March 1995, pgs. 3, 100-102

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor are selected, edited and abridged on the basis of relevance, accuracy, taste and available space. The editors do not have facilities to respond to individual letters, or to clear in advance published letters, as edited, with the writers.

A Book for People Who Care About Resolving Middle East Problems

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Andrew Killgore's review was more than kind and very, very fair. I know that it will do much to bring my book, A Fire In Zion, to the attention of those people who care the most about doing something to resolve the problems of the Middle East. But you should know also that your review of my book was more than a vindication for me—and more than a vindication of A Fire In Zion. It is also a vindication for those thousands of people, many of them comprising your readership, who are more interested in the truth than they are in pandering to the same pathetic stereotypes.

Being an editor and writer I know how thankless your work can often seem. Editors often hear about what is wrong in their publication—rather than what is right. I want you to know that I have read every issue of the Washington Report for many years—since the first time I visited and began working in the region many, many years ago. I have never, ever, regretted doing so. The Washington Report is expertly done and always interesting.

II can say then, in all honesty—and with great pride—that your review of A Fire In Zion did not make me a fan of your publication. I already was one.

Mark Perry, Arlington, VA

A Fire in Zion now is available from the AET Book Club.

Not All Berbers Agree With Aicha Lemsine's Acceptance of Arabization

Aicha Lemsine's enthusiastic acceptance of Berber Arabization in her article in your Jan./Feb. issue is not shared by the majority of Berber people in Algeria. As the Kabyle Tribe, we believe our nation is Algeria and our religion is Islam, but we resent the notion that Arabic is our language. Our language is Berber. In my school days, history lessons were all about Arab dynasties and conquests. There was nothing about our native heritage. Arabization was imposed upon us by Arab conquerors as well as by the oppressive post-independence military regime. For political reasons, the FLN has created a generation of bilingual illiterates. This denies the Algerian people the ultimate tool (education) to challenge through democratic means the legitimacy of a government that nourishes itself with Arabo-Islamic ideology, ignoring the ethnic diversity of our nation. We Berbers have always perceived Islam to be a spiritual and educational force, not a way of life or a tool to be used for political gain. We believe in freedom and democracy and the separation of religious affairs and the state. We may resort to separation and dissolution because we have endured conquerors and lies long enough. As a subscriber I appreciate your work tremendously.

Aziz Arbani, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Beholding Your Bumper Sticker in Brussels, Belgium

I saw your address on a car bumper sticker in Brussels saying "Stop the Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina." It suggests that you be contacted for copies and information. I assume this means copies of the sticker. I would be keen to have as many as you can spare for distribution in Belgium and also to receive information on efforts being made to improve the situation.

Hector McGillivray, Brussels, Belgium

We're sending you 50 gratisbumper stickers and hope the cars wearing them will park where British and French delegates to EU and NATO meetings will see them. We're also sending you a sample copy of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a subscription to which once seemed very expensive for European subscribers. Given the present dollar exchange rate, we figure you can get an annual subscription now for about the price of lunch for two at your local bistro.

Discovering What I've Been Missing

A couple of weeks ago I received my first issue of the Washington Report, and today I finished reading the articles and news reports in it. I am quite amazed. Now I feel unhappy for not subscribing earlier, since I had heard about this publication at least a year or two before I finally subscribed. I feel that I have missed out on a lot of important insight and news.

I am impressed with the richness and abundance of the news reports, with the depth and insight of the analysis, and with the honesty, rigor, and balance of the writers and commentators. I believe that I have never laid my hands on any magazine more informative when it comes to issues relating to the Middle East than the Washington Report. I will recommend it to all my friends without reservations. Congratulations on a remarkable achievement!

Maher Awad, Boulder, CO

Given the combined experience of our writers, it would be remarkable only if it were otherwise. Now, if we could just declare a nationwide moratorium on procrastination, so that everyone who hears of us and means to subscribe does so, our troubles would be over for 1995.

"Journey to the 'New Middle East'" a Disturbing But Necessary Read

I heartily congratulate you on your executive editor's magnificent study of the Arab world, in your Jan./Feb. issue. His "Journey Through the 'New Middle East,' Fall 1994," was not so easy or enjoyable to read. He was harassed and humiliated basically for our sakes.

In "Palestinian Birth Pains in Gaza," we realize his own fears and pain and bleeding compassion for the still-oppressed Gazan people and their children, whose lovely faces literally grace the cover of the Jan./Feb. Washington Report. I'll bet the five children pictured are smiling those charming, youthful and somewhat toothless smiles to thank you, and to tell you with their innocent wide eyes how grateful they are for making their voices heard, their young pains felt, and the difficulties of their abnormal childhoods visible and recognizable to Americans.

I fully agree with the writer's description of the "hopeless gridlock" and angry driving he experienced in Gaza, and how it reminded him of similar "angry driving in Beirut, 1975 (I witnessed this horror in Beirut, myself) and Tehran before 1979—in each case just before those societies "'self-destructed.'"

I have experienced personally all of the humiliations and disrespect he observed in Gaza: How at the "Erez" border crossing, the Israeli soldiers insisted he walk in the pouring rain, carrying all his soaked luggage "through the maze of concrete barriers before climbing back into exactly the same Gaza service taxi on the other side."

His study of Qatar, including the expressive and poetic headline, "Desert Drizzle Makes a Friendship Bloom," was excellent too. So were his portraits of "The United Arab Emirates: A Passion for Stability," and "Saudi Arabia: Big, Bothered and Bedeviled." They were oh so truthful and realistic.

In the article "Jordan's King Hussein: Leading the Arab Pack or Odd Man Out?" he pierced the heart of the "Arab-Israeli" tragedy. King Hussein, in signing the recent peace treaty with Israel, has broken the "Arab League vows of no separate peace with Israel until all outstanding Arab territorial claims have been settled." Palestinian bitterness in Jordan (where they are two-thirds of the population) could be transferred from Arafat to King Hussein. Then it may appear that the king has dug his own grave!

Indeed, with "bitter-sweet" abandonment, I agree with all of his conclusions. If Israel does not give back to the Palestinians full independence in Palestine and full human and legal rights in all of their lands captured by Israel in 1967, there will never be peace or prosperity in the Middle East. Instead tiny Israel will be, once again, submerged in the vast surrounding sea of 200 million violently angry Arabs.

Therefore we thank your executive editor, again and eternally, for this wealth of valuable information—unknown to many of us before he wrote it—and for his insight and compassion. May God always bless your magazine, and all who are associated with it.

Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL

The Morning After Report

Hats off for your "Journey to the 'New Middle East'"! It is superb.

In light of the rather creative Israeli deformation of Crown Prince Hassan's post-Casablanca Conference statement on Jerusalem, as reported in the Jordanian portion of your article, I thought you might like to read The Jordan Times' morning-after report on the Crown Prince's statement.

One can presume that The Jordan Times would have every interest in reporting accurately on such a sensitive subject.

John V. Whitbeck, Paris, France

Thanks for the clipping, in which The Jordan Times quotes Crown Prince Hassan as saying that when the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations on Jerusalem have ended, "we promise to hand over trusteeship of the holy sites to the Palestinian Authority." It further quotes PLO adviser on Jerusalem Faisal Al Husseini as saying, "I salute Crown Prince Hassan for his clarification." Thanks for your own clarification.

President Clinton's Un-Christian Visit to Holy Jerusalem

Grace Halsell's report of President Clinton's visit to Jerusalem in your Jan./Feb. issue is such a masterpiece of honest reporting that it has stimulated even a passive reader like me to write in support of what she has so eloquently expressed.

What struck me most was her statement: "Since the Jewish state looms so large in this vision of history, a Christian Zionist easily reduces all of the Middle East, birthplace of civilization as well as of Christianity, Islam and Judaism to one phrase—Israel and its neighbors."

I must add that this phrase "Israel and its neighbors" has been used slyly by every propagandist for Israel for years. To my knowledge, no one ever has challenged the sinister implication of this phrase until she did so in your marvelous magazine. I salute Grace Halsell's honesty, moral courage and deep sense of history. An equal respect is also due to your outstanding magazine for publishing such badly needed honesty and straight talk.

The phrase "Israel and its neighbors" reminds me of Neils Bohr's theory about the structure of an atom of an element. Bohr describes the atom as a relatively "heavy" stationary nucleus around which extremely light-weight electrons rotate in accordance with strict rules. Without the nucleus, the electrons would fly apart and be lost in space. Without this centrally imperative nucleus, there would be no atoms, no molecules, no matter, and eventually no universe, as we know it.

The phrase "Israel and its neighbors," is equivalent to saying "the nucleus and its electrons." It implies that "Israel is the nucleus of the universe and everything else in the universe (including all nations) revolve around it!"

I assume that the Christian Zionists would be thrilled by such a description. Therefore I suggest that they add to their vocabularies other phrases reflecting current American reality such as:

Israel and its American President!

Israel and its American First Lady!

Israel and its American Senators!

Israel and its American Congressmen!

Israel and its American Diplomats!

Israel and its American Preachers!

Israel and its great American Institutions!

Thus the Arabs, their identity, rich history and culture will not be the only "electrons" which rotate around the Israeli "nucleus"!

The other part of the report that struck me, with equal intensity, was Grace Halsell's reference to evangelist Jerry Falwell's acceptance of a private airplane, as a gift, from the Israeli leadership, for his services on their behalf. I kept searching my soul for an explanation for such an extremely expensive gift to anyone, let alone a preacher. I could not find any explanation which could be described as honorable, or even reasonable. It seems to have crossed the line into bribery and corruption of mind and soul.

Why do laws of the land permit a preacher to accept an expensive gift, such as a private airplane, from leaders of a foreign government while, at the same time, they do not allow an official of the U.S. government to do likewise? Should not the preacher and the government official observe the same rules? Does the U.S. tax code dictate collecting taxes on very expensive gifts given by foreign governments to preachers?

Ned Ammari, Westerville, OH

Assuming the Israeli government made the gift directly to a tax-exempt foundation controlled by Reverend Falwell, it would not be subject to U.S. taxes. It might, however, oblige that foundation to register as an agent of the Israeli government. Although writer Halsell personally heard Rev. Falwell thanking an Israeli government official for the aircraft, it is more likely that the government official arranged for the gift to be from an Israeli foundation or company to a Falwell foundation, relieving the recipient both of paying taxes and of acknowledging any strings attached.

A "Celtic" American Presents the Other Side of the Bosnian Coin

To your magazine's recent renewal request I had replied that I would be cancelling my subscription because of your one-sided presentation of the Bosnian situation. I have since received one more issue of the magazine, and I realize I can't do without it. So I will be sending in my renewal after all.

I have been for several years a faithful supporter of the Washington Report—I have donated money several times, have given you innumerable "plugs" in our quarterly magazine, DOXA, and on one occasion you published an article by me in your "Seeing the Light" series. I remain a staunch supporter of the Palestinians, primarily because I am an Orthodox Christian, and I'm very concerned about the plight of the Christians in the Holy Land.

I am not an Arab, nor am I Serb—I am a seventh-generation American, mostly of Celtic descent, who elected to join the Orthodox Church many years ago, precisely because of Orthodoxy's conservative values (which include "liberal" views toward race and civil rights), and traditional Christian teachings. As an Orthodox Christian, I am painfully aware of another viewpoint on the Bosnian question not presented in the American "mainstream" media, and the Washington Report simply echoes that "mainstream" viewpoint.

Please allow me to present you with some additional facts about the Serbian question, most of which you can easily verify in other reputable sources, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. For the part you won't find in the encyclopedia, I have previously sent you copies of material I translated from the French Orthodox Press Service with regard to happenings in Bosnia and Serbia which are never reported in our media. For instance:

1) Patriarch Pavle of the Serbian Orthodox Church (who is widely revered as a living saint) and his bishops, at great personal risk, have on numerous occasions openly condemned the current war. This is never reported in the American media. These Orthodox bishops have, along with condemning the war, consistently called upon the Western nations, and the Western media in particular, to look at the conflict in a balanced manner, recognizing the legitimate Serbian grievances. Patriarch Pavle, in Belgrade on at least one occasion, personally headed up a group of 10,000 protesters against the war.

2) The Patriarch made a formal visit of courtesy and friendship to the Islamic Mufti in Belgrade. The patriarch has really tried to promote peace. Nary a word about it in our "mainstream" press, nor in the Washington Report. Serbs are bad, period, one is left to suppose.

3) Serbia as a nation has a very long history, and a good part of Bosnia-Herzegovina was, historically, part of Serbia, just as, say, Pennsylvania is historically part of the U.S.A. The Serbs have at least a plausible case to present to the world.

4) Historic Serbia was carved up first by the Turks, then by the Hapsburgs, then by the Nazis, and later by the Communists under Tito (who was a Croat). The Communists created four of the Yugoslavian "republics" partly out of historic Serbian territory. Most of the borders recently recognized by most countries as national frontiers (e.g., those of Croatia and Bosnia) were in fact nothing but Communist Yugoslavian administrative borders—"state lines," so to speak.

5) The Bosnian Muslims are resented by the Serbs because they were maverick and, in the Serbian view, traitorous Serbs. In the middle ages their Serb ancestors embraced the Manichaean heresy (they were known as "the Bogomils" after the renegade Orthodox priest who was their founder), and they hated the Orthodox Christianity of the overwhelming majority of Serbs. The Bogomils rapidly embraced Islam when the Turks conquered Serbia. Our monastery has good relations with the Muslims at Dar al-Islam mosque near here in Abiquiu; we are not "anti-Islam." As I have noted, even the Patriarch of Serbia has made gestures of friendship toward the Muslims. And of course I support religious freedom, and would wish to see the Bosnian Muslims at liberty to practice their faith. But at the same time one needs to appreciate how very many Serbs consider the Bosnian Muslims to be quintessential Quislings—they aren't angry at them merely because they are followers of Islam, but rather because they are Serbs who forsook their ancestral faith for a heresy, and then adopted the faith of their Turkish conquerors. Imagine how, say, the Saudis would feel and act with regard to a group of heterodox Muslim Arabs who suddenly became, say, Presbyterians!

6) The Serbs were our allies in World War II, and we appreciated their tough fighting. The Croats, however, created a Nazi support state. Known as the "Ustashis," these Croatian Nazis murdered at least 400,000 Serbs, mostly men and boys, in cold blood. Among those men were hundreds of Orthodox Christian clergy. This occurred within living memory, and many thousands of Serbian families lost a loved one in this unpublicized (in our media) Nazi Holocaust. I can't imagine that you, of all people, would wish the Jewish supporters of "my Israel right or wrong" to appropriate the Holocaust for themselves alone!

"Two wrongs don't made a right," etc., and one may feel reluctant to allow that old grievances justify a current war, but we must recognize the Bosnian Serbs do not see themselves as "aggressors" or as greedy maniacs hell-bent on conquest, but rather as men fighting for their own country in their own country. Their issue indeed is not conquest, but rather the desire to have and to hold land their believe, rightly or wrongly, is historically theirs. Whether we agree with their belief or their approach, history definitely lends much support to their point of view, and they at the very least deserve a hearing in the court of world opinion. Instead, their cause has been pooh-poohed in the "mainstream" media as merely obscurantist and fanatic, they have been demonized in every way, and blamed for everything, even when human rights organizations have published documented evidence that all sides have committed atrocities—including "ethnic cleansing" (which in fact is simply the removal of potential enemies—Muslims have done it, Croats have done it, not just the Serbs).

The Serbs see themselves as having been victimized by the Turks, the Nazis, the Communists, and now by the other Western nations. Should we not in fairness point out that the Bosnian Serbs at least have a valid case to present to the world. If the Bosnian Serbs had any real hope their view would at least be given a serious hearing, I am persuaded they would be willing to settle their differences at the conference table later. But given that virtually "no one" is listening to their side, one can understand the feeling of frustration that has led them to take up arms.

Naturally I also support the rights of the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims to self-determination, and I believe that if Serbian views can be presented to Americans along with theirs, it would contribute to the peace process.

Brother Isaac Melton, St. Michael's Skete, Canones, NM

Thanks for your informative presentation of the Serb view. We'll let our readers choose for themselves. We have three quibbles, however. First, we didn't "echo" the mainstream viewpoint. We preceded it by months. We vividly recall a Bosnian-American pressed into service to present the Bosnian government case telling author Grace Halsell and our executive editor that "in the entire United States only Anthony Lewis and those of you on the Washington Reportseem willing and able to explain our case." Second, unless all of the human rights reports, and those of UNPROFOR as well, are mistaken, the vast majority of atrocities in the current war (not World War II) have been committed by Serbs. The Croats have committed atrocities (mostly against Muslims rather than Serbs), but not on a comparable scale, and the Muslims have committed very few atrocities at all. Our third quibble is that we have taken some pains to point out that many in Serbia deplore what their government and the Bosnian Serbs have done, which is why the Serbian government has imposed drastic restrictions on its own media. We've also pointed out that some Serbs and some Croats are soldiers, officers and officials of the Muslim-led Bosnian government, which has done its best to remain non-sectarian. Finally, just to elaborate on your accurate depiction of the Bogomils, as we reported in 1992 (also from the Encyclopedia Britannica), both their Christian Orthodox and Catholic neighbors used their "heresy" as an excuse to ignore their property rights, treating them much as the Israeli government treats Christians and Muslims in the contemporary occupied territories. When the incoming Turks assured the Bogomils that their titles to their lands would be respected, their mass conversions to Islam began.

Let the Iranian People, Not U.S. State Department Experts, Make Their Own Choice

As an Iranian reader of the Washington Report, I have been following your coverage of the recent State Department report on the People's Mojahedin of Iran. In my opinion, this State Department report is a repeat of old, baseless accusations (which have been fully responded to by the Mojahedin) fabricated by "moderate-seeking" elements within the U.S. administration. Clinton administration condemnation of the largest resistance group to the mullahs' tyranny is nothing but a continuation of the "key and cake" policy of the Reagan administration and of some "Iran experts" in the U.S. political arena.

In my opinion, the best qualified experts on Iranian affairs are the Iranian people, not the State Department bureaucrats, and they have been and will be the judges of the actions of the Mojahedin. Obviously, they have supported the Mojahedin in their 15 years of struggle against Khomeini and his pupils and will continue to do so to the end. U.S. support for the shah could not prevent his fall and, very likely, any U.S. assistance to Rafsanjani and the other mullahs won't help them when their time comes.

Since you have agreed to withhold on request the identity of Iranian writers of articles or letters in your magazine, I request my name be withheld should you decide to publish this letter.

Name withheld, Florida

Thanks for your sensible letter. Our offer to withhold names of writers from totalitarian countries whose families or futures might be jeopardized by their published words holds good not only for Iranians. We've even withheld or changed an American name or two when the writer's professional circumstances warranted it. So, to borrow a phrase from former Congressman Paul Findley, we hope all of our readers will "dare to speak out!"

Gingrich's Comments Worry Me

House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich was quoted as favoring moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. As a Palestinian-American I find in Mr. Gingrich's comments a continued sense of Israeli superiority.

The Holy City of Jerusalem is key to Palestinian-Israeli peace. Jerusalem is home to Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In 1947 and 1948 the United States voted in favor of U.N. Resolutions 181 and 194 which both call for the "internationalization" of the City of Jerusalem. Every United States administration since the creation of the State of Israel has supported repeated United Nations resolutions calling for NO unilateral decisions regarding Jerusalem.

President Truman's administration was the one that recognized the controversial establishment of the State of Israel. In an Oct. 24, 1948 statement, made only six months after the creation of Israel, President Truman said, "We continue to support, within the framework of the United Nations, the internationalization of Jerusalem and the protection of the holy places in Palestine."

Two years following the June 1967 Six-Day War, which resulted in the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, President Nixon's administration took the following position: "The question of the future status of Jerusalem, because it touches deep emotional, historical, and religious wellsprings, is particularly complicated. We have made clear repeatedly in the past two-and-a-half years that we cannot accept unilateral actions by any party to decide the final status of the city." (The quotation is from an address by Secretary of State William Rogers to the 1969 Galaxy Conference, Dec. 9, 1969.)

U.S. policy under the administration of President George Bush, which was the motivating factor for the Oslo Peace Accords, reiterated the same position: "It has been the longstanding position of the United States that the status of Jerusalem must be resolved by negotiations." (Department of State, July 12, 1989.)

Republican and Democratic administrations alike have been consistent on Jerusalem because they all understand the explosive nature of a unilateral decision. Mr. Gingrich should recognize that if the U.S. is to be a genuine mediator it must accept that Palestinian statehood in place of Israeli occupation is the only viable and just solution for the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. This means that the final status of Jerusalem, the proclaimed capital of both Palestine and Israel, mustbe negotiated on the basis of human rights and international law and not approached as an issue that has been predetermined by Israel with the tacit acquiescence of the U.S.

Sam Bahour, Youngstown, OH (co-editor of Homeland: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians.)