March 1995, pgs. 83-88

Other People's Mail

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

Peace and Aid In the Middle East

To The New York Times, Nov. 27, 1994 (as published).

"In Israel, a Ho-Hum Response to Peace" (World Markets, Oct. 30) was salutary. In questioning a so-called peace dividend, Paul Lewis took a step to correct grave misunderstandings about the peace process, a step that may help temper expectations in other areas.

Mr. Lewis, however, did not get to the root of the matter: the peace process itself is unlikely to advance economic reform in Israel. The talks in Casablanca aren't likely to help, either.

Mr. Lewis reports that reform of Israel's socialized economy is a key step to taking "advantage of the new economic opportunities that peace is creating." But changing the "sclerotic socialized economy" represents something far more fundamental than a mere step in Israel's would-be reforms. The economy is socialized and sclerotic because Israel is a socialist regime—period.

The privatization success that Mr. Lewis cites is inconsequential—8 nonbank companies of the 160 Israel owns. Israel has no private sector in the Western sense; socialism based on aid is the highest policy of the Israeli state, for the Likud as well as the Labor Party. This is the heart of the matter.

Looking for the peace dividend in economic reforms turns reality on its head. The purpose of the peace process, in fact, is to make reform unnecessary. The aid that will now flow will go to Jordan and the PLO as well as Israel. This serves Israel's socialist purposes: aid to the Arabs will find its way to Israel via the monopolies and cartels that the peace process is saving from privatization. This is the peace dividend. Of course, Syria is on the agenda; it is the hinge.

Thus the Golan: if Israel can persuade the Americans to send troops to the Golan (convincing the Israelis will be much easier), the aid spigot will be wide open.

The United States will have become the protector of the peace, while the aid will be necessary to protect the troops. What surer way to guarantee continued congressional appropriations than to put U.S. troops at risk if the appropriations stop? What better way to insure the troops remain than to make them responsible for the peace?

The Middle East peace process has arisen because of two factors: the balance-of-power vacuum created by the demise of the Soviet Union and the Israeli socialist system's rapacious need for American aid, which is threatened by the Soviet breakup. The peace process is supposed to bring about a balance of power by way of the implanting of United States troops on the Golan. In other words, when this unconventional aid-based peace is in place, the assistance will sustain Israel's socialism, making reform unnecessary.

Robert J. Loewenberg, Jerusalem, Israel

(The writer is president of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, based in Jerusalem.)

You Owe Your Readers the Facts

To The News and Observer, Jan. 2, 1995 (as submitted).

I believe you owe your readers a comprehensive report on Senator Helms' position on foreign aid, in the light of assertions in the media that he favors keeping aid to Israel at current levels. Have you interviewed him on this issue?

Curtis F. Jones, Chapel Hill, NC

Enclosure: Excerpt from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Jan./Feb. 1995

Time to End Aid to Israel

To The Washington Times, Dec. 6, 1994 (as published).

I am surprised that The Washington Times did not cite a poll taken in September by the Council for the National Interest, using the Wirthlin Group, which proves most Americans want to end aid to Israel altogether and as soon as possible. Your editorial regarding aid to Israel ("Anyone for aid to Israel?" Nov. 28) cited a poll indicating that some 64 percent of Americans do not want to send troops to the Golan. An almost equal number want to phase out aid to Israel altogether.

The September poll has been advertised nationally, and a press release was sent to your newspaper when it came out. It asked the question, "Do you support phasing out aid to Israel?" More than 53 percent supported phasing it out as soon as possible. Among politically active males between 35 and 54, the support to phase it out was 62 percent. Only 18 percent of all Americans wanted it maintained at present levels, while 6 percent called for increasing it.

After we have spent $70 billion on aid to Israel, twice as much as we gave Europe under the Marshall Plan, it is questionable if we should continue to think of Israel as a welfare case. The aid to Israel sticks out like a sore thumb on American policy in the Middle East: It still funds settlement building, it encourages lavish political spending by both major political forces in Israel, and it of course also sends the wrong signal to the Israeli public. Giving more aid per capita ($1,800 per person) to Israel than entitlements to our own people is simply not sustainable. In addition, it leaves our Congress a captive to a foreign aid program that is not even well audited and has the potential for major additional scandals beyond those already recorded.

If you are going to write about whether anyone is for aid to Israel, you should be fair and not limit it to troops on the Golan Heights but admit that there is a majority of Americans who want to see the end of the road for aid to Israel, the 16th-richest country in the world.

Even Israeli officials talk more openly about this problem. Recently, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, after his visit to Washington, told his Cabinet, according to a usually reliable Israeli press source, that "Israel could encounter difficulties in getting the $1.2 billion in civilian aid from the United States but that no problems are expected in getting the $1.8 billion in military aid. Although President Clinton promised that the civilian aid will continue at its previous level, the prime minister expects a tough struggle in Congress over this issue."

Israeli politicians are the first to recognize the need to be thinking about getting along without further U.S. aid and normalizing relations. There is more open debate on this issue there than here in the United States.

Eugene Bird, President of the Council for the National Interest, Washington, DC

Shoot to Kill

To Time, Nov. 28, 1994 (as published).

IIn reaction to recent events, Israeli forces have greater liberty to open fire on known Hamas guerrillas [ISRAEL, Nov. 7]. New guidelines eloquently display an Orwellian Newspeak. In the Israeli military lingo, mistreatment or even torture of prisoners is called "moderate physical pressure." But for some reason the activities of the Israeli army—however violent—are not called murder or terrorism. Israel has been repeatedly condemned, by Amnesty International and Israel's own human-rights groups, for torture. However, in the eyes of our politicians and media, Israel remains an oasis of democracy in the Middle East.

Ismail Zayid, Halifax, Canada

Mr. Gross Wins the Chutzpah Prize

To the St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 4, 1995 (as published).

Norman N. Gross, president of PRIMER (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting) remembers the Syrian bombardment of villages in northern Israel, but he conveniently forgets why that happened. Israel wanted the Golan Heights as part of "Eretz Israel" and it wanted control of the headwaters of the upper Jordan River. For years before the 1967 war, armed Israeli farmers fomented trouble in the area using tractors and farm equipment to encroach on the Golan Demilitarized Zone and terrorize Syrian villages.

In 1967 tensions in the Middle East had increased and armed forces were amassed at the borders. Suddenly, on June 5, Israel struck. Within 48 hours the Israelis had occupied the Gaza Strip, the Sinai and the West Bank including Jerusalem. On the morning of June 8 Israeli forces gathered at the Syrian border with an invasion of the Golan Heights scheduled for 11:30 a.m.

Then the USS Liberty, a lightly armed communications vessel, appeared off the Egyptian-Israeli coast. It was cruising in international waters on a clear day flying a large American flag. Israeli aircraft made nine close inspections. Suddenly, at 2 p.m., they opened fire.

The Israelis bombed and strafed the vessel. Torpedoes were fired and napalm dropped. When the Americans launched lifeboats, Israeli gunboats opened fire and sank them. When it was all over, 34 Americans were dead out of a crew of 293. The Israelis said it was a mistake and apologized.

The invasion of the Golan Heights was delayed 24 hours, but it was carried out quickly on June 9. Israel still holds the territory today. Israel has since moved settlers into the area in direct opposition to U.N. resolutions and U.S. policy. Even worse, in order to build the settlements they required massive infusions of financial aid from the United States.

If Prime Minister Rabin and President Assad do reach agreement on a peace accord, one thing is predictable. The United States will be expected to reimburse Israelis for the settlements they vacate. We will have paid for these settlements twice: once when they were built and again when they were abandoned.

It seems to me Israel wins the chutzpah prize for its actions on the Golan Heights. I think Mr. Gross should also own up to a touch of chutzpah for his one-sided presentation.

Joseph A. Mahon, St. Petersburg, FL

Israel's Treaty With Jordan

To the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 1, 1994 (as published).

Kamal Naffa's article, "A Treaty Must be More Than Words" (Commentary, Nov. 23), speaks eloquently of the ambivalent Jordanian response to the recent Israel-Jordan treaty. It's difficult for most Americans and Israelis to appreciate the reign of skepticism and suspicion and the reluctance of many Arabs and Arab Americans (Islamic fundamentalists aside) to fully accept the peace accords. We must understand why this remains so.

We also agree, strongly, that the peace process must work quickly to work at all. The Mideast partners in growing dialogue must move forward or assuredly they will be moved backward. Naffa certainly is right in saying that Israelis and Arabs everywhere must also come to grips with mutual, destructive stereotypes and mythologies of war. But he falls prey, himself, to stereotypes of all-powerful Israel (and American Jewry) holding all of the cards.

Israelis must, indeed, understand the necessity to maintain a Palestinian sense of moving forward to better, more secure days in which they can determine their own future in their own homeland. For Israelis to be able to do that, however, more Arabs still must come to recognize the absolute necessity for Israelis to feel physically secure in their homeland. Having the most powerful military in the region has little to do with an individual's security.

Many of us Jews and Arabs are engaged in exactly the kind of dialogue and advocacy with our respective communities for which Naffa pleads. A Los Angeles-based Arab-Jewish Speakers Bureau has been dispatching teams of us to Arab and Jewish (and other) venues to discuss issues and mutual perceptions. Americans can and must play a role—with our government and with our own communities.

Jerry Freedman Habush, L.A. Regional Director, Americans for Peace Now, Los Angeles, CA

Why Palestinian Martyrs Multiply

To the Seattle Times, Dec. 3, 1994 (as submitted).

A very interesting article in the Nov. 28 Times, "Brainwash the Faithful for Heroic Afterlives," begins with the question: "How easy is it for young men in the Gaza Strip to blow themselves up for a cause?"

A more fundamental question should be "Why would young men do this?" Although the article notes that "suicide bombers are not a dime a dozen," it adds that "Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah must select them from a very small pool of potential candidates." This means that a "suicide bombing" is not an isolated event by a deranged individual.

Could anyone or any group find a "small pool" of such young men in the United States? If not, what in Palestine causes young men to renounce life when their future is before them?

One factor, memories of the "original sin" against Palestinians, is still strong. The return to "family values" desired in U.S. politics today is a reality among Palestinians. When a young man marries he brings his bride home, a new room is built for the new family, and all live together where today's grandchildren grow up with the grandparents' memories.

Grandma and Grandpa became homeless, poverty-stricken refugees within six months after Israel became a nation in 1948. Israeli armies drove over 700,000 Palestinians (more than every individual now living in Seattle and Bellevue combined) out of their homes and businesses.

Within the Palestinian young man's life he has his own memories. He has had friends or acquaintances killed by the Israeli army. The average is 17 killed per month, including school children. He knows many, probably some within his own family, who have been shot or beaten badly enough by the Israeli Army to require hospitalization: 1 out of every 13 Palestinians in the past 6 years.

Land owned by his friends' families for up to 100 generations has been confiscated by the Israelis without five cents compensation: over 180 square miles, possibly 80 percent of the total. He has seen the Israeli Army bulldoze or otherwise destroy Palestinian homes because one member of the family was suspected of belonging to a "subversive" organization, an average of 35 Palestinian homes per month.

Conditions have worsened since the signing of the Oslo peace accord. This is not the judgment of the Palestinians alone. Many Israelis do not agree with their governmental policies. Articles written by Israeli writers for Israeli readers and published in 1994 include:

2/25 Israeli Theft of Billions from Palestinian Workers, published in Ha'aretz

4/8 Sabri's Fight Against Confiscation of his Land, Ha'aretz

4/15 Torture in Israeli Prisons, Ha'aretz

4/22 Demolition of a House in Ramallah, Yediot Ahronot

5/12 The Oslo and Cairo Agreements, an Agreement to Surrender, Ha'aretz

7/1 Incitement to Murder, Yediot Ahronot

7/8 Not Too Young for Detention and Torture, Ha'aretz

7/20 A Jewish Terror Organization is Sowing Fear and Destruction in West Bank Arab Villages, Yediot Ahronot

7/22 Foreign Slave Labor in Israel Displacing Palestinians, Davar

8/11 Israeli Soldiers are Routinely Maltreating Palestinians, Ma'ariv

8/26 Daily Oppression in the West Bank, Yediot Ahronot

9/4 Goldstein Committed a Good Deed Because Any Arab Death is a Fortunate Event, Ha'aretz

10/7 Bypass Roads for Jews Only, Yediot Ahronot

The titles alone of these articles in the Israeli press explain why many Palestinians feel Arafat's peace efforts are a fraud, why support for Hamas and opposition to the peace efforts are increasing, and why the "pool" of potential suicide bombers is growing. These young men feel the horrible conditions of the past 45 years have grown worse since the peace effort began, and they have no future except in their "heroic afterlives."

In our own history "taxation without representation" resulted in our Revolutionary War and independence. This is only one of the problems faced by the Palestinians! Is human nature so different that we can expect the Palestinians suddenly to abandon their struggle against real oppression?

It can safely be said that there will be no peace in the Mideast until Israel changes its policies and practices toward the Palestinians.

John S. O'Connor, Seattle, WA

Uncertain Spotlight on the Mideast

To The Minneapolis Star Tribune, Oct. 29, 1994 (as published).

The caption on a front-page photo of bridge construction tells of Jordanians gazing across the river "with respect and envy as Israel, equally young and poor in resources, blossomed into a modern affluent nation."

It is simply not true that Israel and Jordan were equally poor in resources. As anyone ought to know by this time, that part of Palestine which is now Israel had much greater agricultural development in 1945 than what was then Trans-Jordan, thanks to better natural resources (mainly water) and more aggressive development by both Jewish and Arab farmers there.

More important, thanks to the American taxpayer, Israel has received subsidies averaging over $1,000 per citizen per annum for some 30 years; there have also been billions in subsidies from other sources. This is incomparably more than Jordan has received. To write as if Jordan and Israel have been competing on a level playing field is another example of the ignorant and biased reporting that Americans don't seem able to overcome.

Arne Sovik, Minneapolis, MN

What Kind of "60 Minutes" Standard?

To Ms. Leslie Stahl, "60 Minutes," New York, NY, Dec. 16, 1994

With reference to the Palestine segment on your most interesting, as usual, broadcast of 11 December, I was very surprised that some pertinent points were omitted from the discussion with Ms. Ashrawi in which you question Mr. Arafat's capability as a leader.

For one thing, George Washington himself could have accomplished no more than has Arafat under such existing unfair conditions as:

1) Sewage still runs down the unpaved streets of Gaza.

2) A police force is just in the process of being formed.

3) A goodly proportion of even the local Palestinians in Gaza are aware that the terms of the "Peace Settlement" were unfair to their cause. Since they were imposed by an overbearing power backed by the United States, they still feel more than justified in continued revolt. Why should an outside state aggress upon them in violation of the Geneva Convention and all concepts of the United Nations, in which that aggressor retains its membership?

4) Arafat's Palestinian Authority is prohibited by Israel from establishing its own money system.

5) This fledgling state with clipped wings is further prohibited from conducting elections for organizing its own government until it has established and operated a system to protect some 130,000 illegally settled Jewish residents—a cunningly imposed condition designed to render the whole problem unsolvable by Arafat or any other Palestinian.

6) To cap this all off, only 16 percent of the $300 million promised by other nations to back the first year's operations has been forthcoming.

Not even George Washington could have paved streets, hired policemen and protected foreigners under such perverse conditions. Should you be interested in learning more truth about this situation which bears so heavily upon the United States and upon American taxpayers, please refer to the real-Americans' non-biased Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Frank J. Burris, Fallbrook, CA (age 92)

Conflict In Israel

To the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 6, 1995 (as published).

We are two 15-year-old Arab-American girls.

Your writer's position should reflect his credibility, not be used to promote lies. How can a professor lie to all of the nation?

If we followed the fable, the man has no gun, and is then therefore a victim of the vulture. Israel has atomic weapons (as the article says), so explain to us who is the victim.

Only in America would you have in the paper on the same day an article on how Israel is a victim and the same victim steals valuable military secrets and sells them to China for profit and still receives billions of dollars in aid ("U.S. Says Israel Gave Combat Jet Plans to China"). So who is the victim?

We would like to be victims, if that's what it means to be victims. However, we do have a dictionary to look up words that are being misused, such as vulture and victim. To us, a victim is a person who is being mistreated without any reason. And a vulture is someone or something that tries to conquer and take away what is not theirs, which to our knowledge is what Israel has done and continues to do to confiscate Arab land.

Muna Zuhour and Nadia Ommar, Montrose, CA

Morocco: Safe Haven for Jews

To The Washington Post, Dec. 8, 1994 (as published).

Phyllis Richman's Nov. 20 article [Food] on the American ambassador to Morocco talked about the treatment of Jews in Morocco but ignored the fact that while the Vichy (French) government handed Jews over to the Germans, the Moroccan government (under French colonial rule) refused to give up Moroccan Jews. Hence Morocco was a safe haven for its Jewish minority during the atrocities of World War II.

Although the Moroccan Jews of the era prior to 1912 were not allowed to leave their quarters with their shoes on, this policy was not directed solely against Jews or Judaism per se. Rather it was because of the false belief that nonbelievers (non-Muslims) should not walk on Muslim land with their shoes on. What Ms. Richman did not address is the fact that Morocco was a safe haven to a lot of Jews fleeing the anti-Semitic persecution that has pervaded Europe since the Middle Ages. If the Moroccan Jews were treated with any hostility at all, it was not because of their status as non-Muslims.

Morocco proudly welcomed a Jewish American as ambassador, and it has many high government officials who are also Jewish. Morocco also has been known for many years for its fair treatment of minorities. The broadcasting of Yom Kippur services on Moroccan television is a sign of openness and tolerance in a predominantly Muslim country. Many of the Moroccan Jews who have emigrated throughout the world for economic reasons continue to return to Morocco and maintain close ties there.

Rahim Sabir, Charlottesville, VA

The So-Called Christian Right

To Dr. Bernard Bellush, Great Neck, NY, Nov. 11, 1994

It is apparent from reading your article in the Nov. 10 issue of the Great Neck Record that you have some serious First Amendment problems with the so-called Christian Right. So do I. But I also have some serious problems with the annual transfer of some 6 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars (some $65 billion since 1948) from the United States Treasury to a certain theocratic mini-state whose "sine qua non" is an alleged deal between a tribal deity and an Iraqi shepherd that occurred in the Bronze Age.

Furthermore I suspect that you can relocate to this mini-state at any time and, via its Law of Return, not only claim instant citizenship but also your share of the accrued benefits of the $65 billion that has been extorted from the American taxpayer by the Zionist lobby.

But, alas, because of my mother's genealogy, I, a fellow citizen of yours, am precluded from making a similar claim to this largesse. With this I have some serious Fourteenth Amendment problems. Do you?

Joseph Melita, Great Neck, NY

Don't Exaggerate Iranian Threat

To The New York Times, Jan. 11, 1995 (as published).

"Iran May Be Able to Build an Atomic Bomb in 5 Years, U.S. and Israeli Officials Fear" (news article, Jan. 5) contains no new information and relies on biased Israeli sources.

In December 1992, Robert M. Gates, director of Central Intelligence, said Iran was 8 to 10 years from a nuclear bomb. His successor, R. James Woolsey Jr., said the same last September. Have events turned drastically worse in four months?

Last July one analyst added that, "given the immense difficulties standing in Iran's way, such as lack of finances, infrastructure, and R&D culture, as well as international scrutiny, it would be years before Iran could become a nuclear weapons state." The new time frame of five years is based on rhetorical assertions, not on a substantive change in Iran's nuclear efforts.

The real story here is the Israeli campaign to draw world attention to Iran, a security threat in Israeli eyes. While the Israelis are rightly concerned about Iran's intentions, the media should investigate more closely.

Jeremy Pressman, Associate, Middle East Project, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC

In Iran, Tortured Becomes Torturer

To The New York Times, Dec. 19, 1994 (as published).

According to your article on Iran's partial opening of its prisons to inspection (Dec. 11), Assadollah Lajevardi, chief of the prison system, said there are "no more than eight political prisoners in Iran," and the "treatment of prisoners is no longer disciplinary, but educational."

These claims are absurd as a description of imprisonment in Iran but contain a disturbing truth about Mr. Lajevardi's sense of reality. Evidence of Iran's human rights violations is overwhelming. According to Amnesty International, Iranians in 1993 witnessed "mass arrests, unfair trials and summary executions."

What makes Mr. Lajevardi's words painfully ironic is his own background as a victim of human rights abuse. Before the 1979 revolution he spent nine years in Evin Prison and was severely tortured. In those years I worked to publicize his plight as a political prisoner.

After the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini made him director of Evin. In a pathological case of the tortured becoming the torturer, Mr. Lajevardi soon became notorious for brutal treatment of political inmates. He virtually lived in Evin the first three years of the revolution, when more than 5,000 political dissidents and nearly 200 members of the Baha'i faith were executed.

Ayatollah Khomeini elevated Mr. Lajevardi to be chief of the country's prison system. Mr. Lajevardi periodically invites reporters to his office and informs them of his concern for the spiritual needs of the prisoners. His criterion of success in serving this need is the readiness of prisoners to confess crimes or repent for their sins. If torture is required to reach this end, then torture is a holy instrument, protecting the theocracy against the evil of dissent and cleansing the soul of the sinners.

Mr. Lajevardi's background is rare among Iran's ruling clerics, but his approach to the spiritual well-being of political detainees exemplifies their attitude toward human rights.

Mansour Farhang, Professor of Politics, Bennington College, Bennington, VT

"France's Veiled Threat"

To The Washington Post, Dec. 10, 1994 (as published).

It was unfortunate that Sharon Waxman, in her article "France's Veiled Threat" [Style, Nov. 23], could not keep her opinions about Islamic belief and practices out of her writing.

She portrays the French government's decision to ban the obligatory head covering worn by Muslim women (as required by their faith) in the public schools as a response to the growing threat of Muslim "fundamentalism." Waxman attempts to place a connection between the alleged activities of a handful of militants in France with the desire of these courageous young women to stand up and refuse to compromise on their deeply felt religious beliefs. I failed to see the connection between the "four young French men...arrested in connection with the murder of two Spanish tourists" allegedly "recruited by radical fundamentalists" and the subject of the story. Is the author implying that all Muslims who are devout in their practice of Islam are potential terrorists and subversives bent on the destruction of Western civilization?

It appears that Waxman is unable to differentiate between (a) Muslims who practice the teachings of their religion faithfully and may peacefully disagree with the West's secular ideology and principles and (b) the handful of extremists who use violence against civilians to further their particular individual goals.

In addition, I was disappointed by the cultural arrogance and smugness displayed by certain French officials quoted in the article toward the Muslim population, as if the French possessed a superior culture and ideology and needed to impose it on others. In these officials' view, this law was also needed to protect Muslim women from the "tyrannyof the veil" and against the "oppression of their religion." In their eyes, Muslim women are like children who cannot make their own choices and decisions as to whether they wish to practice the teachings of their religion or follow the secular ideology of the West.

Maher Sibay, McLean, VA

Bosnia Policy Designed to Fail

To The New York Times, Dec. 2, 1994 (as published).

Recent events in the Balkans clearly demonstrate that Britain and France never really planned to confront the Serbs, their allies in World Wars I and II; their plan has all along been to contain the Muslims. When Lord Owen unveiled, with much fanfare, the Vance-Owen plan in April 1993 to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina into autonomous ethnic provinces under a loose central government, and the Serbs rejected it through a "referendum" that Lord Owen himself called "sham," who ate his words? Not the Serbs!

Then the United States formed a contact group with Russia, Britain, France and Germany, divided the country into Muslim-Croat and Serbian entities, and challenged the parties to accept the plan or face punishment. The Muslim-Croats accepted the plan and the Serbs called the West's bluff yet again.

The net result of the Serbs' rejection was not punishment, but the loosening of sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs' sponsors in Serbia on a dubious promise of cooperation. So much for "negotiated settlement." In reality, the West has told the Bosnians: We will not defend you, we will not let you defend yourselves!

The United Nations created "safe havens" where unarmed Bosnians were going to be safe from Serbian shelling. Britain and France steadfastly refused to level the playing field by lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnians. It would result in more killing and endanger their ground forces, they said.

The Serbs now occupy the "safe haven" of Bihac, continue to destroy the lives and properties of thousands of innocent civilians, and have taken United Nations peacekeepers as hostages. What do the United Nations and the West do? They do not call in NATO air strikes; instead, with a straight face, they simply declare, "Our policy in Bosnia has failed."

Defense Secretary William Perry asserts that the Serbian gains cannot be reversed. Where was he when the lightly armed Bosnian army liberated close to 100 square miles of territory from the Serbs only a few weeks ago?

The policy has failed because it was designed to fail. As you so eloquently point out ("Bosnia Makes Atlantic Unity an Oxymoron," Week in Review, Nov. 27), British and French officials privately express "their concern over the emergence of any sort of Muslim state in Europe." The violation of the "safe havens" and the massacre of innocent Muslims do not conflict with that immoral imperative.

If the British and French feel justified in discriminating against the very secular Bosnians simply because of their religion, perhaps the Muslims of the world should feel equally justified in returning the favor, and trade only with civilized nations that are not Muslim-haters.

Fakhruddin Ahmed, Princeton Junction, NJ

Self-Determination for Kashmir

To Hon. Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, Ottawa, Nov. 7, 1994

Thirteen million people of Jammu and Kashmir have been oppressed since 1947 because India, in clear defiance of the United Nations, continues to deny them their right of self-determination.

Today, Kashmir is the worst example of state terrorism where the occupying Indian forces threaten to eliminate an entire people who are merely demanding the implementation of the United Nations resolutions promising them their right of self-determination in a U.N.-supervised free and impartial plebiscite. By deploying more than 600,000 troops to "control" the population, and to "silence" every single individual voice of protest, New Delhi has resorted to the most extreme tactics: Razing of entire neighborhoods, mass arrests, torture and murder of any suspected Kashmiri male above the age of 13; the rape of countless women; a virtual embargo on outside assistance including medicine and food supplies. The crackdown in Kashmir has already transformed this "heaven on earth" into a "heaven on fire" and enlarged the destabilizing potential for the entire region.

The atrocities in Kashmir have been documented by independent international monitoring groups devoted to human rights, such as Amnesty International and Asia Watch and also NGOs from within India.

"In most cases, the victims of these killings are picked up during 'crackdowns'—cordon-and-search operations in which the security forces surround neighborhoods or villages and compel all male adults and teen-aged boys to assemble for identification. Hooded informants point out alleged militants or militant sympathizers. Those pointed out are detained. Almost inevitably, a certain number are executed within hours of their arrest. These executions are not aberrations; they are not the occasional excesses of overzealous security officers. These killings are calculated and deliberate, and they are carried out as a matter of policy," Human Rights Watch Asia reported.

The transformation of the Kashmiri race from what was known as their "excellence in passive resistance" to "militancy" today is a phenomenon germinated by India's blatant refusal to implement United Nations Security Council resolutions and disregard of this situation by the international community.

Nuclear proliferation in South Asia resulted from the non-resolution of the Kashmir issue, a region which is a bone of contention (between India and Pakistan) for any nuclear confrontation, which could kill millions of people and disperse vast clouds of highly radioactive dust around the globe.

Peace and security in South Asia require intelligent moves to lead India to accept the reality that no solution of the Kashmir crisis is possible within the framework of the Indian constitution and that the people of Kashmir, who have spoken so loudly and constantly in favor of implementing the U.N. resolutions, should be given the opportunity to decide their future.

The Kashmiri-Canadian Council represents the Canadian concern for the Kashmiris' cause for upholding their rights and dignity. We ask you to lend them your support, so that they can have peace in their land and, with peace, the freedom to decide their future. Above all, there is an immediate need to persuade the Indian government to stop the genocide of Kashmiris.

Please support the struggle of the Kashmiri people for peace, justice and freedom.

Mushtaq A. Jeelani, Executive Director, Kashmiri-Canadian Council, East Scarsborough, Ontario, Canada

Put Pressure on the Sudanese NIF

To The Washington Post, Sept. 6, 1994 (as published).

In castigating Daniel Pipes' Aug. 11 op-ed for its opposition to the ideology of fundamentalist Islam, Sally Ann Baynard ["Fundamentalist Error," op-ed, Aug. 29] goes to the other extreme in advocating warmer relations with the military government of the National Islamic Front (NIF) in Sudan.

Ms. Baynard is right to object to a "confrontational mentality" and to emphasize the diversity of Islamic movements. As a Sudanese Muslim, however, I take exception to her characterization of the government of Sudan as "genuinely Islamic" and even stronger exception to her argument's failure to take any account of the systematic human rights violations committed by this government against its own citizens.

Having come to power through a military coup in June 1989, the NIF has ruthlessly repressed opposition of any kind, even from fellow Islamists who disagree with its narrow vision of an Islamic state. All political parties and independent organizations have been banned since the coup. If the elections take place at all, they will be confined to NIF candidates, a party that won only 15 percent of the popular vote in the 1986 general elections.

An Islamic government of the type indicated by Ms. Baynard could be a theoretical possibility, but it certainly does not exist anywhere in the world today, including the Sudan. Handing over a suspected international terrorist in a "trade for favors," without due process of Sudanese extradition law itself, does not count as evidence of willingness to "behave responsibly in the international system."

The United States and other governments should certainly seek to understand and respond constructively to the aspirations of Islamic peoples for self-determination, economic development and political participation. This is precisely the reason for maintaining pressure on the present NIF military regime in Sudan to respect the human rights of all Sudanese at home and to behave as a responsible member of the international community.

Abdullahi An-Na'im, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch/Africa, Washington, DC.

Israel and U.S.: Who Is the Victim?

To Z Magazine, Aug. 19, 1994 (as published).

Ed Herman's critique of the pro-Israel Lobby (July-August) represents a welcome, long-overdue breakthrough on an issue that has been historically taboo in left and liberal circles. The only other article I have seen on the subject in a nationally circulated left magazine appeared in the Nov. '89 Progressive.

Its author was Stephen Zunes who, by coincidence, has a book review in your July-Aug. issue in which he complains about the author, former congressman and Lobby victim Paul Findley's "over-emphasis on the role of the pro-Israel Lobby as the key factor in U.S. Middle East policy," as opposed to its role in serving U.S. interests. Zunes goes so far as to criticize Findley for viewing "the United States as a victim of Israel, rather than the other way around " (emphasis added).

Does Zunes want us to seriously believe that Israel is a victim of the United States? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Since his 1989 article, he has downplayed the Lobby's importance and cast Israel in the role of a Middle East El Salvador or Nicaragua victimized by U.S. policy. This, of course, is patent nonsense, but it is a message that liberals, Jews and non-Jews, want to hear.

The actual situation was expressed by Israeli journalist Nehemia Stressler, in Ha'aretz (5/12/89):

"Israel's dependence on the U.S. is far greater than suggested by the sum of $3 billion [now more than $4 billion] in U.S. aid. Israel's physical existence depends on the Americans, in both political and military terms. Without the U.S., we would not be equipped with the latest fighter planes and all other advanced weapons.

"Without the American veto, we would long ago have been expelled from every international organization, not to speak of the U.N., which would have imposed sanctions on us that would have totally paralyzed Israel's international trade, since we cannot exist without importing raw materials."

Moreover, without U.S. support of Israel's occupation for the past 27 years, Zunes' "victim" would not have had access to and a virtual monopoly on the West Bank water aquifers which have been essential to the state's development.

If we accept Zunes' thesis that congressional support for Israel is based on what it does for America's geopolitical interests, what does that say about the Black Caucus's support of aid to Israel and its silence over Israel's breaking of the South African sanctions?

Does it mean that they and those wonderful white liberals who made bold speeches against U.S. aid to the contras, El Salvador and Guatemala—all armed by Israel—were, in fact, closet supporters of the U.S. policies they publicly opposed?

No. They were merely frightened, opportunistic politicians desperate to remain in office, rendering to "Caesar what is Caesar's," in this case, giving American Jews the power to dictate the parameters of U.S. policy toward the Israel-Palestine conflict.

"If there were a secret ballot, aid to Israel would be cut severely," an unnamed pro-Israel congressman told the New Republic's Morton Kondracke (8/7/89). "It's not out of affection any more that Israel gets $3 billion a year. It's from fear you'll wake up one morning and find that an opponent has $500,000 to run against you."

Black politicians have been in a greater bind. When Ron Dellums, current chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who had publicly embraced Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega, was asked by Zunes in 1989 why he refused to endorse a ballot measure that would make the Palestinian refugee camp of Jabaliya a sister-city to Berkeley, Dellums replied, "If I stick my neck out on this one I'll get beaten."

The fear expressed by Dellums and others over losing their funding sources, and the unwillingness of any segment of the left to confront them on this issue, have guaranteed that U.S. aid and political support for Israel will never even be debated.

Zunes and others maintain, nevertheless, that it is the "perception" of the Lobby that inspires fear, not the reality. It is hard, however, to argue with the fact, reported by the Congressional Quarterly, and openly bragged about by Lobby sources, that between 50 to 60 percent of the major funding (gifts of $10,000 and more) for the Democratic Party comes from American Jews and, in recent years, 25 percent of what is given to Republicans. There is no question about what that money is for.

As retiring Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) (borrowing a line from Jesse Jackson) told the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council in Feb. '91 (Forward, 2/22/91), "There is only one thing that members [of Congress] think is important to American Jews—Israel."

The Palestinians, I would therefore argue, have been as much, if not more, the victims of U.S. domestic policy as of its imperial machinations.

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