Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June/July 1997, pgs. 95-99

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

To Mr. Steven S. Schuyler, Orange County Manager, and U.S. Representative Jay Kim, 41st Congressional District, Yorba Linda, CA, Feb. 27, 1997

Thanks to Congressman Kim and you for your cordial reception at the meeting with George Dibs, president of the Arab American Republican Club, and myself, last Friday (2/21/97).

Since it was one of the topics, I want to send the enclosed article from the March 1997 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: U.S. Aid to Israel Increases in 1997," by Shawn L. Twing. He details the total annual cost as $5.7 billion.

The arrogance, deception and intimidation that often accompanies this massive shift of funds to Israel does damage to the body politic and the morale of the citizenry, a cost that is ignored and uncounted. A growing number of Americans perceive it as nothing more than a mammoth boondoggle by a special interest, promoted with election fund pay-offs to political office holders. It is unmentionable corruption, albeit legal, resulting in cynicism and the loss of the nation's honor.

By coincidence, another article, of even greater import, is on the same page, "Year-End Population Statistics Gloss Over Israel's Biggest Problem," by Richard Curtiss, who is also executive editor of the Washington Report. In his last paragraph he reveals the terrible threat that exists in the domination of our foreign affairs by an irresponsible jingoistic country, smaller than Los Angeles County, whose interests are inimical to our own. It is a scenario for WWIII, the downfall of the U.S.A., and a future of misery and servitude for coming generations.

If you would like to see the full issue, please let me know.

Patrick F. Flynn, Yorba Linda, CA

Israel More Important Than Water?

To the Longview TX News-Journal , Feb. 20, 1997 (as published).

Americans are facing a clear and present health danger, drinking water. That information comes from no less a personage than Tom Brokaw, evening news anchor for NBC-TV. According to Tom, America must start immediately to clean up the drinking water all across the nation or in a very short time, millions of Americans will be drinking unsafe water.

Nothing is more important to health, even to life itself, than water. And all that water must be potable. Nothing therefore could pose such a serious threat as bad water because everyone drinks water. Tom says start-up costs alone for reclaiming America's public water systems will be about $22 billion. And that's just openers. Billions more will be needed for years to come to keep our nation's drinking water safe.

It must be true, after all, who can doubt the word of a multimillionaire TV news reader? He oozes sincerity and believability. But there's a problem that wasn't discussed. The United States government doesn't have an extra $22 billion to clean up the nation's water systems. If the government were to shave all categories of expenditures in the budget to come up with the $22 billion, then foreign aid would be one of the categories cut. If foreign aid is cut equally, then our greatest ally in the whole wide world, Israel, would have its annual gift of approximately $5 billion cut.

Now ask yourself this: "What's more important, safe drinking water for Americans or foreign aid for Israel?" Obviously, the answer is a gift for Israel. To even suggest anything else is, well, anti-Semitic.

There is no more noble effort on the part of American taxpayers than to send money to Israel, after all: "Holocaust." Need I say more? So get out your wallet and boil your water. And if you know Tom personally, you might warn him to watch his mouth. Suggesting the U.S. government spend money meant for Israel on some U.S. project to protect the health of American citizens could be the kiss of death for a TV personality such as himself.

Billy Shivers, Longview, TX

Thirty Years of Silence

To Sens. John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, John McCain, Charles S. Robb, Max Cleland, and Chuck Hagel, Washington, DC, March 8, 1997

I read in The Washington Times this morning that each of you participated yesterday in a ceremony at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, saluting your former comrades who didn't make it back home from that conflict. Sen. Charles S. Robb commented on how the construction of the memorial itself had begun "a process of healing." You all pleaded not to forget the veterans who returned.

For close to 30 years, the truth concerning Israel's murderous attack on the USS Liberty, a U.S. Navy intelligence ship, on June 8, 1967, has been covered up. That inexcusable crime took the lives of 34 of our finest sons, another 171 were seriously injured (see for details on the premeditated attack James M. Ennes, Jr.'s riveting account, Assault on the Liberty, Random House, 1979).

The conspiracy of silence concerning the Liberty must be ended now. It's the only way its survivors, like each of you, can have their "healing process" and not be forgotten. I urge you, as proud veterans of our country's military service, to stand up on the Senate floor and demand that Congress do its duty: investigate the Liberty affair! Call its captain, William McGonagle (a holder of the Congressional Medal of Honor) and the other survivors and all relevant witnesses, to testify at a public hearing.

Let justice, finally, be done for the fallen heroes of the Liberty.

Bill Hughes, Baltimore, MD

China's Questionable Record Not Unique

To the Seattle Post-Intelligencer , March 18, 1997 (as published).

The church groups reported in the P.I. on March 6 and 7 as pressuring Starbucks and Boeing on human rights violations in Guatemala and China should be congratulated. But how can they do this without being completely hypocritical?

Those same individuals (plus you and I) finance violations in the Middle East that are just as bad, if not worse, than those in China.

Human rights violations by Israel are well documented. Included are:

• confiscation of Palestinian-owned land;
• demolition of homes (about 2,500 since 1967, 700 more scheduled);
• administrative detention without charge for six months, renewable (currently 300 are detained, with 15 between 3 and 5 years);
• torture (approved by the Israeli Supreme Court).

You and I support these human rights violations with $5,000 per year per Israeli family of five! Every dollar since 1949 has been a deficit dollar upon which we must pay interest. Interest calculated at a fixed 6 percent per year, compounded, cost more per year than yearly "aid"! This means our total cost has been over $175,000 per Israeli family!

Unless we are completely hypocritical, how can anyone, from the president down, complain about China's violation of human rights as long as we help finance Israel's actions which do the same thing?

John S O'Connor, Seattle, WA

Whose Homeland Is Palestine?

To The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 22, 1997 (as published).

You reported former Bush and Carter administration officials' criticism of the obstacles to the "peace process" posed by illegal Israeli settlements (World-Wide, Dec. 17). Ronald Cope wrote a letter to the editor ("Palestine's History Has Been Distorted," Jan. 13) dismissing their concerns. "For anyone with a smattering of knowledge of this troubled region," he wrote, "it would be readily apparent that 'settlements' are not the issue regarding peace." Fortunately James Baker and the other officials have more than a "smattering" of knowledge about the issue, and they are not likely to be taken in by the distortions in that letter. Consider the two examples that follow:

• "Palestine was understood for at least the past several hundred years to be the homeland of the Jews."

Considered by whom? Such use of the passive voice is a dead giveaway of slanted writing. That the world community at large did not hold such a view as recently as the turn of the century is amply demonstrated by the jubilation with which the Zionist movement greeted the Balfour Declaration. Zionists, seeking to colonize Palestine, were delighted that "His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..." If the world had "understood" that Palestine was the homeland of the Jews for hundreds of years preceding, one would have expected Zionists to deplore a proposal that an already-understood reality needed to be "established" alongside the "existing non-Jewish communities."

• "These small towns [i.e., the illegal settlements] did not displace any Arabs and, to the contrary, have created employment opportunities for the Arabs in the region."

Explain that to the resident of the town of Silwan, who returned from an all-night absence and "abandonment" of the property. Even in cases where no physical displacements from the owners' homes takes place, however, the theft of their adjacent lands is certainly an obstacle to peace. I wonder how peaceably inclined the letter writer would be if someone, having uprooted the garden in his back yard to build a high-rise apartment there, were to offer the consolation: "We're letting you stay in your house, aren't we?"

Imad A. Ahmad, PH.D., president, Minaret of Freedom Institute, Bethesda, MD

Helping Israel

To the Christian News, Feb. 17, 1997 (as published).

The Clinton administration has reached back 35 years to pluck out a legalism permitting it once again to ignore the mandate of the 1991 Congress, that one dollar should be deducted for every dollar spent on settlements and other expenditures across the Green Line that are "inconsistent" with the (loan guarantee) legislation.

To date Bill Clinton has evaded the intent of Congress without consulting with them by restoring more than $600 million of the one billion deducted from the guarantees, over protest that this was not legal.

Most recently, in 1995, he restored $303 million, saying this was to reimburse Israel for the cost of "re-deployment" from six West Bank cities and towns. In 1996, he restored $300 million because of "the ongoing costs" to Israel of carrying out the now moribund Jordan and Palestinian peace process.

To justify doing this, he cited the 35-year-old foreign assistance law, which gives the president the authority to restore aid or switch it from one category to another for good reason. This is illegal, to use the old law to nullify the impact of the newer one.

This is the last year for the $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, which have been granted to Israel at the rate of $2 billion per year for five years. What new financing will be sought by Netanyahu's Israel to replace them? You can be sure that there will be additional aid given to the outlaw Israel entity. When will America wake up?

Ray F. Dively, Baden, PA

Outrageous Slanting by Biased Journalists

To Mr. Charles Krauthammer, c/o The Washington Post, April 6, 1997  

I have not addressed letters to Washington Post columnists ever since Meg Greenfield blacklisted me in the wake of rejecting 16 letters to the editor. The ombudsman suggested that I see her. Her secretary told me she would not see me. So I gave up on the Post. But your "Arafat Killed Oslo" column of April 4 must not go unanswered.

You and your Israel-first cabal warmly embraced the Palestinian leader when he was in the process of surrendering basic Palestinian rights in the guise of bowing to the "peace process." Now, because Netanyahu's actions have revealed that behind the vanishing mirage of Oslo lies only a "surrender process" for the Palestinians, Arafat has become a terrorist again.

For God's sake, can't you join the human race? If the move toward a peaceful settlement eventually fails, as I strongly fear, reportage from both the print and electronic media will have been largely responsible for such a sad outcome. Your outrageous slanting has kept the American public from learning what has actually been taking place.

The continued encroachment by Israel on land that does not belong to her, as well as the persistent repression-oppression of the Palestinian people, if unchecked by media reporting could not but lead eventually to the demise of the so-called "peace process." In fact there has never been a genuine "peace process," only a surrender process. And it is not Arafat, but biased American journalists who have allowed Netanyahu to get away with this by hiding the facts from the American people, who might have forced the leaders of Israel to modify their larcenous conduct.

No matter what you and the rest of the media attempt to do, you can never turn Zionism into Judaism or Judaism into Zionism. Nor can you make thoughtful Americans believe that to be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Semitic.

Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal, Washington, DC

Not as Sharp as Usual

To Mr. Ted Koppel, ABC Television News, New York, NY, Feb. 21, 1997

You have the reputation of usually asking sharp questions during your interviews, but that was not the case during your recent interview with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The hop was missing from your fastball.

After allowing him to point out the success of the Israeli economy, you could have asked him why it still is necessary for the American taxpayer to subsidize the Israeli economy to the tune of 5-6 billion dollars annually. Recent polls indicate that over 65 percent of Americans favor either reducing or eliminating aid to Israel.

You could have asked him why he continues to delay the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza when the settlements are clearly a violation of international law. Article 49(e) of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an occupying power "shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies."

For almost 50 years, the American media have given us a distorted view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and your recent program was a good example of how that deception is carried out.

There is no reason why we cannot maintain our friendship with Israel, but it should not be done at the expense of our country and the other countries of the Middle East. The best interests of our country cannot be served as long as our government remains subservient to the influence of the Israeli lobbyists and the media does not give us the unbiased truth.

President George Washington warned us against forming a "passionate attachment" to any other nation. He advised us that our government should "cultivate peace and harmony with all." We would be wise to follow that advice. I am enclosing a few excerpts from his farewell address.

You have an excellent reputation as a reporter, but your interview with Prime Minister Netanyahu missed the mark.

Paul Wagner, Bridgeville, PA

"Democracy" Can Be Exploited Word

To The Dallas Morning News, Feb. 26, 1997 (as published).

Re: William Murchison's Feb. 5 Viewpoints column on democracy. I swore that I never again would write another letter correcting misinformation from a journalist. That can become a full-time job. But so many write on subjects on which they are uninformed.

Apparently, Mr. Murchison, who in my opinion is one of the most reliable in journalism, has fallen victim to the "fear factor" and feels he must follow the misinformation put out by the hate mongers.

I wonder, has he ever been to Saudi Arabia? I spent nearly two decades there, attended Christian services held several times a week, and as a Christian female was treated with more respect there than in the United States.

Democracy must be the most overused, misunderstood word in the English language. A good example is democracy in Israel that is used almost daily by the uninformed. To quote Ephraim Sevela in Farewell Israel, "The word democracy is shamelessly exploited in Israel. At every turn, as a cover for the most primitive anarchy, which has become deeply rooted in the fabric of a shaky and insecure society, Israelis have latched onto 'democracy' and play it untiringly, as might unattended children with a box of matches, transforming democracy into antithesis and giving base instincts free rein." That is the kind of so-called democracy U.S. journalists support and the sheeple haven't a clue!

Virginia L. Oldham, Dallas, TX

Israel's "Democracy" Isn't Real Thing

To The Columbus Dispatch, Nov. 9, 1996 (as published).

I was appalled to read J. David Goodman's recent diatribe against Georgie Anne Geyer in response to a recent Forum-page column. While Geyer made a dispassionate analysis of the complex and emotionally charged issues involved, it seems that Goodman has forgotten his history and current affairs. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions, 242 and 338, calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories, land that Goodman calls the property of Israel. In addition, the Oslo accords of 1993 recognize that the final status of Jerusalem is to be determined through negotiations.

Previous Israeli governments were aware that opening the north tunnel entrance near the Al-Aqsa Mosque would be a provocative act. But Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government opened the tunnel as part of a series of moves designed to sabotage the Oslo accords.

Goodman is quite right in asserting that in the United States we do not tolerate machine-gun fire in the streets or the throwing of rocks at churches or synagogues. But the United States is not trying to subdue by employing brutal military force a people yearning to breathe freely.

Goodman further characterizes Israel as a free and democratic society. Democracy in Israel is a pale shadow of the real thing.

In the South Africa of old, under apartheid, the official party line was separate but equal. Israel has gone one step further: Separate and unequal best describe the outcome of Israeli democracy.

In 1996, Israel received $3.5 billion in aid from the United States, more than 30 percent of the total foreign aid budget. With so many pressing social and urban projects facing severe budget cutbacks, U.S. taxpayers have a right to expect that their generous tax dollars are not being employed to deny the legitimate rights of Palestinians.

Naseem Majeed, Gahanna, OH

What's Wrong With Atonement?

To Mr. Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, Feb. 28, 1997

I've read your Feb. 20 op-ed column "Jewish Right, Arab Left." I think you're right to urge the "Arab intellectual left" to have more dialogue with "centrist Israeli intellectuals." But I'm mystified by the lack of understanding shown by your peevish remark, "These hard-line intellectuals seem to be seeking not Israeli withdrawals, but Israeli atonement."

What's wrong with atonement? It's a fine old Jewish concept, and nobody needs to seek it more than the government of Israel and its apologists, notably a great many American Jews.

Without revisiting the tragic history of the devolution of Palestine, it is abundantly clear to anyone with half a conscience that what the Zionists have done in dispossessing the Palestinians is a moral crime. That is, it cannot be squared with any extant system of law, ethics, or morality, except perhaps that of the fascists and Nazis, with whom the Zionist revisionists who became some of the "founding fathers" of Israel enthusiastically collaborated, and who similarly made virtues of their racism, aggression and brutality. You cannot hijack a people's land and drive them from it, deny them dignity and work, imprison and torture them, "break their bones," kill their children for throwing stones, blow up their homes, make them marginalized paupers and suspect non-persons in their own land, and not need to atone for it somehow, no matter how powerful you are and no matter who your sponsor is. At least you can't if you want any reconciliation with the people you've debased and any chance of a lasting peace.

I'm neither Jew nor Arab, but I've heard many Jews speak of their need to atone for the awful deeds done in their name by Israel. And I've heard repeatedly from anguished, baffled Palestinians, none of the "hard-line intellectuals", a plea that the Israelis just recognize the wrong that they've done the Palestinians and say they're sorry. From my experience, this deeply felt need of Palestinians is more powerful to them than their hope of return or of just compensation for what was taken from them. It's far from "hard-line" (meaning, I suppose, not fit to be taken seriously by the Times), but rather is absolutely essential if there is to be an historic reconciliation between the Semitic peoples.

The United States has acknowledged the great wrong that it has done to Native Americans, and has, however belatedly, apologized to and compensated Japanese Americans for interning them during World War II. Germany has apologized for the horrors of Nazism and has paid reparations. Japan has stated its regret for its atrocities against the Chinese and Koreans. DeKlerk apologized for the evils of apartheid. Why shouldn't Israel offer atonement by at least acknowledging the historic wrong committed in colonizing Palestine and imposing a "Jewish state" on what was left of the Palestinian people?

And why shouldn't Jews who have, in denial, supported or kept silent about unconscionable Israeli acts and policies which clearly are in contempt of the more enlightened precepts of Judaism, also seek to atone for their complicity in the whole bloody business?

Nobody, not even "hard-line intellectuals," thinks that Israel is going to go away. By insisting that Israel respect international law and international conventions, and United Nations resolutions with the force of international law, these intellectuals are simply standing for what is the moral consensus of the world community. There must be no double standards for Israel if there is to be any international order worth preserving, and that means, inter alia, no Jews-only settlements on occupied territory and no state based on ethnically defined religious preference. That kind of racialism used to be called apartheid. Today it exists officially in only one state, Israel. That's a shame.

Ken Scudder, San Francisco, CA

P.S. As the late rabbi Meir Kahane was so fond of saying, "You can have a Jewish state or you can have democracy, but you can't have a democratic Jewish state."

The Myth of the Israeli Omelet

To The Washington Post, March 2, 1997 (as submitted).

Nowhere does Mr. Bernstein ["A Matter of Survival," 3/1/97] abuse fact and reality more blatantly than in his claim that settlement policies in Israel "have resulted in Jews building homes in previously uninhabitable lands without displacing Arab inhabitants of these lands." Confiscation of Arab agricultural land, demolition of Arab homes, evictions, forced relocations, and denial of building permits to all but Jewish applicants are actual, on-going events recorded in every newspaper of record in the world. On March 1, five Americans began a 29-day fast in the West Bank to protest the ordered demolition of 700 more Palestinian homes.

The myth that the omelet of Israel could be cooked up without breaking Palestinian eggs was not the recipe envisioned by the Russian Ze'ev Jabotinsky, a hero and visionary among Zionists. Before Israel was created, he wrote:

"In our peace proclamations we try to convince ourselves that the Arabs are either fools easily deceived by a milder interpretation of our aims or a tribe of mercenary materialists ready to give up their rights to the land of Israel in exchange for cultural or economic advantages....We can tell them as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand no less than we what is no good for them. They cling to Palestine, at least with the same instinctive love and natural jealousy displayed by Aztecs to their Mexico or the Sioux to their prairies....Individual Arabs may be bought off but this hardly means that all Palestinian Arabs are willing to sell a patriotic fervor which not even Papuans will trade."

What happens when Palestinians won't shut up, sell out or move out? The history of the past 50 years provides a clear answer, one of proud conquest to some, and of shameful, oppressive colonialism to others.

Robert L. Norberg, Washington, DC

Peace Possibilities

To The Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 8, 1997 (as published).

I agree completely with Charley Reese in his Jan. 5 column, "Politics aside, we should support peace and life in the Middle East," instead of war and death.

Extremist Binyamin Netanyahu's Israel, which is deeply divided, must not be allowed to keep the Palestinians under forced military occupation, or keep on expanding illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem, hence violating their basic human and civil rights and assassinating all their dreams of peace, freedom and self-determination.

President Clinton must stop all aid, our tax money, to Israel until the Likud government adheres to all the high principles and laws of the United States and the international community.

Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL

Palestinian Christians' Role

To The Christian Science Monitor, April 21, 1997 (as published).

In "Palestinian Christians Weigh a Growing Role in Uprising" (March 31), the author makes an important point concerning the Palestinian Christians' (lack of) participation in the uprising against Israeli occupation.

They have a history of support for a negotiated settlement, and many do indeed favor secular groups like Arafat's Fatah over the Islamists. The article hints at, but doesn't fully explore, a newly emerging trend: Christians increasingly are following the lead of their so-called less "pragmatic" Muslim neighbors in dismissing the "peace process" as simply an occupation in sheep's clothing. They recognize that negotiations are one-sided and designed to stall so that Israel can continue to Judaize Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine before substantive talks take place.

While there certainly are local Christians who disagree with the Islamic movement, many others choose to support the Islamists. One is Issa Nakhleh, a distinguished Palestinian Christian historian, who recently attended a Muslim convention in Chicago to support Islamic rights in the Holy Land. Educated Christians like Mr. Nakhleh understand that the Islamists offer the only pragmatic approach to the Israeli occupation, not Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, who have simply taken over the Israel Defense Force's job of policing the Palestinians who dare oppose the theft of more of their land.

John J. Kielty, American Muslims for Jerusalem, Athens, OH

Access for Funds Requested

To the Federal Election Commission, Washington, DC, Feb. 24, 1997, Attn. Lee Ann Elliott

In accordance with the authority of statute law and the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington, DC, affirming this statute, please enter my request for the records of all contributors of funds and other equivalent aids and assistance and the expenditure of such funds to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, their subsidiary branches and adjunct parties, and the expenditures of these political agencies.

In the event you have not yet properly prepared these reports for public release please advise me of the date of their availability.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and request.

Charles Owen Spillman, Pass Christian, MS

An FEC Reply

To Mr. Charles Owen Spillman, March 6, 1997

This is in response to your letter to the chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding the case of Akins v. FEC. This case concerns the activities of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The Akins case centers around the Commission's interpretation of the law's definition of political committee, as invoked in the governing statute and various Supreme Court Cases. The statute defines a political committee as any organization that receives contributions or makes expenditures in connection with a federal election in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year. However, the Supreme Court has said that an organization is only a political committee if its major purpose is the nomination or election of a candidate. See Buckley v. Valeo and FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The definition of political committee is important because once an organization is defined as a political committee, it must register with the FEC and file regular financial reports of its receipts and disbursements. Also, donations to the organization would be subject to the limitations and prohibitions of federal campaign finance law.

In 1992, the Commission found it likely that AIPAC made more than $1,000 in contributions to federal candidates during a calendar year. However, relying on the Supreme Court opinions referenced above, the Commission concluded that AIPAC did not qualify as a political committee because its campaign-related activities constituted only a small portion of its overall activities and were not AIPAC's major purpose.

Mr. Akins and others filed a suit protesting this decision; however, the district court upheld the FEC's reasoning. In contrast, the appeals court in the Akins case relied on a strict interpretation of the statute and ruled that AIPAC should be defined as a political committee. The appeals court ordered the FEC to again review the AIPAC complaint.

The Akins appeals court opinion varies from that of the Supreme Court and other court rulings regarding the major purpose test. It is now up to the U.S. Solicitor General to decide whether to appeal this case to the Supreme Court. If the Solicitor General decides not to pursue an appeal, the FEC will reconsider the facts of the case using the legal reasoning of the appeals court. An enclosed brochure describes the FEC's enforcement process.

I hope this information has clarified the facts of the case. If you have any questions, please contact the FEC's Information Division, at (800) 424-9530 (press 1).

The Information Division, Federal Election Commission

The Spillman Answer

To Lee Ann Elliott, FEC, Washington, March 10, 1997

Many thanks for your kind and early response to my letter of Feb. 24 and the explanation as to why you cannot render the accounts of AIPAC, a Zionist lobby representing the Israeli government in the U.S. It would be my hope that you will be able to see your way clear to carry out your obligations at an early date.

I make my request for several good reasons that are critical to our nation and every citizen, such as:

1) AIPAC and its satellite PACs are rumored to spend some $8 to $10 million in political support for congressional legislation, which:

2) has resulted in the expenditure by our government of something around $200 billion over the last few years, and:

3) has resulted in discrediting our nation with the entire Muslim world, risking our economic stability in energy supply, and:

4) created a growing instability which might well result in a war of such magnitude that we cannot win.

It is my hope that the Commission might find such matters important enough to act after these six years' delay. Again, let me renew my request for the data regarding AIPAC total expenditures in political activity.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and request.

Charles Owen Spillman, Pass Christian, MS

CC: Sen. Trent Lott

Looted Properties During Holocaust

To The New York Times, Jan. 31, 1997 (as submitted).

The recent news about the Swiss banks and the Holocaust deposits as well as the looted properties of victims of the Nazis leads to some comments. One must, of course, support the rights of individuals whose property has been misappropriated to recover that property or at least to be compensated for the wrongful taking, if not by the perpetrators then by the government or its successor responsible for the taking, even if it was under the color of "official government policy" of the time. I also assume that these specific claims for compensation were not included in the huge reparations already paid to the state of Israel and to individual Jews by the German government.

Naturally, this principle of compensation does not only apply to Jews who were such victims of the German National Socialist regime. At least I hope not.

I hope that the government of Israel will keep this seemingly universal precept in mind when dealing with the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs in the "refugee camps" of Lebanon. These people, for the most part, are refugees from what is now Israel "proper," that is not from the West Bank or Gaza, or they are the children or grandchildren of such refugees. They can identify with very specific properties now in Israel (homes, farms, business premises) from which they have been "dispossessed" by actions of the Israeli government under one or the other pretext (including "abandonment"), without compensation and confronted with the stated intent of the Israeli government to simply ignore them and their claims; all this in the face of United Nations resolutions calling for the return of the properties or an agreed scheme of compensation. Injustice is injustice, whoever are the victims and the oppressors.

Albert Doyne, Valley Cottage, NY

"Islamic Fundamentalism"

To The Dallas Morning News , Jan. 6, 1997 (as submitted).

In February 1994, Israeli settler Baruch Goldstein murdered scores of Muslims at prayer in the Cave of Machpelah, invoking the Jewish holiday of Purim as justification for the act. In November 1995, Yigal Amir, acting on orders from God, murdered Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, having shown no remorse, then or since. Last week, as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Chairman Arafat tried to reach a settlement on an Israeli troop withdrawal from Hebron, an Israeli soldier indiscriminately opened fire and injured several Arab merchants in the disputed West Bank city. Noam Friedman, like Amir showing no remorse, invoked divine inspiration for his stupid act.

And yet many people continue to think that all along it is only Islamic fundamentalism that threatens this thing called the Middle East peace process.

Ray A. Rafidi, Richardson, TX

Turkey's Christians Need Tolerance

To The New York Times, Feb. 21, 1997 (as published).

A.M. Rosenthal ("Questions Unasked," column, Feb. 14) rightly questions the passive posture of Western democracies toward the repressive regimes in the East that persecute Christians. One country missing from his list of suspects is one of the United States' closest allies, Turkey.

Turkey at the turn of the century was home to tens of millions of Christians, who were mostly Armenian, Greek or Assyrian. Following the Armenian massacre in the East during World War I and the war for independence, the population declined to probably less than a million.

Istanbul, the original melting pot of religions and cultures, is now home to only a few thousand Christians, who try to survive under constant persecution. Their children have been forced to attend classes at public schools to learn about the Qur'an. They are rarely allowed to repair their old and failing churches, and most have been shut down.

In southeastern Turkey, intolerance is escalating to devastating levels. Assyrians who have been living in this area for thousands of years still worship the same ways they did when the apostles traveled through the area. Today they are caught in the middle of the conflict between Kurdish rebels and the government.

Assyrians who had the chance to leave before this latest wave of persecution do not have enough political clout in the West to put pressure on the Turkish government to change its behavior. Surely in this country there must be a critical mass of politicians, religious leaders and business executives who care to make this change happen. Prayer alone will not save these people.

George Ugras, New York, NY

Aid to Armenia

To The Washington Post, March 12, 1997 (as published).

The Post's March 1 editorial "Aid to Armenia" was full of irony, because:

(1) Armenia receives the second-largest per capita aid from the United States, while at the same time Armenia's ethnic lobby groups in Washington are responsible for a ban on any direct U.S. assistance to about 1 million refugees in Azerbaijan.

(2) Armenian forces now occupy 20 percent of Azerbaijan, which has no territorial claims against Armenia or any other country. But because the U.S. Congress favors the Armenian aggressor, that created a million refugees and punishes the victim of aggression.

(3) Despite Armenia's flawed election and drift toward autocratic rule, the administration and Congress, at Armenia's behest, prevented U.S. officials from assisting in Azerbaijan's initial presidential and parliamentary elections and from promoting democratic institutions.

(4) America responded in World Wars I and II, Korea and Iraq to prevent territorial expansion through force. At a recent Lisbon summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Armenia was the only country out of 54 that opposed a statement affirming Azerbaijan's territorial sovereignty. America's response: more aid for Armenia. Foreign policy experts say countries always act in their own best interest. In this case, I wonder.

Hafiz M. Pashayev, Ambassador, Embassy of Azerbaijan, Washington, DC