Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1999, pages 55-59

Other People’s Mail

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

The Mistreatment of an American Citizen

To Ms. Jerri Bird, President and Founder of Partners for Peace, Washington, DC, Jan. 12, 1999

Thank you for your letter concerning the detention and mistreatment of American citizens in Israel.

My administration takes these charges very seriously. The fact that Israel is a close ally of the United States should not and does not affect our worldwide policy regarding the protection and well-being of American citizens.

As you know, our officials in Israel have protested Mr. Mufleh’s mistreatment and our Embassy has requested an immediate investigation into his allegations. We also are concerned about Mr. Mohammed’s allegations, though he has not requested that the consulate take any specific action.

Respect for human rights—not only of Americans but of individuals from all nations—is and will remain a cornerstone of our foreign policy. We will continue to raise our concerns with the Israeli government for as long as this remains an issue.

Again, thank you for writing and raising this important matter with me.

Bill Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC

Sanctions Against Iraq

To the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 28, 1998 (as published).

Nowhere in “U.S. Faces Battle Over Sanctions Against Iraq” (Dec. 23) is there even one hint of the nightmare of death, disease, deprivation or despair that Iraqis have suffered from the most complete embargo of any nation in history. There is not a single quote from Denis Halliday, former U.N. assistant secretary-general and humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, who quit in disgust (after 34 years of U.N. service) because he finds the sanctions an immoral, illegal, genocidal war against innocent civilians. The sanctions only strengthen Saddam Hussain because they’ve decimated the middle class, his potential opposition. Moreover, Saddam’s family grows fabulously wealthy from lucrative smuggling rings as long as sanctions hold.

Americans should be outraged that Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering warns of “sanctions in perpetuity” and our leaders speak of coercing other nations to stay with us in imposing sanctions on Iraq. This is despicable foreign policy. Wake up, America, to the blood on our hands.

Timothy Conway, Santa Barbara, CA

Double Standard

To The Dallas Morning News, Dec. 15, 1998 (as published).

It is unfair that our government plays a double standard role in the Middle East. No doubt, the Iraqi leader is a brutal dictator, but who is paying the price for “implementing” the U.S. resolutions and keeping the economic sanctions? The Iraqi people and the children in particular are suffering.

During the last eight years, the sanctions killed 1.5 million Iraqis. More than half of those are children under the age of five. Each month between 5,000 and 6,000 children are dying due to the sanctions (Denis Halliday, the former U.N. humanitarian aid official for Iraq in a testimony before a congressional hearing Oct. 1998). Four million Iraqis (one-fifth of the population) are threatened by famine (U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Sept. 1995).

Israel is occupying part of south Lebanon. Why don’t the United Nations and our government enforce the U.N. resolution which calls for an unconditional withdrawal from south Lebanon? Why are we not implementing the U.N. resolutions that call for the right of return of the Palestinian refugees who were expelled from their homes in 1948 and 1967 by the Jewish terrorists?

It is about time to stop giving more than $3 billion a year of our tax money to Israel which is being used to build Jewish settlements and for the uprooting and killing of Palestinian families. This money could be used here to build shelters for the homeless and to help our senior citizens and our children—one out of four American children is considered living under the poverty line.

Kassem Elkhalil, Arlington, TX

Israel, Iraq, Same Crimes

To the Atlanta Journal/Constitution, Dec. 21, 1998 (as published).

The rationale for U.S. bombing of Iraq is capricious, arbitrary and hypocritical. Bill Clinton defended his action with the following reasons: Iraq threatens its neighbors because of its ability to develop, deploy and deliver weapons of mass destruction. It must be bombed because of its defiance, its attempts to dominate the region and its threat to the peace and security of the region.

This description applies to Israel as well. Why has it not been bombed? Israel is fighting to maintain its policy of invasion, ethnic cleansing, murder of Palestinians and the creation of reservations for Palestinians.

Antar Ibn-Stanford, Austell, GA

Irrational and Mean-Spirited

To the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 28, 1998 (as published).

It’s a shame that the president had to show the same irrationality and mean-spiritedness as his detractors in Congress when he bombed Iraq on the weekend he was impeached. Saddam knew he would become a moral hero when he decided to allow his country to be threatened, i.e., massive force of arms versus weak country.

Clinton might have gained the sympathy of three-quarters of the country because of the ill will of the far right, but he lost the favor of a greater percentage of the world because of his efforts to please the saber rattlers.

Joseph Petulla, Berkeley, CA

Santa Is a Pacifist

To the Glendale News-Press, Dec. 22, 1998 (as submitted).

Three cheers for the Glendale Galleria Santa Claus who bravely spoke against the bombing of Iraq (Dec. 18, page A1, “Santa speaks on Iraq, and it ain’t pretty.” [“The reporter asked Santa, played by Nathan Young of El Monte, for his opinion on President Clinton’s decision to launch air strikes against Iraq. With the television camera rolling, Young said he thought the bombings, launched against Saddam Hussain in response to his refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspectors, should stop. And that just didn’t sit right with Galleria management.”]

There are two important things for Mr. Kringle to know:

1) Your opinion is shared by hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans who see that killing people has done nothing but strengthen Saddam Hussain’s position.

2) If adverse action is taken against you by your employer for expressing your views, you are protected under the law.

Santa, I urge you to continue to speak your mind and not be intimidated by those who would have us believe that war will remove Saddam Hussain from power: in nearly a decade, it has not. I also hope that you will seek the guidance of a state or federal agency, or a good employment attorney, regarding your employer’s potentially discriminatory actions.

What a wonderful Christmas discovery: Santa is a pacifist!

Vicki Tamoush, Tujunga, CA

A King’s Ransom Wasted

To The Washington Times, Dec. 21, 1998 (as submitted).

The U.S. said it attacked Iraq to punish Saddam for defying Inspector Butler. The U.S. also hoped to damage Iraq’s military capability and to promote Saddam’s ouster. The attack cost more than 500 million dollars, has left a permanent American stink in the nostrils of history, and, like the Waco massacre, awaits someone’s revenge on us.

For half a billion dollars we could have avoided the stink and the revenge and achieved a long-range solution there. We should have offered $1 million to the top Saddam subordinates and $10 million to Saddam to get out of Iraq for at least three years. The rest of the half-billion would be offered to Iraq when it had set up a representative government and accepted only a defensive military posture, as did Germany and Japan after World War II. Further, the U.S. would guarantee protection, as it did for these two nations, against foreign aggressors, including Israel. And sanctions would be lifted immediately.

The Iraqis would be offered this...or the bombs. If Saddam chose the bombs...he would have no supporters, in or out of Iraq.

If this seems an intelligent course of action, then we can assume that there isn’t much intelligence in this administration, or that the president needs the bombs, not peace.

Note that another half-billion, or more, could still do this, but we’d have to repair the damage first. That would prove we’re not trying to subjugate the Arabs and that we are a civilized nation.

Charles J. McGinn, Annandale, VA

What Is Our Iraqi Policy?

To The Washington Post, Jan. 5, 1999 (as published).

Rod Paschall’s article “No Strategy, No Change, No Progress” [Outlook, Dec. 27] raises important questions about U.S. tactics and goals in our Iraq policy.

Compared with allied policies in post-World War I and post-World War II Germany, the U.S.-led policies in Iraq have been severe. Although old German weapons were destroyed in compliance with the Treaty of Versailles, new German weapons were being made under the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo. Post-World War II is even more interesting, since only three years after V-E Day the United States pushed for economic and political integration of the three West German zones, soon to be militarily integrated in NATO.

Compare that with our treatment of Iraq these past eight years. What other country has undergone such scrutiny and punitive measures? And what is our real goal?

As thousands die and suffer because of the embargo, the United States declares that Saddam Hussain remains a regional threat. Although wounded in many regards, Saddam maintains command. As the United States publicly announces its intentions to support dissident groups, Saddam will have one more excuse to tighten controls. Iraqis will be pushed to the extremes as the middle ground dissolves. Again, what is our goal?

In light of the recent bombings, UNSCOM may not be allowed back into Iraq. Mr. Paschall suggests that the United States is poised for new strategies, including CIA monitoring, that he feels are unreliable.

The continued confusion over goals, strategies, timetables, linkages or even positive engagement replacing sanctions suggests that U.S. diplomacy is floundering. But is it possible this is not confusion at all but a diplomacy rendering “all things to all people”?

The Persian Gulf war strengthened U.S. presence in the Middle East, and each subsequent year has reinforced that influence. Perhaps the real U.S. strategy is to further increase the perception of Iraqi threats, thus guaranteeing greater American political, economic and military influence in this volatile but critical region of the world.

David Hersch, Manassas, VA

Clinton A Bully

To the Port Richey, FL Suncoast News, Dec. 5, 1998 (as published).

I agree with Beth Tanner’s Nov. 25 letter to the editor and Charley Reese that Clinton is a bully who is trigger happy when it comes to attacking weak Muslim countries like Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan. Clinton cannot threaten North Korea with devastation because it is not a rival of Israel, it has a powerful army that can endanger the 37,000 American servicemen in South Korea if another Korean war erupts, and because North Korea has a big brother, China, looking after it.

Clinton has turned over the U.S. government to a group of people of Jewish ethnicity and Zionist tendency. These people were appointed by him through the powerful AIPAC Israeli lobby in Washington. Clinton, a draft dodger, adulterer and perjurer, is also a Zionist lackey who receives his orders from Israel and the Zionist-controlled media. I think he should finish his term in jail.

He and his advisers are responsible for the deaths of more than a million Iraqi children and elderly from disease and malnutrition due to the U.S.-British embargo. It is not in the best interest of the U.S. to alienate Muslims, who constitute a fifth of the world population, in order to please the Zionist and racist state of Israel.

David Zein, Tarpon Springs, FL

Congress Is the Problem

To The New York Times, Jan. 10, 1999 (as published).

To suggest a congressional investigation of possible espionage by the United States using United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq misses the point (editorial, Jan. 7). Congressional micro-management and prejudice bear some important share of the responsibility for the low standing of the United Nations in the world and the shameful American deficiency in financial contributions.

The reactive American policy toward Iraq displays little attention to the needs of other United Nations members, whose support would have been essential in terms of legitimacy, efficiency, dignity and long-term benefits. The administration has ignored its legal commitments set out in the United Nations Charter, and with this latest clumsy spy drama encouraged the belief that the international civil service is really its cat’s paw.

Leon Gordenker, Princeton, NJ

In Iraq, Preserve UNSCOM

To The New York Times, Jan. 10, 1999 (as published).

Re “U.S. Used U.N. Team to Place Spy Device in Iraq, Aides Say” (front page, Jan. 8): One is forced to acknowledge an intrinsic unfairness to any United States presence on the weapons inspection team. American leaders have called for the downfall of the Iraqi regime; therefore, any United States presence on a neutral commission inspecting delicate sites in Iraq is troublesome.

There would be objections if Israeli or Turkish inspectors were on the team. The same applies to the United States. These allegations seemed destined to be made since the United States took a hard-line approach to Iraq.

Yonaton Rosenzweig, Ramat Gan, Israel

Media Bias Fosters Arab Bashing

To the Albuquerque Journal, Dec. 3, 1998 (as published).

Given the tremendous power of the U.S. media to influence opinion and thus alter events, shouldn’t it have an obligation to check facts and present as truthful a picture as possible to the American public?

A recent news report states that Israel is again asking the United States to “dig deep in its pockets” to help the Israelis strengthen claims to the West Bank. The report does not inform us, however, that the West Bank is occupied territory and that Israel’s claims to it are in contravention of international law.

The article also states that the price Israel is asking of U.S. taxpayers “may exceed $1.6 billion.” The report goes on to say that the United States has “provided Israel with $3 billion each year in total aid.”

This figure is grossly inaccurate. The total amount each year has often been in excess of $6 billion, and hasn’t been as low as $3 billion since 1984—the year that the Cranston Amendment to the Foreign Aid bill, was legislated to promote “peace in the area.”

Careless reporting, resulting in serious distortion of the truth, can only result in a lack of understanding, often resulting in public acceptance of such atrocities as the U.S.-imposed sanctions on Iraq.

According to media reports, this action was “justified” because Iraq refused to comply with one or two U.N. resolutions. The same media have consistently neglected to report on the number of U.N. resolutions which Israel has failed to comply with—over 60 U.N. resolutions!

Most Americans are by nature generous and kind. More honest reporting of what has been occurring in the Middle East might lessen the “Arab bashing” so prevalent in the movies and press today.

For example, the media rarely mentions that tax dollars sent to Israel have been used to support policies such as: illegal occupation of land, deprivation of human rights, secret construction and storage of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, illegal development of a genocidal biological weapon—or the fact that our aid to Israel, mandated by the Cranston Amendment “to further the interests of peace in the area,” has failed miserably to fulfill its intended purpose.

Sam Parks, Albuquerque, NM

Newsweek’s Mat Cooper’s Sickening Comedy Routine

To Mr. Liederman, Executive Director, Child Welfare League of America, Dec. 9, 1998

I strongly protest the sickening remarks by Mat Cooper, deputy Washington bureau chief for Newsweek magazine, about Iraqi Americans during the “Funniest Celebrity in Washington Contest” held on 11/11/98, and in which Mr. Cooper was awarded first prize. I demand a written apology to all Arab Americans, especially to Iraqi Americans, for his nasty and childish remarks. His stupidity and ignorance is evident when he confuses Iraqis with Iranians.

Mr. Cooper knows very well that more than 5,000 Iraqi babies and elderly are dying per month and that the people are deprived of medicine and food because of the sanctions. Yet a man in his position mocks the dying and sick people. What kind of parents did Mr. Cooper have? Did they teach him to make fun of a nation whose people are subjected to a systematic genocide during the past eight years? I wish Mr. Cooper had the time to watch Mr. Marvin Zindler’s tapes on his visit to Iraq. Mr. Zindler, who is a Houston reporter, will tell Mr. Cooper and his like, “Shame on you for such remarks and apathy directed to people who are existing in the worst conditions that humans can experience.”

I ask all Arab Americans to boycott Newsweek and ask their friends to send e-mails to teach Mr. Cooper to be more responsible when speaking about people who are suffering and in crisis.

Voltaire E. Warda, Houston, TX

David S. Liederman Responds

To Dr. Hala Maksoud, Executive Director, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Washington, DC, Dec. 14, 1998

Thank you for your letter of Dec. 9, 1998, regarding the comedy event held several weeks ago at the Improv Comedy Club to benefit the important work of the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA). CWLA annually helps over three million abused and neglected children of all backgrounds in the United States. As I’m sure you understand, CWLA is the charity for this event and does not screen participants’ remarks nor exert editorial control over the content of the program. We do sincerely apologize, though, to you and any other members of the Arab-American community who may have been offended by any remarks that were made during the evening. We’re terribly sorry, and we thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention.

David S. Liederman, Executive Director, CWLA

Denying the Facts

To Ha’aretz, Tel Aviv, Nov. 23, 1998, (as published).

Regarding a letter to the editor from Rabbi Joseph Heckelman, Ha’aretz-IHT, Nov. 18.

That Rabbi Heckelman could cast doubt that there was a massacre at Deir Yassin is incredible and reminds the reader of the revisionism of those vile individuals who would deny the Holocaust. Most scholars agree that after the fall of Deir Yassin, unarmed villagers, including women and children, were slaughtered by the dissident forces of the Irgun and the Stern Gang. Albert Einstein and Martin Buber, among hundreds of other righteous Jews, unequivocally condemned the massacre.

Even the Zionist Organization of America’s own figures of 108 Arabs killed and 12 wounded confirms that a massacre took place. For Rabbi Heckelman to object to the word “massacre” and ask reporters to replace it with “a fairly balanced ‘battle’” is both disingenuous and disgusting.

Daniel A. McGowan, Geneva, NY (Note that the Ha’aretz editor removed Dan McGowan’s title as director of Deir Yassin Remembered.)

Your Bias is Not News

To the Campus Wire, Oct. 16, 1998 (as submitted).

I was amazed at the obvious bias that was supposed to pass for news in the Campus Wire with the headline “Muslim Protesters Spoil Israel Birthday Celebration at Berkeley” in your Fall edition.

First of all, in all probability the rally was an Arab rally including Palestinian Christians as well as Muslims, since both Christian and Muslim Palestinians have suffered under the Israeli takeover of their lands. Also the attempt to smear the Palestinian rally by mentioning another unconnected event that had taken place at the same location 34 years ago is such a horrible attempt at guilt by association that I am amazed that an editor allowed it to be printed.

Second of all, why shouldn’t the Palestinians protest because it was 50 years ago for them also that Israel took over their lands. After the massacre of men, women and children by Israelis in Deir Yassin, Palestinian village people fled for fear as the Israelis approached their villages. Israel immediately destroyed 400 villages so there would be no homes for these people to return to and would not (with rare exceptions) let any Palestinians return to their homes and lands, but opened the gates to Jews from any country to come. And today in the West Bank the IDF is continually destroying Palestinian crops and groves and confiscating their land for the expansion of their settlements.

Yes, there are Palestinians in Israel proper and yes they do have a vote and can elect a couple of delegates to the Knesset, but the Palestinian-Israelis are treated as second-class citizens. About one-fourth of the per capita amount spent on Israeli Jewish towns and villages is spent on Palestinian towns and villages for infrastructure and education.

A true democracy treats all of its citizens equally and abides by international laws as to how it treats peoples whom it has conquered.

The Palestinians had every right to protest. The Israeli rally was not a “pro-democracy” rally, but the celebration of a Jewish exclusivist state that for 50 years has not let non-combatant civilians return to their homes and lands because they aren’t Jewish. And America supports this state with huge amounts of dollars every year.

Raymond E. Weiss, Professor Emeritus, Northwestern College, Orange City, IA

Arab Trade Bloc Needed

To the Arab News, Oct. 22, 1998 (as published).

There is an urgent need for Arab countries to form a trade bloc and develop a common trade strategy to cope with the challenges of the future. The practices and policies of the past, though eminently successful then, are no longer valid in a world that has undergone fundamental changes in trade relations. If we wish to play a significant role in the global economy, there has to be an Arab market and an Arab currency.

In every part of the world, there are movements toward such a goal. When nations with different languages, cultures and historical hostilities can come together, it must be much easier for Arab countries to create a sort of commonwealth. Europe has made all preparations to launch its common currency. Before that they had a common market. Considering the linguistic, cultural and historical differences of the members of the European family, the experiment should have failed. But it did not. It has proven itself very successful.

There is an example for us to follow—and expeditiously.

Hashim Ibrahim Filali, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Negative Arab Stereotypes

To the College of Lake County Chronicle, Dec. 10, 1998 (as published).

In his review on “The Siege,” (Nov. 12 issue), Mike Krizman asserted, “We go to the movies to be entertained” and “Movies aren’t supposed to be true to life.” Corporations have denied their moral responsibility to society by claiming that their only responsibility is to make money for their shareholders. The entertainment media deny they have a moral responsibility to society by claiming their only responsibility is to entertain. While it is true that the entertainment media have a responsibility to entertain, entertainment should not be provided by demeaning or vilifying a whole group of people.

True, “The Siege” does have a token Arab-American as a “good guy” and does have Denzel Washington saying that Muslims are good people and religious. Washington also opposes the internment of Muslims in detention camps by pointing out how the U.S. government had already done a similar wrong to Japanese-Americans during World War II. Nevertheless, the film juxtaposes scenes of Muslims at prayer with scenes of terrorist bombings. The effect is to link the religion of Islam with terrorism. This visual association is unnecessary. It does not add to the suspense or the drama, but only serves to send a false and insidious subliminal message to the audience that Muslims are violent because their religion is violent. Because this juxtaposition adds little to the film, one has to wonder about the agenda of the filmmaker.

As Laurence Michalak writes in The Arab in American Cinema: A Century of Otherness, there is a long tradition of negative Arab imagery in popular films. He cites “Beau Geste,” “Exodus,” “Black Sunday,” “Delta Force,” “The Return of Jaffar,” and many others. Why is it “acceptable” to perpetuate damaging stereotypes about Arabs/Muslims when it is no longer acceptable to do so about women, African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Jews or other minority groups?

Rev. Stephen S. Infantino, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, College of Lake County, Grayslake, IL

Extreme Language

To The Washington Post, Oct. 17, 1998 (as published).

Your Oct. 8 edition contains yet another reference to Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader, as a “Muslim extremist.” I find this hypocritical. No doubt bin Laden’s motives are rooted in his twisted version of religion, but so are the motives of many other terror groups worldwide.

In particular, although your paper did note the Protestant and Catholic religious connections of terror in Ireland, I do not see the phrase “Catholic extremist” or “Protestant extremist” bandied about nearly as frequently as I see “Islamic” or “Muslim extremist.”

All around the world, religious beliefs of every stripe are used as a mask for terror, and extremes of belief have contributed to the motivation behind many desperate and terrible acts. Even in America, we have abortion clinic bombings. It seems biased to single out Islam for association with terror while playing down the role played by other belief systems.

Shelby Qualls, Washington, DC

Pro-Occupation Propaganda

To the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dec. 4, 1998 (as published).

The series of articles by Vindu Goel about a tour of the Holy Land sponsored by pro-Israel groups provides a rare glimpse of the true purpose of these tours—to convince influential Americans to accept the illegal occupation by Israel of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. No matter how benignly the occupation of Palestinian territory by Israeli settlers is portrayed, it remains an act of aggression that repeatedly is condemned by U.N. resolutions. These resolutions calling for Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories are passed continually and unanimously in the U.N. General Assembly with only Israel and the United States opposing. One wonders whether this fact is explained by the tour sponsors.

If the United States acted as decisively against Israeli aggression as we do against Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan, a just peace for all would be obtained in the Middle East.

James H. McInerney, Jr., Cleveland Heights, OH

Falwell Supporting Israel

To The Christian News, Oct. 5, 1998 (as published).

Regarding a Dallas Morning News report, 9/26/98, “Falwell to take 3,000 students to Israel”: The four-million-dollar trip will be paid by an anonymous donor, who apparently, is ashamed to identify himself.

We are told continually that Clinton is a good president but has a terrible flaw. The same analogy could be made about people like Falwell, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham and others. They preach a good sermon, but their flaw is that they support Israel, which lies, murders and steals!

Virginia L. Oldham, Dallas, TX

A “How Could You?” Letter

To Texas Governor George W. Bush, Austin, TX, Dec. 2, 1998

This is not a letter about your religious beliefs. This is a “How could you?” letter.

How could you:

a.) Accept a trip to Israel paid for by the National Jewish Coalition or any group with a foreign political/religious agenda?

b.) Allow yourself to be taken on trips carefully selected by your Israeli hosts to keep you away from the Palestinian people it has been oppressing for over 50 years, while we U.S. taxpayers wittingly or unwittingly fund this treachery?

c.) Accept helicopter trips to Jewish settlements in the illegally-held occupied territories? Did you visit some of the sites of hundreds of Palestinian homes that were bulldozed to make way for these armed settlers? Did you notice the Jews-only highways that have been built across the occupied West Bank (Palestine) for the IDF and settlers and to prevent cohesion of Palestinian communities and towns?

d.) Have only the kindest words for a nation that has lied to and spied on the U.S., that has refused to live within its 1967 borders, that has ignored the many U.N. resolutions regarding its taking of land in Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza, its cruel treatment for over 50 years of the Palestinian people, its refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to name some of its greater accomplishments?

e.) Have called Israel a “good friend” of the United States? What truly friendly act has that nation ever performed toward our country? It has taken advantage of the corruptibility of the majority of our representatives and senators in Washington and is stealthily doing the same in our state and local governments. It sees to it that about $6 billion is budgeted as a gift to that tiny state each year (ad infinitum), money that the U.S. borrows to give to Israel, money that we taxpayers must repay with interest. This is no friendly act; it’s extortion.

f.) Ignore the sensibilities of the Palestinians and other Arab people in the area...and even in Austin, Texas? This only adds to those conditions that bring about “terrorism.” When several generations of one’s family and neighbors are treated atrociously by a tormentor who is backed unconditionally by the United States, some striking out against the tormentor and its main supporter is to be expected. Hitler’s atrocities lasted hardly 12 years; Israel’s have lasted over 50 years. Sadly, during this time U.S. administrations and congresses have added to their campaign coffers with money from pro-Israeli government supporters while ignoring and denying the gross violations of human rights and dignity of good Arab Christian and Muslim people, in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. How could any good, honest American be pleased with that situation? What are American children learning from this?

Incidently, I voted for you in the recent election.

William V. Kelly—WW II veteran (U.S. Army volunteer), Austin, TX

(Washington Report editor’s note: In fairness to Governor Bush, it’s our understanding that he declined an invitation by Israeli Gen. Ariel Sharon to guide Bush by helicopter to the Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. We’ll appreciate any further information from readers or Governor Bush to keep the record straight.)

Pollard the Traitor

To The Washington Post, Jan. 6, 1999 (as published).

The article written by Angelo Codevilla, Irwin Cotler, Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Lasson on Jonathan Pollard [op-ed, Jan. 2] is a tortured evasion of the central fact: Mr. Pollard committed treason against his own country and did so for money.

The authors intentionally distorted the record, suggesting that Mr. Pollard simply funneled information on chemical and missile factories in Iraq that “embarrassed” the United States, when what he did was betray his country by selling reams of highly classified global intelligence produced by the most sensitive collection technologies the American government has. He demanded and received large payments for violating his oath as a naval intelligence analyst and betraying his obligation as an American citizen. There also is evidence he offered similar reports to other countries, including the Chinese government.

While Mr. Pollard has claimed ideological motivations for his act of betrayal, the evidence is compelling that he lusted for money and that he committed treason to appease his greed. President Clinton would be promoting a miscarriage of justice by affording this unrepentant spy clemency.

Vincent Cannistraro, McLean, VA

(The writer was director of intelligence programs at the National Security Council during the period Jonathan Pollard was convicted of espionage.)

The Pollard Precedent

To The New York Times , Jan. 13, 1999 (as published).

Re: “U.S. Now Tells of Much Deeper Damage by Pollard Than Thought” (news article, Jan. 11):

Despite Israel’s demands, the Clinton administration should not grant clemency to Jonathan Jay Pollard, an American who spied for Israel. Our intelligence community has recently recovered from the damage caused by Aldrich Ames and, with fresh funds and steady leadership, the Central Intelligence Agency has re-established itself as a key component of our national security.

The political consideration at issue is that Israel is our most consistent ally in the Middle East. However, information gathered by Israeli spies has been passed to other countries. We cannot allow our national security to be compromised in the name of political expedience.

Matthew E. Kaplan, New York, NY

Spy or Mercenary?

To The New York Times, Jan. 13, 1999 (as published).

Re “Keep Pollard Locked Up, Clinton Aides Recommend” (news article, Jan. 12):

As someone who was a volunteer in the Israeli war of independence, I get more and more irritated the more I learn about Jonathan Jay Pollard and the campaign for his release.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seems to be overlooking the fact that Mr. Pollard was not an idealist acting on behalf of Israel. He was a mercenary hoping to earn more than a half-million dollars.

Irving M. Fogel, New York, NY

Israeli Intelligence

To The New York Times, Jan. 13, 1999 (as published).

Opposition by United States intelligence officials to a deal to free Jonathan Jay Pollard is not surprising.

While there is ample precedent for spy swaps during the Cold War, in those cases the United States usually got something in return.

If President Clinton caves in to Israeli demands for Mr. Pollard’s release, we might as well free Aldrich Ames and all other convicted spies, since Russia and other countries are bound to pressure us for their return.

Israel may be a longtime ally, but the truth is that Israel covets our technology and satellite photos, and wants access at all costs. Israelis believe their existence depends on an effective intelligence community. We should not be surprised that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is bullying the president to get back an amateur spy.

William P. Callahan, New York, NY

(The writer is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.)

Keep Pollard Where He Belongs: In Prison!

To President William Clinton, Dec. 10, 1998

A recent feature on American traitor Jonathan Jay Pollard broadcast on the CBS evening news the other night reported that you are considering a pardon for this miscreant.

I would like to remind you that the former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger found Pollard’s treason so serious that he expressed the opinion that the traitor should have been shot.

Not only did Pollard commit espionage on behalf of Israel, he was also an indirect agent of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Pullitzer Prize-winning author Seymour M. Hersh has written in The Samson Option that Pollard gave Israel top-secret U.S. intelligence on the Soviet Union, and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir approved passing on some of the most important of that information to the Soviet Union.

George Washington had no compunction about hanging the British spy Major Andre in the aftermath of the Benedict Arnold fiasco simply because he was caught out of uniform wearing civilian clothes.

Another precedent worth pondering is the fate of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. They deserved the fate decreed by the American judicial system when they paid with their lives for giving nuclear bomb data to the Soviet Union, which at the time was a U.S. ally.

Surely Mr. Pollard deserves incarceration for life in lieu of the fact that he did indeed escape the death penalty for his offense. I trust you will do the right thing by serving the interests of justice and American security by denying freedom to the traitor Pollard.

William Gartland, Rio, WI