saddam Hussain's campaign. It would end the prospect of returning body bags. Let's give peace a chance.

Robert M. Evans, Cleveland Heights

UN Needed in Jerusalem

To The Atlanta Constitution, Nov. 11, 1990

Columnist Tom Teepen recently accused the world of using a double standard in judging Israel.

Columnist Durwood McAlister used the same terminology recently when he criticized the United Nations for not calling for an investigation of the incidents in Ayodhya, India, where government forces acted responsibly in defending a Muslim mosque from destruction by a mob of Hindu fundamentalists who wanted to place a Hindu temple on the site.

This in no way can be compared to the massacre of 21 Palestinians and wounding of more than 150 more by Israeli militia at Temple Mount, where the Palestinians had gathered to protect their Al Aqsa Mosque from threatened desecration and ultimate destruction by a group of radical Jews.

The Israeli forces were in no way trying to protect the Muslim holy sites. Rather, their intent was in establishing dominion over another segment of an illegally occupied territory.

It never ceases to amaze me that the pro-Israel editorialists always ignore the basic Israeli-Palestinian problem, the long-continued illegal occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and South Lebanon.

As Israel persists in this occupation, its intention of a complete takeover is manifested by the continuous establishment of Jewish settlements in these areas.

The suffering must end. A UN observer team should be sent to oversee and guarantee access for Christians, Jews and Muslims to the holy places and to protect the oppressed Palestinians until a peace conference is held and the occupation of all the territories is over.

Lest Mr. McAlister call me anti-Jew, perhaps he should investigate the Jewish peace groups in the United States, many of which my wife and I belong to and which hold the same fair-minded views we do.

Jim Rogers, Stone Mountain, GA

A Bum Rap

To Charlene Hunter-Gault, McNeil Lehrer Report, Oct. 15, 1990

Why do you hate Turkey?

When you conveyed the news that Turkey had shut off the Iraqi oil pipeline, you also reported that we couldn't really be sure that the Turks weren't being deceitful.

You regularly refer to Turkey's "terrible human rights record. " There may be atrocities in Turkish jails. There are probably atrocities in jails in Mississippi. Jails around the globe are not very nice places. Maybe McNeil-Lehrer should do some comparative investigating. Until you do, do you really want to continue to parrot the media's conventional wisdom—gleaned from "Midnight Express" and other simple-minded distortions—that Turkish jail-keepers are worse people than other countries' jail-keepers?

Why, in your coverage of the Kuwait crisis, do you regularly show only negative stuff about what is in fact a complex, rapidly changing country? The position taken by the administration of the Turkish Republic puts the country in considerable danger. You would never know this from watching your reports, in which you can't seem to get out from a "terrible Turk" stereotype that somehow has fixated itself on you. I would think that you would be more alert to danger of getting trapped in pre-conceived biases.

You are giving Turkey a bum rap. You really ought to take the trouble to get a better idea of what you are talking about.

John Gallivan, Arlington, VA

A Diplomat Among Diplomats

To The New York Times, Dec. 2, 1990

If you are going to bother to review a book, isn't it a good idea, before voicing one's prejudices and opinions, to give the reader some faint idea of what the book is about?

In Joanne Kaufman's "review" of my autobiography, "Keeper of the Gate" although she compliments the book at first, she fails to mention that my father was a Lebanese immigrant who started life as a peddler in the hills, of east Tennessee. From this modest beginning, I worked my way through Vassar, met and married Archie Roosevelt, subsequently led the life of a CIA wife, etc.

This, then, would explain why I am so much a believer in the American dream, and see myself as an example of it—something that Ms. Kaufman finds "self-righteous."

Likewise, having been brought up with dark skin and exotic looks in a city made up almost entirely of blond, blue-eyed AngloSaxons, I early in life developed a sympathy and understanding for people who suffered because of their skin color or ethnic origins.

Imagine my distress to be characterized as patronizing" because I repeated the opinions of my protocol officers that the African visitors to Washington were the easiest and nicest people to deal with. If I had said that the Africans were the most difficult, would Ms. Kaufman have characterized that as racist?

And, finally, Ms. Kaufman ignores my plea for tolerance and understanding for Arabs and Arab Americans and, by taking a quotation out of context, characterizes me as "overly hostile toward Israel." In fact, what I did was bemoan the stereotyping that equates Arabs and terrorists and that, therefore, says Arabs ought to be despised. I pointed out:

"We do not hate the Irish and yet the IRA has shown more sustained cruelty than almost any terrorist group. We manage to divorce the killers of Lord Mountbatten and the assassins who tried to murder Margaret Thatcher from the great Irish people. Likewise, German, Italian, Japanese, Basque, Sikh, and Tamil terrorists—the list is endless."

Then followed a sentence stating that Israelis too had indulged in terrorism especially in the early days of their struggle for a homeland. Ms. Kaufman quoted only that sentence. Is it hostile to Israel to state a truth?

"Keeper of the Gate" is meant to give the reader a glimpse of the world of diplomacy. As a diplomat among diplomats, I would say that tolerance, understanding and optimism are my stock in trade. I could not have done the job I did for seven years—longer than any other chief of protocol in history—had my attitude been otherwise. In fact, of all the letters of appreciation I received, none were more complimentary than the ones I received from our Israeli visitors.

Selwa Roosevelt, Washington, DC

Israel's Hostages

To the Fort Worth Star- Telegram, August 28, 1990

Your Aug. 22 editorial rightly condemns Saddam Hussain for taking Americans hostage. I wonder if your readership knows that since the mid- 1980s, Israel has been holding 4,000 citizens of Lebanon captive in Israel. Even Israel's strong supporters in this country, such as Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D-NY), consider these 4,000 Shi'ite Moslems to be hostages and have called for their immediate release.

Like most right-thinking people, I believe Saddam Hussain should not get away with taking over a small country such as Kuwait. But I also do not believe that the American taxpayer should subsidize Israel's taking of hostages, invasions of small, weak countries such as Lebanon and the annexations of Palestinian lands.

If the United States treated Israel as it does other countries that violate international law and human rights—Iraq, South Africa, Panama—perhaps radical Arabs with bizarre messianic visions would not come to power and feel justified in invading neighboring countries. And perhaps Americans would not have to suffer for what we have allowed Israel to perpetrate against weaker peoples.

John Taylor, Fort Worth, TX

A Mother's Love

To the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Aug. 9, 1990

Joseph J. Feigenbaum's letter to the editor of July 26 displayed the utmost insensitivity to the pain and suffering of the Palestinian women under the Israeli occupation. He claimed that "Arab women throw stones while holding their children in their arms, using them as shields in order to arouse world opinion against Israel."

I can't imagine any mother who would deliberately expose her infant to danger in order to make a political statement. As a Palestinian mother of four children, I would put my life on the line to shield them from harm. Any other way is unthinkable.

Palestinian women will, in time, forgive the Israeli soldier for killing and maiming their children, but will not forgive being dehumanized by Israeli spokesmen or their American apologists.

Afaf Ayish, Elyria, Ohio

Double Standard No Solution

To The Florida Times-Union, Sept. 14, 1990

The crisis in the Persian Gulf region has been of considerable mental and financial strain to American society, particularly with the deployment of our troops in the region.

The George Bush administration deserves tremendous credit for resorting to the UN Security Council and for acting with unwavering determination. No doubt the invasion and unilateral annexation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussain cannot be condoned under the UN charter or under any rule of international law.

There has been a long historic dispute between Iraq and Kuwait regarding the existence of the sheikhdom as an independent state. Britain sliced it from the Basra (Iraq) province in 1899 to use as a safe harbor for its trade route with the Indian subcontinent. Incidentally, Iraq threatened annexation shortly after the British left and Kuwait became an independent state. The second bone of contention relates to the Rumailah oil wells. Iraq claims that most of the underground oil pumped by Kuwait lies in Iraqi territory and Kuwait has been overpumping and selling Iraqi oil.

No matter what the origin or range of the dispute might be, no state has the right to use force to settle its' dispute, even when it feels that its security is threatened. Chapters VI and VII of the charter of the United Nations are quite clear on this issue. Consequently, the resort by Kuwait to the Security Council was quite legitimate.

In Arab consciousness, however, this has not followed the pattern of discussions in, and resolutions by, the Security Council. Since 1967, when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, scores of almost unanimous resolutions by the Security Council were defeated by the sheer use of "no" by our administration. These resolutions involved condemnations of annexation, invasion, confiscation of land and water and building settlements, to say nothing of the deportations and vicious suppression of every form of self-expression or self-determination for the Palestinians.

Wherever one goes in the Middle East, one hears talk of the double standards and of insensitivity and racism towards the Arabs. This has surfaced most conspicuously in connection with the recent crisis. To them, if the West is so keen on applying international law regarding the Iraqi violations, it should not be so protective of Israeli violations.

It is therefore important for us to understand that the voices that we have been hearing, ranging from outright protest to US intervention to tepid support, even from some of our staunchest friends, are not an expression of support for Saddam and his brutal invasion and annexation of Kuwait. It is no more than a resentment of the double standards and the embarrassment this has been causing" to some of the Arab leaders in the region.

Shukri Salameh, Jacksonville, FL

Charge: Jordan is Palestine...

To the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Oct. 12, 1990

Moslem Palestinians have not lost their homeland. They have 78 percent of Palestine-Jordan. If Jordan isn't Palestine, what is it?

Nobody bothers Moslem Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria. But if they choose not to live in peace with their Jewish Palestinian neighbors, they will have to accept the consequence for their actions.

The fact that some ethnic Moslem Arabs live in a 35-mile enclave across a thirty-foot river separating them from the rest of their brethren in Jordan (65 percent of the Jordanian population is Moslem Palestinian) is no more reason to establish a hostile "homeland" for them than to establish a separate country within Jordan' or to establish a separate nation of the Sudetenland simply because Germans live there.

J.L. Greenberg, Seattle, WA

... Response: Stop Myths and Inaccuracies

To the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Oct. 29, 1990

J. L. Greenberg's Oct. 12 letter is replete with inaccuracies and misinformation. His use of the phrase "Moslem Palestinians " indicates he is not aware of the fact that at least 25 percent of the Palestinians (and about 35 percent of the PLO leadership) are Christians. The area he refers to as "Judea and Samaria" is in reality the occupied West Bank, and to say that "nobody bothers" Palestinians living there not only insults the intelligence of your readers, but also ignores Israel's illegal confiscation of 50 percent of the West Bank, 30 percent of Gaza and 90 percent of the water resources in the occupied territories.

His contention that "Jordan is Palestine" is absurd. Jordan may have within its borders a large number of dispossessed Palestinians, but it is a sovereign country with internationally recognized borders and is a member of the United nations. If he is attempting to resurrect the argument that the creation of Trans-Jordan a 1922 was the first partition of Palestine, and what is known today as Jordan is a Palestinian state, he is again in error; for in the same year the League of Nations accepted Win ton Churchill's proposal that Trans-Jordan should be exempted from all clauses in the British Mandate providing for the development of a "Jewish National Home in Palestine. " This decision was perfectly just and logical because the number of Jews living in what became Jordan was reliably estimated to be a maximum of three people. Let is put this "Jordan is Palestine" myth to rest once and for all.

G. Keenai, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Pakistan and Nonproliferation

To The New York Times, Oct. 28, 1990

Allow me to clarify any misperceptions that may have been created about Pakistan's nuclear program by "Pakistan's Bomb: Proliferating Excuses. "

Our commitment to nonproliferation is unequivocal and total. We were among the first to express support for the Nonproliferation Treaty and, despite that treaty's inherent inequities and discriminatory character, Pakistan supported the United Nations resolution commending it.

We fully share your concern about a nuclear arms race and sincerely hope that influential countries will play a more active role in persuading India to accept some form of restraint to prevent nuclear proliferation in the region.

Pakistan firmly believes that genuine nonproliferation can only be brought about by pursuing the regional approach.

To help achieve the objective, Pakistan has offered proposals to India, including signing the nonproliferation treaty, if India agrees to do the same, as also bilateral inspection. Let me assure your readers that we are prepared to consider any constructive proposal as long as it is nondiscriminatory and does not impinge on our sovereignty.

Shalid Malik, Counsellor (Political), Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, DC