April 1991, Page 43

Other People's Mail

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

A Lasting Peace

To The Chattanooga Times, Mar. 12, 1991

It would seem that the United States has won a significant victory in Kuwait. For a period of time after this victory the United States will be in a very strong position throughout the Middle East, not only with Israel, but even with the Arab states. There may never be a better time for the United States, Israel and the Arabs to cooperate toward an attempt to achieve a more peaceful arrangement in the Mideast. It would be a terrible waste of time, money and lives if the United States did not insist on an international convention to settle the matter of the Palestinians.

Following this war it is clear that the Palestinians need a homeland and this should probably include part of the West Bank. At the same time, Israel needs permanent guarantees of its own security backed up by the United States. Every effort should be made to achieve this much during the period immediately following this war when the influence of the United States would be most strongly felt in this region.

Charles P. Hughes, Chattanooga, TN

Broadcasting in Stereo-Type

To Rush Limbaugh, KFON Radio, Feb. 23, 1991

I occasionally listen to your program on KFON radio while driving. I cannot in honesty say I am a fan since our philosophies differ greatly. However, I feel justified in communicating to you my displeasure with a particular topic repeatedly included in your show in recent months.

Recently you discussed what must be your favorite song, one you say was written for you, the "Bomb Baghdad" song. You wittily informed your listeners that the song contained some "Arab jokes" which you felt would probably offend Arabs. You further advised your listeners that they should not laugh at the jokes or other offensive words. A caller delivered an anti-Arab joke; you offered no objection and you seemed to think it was funny. Is this "excellence in broadcasting"?

Propagating negative stereotypes of Arabs is as abhorrent as creating negative stereotypes of Jews or Israelis. Would you dare tolerate anti-Jewish jokes? Would you play an oh-so-funny song titled "Scud Tel Aviv"? The Persian Gulf war gives you no excuse to demean Arabs, including Iraqis.

In the Austin "market" there are hundreds of Arab Americans, many with relatives in Iraq and other Arab countries. They would certainly be offended, as was I, by your denigrating their race.

I sincerely request that you stop stereotyping Arabs. For your enlightenment, I suggest you get acquainted with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (4201 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20008).

William V. Kelly, Austin, TX

KFON Radio Responds

To William V. Kelly, Feb. 25, 1991

Thank you for taking the time to write in, expressing your feelings about KFON. I appreciate your opinions, both positive and negative.

Regarding Rush Limbaugh, he does have a respect for all people. Yet, you have to take him with a grain of salt, just like you would a comedian. Rush's main purpose is to have fun and entertain. Humor is, regrettably, at someone's expense.

I thank you for voicing your concerns. I hope you will continue to tune in. If you have additional comments, I welcome those.

Joel Burke, Program Director, KFON Radio, Austin, TX

Sprigs of Hate

To The New London (NH) Times, Feb. 13, 1991

Common sense, the admonition to turn the other cheek and a regard for one's blood pressure dictate that one should avoid verbal entanglements with the intolerant. However, when such persons wield the proverbial pen to overstep all boundaries of decency, unmighty as the wielder or his medium may be, it is necessary to speak up.

My conscience will no longer permit me to remain silent in face of Tom Houlahan's trespass of those boundaries.

Mr. Houlahan, I am one of those Arab Americans whom you feel it is "too bad" that you've offended. Such an articulation is reminiscent of the language of a schoolyard bully whose crass immaturity and vulgar illiteracy have no place in a public opinion forum. I, too, am an American, and as proud of my Palestinian ancestry as presumably you are of yours. All of us, except Native Americans whom we displaced and nearly exterminated and Afro-Americans whom we forced over here in slavery, descend from people who came here looking for a better way of life, material or spiritual.

But I would not describe myself either as an "American first" or an "Arab first," but instead consider my humanity to take priority. As such, I would agree with those who point out that history is written by the victors and that war is a conflict that does not determine who is right but who is left. Nevertheless, for you to flagrantly call into doubt my loyalty to this country is a slap in the face to someone whose brother came back from Vietnam blessedly intact physically but unblessedly broken in spirit by all the horrors that war thrust upon him.

And for you to dictate that people to whom I am bound genetically should "wander" evokes the vilest of sensitivities with its allusion to the medieval anti-Semitic epithet of the "Wandering Jew." In this time when hate crimes against both Jewish and Arab Americans are increasing with frightening celerity, I can only hope and pray that the blare of your voice will not resonate among others equally barbarous in their sentiments.

As for your consignment of Arabs to the animal kingdom, I would hold no quarrel were the context to include all of us human beings in that kingdom, and would indeed consider it a compliment, since animals as such do not treat each other with the viciousness of human beings. But since it is obvious that your context is equally as base as your opinions, I am moved to share a very old and painful experience.

As a girl I once had a French teacher who one day gave her opinion on the melodiousness of various languages. She felt that French was above all and Italian next. No problem. Then she noted that she didn't like the sound of some languages. Again, no problem; it's a free country. But then she opted to carry her freedom of speech into the realm of bigotry when she added: "Arabic, for example, sounds like a bunch of animals talking."

Being young in a 1950s convent school did not permit me to respond, and never having encountered such prejudice in my life I would not have known how to respond anyway. Nonetheless, it hurt me to the quick. When I went home the following weekend I blurted this out at the weekly Sunday dinner in front of the 30 or so members of our extended family who had gathered at my grandparents' house. In the ensuing silence, a wise old uncle who was exceedingly fond of watercress, which he knew I hated, gave me a few sprigs and ordered me to eat it. I managed to do so despite my tears.

In today's psychologically oriented and permissive society this might seem like an unnecessary punishment, both cruel and unusual. But as a 13-year-old enveloped in the warmth and love of her extended family, I was old enough and secure enough to understand that one takes the bitterness of life and turns it into sweetness as best one can. And, indeed, watercress has since become one of my favorite greens.

It is this same bitterness I felt when I read Mr. Houlahan's pieces. If, with my "confession," I might help to turn Mr. Houlahan's vindictiveness and intolerance into something resembling sweetness, then perhaps I may have done one small thing to make this world a better place.

Mr. Houlahan also betrays a woeful lack of understanding of Middle East history despite his protestations to the contrary. It would appear from his garbled exposition that the main text used in his Government and Middle East Studies was the Bible. If Mr. Houlahan truly relies on his Bible, he would do well to recall that it is the peacemakers who are blessed.

The Middle East is a world problem, or more precisely, has become a world problem, because of the historical inability or refusal to go beyond reliance on greed, ignorance, myth-information, and jingoism to resolve it peacefully, civilly and intelligently.

Doris Safie, New London, NH

Democracy in the Middle East

To The Washington Post, Mar. 7, 1991

George Will's article "The First Arab Democracy" displays a superficial understanding of political forces in the Middle East. He first criticizes the Kuwaiti ruling house for not having been open to an American military presence in the Gulf. Then he goes on to imply that if only the Kuwaitis adopted democracy such inhibitions might disappear.

Mr. Will should take note of what has happened in Jordan, where elections last year returned a near-majority of delegates with strong Islamic and anti-Western attitudes, and in Algeria, where local elections last June similarly produced a strong Islamic showing. It is a fact of life that in many Arab countries there is more anti-Americanism at the street level than there is in establishment circles.

We are not in conflict with the Gulf states over the stationing of American ground forces on their territory. It is neither in the interest of the United States to maintain such forces indefinitely nor in the interests of the Gulf states themselves to be seen to be reliant on permanent garrisons of Western forces for their security.

Finally, Mr. Will's flat statement that "there are 21 Arab nations and not a single Arab democracy" is far too black and white. The elections in Algeria and Jordan already were essentially free, and in Algeria they resulted in a severe defeat for the official FLN party. In Egypt recently, the government accepted a high court decision that the rules it set for the last parliamentary election were unfair to small parties, and elections for a new parliament have been held. There have been solid steps toward democratization in several Arab countries over the past five years that should be acknowledged in any accurate assessment of the Arab political scene.

Michael Sterner, Washington, DC, Former US Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974-1976.

No Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing

To The New York Times, Oct. 11, 1990

I recently chanced upon an error in an article in the Business section of the Times which was accompanied by a graphic containing the logotype of the National Bank of Kuwait. According to the Times, "the logotype ... proclaims 'There is no deity but Allah. "' The logotype proclaimed no such thing. The Arabic inscription merely said, "National Bank of Kuwait, Kuwait, 1952."

This is the second translation error I have noted in the Times this year. The first was a sign carried by Lebanese journalists reading "Freedom of the Press, Yes to the Printed Word, No to Terror." The Times said the sign, written in Arabic, read "In Allah's hands we are safe." I sent you a letter but, to date, have not received a response.

These glaring errors leave me wondering how the Times goes about translating Arabic language materials into English. Surely, you did not consult someone who actually reads the language, for those errors are so wide off the mark that they are laughable. I must conclude that either the Times is paying good money for bogus translations, or that reporters and/or editors are making up translations as they go along. Either way the "translators" are not drawing on their knowledge of the language, but on their storehouse of racist and demeaning stereotypes which "perceive" religious fatalism, zealotry, and fanaticism every time they see an Arabic inscription. In this way the "translators" say more about themselves than about the material they are purportedly translating.

Nabeel Abraham, Dearborn, MI

Don't Force US Troops Back

To Senator John Glenn (D-OH), Jan. 21, 1991

I've written to you many times over the past seven or eight years, expressing my concerns about the United States government's unconditional support for Israel. In those letters I spelled out my fears that our blatant disregard for the basic human rights of the indigenous Palestinian population in the Holy Land would come back to haunt us.

Your response has been that Israel is our most important and strategic ally in the Middle East, and that it is an internal problem that we must not interfere in. You and I both know, however, as has been illustrated in the current Gulf crisis, that Israel, far from being a strategic ally, is actually a political and military liability in the Middle East. Also, we are integrally involved, since the illegal occupation could not continue without our support. Saddam Hussain understands this, and is attempting to use our shameful support for Israeli intransigence as a means of inciting the Arab masses against us, and splitting the alliance against Iraq.

Unless a fair and just solution to the brutal abuse of the Palestinian people by the Israeli army is found, we can expect that our troops will be over to the Middle East again and again. I urge you to have the courage to face up to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Take a stand for justice, Insist on a resolution to call together an international conference to negotiate peace in the Middle East.

Neil V. Himber, Cincinnati, OH

Open Dialogue Called For

To the Greenville (SC) News, Dec. 30, 1990

While disregarding the Oct. 8, 1990 "Jerusalem Massacre" (the Israeli police and soldiers Bled 18 and injured more than 350 Palestinians at the Al Aqsa Mosque), Defense Minister Moshe Arens recently stated "that Israel would expel more Palestinians" to control the recent murder of several Israelis.

A review of the human rights violations inflicted upon the Palestinians provides an answer for those who question the causes of the murders committed by the Palestinians

Since Dec. 9, 1987, the onset of the Palestinian uprising (the intifada), the Israelis have injured more than 103,900 and have killed 895 Palestinians (224 of those killed were children). More than 10,700 Palestinians have been confined to wretched jails under "administrative detention" for periods of 6 to 12 months without charge or legal counsel.

There have been 8,197 curfew days in the West Bank and Gaza villages (to leave home for any cause subjects a Palestinian to arrest, injury or death); 1,418 homes have been demolished and 231 have been "seated." To inflict hardship and to prevent competition in sales, 93,589 olive and orange trees have been uprooted. At the moment I don't have the exact number of Palestinian women and children who have been taken to the Jordanian border and dumped, but this distressing figure is available.

There, indeed, is a limit to one's patience and endurance.

In place of the unjust charges of anti-Semitism, I again urge responsible people to gather in public or private for a civil discussion of conflicting opinions.

Assuming legitimate differences in the interpretation of relevant facts in these matters, what kind of open-mindedness is it that refuses open dialogue.

Such a discussion could be conducted at Furman University under the auspices of the Departments of Religion and Political Science.

Frank Espey, Greenville, SC

A Dialogue Can Only Spread Bias

To the Greenville (SC) News, Jan. 24, 1991

We all remember President Reagan's famous reply during his presidential debate, "There you go again." Well once more Dr. Frank Espey launches his anti-Israel attacks in The News on Dec. 30th. It is tempting to rebut his prejudical comments one by one, but space limitations prevent this, and I have serious doubts if such would have any impact on Dr. Espey, having read his letters in The News, to me personally and to elected officials of South Carolina.

At this point I would like the readers to understand why I and several responsible members of the Jewish community choose to ignore Dr. Espey's suggestions to dialogue with him. First of all, I can think of no way that any conclusions which might be reached could in any manner be an influence on policy or events in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It seems obvious that Dr. Espey is seeking an additional forum to spread his bias, and I for one see no reason to participate in such an obvious undertaking.

In addition, Dr. Espey has proven his inability to present accurate and truthful commentary concerning the tragic events in that part of the world. Many members of the Jewish community both in Greenville and the United States have frequently criticized some of the actions of the Israeli government. We recognize that despite our wishes that they act in perfect accord with our preceptions of proper behavior, we understand that the Israelis live in an area surrounded by enemies who still vow her total destruction. The danger to her survival must be the controlling factor in her actions. In constant quest for security, there may have been some excesses caused by extreme provocation and direct attacks by her enemies.

What does Dr. Espey say about this? Does he ever acknowledge the terrorism of Arab against Jew, of Arab against Christian, of Arab against Arab? No, Dr. Espey either denies or ignores these well-documented incidents; nor has he ever retracted his slander against American Jews, when he claimed our charities are suspect and our loyalty questionable.

Since nothing beneficial can come from these frequent letters from Dr. Espey, all on the same theme, it seems to me that it would be wise if he refrained from writing them or that The News ceases to publish them.

Robert L. Dreyfus, Greenville, SC

Avoiding the Facts

To the Greenville (SC) News, Feb. 4, 1991 The letters written by Dr. Espey concerning the Middle East conflict, particularly the Palestinian-Israel crisis, have produced a growing list of critics. I believe Dr. Espey has stated some decisive facts.

A review of all the letters reveals a common theme. Dr. Espey has presented the public with specific concerns and suggested solutions concerning the Middle East issues and misunderstandings.

The critics have responded by attacking him personally, by intentionally ignoring the thesis of his letters, and by presenting the public with unrelated prejudicial statements that do not survive scrutiny.

It would be more appropriate for the opponents to challenge and to refute with facts the charges presented by Dr. Espey. From the outset he has invited every critic to discuss their conflicting opinions and to appreciate better the "other side." The invitations have been ignored.

W.M. McEver, Greenville, SC

Our "Special Relationship"

To the Greenville (SC) News, Feb. 12, 1991

In a Jan. 20 letter to The News, Robert Dreyfus expressed his frustration with Dr. Espey's letters critical of Israel. He wonders why Israel's critics do not speak about Arab attacks against Jews, Christians, other Arabs, etc. This is a recurring theme from Israel's defenders. They cannot understand why people seem to be picking on Israel when there is so much other obvious evil in the world.

The difference is that these other countries are indulging in their conduct with their own money. Israel is running on US taxpayers' dollars.

Americans cannot know how much money Israel has cost us, beyond the stated $3 to $4 billion a year, but we can see by the papers how it is being spent: Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinians by the thousands; Jonathan Pollard, a US spy, sending 360 cubic feet of US military secrets to Israel; Israeli experts training the Medellin drug cartel in terrorism; an Israeli Mossad agent arranging arms purchases for, and advising, Noriega; Israelis sending cluster bombs to Ethiopa; Israel involved in Iranscam; Israelis helping South Africa with ballistic missiles and testing atomic weapons, and talk of work on a neutron bomb. We cannot change the conduct of any foreign nation by letters to the editor, but we hope that a free press can somehow inform the thinking people of this country, and thereby change our own conduct. In the case of Israel, we may choose to stop sending money to support their activities.

Dr. Espey's letters are refreshing because they reflect a training in the disciplines of science. He does not say the Israelis have injured a "lot" of Palestinians. He says, "since Dec. 9, 1987, the Israelis have injured more than 103,900 and have killed 895.." This is a definite statement. The numbers can be verified. In the letter that Mr. Dreyfus most recently objected to there were ten statements made with numbers included. He does not challenge any statement or number. Not one fact is disputed. Instead, Mr. Dreyfus, who obviously does not like the facts, suggests that The News cease to publish Dr. Espey's letters. He prefers censorship, and that is too high a price to pay for the support of Israel or anything else.

Richard L. Gollwitzer, Greenville, SC