February/March 1996, Pages 111-116

Other People's Mail

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

An Israeli Tribute to Courage

To Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), U.S. Senate, Oct. 27,1995

On behalf of the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, an organization which has been involved over the past two decades in efforts to end the tragic conflict between our people and the Palestinians, I would like to express our deep appreciation of your courage and perseverance in opposing the so-called "Jerusalem Law," approved by the Senate on Oct. 24 and mandating the move of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

We regard this law as being manifestly unbalanced and one-sided. The capital of Israel is indeed located in Jerusalem—not only in the technical sense of where our parliament and government ministries have their headquarters, but in the deeper sense of an extremely strong historical and emotional attachment evident among Israelis. Yet it is not by accident that practically all countries having diplomatic ties with Israel chose not to locate their embassies in Jerusalem—for the Israeli claim to Jerusalem is far from being total and exclusive. A large and vigorous Palestinian population lives in Jerusalem, the city is the undoubted political and economic center of the West Bank, and the entire far-flung Palestinian people regard Jerusalem as the capital of their state-to-be—and are quite as emotional on the issue as are the Israelis. A stable peace is inconceivable without recognizing that both peoples have a just national claim to Jerusalem, and that these competing claims must be reconciled in a reasonable and equitable manner.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the historical heart of Jerusalem contains, in close proximity to each other, sites held sacred by all three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The recently passed U.S. law refers to the need for all worshippers to have free access to these sites—but neither in the text of the law nor in the speeches of those who proposed it was there any mention of the closure imposed by the Israeli army since 1993 and effectively preventing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Muslims and Christians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from having access to Jerusalem. The Israeli authorities cite security reasons for this policy—an argument similar to that used by the Jordanian authorities between 1948 and 1967, when they denied Jewish worshippers access to the holy sites then under their control. The logical conclusion to be drawn from this experience is that in order to ensure freedom of access to all religious worshippers in Jerusalem, conditions of peace and quiet must be established, and unilateral rule by a single party must be avoided.

In our view, united Jerusalem should be the capital of two states—Jewish West Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel and Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Palestine. At the same time, the city should remain united, with a joint town council maintaining municipal services and no physical barriers cutting off the freedom of movement between its parts; and the holy sites of each religion should be administered by its own religious authorities. Once such a solution is achieved, there would be nothing against the U.S. moving its embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to West Jerusalem—while simultaneously establishing a new embassy to Palestine in the Eastern part of Jerusalem.

Among other things, the recent Israeli-Palestinian agreement provides for the right of East Jerusalem Palestinians to vote in the upcoming Palestinian elections, and even specifies that international observers will monitor the East Jerusalem balloting. Despite the denials by the Israeli government, this clause in the agreement is widely regarded as a first step toward Israeli recognition of Palestinian rights in Jerusalem. Under these circumstances, the recently passed U.S. law is a retrograde step, clearly designed to pre-empt the result of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and establish a U.S. recognition of a total and exclusive Israeli claim to Jerusalem—an aim which, if achieved, would wreck the peace process and completely discredit the United States in its diplomatic mediating role.

Fortunately, the harmful effects of this law have been lessened—but not entirely dissipated—by the last-moment amendment empowering the U.S. president to delay its actual implementation. Nevertheless, we regard the passage of this law by the majority of senators as an unwarranted and harmful interference in the Middle East peace process, mainly motivated by unworthy considerations of internal U.S. electoral politics. Once more I would like to state our appreciation of your refusal to be a party to this act.

During the past six months, we have been involved in organizing a petition on the Jerusalem Issue, of which a copy is enclosed. Signed by about a thousand Israeli academics, artists and public figures as well as by a group of prominent Palestinians, it was published in the dailies Ha'aretz and Jerusalem Post and gained considerable attention. Recently, it started to get attention and support outside the region—for example from the world-known musician Yehudi Menuhin. We would be honored to have your signature as well.

Adam Keller, on behalf of the ICIPP executive. (The same letter was also sent to Senators Robert Byrd (D-WV), John Chafee (R-RI), Mark Hatfield (R-OR) and James Jeffords (R-VT) who also voted against the bill to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by the end of 1999.)

The Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, POB 2542, Holon 58125, Israel phone/fax 972-3-556-5804.

“Palestinian Phone Links Cut”

To the Globe and Mail , Toronto, Ontario, Dec. 6, 1995 (as submitted).

As if the Palestinian Authority did not have enough problems, Israel has now cut off the financially strapped self-rule areas' access to international dialing for non-payment of an estimated $10.8 million phone bill (Globe and Mail, Dec. 5). However, there is a simple and equitable solution. Israel can deduct the sum in question from the billions of dollars owed the Palestinian people for lands and other assets it illegally seized during and after the 1947/48 war. Dispossessed Palestinians have received nothing despite the fact that Israel agreed to compensate them (or allow them to return) when it accepted the terms of U.N. Resolution 194 in 1948. Also, Israel's unlawful and on-going expropriation of land and water resources in the occupied Gaza Strip and West Bank is another reason the Palestinian Authority finds itself in such dire straits.

Gary D. Keenan, Vancouver, BC 

Award the Booby Prize for Slur of the Year

To Worth magazine, New York, NY, Nov. 24, 1995 (as submitted).

I award Jim Rogers the booby prize for racist slur of the year in American journalism. If the author had dared apply any of his Arab-bashing racial imagery to any other ethnic group, he'd have a torrid stream of lawsuits on his hands.

Mr. Rogers offers not a shred of evidence for the ogre-like description of King Fahd, one which, incidentally, might fit 80 percent of Wall Street financiers, 90 percent of journalists and 99 percent of U.S. politicians. His slanderous depiction of Saudis reinforces the most blatant Hollywood stereotypes. When all else fails, he digs out the infamous "clash of civilizations" theory, thereby providing a new, post-Cold War bogeyman to fit his agenda. By claiming "two rebellions show a pattern"—a new Middle East domino theory—he conjures up the fanciful notion of Iran and Iraq joining forces in the wake of an inevitable Saudi revolution, then, in a marvelous display of Islamic unity, forming a powerful new cartel to renounce all debts to the West.

All of which begs the question of why this same hype we heard 22 years ago never came to pass. The West imports most of its oil from Saudi Arabia simply because it is the cheapest and best there is. If and when this is no longer the case, we won't. In the meantime, all the alarmist conspiracy theories in the world cannot defy pure economic logic.

Mark E. Werth, APO AE

(Washington Report editors' note: Jim Rogers recently completed a two-year motorcycle journey around the world which he described in a book entitled Investment Biker, published by Random House. He comments regularly on CNBC on "Geonomics" and its effects on investment prospects. This letter refers to a Saudi-bashing article in the November 1995 issue of Worth magazine, much of which was recycled in an article Rogers published in late December in the Washington Times. Of interest to readers of the Washington Report was a Rogers CNBC commentary in December that Israel had become a good investment prospect because it has been receiving $6.3 billion annually in U.S. government grants and loan guarantees. We can't quarrel with that figure, since we were the first to reveal it publicly three years ago.)

It's Terrorism, Not “Dissent”

To the Washington Post, Dec. 25, 1995 (as published).

The recent tragic bombing in Saudi Arabia that claimed the lives of five Americans was perpetrated by terrorists who want to isolate Saudi Arabia from the world and prohibit any efforts to modernize and provide a better life for our citizens. These fanatics do not care about—and are not supported by—the people of Saudi Arabia. In America, France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, those who murder innocent people in the name of an extremist agenda deserve to be punished.

Americans too frequently have been the victims of terrorism. Given this history, it was surprising to see some U.S. newspapers make a connection between the bombing in Saudi Arabia and so-called "dissidents" [front page, Nov. 14]. Every society has "dissidents." But dissent is not a justification for terrorism.

Terrorism is a worldwide plague. The internal situation in Saudi Arabia that the Post described did not cause the car bombing any more than the U.S. budget crisis caused the Oklahoma City bombing. We must never give it legitimacy—not in Oklahoma City, not in Saudi Arabia and not anywhere else.

Bandar Bin Sultan, Ambassador, Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington, DC

Many Israelis Find Peace Hopes Inspiring

To the New York Times, Nov. 27, 1995 (as published).

The moving Nov. 21 letter by Helen Friedman ("Where Will the Witch Hunt End?") is a testament to the tragedy that has befallen religious Zionism, largely of the movement's own making.

Ms. Friedman describes in touching fashion her experiences in Kiryat Arba and Hebron and her encounters with a young woman in detention on suspicion of complicity in the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, her pain in seeing so many of those "shining faces" she admires on the religious right tainted by association. She feels these detentions are part of a witch hunt.

Let her not forget the shining faces like those of my son, a sabra, a Zionist, but a supporter of the peace movement. I heard his pain when he called from Israel after the assassination. She should not forget the hundreds of thousands of sorrow-stricken faces of young Israelis who went to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to light candles for Mr. Rabin.

These young faces constitute the moral and spiritual foundation of the peace process. They rarely resort to violent language or behavior. It is almost impossible for me to imagine a political assassin from their ranks.

During the long Lebanon war and the intifada, members of the peace movement confronted their government by civil disobedience. Reservists refused to serve in the West Bank and served jail sentences. These acts of defiance, however heartfelt, were almost always nonviolent and were rarely advertised as anything but individual acts of conscience. (Not one protester ever claimed to be acting in the name of God or under Jewish law.)

Perhaps Ms. Friedman could balance her experiences in Hebron with a visit to a kibbutz or an evening with young people singing peace songs in Yitzhak Rabin Square.

Sam Flesher, Pittsburgh, PA

Silent No More

To the New York Times, Dec. 3, 1995 (as submitted).

Like so many members of the American Jewish community, I have kept my opinions to myself for too long. Hesitant to contribute to an image of the Jews as a divided people, I have refrained from taking a public stand on the issue of Israel exchanging occupied territory for peace. In unity, so I thought, there is strength.

But it was words—words of venomous hatred—that led directly to the unthinkable outrage of the assassination of a prime minister of Israel by a Jew. Amazingly, a vocal minority within the American Jewish community, comprised of what I can only call fanatics, have actually praised the deed. They have proudly proclaimed it only the first in a series of political murders Israelis can expect unless their views prevail. This challenge to Jewish life and values must not go unanswered. It is a time to take a stand, clear and uncompromising, on behalf of democracy, in favor of human rights, on the side of decency. Today the time for silence has passed.

As a young man on a border kibbutz, I played my own small part in building a fledgling state of Israel. In those pioneering days, I spent years working in the fields by day and standing guard duty against terrorists at night. It is a time in my life that I look back on with tremendous pride, a time when my personal ties to Israel were forged strongly and immutably in the exhilaration and promise of a Jewish homeland reborn.

Today my commitment remains strong and unabated. I support the democratic efforts by the government of the state of Israel, backed by a majority of the people of Israel, to make peace. Today, like millions of committed American Jews, I yearn for a peace in which Israel can flourish. I declare that it is those who murder and encourage murder who are the real traitors to the Jewish people. Those fanatics, who seek to rule by fear, have brought down upon their own heads the righteous condemnation of people everywhere who value peace and democracy and decency.

I pledge my support for democracy. Above all, I pledge an end to silence. From this day forward I will speak out loudly and clearly for peace. I urge you who share these views to raise your own voices and to do it loudly.

I urge you to speak up in your synagogue, at meetings of whatever Jewish fraternal organizations you are a member, among friends; in short, at every possible opportunity. It is no longer a time for silence. Now is the time when the hearts and minds of the American Jewish community are weighed in the balance. Now is the moment to take a firm stand and raise your voice for peace. For life. L'Chaim.

Murray Koppelman, New York, NY

Just Why Were You Silent?

To Mr. Murray Koppelman, New York, Dec. 13, 1995

I write to commend you for your public call to be "Silent no More." I hope I am joining a loud chorus with a similar response!

Yet, I have numerous and grave questions, only a few of which I will be able to present in this letter.

1. Were you, Mr. Koppelman, silent only in order to present a "unified front"? Did you not refrain from criticism of any action of the Israeli government because you dared not risk the disapproval of others, since dissent might have placed you outside the social in-group?
   
   
2. Is your concern for speaking out stimulated only because a Jewish prime minister was murdered by a Jewish assassin? Did you remain unmoved to vociferous expression when Jews freely murdered and maimed innocent non-Jews?
   
   
3. And now that you have decided to "speak out," and you exhort others to do the same—but, I note, mainly within the confines of our context—what will be the content of these statements? What will you speak about and ask others to discuss?

I have spoken out for decades! And written many a page, only to be thwarted frequently by the menacing power of silencers, the self-appointed censors of Jewish political correctness. I very much hope you will succeed in arousing many segments of the Jewish community to open their eyes, their minds and their mouths; but on many issues including some contained in the articles I am pleased to send you.

Dr. Edna Homa Hunt, Cambridge, MA

P.S. For information only: I am a fifth generation "sabra." Also, I happened to be in Israel when Mr. Rabin was assassinated. I read the Israeli press in Hebrew regularly and am happy to say that it is freer than the American press!

In the Muslim City of Bethlehem

To the New York Times Magazine, Jan. 14, 1996 (as published).

It is troubling but not surprising that as Palestinians are preparing for their first chance to represent themselves, you could find no articulate Palestinian to discuss the situation in Bethlehem, but instead had to rely on an expatriate Egyptian Jew ("In the Muslim City of Bethlehem," by André Aciman, Dec. 24). His article is so full of traditional Orientalist clichés and anti-Arab remarks that I plan to use it next term as an example of how religion, politics and bigotry still substitute for substantive discourse on the Middle East.

Thus, from the start, he disparages Bethlehem as "poor, dirty, shabby" and "hardly welcoming." People are described like animals: boys "scurry," women "howl." The merchandise in this "over-commercialized" town is remarkably "ugly." The streets and markets are "slovenly," the food "dubious."

Predictably, the foil for all of this Arab-Muslim backwardness and barbarity is the Jewish Israeli taxi driver who is "lucid" and full of "wit" as he expounds on the "subtle" aspects of Jewish history.

Mark LeVine, Professor of Religion, Hunter College, New York, NY

Keep Quiet

To the Washington Jewish Week, Dec. 14, 1995 (as published).

I have been bothered for quite a while by American Jews who think their Jewishness gives them the right to express their ideas about what Israel should and should not do. As a person born and raised in Israel who has served in the army of Israel, I feel that you have every right to live where you want and to vote there. I am an American citizen, and yet I do not vote in U.S. elections. I feel that I have no right to do so because I am not affected by what happens in the United States.

Americans living in the U.S. have no right to say one way or the other about what Israel should do since neither they nor their children risk their lives defending the decisions.

I was especially shocked at seeing a photograph in the Israeli press of a New York woman raising money for the murderer of our beloved prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, God rest his soul. Rabin played a crucial part in the history of the state of Israel, he led the Israel Defense Force to victory in 1967, and was the commander of the troops who broke through to Jerusalem in the War of Independence.

Does this woman, or any other Jew who has decided to live in America, have any right to say anything about what Israel should do? I don't think so.

Merav Strassler, Jerusalem, Israel

Larger Than Life Peacemaker

To the New Republic, Washington, DC, Dec. 4, 1995 (as submitted).

Although his eulogy of Rabin was less extravagant in language ("Rabinical," Dec. 4), Gershon Gorenberg essentially joined the parade extolling Rabin as a "larger-than-life peacemaker" with a supposedly "historic vision." On behalf of the Multipartisan Coalition, we register dissent and a more realistic perspective.

The Multipartisan Coalition, representing disenchanted Democrats, dissatisfied Republicans, and Archonists, maintains a properly Christian posture of anti-Zionism, of opposition to American support for Israel, and of support for Palestinian rights. In the regrettable murder of Rabin, we recognize an intra-Zionist conflict between (a) varying degrees of Zionist injustice and between (b) differing strategies for suppression of the Palestinians. With Edward W. Said ("The Mirage of Peace," Nation, Oct. 16, 1995), we note that "Palestinian negotiators have consistently yielded to Israeli and American pressures" in development of an agreement which promises "greater suffering for Palestinians." Like Said ("Arafat's Mess of Potage," World Press Review, Jan. 1995), we calculate that "Rabin recognized the Palestinian leadership only to wrest concessions from it." From David Murkovsky ("Politics and the Peace Process," U.S. News, Aug. 28-Sept. 4, 1995), we obtain some confirmation of excessive concessions. From articles by Richard Curtiss and Rachelle Marshall (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Sept. 1995), we derive further reasons for misgivings about the intentions of Rabin and of his ilk. In regard to long-standing abridgement of Palestinian access to water ("Oppressor Israel," New Times, Aug. 19, 1977; "Israel's Unsettling Settlements," Reader's Digest, May 1980), we observe that the "new peace" has not improved the situation (Frank Collins, "Israeli Refusal to Yield Control of the West Bank Water Forces Deferral of Issue," WRMEA, Oct./ Nov. 1995). We simply cannot recognize any reason for praise of Rabin or of his formula for "peace."

At the same time, we certainly deplore the regrettable murder and the implications of the intra-Zionist conflict. From the killing of a pseudo-moderate by a representative of more extreme elements, we can infer the current intentions of many Zionists toward vulnerable Palestinians.

For the Multipartisan Coalition,

Floyd R. Nelson, Democratic Dir., W. St. Paul, MN and William L. Knaus, Archonist Dir., Mendota Heights, MN

Reducing U.S. Aid to Israel

To the Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, WI, Dec. 4, 1995 (as published).

I found it refreshing to read the lone voice of Richard Foster in your Crossroads section recently on easing off of financial aid from U.S. taxpayers.

We gave the Israelis $3 billion this year alone, or roughly $600 for every one of their 5.5 million inhabitants. We also import each year $24.5 billion worth of goods from Israel. Not bad for a country only a few decades old and the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island put together (8,000 square miles).

This view was reinforced by Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times in his Oct. 31 column, which described how wealthy Israel has become.

In one of his last speeches before his assassination, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was quoted as saying that it was time for the Israeli people "to live from the fruits of our own labor." Doing what he advised would be a fitting Israeli tribute to the memory of this great individual. Or has the sacred cow of Congress become Israel's golden calf?

Betty Branston, Slinger, WI

Honoring the Wrong Person

To the Los Angeles Daily News, Nov. 22, 1995 (as published).

Why are people in such a rush to name streets, parks and buildings after foreigners? ("Wachs proposes city name site for Rabin," Nov.15.) The U.S. taxpayers provide Israel with several billions of tax dollars each year. What has Yitzhak Rabin done for America?

Instead, how about naming city hall after Proposition 13 author Howard Jarvis or a recreation center named for Proposition 187 co-author Ron Prince?

Robert Sennett, Sylmar, CA

The Israeli Foes of Peace

To the Washington Post, Dec. 19, 1995 (as published).

I was astonished to read in John Goshko's report on the memorial rally in Madison Square Garden, held to honor the memory of Yitzhak Rabin, a reference to "the peace process' fiercest foes—the ultra Orthodox, or black hats," as contrasted to the Modern Orthodox [news story, Dec. 11]. This description is contrary to the reality of Jewish life, in this country and in Israel.

In fact, the peace process' most adamant opponents come precisely from the ranks of Modern Orthodoxy, especially those who proclaim the theological centrality of the state of Israel and the heresy of returning any part of the historical Land of Israel to non-Jewish control. Conversely, the general ultra-Orthodox, or "Haredi," view could be described as an attitude of a "plague on both your houses" toward both Zionist supporters and opponents of the peace process, because the traditional Haredi view is that Zionism itself is a heresy.

For many years, a large sign in Mea She'arim, the center of Haredi life in Jerusalem, proclaimed (in English) "Zionism and Judaism are diametrically opposite." Though this is now an atypically extreme statement, it captures the traditional Haredi position. Haredi leaders denounced Prime Minister Rabin's assassination, but tended to see it as a result of Jews focusing on land rather than Torah.

Within both Haredi and Modern Orthodox Judaism, there are a great number of shadings and nuances of opinion, and in both camps there are groups that strongly support the peace process and others that bitterly oppose it. However, there is no question that the fiercest opponents come from Modern Orthodoxy, not "ultra" Orthodoxy. An extreme example is Yigal Amir, Mr. Rabin's assassin.

Paul L. Scham, Washington, DC

Deir Yassin Remembered

Dear Friends and DYR Supporters, Nov. 27, 1995

As you can see from this letterhead, our Board of Advisers is growing. When complete, it will consist half of Jews, half non-Jews, half men and half women. Our membership has also grown in spite of no advertisement other than our booth at the last ADC meeting and that generated by an article in the October issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. (If you have not seen that article, and the recent color pictures of Deir Yassin as it looks today, please get a copy or let me know.)

Recognition of Deir Yassin Remembered was also boosted when on Nov. 6 Hanan Ashrawi said that she had come to Geneva, New York to join our board of advisers. She was extensively interviewed here by CNN, NPR, NBC, and CBC in the wake of the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin.

But we do need help with fund-raising. We are in the black, but we are a long way from our initial (and modest) goal of $100,000 by the end of this year. We have artists and sculptors who, unsolicited, have already approached us asking for permission to compete to design the Deir Yassin memorial. But the plan has always been to begin this competition at the same time that we approach the Israeli government to help secure the best site. And until we raise enough money to provide both a suitable award for the best proposal and to fund a mission to key Israeli government leaders neither will take place.

The needs of Palestinians are great and people are solicited to support many worthwhile projects. But Deir Yassin Remembered is unique. It recalls one of the most significant pieces of contemporary Palestinian history. It is a vehicle to practice what Simon Wiesenthal advocated when he said, "Hope lives when people remember." Please tell your friends about Deir Yassin Remembered and encourage them to join us.

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

M. Vanunu Remembered

To the Guardian Weekly , Manchester, U.K., Dec. 10, 1995 (as published).

That a modern and democratic state should have the power slowly and deliberately to destroy a man's mind and body—year by year, now, while we read about it in occasional news items—I find it hard to take.

Mordechai Vanunu is in his ninth year of solitary confinement, and, we read, "his condition is deteriorating."

Has any person ever, in the 20th century, in any other modern democracy, been held in solitary confinement for nine years? Has Israel no provision against "cruel and unusual punishment," or the like? Is she signatory to no conventions, whereby Vanunu's friends could sue her before an international court of law?

That the state should want to exact vengeance for the exposing of the public lie about Israel's nuclear program is to be expected. That there should be—now, in 1995—no laws to protect an individual from this savagery is what is hard to believe.

Peter Makin, Kyoto-fu, Japan

I Was Aboard the USS Liberty

To Rep. Robert K. Dornan, Washington, DC, Dec. 13, 1995

My shipmates and I were aboard the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) on June 8, 1967. On that day our ship was attacked without warning while steaming in international waters in the eastern Mediterranean.

The hostile forces who attacked our ship committed violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention (i.e., more commonly called "War Crimes") during their attack against our ship. Specifically:

1. The aircraft attacking our ship were unmarked
   
   
2. Our radios were jammed on both U.S. Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies
   
   
3. Torpedo boats attacking our ship destroyed by machine-gun fire inflated and serviceable life rafts we had dropped over the side in anticipation of abandoning ship; and
   
   
4. The attacking forces refused to offer immediate aid upon cessation of hostilities. That refusal—when coupled with the denial of our ability to use international maritime distress frequencies and the destruction of our serviceable life rafts in the water—left the crew of a burning and torpedoed ship (in obvious and immediate danger of sinking) without any chance for survival in the event our ship had sunk.

Add to that the fact that the Sixth Fleet aircraft that had been launched to come to our defense (and would have arrived in time to prevent the torpedo attack) were ordered recalled prior to their arrival over our ship.

The act of recalling those aircraft while we were still under attack is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Conviction of such a violation carries the penalty of death.

One would think that an attack upon a U.S. Navy ship—let alone one that included the commission of war crimes against the United States—would routinely result in a complete and comprehensive public congressional investigation. However, for reasons yet to be explained to anyone—let alone those of us who were aboard the ship throughout the attack—Congress has never deemed it to be appropriate to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty .

I doubt anyone can think of any issue that is more deserving of congressional scrutiny than the deliberate and (we think) premeditated attack on a U.S. Navy ship. However, nearly three decades of lobbying Congress, to conduct such an investigation have proven unsuccessful—even when such lobbying is being done by the victims of those war crimes themselves.

Recently my shipmates have expressed not a modest amount of concern over the fact that—while you routinely, unconditionally and very vocally support the U.S. military—you have yet to express any concern whatsoever about the events surrounding the USS Liberty incident.

I have tried to placate my shipmates by telling them that all we have to do is ask and you would be more than happy to show your public support of our efforts to ensure the USS Liberty incident is finally accorded the complete and comprehensive public congressional investigation it has been denied for over 28 years.

Please call me and let me know when we can expect a "Special Order" on the floor of the House of Representatives from "Give 'em Hell Bob Dornan" on the USS Liberty incident so I will be able to tell my USS Liberty shipmates to be watching for it on C-SPAN. Warmest Regards.

Joe Meadors, past president and past chairman, USS Liberty Veterans Association, Corpus Christi, TX

Egypt: Determined To Be Democratic

To the Washington Post, Dec. 26, 1995 (as published).

The Post's interest in Egypt's affairs is commendable, but accuracy should match this interest, and this is unfortunately not the case with the Dec. 16 editorial "An Opening Closed in Cairo."

First, the elections in Egypt were open to all legal political parties—14—which participated in them. The only closed door was that preventing illegal parties using religion as a false pretext and a cover for their encouragement of terrorism. The Post's endorsement of one such illegal organization is thus very surprising. All the more so since the editorial recognizes that the Muslim Brotherhood is using democracy as a means to put its foot in the door (the implication being that it does not believe in it) and also objects (what a mild expression) to the group's support for Hamas, while considering that it can be a loyal opposition. This contradiction is self-evident.

Second, the loyal opposition is constituted by the newly elected members representing four political parties and the independents. Their number may be small, but they can be effective.

Third, the elections were conducted freely. They were marred by acts of violence committed by some candidates. These acts are being investigated together with allegations of fraud or misconduct. Due process of law is and will be respected. As to persons arrested before the elections, their arrests—by the legal authorities—had nothing to do with the elections, but were motivated by their illegal actions.

Fourth, no step backward has been taken. Rather Egypt is determined to pursue its course toward more democratization and more liberalization of the economy. The voice of the United States and other friendly countries should—and is in fact—supporting such efforts. We hope that this will continue despite the attempts by some to misrepresent the reality and despite the gullibility of others who no doubt mean well.

Ahmed Maher El Sayed, Ambassador of Egypt, Washington, DC

Protecting the Innocent

To Time Magazine, Dec. 8, 1995 (as submitted).

If humanity and justice are worth dying for—if the responsibility of protecting the innocent and weak against tyranny and aggression is worth dying for—Bosnia is worth dying for.

Abdul Hameed, Anaheim, CA

Clinton's Bosnia Gamble

To the New York Times , Dec. 17, 1995 (as published).

There is little doubt that President Clinton is putting his re-election on the line as a result of American peacekeeping in Bosnia. Since Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany has reportedly said that for the first time in decades, Europe would be pulling for the re-election of a Democratic president, perhaps the Bosnian warring factions should also place Mr. Clinton's re-election high on their agenda. There is much to be lost should the peace treaty fail and President Clinton not be re-elected.

Eleven months before the election, Mr. Clinton has an assortment of potentially explosive partisan committee investigations on the fire, American involvement in Bosnia to deal with, and hosts of budget battles bugging him.

Should the peace treaty fail and actions in Bosnia result in substantial casualties, the president will have lost his gamble, and perhaps the presidency. The Bosnian civil war will escalate and a conservative presidency and Congress will terminate humanitarian aid to that country through the United Nations, with the credibility and prestige of NATO collapsing.

Mr. Clinton may be placing his presidency on the line in 1996, but European and global stability are also on the brink, grasping the president's lifeline.

Herbert Resnick, Marlboro, NJ

We Support Your Leadership

To President Clinton, Dec. 1, 1995

On behalf of the American Muslim Council, I wish to express my support for your leadership in preserving peace in Bosnia. We offer our full support by mobilizing the American Muslim community to endorse your efforts in this peace initiative. With the help of our NATO allies, the implementation of the American-brokered peace agreement will bring an end to the carnage and human suffering that has transpired in Bosnia-Herzegovina over the past four years. As you know, the war in Bosnia has caused the deaths of 250,000 people and created 2 million refugees.

Maintaining peace in Europe lies at the heart of the free world's security and prosperity. Not since World War II has Europe been host to mass executions, murder and rape. Needless to say, we support the American-brokered peace agreement that will put an end to this "ethnic cleansing." We applaud the administration's decision to send American troops to participate with NATO forces to implement the peace agreement. Essential to the success of this peace accord is the introduction of NATO forces to oversee the cease-fire agreement. We believe that a permanent cease-fire in Bosnia-Herzegovina can prevail only with the deployment of U.S. troops along with NATO military personnel. The establishment of a peacekeeping force under NATO command is integral to the establishment of lasting peace and security in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

In addition to the foregoing, we also believe that only by arming the Bosnian people will they regain a sense of security within their own borders. By enforcing the cease-fire agreement and implementing the peace accord, democracy and human rights of the multiethnic and multireligious constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina will prevail once again.

Abdurahman Alamoudi, Executive Director, the American Muslim Council, Washington, DC

Why Bosnia Intervention Is Justified

To the New York Times, Dec. 7, 1995 (as published).

According to Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, the Pentagon cannot estimate the number of casualties that NATO ground forces may suffer in Bosnia because there is no historical model for an operation of this nature. There are, however, similarities between the war in Bosnia and at least one other historical event.

Europe is now in a time warp: it is the late 1930s revisited. I have witnessed the incredible suffering in the refugee camps: families separated, illnesses and infected wounds untreated, amputations without anesthesia, physical and psychological pain that tests the limits of human endurance.

I have seen heavily armed police officers herding Bosnian Muslim women, children and elderly men onto buses that transported them to airstrips where they were put on French planes and flown to Pakistan.

Many women held their babies up and pleaded to be photographed in the futile hope that some family member would see the photograph and know where they could be found.

Others tore brown paper bags and distributed the pieces among themselves so that they could jot a quick note and give it to us who might notify relatives in Sarajevo, Tuzla, Mostar or another city or village.

One woman said that her baby had been wounded in an attack on her village and that the Bosnian Serbs had taken the child to a hospital. She didn't know where or even if the child was still alive. Her husband was a prisoner of war; she didn't know where or if he was still alive. Another woman had not seen her husband in months and didn't know where he was, but she had her children with her.

I have been in war zones in Central America but have never before witnessed such despair and anguish, so many people who realized they had no control over the course of their lives. How can we justify United States intervention in Europe during World War II and not justify NATO intervention in Bosnia now?

Jerry Genesio, Exec. Director, Veterans for Peace, Portland, ME

Proud Polisario Record in Morocco

To the Washington Post, Dec. 15, 1995 (as published).

Please allow me to make the following observations on the Post's Dec. 4 article "Support Dries up for Western Sahara's Struggle" by Thomas W. Lippman. First, the remark that Polisario "perhaps resorts to urban terrorism" that is against the values and beliefs of the Sahrawi people. The Polisario is proud of its record and of the fact that there has not been a single Moroccan civilian casualty during 20 years of war.

The United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) was set up with the only purpose of organizing and conducting a free and fair referendum for the Sahrawi people and not to keep indefinitely the status quo and protect the Moroccan occupation of the territory. It will be impossible for the United Nations to organize the referendum unless the United Nations puts an end to the Moroccan manipulations.

Mouloud Said, New York, NY (The writer is a member of the Polisario Front Committee on Foreign Relations.)

Saddam Hussain's Crime

To the New York Times, Dec. 7, 1995 (as published).

The headline "Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports" (news article, Dec. 1) is wrong.

As shown by the article itself, the headline should have read "Iraqi Dictator Kills Iraqi Children."

The Security Council twice offered Iraq the right to sell $2 billion worth of oil to buy food and medicine. That would have prevented the death of the children. President Saddam Hussain refused. He is using the death of the children to try to avoid the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction, as required by the United Nations.

Irving M. Gruber, New York, NY

To Starve Iraqi Children

To the Washington Post, Dec. 20, 1995 (as published).

Jessica Mathews, in her column "Inch-by-Inch Disarmament" [op-ed, Dec. 11], favors maintaining the economic sanctions on Iraq and dismisses as "malnutrition" the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children resulting from the sanctions. This was reported in the British medical journal the Lancet in its Dec. 1 issue (carried by NPR and ABC Evening News on Dec. 1, but not the Post).

The report in the Lancet also predicted more dire and long-term health consequences if the situation remains unchanged. Recent history shows that the children, and indeed the people, of Iraq are considered expendable by their own government, which must bear the responsibility for its crimes.

So far, the sanctions have not had any pronounced effect in dislodging the regime (the opposite might be true) or stopping its weapons programs, as cited by Ms. Mathews: Iraq's "missiles program continues to this day." Prolonging the sanctions is a shortsighted policy and serves no purpose other than starving the people of Iraq, which could lead to a humanitarian catastrophe that would destabilize the region. Promoters of the policy become accomplices of a despotic government that victimizes its people and innocent children.

Amin Yousif, Great Falls, VA

Realizing the Link

To the New York Times, Dec. 7, 1995 (as published).

"In Calamity, Common Ground" (Week in Review, Dec. 3) perceptively identifies the new link created when Arabs discover that Israelis too have their criminal nationalistic fanatics.

This works in the reverse direction as well. A few days after the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, an Israeli friend remembered how in 1979 his family watched on television the news of Anwar Sadat's murder and, though saddened by his death, mockingly laughed at how the Egyptians were unable to control their wild political element.

When they watched in tears the news of Mr. Rabin's assassination, they realized how much they have in common with the Egyptians and other Arab countries in similar predicaments.

Alan D. Roth, Tel Aviv