Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1998, Pages 71-74

Other People’s Mail

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

A Wise and Honest Senator

To Mrs. Bernice Youtz, Olympia, WA, Oct. 30, 1997

Thank you for your follow-up letter concerning the Middle East peace process. I appreciate your continued interest in this issue.

I understand your concerns with recent Israeli actions. It has been reported that the Israeli government is condoning the deportation of Palestinians and the confiscation of their land. In some cases, reports indicate that deeds of title for property held by Palestinians for many years are rendered unofficial or invalid, thereby allowing the Israeli government to seize the property.

The State Department is aware of this situation. Land and private property disputes have been a part of negotiations over territory in the Middle East for many years. As talks between Israel and the Palestinians resume, this topic will most likely be discussed. If this issue is brought before the Senate for consideration, I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.

Slade Gorton, United States Senator (R-WA), Washington, DC

Innocent as a New-Born Lamb

To Mr. Nicholas Blanton, Shepherdstown, WV, Sept. 17, 1997.

I want to thank you for your letter, and for listing so clearly your concerns. I also appreciate your kind words.

First, I want you to know that I share your deep concern about the ongoing tensions in the Middle East. I agree that recent actions by both parties have hindered progress toward peace. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians need to resume their negotiations immediately. Yet, peace in the Middle East is never that simple, and there is never just one party responsible for success or failure. That is the basis on which I view this complicated and dangerous issue.

My campaign committee informs me that I have never received campaign contributions from AIPAC. Never. AIPAC, as you probably know, is a pro-Israel lobbying organization that is not a political committee (the name, by the way, stands for American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Until your letter, I had no idea that the Middle East Report [sic] indicated that my campaign received $50,000 from AIPAC. So, I don't know how they measure contributions and how they determine who or what organizations are representative of AIPAC.

What I do know is that I have never been influenced by political contributions. Unfortunately, as a candidate for public office, I do need to raise money for my re-election campaigns, or I have the option of spending my own money. I've done both, and been criticized for doing both, but these are the only two options I have. Until we pass campaign finance reform—which I strongly support—everyone running for office will face this same fundamental fact.

What matters to me, however, is that you understand that I am not for sale to any interest group. I value public service and represent West Virginia everyday in the best way that I can. That is again why I particularly appreciate your letter and the chance to respond.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Washington, DC

(Washington Report editor's note: Senator Rockefeller is not as naive about AIPAC as this response seeks to imply. His father-in-law, former Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Charles Percy, was one of AIPAC's first victims, a defeat for which AIPAC presidents have taken credit publicly. Senator Rockefeller's response to his constituent takes advantage of the fact that his constituent apparently misstated the charge, saying that the senator had received $50,000 "from AIPAC" instead of from "pro-Israel PACs" [many or perhaps most of which were set up by AIPAC board members and take their instructions or advice on how to direct their contributions from AIPAC]. In fact, as of Dec. 31, 1996, Senator Rockefeller had received $177,200 from pro-Israel PACs, according to filings by the PACs themselves with the Federal Election Commission. The manner in which the Washington Report compiles this information is described in this magazine, at least one copy of which goes to the office or home of every member of Congress, and also in the book Stealth PACs: Lobbying Congress for Control of U.S. Middle East Policy by Richard H. Curtiss, which is available through the AET Book Club Catalog, starting on p. 107 of this issue. If Senator Rockefeller is "not for sale to any interest group," why did the pro-Israel PACs pay him this enormous amount? Rent?

Ad-monition

To The Nation, Sept. 8/15, 1997 (as published).

Accepting advertising from spanking enthusiasts is one thing, but accepting money from and printing propaganda by anti-Palestinian organizations is another. Shame on you, First Amendment or no First Amendment. The reactionary ad on page 35 of the July 21 issue implores us to believe that FLAME stands for "Facts and Logic About the Middle East."

I don't think so. Every word in the long-winded piece seeks to demean Palestinians in the peace process, proclaiming that the handshake between Rabin and Arafat in 1994 was an acceptance of the "murderous PLO" and an "unprecedented act of generosity" by Israel, and goes babbling on to say that "while Israel has meticulously kept its commitments under the Agreement, the Palestinians have lost no opportunity to foment unrest and bloody demonstrations in response to imaginary 'violations' on the part of Israel."

I know you guys need money badly, but please, use some discretion. Get these bums out of my favorite source of news—the one that I introduce to potential new readers as the only truth in reporting. Do I dare add truth in advertising as well?

Joan L. Washington, New York, NY

Giving the "Facts"

To World Press Review, New York, NY, Dec. 7, 1990 (as submitted).

I really must protest your including advertisements from FLAME (Facts and Logic About the Middle East) in your publication. There are truth-in-advertising laws, aren't there?

This organization claims to give the "facts" but I am struck when I read them by the lies, the obvious ignoring of known truths, the distortions of history, ridiculous claims, unbelievable justifications, outrageous misinformation, distorted logic and the obvious efforts to deceive the reader. Writers of advertisements cannot be held as rigidly to the truth as journalists and historians but these ads are ridiculous, dishonest and dangerous.

Your June edition includes an ad that states that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has "free elections, a free press, unrestricted right of movement of its citizens and, of course, unlimited right of dissent." This claim ignores the mistreatment of the Arabs in the occupied territories, the curfews, the censorship (see your May issue—page 48), the number of incarcerated "dissenters," the killings and the thousands of injured that we know about from many sources.

Your April 1990 edition includes an ad on the intifada which praises "the almost incredible restraint by the IDF and their scrupulous concern about the lives and properties of the Arab population." Everything I have read and heard about the soldiers in the occupied territories disputes this. When I read in the same ad about the "brilliant military exploits in the "Six-Day War," I remembered reading about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and the loss of 34 Americans and 170 injuries. Brilliant? I don't think so.

These advertisements are propaganda; they are misleading, full of myths and legends, manipulative, harmful and they feed dangerous delusions. And they are not truthful.

Florence Richards, Whittier, CA

"A Great Misunderstanding"

To the Bacons, Corona, CA, Oct. 29, 1997

Katrina passed on your letter and I fear there has been a misunderstanding. The Nation has not published "articles by FLAME." We disagree with "FLAME" and have run many editorials and articles setting forth our position on the issue FLAME addresses, and we would not run a FLAME article in The Nation. But we have run ads paid for by FLAME, and our policy re advertisers is never to censor them merely because we disagree with them. In fact, we give them a First Amendment presumption especially when we disagree with them, on the theory that our readers are sufficiently sophisticated to distinguish our editorial positions from paid-for claims by our advertisers. (See the enclosed editorial.) I hope you understand our position and I also hope you understand why we would never change any Nation policy under threat of economic reprisal (whether from advertisers or subscribers!). Finally, I hope you will reconsider your decision to cancel, as we value your interest and support.

Victor Navasky, Publisher and Editorial Director, The Nation, New York, NY

Apologies Due Readers for Taking FLAME Ad

To The New Yorker, Nov. 18, 1997 (as submitted).

To Steve Martin's list in "A Public Apology" (Nov. 17), he now needs to add an apology to the city of Ypsilanti, Michigan, for misspelling it as Ipsilante and to Holiday Inn for indicating it has a hotel there when it does not.

And on a more serious note, The New Yorker owes its readers an apology for accepting the advertising on the previous page in which an organization called FLAME engages in its usual inflammatory propaganda, representation of half-truths as fact, and twisted logic about the Middle East.

A. Douglas Reeves, Alexandria, VA

Letter to a Constituent

To Robert Nordlander, Menashe, WI, Aug. 6, 1997

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the construction of new Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

As you know, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu approved the construction of new housing in East Jerusalem earlier this year. This area, called Har Homa by Jews and Jabal Abu Ghneim by Palestinians, is a point of contention because it rests on land captured by Israel in 1967—land on which Palestinians want to locate the capital city of an independent Palestinian state.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision to construct new housing in East Jerusalem unfortunately contributes to the climate of mistrust that already exists between some Palestinians and Jews in that region. It was also unfortunate that this decision so closely followed the important strides that had been made in the peace process with respect to Hebron.

I hope this action does not have a lasting negative impact on the peace process. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations I plan to monitor this situation closely, and welcome further comments you may have about this or any other issue.

Thanks again for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you again.

Russell D. Feingold, U.S. Senator, Washington, DC

The Reply from Menasha

To Senator Russell D. Feingold, Aug. 16, 1997

Palestinians whose only offense is being related to the Hamas suicide-bombers involved in the latest outburst of violence resulting in the deaths of 15 Israeli civilians are having their houses blown up at the orders of the Netanyahu government. This is not new. The Israeli government has been doing this sort of thing for years but human rights activists—usually quick to point out human rights outrages in other parts of the world—are silent when it comes to the way Palestinians are constantly being abused, humiliated and treated as second-class human beings by the Israelis.

Senator Feingold, in your five years as a United States Senator, you have voted to send $30 billion to the State of Israel—$20 billion in direct grants and another $10 billion in loan guarantees. These crimes against the Palestinian people are being financed with the hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayer. Not once in your role as a champion of fiscal conservatism and your concern with the deficit have you ever voted against this financial rape of the American taxpayer on behalf of a First World country whose conception of human rights is virtually non-existent when non-Jews are involved. You bear some responsibility for what is happening to the Palestinian people today.

It is my hope that you will do more than just "monitor this situation." I would like to see you take a stand against the madness of having the American taxpayer pay for Netanyahu's continual provocation of the Palestinian people. It is as though he wants to provoke them into ever greater and more frequent acts of violence in order to effect Theodor Herzl's "final solution" of the Palestinian problem—expulsion.

In the past you have justified the American largesse going to Israel on the grounds that to reduce it or eliminate it would hinder the "peace process." It would appear that that largesse has only encouraged the Israeli bully to beat up on his Palestinian victim even more.

"Monitoring the situation" just won't do, Senator Feingold. Your voice must be added to those who have exposed the truth about the Middle East. I refer to Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, Lenni Brenner, Alfred M. Lilienthal—all Jews—who are carrying on in the tradition of the late Rabbi Elmer Berger and Moshe Menhuhin—fearless champions of truth and justice unencumbered by the Jesuitical sophistry of apologists for Zionism in Congress and in the media.

Action is needed, Senator Feingold. Action for you would be to be a leader in the effort to see to it that not one more American dollar should go to support a state that, by calling itself Jewish, brings Judaism into disgrace and contempt. Not one red cent should be donated for use against the Palestinian people by the people of the United States—a country that wishes to appear to be the "honest broker" in the peace process.

Senator Feingold, you could go down in history as the greatest senator from Wisconsin since Old Bob La Follette if you would take a moral stand on behalf of justice for the Palestinian people. For in doing so, you would undoubtedly face a great deal of criticism from the friends of Israel.

But Senator La Follette had the guts to vote against war with Germany on April 6, 1917 and survived politically to the point where he was able to run a strong third- party race for the presidency of the United States. Do you, Senator Feingold, have his political and moral fiber? Only time will tell. Remember, the people of Wisconsin will render a verdict on your "progressive" record in November 1998. Will they be voting for a true heir of Old Bob La Follette or merely a person who mouths ersatz "progressive" rhetoric?

Robert E. Nordlander, Menasha, WI

Israel's Cost

To the Lexington (KY) Herald Leader, Dec. 1, 1997 (as published).

In reference to Jerome K. Layton's Nov. 4 letter, questioning why U.S. taxpayers should be forced to give Israel $75,000,000: In principle, the letter is perfect. However, according to figures released by the Congressional Research Service on May 27, 1997, Israel has received from U.S. taxpayers between 1949 and Nov. 1, 1997 $84,854,827,200. Yes, that is indeed more than $84 billion.

Let's take a closer look at U.S. loans and grants to Israel in fiscal year 1997: Total grants, interest and loan guarantees for that year were $5,675,800,000. Therefore total 1997 grants, interest and loan guarantees for Israel per day were $15,550,136.

Israelis pay our senators and congressmen dearly for giving away your money. Reader, have you paid your share?

Welby P . Campbell, Frankfort, KY

Peace and Terror in the Mideast

To The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 18, 1997 (as published).

The editorial "All right, Albright" (Sept. 14) was off the mark. Albright did not say "all the right things"; she said all the facile, politic, Clintonesque things. Her flagrant favoritism toward Israel is a throwback to the Reagan-Haig policy that culminated in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

This is not peacemaking, not even competent diplomacy. It rewards Likud provocations and intransigence, exacerbates Palestinian desperation and abdicates U.S. responsibility for having allowed the situation to deteriorate. Mideast tension does not serve our economic or moral interests, so what is driving the Clinton-Albright policy?

The emperor-has-no-clothes little secret is that Israel owes its military might, settlement policy and its existence to the $3 billion a year it gets from U.S. taxpayers. Withhold that, even mention the possibility, and we'd all be astounded at how fast Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would find a way to get the peace process back on track.

Mark Sharp, Doylestown, PA

"Seminary Student" Recollections

To The Dallas Morning News , Sept. 28, 1997 (as submitted).

Regarding the article in The Dallas Morning News of Sept. 20, 1997, reporting that illegal Jewish settlers moved out of a house in Arab East Jerusalem but that "10 Jewish seminary students were allowed to stay on as security guards and workers":

I was reminded of another "seminary student," Eli Hazeev, whose Christian birth name was Eli Mahon, Jr. He was known in the U.S. Viper gang as "Crazy Jim." After he murdered a Viper in 1970, he didn't go to prison but instead went to Israel in 1974. He changed his name to Hazeev and was known as "The Wolf." (Washington Post, 5/7/80; New York Times, 5/8/80; Christian Science Monitor, 5/13/80).

He lived at Kiryat Arba, joined the Israeli army as a sniper, and served in the illegal invasion of Lebanon in 1978. He was known to "stalk Arab neighborhoods looking for victims." He was with a group of Israeli terrorists who broke into Arab homes, beat up innocent citizens and smashed furniture, ordering the Palestinians to leave their homes and nation. Israelis said that what this "religious student" did was "a great thing."

In 1980, Hazeev/Mahon, carrying an M-16 rifle, was killed in a shoot-out on Arab land. His father, retired U.S. Air Force Col. James E. Mahon, came to Israel for his funeral. His mother said that he was "dead wrong."

One can only wonder how many of those "10 seminary students" are in fact American terrorists doing Israeli dirty work!

Virginia L. Oldham, Dallas, TX

A Giant Paralyzed By a Midget

To President Bill Clinton, Washington, DC, Nov. 26, 1997

For over 40 years deterrence has been the life blood of the U.S. Cold War foreign policy regardless of the administration in power. How then can any reasonable person expect Iraq or any Arab country not to strive with every means in its power to have a deterrent against the huge stockpile of atomic warheads, missiles and chemical and biological weapons presently set in place and aimed at them from the state of Israel? Our government was spending billions on deterrence against the Soviet Union, with whom we were at peace. Israel is a country with which many Arab countries are at war—their land being occupied by force. Israel is a country which attacked Iraq in 1981 without provocation in order to remove Iraq's deterrent. Israel is also a country whose leader, Netanyahu, has stated that the first to push the button will be the winner. No other leader, whether of Arab nations or of any other country, is so foolish as to say that there can be any winner in an atomic, chemical or biological war! They know they cannot control which way the wind will blow.

What will history say about today's U.S. leaders who support Israel no matter what it does; no matter how often or in what horrible ways it violates human rights and dignity; and no matter what its leader stands for? What will history say about leaders who will not even vote with the United Nations to chastise Israel in words when all the rest of the world does so? What will history say about U.S. leaders who do not hesitate to cause hundreds of thousands of children to die the horrible death of starvation, or to suffer life-long consequences of malnutrition and disease, in foolish and futile attempts to prevent Iraq and other Arab countries from having a deterrent against their enemy with its stockpiles of atomic, biological and chemical weapons? I say futile because people who have been swamped too long by the dark despair of injustice lose their fear of death and are therefore fearless.

Many Americans, including non-Zionist Jews, are asking the question:

Must the great United States of America at the zenith of its power be a giant that is paralyzed by a midget?

Kathleen Banks, Silver Spring, MD

For Peace, Don't Expect Palestinian Concessions

To The New York Times , Dec. 11, 1997 (as published).

Thomas L. Friedman's diagnosis of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's credibility problem is correct (Dec.4). However, instead of asking Palestinians to make more concessions, Mr. Friedman should ask Mr. Netanyahu to prove that he is indeed for peace by fulfilling binding agreements signed by Israel.

In the Oslo accords and Hebron agreement, Israel obliges itself to withdraw from the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The United States also committed Israel to redeploy its troops in phases. Now Mr. Netanyahu wants to collapse the three phases into one insubstantial withdrawal, determined solely by Israel.

Mr. Friedman favorably mentions the plan negotiated by the Labor Party's Yossi Beilin and Abu Mazen, Yasser Arafat's deputy. But Mr. Mazen denies agreeing to the plan, which concedes Jerusalem to Israel. Does Mr. Friedman really think that Palestinians are willing to give up Jerusalem only to prove that Mr. Netanyahu is not credible?

Daoud Kuttab, Jerusalem (The writer is director of the Institute of Modern Media, Al Quds University)

No Disclaimer After Stupid Statement

To Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Washington, DC, Oct. 11, 1997

As a serious student of Middle East affairs for over 30 years, I first disbelieved reports that you had called settlements in the West Bank "legal." Then I saw it in print, and waited for your disclaimer or explanation, in vain.

As a former academic, although not a Middle East specialist, you must be aware of the various international covenants, signed by the U.S., which govern areas occupied by conquering powers. You are certainly aware that no previous administration has declared the Israeli settlements "legal," although our public statements have steadily weakened.

In the Nixon administration, Ron Ziegler used the word, "mispoke" several times. Could you at least declare yourself "mispoken?"

As a retired Foreign Service Officer, I am grieved when a Secretary of State makes a very public mistake. I would be grateful for a reply.

C. Patrick Quinlan, Edina, MN

Any Other Lobby?

To The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 26, 1997 (as submitted).

While watching Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu complaining about Palestinian terrorism on CNN the other day I began to think of other countries which have similar problems. My own country, Great Britain, has had a problem with I.R.A. terrorism for many years. Suppose the British government followed the Israeli example. It could clamp down on Catholic villages and towns in Northern Ireland, preventing Catholics from leaving their homes for any reason. While doing this the British could find legal pretexts for blowing up Catholic homes. They could confiscate Catholic property and give it to Protestant settlers. Since the I.R.A. has cells in the Irish republic the Royal Air Force could bomb it repeatedly.

Does anyone believe that this policy would reduce I.R.A. terrorism? Also does anyone believe that Americans of British descent would have enough political influence to get the U.S. government to finance such policies to the tune of $3 billion a year? Finally, could this British lobby get the U.S. president and the U.S. secretary of state to lecture Catholic authorities in Northern Ireland about their responsibilities to stop this terrorism with the limited power they were allowed in the less than 10 percent of the land that they considered their homeland?

Philip M. Collier, Bethesda, MD

A Double Standard

To The Atlanta Journal, July 29, 1997 (as published).

It was wrong for the Nazis to confiscate gold from the Holocaust victims and hide it in Swiss banks more than 50 years ago. It is just as wrong today for Israel to confiscate Arab-owned land and homes just to make way for more Jewish settlements. Yet, in today's society it's politically correct to condemn one and accept the other.

James J. David, Marietta, GA

Toll Mounts in Mideast Despite Agreement

To USA Today, March 19, 1997 (as published).

With the signing of the agreement in January for withdrawing Israeli troops from Hebron, Americans believe peace and justice are taking shape between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

But Americans know little of Israel's continuing demolition of Palestinian homes and taking of Palestinian land.

In January in the Palestinian Christian village of Beit Jala, my wife and I were witnesses as a bulldozer tore up the land of 75-year-old Hona Qeisiek, apparently to build an Israeli road.

We, along with Qeisiek, his son and his grandson, watched helplessly as the Israelis took whatever they wanted and destroyed the family's centuries-old olive trees.

Protest is dangerous. When another Palestinian, Atallah Amireh, protested the taking of his land near the village of Deir Qadis in November, Israeli soldiers killed him. He was a 36-year-old father of seven children.

In the first four weeks after the much-heralded agreement turning over control of Hebron to Palestinians, the Israelis destroyed at least 16 homes, making more than 100 Palestinians homeless. And the toll mounts.

In a recent press conference, President Clinton repeatedly talked of the need for peace and security for Israel. He said nothing about justice for the Palestinians.

Rod Driver, West Kingston, RI

You're Showing Ignorance

To The Toronto Star, Oct. 16, 1997 (as submitted).

Why do you publish letters to the editor that display and further such ignorance about the situation in the Middle East? The letters published today on the unimportance of knocking off a "terrorist" were shocking. An Israeli perspective seems to have brainwashed readers into equating Hamas with "terrorism" instead of with social justice and fighting for legitimate (and internationally recognized) rights and freedom. Hamas wants peace, but peace with justice.

Canadians should be upset about the misuse of Canadian passports by Mossad; it puts all legitimate Canadian travelers at more risk. Defending the assassination attempt as a legitimate action does not bear scrutiny. It was known that Khaled Meshal had nothing to do with terrorism. He was involved in what a diplomat described as "low-level propaganda and rhetoric." The military wing of Hamas based in Damascus is held responsible for planning suicide bombings. King Hussein was furious at the attack in Jordan because Israel knew that no terrorist activities originate in his country. He has permitted a Mossad office in Amman to ensure that fact.

Canadians should also be concerned about ex-Ambassador Norman Spector's assertion that CSIS has had joint exercises with Mossad and has a Jerusalem office. The CSIS is not supposed to operate internationally; its mandate has to be changed for that to be legal. The claim that CSIS needs Mossad information on potential terrorist activity in Canada is absurd. The only reason Canada would be a terrorist target would be because of our association with the Mossad. The safest route for Canada would be to assume neutrality in this sensitive situation.

Karin Brothers, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Against Political Cartoons in Egypt

To Mr. David H. Strassler, National Chairman, Anti-Defamation League, New York, NY, March 12, 1997

In your full page "open letter" that appeared in The New York Times on March 10, 1997 your organization calls upon Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, to "personally take responsibility to stop the anti-Semitic, derogatory representation of Jews, particularly in political cartoons" that routinely appear in the Egyptian press. You furnish three examples:

Except for the rather pronounced noses on the "Israeli soldiers" (a trait not exactly uncommon in that part of the world, e.g. President Mubarak), I fail to see anything even remotely anti-Semitic in these cartoons. But perhaps with your expertise in the field you can enlighten me.

Two of the three cartoons deal with real, not imaginary, events: the massacre of Palestinians as they knelt in prayer at the Ibrahimi mosque by an "ideologically committed Zionist," Dr. Baruch Goldstein (Al-Ahram, March 1, 1994); and the slaughter of hundreds of defenseless Egyptian soldiers taken prisoner by Israeli forces in the 1967 Six-Day War—a fact revealed by the Israelis themselves in August of 1995 ( Al-Ahram, Aug. 24-30, 1995). You certainly cannot be suggesting that these events were the fabrications of a demented anti-Semitic mind, since they are a matter of public record. Perhaps, then, your characterization stems from the fact that these cartoons depict Israel in less than the favorable light that seems to be de rigueur from the sycophants and talking heads of the pro-Zionist media in the United States.

Or is it the cartoonist's transformation of the Star of David into a swastika that provokes the anathema of "anti-Semite" (something we in the Gentile community both public and private have learned to fear like Jove's thunderbolts!)? The tragedies that befell European Jewry at the hands of the Nazis do not give Israel and its supporters some sort of proprietary rights to the symbols of that regime.

Joseph Melita, Great Neck, NY

P.S. I am curious about your organization's reaction to the two cartoons that appeared in Newsday which I have enclosed. Both use symbols associated with Nazi Germany to vilify groups currently in disfavor with the Jewish community: the Swiss and Hamas. Can we look forward to another "open letter" of yours denouncing this as racism? After all, you are an "anti-defamation league."