May/June 1991, Page 5

Letters To (and From) The Editors

Thanks, Andrew Killgore, for Telling It Like It Is

I congratulate you on Publisher Andrew Killgore's excellent "Seeing the Light" entitled "Unwilling to Tell It Like It Isn't" in your February 1991 issue. We and our friends at the Jordan University and the University of Amman, as well as quite a number of leading journalists and serious thinkers—Jordanian, Palestinian and foreign—consider your article a serious contribution to the study of the contemporary history of the Arab world. And the article comes at the right time, now that even America and Britain are awakening to the realities of Zionism and the Palestinian problem.

We pray that God Almighty will continue to guide your steps in the service of truth and the struggle against the Zionist evil.

Abdurrahman Bushnaq, Amman, Jordan

Why Not More Anti-War Opinion?

I find the Washington Report very interesting and I am happy to get it. After my legal work in Israel, my teaching and media and public appearances here require a wide range of knowledge of opinions, news, etc.

I wonder only that the anti-war opinions and news about them were not so much reviewed in the Washington Report. Maybe now, after the war (really after?) there will be some contributions reflecting this part of the US public opinion.

Felicia Langer, Advocate, Tubingen, Germany

We did our best to present the case for continued sanctions, pointing out that war would create more problems than it solved. Now that it has, we're trying to cover those problems without losing sight of the underlying cause of so many problems in the Middle East, which is an unbalanced US approach to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Until that is so Ned in a manner leaders of both peoples can accept, virtually everything else the US seeks to do in the Middle East will be regarded with suspicion by the people there who have to live with the consequences.

Checking In Again

Here's my check for books I ordered and for a one-year subscription to the Washington Report. I want to thank you for the free subscription while I was working and living in Gaza/West Bank. As I told you then, my copy was circulated among many, many people. I think the Washington Report achieved more good will on behalf of the American people among the Palestinian community and compassionate Israelis than most of our foreign service people there. Let's hope the true desire of the vast majority of Americans to assist peace and justice there will soon be achieved.

Karen White, Washington, DC

Thanks. Our problem is two-fold. We want to demonstrate to all Middle Easterners that there are Americans like you, who devoted years of your life to the pursuit of justice in the Middle East, and finally suffered severe injuries while defending, not for the first time, yet another child from a beating by Israeli soldiers. At the same time, we hope to explain to Middle Easterners and to the vast majority of fair-minded Americans the factors in the US political system that have made the US the impediment to Israeli-Palestinian peace. These factors include an institutionally corrupt Congress that, instead of policing special interests, rewards them. Congress sets its own ethical rules and, in doing so, has legalized the virtually complete disenfranchisement of the American people. Another factor is an executive branch that knows what it has to do (put strings on aid to Israel), but is too politically wimpish to do it. The most insidious factor, however, is the media, specifically the publishers, editors, writers, columnists, copy readers and, of course, advertisers who, though they may be upstanding citizens in every other way, abandon journalistic objectivity when it comes to presenting the truth about Israel. Explaining all of this at home and abroad is what we're all about. Thanks for recognizing it.

Why Not Trade Pollard for Vanunu?

A recent article in The Washington Post "Outlook" section by Carol Pollard, sister of Jonathan Jay Pollard, the American naval intelligence analyst sentenced to life as a Mossad mole, suggested that he be allowed to complete his sentence in Israel.

A foreigner convicted of spying here can be exchanged for an American convicted of spying in the opposite country; but the notion of sending an American to complete his term in the country for which he betrayed the US is hilarious on its face. John Walker to Moscow?

Although a lifer, Pollard is automatically entitled, under federal sentencing guidelines, to a parole hearing after only 10 years; but there would have to be a convincing display of remorse and regret, and in Pollard's case he would presumably have to hand over to the Treasury the $30,000 a year he received from Israel while he was spying, and the $60,000 a year banked for him by the Israeli government in Switzerland ever since.

A more elegant solution, perhaps, would be to exchange Pollard for the Christian pacifist Mordechai Vanunu, now doing 18 years in solitary confinement in Israel for revealing details of Israel's nuclear-weapons production at Dimona to the [London] Sunday Times.

Vanunu, a Moroccan Israeli who converted from Judaism after relocating to Australia, would probably not want to stay in the United States, but to return to his Anglican congregation in Sydney.

Most Americans probably feel that Pollard should stay in Marion (IL) Federal Prison for the 30 years that a federal "life" sentence usually means, and an understandably furious Caspar Weinberger said he "deserved to be shot. " But such an exchange, by delivering Vanunu from his calvary, would perhaps satisfy the doctrine of the "greater good."

Russell Warren Howe, Washington, DC

Help to Reorient US Policy

Recent decisions and actions by this administration in the Near East bode ill for this nation in the years ahead. What is more ominous is the absence of recognition than its "policy" is in a quagmire.

To reorient this rudderless pursuit, may I suggest the Washington Report consider holding or sponsoring a series of public discussions not only in the Washington area but in six other major regions across the nation: South, Mid-Atlantic, New England, North and South Central States, and the West Coast.

In passing, please find attached a paper which seeks to identify the origins of questions fermenting in the Near East the better part of a century.

Nicholas Voulangas, History Department, Salem State College, Salem, MA

Much as we would like to do exactly what you propose, which would also be a great circulation-booster for us, we are an educational institution without an endowment or the resources to make such activities possible. For now, therefore, we must concentrate our resources on publishing and radio and leave most of the talking to others. Thanks' however, for the vote of confidence and also for your own thoughts on the nationalistic aspirations underlying present Middle East problems. We plan to publish your article in our July issue.

Kuwait Revisited

I was most impressed by your executive editor's special report on his Kuwait trip in the April issue. He writes with a fine sensitive style that really comes across to me. He took me there. He could do the National Geographic without the camera.

Byron Crosse, Lawrence, MI

Despite your kind words, along with his laptop he'll still take a camera when he travels.

The Aftereffects of Desert Storm

One of the emotional low blows of the Gulf war was seeing the Washington Report join the war-mongering, dissent-suppressing mainstream press, presumably to be on the winning side. Like many others who continue to believe the war was dead wrong from beginning to "end," I turned to the independent press for news. The Nation and The Progressive have replaced daily newspapers and Middle East Report has replaced the Washington Report, and I find myself sending you articles seen there as I used to send Washington Report articles to my congressional delegation.

I am enclosing two articles which I think represent the breadth and depth of anti-war activity/sentiment. They would be suitable for your "Other Voices" department. I hardly expect to see them there, but I can say to myself that I have done my little part to prevent you from believing your own baloney.

Carolyn McDonald, Minneapolis, MN

We printed many opinions by many writers, but never deviated from our own position in our own writing that: (1) Saddam Hussain's invasion was contrary to international law; (2) Saudi Arabia should be defended and Kuwait, like Palestine, should be liberated from the resulting illegal occupation; (3) given up to a year, sanctions would do the trick; and (4) a war would create more problems than it would solve. We see no need to apologize for any of those stands, all of which, we think, already have been vindicated by history.

Of the two clippings you sent, one reports a Minnesota anti-war protest on March 3, four days after the cease-fire. The other, solemnly calling for an end to the war being waged by "the ruling white men of America " against Iraq because "Saddam Hussein is not a white man, " is from the April edition of the magazine that printed it. No, you won't see articles in our pages calling for a halt to battles that already have halted. You will, however, see articles giving our readers the information we think they need to help avoid the next war and all the tragedies that will follow if the cycle isn't broken. Anyway, we're happy you haven't given up on us, since we have no intention of giving up on you. Together, we may still get at the 43-year-old injustice that underlies all US problems in the Middle East. (See the article on Clark Clifford on page 17.)

Please Debunk Israel's Claim on Democracy

The Washington Report is getting better and better in content and appearance. Congratulations. I watched CNN's "Sunday Report" yesterday with Ariel Sharon as guest. The two women asking him questions made him very uncomfortable with their directness. Sharon and other spokesmen for Israel kept emphasizing that "Israel is the only democracy is the Middle East. "

Have you ever done an article pointing out that Israel is far from a democracy? That is, citing all the facts to the contrary, such as property owners restricted on whom they can sell or lease to; 80 (?) percent of land controlled by government; 70 (?) percent of all workers under supervision of the Histadrut; no constitution, no Bill of Rights to restrain or guide the courts, etc. And, very important, the socialist elements in Israeli society.

In short, it is time we pulled the rug out from under this Israeli claim that "We have democracy in common."

If you've already done such an article, I would appreciate your photostatting and sending a copy to me along with a bill for it.

Robert Taylor, Citizens Party National Committee, Juno, FL

Israel Shahak's translations From the Hebrew Press are good for this purpose because they give precise details from Israeli sources. We're sending you, however, photocopies of two articles from back issues of the Washington Report. One is by Roselle Tekiner and another by Sheldon Richman. They explain very specifically why Israeli "democracy " works only for its Jewish citizens, and not for Israel's Muslim or Christian Palestinian citizens. Other readers may request the same articles, for which we would appreciate a $2 donation for postage and handling, unless the request accompanies a book order.

Ambassador Glaspie

I appreciate the many fine articles in the Washington Report, a magazine I hold in the highest esteem and from which I learn a great deal. Permit me, however, to raise a question about your comments in the April issue on Ambassador Glaspie's Senate committee testimony about her meeting with Saddam Hussain.

You say that "Her superb performance left only one question unanswered" (my emphasis) and you thus absolve her from any responsibility for what has been universally regarded, with Baker's silent consent, as assurance to Saddam Hussain that he needn't fear US interference with his imminent invasion of Kuwait. Her words, as originally given out by Iraq, carried enormous weight in seemingly opening the door to war.

What puzzles me, besides sharing your question as to why State said nothing for seven months about a transcript that surely Glaspie must have told her boss had been doctored (assuming it was doctored), is why no one bothers to wonder whether her present account is the unedited gospel. To accept as established fact what one knows only from an individual's spoken—and hardly disinterested—words seems to me ill-advised in the circumstances of this particular issue.

T. Robert Bassett, Ottawa, IL

The problem is that only Saddam Hussain has a transcript, since Ambassador Glaspie obviously couldn't, and wouldn't, surreptitiously record her conversation with the Iraqi president in his own office. He has doctored transcripts for propaganda purposes before. One way to judge who's closest to the truth is to decide which account makes the most sense in terms of consistency with past and present policies. We think our "Five Versions of History" in the March issue, presenting the differing versions of how the war came about, is one way to start. We've received several letters on Ambassador Glaspie's treatment and testimony from retired foreign service officers, virtually all of which begin "This letter is not for publication. " Of course we won't publish them and we appreciate their concern that in our zeal to defend a career officer we feel has been wronged, we don't end up defending a policy that some feel was flawed. We'll continue to examine that policy in subsequent issues, but already we find our regular writers have widely different perceptions of what the US did or didn't do in dealing with Iraq between July 1988 and Aug. 2, 1991.

Public Financing Will Not Curb Zionist Lobby

For the revelations regarding the influence of donations by Zionist lobbyists ("Pro-Israel PACs Raised $10.7 Million and Spent $4.8 Million in 1990") in your April issue, Parker Payson and the Washington Report deserve credit and praise! Such information certainly demonstrates that pro-Zionist posturing by politicians does not result from proper consideration of principles, of issues, and of facts!

We, of the Archonist Club, maintain a posture of anti-Zionism, of support for Palestinian rights, and of concern for sound leadership. While we share generally expressed concerns about the influence of "special interests " in general and of the Israel lobby in particular, we vigorously oppose public financing of campaigns. While some may believe that the revelations of Mr. Payson support such proposals, Archonist analysis indicates that public financing would merely increase the already heavy burden on taxpayers without any reduction of the influence of unsavory interests.

If certain proposals for public financing are enacted to prevent "special interests" from donating such amounts directly to candidates, then, with the benefit of our cherished First Amendment, well-financed and well-organized "interests," such as the Israel lobby, will simply reallocate those same funds to independent campaigns. These elements can purchase space in newspapers and time on radio and on television. They can propagandize by mail and by telephone. They can engage the services of experts in propaganda.

The implications negate the alleged benefits of public financing! Since the public treasury is not an infinite cornucopia, realistic limits must apply to public financing for candidates. Since comparable limits upon private spending by "special interests" may be an infringement upon the First Amendment, those elements probably cannot be constrained. Further, even if fiscal constraints can apply to individual groups, a carefully constructed consortium of "separate" groups can probably circumvent such constraints. In this context, the separate and probably better-financed propaganda of "special interests" can readily determine the agenda, the general tone of the campaign, and significant aspects of public perception.

We hope (a) that the revelations of Mr. Payson will not provide "fodder" for advocates of public financing and (b) that the Washington Report will not endorse such proposals. Archonists contend that the best course is the vigorous program of public enlightenment already being pursued by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in combination with the healthy activism of concerned followers of the publication.

William L. Knaus, Archonist Regent, Medota Heights, MN

See page 20 for an article by George Moses, with whom you share some views. Our own feeling is that the present congressional system is-so corrupt that it deprives all Americans of genuine representation in the Congress, and must be reformed. For ideas on how to do it, we turn to our writers and to our readers.

Russian Immigration Expenses

From a reading of the articles by Frank Collins in the February and March issues of the Washington Report, it appears that Israel expects the US to finance the immigration to and settlement in Israel of as many as one million Jews from the USSR, such project to cost from $40 billion upward.

Mr. Collins believes that there is no way this money can be raised from diaspora Jews. I disagree. If, indeed, the diaspora Jews are as concerned over the plight of the Soviet Jews and the ability of the Jewish state to settle them, they can show their devotion by liquidating half of their total assets and making an outright non-tax-deductible contribution to Israel. From recent statistics in Forbes magazine, I counted a minimum of 25 Jewish families in the US and Canada (not counting the Rothschilds of England and France and the Oppenheimers of South Africa) whose reported total gross assets exceed $80 billion. I am sure if they and all other diaspora families who support Israel contributed as stated above, the $40 billion could be raised without trying to saddle the 97 percent of US citizens who are not Jewish with the cost, in the form of "guaranteed" commercial loans which, of course, will never be repaid.

George E. Brown, Palm Beach Gardens, FL

We'll learn whether you or our colleague, Frank Collins, is right if the US government halts further economic assistance to the government of Israel so long as any Israeli government funds are used to subsidize any aspect of Jewish settlement activity in the occupied territories. Let's hope that's very soon.

More on Phobias

At the outset, I would like to congratulate you for producing such a fine publication. I would also like, respectfully, to take issue with the views of Ms. Linda Lotz, who apparently thinks that frank, straightforward, rational criticism of the negative side of Jewish influence is equivalent to "being phobic about Jews in America."

We live in a society in which Jews wield tremendous influence in the mass media. They are able to project their cultural biases and sensibilities onto the American people as a whole. This was expressed most aptly by the professor of social philosophy Ernest van den Haag, in The Jewish Mystique. He wrote: "The literate American mind has come in some measure to think Jewish, to respond Jewishly. It has been taught to, and it was ready to"

According to the current, media-promoted double standard, it is morally acceptable to offer publicly the most hard-hitting criticisms of the alleged failings of other ethnic groups such as the WASPs, Germans, Arabs, etc.-but it is positively "evil" to criticize Jews as a group. Criticism of Jews collectively is—according to the Zionist ideologues in the media—being phobic about Jews in America." Ms. Lotz's statement probably tells us more about her own cultural conditioning than about the commentaries in the Washington Report which she criticizes. You have published Ms. Lotz's views. I believe that, in the interests of fairness, you should publish this rebuttal. Once again, keep up the good work.

Paul Grubach, Lyndhurst, OH

And so we have, and so we will. However, let's make it clear that we never would "criticize Jews as a group, " any more than we would criticize any other ethnic or religious community "as a group. " Since we published a letter on the same subject in our previous issue, we'll close out the subject for good by saying we believe Ms. Lotzs letter was, in fact, well-meaning.

It will alert us to avoid giving even the perception that our criticism of Likudniks, over here or over there, has any other purpose than to counter their policies, which are the only remaining serious barrier to Israeli-Palestinian peace.