Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 1998, Pages 59-62

Other People’s Mail

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

Christian Voices

To The Baltimore Sunday Sun, Aug. 5, 1997 (as submitted).

I was deeply disturbed by your article “Israeli settlers find staunch friends in Christians” in the July 27 Baltimore Sunday Sun. In all that long article, where were the voices of such well-known Palestinian Christians as Roman Catholic priest Elias Chacour, Episcopalian priest Naim Ateek, or Roman Patriarch Michel Sabbah? Where were the interviews even with “ordinary” Palestinian Christians, struggling to live out their faith under the unimaginably cruel conditions of Israeli military occupation?

I think I know. If you had included them, your readers would have learned how it is legal in Israel to torture Christians, but not Jews. They would have heard from Catholic clergy (as I did) how it is often forbidden for them to visit their parishioners in Israeli jails. They would have been moved to tears (as I was) to hear of a Christian father struggling to teach his son to forgive the Israeli settler who had just beaten him with the butt of a rifle and threatened to kill him the next time he saw him. They would have heard from the clergy and prelates the commonly shared belief that, within a generation, there will be no more indigenous Christians in the birthplace of Christianity.

I try to imagine why those Christians you cited support this unremitting persecution of their own. Perhaps they think that if a person is not white they simply can’t be a Christian. Perhaps they have fallen victim to the cynical manipulation (Israelis call them “American soap”) of “biblical prophecy” of the “last days.” If so, they have read wrong. Knowing the death they are inflicting on their sister and brother Palestinian Christians, it is they themselves who are fulfilling the prophecy about the “last days” uttered long ago by the Palestinian Christian in whom they profess to believe: “Brother shall betray brother, even to death” (Matthew 13), “and the day will come when those who kill you will think they are doing God a favor” (John 16).

(Rev.) G. Simon Harak, S.J., Fairfield, Connecticut

In Control

To the Orlando Times, Feb. 26, 1998 (as published).

Charley Reese’s Feb. 8 column was an absolute gem. The ubiquitous Israeli political action committees have controlled our Congress and the White House for a very long time. Small wonder Israel can ignore the 69 United Nations resolutions against it while Iraq is going to be bombed because it will not fully comply with one resolution. Iraq has no PACs to control our elected officials is the obvious reason.

Even if Iraq does possess the weapons in question, it lacks the means to deliver them. Israel has all of these weapons plus nuclear capability, thanks to the 80-plus billion dollars in our taxes Israel has received since 1948. Israel can hit any target it wishes with ease by means of the most modern delivery systems. Am I the only one besides Reese to see the gross unfairness in this matter?

Ted Byrd, Merritt Island, Florida

(Washington Report editor’s note: The classic Charley Reese column to which the writers (above and below) refer is reprinted on the first page of this issue’s Other Voices, a supplement to the Washington Report, for which subscription information is printed on p. 5 of this issue.)

On the Side of Justice

To the Orlando Times, Feb. 26, 1998 (as published).

Thank you, Charley Reese, for pointing out some hard facts in your column about the Middle East. The state of Israel, by being in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions, by executing unarmed prisoners of war, by illegally confiscating lands and properties, is against every principle that the United States stands for.

It is not in the best interests of this country to support such an unjust state. The interests of the United States can be served only by being on the side of justice for all people in the Middle East, including the 762,000 Palestinian refugees chased away from their homes to make room for the state of Israel.

Ben M. Amer, Sanford, Florida.

Iraq No Threat to U.S. Interests

To Senator Ron Wyden, Feb. 17, 1998.

I ask you to strongly oppose a new war against Iraq and to support lifting of economic sanctions.

The pretended search for Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction” appears to me to be a technique to allow the United States to continue sanctions which primarily impact the civilian population, particularly the more helpless and dependent elements, such as small children and the elderly. I am sure you are familiar with conditions in Iraq, and with Ramsey Clark’s book, The Fire This Time.

The language of U.S. demands, and the constant reference to “Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction,” are so vague as to be absurd, since biological agents lethal enough to kill thousands could be stored in a wine bottle. As you must be well aware, there would be no end to such a search, were it meant to be real. It is a sham.

There is a cynicism and dishonesty in this deadly posturing that frightens me. We all know that our closest ally in the region, Israel, has the largest arsenal of “weapons of mass destruction” in the Middle East.

The arrogant hypocrisy and hubris of our policy is breathtaking. It is this kind of deliberate, murderous duplicity, cloaked in pious generalizations and platitudes, which predicts the moral ruin of our nation.

I was in the Middle East, working in Dhahran, during the first Gulf war. I was there when the first troops landed in August 1990. As a former Army officer, it is with some experience that I say the units that landed during Desert Shield were probably the finest soldiers in the world. They were certainly the best I had ever seen. My initial relief and admiration, however, gradually turned to fear as the troop buildup continued—not fear for the U.S. soldiers, but for the Iraqi people. It was clear that a slaughter was in the offing.

Shortly after the ground invasion, I talked with a young tank trooper in Tamimi’s Safeway in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia. 1 referred—probably too glibly—to him as a hero. He turned to me and said, in a voice whose modesty and honesty shame me to this day: “There wasn’t any heroism to it. They didn’t fight back. They were trying to give themselves up.”

Iraq poses no threat to the United States or our interests. Please stop this war.

John D. Flanagan, Portland, OR

Not Fit to Print?

To The New York Times Feb. 5, 1998 (as submitted).

During Mrs. Albright’s visit to Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Abdullah, with whom she met, raised an important matter which the Times failed to report. It was that the United States was inconsistent in seeking to punish Saddam with violent measures for failing to conform to United Nations resolutions while ignoring, or even supporting, many such actions by Israel.

This is only the latest example of the Times bias in news reporting where the interests of the Zionist state are concerned. Shame!

Albert R. Doyle, Sanibel, Florida

Spreading the Truth

To St. Louis Post Dispatch, Jan. 11, 1998 (as published).

I wish to thank Margaret Hamra for presenting the “other side” of the Middle East situation. I am pleased, albeit surprised, that the Post-Dispatch printed it. The media in the United States are inclined to provide only one view, the Jewish view.

I have talked to other Christians who have lived in the Middle East or spent lengthy periods of time there. They all tell the same story—that the Israelis are systematically eliminating the Palestinian Muslim and Christian presence through violence, isolation and intimidation. It is ironic to me that those tactics are being employed by a people who were persecuted.

I hope Hamra keeps spreading the truth. It is important that Americans know and understand what is really going on in Israel. It is especially important to Americans who still revere the Holy Land as the birthplace and home of Jesus Christ.

Ronald Coleman, St. Louis, MO

(Washington Report editor’s note: The Margaret Hamra article, “U.S. Policy Ignores Palestinian Plight,” to which this letter refers may be found in the Other Voices supplement to this issue’s Washington Report.)

Constituents Not in Israel

An Open Letter to Congressman Bill McCollum, Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 13, 1998.

When I read Tamara Lytle’s article “McCollum draws ire of Arabs” in Tuesday’s Sentinel, I was filled with revulsion and disgust! Your constituents, sir, are here in Florida and are not in Israel. I think it is outrageous that your group unilaterally decided to lend support to Prime Minister Netanyahu, urging him to ignore the Clinton administration with respect to the peace process.

I am an ex-crew member of the USS Liberty, attacked deliberately by Israel in 1967, killing 34 and wounding 171. The survivors were told to shut up under penalty of court-martial and the incident has been covered up by our government. My ex-shipmates who survived the attack have been trying now for over 30 years to get Congress to investigate the incident. As you know, it is the only one of its kind that has never been investigated. Congress won’t give us the time of the day. Do you suppose the fact that the survivors don’t have $12,650 to match the contributions of pro-Israel PACs to your campaigns might have something to do with it?

I assure you, sir, that this is one Floridian who will be working hard publicizing these issues in an effort to prevent your re-election.

John Gidusko, Fern Park, FL

Patriarch Sabbah’s Statement

To The New York Times Magazine (as submitted).

Whatever the truth may be about Christian persecution in other parts of the world, Jeffrey Goldberg’s assertion (New York Times Magazine December 21) that “West Bank Christians are experiencing growing discrimination from their fundamentalist Muslim neighbors” appears to reflect Israeli propaganda designed to sow dissension among Christian and Muslim Palestinians. The Israeli reports of discrimination have been denied by leaders of Christian churches in Jerusalem.

Patriarch Sabbah, Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, issued the following statement printed below on Nov. 13 (It also is available on the Internet at http://www.al-bushra.org).

Louise Green, St. Louis, MO

Statement by Patriarch Sabbah:

The Israeli media have recently reported allegations that Palestinian Christians are being subject to harassment and persecution under the Palestinian Authority in Palestine. They reported that Palestinian Christians are being persecuted by their Muslim compatriots.

The allegations made by the Israeli media and others are totally untrue. They are aimed at covering up the real facts of current oppression and political instability in the area and at provoking hostility and breaches within the Palestinian people. The easiest way to do that is to hammer on religious feelings of both parties. It is ironic for the Israeli media to spread such baseless rumors when all Palestinian citizens, Christians and Muslims alike, are subject to general instability due to the continuing Israeli occupation. In fact, both Muslims and Christians are trying together to find their way out of the misery they both are enduring under occupation.

While aware of the rumors that the irresponsible Israeli media are spreading, we reiterate our firm position that has been repeatedly stated: First, we deny and reject any allegation that we Christians are being subjected to persecution at the hand of our Muslim compatriots. Secondly, we are neither pro nor con any political regime or government. Our solidarity and defense go to the poor, oppressed, regardless of their political identity. In this moment, we consider Palestinians to be the poor, oppressed under occupation and our solidarity goes to them as such. Thirdly, we reaffirm that the Palestinian Authority is and has been doing its best to make sure that Christians are being fairly and equally treated, as all other Palestinian citizens. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority chaired by Arafat is easily accessible by us, religious leaders, through many channels. It is unnecessary to mention that many Christians are highly ranked within the Palestinian Authority structure. Finally, we call upon the Israeli media, as well as all others, to be responsible and truthful in what they report, given that the destination of a people is as serious as life and death.

ADL’s Abhorrent Activities

To Terence Hallinhan, Esq., District Attorney, City of San Francisco, Nov. 10, 1997.

We are writing to protest your selection of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as your co-sponsor for the community forum on hate crimes being held today at the University of San Francisco School of Law.

It is public knowledge that the ADL has been accused of spying on Muslims, Arabs, a host of other minority groups, political leaders and social workers of the San Francisco Bay Area. Lawsuits against the ADL for invasion of privacy are still in the courts. The Muslim and the Arab communities of the Bay Area, estimated at 250,000 persons, find it ironic that your office has chosen ADL to lead the forum. This will send a message to unscrupulous groups that if they lie low for a while they can eventually get anointed by the law enforcement establishment. Memories of ADL’s abhorrent activities are still fresh in our minds because we were the prime targets.

We find it hard to conceive that the ADL can play a fair and impartial role in this mission. The Muslim and the Arab communities are concerned with this development. If you have special reasons to reconcile with the history of the ADL activities, we would like to know those reasons.

Fouad Khatib, President, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Northern California

Raif Hijab, President, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Northern California

The D.A. Responds

To Fouad Khatib, President, Council on American-Islamic Relations, N. California, Nov. 13, 1997.

Thank you for your letter of Nov. l0, 1997. Actually, the ADL organized the forum and invited us to join. I hesitated because of their conduct toward the Arab community. As a member of the Board of Supervisors, I introduced legislation critical of that conduct. In addition, this office has collected a money settlement from them because of their spying on Arab-Americans.

Still, I feel strongly that hate crimes are terrible crimes and I wish to make clear that this office will not tolerate such offenses. Hopefully, the forum caused ADL to think about what they did to the Arab community. Hopefully, we will all live to see peace in the Middle East.

Terence Hallinan, District Attorney

Panting After the Israeli Lobby

To The Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 16, 1998 (as submitted).

The Arab-American community and many concerned citizens in Central Florida condemn our own representative in Washington, Bill McCollum, for his latest shameful letter, in which he urges Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to ignore the Clinton administration’s call on Israel to stop building new settlements as agreed in the “Oslo peace accords.”

Ironically, we do know McCollum’s selfish, self-serving and ill intentions: He’s running for re-election this coming November 1998! And, although many people know of his Israeli bias, we did not know how low he could stoop to side with the Israeli aggressors and oppressors against his and our own U.S. government, and against millions of Palestinian families and innocent children who still linger under harsh forceful occupation, apartheid, and ruthless human and civil rights violations.

Perhaps Mr. McCollum, who is panting after the Israeli lobby’s hard currency and votes, does not realize that a lot of his constituents are ashamed of his evil actions and will not vote for his re-election, unless he publicly changes his unjust and racist letters and policies.

Ms. Nuha Marchi, on behalf of the Arab-American Community Center (AACC) , Orlando, FL

Thinking It Through

To Senator John McCain, Feb. 12, 1998.

I wonder, John McCain, whether you thought this through before you jumped on the Anti-Iraq military bandwagon in Washington. I can think of no act more irresponsible or reprehensible than waging a second destructive bombing campaign against a people already bombed back into a Third World status. A country where starvation, pestilence, and death have been part and parcel of the daily fight for existence for seven long years.

Now retired, I served as a Navy surgeon in the Pacific toward the end of WWII, and was recalled as a battalion surgeon during Korea. I’ve seen enough of killing. Nowadays it’s the civilians who bear the brunt of war’s terror. Did you learn NOTHING from your Vietnam experience?

My friend Ramsey Clark recently called me after returning from his 7th visit to Iraq since the Gulf war. I suggest you call his office (212-475-3232) and get a copy of his findings, which he has forwarded already to Ambassador Richardson at the U.N.

You brave senators find it so easy to bully the U.N. Security Council into threatening small countries like Iraq and Libya and Cuba, but you turn tail and run when it comes to enforcing a single U.N. resolution against Israel, a country that terrorizes her neighbors, occupies parts of three foreign countries, steals land, builds illegal settlements, steals water rights, kills kids in the street with live bullets and both keeps and tortures her political prisoners. You may see yourself as a military hero, Senator, but I have NEVER heard you campaign to enforce even one of the many resolutions against Israel’s misbehavior from the U.N. Security Council. Why not?

Do you really believe, John McCain, that after seven years of U.N. inspections Saddam has any significant weapons around, or more important, any way of delivering their payloads? And more to the point, if you brave senators were to remove Israel’s atomic, germ and chemical armaments, wouldn’t Mideast countries like Iraq feel less threatened and so less likely to acquire these weapons?

My dad was a history professor, and served on a foreign missions board for years. We have lots of friends in the Mideast, and I call tell you these millions of Christian and Muslim Arabs are deeply troubled by Washington’s support of Israel and her daily terrorism and duplicity in their part of the world. They see the present threat against Saddam as Israel’s use of U.S. military power in the Jewish state’s march toward hegemony in their region. Are they wrong in this fear, Senator?

Edward W. Miller, MD, San Rafael, CA

Mideast Tunnel Vision

To The Washington Post, Feb. 26, 1998 (as published).

The tunnel vision of the Clinton administration concerning Middle East disputes, including the one with Iraq, was revealed by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright in recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (news article, Feb.21). When Senator Chuck Hagel asked if Arab countries believed “we’ve tilted way too far toward Israel,” Ms. Albright replied, “I’d prefer not to make that linkage.”

This is not foreign policy; it is solipsistic pique directed at a Senator who had the impertinence to ask what is an obvious and embarrassing question.

Ralph E. Miner, Bellingham, WA

A Question

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

Re: Latest Mideast developments.

Question: What do you call a Middle Eastern madman who threatens the peace of the region and continues the clandestine development of weapons of mass destruction?

Answer: Binyamin Netanyahu

Matthew Hogan, Grand Prairie, TX

The U.S. Double Standard

To U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Feb. 5, 1998.

The Iraqi arms inspections problem seems to be the result of the United States and our double standard of conduct.

I recall when the United States was very concerned about the Israeli government making atomic weapons.

The book Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff states, “In return for American weapons Israel reluctantly agreed to allow American scientists limited inspection of Dimona, the installation in Negev Desert.”

Also quoting from the book, “American scientists were allowed closely supervised inspections between 1962 and 1969, but the visits were halted when the scientists reported they were so constrained by Israeli authorities they were unable to certify there were no bombs being made at Dimona. In fact, reported journalist Seymour Hersh, the Israelis had built a false control room to mislead the inspectors.’’

History has shown Israel has made several hundred atomic weapons. I firmly believe that Israel would not hesitate to use them should their existence be threatened. I find it reassuring that at least Russia seems to feel diplomacy is the answer, not the threat of armed force.

Would you please advise me as to the justification of the current position of the United Nations concerning this problem?

John L. Hughes, Milwaukee, WI

Falwell and Netanyahu

To The New York Times, Jan. 26, 1998 (as published).

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel should pause and ponder before proclaiming the American Christian right “friends” of Israel and of Jews (news article, Jan. 20). The most conservative fundamentalist Christians hailed the foundation of Israel only because they saw it as a staging ground for the impending return of Jesus, at which point the only good Jew would be a Christianized one.

There is no respect in the radical right for the distinct authenticity of Jewish religious experience. Jews are grist for the mills of conversion. The Rev. Jerry Falwell has said that not to be a Christian is to be “inherently a failure.”

Even the politics of “strange bedfellows” must draw some realistic lines.

Daniel C. Maguire, Professor of Moral Theology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.

U.S. Bishops and Iraq

To the Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 22, 1998 (as submitted).

“Our brothers and sisters in Iraq are living under a pitiless embargo.” So said the holy man from Rome. However, the majority in the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, held last November, refused to take a position. Your editorial board, last week, urged to stay the course in Iraq.

Meanwhile, 960,000 Iraqi children are suffering from malnutrition and 4,500 Iraqi children under the age of 5 were dying each month (UNICEF Reports). More than one million Iraqis have died since the U.N. sanctions were applied.

Would your editorial board and the bishops have stayed this gutless, morally bankrupt course if those dying children were Catholics, Protestants or Jews?

Simon M. Seikaly, Salt Lake City, UT

Another Option for Clinton

To The New York Times, Jan. 14, 1998 (as submitted).

Re: “Mideast Peace Process; Three Options for Clinton” by Thomas Friedman (International Herald Tribune, Jan. 14)

Thomas Friedman is disappointingly minimalist in the three options he suggests for the United States in the face of Mr. Netanyahu’s determination to sink the world’s hopes for peace with some measure of justice in the Middle East.

President Clinton could also state publicly that Israel, like Iraq, must comply with international law and all United Nations resolutions binding upon it and that, if Israel does not declare its firm intention to comply with Security Council Resolutions 242 (regarding Israeli-occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories) and 425 (regarding Israeli-occupied Lebanese territory) and to withdraw to its internationally recognized borders by a specified date, the United Slates will no longer use its veto to block whatever sanctions the rest of the international community may see fit to impose upon Israel.

Of course, this would require a president with principles and genuine respect for international law, something not seen since President Eisenhower demanded withdrawal and threatened sanctions against Britain, France and Israel after their joint invasion of Egypt in 1956. It would also require a president more concerned with the long-term welfare of Israel and the Jewish people than with near-term fund-raising concerns. It is therefore highly unlikely to happen, but it is an option.

John V. Whitbeck, Paris, France

Will Clinton Challenge Netanyahu?

To The Champaign-Urbana, IL News Gazette , Feb. 4, 1998 (as published).

Succeeding the deceased President Roosevelt in 1945, Vice President Truman supported the Roosevelt-initiated United Nations trusteeship in predominantly Arab Palestine (67 percent Arab— 33 percent Jews). However, with his eye on the presidency in 1948, campaign pandering took precedence over ethical considerations: the U.N. trusteeship was scuttled.

Israel declared statehood on May 15, 1948. Truman granted Israel diplomatic recognition immediately (“The Future of American-Israel Relations,” James Lee Ray).

Like Truman’s pandering in 1948, Bill Clinton pandered to the same mind-set in his 1992 presidential run.

Addressing the Jewish Leadership Council 1992, Clinton opposed Palestinian statehood, declared Jerusalem Israel’s Capita1 and promised enhanced logistics cooperation—American forces in the region. His closing remarks were about his religious upbringing. He said, “If I’m elected president, I’ll never let Israel down....If I ever let Israel down, God would never forgive me.” (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September 1992.)

President Clinton has held separate summit meetings with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Palestinian leader Arafat. (Decatur Herald and Review, Jan. 16, 1998). The purpose of the meeting: to salvage Middle East peace.

No American president, with the exception of Eisenhower, has ever stood up to Israel—it did not pay political dividends. Historically, the Palestinians have always been dispensable—an alien culture and people, a negligible factor in political career-making on the hill.

Is it possible Clinton, in his last term on the hill, will dare risk the wrath of God and tell Netanyahu that Palestinians must have human, civil and statehood rights, too?

Kenneth R. Crouch, Decatur, IL

Force Is No Answer

To The Washington Post, Feb. 9, 1998 (as published)

The Post states that the specter of “letting a proven aggressor defy international strictures and wield frightening weapons is what makes it necessary for law-respecting nations to unite and proceed against Saddam Hussain” [“Our Allies,” editorial, Feb. l]. Given the fact that the United States and Britain stand alone in exaggerating Saddam Hussain’s ability to threaten any of Iraq’s neighbors, one should question both the legitimacy and rationale of using force against a country whose population has been reduced to the Stone Age. After seven years of vicious siege, more than one million of Iraq’s children have died of starvation, malnutrition and disease. Which “1aw” is it that entitles a superpower to aggravate the suffering of such helpless civilians through yet another bout of sustained aerial bombardment? Is this the same law that prompted the Serbs to slaughter Bosnia’s defenseless civilians in order to rid Europe of the fictitious threat of Islamic fundamentalism?

Finally, if aggression and the possession of frightening weapons are the only criteria that warrant the use of force, then what about Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu? At least the Iraqi people had no say in bringing Saddam Hussain to power.

Salah Ezz, Cairo, Egypt

In Memory of All

To The Washington Post, Feb. 9, 1998 (as published).

During the recent disagreement among American and Israeli Jews as to whether Yasser Arafat should have formally been invited to visit the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, I did not see any mention of the fact that the museum is not a Jewish or Israeli museum.

The Holocaust museum was established to commemorate the lives of the 11 million innocent people who were tortured and murdered by the Nazi government. Nearly 6 million of the dead were Jews, but the Nazis also systematically murdered 3.3 million Russian prisoners of war, almost all of the Polish professional and government classes and Catholic establishment, nine out of 10 Roma gypsies, thousands of Catholic priests, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, physically and mentally handicapped persons, and rescuers and resisters of all faiths throughout Europe. The museum presents the stories of all of the victims of the Nazis in order to show us what can happen if we do not vigilantly protect the rights of all people to live together free from persecution and discrimination. Surely those people who wish to eliminate any nation are the ones who most need to see the Holocaust museum’s exhibitions portraying the results of mankind’s inhumanity.

But whatever one’s opinion on this point, the federal government, which operates the museum, must not permit any interest group to politicize the museum’s apolitical mission.

Sally Foley, Falls Church, VA