January 1996, pgs. 88-93

Other People's Mail

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

Mideast Road to Peace

To the Vancouver Sun, Nov. 14, 1995 (as published).

I take issue with much of what David Lamb has to say about the Arab-Israeli peace process ("Arab leaders come to accept that peace with Israel is inevitable," Opinion, Sept. 29).

President Nasser of Egypt never "promised to 'drive the Jews into the sea.'" In 1973 British MP Christopher Mayhew offered £5,000 to anyone who could prove he had, or that any Arab head of state had threatened to launch a war of genocide against Israel. Not one of the many claimants has succeeded and each alleged quotation has been proved to be mistranslated or invented.

Mr. Lamb blames the Arabs for the past 48 years of hostility and ignores the root cause of the conflict: Israel's history of military expansion and dispossession of the area's indigenous people.

Israel signed a treaty with Egypt in 1979 after ignoring every previous Arab offer of peace. It had to be dragged to the 1991 Madrid Conference. Israel rebuffed overtures from Egypt before, during and after the 1948 war; a proposal by Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt made at Lausanne in 1949; and an offer by Syria in the same year to absorb 350,000 Palestinian refugees and conclude a peace treaty. By 1982 all Arab League member countries had recognized Israel's right to exist in peace as a secure sovereign state within its pre-1967 borders, and in November 1979 the PLO agreed to recognize Israel.

What finally brought Israel to the table was the intifada, the fact that it is losing the decisive "demographic war," and the inevitable erosion in relations with its patron, the United States.

Gary Keenan, Vancouver, BC, Canada

The Deir Yassin Memorial

To Professor Daniel McGowan, Oct. 29, 1995

Thank you for describing the project of building a memorial to Deir Yassin in such a moving article in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. And thank you for your eloquent letter to Elie Weisel. I'm Jewish, and reading about what happened at Deir Yassin changed the entire way I think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Or to be more accurate, after I first read about Deir Yassin 20 or more years ago, I began learning the true facts about that conflict and its history. It seems to me that part of the tragedy that has befallen the Palestinian people is that their suffering has gone largely ignored by most of the Western world. This is why I think your idea of a monument to Deir Yassin is so wonderful.

I hope you will go on writing more articles for the Washington Report. They are great.

Rachelle Marshall, Stanford, CA

Another Letter to Elie Wiesel

To Prof. Elie Wiesel, Aug. 9, 1995

Although you may not yet have read my last letter, dated June 21, I feel compelled to write again asking your help for Deir Yassin Remembered.

I am haunted by your remarks about and praise for Martin Buber, the same great scholar who acknowledged the massacre at Deir Yassin and wrote to Ben-Gurion, "The time will come when it will be possible to conceive of some act in Deir Yassin, an act which will symbolize our people's desire for justice and brotherhood with the Arab people." Almost a half century has passed. The time to recognize the injustice toward and victimization of the Palestinian people is overdue. No fair-minded person can deny that innocent men, women and children were massacred at Deir Yassin. It is an important part of Palestinian history. It cannot and should not be forgotten. Wounds do not heal when deeds such as this are ignored or flushed down the "memory hole."

It is disheartening to learn that Buber's letter to Ben-Gurion went unanswered. He sent a copy and then another until the prime minister's secretaries wrote back that he was too busy to read the letter.

Our Board of Advisers is almost complete. We really want you to be a part of it. We are not historical revisionists; we simply want the truth to be told and the victims to have a suitable memorial.

Please answer this request, if only with a short note, and support us either by joining our Board or with a financial contribution. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Daniel A. McGowan, Director, Deir Yassin Remembered, Hobart & William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY

Mideast Heat

To the Washington Post Book World, Nov. 5, 1995 (as published).

It's unfortunate that the Post could not have run a serious review of Donald Neff's book Fallen Pillars, rather than the extremely biased hatchet job by Tad Szulc (Book World, Oct. 8). Szulc fails to refute any of the myriad of documented historical facts in Fallen Pillars, but instead relies on an ambiguous smear campaign in an effort to discredit the author and, by derivation, the book itself. Most important, he did not—because he cannot—challenge the central theme of Fallen Pillars: that the overwhelming majority of Middle East policy decisions made by a succession of administrations were definitely not made in the American interest.

Szulc's efforts to minimize the overpowering influence of the Israeli lobby on the Congress and administration are disingenuous. I am personal witness to the lobby's use of money and political threats against recalcitrant members of Congress to bring them into line when votes were needed for appropriations to Israel. In a demonstration of behavioral conditioning at its best, members of Congress eventually learn to vote in favor of Israel without the threats. Neither does he write about the intense dislike of Israel and its lobby by members who, in public, will make flowery speeches about "Little Israel" but who, in private, will curse and denounce their forced obeisance to this foreign power.

I've read Neff's book, and I think it would be a mistake for people interested in U.S. Middle East policy-making to forego reading it because of a vicious review by an advocate for Israel as Szulc is. More neutral sources have given the book high praise, such Americans as former Senator George McGovern, Professor L. Carl Brown of Princeton University, and former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Akins.

James G. Abourezk, Sioux Falls, SD

Tad Szulc Replies

To the Washington Post Book World, Nov. 5, 1995 (as published).

As his letter demonstrates, former Senator Abourezk is determined to preserve the element of hostility and name-calling in the context of the Middle Eastern peace process at a time when Palestinians in Palestine are turning toward reconciliation. It is sad.

You Owe Your Readers More Balance

To the New York Times, Nov. 20. 1995 (as submitted).

On Nov. 13 William Safire suggested that Labor and possibly even Likud envisage "joint sovereignty" for the West Bank and statehood for the Arab-controlled two-thirds of Gaza. You owe your readers balanced commentary: "Sovereignty" is a legalistic concept whose relevance to the inhabitants' actual status is insignificant in comparison with that of the military control (hegemony) that both Israeli parties intend to retain over all of Palestine, with the possible exception of Arab-controlled Gaza.

Curtis F. Jones, Chapel Hill, NC

Israel, Not Judaism, Must Save Israel

To the New York Times, Nov. 23, 1995 (as published).

It is a little unbelievable that Thomas L. Friedman should conclude, in "Land or Life?" (Nov. 19) about the religious roots of the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, that "Judaism can still save the Jewish state." This is like saying that the fire will put out the fire. It is exactly the language that excites Mr. Rabin's murderer and his ilk.

The combustion of religion and nationalism has been the most perilous development in the political culture of Israel in the last quarter of a century. Contrary to Mr. Friedman's rabbinical sources, the spiritual status of the state is not, in the Jewish world, a settled matter. Zionism was an overwhelmingly secular revolution that insisted on a secular transformation of Jewish history.

And there is no dishonor in secularism. It does not diminish the importance of politics to say that politics is essentially profane.

Judaism cannot save Israel. Judaism can save only Judaism, and the souls of believing Jews. Israel will have to save Israel; and it can begin by recoiling from all forms of the sacralization of politics, right and left, and affirming, for the sake of the Jewish state and the Jewish religion, a stringent separation of synagogue and state, and warning the God-intoxicated radicals in its midst that their dangerous drunkenness will have to give way before the values of democracy and the requirements of law.

Leon Wieseltier, London, England

For Tolerance Training

To the New York Times, Nov. 23, 1995 (as published).

"With a Handshake, Rabin's Fate Was Sealed" (front page, Nov. 19) painfully notes that Yigal Amir, Yitzhak Rabin's assassin, was "a Sabra—a native—a studious Jewish boy brought up in their most revered institutions."

In 1985, Yigal Amir was a 15-year-old in a Herzliya Orthodox school when Israel's Ministry of Education announced a two-year education for democracy project, developed by Interns for Peace, which brings Jewish and Arab pupils together in common action in each other's schools, monthly. But Mr. Amir's Orthodox Jewish school abided by the Orthodox Council of Sages prohibition against tolerance training.

Yigal Amir never experienced Arabs in any positive way. His sole association with Arabs became one of beating up on them in the army's Golani Brigade. From dehumanizing Arabs, he reasoned that Mr. Rabin deserved to die as a pursuer of the Jewish people for shaking hands with and agreeing to grant some sovereignty over the Holy Land to the enemy—Arabs.

The murder of Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir sadly shows that all Israeli schools that desire to receive state funding must teach tolerance by bringing all 1.2 million Jewish and Arab pupils together in common action. Israel must cease funding educational institutions that inculcate their pupils with xenophobic and chauvinist values.

Unless Education for Democracy becomes mandatory for all Israeli pupils in state-funded schools, Israel will not only have lost its beloved son Yitzhak Rabin. This whirlwind of hate will also kill the peace process and Israeli democracy as well.

(Rabbi) Bruce M. Cohen, International Director, Interns for Peace, New York, NY

Beyond Memorials

To the Washington Jewish Week , Nov. 16, 1995 (as published).

The murder of Yitzhak Rabin must be addressed beyond memorial services, letters of sympathy and ads in newspapers. The threats, rhetoric and vulgar interpretation of Judaism and Jewish history by some need to be addressed.

For too long the established Jewish community here and around the country has acquiesced to the forces of chauvinism, hatred and false pride that reside within the Jewish world. Why haven't the local Jewish Community Council and Jewish Federation clearly supported the peace process and the Rabin initiatives over the past few years? Why have American Jewish leaders allowed Jewish fanaticism to go unchecked?

Many of our lay and rabbinic leadership mocked Rabin when he shook Arafat's hand. What does it take to go beyond fears of self-affliction? How can Jewish leaders who are partially responsible for encouraging this climate of hatred between Palestinian and Jew, and now between Jew and Jew, be made more accountable?

Communal agencies somehow need to atone for their efforts to frustrate the peace process courageously pursued by Rabin and Peres in recent years. These organizations should account for their inability to face the Jewish right. They think they know how to counter a Farrakhan, but what about our own?

I would like to see Jewish law and professional leadership convene meetings of reflection and reconciliation. This is a time to acknowledge the darkness that was cast upon our people.

A "commission" could be established that would come up with a program for this community and for communities elsewhere, which will address Jewish responsibility for pursuing peace in light of our history, differing theologies and present political reality. I would like to see Orthodox and non-religious Jews, supporters of Likud and Labor, and supporters of the extremes meeting with each other, without threats of violence.

David Shneyer, Am Kolel Judaic Resource Center, Rockville, MD

Yitzhak Rabin and Prospects for Peace

To the Washington Post , Nov. 12, 1995 (as published).

Thank you for the exceptional column by David Hoffman "A Soldier's Vision..." [Nov. 8]. It is one of the most realistic and insightful of the many inspired by the assassination.

Praise for Yitzhak Rabin must be for his pragmatism in changing policy to advance the peace process. His long record of "toughness" toward the Palestinians was the policy of a ruthless military leader placing victory for Israel above any compassion for the outgunned enemy.

After the end of the '67 war, the leaders of Israel made a fundamental mistake. Instead of adopting a policy of reaching some accommodation finally with the people of the region, they saw strict suppression of any resistance as the most promising policy. That mistake, over these many years, is as evident as ever today.

Now we see the plight of the Palestinians as desperate as ever. The many extravagant promises made in Washington meetings are unfulfilled. The conditions of their daily lives are cruel and precarious. Until there is real improvement here, no real peace can come to this troubled region.

Don Tobey, Washington, DC

Israeli Extremists No Better Than Islamic Jihad

To the Washington Post, Nov. 12, 1995 (as published).

Times change. In 1972 the hard-line Israeli ambassador to the United States, Yitzhak Rabin, said publicly that the reelection of Richard Nixon as president would be good for Israel. As a liberal Democrat and as a Jew, I was horrified. I considered the statement shortsighted and an unwarranted interference in American domestic affairs. I still think I was right, but what a difference 23 years makes.

Since becoming prime minister of Israel in 1992, Mr. Rabin showed himself to be a man of vision. He had been a great warrior before he went into politics, someone who took calculated risks for a much greater goal than victory in war—true and lasting peace. Perhaps most remarkably—for a politician and really for anyone—Mr. Rabin showed the courage to learn, to grow and to change.

Political and policy opposition is a proper, expected and necessary part of life in a democracy such as Israel. Much, perhaps most, of the Israeli right wing handles this opposition appropriately. Regrettably, there have always been elements that do not. They use concern over national security, over whether to trust multigenerational enemies, as an excuse for a messianic land grab. They are hypocritical and extremely dangerous.

Rabbis who call for murdering a national leader, fanatics who shoot Arabs at prayer and Yigal Amir are not better than the members of Hamas or the Islamic Jihad. Giving up peace to hold on to land is not in keeping with a religion whose first tenet is to choose life. They make me ashamed to share a religion. Yitzhak Rabin, on the other hand, makes me proud.

Bruce Brager, Arlington, VA

U.S. Jewish Groups Abandoned Rabin

To the New York Times, Nov. 11, 1995 (as published).

Thomas L. Friedman's Nov. 8 column taking to task American Jewish organizations for their failure to mobilize support for the peace policies of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel will undoubtedly bring on howls of protest. Mr. Friedman could not be more on target.

Opponents of the peace process in the American Jewish community, including the Zionist Organization of America and Orthodox Jewish organizations, constitute altogether less than 10 percent of the American Jewish community.

Yet they had the field to themselves as they lobbied the United States Congress for the adoption of mischievous measures intended to undermine Mr. Rabin's efforts.

Gullible and uninformed members of Congress bought their line, in part because the larger established Jewish organizations were for the most part nowhere to be seen or heard.

As Mr. Friedman notes, Prime Minister Rabin was contemptuous of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, at one time a significant voice for American Jewry with respect to United States Middle East policy, but now ineffective and irrelevant.

During the many years of Likud dominance in Israel, this organization zealously mobilized American Jewish support for the hawkish policies of Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. It has provided no such support for the peace policies of Israel's present government, largely because of the opposition to those policies by the dozen or so Orthodox organizations that are part of the conference.

The behavior of these Orthodox organizations, not one of which supports the Oslo accords, is at least consistent with their convictions. This cannot be said of the far larger and more representative pro-peace organizations who, in Mr. Friedman's words, left Mr. Rabin "alone on the battlefield."

But the most difficult battles lie ahead. As acting Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who played so decisive a role as Prime Minister Rabin's partner in the peace process, prepares to oversee the implementation of the interim agreements and to plan negotiations for permanent settlement, American Jewish organizations will have ample occasion finally to join their pro-peace rhetoric to solid action.

Henry Siegman, Director, U.S.-Middle East Project, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY

The Use of the Word Jihad

To Vice President Gore, Oct. 9, 1995

I was pleased to meet you during the National Conference of Mayors' annual meeting in January of 1994 in Washington, during my term as mayor of Santa Cruz.

I am writing because I was disturbed to read a wire service story (see enclosed article from the San Jose Mercury News) attributing a statement to you decrying "a jihad against the environment." I certainly agree with your objection to the Republican Congress' move to gut environmental protection legislation. And I appreciate your reassurance that President Clinton will veto their most extreme measures.

But given the mood of xenophobia and racism and the strong bias against Muslims in this country, your decision to use the term "jihad" appears incredibly ill-timed, insensitive and inappropriate.

The Middle East peace process is in an extremely fragile period. Old antagonisms are finally being laid to rest and historic divisions healing. A negative and stereotypic reference to a core Islamic belief which is widely misunderstood in our country is extremely unfortunate. I believe an apology to Muslim Americans and Muslims in other countries is appropriate.

I would appreciate your response to this concern.

Scott Kennedy, Council Member, City of Santa Cruz, CA

A Letter from the White House

To Mr. John L. Hughes, Milwaukee, WI, Sept. 13, 1995

Thank you for taking the time to express your views concerning the executive clemency petition of Mr. Jonathan Pollard.

As you know, Mr. Pollard's petition for commutation of his sentence came before me more than a year ago. In making the difficult decision whether to grant or deny the petition, I considered the recommendations of the attorney general and of the law enforcement and national security agencies. I also weighed the arguments made on Mr. Pollard's behalf by numerous groups and individuals.

Mr. Pollard committed a serious crime that posed a threat to our country. After carefully reviewing the arguments on both sides, I concluded that the extraordinary remedy of executive clemency was not justified in this case.

I have been informed that Mr. Pollard will become eligible for parole in November of this year. He will have an opportunity to request an early release from the Parole Commission. Please understand that I do not influence in any manner the decision-making process of that commission.

I appreciate your concern about this important matter.

President Bill Clinton, Washington, DC

And Jerusalem

To the Washington Jewish Week, Nov. 16, 1995 (as published).

The extent to which a certain type of rhetoric laid the foundation for the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin has yet to be determined. Nevertheless, the significance of such talk cannot be discounted. Unfortunately, such rhetoric is not only the language of the extreme right but has sometimes become the language of the mainstream as well. An example of this problem concerns Jerusalem. In discussing this city, distinctions between biblical and modern Jerusalem frequently become blurred. Without further qualifications or explanations, expressions like "eternal" capital and "undivided" city often become the norm. Using such expressions of historical simplicity and absolutist language could lead to extreme and intolerant attitudes and positions.

Insofar as Israel is soon to begin negotiations with the Palestinian Authority over the final status of Jerusalem, use of this type of rhetoric will leave little room for flexibility in negotiations, which Israel has agreed to undertake in good faith. In our own community as celebrations for Jerusalem 3000 are being planned, we should be particularly careful with our use of language and not let these events become merely another opportunity for rhetoric and political posturing we may later regret.

Paul J. Blank, Potomac, MD

A Request from the People of Kashmir

To Hon. José Ayala Lasso, Commissioner, United Nations Human Rights Commission, Geneva, Switzerland, Aug. 15, 1995.

With profound shock and grief, the Kashmir American Mission and its First Secretaries condemn the barbaric and brutal murder of Norwegian Hans Christian Ostro, by the previously unknown group, "Al Faran." We further deplore and condemn the continued detention of the remaining American, British and German hostages. We demand that these murderers be arrested and punished as international murderers and terrorists.

The most prominent, popular, progressive and non-violent leader of the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir, Quid-e-Kashmir, Mr. Shabir Ahmad Shah, has telephonically advised me to convey to Your Excellency the same message and he assures that he will leave no stone unturned to get the remaining hostages released soon. He has fears that the group "Al-Faran" may actually be RAW [Indian intelligence agency], a counter-insurgency group planted to defame the freedom movement of the people of Kashmir, thereby hiding and covering up their [India's] ongoing brutal, inhumane and cruel continued occupational and repressive behavior.

Mr. Shabir Ahmad Shah also advises me to communicate the following recent incident to Your Excellency.

On Sunday, Aug. 13, 1995, around noon, his political office was ransacked by the Indian Army [36 RR Company]. They beat the office workers, broke telephones and office furniture, and took away documents, papers and other office supplies. The tenant of the office has a cloth shop on the premises and his shop was also ransacked, cloth bundles being taken away. There were five to eight army vehicles involved in this shameful act and as usual no reason was given for this oppressive occupational act and operation.

Mr. Shabir Ahmad Shah is requesting the help of Your Excellency to intervene and prevent such actions against his people, office, person and peaceful political activities.

On behalf of the people of Kashmir, Mr. Shah requests Your Excellency that a fully equipped and armed team of U.N. Blue Helmets be sent to Kashmir so that they can take part in a rescue mission of the remaining Western hostages. As no Kashmiri leaders, human rights, militant, civic or other groups have been able to influence "Al-Faran," the shadowy terrorist group, they have firmly begun to believe that this group does not support the interests of the people of Kashmir, and instead is working in the interest of India. Under these circumstances, they ["Al-Faran"] don't care about the safety and security of the hostages as well as the people of Kashmir and their sacred cause of freedom from Indian slavery and occupation.

Please intervene, help and respond. Thank you.

Dr. A.M. Khajawall, First Secretary, Kashmir American Mission and Founder Kashmiri American Council, Diamond Bar, CA

Middle East Debate Stifled

To Z Magazine, May 2, 1995

If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, the knee-jerk accusation of "anti-Semitism" that contaminates and stifles Middle East debate is clearly the first. Stephen Zunes' suggestion, however, that U.S. policy toward Israel, which provides that country with a political and economic shield unprecedented in relations between nominally sovereign countries, is "anti-Semitic," is the most extraordinary abuse of the term I have yet encountered. ( Anti-Semitism in U.S. Middle East Policy, March '95.)

If there is any single factor which has undermined efforts to build support for Palestinian rights in this country, it is the fear of being tarred with the indelible brush of "anti-Semitism." This is what awaits, with a certainty, any individual or group that has the temerity to point out a fact which should be self-evident: the primary and overwhelming responsibility for the dispossession and subsequent oppression of the Palestinians can be laid at the feet of Israeli Zionists and their American Jewish supporters.

Factual arguments that demonstrate the power of the pro-Israel lobby in influencing U.S. Middle East policy are dismissed by Zunes and most "progressives" as classic anti-Jewish "scapegoating," and those advancing them are effectively denied an audience beyond their own limited political circles. As Israel Shahak points out in his April 1995 translations and commentaries from the Hebrew press, "most of the 'left' American publications...are much worse in this respect than, for example, the Wall Street Journal. They have totally surrendered to the pseudo-left Jews in their ranks."

What is truly extraordinary is that everyone involved in electoral politics—from Capitol Hill to the tiniest congressional district—is aware that Jewish political and economic clout is anything but mythical. The only holdouts appear to be those on the left who zealously cling to the unproven notion that Jewish power and U.S. support for Israel stems purely from the Jewish state's role as a U.S. "strategic asset."

In an interview in the January 1991 Journal of Palestine Studies, the late retired Israeli general, Matti Peled, scoffed at that notion. "The argument that Israel is a strategic asset of the U.S., serving as a static aircraft carrier, has never been more than a figment of the Israeli imagination," he pointed out. "It was first proposed by Prime Minister Begin as a way of justifying the considerable grants given to Israel to purchase American weapons systems." He noted that "the Kuwaiti crisis...proved that the argument was false..."

As for the present state of Jewish power, there is no better authority than historian Arthur Hertzberg, a seasoned observer of Jewish life and culture. Reviewing the status of anti-Semitism in America, Hertzberg wrote:

"The Jewish establishment has been asserting for a generation that it wants political power beyond its numbers, and it has been getting it. Why is it anti-Semitism if non-Jews are aware of this desire?" he asks. (New York Review of Books, June 24, 1993.)

A good question. It was nothing but unbridled Jewish political power that pushed through the $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel four years ago, yet Zunes suggests that George Bush's criticism of the "thousand [Jewish] lobbyists" who arrived to lobby for the guarantees, which arguably cost him the election in 1992, was "classic anti-Semitism: scapegoating Jews for unpopular actions by exaggerating Jewish economic and political power."

How's that again? Is Zunes saying that to criticize the well-organized Jewish community for supporting an unprecedented loan guarantee program that was conceived by the Israeli government to benefit primarily Russian Jews and which is now being underwritten by the American taxpayers is "anti-Semitic"? Just so. Moreover, ignoring the fact that Israel did, in fact, get the loan guarantees, he tells us that "Bush's success at blocking...[them] is an example of the lobby's impotence when actually faced with resistance from those who really hold power in foreign policy implementation."

It is curious that following Bush's public criticism of the lobby, Israel's friends in the media, many of whom had been the president's supporters, suddenly discovered that the U.S. economy was in trouble and it was George's fault. It was all downhill for him from there.

It is also significant that at the very same time that 227 members of the Senate and the House signed a letter demanding that Bush approve the loan guarantees for Israel, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) was able to get only 35 House members to sign a similar bill which would have offered $10 billion in loan guarantees to U.S. cities. This tells you all you need to know about the priorities of both American Jewish organizations and the U.S. Congress.

Ben Dror-Yemini, an important spokesman for Israel's Oriental Jewish community, did not need that piece of information to suggest in Al-Hamishmar (Aug. 14, '91) that "had I myself been an American, I would say those lobbyists are a bit too 'greedy' [English in the original], and a bit too crude in displaying the power of their pressures." He also suggested that "the poverty-stricken and down-trodden people who don't have an AIPAC [officially registered pro-Israel lobby], but who still want to obtain something for themselves, and end up by obtaining nothing...may well be influenced by slogans about 'an unwarranted power of the Jews.' Much as we may dislike it, this will be a rational claim, rather than any malignancy." I wonder what Dror-Yemini would say today when in the midst of Congress' wholesale slashing of social welfare programs, Israel's $4 billion-plus in aid will remain intact?

Wait, Zunes tells us. "It may be the perception of a powerful Jewish lobby, rather than its reality, that creates this mystique of power," and that pro-Israel lobbyists "play on this stereotype by throwing money around, threatening opponents, and exaggerating their role in the defeat of certain incumbents in tight races." Yet, "few conscientious politicians," he frets, not being so astute as he, "have even dared to test this alleged power by forcefully advocating a change in U.S. Middle East policy." Those few who have done so, he fails to add, were all successfully targeted for defeat by the pro-Israel lobby.

Senator William Fulbright, who was one of the lobby's victims, reflected on its power in his 1989 book, The Price of Empire:

"So completely have many of our principal officeholders fallen under Israeli influence that they not only deny the legitimacy of Palestinian national aspirations, but debate who more passionately opposes a Palestinian state."

If this is so, asks Zunes, why are Jewish organizations unable to "force the U.S. government into full accountability in other policy areas that concern the Jewish community?" He lists several, in which he either exaggerates their importance or on which Jews are divided. As Sen. Howard Metzenbaum told a meeting of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council in February 1991, "There's only one issue members [of Congress] think is important to American Jews—Israel" (Forward , Feb. 22, 1991).

The latest examples of blatant pandering to the pro-Israel lobby are the sanctions against Iran declared by the Clinton administration in its competition with Congress to punish Iran economically as the chief instigator of "international terror," a move that has totally isolated the U.S. from its allies in the international community who are not subject to such domestic pressures. It is no coincidence that Clinton announced his sanctions against Iran at a meeting of the World Jewish Congress.

Of course, the lobby is acting at Israel's insistence, since the increasingly unpopular Rabin government, ö la Begin vs. Iraq in 1981, is seeking the excuse to launch a pre-emptive strike on Tehran's "nuclear" facilities just before the next Israeli elections.

For Zunes and much of the left, no doubt, Israel will be seen as having acted in Washington's interest.

His dismissal of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby is only one of the many errors of fact and interpretation that permeate his article. They are too numerous to list here, but one definitely bears mentioning—his reference to the Allon Plan as "a comprehensive peace settlement."

The Allon Plan, as any student of the subject should know, was anything but "a comprehensive peace settlement." It was a plan crafted by Deputy Foreign Minister Yigal Allon in the aftermath of the 1967 war which would have given Palestinians control, without sovereignty, over the Arab population centers of the West Bank, with Israel retaining the rest, including all the land bordering the Jordan River. In other words, it was similar to the cantonization program currently being implemented by Prime Minister Rabin.

Jeffrey Blankfort, Editor, Middle East Labor Bulletin, San Francisco, CA

State or Theocracy?

To the New York Times, Nov. 15, 1995 (as published).

Ze'ev Chafet's "Israel's Quiet Anger" (Op-Ed, Nov. 7) places the blame for Yitzhak Rabin's murder squarely in the camp of religious fundamentalists. It's a neat solution, but I don't see it that way.

There is a collective responsibility that touches most of us. The strident, self-righteous threats of the extremists became the background music to the peace process—and we let it happen. There was the myth that Jews "would never spill the blood of fellow Jews," says Mr. Chafets.

Where does this myth come from? It stems directly from the concept of the Chosen People returning to the Promised Land. It justifies countless crimes; it excuses beliefs and behavior that are unconscionable.

This was brought home to me recently by a disturbing incident I would have ignored had it been isolated. Unfortunately, similar sentiments are expressed by people in every part of Israeli society:

I was at the beach and the lifeguard, neither religious nor an extreme nationalist, was grilling fresh crabs and shrimps with the help of a 4- or 5-year-old boy. A beautiful child—handsome, precocious, very bright and well behaved—he had been scampering around all morning, helping the fishermen and was now helping prepare lunch with the lifeguard, whom he greatly admired.

I told both of them how remarkable the child was, and the lifeguard said: "Yes, he's a terrific kid. When he grows up he's going to be a commando, and he'll kill all the Arabs."

It is time to decide. Is this state guided by enlightened, democratic principles? Or is it a theocracy based upon a mystical promise to an ancient, desert people?

Linda Livni, Beer-Sheva, Israel

Our Values Abroad

To Thomas Friedman, The New York Times, New York, NY, Sept. 11, 1995 (as submitted).

Last week I received a solicitation from the American University of Beirut, included in which was your April 12 "Have You Heard?", an article of poignant interest. Your penultimate paragraph quite rightly promotes our foreign aid to "institutions that sustain our values abroad," which, indeed, includes AUB.

I burn with indignation at the knowledge that right next door the United States shovels billions of dollars year after year into Israel, thus giving the go-ahead to occupy part of the very country in which AUB is located and just about any Arab land it takes a fancy to; once there it implants itself with impunity.

H. L. Overdiek, Hopkins, MN

Giuliani a Friend

To the New York Times, Nov. 15, 1995 (as published).

Though Joyce Purnick's Nov. 13 column accurately reflects my thoughts and feelings with regard to extremist fringe elements in the New York Jewish community, I am afraid it could be misinterpreted as an attack on Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

The mayor is a true friend of Israel. As a representative of Israel, I can testify I have seen the mayor reaching out to the diverse segments of the New York Jewish community and that he has been supportive of the activities and the needs of our missions here.

Colette Avital, Consul General of Israel, New York, NY

Giuliani: Cheap, Vulgar, Inhuman

To Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, New York, NY, Oct. 26, 1995

How dare you humiliate us as Americans of Arab (Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian, etc.) origin? How dare you ruthlessly humiliate one of our leaders, a world leader (whether you like it or not) and a Nobel Peace Prize winner (which you are not and never will be!). Indeed, you are cheap, vulgar and inhuman.

Personally, I (a white Christian female of Lebanese heritage) believe that you are an offensive, impolite, rude, arrogant and comtemptuous person—a very bad role model for our youth. You're a blatant racist too, and an uglier version of the Ku Klux Klan! I would like to know (oh, I do know) how much have you been paid and hence bought by AIPAC and all the other filthy-rich Israeli lobbies and institutions. Frankly, sir, you're no more than a little Israeli puppet. Nonetheless, you should never have expelled an international leader like Yasser Arafat from an international U.N. concert. Where was your own self-esteem, your respect for human pride and dignity? Mr. Arafat said he was invited, or so he thought. But, no, you had cruelly to humiliate him, his colleagues and all of us in front of the whole world and then also appear on TV to say that he's a terrorist and a murderer! How dare you lie like this! Prove that he's a terrorist—and show me one factual document. This is all false and fake Israeli and Zionist propaganda. And I think, deep in your heart, you know it!

The Israelis have ripped off the Palestinians, occupied and stolen their lands, assassinated their heroic protesters and freedom fighters, killed or maimed their schoolkids and innocent children, blown up their houses, destroyed their livelihoods and thrown the best of the rest in prison. Just imagine this happening to you or your loved ones, or in the U.S.A.! Indeed, all this evil unimaginable oppression still goes on, even with the unjust and deceptive "Peace Process." But, the poor leader of the Palestinians does not have any other alternative except to give in and accept the bits and tiny pieces thrown to him by the Israelis (it's "take it or lose it") who are completely and blindly backed by terribly unfair and self-serving American mayors like yourself and the mostly corrupt Congress, who are bribed and hence intimidated—perhaps like you!

Honestly, sir, thank your lucky stars that neither Arafat nor any of his entourage didn't come up to you and, in front of the whole world, spit in your face! But, unlike you, Mr. Arafat believes in mutual respect, tolerance, and down-to-earth decency, kindness and good manners. Shame, shame on you!

Ms. Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL

Guiliani: Man of Principle

The City of New York, Office of the Mayor, Nov. 6, 1995

Dear Ms. Marchi,

I write to you on behalf of Mayor Giuliani in response to your recent letter concerning the Mayor's action in regard to Yasser Arafat.

The Mayor made this decision as a matter of principle. The City provided every protection to the foreign dignitaries who visited here during the U.N. 50th celebration. As to the events that the Mayor hosted or sponsored through private donations, however, he exercised reasonable discretion in deciding not to invite Yasser Arafat, whose mission does not have formal diplomatic relations with the United States and whose involvement in international terrorism and murders of Americans is well documented.

While you may not agree with this administration's actions on this issue, I am sure that you share our commitment to act in the best interests of our great city. We thank you for writing.

Randy M. Mastro, Chief of Staff, New York, NY