May/June 1996   pgs. 48-51

Other People’s Mail

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

“The Cost of Israel” Is of Grave Concern

To Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Washington, DC, March 4, 1996

The enclosed article on the cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is of grave concern to me, especially in the light of the present deadlock on the budget, annual deficit, staggering national debt and oppressive tax burden.

The article does not even consider the CIA’s budget of billions which is not accountable to Congress, the president or anyone. With the CIA chief and his deputy being staunch advocates of Israel, we don’t know how many more billions of our hard-earned tax dollars are siphoned to Israel. Not to mention their deep entrenchment in so many other key government positions.

It also does not include the loss in income tax revenue by allowing an income tax deduction to American taxpayers who contribute to “non-profit organizations” in Israel, the only foreign country allowed this “privilege.”

I urgently request any and all efforts on your part to stop this hemorrhaging of our resources and to improve the stewardship expected by all American people.

 James F. Peters, Birmingham, MI

Irishman to Irishman

To Congressman James Moran (D-VA), Washington, DC April 15, 1996

Kudos on your letter in this month’s Washington Report re: plight of the Palestinians. I’m proud of you and the integrity that you have demonstrated on this important human rights issue. It is consistent with your reputation for candor, American democratic principles, and your Irish heritage.

William Hughes, Baltimore, MD

About Israelis in Lebanon

To The Hon. Carlos Moorhead, Washington, DC, April 18, 1996

I am a nearly life-long Republican and your constant supporter at the polls. I was once a State Central Committee member, appointed by a grateful elected Republican.

I am writing to protest that unconscionable U.S.-funded slaughter of the Lebanese by the Israelis.

The press has painted this holocaust as an Israeli defense against Hezbollah attack. What the press seems to be overlooking is the fact that the fatuously-titled “Israeli buffer zone” is actually occupied Lebanon.

More than a decade ago, the Israelis invaded and annexed a nine-mile strip along the southern border of Lebanon. The Israelis are the invaders and occupiers. The Hezbollah is not likely to back off until the invaders withdraw.

Although I can say that I could never condone any form of terrorism, I know that if America were invaded, I’d be up in the hills with a .30-.30. The French Resistance, committing acts of terrorism against the Nazi occupiers, were called “freedom fighters.” It would thus seem that terrorism is a matter of perspective.

Carlos, we have been giving aid to Israel to the tune of about $1,000 per year per person. This would seem excessive even if Israel were not using our aid to invade and commit acts of terrorism against her neighbors.

We can stop this holocaust, quickly, by whispering those three little words to the government of Israel—“No more aid.”

Kari Sprowl, La Ca¿ada, CA

To The Orlando Sentinel, April 18, 1996 (as submitted)

I feel numb with paralyzing fear and infinite despair for my Mother Country, Lebanon, and for all my heroic family members, relatives and friends who still live there.

Israel has no right whatsoever to bombard relentlessly with aircraft and artillery an independent country and its overcrowded capital and collectively punish the helpless and still bleeding people of Lebanon for the very few Hezbollah guerrillas who are fighting Israeli occupation in south Lebanon.

The prime minister of Lebanon, Rafiq Hariri, has told Israel and the international community that the moment Israel ends its military occupation of south Lebanon, the Lebanese army, along with the U.N. and unbiased France, will be able to disarm Hezbollah if they don’t lay down their arms voluntarily.

Our U.S. government, instead of condemning the horrific and illegal Israeli bombardment of Lebanon and its capital, encourages the Israeli occupiers to kill innocent people and destroy their houses, villages and livelihoods and render them refugees in their own country—in search of the few (ever hiding and moving) freedom fighters who always hit back in retaliation or self-defense.

On behalf of the Arab American Community Center, Political Awareness Director, Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL

To Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Washington, DC, April 16, 1996.

In regard to Israel’s bombing in Lebanon, you are being quoted as saying: “Fundamentally, the problem is created by Katyusha attacks into northern Israel.” I disagree with you. Fundamentally, the problem is that Israelis are occupying land that does not belong to them and the administration of the United States is enabling them to do so much to our disgrace.

Is it strange that the people whose lands are being occupied resent the invaders and try to fight back? Should they welcome those who are trying to destroy them? Their anger and frustration is understandable to me and I fail to understand why American leaders do not recognize the crimes and injustices and speak out in protest. Are the Arabs to give up everything so Israelis can have whatever they want based on claims that are not rationally justifiable?

Those who resist invaders are usually admired and deserving of praise and their attackers are usually condemned. The present silence of American leaders who should be critical of the murderers and aggressors is apparent and reprehensible.

I find it sad that people must suffer and die because it is election campaign time in Israel and the United States. Israel’s lack of concern for world opinion is evident. In the past, Israel has had a plan of attack in place and then waits for an excuse to use it. This appears to be true in this latest series of bombings.

I am sure that I am not the only one who wonders if one of Israel’s motives for the excessive destruction is Israel’s fear of Lebanon’s recovery. As Lebanon tries to repair and rebuild, the nation can be viewed as a rival and competitor to Israel’s plans and future role in the Middle East. Ambulances and electrical plants are being targeted by precision bombers, which only adds to the questioning of Israel’s plans and motives.

In my opinion, the integrity of our nation is at stake and we should not be linked to Israel’s actions, methods and policies that most Americans cannot support or defend.

Florence Richards, Whittier, CA

Don’t Punish All for Acts of a Few

To The New York Times, March 20, 1996 (the three following letters as published).

Re “U.S. to Help Israel Build Border Fence” (news article, March 17) on the building of a barrier to separate Israel from the West Bank:

To discriminate and humiliate a whole people for the acts of a few is contradictory to Jewish beliefs. Borders are being closed because of the acts of a few—in the eyes of Israel, all Palestinians are guilty. The family home of a Palestinian terrorist has been destroyed. In the Israel government’s eyes, is the family just as guilty? The family home of Yigal Amir, the confessed assassin of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, is unscathed. Isn’t he also a terrorist?

I am not trying to take away from the repulsive acts of violence that have taken place, or to diminish the suffering of the Israeli people, but you cannot punish the Palestinians as a people for these heinous crimes.

G.W.D. van Essen, Los Angeles, CA

“Alms and Arms: Tactics in a Holy War” (front page, March 15) presents a distorted picture of Palestinian society. What has been overlooked are the widespread condemnations against the terror attacks among Palestinians. The Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence in East Jerusalem has documented mass demonstrations and marches in cities and towns throughout the West Bank and Gaza, including Nablus, Jericho, Bethlehem and Ramallah. Tens of thousands of Palestinian protesters have been unequivocal in their rejection of violence and in their support of the peace process.

More than 40 condemnations of terrorism by leading Palestinian political parties and unions have appeared in the Arabic press, averaging seven a day since the first attacks. Ordinary Palestinians interviewed by Palestinian radio and television have expressed condemnation of the terrorist attacks. The center concludes that “the Palestinian population as a whole is against every kind of violence and continues to put all their hopes in a future based on peace and coexistence.”

After the Irish Republican Army bombings in London, you published photographs of Irish demonstrations against terrorism and violence, making clear that the terrorists responsible for the bombings did not represent the majority of the people. Coverage of Palestinian protests, despite their prevalence, has been lacking.

Jo Becker, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Nyack, NY

You report (front page, March 15) the Israeli estimate that 95 percent of Hamas’s $70 million budget “goes into such charities as hospitals, clinics and schools.” If these activities are marred by terrorism, this is not because of Islam but in spite of it.

You say Palestinian extremism is partly financed by American Muslims. Are we to conclude that Muslims cannot contribute to humanitarian causes on the chance this money may end up in militants’ hands?

No other group in America is measured by these standards: not Mexican-Americans who sympathize with the Chiapas revolt; not Jewish Americans who opened a phone line to solicit funds for the defense of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin; not those Americans who advocate anti-abortion violence. As American Muslims we refuse to accept a jaundiced view of Islam.

Gasser Hathout, Chairman, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Los Angeles, CA

Palestinians Abhor Terrorism

To The New York Times, March 10, 1996 (as published).

Small vocal minorities among the Palestinian community have managed to silence the majority and distort the true feelings of my people. The violence in the Middle East these past weeks is a violence that Palestinians as a community abhor and denounce, for it contradicts our fundamental religious beliefs.

The majority of Palestinians detest the violence and the murder of innocent civilians. The bloodshed is unnecessary and contradicts the basic views of Arab Christians and Muslims.

Hamas is acting without a popular mandate. Yasser Arafat was elected president of the new Palestinian government. Nearly 70 percent of Palestinians eligible to vote participated in those elections, of whom more than 88 percent voted in support of Mr. Arafat and his platform of peaceful negotiations with Israel. Hamas has no right to act outside of this representative structure.

Mr. Arafat may not be able to prevent the violence himself, but he clearly has a mandate to act against Palestinian extremist violence.

It does not help the peace process for Israel to punish the innocent for the crimes of the terrorists by sealing the homes of families or individuals who have links to the terrorists’ deeds. Collective punishment is not only immoral, it is illegal and counterproductive to the goal of peace. No one sealed the home of Baruch Goldstein when he murdered 29 Palestinians during prayers in the Hebron mosque.

Those outside the Palestinian community must do a better job of understanding the complex circumstances we are in. Palestinians who speak out against the peace process have a right to do so. They should be treated with respect and not forced into an alliance with those who wish to destroy the peace process using violence.

We may not be able to prevent the voices of hatred from taking more innocent lives. But we can, if we stand together, prevent them from murdering the peace process, which is the only real hope for both Palestinians and Jews.

Ray Hanania, National President, Palestinian American Congress, Chicago, IL

”Yasser Arafat’s Last Chance”

To Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor, U.S. News & World Report, Washington, DC, March 10, 1996 (as submitted).

Your editorial in the March 11 issue, “Yasser Arafat’s Last Chance,”capitalizes on a dreadful series of terrorist events by blaming it all on Arafat. This follows the same logic as blaming President Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing. Or blaming Rabin for disrupting the peace process when Dr. Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians as they prayed in their mosque.

Mr. Zuckerman, there are many Palestinians who would like to disrupt the peace process, but there are many more Jews who want to do the same thing, both in the United States and in Israel. The FLAME ad on page 65, for example, could not have been financed without large contributions from a great many individuals. Your editorial defines you as one of that group.

You did not editorialize against the fundamentalist Jew who assassinated Rabin. Some Israeli newspapers, such as Ma’ariv in its Nov. 22 issue, even speculate it was a plot within the General Securities Services to kill Rabin to stop the peace process.

You have not editorialized against the fundamentalist rabbis who reported persons who knew what the assassin intended to do would not even be charged, let alone brought to trial. And in the Dec. 25 issue, Davar even reported the failure to identify the rabbi who gave Rabin’s assassin “dispensation” to kill Rabin may be equivalent to conspiracy by high levels directing the investigation to cover up the truth.

Nor have you reported, or editorialized, on what effect Israel’s closure of borders to Palestinians, preventing them from getting to the hospital, to work, or shipping anything either in or out of their territory, and destroying their economy, will do to the peace process.

Mr. Zuckerman, your editorial placing all the blame on Arafat and the Palestinians is good evidence you are doing your part to destroy the peace process.

John S. O’Connor, Seattle, WA

Israel, Terrorism and Peace

To The New York Times, Feb. 29, 1996 (as published).

Killing innocent bystanders is nothing but cowardice and gives the communities of the perpetrators a bad name by association. Hatreds are passed from generation to generation, fueling perpetual violence and creating malaise everywhere.

Political leaders need to show true courage by allowing reason to prevail. Difficult though it may be, Prime Minister Shimon Peres must go on talking with the Palestinian leadership.

Closing the borders indiscriminately increases resentment because that punishes innocent workers whose livelihoods are jeopardized, causing economic hardship.

Peace can be achieved only through understanding and continuous dialogue. We urge Arab and Israeli leaders to be firm but, above all, keep the channels of communication open.

Samira Baroody, San Francisco, CA

(The writer is a member of the executive committee, Women’s Interfaith Dialogue on the Middle East.)

Camps and Reservations

To the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, March 14, 1996 (as submitted).

I know many times you folks don’t like to hear the “other side” of the story, but a recent clamp-down on Arafat prompts the need for truth.

A congressional panel recently accused the PLO of “tacit approval of anti-Israeli terrorism and threatened to block further U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority...” (AP/Avalanche Journal, March 13).

The world knows Arafat has little control over Hamas, as does Israel! The man is trying, at the expense of possibly losing many supporters if he goes too far. A Palestinian civil war would not solve any problems in the peace arena.

But our Congress has contributed profoundly to the very terrorism they claim to abhor. If they had stopped sending billions of dollars to Israel, each and every year for almost two decades, the illegitimate Israeli settlements on Palestinian soil would not have been built in the first place! How could that very act not bother Palestinian people? International Law forbade such settlements to begin with!

And without the Israeli enclave of Kiryat Arba (a settlement on the boundaries of Palestinian Hebron), maybe the Feb. 25, 1994 attack and massacre of 29 Palestinians at worship by an extreme right-wing Israeli (formerly of Brooklyn, NY) would never have taken place. That was terrorism, folks—no different from the Hamas killings since Feb. 25, 1996.

Of course, the world forgets about the illicit June 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel, ultimately killing 20,000 and wounding 60,000 more before it ended. This was surely one step beyond modern day terrorism, but ignored by our Congress.

But, what do we know? Many of our ancestors, primarily the European white man, participated in the same acts of cruelty to take land from Native Americans over a century ago. Same scenario—different people, different lands, different times.

U.S. soldiers in the 1860s and 1870s invaded Indian territories, time after time, wiping out entire villages, killing women and children. Oh, the horror at Sand Creek on Nov. 28, 1864—or in December 1868, wherein hundreds were killed on the Washita River by one General George A. Custer and his 7th Cavalry.

Terrorism? You bet—but only the Indians were blamed for it all. Get the analogy? Who still lives on reservations today? Who will continue to live in Middle East refugee camps for all the tomorrows?

Walter Koehler, Littlefield, TX

Another Giuliani Escapade

To The New York Times, March 17, 1996 (as published).

You are right to roundly criticize Mayor Giuliani’s latest political escapade in Israel (editorial, March 12). Following up on his United Nations gaffe last fall, the mayor continues to use Yasser Arafat as a political punching bag in order to curry favor with conservative Jewish voters in New York City.

I don’t suppose it has occurred to the mayor that the city includes a significant and growing Arab (including Palestinian) population who may have a more favorable view of Mr. Arafat. After all, unlike the mayor, Mr. Arafat has received a Nobel Peace Prize.

Of course the mayor’s handlers have assured him that most Arab New Yorkers are not naturalized citizens and cannot vote in next year’s election. That the mayor so easily engages in such calculation explains why he remains not a leader of New Yorkers but just another politician.

George J. Schnepf, New York, NY

Episcopalians Rally Behind Vanunu

To Mordechai Vanunu, Ashkelon Prison, Ashekelon, Israel, Sept. 30, 1995

I write today to send assurances of my prayers for you and my support for justice to prevail and your freedom to be realized.

I salute your courage and commitment to justice in the world and I thank you for your witness. Please know that I share the concern of many for your personal well-being. The strain of your confinement must take its toll and I pray for your continuing strength.

As the leader of the Episcopal (Anglican) Church in the United States, I want to assure you that you are not and never will be forgotten. Many Episcopalians are joined with me in seeking your release and vindication, particularly the Episcopal Peace Fellowship, which cooperates with a special campaign aimed at your release. I hope that knowing of these efforts by committed Christians, you will feel supported and upheld.

Our Church is committed to the abolition of all nuclear weapons and your witness is especially remembered as we observe the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As we pray for you, please pray also for us that we too might be as faithful in our witness as you are courageous in yours.

Edmond L. Browning, Presiding Bishop and Primate

U.S. Should Press for Chechnya Peace

To The New York Times, March 17, 1996 (as published).

Your news reports about the continuing Chechen resistance to Russian military occupation of that region makes one wonder why the United States does not raise its voice more convincingly in favor of peaceful resolution of the Chechnya conflict. Unfortunately, the answer lies in the Clinton administration’s mistaken belief that remaining silent will help President Boris Yeltsin be re-elected in June.

No one expects America to endorse extremist Chechen actions. Nevertheless, the continuation of the war in Chechnya belies all Russian promises to negotiate its end.

According to unofficial estimates, more than 20,000 civilians have died in the Chechnya hostilities since late 1994. It is impossible to learn how many Russian soldiers lost their lives in this senseless confrontation.

The administration’s silence about the continuing Russian effort to destroy Chechen villages is irresponsible. It is also carefully monitored by the Islamic world, which sees the Chechens as its religious allies.

Joseph C. Kun, Director, Central European Studies, Potomac Foundation, McLean, VA

Bosnia War Tribunal Has Options

To The New York Times, March 13, 1996 (as published).

Theodor Meron (Op-Ed, March 7) is realistic about the reluctance of certain governments to cooperate with the War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague. At the same time, realism requires appreciation of all the alternatives available in getting at the truth of the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia.

The tribunal is not defeated just because people it has indicted have not been arrested. It has available an unusual procedure for making public its evidence even if those accused are not in custody. Under the tribunal’s Rule 61, such evidence can be presented in court in a procedure designed to lay the foundation for an international arrest warrant.

Arrest by IFOR and diplomatic pressure are not the only means of obtaining custody. Rewards could be offered for the apprehension of those indicted.

John Carey, Editor, United Nations Law Reports, Rye, NY

To The New York Times, March 13, 1996 (as published).

Re Theodor Meron’s March 7 Op-Ed article: It is inconceivable that the Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, will cooperate in securing the surrender of the 46 Serbs indicted by the criminal tribunal if the Croatian president, Franjo Tudjman, refuses to extradite seven of his indicted countrymen.

Since United States law requires that our government oppose loans by the international financial institutions to any government harboring war criminals, the Clinton administration should declare Croatia and Serbia in violation of this condition and work to prevent loans by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development until all those under Serbian and Croatian control who are wanted for prosecution are turned over.

Holly Cartner, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki,
New York, NY

“A Kalashnikov Culture”

To The Washington Post, April 4, 1996 (as published).

Kenneth Cooper’s compelling news story on the manufacture and trade of light weapons in Pakistan [“A Kalashnikov Culture,” March 14] just scratches the surface of this complicated phenomenon. In particular, it underplays the critical role played by both the governments of South Asia and their allies. The influx of American weapons provided to the Afghan Mujaheddin was a major contributing factor to the prevalence of light weapons in the region. Today, the proliferation of these weapons is sustained by Russia and China.

The governments of India and Pakistan are also at fault, as both are actively involved in the trade. In Pakistan’s case, Benazir Bhutto’s government issued approximately 25,000 licenses for non-prohibited weapons such as AK-47s, and more than 100,000 licenses for non-prohibited weapons such as shotguns in her first term alone. It is clear that the government bureaucracy and authorities charged with stopping the trade are instead playing into the hands of the smugglers.

Steps to stop the flow of light weapons are urgently needed. Control efforts could begin by facilitating campaigns by nongovernmental organizations to increase public awareness of the issue, encouraging regional cooperation to stem the flow of light weapons from one conflict to the next, and helping the United Nations assist regional governments within the broader context of conflict prevention. Helping local governments build the necessary infrastructure to fight arms smuggling would be another positive contribution.

These easy-to-make and readily available weapons may well have an explosive effect on the already-tense regional situation in South Asia. The high stakes of a conflict between India and Pakistan cannot be overlooked, as low-level conflict perpetuated by light weapons could quickly escalate into full-scale confrontation with nuclear weapons waiting in the wings.

Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha, Lahore, Pakistan

Kashmir Claimants

To the Arab News, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, April 4, 1996 (as published).

A procedure was agreed upon in the Act of Independence, and this was confirmed in later U.N. resolutions. A resolution is exactly what it says it is, a resolve, a firm decision, not something to be changed from moment to moment. Despite its awful problems, Pakistan is one legitimate claimant to Kashmir. Despite its frightful problems, India is the other. The matter is to be decided by us (Kashmiris) and us alone in a neutral plebiscite. The rest is nonsense.

The time for “talking” to India is over. Talking was done in great detail a long time ago. It led to nothing. India never had any intention of honoring its commitments. Quietly, sneakily, and then brutally, it tried to colonize and absorb us.

Pakistan was virtually conceived and directed by Kashmiris, from Allama Iqbal and Khwaja Nazimuddin to Nawaz Sharif. Our presence there is so pervasive that Pakistan can be called a province of Kashmir. India also owes a lot to Kashmiris like the Nehrus. However, it has consistently played dirty with us.

Both claimants are rotten. Pakistan is perhaps slightly less so because it still has a touch of the original Kashmiri spirit in it. Also, once in a while, though admittedly not very often in recent years, it behaves with a modicum of charity and understanding.

Khwaja Masoud Abdullah, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Andrabi’s Killing in Kashmir

To the Arab News, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, April 6, 1996 (as published).

The killing of Mr. Jalil Andrabi, the human rights activist in Kashmir, by Indian security forces is a crime against the very principles of human civilization. Mr. Andrabi was on his way to attend a U.N.-sponsored human rights conference in Geneva.

This is not the first time that the Indian security forces have targeted human rights activists. Scores have already paid with their lives. Among them are Professor Abdul Ahad Guroo and Professor Farooq Ahmad Ashai, both most prominent surgeons in Kashmir. When they voiced their disgust over hospitals being overfilled with victims of torture, they were killed by the Indian security forces.

The fact that 40,000 Kashmiris have died so far at the hands of the Indian forces, which corresponds to one percent of Kashmir’s population, tells the horrific tale of suppression of Kashmiris’ desire for freedom.

The dream of freedom has become part of our soul, young, old and children alike. No power, however big, can separate our physical self from our dream for freedom.

We Kashmiris don’t harbor any ill will against the people of India and in fact feel sorry that their politicians have kept them deliberately ignorant about the facts and are feeding them with highly charged emotional propaganda. We are certain that if Indian people are told the truth and receive unbiased information, they will also welcome our freedom.

At the moment, killing of innocent Kashmiris warrants strong condemnation by all civilized people of the world. Failure to do so will embolden the hands of evil.

Ashraf Wani, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

“Peace Process One-Sided”

To The Orange County (CA) Register, March 13, 1996 (as submitted).

The answer to Eiklor’s angry “war no peace” (3/8/96 “Peace Process Proving One-Sided”) is found in the photo (Register, page 3, March 12) of bound Palestinians who have lived their entire lives under brutal military occupation, headed to prison and torture seated beside a symbol of Israel’s military power (backed by the U.S.), and in words by the ideological forbear of Zionism, Jabotinsky, in his The Iron Wall, 11/4/23:

“Try to find even one example when the colonization of a country took place with the agreement of the native population. All colonization...must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. We cannot give any compensation for Palestine. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an ‘Iron Wall’ through which the local population can never break through. This is our ethic.

“As long as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they will not sell these hopes...not for any sweet words nor for any tasty morsel, because this is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in the ‘Iron Wall.’”

Will containment in Apartheid bantustans on three percent of their homeland under “Oslo” finally end the Palestinian Gentile’s 100-year struggle for justice against the Zionist colonizer’s “Iron Wall, Iron Hand, Iron Will, Iron Arm, Iron Fist, Iron Brain and Iron Law” and bring the “Peace” envisioned by Eiklor’s “Shalom International” and his thousands of “Christian” constituents?

Mr. and Mrs. Dick Bacon, Corona, CA