June 1989, Page 32

Other People's Mail

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

Grass Roots Appeal to Congress to Protest Israeli Occupation

To Rep. Nancy Pelosi: April 18, 1989

On April 14, the International Red Cross condemned Israel for the attack of its border police on the Palestinian town of Nahalin in which seven people were killed and more than 30 wounded.

In the 17 months of the Palestinian uprising, more than 500 Palestinians have been killed, close to 50,000 wounded, and more than 10,000 imprisoned.

Israel's actions have drawn sharp criticism from the State Dept. and America's western allies and have been condemned by Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and other established human rights organizations.

Congress has been virtually silent during this entire period, only a few of its members having raised their voices in protest. Since it is Congress that has appropriated the billions of dollars in military and economic aid that is enabling Israel to simultaneously maintain its occupation and carry out a level of repression unprecedented in the 22 years of that occupation, we believe Congress has a responsibility both to remind Israel of that fact and to take strong, symbolic action.

The Middle East Peace Network welcomed the initiation of dialogue between the State Dept. and the PLO. We support the convening of an international peace conference, the goal of which would be the establishment of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel with guaranteed borders for both states. We also know that achieving that goal will take time.

Action must be taken immediately, however, to halt the escalating violence of the Israeli military against the Palestinian civilian population. Since international criticism has been ineffective in halting the bloodshed, it is clear that only pressure from Congress can get Israel to respond.

Therefore we urge you and your fellow House members in the Bay Area to introduce a resolution in Congress censuring Israel for its gross violations of human rights and convey your protest to Israeli Ambassador Moshe Arad.

Middle East Peace Network, 1819 10th St., Berkeley, CA 94710 cc: The Hon. Barbara Boxer, the Hon. Ronald Dellums, the Hon. George Miller Jr., Ambassador Moshe Arad

Time for Middle East Peace Talks

To the Editor, Givinnett County, GAI Dady News Feb. 14, 1989

Ariel Sharon's recent vitriolic outburst suggesting Arafat be "killed for peace" may be vintage Sharon, but it's not going to win many friends for Israel, nor will such hysteria help the peace process.

One expects high-ranking officials to better control their emotions, But, if crosses are to be borne, I suppose Jerusalem is the appropriate place for it.

For anyone who has had any experience with Middle East problems, however, Israeli attitudes are beginning to wear thin. I suspect other Americans share this view, albeit, some more reluctantly than others.

Some say the US has a moral commitment to Israel, to the support of the only democratic nation in the Middle East, a bulwark against communism. I say the US has a greater commitment to the principle of self-determination in support of human rights, especially if such rights are reasonably claimed by reasonable people, in a reasonable cause.

The cause of moderate Palestinian Arabs is reasonable. Arafat is a moderate Palestinian Arab-to almost everyone in the world except men like Ariel Sharon. Arafat is also the leader of the PLO, an organization accepted as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people by almost everyone in the world, except hardline Jewish leaders. What's their solution? Kill Arafat in the name of peace.

Having lived among Palestinian Arab exiles in the Middle East for four years, I am convinced that moderates among them, by far the majority, share the same high values as Jews. Their intellectual, cultural, educational aims and aspirations are strikingly similar. And politically, as everyone is aware, both Arab and Jew have shown their willingness to die for freedom.

But Jews cannot seem to get over the "holocaust" mentality. The world owes them. It's their "promised land." They are the "chosen people."

Is it that the Palestinian Arabs in "diaspora" haven't yet suffered enough to claim a homeland? Must five million Arabs be massacred before the Palestinian Arab can claim his ancestral land?

No reasonable person can deny that Palestinian Arabs have a right to a homeland in an area where their forefathers can be traced back for more than 2,000 years. Given Jewish and Palestinian Arab history with respect to territorial claims, there is only one solution—negotiate.

The die is cast. Palestinian Arabs have found their ethnic identity after 2,000 years of foreign occupation. Their bonds grow stronger daily. Their claim is legitimate. The PLO represents them.

Zionism has claims, too. What are they? To what extent are they legitimate? Who represents them? Is Zionism negotiable? Not to Jewish settlers on the West Bank.

So where does one go from here? The Algiers conference, Arafat's statements before the UN session in Geneva, his subsequent remarks, the American agreement to a dialogue with the PLO, are all steps in the right direction toward a negotiable settlement of disputes.

The PLO/PNC attitude is the thin edge of a wedge. Such wedges are useful, if viewed rationally, if used carefully. But they should never be discarded contemptuously. Israel is being contemptuous—and that is an attitude dangerous to peace. It is an attitude that prevents seeking attempts at face-saving formulas on which to base a reasonable settlement of respective claims, Jewish and Arab, over Palestine. "Sharon-ization" is not the answer.

Edmund A. Bator, Atlanta, GA

(Edmund A. Bator is a retired foreign service information officer.-Ed.)

Memorial for the USS Liberty

To the Editor, The Milwaukee Journal-April 17, 1989

On June 10, 1989, a memorial service honoring the 34 American sailors killed by the state of Israel in its June 8, 1967, attack on the USS Liberty will be held at the new public library in the village of Grafton. A reunion of USS Liberty survivors will also be held on this date. The new public library will be officially designated the USS Liberty Memorial Library at a dedication ceremony sometime later in the summer.

In view of the fact that these three events will soon be upon us, I am wondering if The Journal has done any soul searching concerning its reportage of the recognition and honor the village of Grafton is about to bestow on the memory of 34 American servicemen who made the supreme sacrifice for their country. Perhaps the presence of so many survivors, not to mention the 171 severely wounded—many of whom are still suffering from their wound—sought to make The Journal pause and reflect about its shabby treatment of these men during the highpoint of the controversy.

One has only to recall the failure of The Journal to cover the meeting in Grafton where former Congressman Paul "Pete" McCloskey, the attorney for the USS Liberty Veterans Association spoke, and where several of the former crew members spoke concerning the honor which the people of Grafton are now conferring upon their dead comrades and themselves.

The Journal's coverage of this controversy, initiated by the Milwaukee Jewish Council, focused primarily upon the council's opposition to the honor proposed for the men of the USS Liberty and its charge that anyone connected with this project could be suspected of anti-Semitism.

Moreover, in its coverage of the Grafton Liberty controversy, whenever any reference was made to the question of whether or not the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was premeditated and deliberate, The Journal always managed to convey the impression that this question was one that was raised only by anti-Semites in general and enemies of Israel in particular. As far as I know, nowhere did The Journal ever point out that the 260 surviving crew members believe that the attack by Israel was premeditated and deliberate.

Nor did I ever see The Journal make note of the survivors' call for a thorough congressional investigation of the USS Liberty tragedy so that the historical record could be set straight once and for all. If The Journal is really interested in finding out the truth about this, it ought to join these men in their demand for a public probe of the USS Liberty tragedy.

It should not be forgotten that many distinguished Americans believe that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was premeditated and deliberate. They include Dean Rusk, Adlai Stevenson III, George W. Ba, Clark Clifford, Admiral Arleigh Burke, General Marshall Carter, Richard Helms, Admiral Thomas Moorer, and many others too numerous to cite here. Not once did The Journal publicize the views of the persons just mentioned as part of its coverage of the Grafton Liberty controversy.

Needless to say, The Journal did not enjoy any monopoly on despicable behavior during the controversy under discussion.

We had the shock of observing Superintendent of Public Instruction Herbert J. Grover's May 13, 1988, letter to Rosemary Risher, president of the Grafton Board of Library Trustees, urging the trustees to reconsider their decision to name the new library the USS Liberty Memorial Library.

In his letter to Ms. Fisher, Grover expressed concern that a library named after the USS Liberty would cause some unidentified users to feel "uncomfortable" and "belittled." Grover did not express any similar concern for Palestinian Americans when on March 9, 1979, as a member of the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents, he voted in favor of naming the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee library after the late Golda Meir, a person who denied the very existence of the Palestinian people.

One can only hope that The Journal, the Milwaukee Jewish Council, and Grover will be able to think of some way they can make amends for the shabby way they have treated the memory of the heroic dead of the USS Liberty-not to mention the valiant survivors of this Israeli-initiated holocaust.

William Gartland, Rio, WI

Too Much Money for Israel

To the Editor, Washington Post May 1, 1989

In their April 21 op-ed column, Rowland Evans and Robert Novak stated that Israeli Prime Minister Shamir approved of "a new Jewish settlement on the West Bank just days after he was persuaded by the United States to propose Palestinian elections."

Surely this is it. What more is needed than this very "lethal issue of more Jewish settlements in the very region affected by the Palestinian election" to finally bring Congress to its feet in vigorous protest?

It is time high time, for Americans to speak out against the $3 billion we taxpayers pay each year to Israel. We should demand that Congress withdraw this largesse from a country that refuses to respond to peace overtures made by the PLO or anyone else and whose stiff-necked intransigence prolongs the turmoil in the Middle East.

The lopsided policy of American favoritism toward Israel has always been unfair to the Arabs and is, in fact, one of the reasons why the PLO resorted to outrageous acts in order to focus world attention on the plight of the Palestinians, who were being driven out of their ancient homeland by the influx of too many European Jews. This flawed policy should be replaced at long last by a more evenhanded policy and a more sympathetic understanding of the Palestinian point of view. Why should they be denied a homeland? And why should it be US policy to deny them one?

The recent ruthless acts of cruelty by the Israeli border police and the increasing violence of the Israeli troops in dealing with the Palestinian stone throwers is a slap in the face to the American effort to encourage Palestinians and Israelis to enter into peace negotiations, which the Palestinians are willing—indeed, eager—to do.

As an American taxpayer, I do not want to underwrite the slaughter of the more than 400 Palestinians Israel has already killed during the uprising. I think we ought to put an immediate end to such use of our taxes.

If we call a halt to our financial support for such killing, Prime Minister Shamir may call a halt to the mayhem the Israeli army of occupation is causing in the West Bank and Gaza. Such definitive action on our part may then cause him to withdraw the Israeli troops from these territories as the best and quickest and most sensible way to end the uprising.

Marion E. Sittler, Washington, DC

Palestinians Need to be Acknowledged

To the Editor, The Oregonian Dec. 15, 1988

Since the Palestinian uprising, or intifada, began a year ago this month, Americans have struggled to reconcile their basic support for Israel with their abhorrence of its actions in the occupied territories.

This struggle has been made even more difficult by the common belief that criticism of Israel is synonymous with anti-Semitism—or, to paraphrase the controversial UN resolution, that anti-Zionism is racism.

What is it about this issue that makes it so difficult to resolve, that evokes such an emotional response? The answer, of course, is the holocaust—which should evoke the strongest emotional and moral response. However, in America this response extends as well to the state of Israel.

As a result, I believe, Americans have come to regard Israel as a moral rather than a political entity. According to this (largely unarticulated) view, Israel is not to be judged by the same standards as the other nations.

We can condemn our own country for its invasion of Cambodia, for example, but Israel has the right to invade Lebanon; Pakistan cannot develop nuclear capability, but Israel can; the Soviets cannot attack a Korean jetliner, but Israel can destroy a US naval vessel. The former are all seen as political acts, the latter are not. Instead, they are justifiable somehow because of Israel's moral right to exist. Yet there is no accompanying insistence—let alone an expectation—that Israel act on the basis of morality. This is truly an irreconcilable position.

Another common belief is that Zionism—the movement to create a Jewish state—arose as a response to the Nazis' attempt to exterminate the Jewish race and the failure of other western nations, including the US, to provide adequate refuge. In fact, Zionism predates World War II by nearly half a century.

But even if it were true that the creation of Israel was a direct result of the holocaust, a crucial question remains largely unasked. That question is, who perpetrated the holocaust? The answer is Europeans, not Arabs. Yet it is the Arabs, not the Europeans, who have had to give up their land to ensure the survival of the Jewish people. We talk about the Palestinian problem, not the German or Polish or Russian problem.

Moreover, the Arabs are considered anti-Semites because they oppose the imposition of a foreign state in their midst. Are we to suppose that some other more "civilized" nation would only too happily have acquiesced to a new state being carved out of its territory: Great Britain, perhaps? Or France, South Africa... the United States?

The issue is not Arab anti-Semitism, but that the non-Arab world, in the form of Zionism and its western allies and of the UN as it was constituted in 1947, resolved to take Arab land and give it to European Jews.

Today the Palestinians have indicated that they are willing to discuss exchanging land for peace with Israel. The land in question, the West Bank and Gaza, is less than they were "awarded" by the UN partition resolution of 1947. The fact that the Palestinians are willing to give up all but a fraction of their original homeland cannot be seen as an insignificant concession, and is one that would have been unthinkable little more than 20 years ago. Surely this does not constitute "victory" for the Palestinian people.

The acknowledgement that Palestinians have had to sacrifice their country in order that a people annihilated by Europeans be saved is both historically and morally justified and, I believe, would go a long way toward healing the wounds of this modern-day tragedy.

Janet McMahon, Portland, OR