April/May 1997   pgs. 3, 79-83

Letters to the Editor

Bias in Britain Pales in Comparison to U.S.

I write to express my strong appreciation of your excellent journal. I am a Palestinian who grew up in Britain and experienced there what I believed to have been a strongly pro-Israeli environment—in media reporting, in official attitudes and even amongst the run of ordinary people. At the same time, I was also aware that whatever pro-Zionist bias I had seen in Britain paled by comparison to that prevalent in the U.S. And I thought myself particularly knowledgeable in this respect until I actually visited America.

During 1996, I went to Washington no fewer than five times and met people, heard lectures, and even talked with officials at the U.S. Congress. To my dismay, I found that nothing in my previous experience had prepared me for the frenetic pro-Zionism which seems to saturate America. It was like being strapped into an invisible straitjacket, designed to prevent all action, all comment, all thought even, that can remotely be construed as critical of Israel. The sight of so many Americans fawning mindlessly on Israeli leaders and personalities was most unedifying. And the major casualty of this orgy of blind support for Israel is, of course, the truth.

That is why your publication is so important for all those of us who still want to know the truth. I know that you struggle against uneven odds for exactly the reasons set out above. But I can only urge you to remain undaunted and to continue your courageous and worthwhile work. You need and deserve every support.

Dr. Ghada Karmi, London, England

Middle East Children’s Alliance

It was with great sadness that I learned of the death of Rabbi Elmer Berger. But I was pleased and moved to read the beautiful tributes to him that you published. For me, it has been a long and sometimes lonely journey from Zionism to anti-Zionism. Growing up in a right-wing Zionist home, the common response to everything from “pass the salt” to the support of a presidential candidate was, “Is it good for Israel?” My mother was president of ORT (Organization and Rehabilitation through Training), an American-Jewish organization whose main focus was raising money for Israel. My father raised money and sent guns to Irgun and as a little girl, I raised money to plant trees in Israel.

My unquestioning support for the policies of the state of Israel lasted well into my adulthood, until 1982, when, as president of the Berkeley, CA Board of Education, I was approached by students from UC Berkeley and San Francisco State University to attend a memorial service for the thousands of innocent people murdered at Sabra and Shatila. That service was the beginning of my education about the Palestinian people and Zionism.

In 1988 I helped found the Middle East Children’s Alliance. Since then we have shipped more than $4 million worth of food, medicine, toys, clothing, books and other humanitarian supplies to the children of the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq. We are now in the process of building three large parks for children of all abilities and disabilities, one in Al-Bireh, one in Nablus and one in Gaza.

None of my transformation or work on behalf of the children of Palestine would have happened had I not come to know people like Rabbi Berger and been able to turn to him for advice and support. Elmer Berger made me proud once again to be a Jew.

Barbara Lubin, Executive Director, Middle East Children’s Alliance, 905 Parker St. Berkeley, CA 94710; tel. (510) 548-0542; fax 510 548-0543

Madeleine Albright’s Religion

The Baltimore Sun recently ran a glowing report about Madeleine Albright’s confirmation as secretary of state. The article said she had been a Catholic until she married and then she became an Episcopalian. This seems in conflict with your reports. Is The Baltimore Sun just plain wrong?

“MV2RE,” via Internet

What we said in our January issue, written in mid-December, was that “because the [Korbel] family was Jewish, when Adolf Hitler’s forces occupied Czechoslovakia, the family fled first to Yugoslavia and then to London to escape Nazi persecution.” There’s no conflict there. The Baltimore Sun report just wasn’t quite complete.

Madeleine Albright’s Lineage

In your Jan./Feb. 1997 WRMEA starting on page 6 you very clearly say of Albright’s lineage, “because the family was Jewish…” But on the six o’clock news on Feb. 9 we saw Ms. Albright exclaiming that she was surprised to learn she was Jewish. Is this just another one of Clinton’s shell games? How come you knew but he and she didn’t? Keep up the great work. Incidentally, I subscribe to seven journals, and yours is by far the most beautiful in appearance.

John E. MacDonald, Jr., via America Online

Thanks. Let’s hope in our case beauty is more than skin deep. In answer to your question, you weren’t the first to ask. Nor was Washington Post State Department correspondent Thomas Lippman, colleague of Post State Department correspondent Michael Dobbs, who “broke” the story to Madeleine Albright. Lippman asked us in a phone call during the first week of January (we remember because we had to return the call from California) whether we had picked up the information from the Arab press or whether the Arab press had picked it up from us. We know we didn’t pick it up from the Arab press, but in fact our executive editor did have a bylined article in the Dec. 20, 1996 Arab News of Jeddah which was essentially a slightly expanded version of the article on p. 6 of our January issue.

How come we knew if she didn’t? All we can say is that we have been aware of it for some years. We have asked representatives of Middle East countries at the U.N. if they thought Madeleine Albright’s ethnicity was motivating her zeal in carrying out what seemed to us to be an excessively, even arrogantly, pro-Israel policy. No one ever questioned the premise of our question. In fact we recall vividly the response of an Eastern European ambassador to the U.N. who said that in his opinion her ethnicity and her childhood experiences probably were an asset on the Bosnia question. “On that subject she’s great,” he said, speculating that she probably was working hard to bring the rest of the administration around to the idea that the U.S. must intervene if the killing was to be stopped and Bosnia was to be saved. This, of course, subsequently was confirmed in Gen. Colin Powell’s book. As for the details of her family’s history quoted in our article, we’re indebted to the Israeli press and also to the U.S. Jewish weekly press, which covered much of it well before The Washington Post got involved. Since our executive editor reads two U.S. Jewish weeklies carefully, and two others occasionally, he’s hesitant to apportion credit more specifically, except to say that he’s never read anything in any of those publications not consistent with the scenario that Albright had Czech Jewish roots, but that neither she nor her parents had been practicing Jews in her lifetime. As for when she “learned” about those roots, the mainstream press has mentioned that she alerted the White House to the “possibility” of Jewish ancestry when she was being considered for a Clinton administration appointment (presumably the 1996 and not the 1992 appointment) and that she also had warned her U.N press spokesman, James Rubin, to be “less categorical” in denying those Jewish roots. In characteristic fashion, the mainstream press didn’t say when the warning took place.

The moral of all this is that now that the story is out, Madeleine Albright is going to have even smoother sailing with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms than did her predecessor Warren Christopher. Since Helms’ near-death experience at the hands of AIPAC in the 1984 Senate election (AIPAC poured so much money into the campaign coffers of Helms’ rival, North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt, that it became the most expensive Senate race in U.S. history up to that time), Jesse Helms has gone out of his way not to aggravate anyone identified with Israel, nor even anyone “Jewish.” So look for much Southern gallantry on the part of normally ungallant Helms whenever Secretary Albright comes to testify before his committee. Helms, however, probably will continue to stiffarm the U.N., even if Albright asks the U.S. to pay its dues, while he continues to give the Israelis everything they ask for plus a little bit more.

An Evil Harbinger

The mendacity and deceit of Madeleine Korbel Albright seems to have no limit. Another deceptive story on her background appeared in the Feb. 4 Orange County Register, attached.

A month or two ago, there was a similar story, whose origin was the U.S. government. You, of course, covered her biography in the Jan./Feb. issue, in your special report on the new Clinton foreign affairs team. It is the only true report I have read.

The deceit and lies of the Clinton administration just in the past weeks are an evil harbinger of what is to come. We can expect more of the same dishonesty, while truth, reality and the downward slide of our country is papered over by the plotters, secret societies, special interests and fanatics who seem to control the U.S.A. What we have is the decline of empire, the subversion of the common interest, and the disregard of all morality in government, to the extent that lies and crimes can be hidden and the citizenry can be disregarded, with impunity.

The courage, hope and fighting determination of the Washington Report, and so many other good men and women, are an inspiration to the rest of us. You, and they, are an island of virtue and rectitude, a preserve of scholarship and history, a light and true voice in the dismal swamp of American politics.

Patrick F. Flynn, Yorba Linda, CA

The article from the Feb. 4 Orange County Register enclosed with your letter reported that “Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Monday [Feb. 3] that she has received information that two grandparents may have been Jewish and may have perished in the Auschwitz concentration camp.” Discussing her background with the Associated Press, Albright said, “This obviously was a major surprise to me. I had never been told this.” Since then the mainstream press has “discovered” that all four of her grandparents were Jewish and that three died in Nazi concentration camps. (Her maternal grandfather had died before the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia.)

Hyphenated Cabinet Members

The article that covered Clinton’s new cabinet in the January issue really infuriated me. I find it inconceivable that practicing Jews or people of Jewish descent, who comprise roughly 2 percent of America’s population, have the top positions in the State Department, Pentagon and National Security Council, in addition to all or virtually all of the positions directing the Mideast peace negotiations. I, along with most Americans, would have never guessed that Madeleine Albright was of Jewish descent had it not been for the WRMEA exposé. Furthermore, it is disgusting to observe the mass media double standard of pointing out African-American, Arab-American, Hispanic-American, and Asian-American cabinet members, but ignoring ethnic or religious identification when it comes to Jewish appointees. No news network mentioned Albright, Cohen, Berger or Ross as being Jewish or of Jewish origin.

I truly believe that most Americans eventually will realize what is happening in regard to the formulation of U.S. foreign policy. Toward this end, WRMEA is serving America’s vital interests and performing divine deeds. God bless the WRMEA and its devoted staff, for your publication is truly a shining star in a dark and sometimes lonely abyss.

Aed M. Dudar, Royal Oak, MI

Of course since you wrote your letter on Jan. 7, Ms. Albright’s ethnic heritage has received quite a bit of mainstream coverage, primarily because of normal human curiosity as to why she chose to ignore correspondence from people who knew her parents in Czechoslovakia, and even ignore the first cousin orphaned in the Holocaust who was adopted by Ms. Albright’s parents and who had lived with them, and Madeleine, in their home in London. Ms. Albright’s motives, of course, are personal and we’ll close out the matter in this issue.

This also is a good place to respond to one subscriber who telephoned to make two points. One is that, in her opinion, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk has become a force for moderation in the Middle East peace talks, being somewhat less inclined to take the guff being handed out by the Netanyahu government to him and his U.S. diplomatic colleagues when they urge Israel to be more forthcoming. We hope she’s right, but The Washington Post reported just the opposite on Feb. 24 in an article on Indyk, Dennis Ross, and Aaron Miller. Her second point is that we gave the impression that having an all-Jewish Middle East policy team is bad per se, and that we didn’t make sufficient allowances for the possibility that some members of that team won’t be afraid to stand up to the Israelis. So let us spell out our position a little more clearly. Our concern is based on the peculiarity of having everyone in charge of U.S. Middle East policy of Jewish religion or ethnicity.

If everyone involved with U.S. South African policy had been white, or black, members of the other complexion would have been justified in asking, “What are they hiding?” But of course it would never have been allowed to happen.

If everyone concerned with making U.S. Far Eastern policy were of purely Chinese, or Japanese or Philippine extraction, suspicions would arise, so it will never happen. If everyone concerned with U.S. Middle East policy were Muslim, the screams of outrage would break every chandelier in the glittering salons of Washington. It will never happen.

But when everyone concerned with policymaking regarding Israel and its neighbors is Jewish or of Jewish background, the media, with the exception of this magazine, is silent, or even applauds as did TheWashington Post. Why? There are more Muslims than Jews in America. And probably more than 90 percent of Americans are of Christian background, whether or not they practice Christianity. So is this Middle East policymaking monopoly necessary? And how is it possible that no daily newspaper or network has seen fit to question its wisdom?

Every Washington Report reader knows the answer: fear. And every reader knows that such fear inevitably will culminate in anger—great anger. As Thomas Jefferson said, in the context of slavery, “If there is a just God, I fear for the future of my country.” In the context of unjust U.S. Middle East policy, we quake with fear for America.

A Crime of Special Magnitude

It seems to me that one of the clearest—and most indefensible—examples of pro-Zionist bias is the almost total indifference, amounting to condonation, about the facts of the assassination in Jerusalem of the U.N.’s mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, in 1948. Even when it became evident that a subsequent Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, was not only implicated but actually instigated it, and evidence was disclosed suggesting that David Ben-Gurion was at the very least an accessory after the fact, neither the media nor, to my knowledge, our government, made efforts to pursue the matter.

I think that the cold-blooded killing of a person sent by the world community to bring an end to a major outbreak of violence, an assassination clearly intended to prevent or delay the making of peace, is a crime of special magnitude—a “war crime” or something tantamount to it—and that the United States as a civilized nation has some obligations to expose and/or take action against the perpetrators.

I have considered writing a letter to the secretary of state, her legal adviser, or the U.N. asking what they believe to be appropriate action to identify the persons responsible and appropriate sanctions against them. It occurred to me that at some time in the past our government must have been compelled to take some public positions, however muted, on this subject and that I would be more likely to elicit a useful response if I knew what they were before drafting a letter. Can anyone at your publication be of assistance?

John W. Poole, Washington, DC

Sometimes the way for us to get the best answer is to publish the question and then see what our readers can tell us. Responses to this one are welcome.

When Will Palestinians Be Free?

A friend gave me a subscription to the WRMEA for Christmas. I was pleased by what I was able to read in its pages. By “pleased” I mean, of course, that I was impressed by its objective reporting and insightful articles.

What was less pleasing was to read (yet again) of the ongoing tragedy of the dispossessed Palestinian people. As Bob Dylan asked, “How many years can some people exist before they’re allowed to be free?”

Orest Slepokura, Strathmore, AB, Canada

The Palestinians have demonstrated that they could deal with their Zionist persecutors on an equal basis if someone would just convince the well-meaning but ignorant giant, Uncle Sam, to butt out because he’s enabling the claim jumpers, human rights violators and ethnic cleansers to get away with the theft of a nationor maybe two of them. That’s our job and we think we’ve made some progress over the past year, and know we’ve come a very long way over the past 15 years. The Palestinians are doing their job over there. Now let’s get serious over here.

Kudos for Your Attention to Iraq

In renewing my subscription, I have some comments which might help your great publication and help to end the conflict in the Mideast.

In the past you had apparently tried to present a balance between Israeli and Muslim views, which did put things in perspective, but you seemed to have too many writers and articles sympathetic to Israel for a magazine which was attempting to bring peace, justice and prosperity to the Mideast. Let’s face it: there can be no peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians have their totally free state and the U.S. stops interfering with Iraq and Iran and others because they oppose Israel.

More recently, we seemed to detect a more pro-Palestinian and pro-Muslim trend, which is good. Israel has few detractors in the media and in our government who speak openly or get published. As a consequence, the truth about Israeli atrocities and her illegal occupation is not known by most Americans since only the opinions of Israelis and their American Jewish supporters are published. All Muslims have been defamed into being thugs and terrorists by the media and Hollywood. And since it is not politically correct to criticize Israel, those who do are called Nazis or “anti-Semites.”

This latest Jan./Feb. issue particularly pleased me because it included sympathetic writing concerning Iraq and the starvation of the people as a result of the embargoes.

John W. Willmott, West Palm Beach, FL

Israel-Bashing Gets Boring

The Washington Report provides me with a wealth of information I couldn’t get elsewhere. I like the variety and the lively, up-to-date reporting style. But I do get a little tired of the constant Israel bashing simply because it is boring after a while and mitigates the authority and value of objective reporting. I would very much like to see regular reporting on EU and member state policies and practices on the Middle East in general and the peace process in particular.

Don’t get me wrong, I thank God for the WRMEA. Keep up the good work.

Robert Olson, Hayward, WI

Israel’s Gift to Rwandan Refugees

A December 1996 issue of The Jerusalem Report featured a photo and accompanying article about Israel’s recent gift of humanitarian aid to Rwandan refugees. This really tugged at the old heartstrings, and made me wonder why they don’t dole out some of that famous Israeli compassion to the million or so Palestinians living under their own noses. Then, of course, I remembered why: they’re just a bunch of Arabs and they deserve to be miserable!

Enclosed you will find a few letters I’ve sent to the Dallas Morning News, none of which have been published. (Though, curiously, one in which I condemned Louis Farrakhan for cavorting with Qaddafi was published.) Note that a couple of them are in response to letters from one Kenneth C.W. Leiter, a local apologist for Israel. Unfortunately, I’ve not saved his letters to submit to WRMEA as well, given the fact that I can only look at the *&%#@*& things long enough to refute them, one by one.

Thankfully, we have the Washington Report to give us honest insight into the Middle East, as well as providing those of us on “the other side” a forum in which to vent our spleen regarding our government’s dalliance with Israel.

Ray A. Rafidi, Richardson, TX

You’ll find one of your letters in this issue’s “Other People’s Mail” starting on page 99and we’ll use another next month.

Keep My Months Happy!

Nothing, nothing makes me happier than to receive a bright, shining Washington Report periodically. Keep my months happy! Keep publishing! More dollars later.

Mitchell Kaidy, Rochester, NY

The Suit Against AIPAC

To “The Surviving Six”:

My humble thanks to your persistence. The text of “We Won” on p. 19 of your January issue is properly the voice of America which would join you loudly and clearly if it knew the facts as you present them.

I apologize for not being on your ’96 choir of angels. I tried. I offered to the Boyce campus library of Allegheny County Community College a three-year subscription to your magazine plus the balance in books. I made the offer a month ago and never received a reply.

I do believe your magazine is displayed and appreciated by the Murrysville, PA library, as they accepted my donation for a three-year subscription in 1995. Your resolve is both courageous and right.

Bill Lord, Pittsburgh, PA

We expect the president of Allegany County Community College will be surprised to learn that his library has not responded to an offer of a donation of $100 in books and magazines. Maybe you should make a point of writing him or her to be sure it isn’t the personal decision of a biased individual.

More About the Suit and AIPAC

Congratulations on your success in the D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals. You are really attacking the problem at its roots. I am enclosing a check to be used in whatever way will further it along.

I would be interested to know more about the money that is being furnished by a certain American Zionist to Israel to expand the settlements. Is this money a gift or a loan, and if a loan, is it secured by the U.S. Loan Guarantees agreement? If it is a gift, is he claiming it as an income tax deduction? I am sure this has been covered somewhere, but I have missed it.

After 30 years of anxiety, anger and frustration over the troubles generated by the State of Israel, I have come to believe that the dissemination of true information is the most productive. You are wonderful people to act on your convictions.

Marietta H. Sharp, Doylestown, PA

Your donation and all the others sent to the Campaign for a Sound American Foreign Policy, almost $5,000 to date, were used by one of the law firms involved to pay the costs of publicizing the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 8-to-2 decision ordering the Federal Election Commission to enforce its own rules against AIPAC. None of the donations, which are not tax-exempt, stayed with us. However, we will include names of all the donors of $100 or more in our 1997 Choir of Angels because we’re all working together for a return to the rule of law in the U.S., which has strayed so precariously off the straight and narrow path.

Their Freedom Song

I suggest to the Palestinians that their songwriters compose a catchy tune that would be their Freedom Song. Freedom to travel, freedom to work, freedom for refugees and complete economic freedom independent of Israeli domination. A song that all would be singing would unify their nation.

About four weeks ago on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” they told of an American Jew donating to a Jewish charity whose sole purpose was to buy up Palestinian land for the purpose of gaining control of East Jerusalem. They closed the segment with, “The matter is now in the hands of the IRS.” Any pressure to bring this man to justice should be applied.

Keep up the excellent work!

William B. Palmer, Hydesville, CA

The reference was to Irving Moscowitz, who runs a bingo parlor in a tiny incorporated area within Los Angeles County called Hawaiian Gardens. Under the law bingo profits must be donated to charities. Among the charitable operations to which Moscowitz donates his bingo profits is Ateret Cohanim. It is supposed to use the money to promote Jewish education, but instead uses the money to buy up property in traditional Muslim or Christian areas of East Jerusalem which it in turn sells or leases to Israeli Jewish organizations or individuals to facilitate the Jewish takeover of Christian and Muslim portions of the city. Moskowitz also funded the September opening of the Hasmonean tunnel to connect the Western Wall to Muslim and Christian portions of the Old City in East Jerusalem. By laundering bingo funds through tax-exempt groups to be used in Israel for purposes that obviously are not charitable, it seems to us Moscoswitz is breaking the law. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the IRS to slap the kind of huge fine on him that you, we or even Newt Gingrich would pay. It seems that even the dread IRS is afraid of the Anti- Defamation League. We’ve written about the subject in our July 1996 (page 63) and subsequent issues. The Los Angeles Times first reported the story in May 1996. Obviously the earlier coverage inspired the “60 Minutes” segment.

Thanks for Your Information

Thanks a whole lot for the information that you gave concerning President Yasser Arafat. Again, WRMEA has proved to be a useful resource.

Nijad Mehanna, via Internet

We kind of like to think we’re “still an outstandingly useful resource” or “always an incredibly useful resource” instead of merely “again a useful resource.” Perhaps you’re just naturally inclined toward understatement, just as we’re naturally inclined toward modesty and humility.

Covering Philadelphia

I wish I could convey within this short letter the sincere appreciation I have for this publication and its wonderful contributors. I first discovered you while a student, majoring in Middle Eastern studies, at the American University in Washington, DC. However, as you validate each month, it is far easier for an Israeli to receive American aid than it is for an American student. As a result, I took a leave of absence from my schooling in order to return home to save for completion.

Returning to my home area was a shock. How often I have defended and explained the causes and rights of the Palestinian and other Middle Eastern people. As I realized the ignorance and apathy so evident in our society, I immediately subscribed to your publication. I credit you for keeping me aware and educated, as well as driven. Each month, I am reminded of why my passion for Middle Eastern affairs is so strong and I look forward to completing my degree in order to work in this field. And please, should any local conferences need to be covered, contact me. It is very difficult to find any in the Philadelphia area, and I would love to contribute, in any way, to your publication.

Jennifer Riley, Conshohocken, PA

You’re on our list to cover Philadelphia. Now, Philadelphians, tell us what you’re doing so we can tell the world.

The Nudge Needed to Enter the Fray

I recognize the enclosed article (published in the local Catholic Diocese newspaper) is best suited to pre-Christmas publication. However, I share it for your consideration in suggesting further avenues for impacting American audiences on behalf of Palestinians.

I would also be interested in covering conferences in the Midwest area of the U.S. Assisting local groups planning Holy Land tours is another area I am considering. Are information packets available for such efforts?

Needless to say, the arrival of each issue of WRMEA provides the needed nudge to get into the fray. Your excellent publication is surely appreciated.

Rita McGaughey, La Crosse, WI

We’ve put your article on “The Bethlehem I Knew” into a file for possible pre-Christmas use in 1997. Meanwhile, as one who arrived in the Holy Land emotionally “tied to the suffering of the Jews,” stayed there for six years, and now obviously is tied to the suffering of the Palestinians (all revealed in your article), we suggest you write us a more detailed account of the personal experiences that contributed to your present frame of mind. It’s too late for inclusion in the compilation of 70 such articles we’re bringing out this spring as a book, Seeing the Light: Personal Encounters With the Middle East and Islam, but we intend to continue printing new “Seeing the Light” articles as we receive them for as long as we continue this magazine.

A Pianissimo Chord

Although for seven years we and a few loyal friends have struggled hard to help get you as well as CNI and ADC established in San Antonio, age, rejection, lack of management skills and low income have cut us down to a pianissimo chord in your choir. This $100 donation is our biggest single input in several years. We can’t afford it but we surely can’t afford to have you close up shop.

You owe this one to newspaper columnist Maury Maverick, Binyamin Netanyahu and an unidentified person at Channel 4 News in San Antonio. To Netanyahu—you know why. To Maury for stirring you up enough to make me vividly aware of how desperate you are for immediate help. To the man at TV 4 for jolting me into calling the station and them hanging up on me. As I came in from the garage, I heard a voice naming Netanyahu and Arafat and then referring to “the recent troubles in Israel’s West Bank and Gaza.” I called and asked who had said that. A new voice came on asking what I wanted. I wanted to know where they got the idea that the West Bank and Gaza are Israeli territory. “Well,” he assured me, “they are. That’s what they’re fighting about now.” Said I, “Sure they’re fighting but no authority has ever identified those as Israeli terri…” CLICK! and thus did all the inhabitants of the territories gain instant Israeli citizenship with full and equal rights—to some credulous and inattentive San Antonians.

I’m not recommending any new subscribers right now because as far as I know all San Antonio Public Library branches, all who read Maury’s columns without muttering a cantankerous oath to get that “g.d.s.o.b.,” and every person of good will and adequate income that I’ve ever met in South Texas already subscribes to the Washington Report. Best wishes!

Bill Rogers, San Antonio, TX

When we put all those chords together, as we did in our roll call of the 1996 Angels’ Choir (see March 1997 issue),they sang a very sweet song called “deliverance.” We were dead in the water last November, without the wherewithal to print another issue. Now we’re printing again, but worrying already about getting even half-way through 1997. It would help immensely if those who plan to give again this year wouldn’t all wait until the end of the year. If they do, we can’t get from here to there. When our paid circulation finally hits 60,000, we may no longer need to go begging. But in the meantime we need all the help our readers can provide to get there.

Your Daring Reporting

I have just mailed you a check, together with a book certificate which I did not use, as my contributions toward your financial crisis. My wife and I place great value on the Washington Report as it is the only publication in the U.S.A. which dares report, analyze and evaluate news and events in the Middle East with a considerable measure of truth and objectivity. It would truly be a sad day if this publication were forced out of business because of financial difficulties. It is beyond our conception that interested sources which have the funds would suspend or reduce their contributions.

Shukri Salameh, New York, NY and Jacksonville, FL

But they did. And though we’ve considerably reduced expenses, we’re still in considerable, life-threatening trouble.

Forty Million Christians Support Israel

I am sick with cancer and disabled and can’t even afford a typewriter ribbon. But in May of 1996 I had a good letter printed in the Catholic Times Review newspaper of De Pere, Wisconsin explaining why the U.S. government was to blame for Israel bombing children in Lebanon, and asking why churches here don’t help to stop this.

I’ve read the Washington Report magazine and I’ve read Paul Findley’s books. He wrote me and said the problem is that 40 million Christians support Israel and give billions to Israel every year. Why haven’t you appeared in Christian churches to explain to church members the racist crimes and the murder of children underwritten by them, as U.S. taxpayers?

Gary Stone, Nelsonville, WI

We have and we’re willing to do more. Unfortunately we can only speak to groups which invite us, and there still are a lot of Christian clergy who put personal timidity first and Christianity second—setting a most un-Christ-like example.

Where Is Church Leadership?

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee on Jan. 31 sent an America Online message regarding the National Council of Churches of Christ. I couldn’t believe the namby-pamby attitude of what is supposed to be “leadership” of the NCCC.

I am enclosing a copy of my letter to Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, general secretary of the Council, expressing my opinion. Is not this a significant development which should be covered by the Washington Report , in depth?

John O’Connor, Seattle, WA

Since you wrote your letter you will have received the March issue of the Washington Report which did cover the story (pages 43-45). We’re printing a slightly abridged copy of your letter to Reverend Campbell in “Other People’s Mail,” starting on page 99of this issue. In fairness to Reverend Campbell, The Washington Post version of the report completely misrepresented the NCCC position with a misleading headline. As we reported in our March issue, any revising of NCCC policy will not be to appease pro-Israel Jewish organizations, but to reflect more accurately current Christian thinking, or so we were informed by David Weaver, director of the NCCC’s Middle East office.

Gullible About Iran?

I am writing to you regarding your special report on “Iran’s New Revolutionaries,” which appeared in your January 1997 issue.

Your executive editor, Richard Curtiss, was very impressed by the dedication of the Mojahedin-e Khalq to their cause, but he failed to mention their dedication to terrorism. This organization, “People’s Mojahedin” in English, has been responsible for many acts of terrorism during the past few decades that have hurt the civilian population of Iran so much that the Mojahedin are no longer considered a viable opposition inside Iran. I cannot imagine how they plan to rule over a population that considers them to have been terrorists and mercenaries of Saddam Hussain during the eight-year war. Several years ago, the Mojahedin were handing out pamphlets in the streets of New York City in which they claimed they were fighting for a just, Islamic society. How do they plan to have a just Islamic society, when they have elected the next president without the participation of the Iranian people? How do they plan to grant freedom to members of all political parties and people of all religions, when some of the parties and religious groups in Iran will be anathema to an Islamic state of any kind? Perhaps Mr. Curtiss would like to follow up on his piece with less of an absolute admirer’s and more of an objective reporter’s point of view for the next issue.

Fardad Firouznia, via Internet

Not Amused By Your Article

I am a regular reader of your magazine, but I was not amused by your article on page 54 in the January 1997 issue. After all, your publication is a fairly good one in dealing with the Israeli influence machine. Now I should say that in this article your executive editor turned out to be the most naive, immature fool in Washington. I just wonder what is different between you and Kenneth Timmerman?

Anyway, I would like to mention a few big errors you made in that article:

1. Ayatollah Khomeini did not die in 1986.

2. Massoud Rajavi’s people are more brutal and cowardly than the Serbs. One example was killing our neighborhood grocer in Iran 15 years ago in front of his kids just because he had pictures of some Ayatollahs in his windows.

3. After Rajavi arrived in Paris, he first married Abol Hassan Bani Sadr’s daughter. Then, after divorcing her, he made one of his followers divorce his wife and then Massoud Rajavi married her. She is Mrs. Miryam Rajavi now.

4. I just returned from Iran and you have your facts wrong. People in Iran would prefer to listen to any other radio than Rajavi’s. Second, people know anybody has a better chance than the Mojahedin-e Khalq.

5. I wonder, have you asked them what is Rajavi doing with Saddam? Aren’t they alike?

6. And last, what is the story behind torturing their own people, who don’t want to stay in Iraq?

I have to be honest with you, your whole credibility is in question now. I wish you well.

Anonymous, Washington, DC

Your Double Standard Concerning Iran

It was wonderful meeting your executive editor and his wife at the recent Islamic (MAYA) convention in Los Angeles. I enjoy reading WRMEA because it is informative and educational. It usually represents opinions that are not commonly found in Western media—except when it comes to Iran. For instance, in your special report, “Iran’s New Revolutionaries Watch, Wait and Work” (Jan./Feb. 1997) you describe the actions of a very small group who are known as Islamic Marxist. For a detailed account of their history and actions, see The Wall Street Journal’s (Oct. 4, 1994) front page article, “Fading Force Anti-Iran Guerrillas Lose Disciples but Gain Friends in Washington.”

Why not support the Islamic Republic of Iran since it is an elected government supported by the majority of Iranians who are Muslims and moderate? Why is there a double standard when it comes to Iran? If Islam is good for the rest of the Muslim world, why not for Iran? January marked the 18th year following the Islamic revolution in Iran. Despite massive obstacles thrown in its path such as eight years of war against it, economic sanctions, and the Mujahedin-e Khalq (the group you discussed in your recent article), Iran endures and has prospered. Isn’t this the story worth telling, even at the cost of being unpopular with groups supported by Zionists?

Name Withheld, New Mexico

We hope you’re not implying that we’re worried about offending Zionists, since we’ve been there, done that, for the past 15 years. In fact, we don’t take sides regarding Iran. We’ve covered activities of the People’s Mojahedin because that’s what we do—cover people and events important to U.S. relations with the Middle East. We’ve covered other opposition leaders in the past and will again if we ever find one, meaning another opposition leader who has real live followers. By contrast, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran and the associated National Council of Resistance of Iran have offices in Washington, DC, answer their telephones night and day, seven days a week, and turn out demonstrations of hundreds here in Washington and of thousands in Western Europe.

We’ve also printed articles by supporters of the Iranian government. Witness our 22-page special supplement on Iran in our April 1996 issue. We’ll let the Mojahedin defend themselves against your description of them as Islamic-Marxists. We’re under the impression that the Marxist stuff fell by the wayside a long time ago, if it was ever really there. They say they are for freedom of religion and free multi-party elections, which seems pretty appealing to Americans.

That brings us to a pretty serious quibble with your statement that “the Islamic Republic of Iran is an elected government supported by the majority of Iranians who are Muslims and moderate.” It’s our understanding that you run for election in Iran if the government permits you to run, and if it doesn’t, you don’t. So how can anyone really tell whether a majority of Iranians support a government that doesn’t have free, multi-party elections? We suspect that if the government really felt sure it was supported by a majority, it wouldn’t have to put restrictions on who can run. Anyway, our pages are open to differing points of view on Iran, as our publication of these letters should make clear. As for us, our writers can only report personally on things they see or experience personally.

Saudi Arabia’s Rush to Modernization

A minor point of clarification: while it may seem like the Saudis “[have] for centuries hosted…the world’s largest annual pilgrimage,” in fact it has been less than a century in total, including two separate al-Sa’ud regimes. The first Saudi control over the Holy Cities of Makkah and Madinah (al-Haramain) was brief. Sa’ud ibn Abd al-Aziz Al-Sa’ud (d. 1814), controlled al-Haramain from approximately 1803 until 1814, when the Wahhabis were routed from the area by Turkish forces under Muhammad Ali of Egypt. Not until this century did the Holy Cities come once again under Al-Sa’ud control, when the forces of Abdul Aziz ibn Abd Ar-Rahman Al-Sa’ud (d. 1953), the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, retook the cities from the Hashemites in October 1924. Al-Haramain and Islam’s annual pilgrimage (al-hajj) have remained under Saudi control ever since. In fact, it was the Hashemites, routed by Abdul Aziz from the Hijaz, descended from the Prophet Muhammad through his grandson Hassan and whose family—under one branch or another—had ruled al-Haramain since the beginning of the 13th century, who “for centuries…hosted the world’s largest annual pilgrimage, not the Sa’udis.

Michael D. Berdine, Tucson, AZ

We’ll award you the decision on a technical knockout. But we’re darned if we’re going to start calling all the people who live in the Kingdom “the Arabians,” when we refer to them collectively, or the people who live in the western part of the Kingdom, including Mecca and Medina “the Hejazis,” when referring to them specifically, instead of referring to them all collectively as “the Saudis,” as does most everyone else.

Things That Need to be Said

I just decided to send you a copy of a letter I wrote to Warren Christopher last Dec. 3, 1996. After rereading it, I feel it says some things that need to be said.

I don’t know if you are interested in it but sometimes I labor over my writing and want to feel my time is not wasted.

Florence Richards, Whittier, CA

Your letter is reprinted in “Other People’s Mail,” starting on page 99 in this issue. Your time is not wasted if government officials read such letters. And that’s more likely to happen if others read your eloquent plea, as a conscientious American, and then base their own letters to officials, members of Congress and editors on the same logic. We’re absolutely convinced that a clear majority of informed Americans agree with what you are saying. The job now is to convince elected officials that they have more to fear from indignant constituents than they do from AIPAC, and to convince editors that they have more to fear from outraged subscribers than from blackmailing advertisers. Now that we finally have public opinion on our side, let’s all start making ourselves effective, as you’ve been doing for almost as long as this magazine has been in existence.

Here’s Looking at You, Kids

May 1997 be an excellent year for our beloved magazine, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, for Palestine, south Lebanon and the Golan Heights, and above all to you all—my heroes. Gratefully and very sincerely yours,

Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL