April 1989, Page 29

Other People’s Mail

"Gentlemen don't read other people's mail," an idealistic American official exclaimed between World Wars I and II as he abolished US cryptographic counterintelligence programs. Times change, however, and some letters by or to other people are as informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves.

Fairness of Human Rights Report?

To the Editor, Washington Post: Feb. 22, 1989

In Jeane Kirkpatrick's op-ed article 'An Unfair Report on Israel" (Feb. 13), I can find no justification for her accusations that the State Department report on human rights violations in Israel was unfair.

Her primary criticism of the report was that it was 21 pages in length, whereas the reports from countries like Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Panama, and China were only 6, 12, 14, 10, and 20 pages respectively. She insinuates that there is some absolute correlation between the length of the report and the severity of the human rights violations being criticized. Couldn't it be that some writers are more succinct than others in their descriptions of human rights violations?

We should be concerned about any and all reports of human rights violations regardless of whether they originate in countries that are friend or foe. Jeane Kirkpatrick's anger is tempered only by the fact that the report contained "disclaimers" to its allegations about Israel. The report acknowledged that "Israel is a parliamentary democracy with a multiparty political system and free elections." Shouldn't we be even more critical of those countries that profess to be "democracies" yet at the same time commit numerous human rights violations? While human rights violations are always inexcusable, we can better understand the human rights violations that take place in countries governed by corrupt, sometimes crazy dictators or military juntas. Jeane Kirkpatrick charges that we have unfairly placed Israel in the "world-class human rights violator" club. I didn't know we had a competition.

Another "disclaimer" she cites was that there is "civil unrest" in the occupied territories and Israel's very existence has been threatened. South Korea has been experiencing serious civil unrest for many months as well. The number of dead, however, number in the tens not hundreds, and I don't believe their military and/or police have standing orders to beat, break the bones, or shoot any civilian protester they encounter.

It's about time the US government stopped protecting Israel and gathers the courage to criticize its wrongdoings.

Melissa Kirchner, Falls Church, VA.

Soviet Jews and Israel

To the Editor, Washington Post: Feb. 26, 1989

David A. Harris's Feb. 20 letter about Israel and Soviet Jewry requires comment. He states that Israel wants Soviet Jews to go to Israel merely because its raison d'etre is the "in-gathering of exiles." But very few Jews see themselves as exiles. Most of today's Jews have no lineage to the people exiled from Judea and Samaria in the first century A.D.; rather, they are descended from peoples converted to Judaism who never lived in Palestine. The presumptuous idea that we Jews should pick up and move to Israel has been nearly a complete flop in America (to the disappointment, I imagine, of any anti-Semites).

It is apparently so with Soviet Jews as well. More than 90 percent come to the United States. This is such a problem for the Israelis that they wish to deny the Soviet Jews freedom of choice. Rather than having emigrating Jews fly first to free Vienna, where they can go on to the United States, the Israelis want them forced to go first to communist Bucharest, where they can more easily be channeled to Israel.

Mr. Harris disingenuously states that once in Israel, Soviet Jews can settle anywhere, not only on the West Bank. He neglected to say that the Israeli government massively subsidizes housing on the West Bank, making it much more attractive economically than the rest of Israel and its inflation-ridden economy.

Contrary to Mr. Harris, Israel's concern with getting the Soviet Jews seems to stem from two factors: the more rapid birth rate of the Arabs in Israel and the occupied territories, and the de-Europeanization of Israel. On the first matter, an Arab majority would obviously spell crisis for a Jewish state; this illustrates the natural conflict between any theocracy and the idea of democracy. On the second, Israel's ruling elite has always been European. As the Oriental Jews become a more powerful force in Israel, the old guard is in danger of losing its grip. An influx of Soviet Jews could forestall this erosion of power.

Sheldon L. Richman, Woodbridge, VA.

Against Book Banning

To the Editor, The New York Times:Feb. 17, 1989

As writers and scholars from the Islamic world, we are appalled by the vilification, book banning, and threats of physical violence against Salman Rushdie, the gifted author of Midnight's Children, Shame, and The Satanic Verses. This campaign is carried on in the name of Islam, although none of it does Islam any credit.

Certainly, Muslims and others are entitled to protest against The Satanic Verses if it is their opinion that the novel offends their religion and cultural sensibilities. But to carry protest and debate over into the realm of bigoted violence is antithetical to the Islamic traditions of learning and tolerance.

We both deplore and regret this sort of thing, and we reaffirm our belief in the universal principles of rational discussion and freedom of expression.

Abrahim Abu-Lughod, Eqbal Ahmad, Agha Shahid Ali, Akeel Bilgrami, Edward W. Said, Gayatri Spivak, New York, NY. -

Debate or Strategy?

To the Editor, Commonwealth:Feb. 24, 1989

Bryan Hehir is not exactly a Middle East expert, and neither am I, but I know the difference between a strategy and a debate ("Zero-Plus Game: A Strategy for the Middle East," Jan. 27). Hehir does not give us a strategy; he invites us to a debate. The word debate occurs seven times in a brief article.

A strategy would seem to require that the United States make clear to Israel that its refusal to negotiate with the PLO will adversely affect the US willingness to support Israel with economic and military assistance. The task for the US is to conduct a credible diplomacy to this end, not to arrange a public debate between the two parties.

The countries of the European community seem ready to join in such diplomacy. Is the United States? Scholars like debates because they sometimes clarify issues, but diplomacy is needed to resolve them.

Edward Doherty, West River, MD.

Changing Opinion Within American Jewish Community

To the Editor, Women Against Military Madness:Feb. 1989

When news broke of Arafat's willingness to meet US demands for negotiation with the PLO, I was in Boston co-officiating a wedding in a 75 percent Jewish neighborhood. During that weekend, I had ample opportunity to hear every possible viewpoint on the subject. The father of the groom flatly stated that he would not give any more money to the United Jewish Appeal unless Israel stopped oppressing Palestinians. The bride defended Israel, but was not so sure of herself as in previous conversations when she had felt that Israel could do no wrong. Her parents hoped for peace but did not trust Arafat. At a synagogue a few blocks away the groom and I looked at each other in disgust as we heard the rabbi accuse the American Jews who met with Arafat of being traitors. In the Boston Jewish newspaper, peace activist Arthur Waskow of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College urged Israel to take "yes" for an answer.

So why am I telling you all this? Because too often we blithely speak of "American Jewry" as if it were a single entity with a single opinion; in fact, controversy is raging. During that same weekend, a conference of 1,500 Jewish liberals met in New York under the sponsorship of Tikkun magazine, a liberal Jewish bimonthly. Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun, pointed out that most American Jews have not moved as far right as the rest of the population. But, Lerner claimed, many major Jewish organizations are disproportionately influenced by "the 29 percent who voted for Bush." Mr. Lerner drew applause when he stated that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza "is not only irrational and destructive, it is immoral and must be terminated."

I would also like to suggest that we begin carrying both Palestinian and Israeli colors at rallies and protests. I realize that at this point in time it will be extremely difficult for Jews to walk beside a PLO flag or Palestinians beside an Israeli one. Each perceives the others' colors as something to fear. But if people see both flags together perhaps it will sink in that there really can be two states. Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace.

Rabbi Yonassan Gershom

American Eyewitness Report from Occupied Territories

To the Editor, Idahonian: Dec. 21, 1988

I have just returned from a two week sojourn with an "Eyewitness Israel delegation to the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank. The trip was cosponsored by the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

During our stay we lived with Palestinian families, visited with representatives of several organizations within Palestinian society as well as Israeli peace groups, and saw first hand the conditions in refugee camps and the effects of Israeli occupation on Palestinian life in general.

I now understand why the Palestinians have their intifadah (uprising). For 21 years Palestinians have experienced Israeli occupation as haphazard arrests, confessions obtained through torture, imprisonments without trial, deportations, denial of political expression, demolition of houses, confiscation of land, closure of schools, denial of justice in the courts, and the use of brutal force, especially against children.

More than an act of defiance and desperation, the intifadah is a sign of courage and self-determination and an expression of hope. One of the most striking aspects of the intifadah is that the young people are its source, its soul, and its sustenance. They are willing to face beatings, bullets, and prison to bring an end to the occupation. It is clear that the uprising reflects a commitment which is irreversible and which will continue to embolden the
Palestinian people in their struggle to achieve national independence.

The Palestinian people genuinely long for peace and coexistence with the state of Israel. Among the Palestinians with whom we met from every walk of life, both within Israel and in the occupied territories, we encountered an extraordinary humanity and a willingness to live in peace with their neighbors.

I urge every American citizen to (a) communicate deep concern to our legislators regarding Israel's oppressive policies in occupied Palestine, and (b) call upon our government to recognize the just aspirations of the Palestinian people for freedom in a sovereign state of their own.

Walt Miller, Pullman, WA

Biased Reporting

To the Editor, Chicago Tribune: Feb. 20, 1989

Regarding the article, "Arab slays Jewish seminary student in the Sunday, Feb. 19 edition, I found an entirely different article than was indicated by the headline.

Already by the second paragraph, it was clear that this was to be an article about a number of recent killings, the majority of which were Palestinians! A rather detailed picture is given of the Jewish student's murder, evoking a certain degree of sentiment and empathy, while the Palestinians are left faceless and somehow less human through the report of their tragic deaths.

For example, the opening sentence states that an Arab "plunged a pocket knife into the heart" of a Jewish student, while another sentence says that a Palestinian teen-ager "died from a bullet wound to the head." This teenager was murdered—there is no other way to state it.

Why, too, does the article dose with the statement "The slaying is expected to fuel tension between Arabs and Jews," rather than to admit that the killing of the two Arabs cited will fuel tensions at least as much? Are the Palestinians to be blamed for their own suffering at the hands of their occupiers? I expect more journalistic integrity of the Tribune.

Vicki Tamoush, Chicago, IL.

Don't Move US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

To Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan: July 7, 1988

It has come to my attention that you introduced S2508 to the 100th Congress. You wish to move the US Embassy and ambassador's residence from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I am appalled that one of my own would turn his back on all traditional values. How do you explain yourself? For what purpose have you become an agent of the theocratic state of Israel? You represent the whole state of New York, and unless I'm poorly informed you have a small percentage of Zionists to represent when put alongside the masses of Muslims and Christians in your state, not to mention everyone else who must pay taxes. With this bill you go against international law, the United Nations, the entire Arab world. Now you, as well as the rest of us, know the Pope and your own Archbishop O'Connor have been unfairly chastised for holding views independent of the permeating Zionist media glut. You must be aware of the harsh, even cruel treatment, of the priests in the occupied territories after the Pope consecrated Patriarch Saliba in Rome. You know that this bill would finish any hope of success that our State Department might have of peace. And yet, you an Irish-Catholic American, like myself, throw oil on the fire with no consideration for the local population who have been so brutalized, or of the American citizens you supposedly represent who will be seen as partners in this further transgression of human rights. Did you even think about the dollars and cents of this move? There are always other hidden costs. How do you explain that to your constituents?

St. Thomas Aquinas said, "What does it help a man to gain the whole world if he loses his soul?" The Pope says if you wish peace, work for justice. Is this justice?

Judith Schuchmann

To Judith Schuchmann: Jan. 23, 1989

Knowing of your concern about legislation to require that the United States Embassy in Israel be located in the Israeli capital, Jerusalem, I thought you might like a legislative update.

I introduced legislation with identical language to S. 2508 in 1983. At that time, 50 senators cosponsored the bill. Two hundred twenty-eight members of the House of Representatives also cosponsored identical legislation. The view of the Congress being expressly clear, I did not press this matter to a vote, as I was asked not to do so by officials of the Department of State. The matter was to be left to quiet diplomacy.

Quiet diplomacy has achieved nothing. For that matter, I am not even aware that there was any diplomacy. Accordingly, I reintroduced the bill on June 13, 1988. It was not considered in the 100th Congress.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Racism Is Racism

To the Editor, New York Times: Jan. 8, 1989

If I wanted to boost tourism in Redneck City and was able to finagle a travel section story on this hot spot, would you print the boast that my resort has no Jewish community? Would you run a promotion that implies "Jew-Free Vacation!"? I hope not. And I would have hoped that you would not have done so on Dec. 11 in reference to the lack of Arabs in Eilat, Israel ("Eilat has no Arab community ... a fact the city's boosters like to point out"). Zionism may not be racism, but racism is racism, and this is racism.

John Hartung, Brooklyn, NY

Editor's Note: The reference cited read in full "Edat has no Arab community and no significant religious population, facts the city's boosters like to point out."