Washington Report on Middle East Affairs \| Telling the Truth for 30 Years

"Gentlemen don't read other people's mail," an idealistic American official exclaimed between World Wars I and II as he abolished U.S. cryptographic counter-intelligence programs. Times change, however, and some letters by or to other people are as informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves.

Podhoretz's Double Standard

To the Washington Post:

Norman Podhoretz's Nov. 17 op-ed piece ("No, It's Not to Blame") is an example of the short-sighted refusal by many "intellectuals" to consider both Palestinian and Israeli needs objectively. Apologies and rationalizations for Israel's intransigent behavior, of which Mr. Podhoretz's reasoning is typical, are among the greatest obstacles to a just peace in the Middle East.

By refusing to criticize or give advice to Israel (while graciously giving liberally of both to the Arabs), Mr. Podhoretz is following a dangerous and ironic path. He contends that only a citizen of Israel, whose home and life are at stake, has a right to speak out on an issue such as what to do with the occupied West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and Jerusalem. "Giving advice from the safety of New York," he says, "seems to me presumptuous."

If that is the case, then would it not be equally presumptuous for a Nicaraguan-born American to assail the Sandinista government of Nicaragua for its policies? I doubt that Mr. Podhoretz would lend the same deference to Nicaragua that he gives to Israel. Not only do we have the right to watch closely and criticize objectively another country's actions, but we have the moral duty to force both Israel and the Arab states to account for their actions. If the billions of dollars every year in U.S. aid to Israel through which the occupation of the West Bank is financed buys anything, it buys U.S. taxpayers the right to question the policies of the most powerful actor in the Middle East conflict.

If Mr. Podhoretz loves Israel and desires peace for it as well as for the Palestinians, he should remember: Our most valuable friends are not afraid to tell us when we are wrong. Peace is too great a price to pay for blind loyalty.

Michael J. Haddad, Washington, DC

For a New Diplomacy in the Mideast

To the New York Times:

Daniel Pipes ("The Middle East's New No. 1 Problem," Op-Ed, New York Times, Nov. 29) may be right in calling for a new diplomacy in the Middle East, but not for the reason he thinks.

It's too early to proclaim a "realignment" in Arab priorities. The Arab-Israeli conflict has given way for the moment to the Gulf war. But, as sure as the sands shift in the Sahara, the focus on Israel will return. The Amman resolutions that came out of last month's meeting of Arab leaders show that the Arab states have not abandoned their concern about Israel or their desire for an answer to the Palestinian question.

The significant difference between now and the Camp David era is that the Israeli leadership has not yet forged a consensus on negotiations. Israeli indecision is as big a stumbling block as Arab impotence. But a consensus will emerge because it must. The steady march of demographic change, coupled with persistent violence in the territories, make stalemate untenable. Israel's leaders must negotiate from the relative strength they enjoy today or continue a policy that guarantees conflict in the territories and the militarization-in-perpetuity of Israeli society.

It may be a time of Arab realization rather than realignment. First, it is evident that the rejectionists' military strategy has failed. Second, Arab leaders must realize that United States commitment to Israel will not waver. Nor will the United States strong-arm Israel into an agreement that compromises her security. The question Arab leaders must face is whether pursuing peace with Israel is worth risking the enmity of the hard-line players.

The United States role should be one of good offices and guarantees. To cooperative Arab countries, we offer political support, the ability to deter the hard-line, and the promise of future aid. To Israel, we offer continued support of a settlement that ensures her security. We cannot write the script for Middle Eastern peace, but perhaps we can give the players the encouragement they need to take the stage.

Edward F. Feighan, Member of Congress, 18th Dist., Ohio

Humanism for Whom?

Dear Dr. Asimov:

I have today received from you a request for my subscription to The Humanist. You state in your literature that "Humanism affirms the dignity and worth of every person and supports a full range of personal rights and liberties for all." Since the cause of the Palestinians would certainly be one "of the most controversial moral and social issues of our time," I must assume that The Humanist has offered "positive humanistic solutions" to their problems.

I assume, too, that The Humanist, in its concern for the "threat of nuclear holocaust," has spoken to the cause of Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed Israel's secret nuclear capabilities to save the world from nuclear holocaust, thereby being accused of treason and undergoing a secret trial without access to the media or the public. Surely The Humanist "affirms the dignity and worth" of Mordechai Vanunu, and supports his personal rights and liberties.

If you can assure me of The Humanist's concern for the above matters, Dr. Asimov, I shall be happy to subscribe.

Ruth Elizabeth Ramsey, Epworth, GA.

Congressman Sees the Light

Dear Charles E. Maria:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to HR 2587, a bill to close the Palestine Liberation (PLO) office. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you know, HR 2587 is a bill intended to make unlawful the establishment within the United States of an office of the PLO. I support this bill because the PLO is a terrorist organization. Further, I feel the organization represents a threat to the interests of the United States, its allies, and to international law. With these facts in mind, I do not feel the PLO should benefit from operating in the United States. Be assured that I will continue to monitor this situation closely.

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to contact me. I hope that you will continue to do so with issues of concern to you at the federal level.

Sincerely, Jim Bates, Member of Congress

Dear Charles E. Maria:

Recently you received a letter from my Congressional office regarding HR 2587, a bill that would prohibit the "establishment or maintenance" within the United States of an office of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Please disregard my original letter to you indicating that I supported HR 2587.

The issue when presented to me and my staff was misrepresented. I have requested that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of HR 2587. I do not support the bill because it would shut down a Palestine Liberation Organization observer mission to the United Nations in New York, and an information office in Washington, DC. There has been no claim that the Palestine Liberation Organization offices in the United States have been involved in terrorism or in conspiracies to commit terrorism. Moreover, Americans have the First Amendment right to receive ideas, including information from the Palestine Liberation Organization. If we are to resolve the question regarding the "Palestinian" question we should have an organization to contact.

I apologize for the confusion on this issue. I hope you continue to contact me on issues of concern to you at the federal level.

Sincerely, Jim Bates, Member of Congress

Shin Bet Torture and the Landau Commission

To the Editor of the Jerusalem Post:

I know of no democratic society in the world where the maltreatment, torture, and imprisonment of children would be hailed as an "exemplary record of fighting terrorism," which is how the Landau Commission described GSS' (Shin Bet-Israel's internal security service) 16 years of torture. . . Reading the published excerpts of the Landau Report, one would never realize that children as young as 10 have been abused and exploited for GSS intelligence gathering purposes. Children as young as 12 continue to be imprisoned for what Israel calls "hostile terrorist activities," which include such petty activities as writing slogans on walls, possessing nationalist literature, and raising a flag. They are subjected to violent interrogation sessions which leave permanent physical and psychological scars, are prohibited from seeing parents, attorney, or the Red Cross during an 18-day period of incommunicado detention, and are more than likely arbitrarily arrested for simply being in the vicinity of a demonstration. Not by any stretch of the security-conscious imagination is there any justification for a child of 12 to be imprisoned for months in appalling conditions, threatened and tortured into confessing to raising a flag, possessing nationalist literature or writing on a wall, no matter how much the IDF and Shin Bet hate expressions of Palestinian nationalism. The Military Order defining a child of 14 as an "adult" is reprehensible; this and other IDF and Shin Bet policies toward the children in the occupied territories are an immoral response to a political situation, and not a security one.

The Landau Report carefully leads one to believe that all those who are subjected to violent interrogation and torture are highly trained commandos caught during a military operation who left a bomb ticking somewhere. . . Five people were arrested recently for torturing children at the Ansar II prison in Gaza. Now comes the Landau Commission recommending the continued use of "psychological" and "moderate physical" pressure to extract confessions from 12-year-old children suspected of raising a flag. On Oct. 13, 1987, a 15-year-old boy was threatened with sexual violence at the Gaza military headquarters if he did not confess to throwing a stone. Is this an example of "psychological" pressure? If he had refused to confess, would the promised horror be considered "moderate physical" pressure? The refusal of Israel's media, officials, and public at large to acknowledge and repudiate the horrors experienced by children under occupation at the hands of the IDF and Shin Bet is extremely alarming.

Very Sincerely Yours, Rev. Canon Riah Abu El-Assal, Christ Evangelical Episcopal Church, Nazareth

• < Prev
• Next >