April/May 1995, Pages 35-40

Other People's Mail

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

Israel and the Settlements

To The Washington Post, Feb. 4, 1995 (as published).

The editorial "Terrorism and the Settlements" contributed to the illusion in the United States that the Israeli Labor party is opposed to the construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

It was Labor Party governments that started the movement soon after the Six- Day War by putting up settlements on the Golan Heights and in the Jordan Valley. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, then a key Labor Party figure, in 1968 authorized the construction of Kiryat Arba, the first urban settlement of what later became Gush Emunim, or "Bloc of the Faithful." Long before Likud came to power, this was the first Jewish outpost planted next to a major West Bank city.

Shimon Peres, then defense minister in Mr. Rabin's cabinet, in 1975 gave Gush Emunim the pretense it needed to move into former Jordanian army barracks north of Ramallah, and had the Israeli army provide the settlers with water, food and protection while they put up Ofra, the first "illegal" settlement of Gush Emunim north of Jerusalem.

Yitzhak Rabin, then Labor Party chairman and prime minister, a year later disguised as a "military camp" yet another "illegal" settlement that made West Bank history. It was there, in Kaddum, that Mr. Rabin's successor, Menachem Begin, celebrated his 1977 electoral triumph by promising "many more Kaddums" and pronouncing the West Bank a "liberated Judea and Samaria."

Nor did the Labor Party support for the settlements slacken in the 1980s, when settlement construction was undermining Israel-Egypt relations and wrecking chances for peace under the Camp David accords, and when religious-nationalist motives for seizures of Arab land were replaced by the simple desire for cheap, government-subsidized housing.

During Mr. Peres's 1986-1988 stint as prime minister, a two-bedroom apartment in a West Bank settlement sold for $40,000 compared with $90,000 for similar housing in pre-1967 Israel. Thanks to such incentives, while the "dovish" Peres ran the government, construction started on 5,000 new apartments in the West Bank, and the Jewish population in the territories increased by 13,000.

Mr. Rabin, as the defense minister in the same cabinet, encouraged the Golan Heights settlements to step up their development, and he was so generous to the West Bank settlers that they praised him as their best ally in the government.

The main difference between Likud's and Labor's record on settlements is that the Labor Party worked quietly while the Likud beat the religious-nationalist drums. For instance, it was Mr. Begin's Likud government that annexed "for eternity" the Syrian Golan Heights, but it was a Labor Party Knesset faction headed by Avraham "Katzele" Katz that initiated and pushed through the measure.

Looking back on the whole history of seizing and populating Arab land, the so-called "dovish" Labor Party makes Likud look like a rank amateur.

Milan J. Kubic, Bethesda, MD (The writer covered the Mideast for Newsweek from 1976 to 1988.)

"Appel Urgent"-From Israel

To various publications,

Today, Feb. 5, 1995, Nathan Krystall was arrested for refusing — on political grounds — to enlist in the Israeli army.  His decision was largely based on his experience as a political activist in Israel and the occupied territories. Although Nathan has not yet been sentenced, it is likely that he will be subjected to a difficult and perhaps lengthy process of harassment, isolation and imprisonment. We ask that friends of Nathan's and people who advocate his decision write letters of support, which we will pass on to him. You can fax letters to Nathan at 972-2-253151, or send letters via e-mail to aic@baraka.gn.apc.org (Subject: For Nathan) or write us at the Alternative Information Center, P.O. Box 31417, Jerusalem, Israel (attention: Nathan Krystall).

(Following is the text of a letter that Nathan Krystall wrote to the Israeli prime minister and minister of defense, explaining his reasons for refusing to enlist in the IDF.)

Refusing IDF Military Service

To the Jerusalem Times, Feb. 10, 1995 (as published).

To the Minister of Defense,

Despite my declaration to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), both written and verbal, that I will not serve in the army, I am still expected to report for 120 days of service on Feb. 5. I request that you cancel the order for my enlistment due to reasons of conscientious objection, some of which I briefly describe below.

I arrived in this country almost three years ago. Over two years ago I decided, for various reasons, to take advantage of my privileged status as a Jew and, via the Law of Return, become an Israeli citizen. I knew that I would possibly be ordered to serve in the IDF, and at the time believed that service inside the "green line" would not run totally counter to my principles. Soon afterward I changed my mind.

First and foremost, I now totally oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, which is antithetical to the establishment of any kind of democratic state here. After living in this country, it is clear to me that the preservation of Israel as a Jewish state will always mean upholding the rights of Jews at the expense of Palestinians. As such dominance can only be achieved and maintained by the use of force, the IDF—like its predecessor, the Haganah—is a central instrument of this violent rule.

In the short time that I have been here I have witnessed how the IDF, upon the orders of the government and its commanding officers (which ultimately emanate from the same place, namely yourself, being both the prime minister and the minister of defense), will stop at nothing to silence any voice that cries out against this oppression, and to smash any action aimed at guaranteeing the full rights of Palestinians. This I have witnessed every single day, through accounts related via the media, stories told to me personally, and with my own eyes.

The continuing, and even increasing, expropriation of Palestinian land, settlement expansion and road building in the West Bank, particularly in the Greater Jerusalem area, along with the IDF and settler presence in the Gaza Strip, West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon, only reinforces my resolve to refuse army service.

It is the IDF that guards the work crews who uproot trees and tear through hills to build Jewish-only settlements, and now the Jewish-only bypass roads.

It is the Israeli army that protects settlers while they rampage against Palestinian residents; that enabled the massacre, one year ago, of 29 worshippers in the Ibrahimi mosque by Baruch Goldstein and his accomplices and that, over the subsequent month, carried out an additional massacre of 40 more Palestinians; that now supervises religious persecution through the division of the Ibrahimi mosque; that routinely assassinates Palestinian political activists and stands guard over thousands more in Israeli prisons; that bombs to death hundreds of Lebanese citizens every year and afterwards claims that they were "terrorists"; that prevents Palestinians from drilling the wells required to meet their minimal level of water use; and that blocks Palestinians from reaching Jerusalem—the geographic, economic, cultural and religious center of Palestinian life.

And finally, it is the Israeli military that, by en masse expulsion and deportation, has created millions of Palestinian refugees and keeps them refugees by refusing to allow them to return to their homes, on both sides of the "green line."

The IDF solidifies the class stratification of Israeli society based on race and religion. A quick perusal of the Help Wanted advertisements in the newspaper reveals that a very large percentage of bosses demand army service as a condition of employment. This immediately excludes the vast majority of the Palestinians who constitute 20 percent of Israeli citizenry, severely hindering their chances of economic upward mobility. Plus, it is common knowledge that within the army itself the most undesirable jobs are reserved for certain sectors of society, for example Ethiopian immigrants.

If there existed here a popular army that protected equally the lives and rights of everyone, regardless of religion, race, sex or class, I would gladly enlist and serve. However, for the above reasons and more, I am unwilling to serve in the IDF even for one day.

Nathan Krystall, File #309960805, Jerusalem

(This letter was written by the American-born writer prior to his sentencing on Feb. 5, 1995 to 14 days imprisonment for refusing to serve in the Israel Defense Forces. The court can extend the sentence repeatedly.)

Israel Should Learn From Dutch

To the Jerusalem Times, Feb. 3, 1995 (as published).

International television showed how the Dutch faced an enormous threat from their national enemy, "high water." Israeli media admired the efficiency of the measures taken in order to guard human lives and the calm and orderly way in which a quarter of a million people left their homes—without knowing whether they would ever be able to return.

There were reports of the refusal of some dozens to leave and how the Dutch government in the end decided to evacuate them by force since "it would be irresponsible to let rescue workers [soldiers] risk their lives in order to save them."

A day later Israeli television broadcast an interview with Ziv, the soldier who was severely wounded while fulfilling his duty of guarding the settlers at Netzarim. Zivamazingly positive though an invalid for life—commented on the still-critical situation at Netzarim. "The settlers should be evacuated," he said, "the price of guarding them there is too high."

For the sake of Ziv and all Israeli soldiers I want to ask: Why don't we learn from the Dutch?

Adam Keller, Jerusalem

Israel Is Different, All Right

To the Naples Daily News, Feb. 12, 1995 (as published).

As a longtime Arabist and having lived and worked in the Middle East, I would like to respond to Rabbi James H. Perman's letter re: aid to Israel.

Israel is not blamed because of some people's frustrations with life; Israel is blamed because she plays with a different set of rules than other nations. She is the only country that receives her money in a lump sum up front and without our aid in overseeing its use.

And to what use does Israel put America's generosity? Well, she builds arms which she sells to drug dealers and tinhorn dictators with whom it would be illegal for us to deal. She bombs her neighbors with impunity, also illegal under our transfer of arms act. And most criminal of all, she builds settlements on land that does not belong to her in clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which she signed.

Oh, yes; there is also her claim to nuclear power, which may or may not be a sham. At any rate, she threatened Egypt with its use in 1973, which is why we went running to her defense.

Israel has not been economically viable since her inception. The reason she has not defaulted on her debts to us is because our Congress has always forgiven her debts or raised her dole to cover what she owes. I suggest any Doubting Thomas look up the Cranston Amendment, or better yet, get a subscription to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Karen A. Amin, Naples, FL

"Foreign Aid in Moderation"

To The New York Times, Feb. 2, 1995 (as submitted).

Your reference to the $3 billion and $2.1 billion to Israel and Egypt respectively "that directly reduce risks to U.S. security" (editorial, "Foreign Aid in Moderation," Feb. 2) would be a sick joke in another context. The failure of Israel and Egypt to streamline their economies, and the international lawlessness of Israel (its settlements in the occupied territories, and its failure to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, etc.) argue for the elimination of such aid. U.S. security is a red herring. This is further underlined by the fact that this enormous aid (over $100 billion to Israel alone before and since Camp David) has been the result of systematic Zionist lobbying, hardly concerned with U.S. security.

Robert Lyon, Professor Emeritus, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA

Bhutto Transforming Pakistan

To The New York Times, Feb. 25, 1995 (as published).

Re: Paula R. Newberg's attack on Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan in "The Two Benazir Bhuttos" (Op-Ed, Feb. 11):

Since Prime Minister Bhutto's re-election in October 1993, the economy and social structure of Pakistan have been remarkably transformed. Her government has taken hard economic and budgetary decisions, risking political unpopularity by establishing fiscal discipline, and has been called a model of successful adjustment in the developing world by the International Monetary Fund.

Foreign investment, responding to the economic incentives of the government, has poured into Pakistan—$6.5 billion from the United States in the energy sector alone. The $22 billion in foreign investment pledges in Pakistan during this government's 15 months in office has quintupled foreign investment in Pakistan over the last quarter-century—five times more in 15 months than in the previous 25 years combined.

The taxation system of the country has been reformed and an agricultural wealth tax imposed for the first time. New drug laws extending the death penalty to drug traffickers have been enacted. Cooperation with the United States and the world community on international terrorism has accelerated. The most recent example of this was the speedy extradition by Pakistan of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who is accused of plotting the attack on the World Trade Center in New York.

Ms. Newberg insinuates that Benazir Bhutto is working with Muslim extremists to deny rights to women. She and the world ought to know better.

To protect rights of women in society, women's police stations have been created. Women judges have been appointed to the high courts, and thousands of women's health centers have been instituted throughout rural areas, training women in health, nutrition and family planning.

As for not building schools, 6,500 schools are under construction this year alone as part of Prime Minister Bhutto's social action program.

Syed Rifaat Hussain, Minister (Press), Pakistan Embassy, Washington, DC

Palestinians Are the Victims

To The Times-Picayune, Dec. 16, 1994 (as published).

Re: "Critical of Arab complaint about columnist," by R.A. Shapiro, Letters, Nov. 20. I was as disturbed by the condescending and bigoted tone of Mr. Shapiro's letter as I was by the numerous inaccuracies contained therein.

Mr. Shapiro conveys exactly the attitude that Dr. Edward Said discusses in his book, Blaming the Victim, where the aggressor deflects reponsibility for his actions by blaming the victim for having in some way inspired this aggression. In this way, he can justify his aggressive action as a legitimate response to the victim's behavior.

In the Middle East, the Palestinians have been the victims since the controversy began. It is they who lost their homes and were forced into exile. It is they who have been bombed, arrested and forced to live in substandard conditions. It is they who had to endure the humiliation of refugee camps and a brutal military occupation.

Any act in response to the brutality they experience is labeled terrorism and incurs the wrath of Israeli military might. By labeling all those who react to the brutal oppression as terrorists, Israel, the aggressor, can then view the victims as inferiors. This attitude is certainly evident in Mr. Shapiro's letter.

With respect to his numerous inaccuracies, I want to point out that since its inception, Israel has engaged in its share of terrorist acts. I can cite numerous examples from the assassination of the Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani to the bombing of an elementary school filled with children in Port Said, Egypt, in 1972 to the shooting down of a civilian Libyan airliner to the constant bombing of villages and refugee camps in Lebanon to the numerous killings of Palestinians in the occupied territories, the blowing up of their houses, the confiscation of their lands, etc.

As to his allegations that there are no Jewish organizations that commit acts of terrorism, it was a Jewish terrorist group, the Irgun, that blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in the '40s and another, LEHI (the Stern Gang), that assassinated Count Bernadotte, the United Nations envoy to Palestine. These groups were led, respectively, by the future Israeli prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, who were wanted for terrorist acts by the British government.

But as the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I would also point out that FBI reports of the '80s put the American-based Jewish Defense League on the top of their list of terrorist organizations inside the United States. Another Meir Kahane offshoot terrorist group trains in upstate New York, and it was one of its members, the infamous Baruch Goldstein, who massacred worshippers in Hebron in October.

Mention also needs to be made of the assassination in Santa Ana, CA, of Alex Odeh, an American poet and civic leader of Palestinian origin.

In reference to the strategic importance of the Golan Heights, with the long-range missiles in the area, the Golan doesn't offer the geographical protection Israel claims.

Incidentally, the Golan was not an unpopulated area. One hundred thousand Syrians were living there before the 1967 war, quite a sizable number.

Georgette Ioup, New Orleans

A.M. Rosenthal's Negativism

To The Times-Picayune, Nov. 14, 1994 (as published).

Re: the syndicated columns of A.M. Rosenthal.

Mr. Rosenthal consistently attacks Arab countries, Arab governments and the Muslim religion, labeling them as terrorist and untrustworthy. These attacks come at a time when the Middle East is entering a new era.

When the Palestine Liberation Organization signed the peace declaration with Israel in September 1993, Yasser Arafat was depicted by Rosenthal as a cunning politician with no principles who therefore could not be trusted.

When King Hussein signed the peace declaration with Yitzhak Rabin, the king was portrayed as a shifty politician cutting a business deal by getting the United States to erase Jordan's foreign debt and getting more foreign aid.

In his Oct. 25 column, Rosenthal generalized his attack to include Islam as a religious institution and pointed fingers at Syria and Iran and accused Arafat (again!) of being weak or reluctant to confront Hamas. All this negativism was enriched with many examples of terrorist attacks against Israelis.

However, Mr. Rosenthal would not mention the state-sponsored terrorism of Israel against the native population in Palestine since 1948, including the massacres of whole village populations in Deir Yasin and Kafer Kassem. He probably doesn't recall the many years of war inflicted on the Lebanese population that culminated in the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the massacres in the Sabra-Shatila refugee camps orchestrated by Ariel Sharon, former defense minister of Israel.

God forbid that he mention the massacre in Hebron by Dr. Baruch Goldstein, who sprayed worshippers with bullets while they were kneeling in prayer.

Accusing one side of all the atrocities without looking at the grievances and miseries of the other can only delay any chances of real peace in the Middle East. If Rosenthal wants the FBI to monitor and crack down on Hamas or any other organization's fund-raising activities in the United States, the same should apply to the Jewish terrorist organizations that operate from the United States and are trying to derail the peace process.

As to Mr. Rosenthal's attacks on Syria, President Assad's position is clear on signing a peace treaty with Israel: Out of the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon without foot-dragging and you'll have a peace treaty with Israel with pomp and ceremony, probably at the White House.

Unfortunately the U.S. administration won't put any pressure on Israel as the previous administration did. President Bush's firmness with Israel resulted in the Madrid conference that started the whole peace process, and the blocking of the billions of dollars in loan guarantees to Israel resulted in the victory of the Labor Party in the last Israeli elections.

What is missing now is a more evenhanded U.S. policy toward the Middle East, a policy that hasn't existed for the last 30 years due to the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States. This lobbying stretches to the media, where the Israeli side is always shown in a positive way while the Arab side is barely present or, if present, is stereotyped as untrustworthy, sleazy and terrorist.

Three million Americans of Arabic descent and heritage in the United States and the native people of the Middle East are asking only for fairness and equal treatment from the United States—in foreign policy and in the media. We want our voice to be heard, like every other ethnic group.

Ghazi Assali, President, New Orleans Chapter, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, New Orleans, LA

P.S. By the way, Jimmy Carter recently pointed out on television that it was strange how, while we give so much money to Israel, Japan has to lend us money.

Opportunity for Rabin

To the Jerusalem Post, March 1, 1995 (as published).

The go-slow pace of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's intertwined "peace process" and election strategy has been premised on the belief that his and his party's electoral chances would be enhanced by taking no steps and by saying and doing nothing before the 1996 elections that could seriously upset any significant Israeli constituency.

With the peace process stalled near collapse and the Labor Party trailing disastrously in the polls, the bankruptcy of this strategy is clear.

Personal and partisan political calculations demand that the Israeli government start "permanent status" negotiations with the Palestinians as soon as possible to reach a permanent status agreement before the 1996 elections, thus making those elections a choice between peace and renewed confrontation.

If Mr. Rabin offered his people peace and they accepted, he would be Israel's greatest hero. If he offered them peace and they turned it down, he would at least go down in history as a leader who tried to do the right thing and dared to truly lead.

John V. Whitbeck, Paris, France

Krauthammer is One-Sided

To The Tampa Tribune, Feb. 8, 1995 (as published).

One has come to expect Charles Krauthammer to be an advocate of Israel, but his column (Jan. 29) on the tragic bus bombing that killed 21 Israelis on Jan. 22 was too one-sided to be ignored. His facts are not in dispute. Some Palestinians did praise the suicide bombers and expressed pleasure with the killing of Israeli soldiers. The conclusions he draws from this tragedy, however, are decidedly one-sided.

The vicious circle of suicide attacks since the Oslo Accords began with Baruch Goldstein's massacre of Palestinians at prayer in the Hebron mosque on Feb. 25, 1994. The Israeli government reacted not by actions against the "fanatical" settlers but instead placed the Hebron Palestinian residents under strict curfew, while settlers were free to go about armed and under army escort. In the month following the massacre, more than 40 Palestinians were shot dead by the IDF, 800 were wounded and 600 were arrested.

What also took place was the glorification of Baruch Goldstein by the settlers and other right-wing Israelis. His grave became a pilgrimage site and his murderous deed was praised with terms strikingly similar to those of the Palestinians for the bus bombers.

Haim Baram, writing from Jerusalem in July 1994, stated, with reference to the report of the Shamgar Commission of Inquiry into the Hebron massacre, that its only value may be as propaganda for the "gullible supporters of Israel among the American Jewish community" (Middle East International, July 9, 1994). If the Tribune would substitute some of the excellent Israeli journalists for people such as Krauthammer, the American public would receive a more balanced view of the events in Israel.

Arthur L. Lowrie, Lutz, FL

Pointing Israel Toward Peace

To The New York Times, March 1, 1995 (as published).

"Israeli Leftists Now Feel Frustrated With Rabin" (news article, Feb. 21) is both accurate and concise, attributes not always conspicuous in American reporting about Israel. However, when you define the differences between Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and me as "subtleties," you come close to British understatement.

For the last 40 years or so, there was indeed a fundamental difference between us: Mr. Peres denied the very existence of the Palestinian people and, of course, its right to self-determination, supporting the Hashemite Dynasty as our "neighbors to the east," while my friends and I have believed that there will never be peace unless the Palestinian people are allowed to set up their own free state alongside Israel. We have also advocated the integration of Israel in a greater Middle Eastern (or "Semitic") community. No subtleties here.

To his credit, Mr. Peres has changed his approach and has adopted our way of thinking, thus becoming the architect of the Oslo Agreement. To understand the magnitude of this change, one must know that Mr. Peres was prime minister when the infamous law was enacted making any meeting with Palestine Liberation Organization officials a criminal offense—thus outlawing people like myself, who have conducted such meetings since 1974.

Unfortunately, the differences remain profound. Mr. Peres is foreign minister of a government that has failed to implement major sections of the Oslo Declaration of Principles (redeployment of the army outside the populated areas of the West Bank by July 1994, safe passage between Gaza and Jericho).

It has also declared that it will never ("eternally") agree to any change in the status of enlarged, annexed Jerusalem—contrary to its undertaking in the declaration to negotiate the future status next year.

It also undertook to negotiate the future of the settlements—but in the meantime it continues with massive enlargements of existing ones and creating new ones in and around the Jerusalem area, camouflaged as "enlargements" by "private" capital. Mr. Peres has not protested even one of these confidence-destroying measures, and therefore bears full responsibility for all of them.

My friends and I see this policy as the main (if not only) cause for the derailment of the Oslo process, and therefore decided to set up a new peace movement in order to alert Israeli public opinion to its dangers.

Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc) supports the Oslo agreement, but demands to set out clearly that its aim is the creation of the state of Palestine in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with its capital in East Jerusalem—the city hopefully remaining physically united as the capital of both Israel and Palestine.

We also propose the immediate release of all Palestinian prisoners, the cessation of all settlement activity, the freezing of the Judaization of East Jerusalem and similar confidence-building measures.

To this end, the Gush has conducted dozens of joint demonstrations with Palestinian groups, mainly Fatah, and uses all other political means to push the Rabin government toward a more courageous policy.

Uri Avnery, Tel Aviv, Israel

(The writer is a founding member of Gush Shalom.)

Help Gaza to Support Peace

To The Holland Sentinel, Dec. 27, 1994 (as published).

Our massive national debt restricts the freedom of the United States to promote the general welfare in our country and beyond. The Republicans are advocating a constitutional amendment to require Congress to balance our budget—at some future date.

For the present, however, they do not have the wisdom and courage to substantially reduce aid to an oppressive government in order to help the oppressed people without increasing our deficit.

Even Sen. Jesse Helms lost no time assuring Israel that the new Republican Congress would maintain support for the Jewish state, at least for now. Earlier Rabin said, "At the moment I don't fear any cut in aid."

But for the Palestinians we are very slow in providing aid, with the result that the Gazans are economically worse off than when Clinton benignly looked on as Arafat and Rabin shook hands nearly a year ago.

In 1948, according to Menachem Begin, there was serious danger of civil war in the new Jewish state between his Irgun and the government led by Ben-Gurion. In 1994 U.S. procrastination and Israeli policy is promoting fratricidal strife in Gaza.

We are responsible for the actions of our elected officials. This year Rep. Peter Hoekstra favored giving billions of dollars to Israel; he must realize this increased the U.S. budget deficit and lessened our ability to promote amicable cooperation among Palestinians. Will he do so again in 1995, or will he take a leadership role for us in promoting prosperity and democracy in the West Bank and Gaza and consequent peace for Israel?

According to the December AARP Bulletin, "Senator-elect Spencer Abraham... wants to cap the growth of...Medicare...at '2 percent a year'...." In 1995 will he promote fiscal retrenchment by reducing our borrowing for Israel to promote a Palestinian "Marshall Plan"?

The Palestinians want free, democratic elections to choosetheir own representatives, but with their overriding control the Israelis are refusing. Extremist Jewish Gush Emunim members are not prohibited from election to the Israeli Knesset; but Israel would deny such democratic freedom of choice to the Palestinians when it comes to extremist Hamas members.

In the past both Democrats and Republicans, lacking vision and courage, have allowed the Israeli settlement policy in Gaza to restrict freedom for the Gazans. That policy promotes strife.

This is a new day. It is time again for Peter Hoekstra, for me, and for all other imperfect American Christians to pray again the historic prayer of confession:

"...We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; and we have done those things which we ought not to have done...grant...that we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, to the glory of thy holy name."

Oliver S. Page, Holland, MI

"To Confront Terror"

To The Globe and Mail, Oct. 21, 1994 (as submitted).

Your editorial "To Confront Terror" (Oct. 21) is placing facts on their heads. You speak of the requirement for peace and security for Israelis. How about peace, security and freedom from oppressive occupation for the Palestinians? Israel, not the PLO, can secure peace for Israelis and Palestinians by bringing to an end its illegal occupation of Palestinian land and dismantlement of its illegal settlements on expropriated Arab land, in violation of international law.

You speak of Arafat's conversion from terrorist to statesman, but there is no mention of Rabin, the archetype terrorist and war criminal by all definitions of international law. It was Rabin who ordered the killing, in cold blood, of over 60 Palestinians in the Dahmash mosque in Lydda in July 1948 and the destruction of entire villages in 1967 and, in 1988, the breaking of limbs and killing of stone-throwing Palestinian children, amongst other crimes. On your own pages you report Rabin's orders of imprisonment and torture of suspected terrorists as well as the demolishing of the houses of their families, like that of the family house of Saleh Souwi, suspected of the Tel Aviv bus bombing, which was demolished in Qalqilya. Interestingly, Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Palestinians in the Ibrahami mosque in Hebron, was evidently not a terrorist and his home was not demolished.

You speak of Israelis turning against further concessions to the PLO. The Palestinians are not asking for concessions. All they want is the implementation of international law, restoration of their basic rights, and their inalienable right of self-determination in their own land, free from occupation.

Ismail Zayid, M.D., President, Canada Palestine Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Building on the Dream

To The New York Times, Feb. 6, 1995 (as published).

The declaration by several in the government of Israel that a wall should be built separating the areas occupied by Palestinians from those of Jews is going in the wrong direction. The decent, moderate people on both sides must join to fight extremists and terrorists. Apartheid must end in Israel. Otherwise there will never be peace.

There should be no halt to building new apartment buildings in East Jerusalem. Half the new units should be assigned to Arab occupants. The two peoples are not as different as the peoples in South Africa. They once lived together and they can again, such that the dream of Judah Magnes and Hussein Nashishibi, leaders of the respective delegations at a 1942 Jerusalem conference, may come true.

Richard N. Frye, Cambridge, MA (the writer is emeritus professor of Iranian Studies at Harvard University)

A Letter to Congress

(Full text of a letter sent to each individual member of the 104th Congress by Churches for Middle East Peace, coordinated by Corinne Whitlach, 110 Maryland Ave. NE, Suite 108, Washington, DC 20002, Jan. 3, 1995)

The members of Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), a coalition of the Washington offices of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Episcopal, and historic peace churches, encourage your active support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process which lies at the core of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. We are writing to you now because we believe that process is at risk and there are steps the U.S. Congress can take to help build confidence between Palestinians and Israelis in order to continue making progress toward lasting peace.

There are a number of problems that may undermine the peace process. We would like to draw your attention at this time to two issues with profound implications for negotiations in the months ahead and which are also of urgent concern to the churches: the future of Jerusalem and the protection of human rights.

JERUSALEM: The Declaration of Principles, signed by Israel and the PLO on Sept. 13, 1993, stipulates that the final status of Jerusalem is to be determined by the government of Israel and the representatives of the Palestinian people in the context of the "permanent status negotiations," now scheduled to begin no later than May, 1996. It is critical that the 104th Congress not hinder these negotiations by urging President Clinton to implement a policy that favors Israel's claims to the portion of the city annexed in 1967. Members of Congress can make an important contribution by encouraging the president to keep the question of Jerusalem open for the parties to negotiate and to respect the rights and aspirations of both parties.

Israelis and Palestinians must be encouraged to avoid unilateral actions that would prejudice the permanent status negotiations on Jerusalem. Most importantly, it is crucial that the U.S. government vigorously oppose Israeli building of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements in territory occupied by Israeli forces in 1967. Many observers fear that the settlement activity is an attempt by Israel to pre-empt the negotiations on Jerusalem by creating overwhelming facts on the ground.

The permanent status of Jerusalem, and the process by which it is determined, holds the potential for either promoting reconciliation between Jews, Christians, and Muslims or fostering conflict between them. We urge the U.S. government to advance a vision of Jerusalem, "city of peace," as a symbol of reconciliation for the three faiths and for Palestinians and Israelis.

HUMAN RIGHTS: The protection of human rights is an essential ingredient in the process of peacemaking. We are concerned that human rights abuses, perpetuated both by the Israeli authorities and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), continue and that the U.S. government in its role as a co-sponsor of the peace process is doing little to promote respect for human rights.

In mid-September two of our members, Pastor Mark Brown of the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs and human rights attorney Terence Miller of the Maryknoll Justice and Peace Office, met with leaders of Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations and representatives of international bodies such as the United Nations Secretariat and the International Committee of the Red Cross to assess the human rights situation throughout the occupied territories. The enclosed briefing paper, prepared by Pastor Brown, Mr. Miller and staff of a number of other U.S. religious and human rights organizations, asks that particular attention be focused on the following four areas:

1. Ensuring the creation of democratically accountable forms of government in the Palestinian partial self-rule areas
   
   
2. Providing for the deployment of international human rights monitors throughout the territories to bolster protection for human rights and the rule of law for all
   
   
3. Preventing the institutionalization of a dual and discriminatory justice system as a consequence of continuing military occupation
   
   
4. Calling for an end to illegal Israeli settlement activity.

We want you to know that we share the concerns raised in this briefing paper and ask that you will carefully consider the suggestions for U.S. government action offered in each of the four areas.

We commend Israel and the Palestinian National Authority for their determination to press ahead despite horrendous acts of violence which make the way to peace all the more painful and arduous. We ask that you honor their commitment to the achievement of peace by promoting a U.S. policy which fosters a negotiated solution for Jerusalem and the protection of human rights.

Sincerely,

Robert Z. Alpern, Director, Washington Office, Unitarian Universalist Association

Dale L. Bishop, Middle East Liaison, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA

Fr. Robert J. Brooks, The Presiding Bishop's Director of Government Relations, The Episcopal Church

Mark B. Brown, Assistant Director, Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

J. Daryl Byler, Director, Washington Office, Mennonite Central Committee

Peggy Hutchison, Area Secretary for the Middle East and North Africa, World Division, General Board of Global Ministries, The United Methodist Church

Elenora Giddings Ivory, Director, Washington Office, Presbyterian Church (USA)

The Rev. Ted Keating, Director for Peace and Justice, Roman Catholic Conference of Major Superiors of Men's Institutions

Jay Lintner, Director, Office for Church in Society, United Church of Christ

James Matlack, Director, American Friends Service Committee, Washington Office

Timothy A. McElwee, Director, Church of the Brethren, Washington Office

Terence W. Miller, Director, Maryknoll Justice & Peace Office

Nancy Nye, Legislative Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation

Anna Rhee, Executive Secretary for Public Policy, Women's Division, General Board of Global Ministries, The United Methodist Church

Robin Ringler, Peace with Justice Program, Director, General Board of Church and Society, The United Methodist Church

Robert W. Tiller, Director, Office of Governmental Relations, American Baptist Churches USA

Muslim Terrorists a Minority

To The New York Times, Feb. 25, 1995 (as published).

Re "Islamic Extremists Are Active in U.S.," Steven Emerson's Feb. 18 letter: Even Buck Revell, the former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent he quotes, admits there are no more than "two or three dozen" Islamic extremists in this country who might harbor violent tendencies.

While any violent extremist is dangerous, let's compare extremists.

The F.B.I. reports that extremists from the Jewish Defense League and like-minded groups committed more than a dozen terrorist attacks in this country in the last decade.

Kach and Kahane Chai, two of the Middle East's most ruthless and racist Jewish terrorist groups, have had offices in New York for years and annually send millions of dollars to Jewish militants in the occupied West Bank. While the assets of the groups were recently frozen by executive order, their leaders held a news conference Jan. 24 and bragged that they had been tipped off about the order and will step up activities in the United States.

According to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, there are more than 10,000 members of Christian militias formed in more than 40 states in the last 18 months.

Mr. Emerson continually makes claims that Muslims are a threat to America. The fact that such claims receive extensive coverage underlies the continued biases that exist against Muslims.

In his letter, Mr. Emerson claimed that my organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine, "produces terrorist video recruitment films," an allegation that has no basis in fact.

Mohammed Al-Hassan, Dallas, TX

A Disgraceful Foreign Policy

To The Washington Post, Feb. 25, 1995 (as published).

It is said that any fool can make a mistake, but only a damn fool makes the same mistake twice. An example of this truism can be found in the lead paragraph of two adjoining news stories of the Feb. 15 Post:

"The Clinton administration yesterday...endorsed lifting all economic sanctions against Serbia if it agrees to concessions...

"Serb forces reneged today on a promise to let food reach starving Muslims...."

The phrase "damn fool" might be inadequate to describe the administration position in this situation.

Paul N. Wenger, Bethesda, MD