Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 1999, pages 55-59

Other People’s Mail

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

Peace With One’s People

To the International Herald Tribune, Nov. 6, 1998 (as published).

Much has been said in recent days about the Wye agreement and the current violence in the Middle East. Two things are certain since the conclusion of the agreement. Binyamin Netanyahu must no longer pursue a policy of exclusion, but rather one of inclusion. The consequences of not doing so would translate into marginalizing Yasser Arafat’s already waning constituent base and force him to adopt a defensive strategy.

Had Mr. Netanyahu not been so adamant in promising so much to the right wing in the elections two years ago, perhaps Israel would not find itself in the current predicament. Perhaps the coming weeks will reveal to Mr. Netanyahu the level of difficulty Mr. Arafat must endure in marketing the Wye accord to his people.

It is easy to negotiate and it is hard to forge a lasting peace agreement, but the ultimate lesson is: Make peace with your own people.

Massoud Derhally, London, England

Ariel Sharon

To the Los Angeles Times Website, Oct. 15, 1998 (as published).

Am I the only one who sees any irony in newly appointed Israeli Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon calling Yasser Arafat a terrorist (Oct. 10)? A man who was forced to resign for giving the green light to the massacre of about 1,000 (not hundreds, as reported in your paper) defenseless Palestinian women and children should look in the mirror before he calls anyone else a terrorist.

Charles Biro, Los Angeles, CA

What is “Chutzpah”?

To The Hoboken Reporter , Nov. 25, 1998 (as published).

What is “chutzpah”? Well, in October Israel was caught removing valuable topsoil from occupied Lebanon and hauling it away in case they were asked to give the land back as part of the “peace agreement” being worked out with the Palestinians—(as if there could ever be “peace” between such unequals). Then Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, exhorted Jewish settlers to grab as much as they could of occupied Palestine before the “peace agreement,” signed with handshakes, went into effect. Closer to home, The New York Times reports that Israel still refused to give back to the U.S. the truckload of top-secret documents that their spy, Jonathan Pollard, stole 10 years ago—treason that did “irreparable” damage to our national security. (Israel does not, however, see fit to scorn Boobus Americanus’ annual 6 billion dollar gift.)

T. Weed, Hoboken, NJ

“Joint Control”

To The New York Times , Oct. 27, 1998 (as published).

Re “In West Bank, Almost Zero Jubilation” (news article, Oct. 25): Your description of Palestinians gaining control of “what amounts to 40 percent of the West Bank” exaggerates what Palestinians won in the Wye agreement, since this portion of the West Bank also includes territory that is jointly controlled.

The meaning of “jointly controlled” became clear three months after the first land transfer following the signing of the Oslo accords, when Israel closed all movement in the West Bank in response to terrorist attacks.

Access to Palestinian cities from jointly controlled land was forbidden, and as a result, 13 people died at checkpoints that blocked their way to Palestinian hospitals.

Whether or not these “internal closures” are justified or good policy is an open question, but one thing is clear: for Palestinians, joint control is not control.

Kevin Johnson, Havertown, PA

(The writer was chief of mission at the National Democratic Institute West Bank and Gaza Programs from 1995 to 1996.)

Silence About Israeli Deeds

To the Dallas Morning News , Nov. 14, 1998 (as submitted).

For the first time in history one country has been caught stealing topsoil from another. The Associated Press reported Nov. 9 that Israelis are using bulldozers and trucks to take hundreds of tons of topsoil from their occupation zone in Lebanon to spread on fields in Israel.

The Israelis admitted this theft as they admitted stealing water from south Lebanon, after first denying it. They know their controlled U.S. “sugar daddy” won’t allow anybody to stop them. Just as the U.S. has ignored Israel’s 50 years of atrocities on the Palestinians and other Arabs, Americans never hear about these horrors.

When a nation has a controlled government and media, as does the contemporary U.S., one only hears what the controllers want the people to think. And some think we must destroy Iraq. The U.S. always goes after whomever Israel targets. It is not Iraq that has created a living hell in the Middle East!

Virginia L. Oldham, Dallas, TX

Here We Go Again

To the Lubbock (TX) Avalanche-Journal, Nov. 7, 1998 (as submitted).

Here we go again—once again Israeli warplanes attack southern Lebanon (under the guise of fighting terrorists), as “Israeli gunners also fired artillery shells at the area” (AP/Avalanche-Journal, Nov. 3).

I wonder if the new Israeli cabinet member, Ariel Sharon, will once again order a full-scale invasion of Lebanon, just as he did in June 1982!

All we do know is that another intrusion into southern Lebanon by Israeli forces has taken place. How many invasions of Lebanon must we read about before we finally learn the truth about Mideast transgressors?

As I wrote to you over a year ago, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and our Madeleine Albright want Arafat to control Hamas more vigorously. Yet, Israel couldn’t begin to control the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon after her major invasion of June 1982. How many times must we write about the resulting 20,000 Lebanese deaths, not to mention the 60,000 wounded? Oh, you don’t want to dwell on that? The truth should not be muzzled! These facts should not be censored by anyone, or any American newspaper.

Walter H. Koehler, Littlefield, TX

Israel Is Not Our Friend

To President Bill Clinton, Washington, DC, Oct. 24, 1998.

To allow Netanyahu to insist on a pardon for the spy Pollard is disgusting and without any justification as a part of the much sought after peace process.

As one who served in North Africa, Sicily and Italy in World War II, I resent the Israelis’ attempt to blackmail the United States.

It is perfectly clear to me that Israel’s attempt to release Pollard is devious and unwarranted. Israel is not our friend.

I request the United States to stop all financial and military aid to Israel.

Our record of favoritism to Israel in the United Nations is obvious to the entire world.

Let us return to seeking the truth and once again be the impartial leader of the world.

John L. Hughes, Milwaukee, WI

The Latest Outrage

To President Bill Clinton, Washington, DC, Oct. 23, 1998.

Please do not release the traitorous spy, Jonathan Jay Pollard. To quote former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, no one has caused “greater harm to national security...in view of the breadth, the critical importance to the United States and high sensitivity of the information he sold to Israel.” Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we have learned that most of the vital information which Pollard stole and sold to the Israelis eventually ended up in the hands of the KGB. Because of his actions, the U.S. has paid not only billions of dollars, but the lives of many agents. Like any of the other Americans who have been caught spying for foreign powers, Pollard should never get out of prison. He and they should feel fortunate not to have been hanged for treason.

If you give in to this blackmail attempt by Prime Minister Netanyahu, you will be dishonoring all the brave intelligence personnel who over the years have given their lives for America and you will be telling everyone in the world that they may spy on America with impunity.

Thomas D. and Carol Sue Swepson, Englewood, FL

Relating the Pollard Case With That of Sheinbein

To The Washington Times, Nov. 20, 1998 (as published).

As I read your front page coverage of the Jonathan Pollard case, I wondered how Israel’s insistence that we release Pollard fits Israel’s refusal to return Samuel Sheinbein to the United States (“Pollard’s career as spy proved to be fruitful for Israelis,” Nov. 16).

Pollard is an American citizen convicted of spying for Israel and sentenced to life in prison. Israel continues to press for Pollard’s release to allow him to live freely in Israel. Israel has granted Pollard citizenship and now argues for his release as a citizen of Israel.

Mr. Sheinbein is a U.S. citizen who is accused of murder. He fled to Israel, invoking Israeli law that protects Israeli citizens from extradition. Mr. Sheinbein is not an Israeli citizen, but his defense attorney and some members of the Israeli court are looking for loopholes that would provide him citizenship, thereby depriving the United States of its sovereign right to prosecute him under its laws.

Is justice controlled by the laws of Israel? Does the sovereign right of Israel supersede that of the United States? Is Israel saying to the world that Israeli citizenship provides freedom from anything but Israeli justice? Seeing exactly how these two cases are resolved will be interesting.

Joan Salemi, West Springfield, VA

Don’t Advocate Racism and Propaganda

To The Oregonian, Nov. 3, 1998 (as submitted).

I am disturbed by the propagandistic articles printed in your paper regarding “Christians Under Siege.” I come from a Christian and Jewish family. I have many Muslim friends. My experience has been that those with less power, religiously or politically, are more likely to be oppressed by the majority culture. Look at the Muslims in Palestine. Although half of my family is Jewish, I cannot promote the religious persecution that occurs there. Look at the Christian Serbs’ attempt to eradicate Muslim Bosnians. Of course, we cannot forget the widespread persecution of the Jews during World War II. I cannot deny that Christians who are minorities in other countries receive negative treatment. However I protest the manner in which the article was presented. To have it on the front page of The Oregonian, promotes the idea that Muslims persecute Christians, period. However, that is not the case. All of the Muslims that I have known would never try to convert anyone, and believe that religious freedom is a basic human right. Religiously, they believe that it is wrong to mistreat other human beings.

We all know that in any religion or philosophy, there are always people who misrepresent it. Many Christians are disturbed by the fundamentalists’ twisted interpretation of Christianity.

The stereotype of Muslims as terrorists greatly concerns me. We are breeding a cultural acceptance of racism against a religion which is associated with Arab culture. We all need to take a step back and consider what messages we are sending to the wider audience. We need to examine, consider and research many perspectives on these issues.

I hope that you will choose not to be an advocate for racism and propaganda in the future.

Lisa M. Schumann, shilla@lists.stanford.edu

“Perspectives on Persecution”

To Msgr. O.F. Campion, Our Sunday Visitor (National Catholic Magazine), Oct. 28, 1998.

Thank you for “Perspectives on Persecution” (Nov. 1). I only wish you could have found space in your necessarily brief column for our suffering brothers and sisters in Israel and Occupied Palestine.

Instead, I see that you are leading a pilgrimage tour to that troubled region, where affluent Americans will dine sumptuously and lodge in fine hotels, perhaps with swimming pools, and have facilitated access to the holy places.

How can any compassionate Christian seize the golden half of the Israeli double standard while our brothers and sisters see their homes and orchards bulldozed to rubble, their water supplies cut off at the source, access to jobs, medical assistance, education, and the very holy places you will visit denied them at gunpoint?

Ought we not rather go en masse in sackcloth and ashes and assemble at the “wailing wall” and raise such a holy din that the complacent will have no rest until peace with justice and equal rights for all has been established in the homeland of the Prince of Peace?

I enclose articles from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs for your information. These articles may be reprinted, so long as proper credit is given.

Lynn Ellen Dixon, Woodward, PA

Jennifer Ludden In Gaza

To National Public Radio, 635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001, Oct. 5, 1998.

Thank you for Jennifer Ludden’s very good piece on life in the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip, four years after the beginning of implementation of the Oslo accords.

The report incorrectly stated that Israeli troops “left Gaza in 1994.” As Ms. Ludden will surely have seen, Israeli troops have never left Gaza. They have withdrawn from only about 60 percent of Gaza territory, and remain in direct occupation of a large sector of the north of the strip, the entire coastline, and a hermetic strip around the land borders. You will grant me that this is not the same thing as “leaving Gaza,” and as Ms. Ludden noted in the report, Israel still controls life there in a “thousand different ways.” Ms. Ludden also did not mention that there are some 6,000 of the most militant and fanatical Israeli settlers still occupying some of Gaza’s best land and coastline in settlements such as Morag and Kfar Darom.

Nevertheless, the report was very good for what it included—rarely heard voices and experiences of Palestinians—but could have been strengthened with the addition of some objective statistics from, say, the U.N., UNRWA, the World Bank and other international agencies which have measured the precipitous decline in Palestinian standards of living since “peace” was declared. According to U.N. estimates, GDP per capita in the occupied territories has fallen by up to 40 percent since 1993. According to the European Union, this loss is largely a result of Israeli closures and restrictions placed on Palestinian trade and exports in the name of “security.”

While I welcome this rare report of Palestinian life, is it not time you reported on the severe upsurge in demolitions of Palestinian houses in the occupied West Bank and in occupied East Jerusalem, that has occurred since Mike Shuster’s report in March?

Finally, it is a shame that so rare a commodity as a report on the Palestinians should be exiled to “All Things Considered Sunday,” when it is likely to have a fraction of the audience of a weekday report. The same fate befell Lauri Neff’s excellent and balanced report on Israeli measures to force Palestinians out of Jerusalem, which was broadcast on Saturday, Feb. 8, 1997. When you have few reports on these matters it seems surprising you wouldn’t want to expose them to the largest possible audience.

Ali Abunimah, Chicago, IL

Need For a Better Future

To the Saudi Gazette, Sept. 13, 1998 (as published).

There are many difficulties to be overcome before a comprehensive settlement can be reached in the Mideast. Of course, the main stumbling block is still Israel. However, we are getting near the point where Israel may agree to withdraw from 13 percent of the West Bank, leaving that area entirely to the Palestinians. Israel knows what it is doing and has a well-thought-out strategy with regard to the Arabs. This not only applies to the Palestinians but also to other Arab countries, especially Syria and Lebanon where there is the question of returning occupied land. Israel still holds the Golan Heights it grabbed from Syria in the 1967 war and also the southern strip of Lebanon it occupies for “security” reasons. Israel must enter into serious negotiations about these territories on the basis of legal rights and natural justice. It has already made its peace with Egypt and Jordan, as well as starting the process with the Palestinians, but it must now show serious intentions toward its other neighbors.

Other Arab countries also have major problems. Algeria has terrible security problems and Sudan has desperate economic troubles as well as a devastating war in the south of the country. These countries have the resources to become rich and successful but they are not being properly exploited. Then there are the well-known problems of Iraq, Libya and Somalia.

So what does the future hold for the Arab world? Will the next generation of Arabs live a better life with a higher standard of living, peace and security, and the opportunity to live more productive and more creative lives? Will they be able to make better use of the rich resources of their countries?

A comprehensive peace settlement must be worked out with Israel as an essential precondition for a better way of life for all Arab people, and for Israelis too. Trade would be able to develop. Culture would also get a chance to flourish. History gives us an example of a time when Arabs and Jews lived together happily in Andalusia, part of the present-day Spain, where trade and culture flourished within the empire of that time. That is a model that could be followed in the Mideast to benefit future generations if a just peace settlement could be arranged.

Hashim Ibrahim Filali, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Misrepresenting 1967 Events

To The National Post, Nov. 9, 1998 (as submitted).

Noga Barokass-Emanuel’s response (letter, Nov. 7) to Ian Watson (letter, Nov. 4), misrepresents the historical record regarding events leading to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Syrian shelling of Israeli settlements from the Golan Heights was not “constant,” but sporadic and, as confirmed by General Von Horn (then chief U.N. truce supervisor), as well as recently published comments by Moshe Dayan (Ha’aretz, May 5/97), the shelling was precipitated by Israel’s repeated violations of the 1949 armistice agreement. Significantly, not a single Israeli civilian was reported killed by Syrian artillery in the six months before the war.

Given Israel’s massive assault against Syria on April 7, 1967 and Rabin’s threat on May 12, 1967 to “seize Damascus and topple the Syrian government,” Egypt was treaty-bound to demonstrate support for its ally (while seeking a peaceful solution through Washington). Nasser’s call for U.N. observers to evacuate the Sinai was within Egypt’s rights (Israel refused U-Thant’s request to have them repositioned on its side of the armistice line), as was his decision to close the Tiran Straits (Egypt’s territorial waters) to Israeli shipping. (It was a relatively inconsequential move as Elath accounted for only 5 percent of Israel’s total maritime traffic and no Israeli ship had used the Straits for two years.)

As several Israeli politicians and military figures have declared, the 80,000 troops Nasser deployed in the Sinai posed no threat to Israel’s survival. (In fact, Egypt’s best soldiers were bogged down in Yemen.) Unlike Israel, Egypt was trying to avoid war. In the words of then-Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol: “The Egyptian layout in the Sinai testified to a military defensive set-up.” (Yediot Ahronot, Oct. 1, 1967).

Gary D. Keenan, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Protection From Terrorists

To the Austin (TX) American-Statesman, Aug. 14, 1998 (as submitted).

With the tragic and criminal bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es-Salaam will come the usual accusations against the “usual suspects,” Islamic “terrorists,” Arab or Iranian. All sorts of experts on security and terrorism are giving their solemn pronouncements on our television screens. How can we better protect our embassies from these terrorists? In the meantime, we will leave no stone unturned until we bring the terrorists to justice.

Never discussed by these experts is what leads someone or some group to attack U.S. installations, embassies or overseas military barracks. Did we provoke the attacks, directly or indirectly, by providing Israel with aid, military and economic, while that country occupies Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian territory and harshly oppresses the Arab populations, as it has over five decades? The U.S. ignores these illegal occupations and horrid human rights violations committed with the help of U.S. taxpayers’ funds. U.S. politicians, to satisfy their own political ambitions, will loudly support any Israeli government, ignore U.N. resolutions we are obliged to act upon, and veto Security Council resolutions condemning Israel’s actions. As long as we support, without question, what early Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett called “Israel’s sacred terrorism,”* we can expect to be the target of retaliation. We have a choice.

William V. Kelly, Austin, TX

*The “Terrorism” Industry, Herman/ Sullivan, p. 29.

Learn to Respect Other Nations

To the Saudi Gazette , Sept. 8, 1998 (as published).

Your newspaper carried a photograph of President Clinton receiving the dead bodies of the victims of bomb blasts in Kenya and Tanzania at a U.S. airport. I think it is about time that he gave serious thought to the question of why only Americans are being targeted for bomb blasts and also for hoax calls that scare them in their embassies in the middle of their work. The Americans may call this terrorism but, in my opinion, it is not. In fact, such acts are a result of the frustration and indignation felt by oppressed people. This is the only way they can get at the sole now-gone-wild superpower.

The answer to the above seemingly difficult question is very straightforward. If President Clinton wants all Americans around the globe to live peacefully he must learn to respect other nations in a true sense. But this will mean bringing about drastic changes in his policies.

He will have to put an immediate stop to whatever is being perpetrated by his various agencies. He will have to recall his forces from everywhere in the world to look after only American territories and stop feeding them at other nations’ expense. He will have to eliminate the veto system from the Security Council. Because of this veto, five powers can do anything and get away with it.

Finally, America will have to stop being the policeman of the world and will have to treat all nations equally. For example, Pakistan gets hard-hitting sanctions and is being pressured to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty while for its part, Israel gets back-patting for amassing a nuclear arsenal of over 200 warheads.

These few changes will secure that peace and tranquility at the turn of the century of which President Clinton is always talking.

The naked American aggression in the form of a cowardly attack on innocent citizens in Afghanistan and Sudan from thousands of feet high is an example of true terrorism.

Khalid Mahmood, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Arabs and America

To the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 20, 1998 (as published).

Does anyone else find Middle East news stories a source of mirth? In Saturday’s Star-Telegram, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright described Iraqi President Saddam Hussain as “completely disingenuous and dishonest and despicable.” Would it be unfair to observe that as a high official of the Clinton administration, Albright ought to be in a great position to judge what is honest and what is despicable?

More amusing was Sunday’s rather improbable story that Israel is developing a biological weapon that would infect only Arabs. But could life be imitating art? Those of us who have seen “True Lies,” “Executive Decision” and now “The Siege” know that Hollywood has been producing movies that target only Arabs for years.

But despite Hollywood, Arabs remain people. Even if you accept the media mantra that “Saddam gassed his own citizens,” does that make it right for Uncle Sam to starve, bomb or kill the rest of them with what were once easily treatable diseases? Is a policy that may lead to the breakup of Iraq and continuing instability in the Middle East in the interest of the United States?

It has long been Israeli policy to keep the Arab world weak and divided. Have longtime Israel advocates within the administration such as National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Undersecretary of State Martin Indyk confused what is best for Israel with what is best for the United States?

John Taylor, Fort Worth, TX

Torture in Prisons

To Mr. Abu Midein, The Minister of Justice, Gaza, Palestine, Nov. 6, 1998

We have received the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG) report on the practice of torture in Palestinian Prisons, published in their Monitor (vol. 2 #6, October 1998). We strongly protest the inhumane and cruel treatment given to Palestinians who are detained in PNA jails or interrogation centers by the Preventive Security Service, General Intelligence, the Military Intelligence, and the police and criminal department. The methods being used by the PNA against their own citizens are a continuation of the same brutality and animal behavior which Israeli authorities have practiced, and still practice, against the Palestinians. How is it possible for you, the Minister of Justice, to preside over such injustice and oppression, after your people suffered so much from the Israeli system?!

We want to especially draw your attention to the use of shabeh or extreme forms of physical pressure and pain, which the report shows has been used extensively and continues to be used by the PA against all classes and types of people who are detained and tortured. This is against all standards of decency and humanity, and expressly condemned by many international declarations for human rights, most recently by the International Agreement for the Fight Against Torture in 1984. Most serious of all are the cases of individuals who are tortured until death such as Nasser al-Huroub (Feb. 3, 1998 in Dura) or Walid al-Qawasmi (Aug. 9, 1998 in Jericho), among the more than 25 persons who have died in this way since the start of 1998 alone.

The PNA must make serious efforts to end arbitrary arrests of Palestinian people; to stop the use of torture while suspects are being interrogated; to allow regular monitoring and inspection of detention and interrogation centers and jails belonging to the security forces by human rights organizations; and to take legal actions against members from the security forces who violate human rights. Without specific and definite action on these points, the credibility of the PNA will remain stained and uncertain. The future of a democratic and just Palestinian society will be determined by what steps the PNA and the Ministry of Justice, are taking to end this cruel and ignorant misuse of their authority.

Dr. Mubarak Awad, Director, Non-Violence International, Washington, DC

Security for Pakistan

To The Washington Post, Nov. 29, 1998 (as published).

What The Post has failed to point out [“Alternatives to the Bomb,” editorial, Nov. 11] is that India’s nuclear capability continues to pose a serious threat to its neighbors, particularly Pakistan. It therefore became imperative for Pakistan to develop a minimal deterrent capability.

Also, The Post’s prescription for alternatives misses the mark. The alternative for Pakistan is not “an easing of the Kashmir dispute” but a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. It has to be understood that Kashmir is the root cause of tensions between India and Pakistan, of the arms race and of proliferation. The international community, therefore, must facilitate a solution of the Kashmir problem that recognizes the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. This is a demand backed by international law and legitimacy. The Kashmiri struggle is inspired by the same principles of freedom and self-determination that underlie the birth of the United States and that were later advocated by President Woodrow Wilson.

The Post’s proposed alternative for India is untenable. The West has already reaped the bitter harvest of the policy of appeasement toward aggressors. That policy should not be revived in the post-Cold War period. India should not be rewarded for its nuclear escalation and suppression of Kashmiris with a permanent seat in the United Nations. India would only destroy its neighborhood, if not restrained in its aggressive designs. As for India’s habit of finger-pointing, after the tests, it has no standing to preach global disarmament. Its holier-than-the-pope attitude would not enhance its credibility.

Mohammad Azam, Press Attaché, Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, DC

Wiesel Ignores Palestinians

To the Jerusalem Post, Oct. 9, 1998 (as submitted).

In your Oct. 9 article on Elie Wiesel, the American icon of Holocaust survivors, he is paid a special tribute as a “speaker of truth.” This is the same Elie Wiesel who is continually referred to by Noam Chomsky and others as “a terrible fraud.” What can explain such disparity of opinion?

Perhaps it is because Wiesel, who has written literally volumes Against Silence, remains silent when it comes to such issues involving Palestinians as land expropriation, torture and abrogation of basic human rights.

Perhaps it is because Elie Wiesel proclaims with great piety that “the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference,” while he remains totally indifferent to the inequality and suffering of the Palestinians. Perhaps it is because he enjoys recognition as “one of the first opponents of apartheid” in South Africa, while he remains totally silent and indifferent to the apartheid being practiced today in Israel.

Perhaps it is because he decries terrorism, yet never apologizes for the terrorism perpetrated by the Irgun at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. He refuses even to comment on it. He dismisses this act of terrorism in eight short words in his memoirs, All Rivers Run to the Sea. He remembers the Jewish victims at Kielce, Poland (July 1946) with great anguish, but ignores twice as many Palestinian victims of his own employer at Deir Yassin. The irony is breathtaking.

It is even more shocking that the world’s best known Holocaust survivor can repeatedly visit Yad Vashem and yet keep silent about the victims of Deir Yassin who lie within his sight 1,400 meters to the north. He bitterly protests when Jewish graves are defaced, but has nothing to say when the cemetery of Deir Yassin is bulldozed. He refuses even to acknowledge repeated requests that he join a group of Jews and non-Jews who wish to build a memorial at Deir Yassin.

Elie Wiesel may profess modesty and claim he is “not a symbol of anything” but, unfortunately, he has become a symbol of hypocrisy.

Daniel A. McGowan, Director, Deir Yassin Remembered, Geneva, NY

ISNA’s Letter of Concern to Malaysian Ruler

To Your Excellency, Dr. Mahathir, Sept. 6, 1998

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the major umbrella organization representing many Islamic societies and associations in the USA and Canada, has been very impressed by the progress achieved in Malaysia under your able and wise leadership. We have always held you in high regard as a world Muslim leader that we are all proud of. However, we are dismayed and deeply saddened by the latest development in Malaysia.

Our magazine, Islamic Horizons, has published the great accomplishments of Malaysia on the front page in two issues in 1997. In these issues, we highlighted your admirable track record and your dedication for Muslim unity and progress. I wish I could see you today to convey the concern of ISNA members over the situation in Malaysia as expressed in our 35th annual convention held in St. Louis, MO at the present time. As I am unable to leave the country, I have authorized Professor Taha Jabair Al-Alwani, a highly respected Muslim scholar, to represent me in an audience with Your Excellency.

It is indeed sad that while Malaysia is undergoing a serious economic challenge today, that Anwar Ibrahim was expelled from all government and party positions. While we respect your prerogative as prime minister of Malaysia to do what you deem appropriate under the circumstances, it is deeply regretted that the principles of Asian and Islamic values of unity may have been overlooked. What is even more disturbing and disconcerting is the way in which public opinion in Malaysia is being swayed and directed by some in the media to condemn your former deputy into oblivion.

Your Excellency, we appeal to you in the name of Islamic solidarity and in the name of justice and fair play to allow due process of law to take its own course so that both the accused and the prosecutor are given their liberty to present the case in the court of law. Should Anwar Ibrahim be deprived of his freedom of defense, freedom of speech and freedom of movement, we are afraid that this would lead Malaysia into greater difficulty, Allah forbid. Then, the whole Muslim world would stand to lose and our enemies will benefit from our weaknesses and internal rift.

We pray that Allah will protect you and Malaysia from all the economic and political calamities, trusting in your wisdom and in the mercy of Allah. We honestly want to preserve all that you have built—the reputation of Malaysia as a successful and democratic Muslim country under your able leadership. We fervently hope that Allah will protect Malaysia and Your Excellency from any and all harm.

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqui, President of ISNA, Via e-mail

Why Not Back The Return of Palestinian Property?

To The Washington Post , Oct. 14, 1998 (as submitted).

The return of property of the Holocaust victims from Switzerland and other countries is now well in hand although not completed. For example, see “Panel Finishes Returning Looted Nazi Gold” in the Sept. 10 Washington Post. I believe that it is now time to seek the return of property of Palestinians that was confiscated by Israel after its independence 50 years ago and the subsequent war in 1948-1949.

Under Israel’s Absentees’ Property Law (4 Israel Laws 68-82 (1950) a Custodian of Absentees’ Property took possession of land and other property of absentees, including their bank accounts and other monetary claims, located within Israeli jurisdiction. “Absentees” included citizens of nearby Arab countries and Palestinians who had left their ordinary places of residence in Palestine for places outside of Palestine or places held by military forces that were contesting the establishment of Israel. Under this law, the Palestinians who fled cities and villages like Jaffa and Deir Yassin to avoid being killed or captured by Israeli military and paramilitary forces lost their homes, farms, orchards, bank accounts and other property left in place. Sami Hadawi, in his book Bitter Harvest: a Modern History of Palestine, 4th edition, 1991, Olive Branch Press, New York, states the number of Palestinian refugees from the 1948-1949 war to be approximately 900,000, citing “United Nations records” (p. 139). He estimates the value of confiscated property to be $169 billion at 1988 prices (p. 170).

The Palestinians who lost their property under the Absentees’ Property Law in 1948 and 1949, like the Holocaust victims, are now elderly or deceased. Prompt action must be taken by the world community to obtain compensation from Israel for those persons or their heirs while they yet have time to utilize such compensation. As a start, I suggest that the United States government sponsor claims of Palestinians who have become United States citizens since 1948. The United States is now doing this under the Helms-Burton Act for Cuban-Americans whose property was confiscated by the Castro government before they became U.S. citizens. We have done so in the past for Italian-Americans and Iranian-Americans, according to the 1992 Annual Report of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, pp. 9, 54-56 and 106.

Many of the Holocaust victims for whom compensation is being obtained in Europe are Jews who now live in Israel or the United States. They should be supporters of compensation for Palestinians from Israel. Israel has regarded itself as a homeland for Jews and its Jewish citizens operate its government. Israel gives preference to immigration of Jews under its Law of Return while denying the right of return to those Palestinians who fled in fear of their lives in 1948 and 1949. Justice demands, at the very least, that those Palestinians now receive compensation from Israel for the value of their confiscated property.

Milton J. Stickles, Chevy Chase, MD