Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April/May 1999, pages 90-94

Other People’s Mail

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

Yehudi Lord Menuhin

To National Public Radio, March 12, 1999

Thank you for Dean Olsher’s sensitive, informative and moving tribute to Yehudi Lord Menuhin, who died today in Berlin. While Olsher covered much about Menuhin’s life, I believe that there was an important omission.

One of the most controversial aspects of “his life beyond music” was his firm, life-long support for Palestinian rights and outspoken criticism of Israel’s denial of them. This was a central theme and it made him a deeply controversial and sometimes reviled figure in Israel and the United States, and is said to be one of the reasons he decided to move to Britain and take citizenship there.

Menuhin’s father had emigrated to Palestine from Russia, in the early days of Zionist settlement. The experience turned him into a lifelong anti-Zionist, and he left Palestine for the United States, where Yehudi was born.

Though Yehudi often criticized Israel in the strongest terms, he did not inherit his father’s view that Israel had no right to exist. Rather, he was committed to peace based on absolute equality between Israelis and Palestinians, and travelled to Israel, even forming close friendships with such figures as former Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek who did little to advance the cause of equality in which Menuhin so fervently believed.

This specific cause was as important to him as “human rights,” his espousal of which Olsher mentioned only in general terms. In 1991, when Menuhin received Israel’s prestigious Wolf Prize, for his contributions to music, he condemned Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza at the Knesset award ceremony, saying, “This wasteful governing by fear, by contempt for the basic dignities of life, this steady asphyxiation of a dependent people, should be the very last means to be adopted by those who themselves know too well the awful significance, the unforgettable suffering of such an existence. It is unworthy of my great people, the Jews, who have striven to abide by a code of moral rectitude for some 5,000 years, who can create and achieve a society for themselves such as we see around us but can yet deny the sharing of its great qualities and benefits to those dwelling amongst them.” (Jerusalem Post , May 6, 1991)

The uproar this caused in Israel, including calls for the prize to be withdrawn, did not discourage him from speaking out even more strongly in terms that would certainly not be easy for any Israeli to hear. As recently as January 1998, he deplored what he saw as growing extremism in Israel. “Those who insist on war,” he said “should remember that those who want Jerusalem for themselves alone were always defeated, because it is a city for eternity . What’s extraordinary is that some things never die completely, even the illness which prevailed yesterday in Nazi Germany and is today progressing in that land [Israel].” (The Guardian, Jan. 23, 1998)

All in all, I would have thought that a report that mentioned Menuhin’s interest in “yoga, mysticism, alternative medicine, and vegetarianism,” and underlined the importance of his Jewish faith, as well as his involvement in many causes, could not do him full justice without mentioning his difficult relationship to Israel. I have no doubt that tomorrow morning’s Israeli newspapers will not make the same omission.

Sincerely,

Ali Abunimah, http://www.abunimah.org

Injustice in America

To The Washington Post, Feb. 2, 1999 (as published).

The Post’s Jan. 25 editorial “The Facts of the Pollard Case” rightfully decries the widening use of secret evidence. While the spy Jonathan Pollard has been duly convicted of a serious crime, dozens of individuals are imprisoned in American jails who have never been charged with any wrongdoing. Neither they nor their attorneys have been permitted to review any evidence against them—and some have not even been told why they are being held.

The 1996 anti-terrorism law, hastily passed in the wake of the bombings in Oklahoma City and at the World Trade Center in New York, allows the Immigration and Naturalization Service to arrest, detain and deport legal immigrants based on evidence whose source and substance is not revealed to the potential deportees or their counsel. This is a deplorable violation of individual liberties and due process.

Muslims have been the primary target of the secret evidence procedure. Perhaps the most egregious case is that of Mazen Al-Najjar, a scholar, engineer and editor in Tampa. Mr. Al-Najjar, a Palestinian by birth, has raised a family in Tampa since moving there in 1981. He co-founded the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE) at the University of South Florida.

On May 19, 1997, agents of the FBI and INS and local sheriff’s officers arrested Mr. Al-Najjar. He was taken to an INS detention facility, where he remains today. He was denied bail on the basis of secret evidence despite having no criminal record. An independent investigation ordered by his employer, the University of South Florida, concluded that Mr. Al-Najjar has done nothing wrong. Twenty months after his arrest, he still has not been charged with a crime—or released on bail.

Everybody in the United States—including Mr. Al-Najjar—should have the right to review the evidence and criminal charges against them. We should restore due process and eliminate the use of secret evidence.

David E. Bonior, U.S Representative (D-MI), Washington (The writer is House Democratic Whip)

President Asks Congress to Fund Middle East Peace

To Churches for Middle East Peace Contacts, Feb. 15, 1999 (abridged).

The administration has requested a “Wye River supplemental” of $1.2 billion for Israel, $400 million for the Palestinians and $300 million for Jordan, to be dispersed over three years. This is in addition to the $5.2 billion in FY 2000 foreign aid already earmarked to “sustain the Middle East peace process.”

U.S. policy has placed limits on U.S. aid to Israel, requiring that such aid not be used in the territories occupied in 1967 to build settlements and the infrastructure to support them. The Israeli finance minister, in November, is reported to have requested $12 billion for the cost of new roads in the West Bank for the use of Israeli settlers wanting to bypass Palestinian villages and cities. Bypass roads further entrench Israeli settlements and damage rather than advance the peace process. Such roads and the “security zones” surrounding them require the confiscation of Palestinian land and destruction of Palestinian homes.

Please urge your senators and representative to seek guarantees from the administration that no U.S. funds will be used to build Israeli bypass roads in the West Bank or for other uses prohibited by the United States. Express your support for the administration’s request for continuing and additional aid to the Palestinian people for the development of water and sewer systems, schools and improvements to the Palestinian legal system that provide more respect for due process of law, human rights, copyrights and other property rights. Ask that generous assistance be provided to Jordan and that those funds be directed to development and infrastructure purposes and not for the provision of additional weaponry....

Corinne Whitlatch, Churches for Middle East Peace, Washington, DC

Palestinians Must Defend Themselves

To the Rochester Democrat Chronicle, Jan. 3, 1999 (as published).

As a Palestinian-American, I have watched Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu with deepening skepticism and suspicion. Just weeks after he signed a peace agreement in which the United States included a $1 billion “bribe,” he turns his back and refuses to carry out any of the terms he has solemnly agreed to.

Naturally, the Palestinian people, whose land has been appropriated by people from all quarters of the globe, are again tricked and react with whatever force they have—small rocks to throw at Israeli sharpshooters.

In my judgment, the Palestinian stone throwers constitute the most heroic chapter in the history of human conflict—stones against killer weapons.

Basam Ashkar, Rochester, NY

No Leaders Speaking Out

To The Washington Post, March 3, 1999 (as published).

It saddens me that Jewish leaders have not spoken out against the injustice in the Sheinbein ruling. We know that political and economic pressures were used against nations harboring fugitive Nazis despite the laws of those countries. Are non-Jewish lives not as precious? Or do we continue to work only for the “justice” that protects our self-interest?

Cecy Kuruvilla, Fort Washington, MD

The Sheinbein Ruling

To The Washington Post, March 3, 1999 (as published).

As a Jew, I often have disagreed with positions taken by Israel, but never have I been as disgusted and embarrassed as I am now [“Sheinbein Can’t Be Extradited; He’s a Citizen of Israel, Its Supreme Court Said,” front page, Feb. 26]. I have no quarrel with Israel’s courts. Israel is a nation of laws as is the United States, and our own courts have sometimes enraged me when peculiar or obscure technicalities override common sense. What makes me so angry is Israeli law, which seems chauvinistically to hold Jewishness above reason and justice.

I suppose Israel will now become the haven of choice for those of my faith who, like young Mr. Sheinbein, wish to thumb their noses at the country of their birth, the people they have hurt and the society they have betrayed.

Leslie Brown, Fairfax, VA

Destroying Global Judaism?

To The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 1, 1999 (as published electronically).

The Israeli people as a whole seem dedicated to the destruction of global Judaism and its replacement by a parasitic clique dependent on Israeli government handouts for its very existence. Thus, Israeli policy is dedicated to the replacement of the Jewish religion globally with some lobby to support whatever is current Israeli foreign policy, a lobby that changes its preachings as the prevailing policy of the Israeli government changes. This is not too different from the phenomenon whereby global Communism became an instrument of Russian foreign policy, similarly changing its preachings as Russian policy changed. Such versions of Communism or of Judaism are unsatisfactory as religions, because they boil down to a worship of transitory government policy rather than of eternal moral principles, and religion is supposed to uphold principles that transcend current political convenience.

Does religion really do this? That is an interesting question; but certainly religion, including the Jewish religion, claims to uphold eternal verities and values. Converting a global religion into a lobby for some dominant political party’s current policies is a degradation of religion into a non-viable institution. Israelis should realize this, and also contemplate what might become of them if they continue to undermine the global viability of Judaism as a religion.

Larry Selk, Los Angeles, CA

Cal Thomas’s Selective Indignation

To the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Feb. 3, 1999 (as submitted).

Cal Thomas chose to wax indignantly about the presence of Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat at a congressional prayer breakfast in his column of Feb. 3.

One of the reasons given by this Christian Zionist was that “a total of 15 Palestinian Arab terrorists have been identified by the Israeli government as having murdered nine American citizens since the Oslo accords were signed in Sept. 1993.”

What a pity that Thomas has never chosen to join the survivors of the Israeli June 8, 1967 air and sea attack on the USS Liberty in their call for a congressional investigation of this tragedy. This is the only naval disaster in American history that Congress has refused to investigate.

George Ball, undersecretary of state under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, referred to the deaths of the 34 Americans on the Liberty as “the blatant murder of American citizens.” (The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present, p. 58.)

By all means let us bring the Palestinian murderers of American citizens to justice. Is it expecting too much to have Cal Thomas express an equal concern about bringing Israeli murderers of American citizens to justice—at least before the judgment of Congress and history?

Robert E. Nordlander, Menasha, WI

Where Was the Rabbi?

To the Program Editor, WGBH Education Foundation, Boston, MA, Jan. 29, 1999

On Jan. 24, and 25 I watched a program entitled “The 50-Year War: Israel and the Arabs.”

I thought this program was very biased indeed. All you needed to add was the rabbi to officiate.

I have enclosed some reference material for your “interns” to research and become more knowledgeable about this subject.

The program was sanctimoniously ridiculous. Better luck next time with your propaganda.

If you would please forward this letter to individuals responsible for the documentary and those convinced it was telling the whole truth, I would appreciate it.

Babbie Cannon, Tucson, AZ

Congress Is Not For the Faint of Heart

To Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Washington, DC, Jan. 5, 1999.

You were absolutely right not to travel to Israel with the president last month. How would it look to your many pro-Israel PAC benefactors who would see you standing next to the president of the United States as he acknowledged to the world for the first time ever by a sitting president that Palestinians were in fact human? That they had been “dispossessed” by Israel and that Palestinians deserve to live “in freedom” and determine their own future on “their own land.” Who could stomach such preposterous assertions? Or worse yet, how would your campaign managers and fund-raisers take the news?

No, Congressman, you did the right thing. You are a man of honor and principle. You are right to oppose the enormous $400 million aid package for the Palestinians. Why that’s more than two weeks’ worth of aid to Israel! Now if we set aside the money Israel uses to maintain its illegal occupation of Lebanese, Syrian and Palestinian territory, build hundreds of illegal Jewish-only settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, maintain costly prison space used to house (and torture) thousands of Palestinian political prisoners, and mobilize the hundreds of bulldozers needed to demolish Palestinian homes, why surely something of Israel’s $7 billion aid package must be left over for righteous works.

We need more representatives like you, Mr. Saxton. Congress is not for the faint of heart. We need members of Congress who don’t get squeamish at the sight of carnage like the kind Israel inflicted at Qana in April 1996 when it slaughtered more than 100 civilians in Lebanon seeking shelter as Israeli warplanes rained death and destruction on their villages. After all, Lebanese and Palestinian victims of Israeli terror do not finance your expensive campaigns.

Mr. Saxton, you will be remembered for your unwavering allegiance to Israel. Even when faced with Israel’s continued violation of more than 70 U.N. resolutions your loyalty is undeterred. Even the knowledge that 26 American citizens continue to languish in Israeli jails, some of whom have been tortured and many without charge, is not enough to frustrate your devotion to Israel. If only you had been elected to serve and represent the people of Israel instead of the 3rd District of New Jersey.

Khaled Elgindy, Arlington, VA

Take Back My Membership

To Dr. Sidney M. Clearfield, B’nai B’rith Foundation of the U.S., Washington, DC, Dec. 1, 1998.

I have just received my membership card to B’nai B’rith. I have proudly belonged to the American Council for Judaism for years, but you could not pay me enough to belong to your organization.

B’nai B’rith is a political organization supporting the fundamentalist government of Israel. That government’s actions are in direct violation of its Declaration of Independence, signed by David Ben-Gurion and 37 members of the Provincial Council in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948.

To quote a portion of the 7th paragraph from the end: “The State of Israel...will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of race, religion, or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and will be faithful to the Charter of the United Nations.”

Can you think of even one of those promises which have been kept? One example: The United Nations has passed 69 resolutions condemning Israel for various violations of its rules, regulations and agreements.

Further, B’nai B’rith supports Israeli government actions which are in direct violation of the Ten Commandments, specifically Exodus 20:13, 15 and 17. B’Tselem, the Israeli Human Rights organization, reports many violations of those commandments, including confiscation (stealing) of Palestinian land, over 2,247 Palestinian homes bulldozed either as punishment or for building without a permit (which is never issued); assassination of 162 Palestinians by Special Army units; and many others.

Finally, B’nai B’rith is un-American. You support Israeli government actions which are in direct violation of the principles upon which the U.S. was founded. If you changed “King of Great Britain” to “Israel,” you could believe our Declaration of Independence had been written in 1998 by Palestinians. You also support Israeli government actions in direct violation of Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

I am returning your membership card.

John S O’Connor, Seattle, WA

Fairness on Restitution

To The Boston Globe, Dec. 17, 1998 (as published).

There has been much written about the need to make restitution for property taken from the Jews of Europe during the Nazi period.

This is fair and fine and just. But, how come these same people and organizations don’t also urge restitution to the Palestinians for homes and property stolen and appropriated by Israelis? That also would be fair, fine and just.

David D. Van Strien, Peterborough, NH

Roosevelt Blameless in Barring Jewish Immigration

To the Albuquerque Journal, Nov. 17, 1998 (as published).

David Steinberg’s interview with Rev. Bill Dorman concerning the New Mexico Holocaust and Intolerance Museum and Study Center contained a popular myth. Rev. Dorman stated that, “The Holocaust took the cooperation of...our own country, which denied immigration to Jews. Our president [Franklin Roosevelt] knew about things going on in the concentration camps and did nothing.”

He continued, “We need to remember, with silence, what passivity can do.”

On the contrary: President Roosevelt asked Morris L. Ernst, a friend and an attorney, to consult leaders in and out of government in London, considered by Roosevelt to be a key to his plan to enlist nations to accept 500,000 European refugees, including Jews, as immigrants.

Roosevelt, according to Alfred Lilienthal, writer and scholar, wrote that Roosevelt believed he could convince Canada, Australia and some Latin American and even Arab countries to accept the other 300,000 refugees. Ernst feared opposition from labor groups, with as many as 12 million workers unemployed at the time in the 1930s, from “Legionnaires and the bigot groups” and even from employers who opposed increased immigration.

Ernst returned from England and informed Roosevelt that England had agreed to accept 150,000 refugees if the United States would match that number.

However, Roosevelt quickly informed Ernst that the plan was off. Lilienthal quoted Roosevelt: “We can’t put it over because the dominant vocal Jewish leadership of America won’t stand for it.” Roosevelt continued: “The Zionist movement knows that Palestine is, and will be for some time, a remittance society. They know that they can raise vast sums for Palestine by saying to donors, ‘There is no other place this poor Jew can go.’ But if there is a world political asylum for all people irrespective of race, creed or color, they cannot raise their money.”

According to Lilienthal, Ernst was “shocked.” He sought out his influential Jewish friends. To quote Ernst: “I was thrown out of parlors of friends of mine who very frankly said, ‘Morris, this is treason. You are undermining the Zionist movement.’ Those Jewish groups which favored opening our doors gave little more than lip service to the Roosevelt program. Zionist friends of mine opposed it.”

Finally, Ernst stated sadly that “these men...are little concerned about human blood if it is not their own.” To blame Roosevelt for refusing to accept European refugees is a myth.

Brian J. Kelly, Albuquerque, NM

U.S. Publication Needs Help

Assalamu-alaikum to all internet users.

If you can, please help the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. It is calling for help. Donations are most welcome but more useful is an annual subscription to an opinion molder or to a library.

It can be accessed on the Web. Address http://www.washington-report.org/

This publication has done more to expose the machinations of the Israeli lobby in the Congress and in U.S. public life than any other publication on earth. Please help it. Please subscribe to it. Overseas subscriptions cost U.S. $60 a year.

Wassalam,

Bilal Cleland, Melbourne, Australia

U.S. Responsible for Iraqi Deaths

To USA Today, Jan. 28, 1999 (as published).

U.S. government claims that it is not responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians who were killed in the course of American missile attacks on Iraq are spurious (“U.S. clears jets to target entire Iraqi air defense system,” News, Wednesday).

Clinton administration officials argue that the attacks were in self-defense, prompted by Iraqi “aggression” against American warplanes “defending the no-fly zones” in northern and southern Iraq. This argument fails because the “no-fly-zones” have no basis in a United Nations resolution or any other element of international law, and were not part of the Gulf war cease-fire agreements.

Rather, they are a unilateral dictate by the United States, and a direct and clear violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is guaranteed by international law, the U.N. Charter and numerous Security Council resolutions, including the Gulf war cease-fire agreements.

If Iraqi civilians die as a result of illegitimate and illegal U.S. attacks on military targets in Iraq, this is the moral equivalent of targeting them directly—a form of international “felony murder.”

The enforcement of the “no-fly-zones” is supposed to be for the protection of the civilian population of northern and southern Iraq. Monday’s killings clearly demonstrate that Iraqi civilians are its victims.

Hussein Ibish, Media Director, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Washington, DC

Iraqi Civilians Killed by U.S.

To the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 4, 1999 (as published).

Re “Errant Missile May Have Killed Iraqi Civilians” (Jan. 26), I’m bothered by the recent series of bombings of Iraq. Despite Saddam Hussain’s invasion of Kuwait, which justified the U.N. Special Commission’s mission, there’s a broader picture being missed here: the unity of the world’s Islamic poor and their anger at the murder of innocent civilians by errant U.S. missiles, not to mention eight years of sanctions.

True, Saddam never intended fully to comply with UNSCOM. He felt, perhaps rightly, that he could break the sanctions by taunting and embarrassing us with civilian casualty newsreels, exactly as he is doing. But that doesn’t make the casualties any less real. When Gen. Anthony Zinni said the Pentagon was “investigating” Iraqi claims of civilian deaths, I felt like saying, “Idiot, watch CNN!” Those shops and homes weren’t demolished by peasants.

Despite technology, there are no such things as “smart” weapons. In the heat of combat, some missiles or bombs always go awry.

We’re trapped in a terrible cycle. The sanctions have caused starvation and death across Iraq. The people cry out for relief. As we patrol Iraqi skies, they call us oppressors. They look at their dead and feel justified in shooting at us. We respond with missiles and bombs. More civilians are killed. Iraqis are further incensed. They target our planes with renewed vigor. We drop more bombs. The anger of Muslims worldwide continues to grow. We wonder why there are Osama bin Ladens.

We are sowing the seeds of hatreds that will last decades.

Russ Kingston, Los Angeles, CA

Clinton’s Half-Truths

To The St. Petersburg Times , Dec. 21, 1998 (as submitted).

During the recent Gulf strike, President Clinton recited 10 “facts” about Iraq. His half-truths concealed other sides of the argument. Allow me to contrast the facts side-by-side:

1. Iraq is hiding atomic, chemical and biological weapons. Yes, and so are Pakistan, India, China, Israel, the USA, England, France, Iran, Russia, Khazakhstan, Belaruss and North Korea.

2. Iraq is guilty of overt aggression in Kuwait. In six separate wars, Israel invaded Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Egypt (twice) and Lebanon (twice). The U.S. has vetoed every U.N. attempt to curb Israel.

3. The world community stands with the U.S. No, 8 of the 15 U.N. Security Council nations condemned America for the strikes. In the Assembly the vote went overwhelmingly against the U.S.

4. The Arab states are with us. The recent Arab Conference cited the U.S.-Israeli alliance as the main cause of Mideast turmoil.

5. The U.N. inspection team will carry on. There is no U.N. team. Five of the seven nations resigned on finding that the American team is staffed with career U.S. intelligence officers.

6. Hardship caused by the bombing will make the people revolt. History shows the opposite. Cities and nations under siege have repeatedly chosen hardship and mass starvation over surrender.

7. History has appointed America to be the world’s policeman. No, America appointed herself. We are one more case in history where pride of power turns a nice people into a dangerous bully.

8. The world will know we mean what we say. So far the world has recoiled in disgust at what we do. It does not care what we say.

9. My cabinet and agency heads stand with me. That is not surprising since a remarkably large number of Clinton’s top appointees are Jewish, including a majority of foreign policymakers. This imbalance is a breach of custom and an insult to other heritages.

10. No other option is available. One option would be to end the “special relationship” to Israel and practice fairness instead.

Scott Nicholson, Bradenton, FL

Time to Halt Iraq Carnage

To The Toledo Blade, Feb. 6, 1999 (as published).

Something is really wrong. While our nation is inundated with news of our president’s trial, our war with Iraq has reached new dimensions. We are engaged in heated partisan debate about deposition of witnesses, and miles away we conduct a war with the Iraqi people. The fact that thousands of Iraqi children die because of the obstinacy of their president can never minimize our base approach. And as though this genocide were not enough, we have added gunpower to it.

How awfully embarrassing that the missile that strayed off course and hit a residential area near Basra, killing and wounding civilians, was supposedly one of our most accurate ones. Our military leaders say “oops,” the missile did go off course, and in almost the same breath announce the widening of our scope of engagement if American planes in no-fly zones are harassed.

Perhaps politicians lose fairness along their way to public office. Have the people of this great land buried their consciences to the point of ignoring this great injustice? Adultery is way up there in the major sins list. I thought that murder by starvation, disease and missiles would supersede sexual indiscretions by miles. Even if I have lost my sense of proportion, could I please beg for this carnage to cease? And would my fellow citizens join me? Please.

Mahjabeen Islam-Husain, Toledo, OH

Lebanon Needs Its Freedom

To The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 1999 (as published).

Your Jan. 14 International Page article “Lebanon Aims to Cut Spending, Debt Run by Former Premier” gave the impression that Lebanon’s economy has hit bottom and that austerity measures of the new Beirut government will somehow improve the situation. I disagree. Lebanon’s slide is not over. The country’s trauma is linked directly to foreign occupation by Syria, which fully controls the decision-making of the government. Genuine political and economic reform requires the withdrawal of all occupation forces. Otherwise, the crisis will deepen and the economy will be devastated further.

The best policy mind might worry about debt workouts and government restructuring, but these reforms by themselves will not solve the real problems. Success depends on political stability and investors’ confidence. Lebanon will not be able to attract foreign investment, especially by rich Lebanese overseas, unless it is stable. To have long-term stability, it must be sovereign and independent, with a rule of law and not the rule of Col. Ghazi Kanaan, the head of the Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon.

Daniel Nassif, Executive Director, American Lebanese Institute, Washington, DC

Pollard and the Role of American Muslims

To Pakistan Link, Oct. 30, 1998 (as published but condensed).

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his newly appointed foreign minister, “butcher of Lebanon” Ariel Sharon, demanded the release of convicted spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard when they ran out of demands to squeeze Palestinians any further. The issue even annoyed our president, who had been awaiting his greatest political comeback after his worst political and personal debacle. The news of the Israeli demand, with no connection with Middle Eastern conflict, shook even the most liberal Americans. It also revealed where the loyalty of many American Jewish media figures rests. Even popular talk show host Larry King could not hide his sympathy toward Pollard and commented, “he has been behind bars for a long time, he spied for Israel and not against the U.S. He did not receive any money, no one was killed because of his action,” and moreover, “how much damage can one do against an ally?”

The moment the news broke, I sent e-mails to our president, vice-president and first lady requesting them not to give in to the Israeli demand. I requested my colleagues to do the same. By the time I visited CNN’s Web page, 78 percent of Americans responding had registered their votes against Pollard’s release. Here comes the role of the vast majority of silent American Muslims.

There are three issues for the silent American Muslim community to consider in the coming weeks and months. First, to speak against the release of Pollard and expose other similar Israeli espionage against our country as well as unauthorized technology transfer to Israel. We should expose the insanity of the annual $6 billion+ aid to that rogue state, which enjoys the living standard of the U.K. and Italy at the expense of our tax money.

Second, to counterattack the Jewish lobby’s powerful propaganda machine, which has recently been trying to put every single Muslim organization in this country on either the “terrorist” list or “terrorist sympathizer’s” list after the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Even MPAC and ICSC (Islamic Center of Southern California) have been accused as such. Their crime is that they have, over the past two years, successfully set foot in Washington, DC—the world’s power center.

Third, the Israeli government will do everything possible to block the road to the implementation of the Wye agreement simply because it opens the door to the “final status negotiation” where the Jerusalem question will arise. Some “terrorist” acts will be played out as successfully as the recent one through the courtesy of Israeli intelligence. It is about time to tell our people here that after Hitler’s Germany, Israel has been the most successful nation on earth in implementing state terrorism. In the process it has occupied all of Palestine and parts of Lebanon and Syria, in defiance of all U.N. Security Council resolutions. It is our “ally” and not the occupied Palestinians who hold peace as a hostage in that region.

This is the time to rally behind MPAC, CAIR, AMC and other similar Muslim organizations to form a coalition with a common program. It is all about politics and who plays the game in a timely manner.

Rana Hassan Mahmud, Los Angeles, CA

Foreign Aid Favoritism?

To Investors Business Daily, Dec. 8, 1998(as published).

“Yasser Arafat’s Panhandling” (Editorial, Dec. 3) about President Clinton’s promise of $400 million to the Palestinian Authority seems a bit hypocritical. I don’t like our government giving money to any nation except for humanitarian purposes, such as earthquake or hurricane relief. So I don’t like Clinton’s gift to the Palestinians.

You rant against this gift, but you never rant against the huge gifts given to Israel. So far, we’ve given billions to Israel, but never a peep out of you for that. But give a relatively small amount to an Arab (group) and you shout to the heavens in disgust.

A journal of business needs to be objective with no clouds of suspicion about its objectivity.

J.T. Elias, Nanticoke, PA

Blair Accepts Israeli Degree

To Mr. Afif Safieh, Palestinian General Delegate to the United Kingdom and Director of the Office of Representation of the P.L.O. to the Holy See, Oct. 12, 1998.

The prime minister has asked me to reply to your letter of Sept. 25 about his acceptance of an honorary degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The prime minister has asked me to reassure you that his acceptance of the honorary degree does not imply recognition by the government of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. The government’s position on Jerusalem has not changed: it believes that the status of Jerusalem should be determined in final status talks. Pending agreement, it recognizes de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem, but considers East Jerusalem to be illegally occupied. It recognizes no de jure sovereignty over the city.

I hope this reply has answered your concerns.

Philip Barton, Assistant Private Secretary, 10 Downing Street, London

Muslims Want Fairness, Objectivity and Truth

To Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Washington, DC, Jan. 10, 1999.

With due respect to your search for truth, I was astounded by your remark about the Treaty of Hodaybiyia being signed as a political expediency. The facts are that Prophet Muhammed did not break the treaty first, but when Meccans attacked a tribe allied with Muslims, they were released from the obligations to abide by the treaty as permitted by international law.

We six million Muslims want fairness, objectivity and truth. It will go a long way in building bridges of understanding with Muslims in the U.S. and abroad if the image of the U.S. as an upholder of morality in domestic and foreign policy is sustained and not damaged world-wide. It seems U.S. foreign policy has become hostage to a foreign lobby, damaging the U.S. image in the Arab and Muslim world.

Syed A. Ahsani, former Pakistani Ambassador, Chairman, American Muslim Alliance, Chapter 1, Dallas, TX