Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 1999, pages 3, 97-101

Letters to the Editor

A Website Correction

On p. 39 of your April/May 1999 issue, under “Iran/Iraq Conference on Depleted Uranium,” the Web page is misspelled. It should be: <http://asterix.phys.unm.edu:8000>. If you could please correct this in your next issue it would be greatly appreciated.

Mark Fleharty, Depleted Uranium Resource Center, via e-mail

Compliments From a Palestinian Patriot

I was born and raised in Jerusalem, “Palestine,” which now they call Israel. I was kicked out of my homeland, Palestine, in 1948. I was only 14 years old. Now I am a grandfather with three children and six grandchildren, thank God.

Enclosed please find a picture I put together about my dear Palestine. Long live Palestine and the Palestinian people. Delayed justice is injustice.

Andrew Habash, Anaheim, CA

Deir Yassin Revisited by ZOA

Please be advised that the undersigned represents the Zionist Organization of America. It has come to our attention that the March, 1999 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, on page 57, published by you, contained information which places information imparted by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) in a “false light” under New York state law.

The letter, which originally appeared in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, was authored by Daniel A. McGowan of Geneva, NY, and contained, inter alia, this sentence concerning the April, 1948 battle at Deir Yassin: “Even the Zionist Organization of America’s own figures of 108 Arabs killed and 12 wounded confirms [sic] that a massacre took place.”

In fact, it is the position of the ZOA that there is no evidence that any massacre took place in Deir Yassin. Indeed, the ZOA last year published a 32-page study, Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, the theme of which is that there is no evidence that any massacre took place in Deir Yassin.

Indeed, both your magazine and Mr. McGowan are evidently aware of the ZOA’s real position on this issue, because your May/June, 1998 issue, on page 78, reported that McGowan, in the course of a speech in Washington, DC, “saved some of his most scathing remarks for Morton Klein, head of the Zionist Organization of America, which has published a booklet on Deir Yassin McGowan described as ‘a disgusting piece of historical revisionism.’”

The ZOA insists that the next issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs contain a full and fair correction of Mr. McGowan’s erroneous characterization of the ZOA’s position.

Clifford A. Rieders, Esq., Rieders, Travis, Humphrey Harris, Waters & Waffenschmidt, Williamsport, PA

Okay, if Mr. Klein’s position is that no massacre took place at Deir Yassin, you have set the record straight. We will let Mr. McGowan speak for himself via a letter he wrote to Ha’aretznewspaper which we are reprinting in “Other People’s Mail” on p. 56 of this issue.

Given the number of witnesses still living, and the fact that two subsequent prime ministers of Israel, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, had roles in its planning, it seems ridiculous to expect anyone to believe Mr. Klein’s revisionism. In fact, it’s noteworthy that Morton Klein, of all people, is looking for a “full and fair” correction of anything. We realize that we’re probably only on the fringe of his attacks, which are reported regularly in the Jewish community weekly newspapers and which seem aimed mostly at leaders of other groups represented in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations whom he judges insufficiently zealous in defending Israel’s Likud government or in defaming Palestinians.

Nevertheless, let us share with you our first-hand experience with his McCarthyism. A year or so ago someone—we don’t know who—persuaded New Jersey Democratic Congressman Steve Rothman to issue a letter to congressional colleagues saying that the Washington Report contains “cartoons, articles and photographs that are extremely anti-Semitic” and that they should cancel their subscriptions. No subscriptions were cancelled but we received two or three calls from congressional offices asking why they don’t get free copies of the magazine if Congressman Rothman does. We had to explain that the congressional subscriptions are donated, usually by a constituent within the representative’s or senator’s district, and, according to our records, at least one donated subscription goes to someone in the Washington or home office of every member of Congress but one. That member may have been irked (or frightened) by our taking credit for a key role in his re-election some years ago (by calling AIPAC’s campaign against him to the attention of “60 Minutes”) and wanted us to stop any subscriptions donated to his office, which we did.

We were puzzled about Representative Rothman’s attack since anyone who reads the magazine knows that all the cartoons are reprinted from mainstream Arab, Israeli, U.S. and European newspapers and the weekly Jewish press, and that our articles, though often critical of Israeli personalities, particularly Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon, also have criticized other leaders, notably Iraqi President Saddam Hussain, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, and Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, in equally strong terms, if not so frequently. The reason is not that we deplore any of the five named more or less than the others, but largely because the American people don’t have to turn to us to read what’s wrong with the current Iraqi, Libyan or Serbian regimes, but sometimes they do have to turn to us and the publications and leaders of Israel’s peace groups—from whom we and our regular contributors, who include both Israeli and American Jews, quote extensively—for factual reporting of events in Israel, the occupied territories, and what lobbyists for Israel (or other Middle East states or policies) are doing in the United States.

However, anyone who follows our pages as closely as Mr. Klein apparently does, knows that the articles are not, ever, “anti-Semitic.” Our Websterdefines anti-Semitism as “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a racial or religious group.” Much as lobbyists or apologists for Israel might like to extend that definition to criticisms of Zionism, Israel, Israeli actions, or the actions or words of lobbies or apologists for Israel in the U.S., it won’t wash in public opinion and certainly wouldn’t hold up in court.

We think Mr. Klein knows this and we think that is why he has adopted a McCarthyite tactic in criticizing this magazine and, by association, the outside contributors of articles to it. While not calling us anti-Semitic himself, he has issued press releases citing the wording of the attack upon us by Representative Rothman, who enjoys congressional immunity.

We can’t sue the congressman for slander, though that is what his attack is. But if your too-clever-by-half client ever slithers out from behind the congressman’s immunity and says those things himself, we’ll see you folks in court. So now you have the “full and fair” characterization of Mr. Klein’s position on Deir Yassin. We don’t contest the fact that it is his position, but to us it seems as flimsy as that of Holocaust deniers who maintain that nothing bad happened to Europe’s Jews before and during World War II. If not, where are the missing half of them? And where are the missing former residents of Deir Yassin?

Our magazine attacks genocide, ethnic cleansing, and racial and religious discrimination, no matter what the religion or ethnicity of the perpetrators or the victims. Murder is murder and when it is ongoing, we will do our editorial best to stop it, whether that’s politically correct or not.

We believe Morton Klein knows this and that is why he has chosen this tactic—which is painfully familiar, thanks to Senator McCarthy and his latter-day imitators—to smear our efforts to better inform the American (and world) public about some 45 Muslim countries and their immediate neighbors, and the impact of their actions and interactions on the United States.

So now Mr. Klein also has our “full and fair characterization” of his own tactics.

A Few Misunderstood Points

I am writing in regard to your article entitled, “Dispute Between U.S. Muslim Groups Goes Public” which appeared in your April/May 1999 issue. As I read your account of the situation, I thought it necessary to point out a few misunderstood points and claims which you have made. I would appreciate a correction in the upcoming edition of your magazine.

The following are the points I wish to see clarified:

1. In your opening statement, you call us “a Sufi Muslim group calling itself the ‘Islamic Supreme Council of America,’ established in California in 1991.”

First, you do not refer to other groups as “calling itself” whatever they happen to call themselves. Second, the council was not established in California in 1991—it was established as an umbrella organization in 1997 in Washington, which included organizations dating back to 1991.

2. The Jan. 7 Open Forum was open to all—not just government officials and invited visitors, as you reported. You must have seen the two press releases which included all, noting that security clearance was required. Any individual who expressed an interest could have attended the event. Security clearance into the State Department is a brief background check on one’s social security number to make sure there is no criminal record. Other than that, anyone could attend.

3. You mentioned the interchange between AMC’s Khalid Turani and Shaykh Hisham Kabbani. The shaykh told Mr. Turani he would reveal the names to him in private, as you mentioned. However, you inferred that Mr. Turani approached the shaykh privately after the program. If you remember, Mr. Turani approached him with a large number of individuals surrounding him, and proceeded to insult the shaykh, calling him blind, and a dangerous man. Thus, he was never approached privately.

4. You mention that “ground rules” for the open forum would make remarks off-the-record. When did Anita Naylor say that “since a television camera was present, the remarks could be quoted”? The State Department has open forums every day, and unless stated otherwise, they are on the record. Moreover, the only camera present was from the audio-visual department at the State Department, which is there for every open forum, not just this particular one, as you implied.

5. On p. 101, in the first full paragraph, you say “Shaykh Kabbani’s followers were not invited to participate [at ISNA conventions] after it was rumored that he was a ‘Zionist agent’ and that his organization’s magazine was sponsored by ‘Zionist funding.’” Apparently, this was a misunderstood quote from my article in The Muslim Magazine, which you referenced. This quote referred to claims made against the Unity Conference, not, as you suggested, as a reason why participation in ISNA has been denied.

6. Was Shaykh Kabbani’s statement regarding peace in the Middle East a purely personal view, as you suggested? How many Muslim countries acknowledged the peace agreement? In the Qur’an it says, “And if they incline toward peace, then go for peace.” If the leadership of Palestine has inclined toward peace, how is it that so many people in this country are able to speak on behalf of the Palestinians, when they aren’t suffering the ravages of war on a daily basis?

Dilshad Fakroddin, Managing Editor of The Muslim Magazine, Press Secretary, ISCA, Washington, DC

Sorry if we offended you with use of the phrase “calling itself” (Point 1), but since there also is a newly established American Muslim Political Coordination Council, we wanted to make the distinction clear. Regarding your point 3, we agree that there were a number of people, ourselves included, standing around Shaykh Kabbani when Mr. Turani approached him. Mr. Turani says, however, that when Shaykh Kabbani said he did not want to name the groups he considered terrorists in public, Mr. Turani bent his head down and said “then whisper them in my ear.” It was when Shaykh Kabbani declined to do so, according to Mr. Turani, that Mr. Turani said to him, “You are a dangerous man.”

In answer to your question 4 as to when the Open Forum coordinator stated the ground rules for quoting Shaykh Kabbani’s words, it was when we telephoned her to ask if we could quote him directly or whether the entire session had to be on background. Perhaps Ms. Naylor’s point in her conversation with us was that both videos and audiotapes had been requested from and mailed out by her office.

We don’t understand your point No. 6, so will assume it’s a rhetorical question. Regarding your points 2 and 5, we stand corrected. We also share the hope expressed in your final paragraph (not reprinted above) that future misunderstandings can be avoided. A way to start, we suppose, is to discuss differences between Muslim organizations in private initially, only going public with them when all other means fail. In any future report on this dispute, we’ll do our best to report who’s bringing water and who’s bringing gasoline to pour on the flames. And, if we can figure it out, why.

Issue Numbers Driving Me Crazy

I think your magazine is a tremendous resource for those of us concerned about Middle East issues. However, I have to say as the person responsible for checking in, binding and archiving your magazine, that your total inability to number your issues in any sort of reasonable manner is driving me out of my mind (and, incidently, frequently keeping the magazine from the public while we are trying to verify its status).

This may seem trivial to you but libraries survive on accurate cataloging (it’s how we are able to find articles for researchers and the general public) and 10-20 years from now your articles will probably be inaccessible because no one can reference it accurately. Thank you.

Patrick E. Visel, Middle East Studies Library, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Here’s our guide to perplexed cataloguers. There were two—or, more accurately, 11¼%—mislabeled issues. The Jan./Feb. 1999 is correctly labeled Vol. 18, No. 1 on the back cover, but incorrectly labeled Vol. 17, No. 8 on the front. (The mistake was discovered as the magazine was being printed, and we were unable to change the front cover at that point.)

The other issue was Jan./Feb. 1998, which should be Vol. 17, No. 1 but was in fact labeled Vol. 16., No. 5. That change resulted from our decision (or the circulation computer’s insistence) that we start each new volume in January. That decision means that there were only five issues in Vol. 16, so the issues you are “missing” probably don’t exist. Funds permitting, we hope to print eight issues per year, alternating single and double-month issues.

Third Anniversary of Qana Massacre

To commemorate the third anniversary of the 1996 Israeli shelling of the U.N. camp at Qana, Lebanon, which killed 102 civilians, I thought I would revisit some of President Clinton’s remarks at the time.

Throughout Israel’s assault on Lebanon, and even after the Qana massacre, Clinton refused to condemn the Israeli assault, which had the stated goal of forcing half a million Lebanese to flee their homes and “put pressure” on the Lebanese government to rein in the resistance to the Israeli occupation. He explicitly blamed the Lebanese for the fighting (even though the Lebanese are justified in resisting the illegal occupation of their territory), and called on “both sides to show restraint.”

On April 28, 1996, speaking to an AIPAC conference, Clinton defended the Qana attack, telling the audience that he grieved for the innocent victims in the Middle East, including “for the Lebanese children in Qana who were caught between—make no mistake about it—the deliberate tactics of Hezbollah in their positioning and firing—(applause)—and tragic misfiring in Israel’s legitimate exercise of its right to self-defense. (Applause.)”

On May 1, 1996, the U.N. investigation team, headed by a Dutch general, delivered its report to then-Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. It concluded after a thorough field investigation that “While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors.”

Evidence included video footage of an Israeli drone flying above the Qana camp before and during the shelling. Despite this, on May 9 Clinton told a press conference: “But I would like to remind—it’s easy for the people in the region to forget because the shelling shocked everyone and the fighting, and the Israelis made no secret of the fact that they were dismayed by the deaths in the refugee center and that they did not intend to do it. But I would remind you that—Q [Do you] think they didn’t know where it was?

President Clinton: “I would remind you—people make mistakes in wartime. There are no such things as perfect weapons. Just because we’re living in a high-technology age, if you think we can have the sort of surgical battles in which there are never unintended consequences, that just doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t happen.”

And that was the end of it. The dead were buried. There were no sanctions, no Security Council resolutions, no airstrikes to “diminish and degrade” Israel’s capacity to massacre civilians, nothing. Boutros-Ghali lost his job, in part, it is believed, because he refused to go along with American efforts to prevent the publication of the Qana investigation. At the same AIPAC gathering, Clinton told then-Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, upon whose order the shelling of Lebanon occurred, that “I associate you” with the “search for peace.” Now just imagine if Syria or Iraq or Serbia had shelled a United Nations peacekeepers camp and then made every effort to block a U.N. investigation. The mind boggles. A woman who visited the site of Qana shortly after the massacre said to me: “Never call it a ‘tragedy,’ always call it by its name—it’s a ‘crime.’”

Ali Abunimah, Chicago, IL

Too Sympathetic to the Iranian MKO

For me, the Washington Report is the best source of comprehensive news about the Middle East and the world of Islam. However, the WRMEA (especially Mr. Curtiss) is too sympathetic to the MKO (Iranian Opposition Group). The fact is (should I say “my opinion is”) that (1) the MKO is not a viable opposition group. (2) MKO does not enjoy the support of the majority of Iranians living in the U.S. It doesn’t even enjoy the support of a significant number of Iranian-Americans. (3) MKO is a terrorist organization that betrayed the Iranian nation in the closing months of the Iran/Iraq war by invading Iran and killing Iranian soldiers. (4) Its leaders are now residing in Iraq and are totally out of touch with the everyday problems within the country.

At least write about other opposition groups such as the Freedom Movement of Iran and the National Front.

Abbas Sheikhzeineddin, Marietta, GA

Our pages are wide open to all points of view about the present government of Iran and to views from the present government of Iran as well.

C-Span Caller

Today, Feb. 22, 1999, on C-Span (cable) a caller mentioned the Washington Report and Andrew Killgore (as publisher) in a question for Cal Thomas. Thomas said that he was not aware of or familiar with the publication. The question by the caller concerned the Middle East.

Bill Canaday, Foley, AL

In fact, Cal Thomas apparently is not aware of very much about the Middle East. A year or so ago he was paired on a television program with our former news editor, Shawn Twing, giving opposing views about Israeli sales of U.S. technology. Our Web site, designed by Mr. Twing, is now the second most-visited Middle East-related Web site in the world. The fact that Mr. Thomas, who pontificates frequently about the Middle East in print and on the air isn’t aware of us may explain his seemingly uninformed views on Israel and its neighbors.

Thank Those Courageous People

The House recently concluded its vote on House Concurrent Resolution 24 which opposes the unilateral declaration of an independent state by the Palestinians. It is terribly discouraging listening to the lies, distortion and bias. If members of Congress don’t know any better, then they are derelict. And, the truth of the matter is, I believe many of them don’t know and don’t want to know.

Tom Campbell (R-CA) and James Moran (D-VA) spoke movingly in opposition. Some of the others who spoke against the resolution were David Bonior (D-MI) and John Dingell (D-MI). David Obey (D- WI), who voted for it, was in some ways the most critical of its lack of balance. He referred to the unilateral action of the Israeli government in building settlements. He agreed with others who said the resolution was not balanced, and he added that the resolution was political rather than constructive.

One member of Congress referred to the Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. I realize that the U.S. government designates them as such, but it is an enigma to me how such a designation could apply to a group of citizens formed after occupation of their land to oust the invaders, invaders whom the international community recognizes as such.

I am also discouraged by my friends. I do not understand why people can’t take the time to write and to call, especially when life is at stake as it is with the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the Lebanese. I don’t understand neighbors who say we have to let the government decide what is best or who say they are Christian but have no concern for the people this country kills directly or indirectly.

We all need to take time to thank the members of Congress who put their election on the line to speak out. I would urge you to write to the 24 representatives (listed on p. 50 of the April/May 1999 WRMEA). For those who don’t have access to the April/May issue, or to the Washington Report Web site <http://www.washington-report.org > which contains 17 years of back issues, I’ll be happy to provide all 24 names.

Betty Molchany, Alexandria, VA

Our Government’s Complicity

The Washington Report is virtually the only source of obtaining truthful and accurate information on the Arab-Israeli “conflict” and our government’s complicity in Israeli violations of civil rights. Please accept my donation to the Library Endowment.

Yehia Y. Mishriki, Emmaus, PA

A London Admirer

You have been kind enough to send me over the years the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and I have greatly enjoyed reading it. I am conscious, however, that this adds to your expenses and that these need husbanding.

I was an old Middle East hand and by now have become a very old Middle East hand. I do not, frankly, follow Middle East affairs as I used to. I have also left the Arab British Chamber of Commerce, to which you address my copies.

At the same time, I am not in a position to be a subscriber—having other obligations. I suggest you stop sending the WRMEA to me, while wishing you every success in the good work it undoubtedly does in what is an unbalanced public stance in Middle East matters. Again, thanks for having me on your mailing list for so long.

Richard Beaumont, London, England.

Your subscription dated back to some permanent complimentary subscriptions funded by our original third co-founder, former British ambassador, Edward Henderson, who died in 1995. However, the surviving two co-founders also remember your distinguished diplomatic career from their days as U.S. foreign service officers in the Middle East. We appreciate your consideration for our ever-strained finances. Shukran and Ma’ as-Salameh.

Arafat’s State

Regarding Mr. Curtiss’ article “On May 4 Palestinians Can Turn Oslo Accord Lemons Into Lemonade” (March, 1999): If May 4, 1999 is a sacred date in the mind of Yasser Arafat for proclaiming a Palestinian state, it would help believers and skeptics alike to hear what he thinks will come out of such a proclamation. Will it be as futile as the Palestine National Council proclamation of the State of Palestine back in November 1988? At that time, Palestinians had no land at all. Today, the little land under their control does not make up a viable state.

It would be foolish of Arafat to proclaim a state on land, though Palestinians own and rightly claim it, that remains occupied by Israelis. Since Palestinians cannot dislodge them by force, they must do so by negotiation. For this endeavor to succeed the involvement and support of the U.S. is vital. Palestinians are already under notice that a unilateral proclamation by Arafat of a Palestinian state will be opposed by the U.S. Congress and by President Clinton, much as he sympathizes privately with the Palestinian cause. One cannot make much of the argument that re-proclaiming the state of Palestine is a good move. The overwhelming support in the General Assembly to the Palestinian cause is certainly comforting but it has had little impact, if any, on the development of relations between Israel and the Palestinians, notably since the Oslo accord. It is ultimately the voice of the U.S. within and outside the Security Council which makes the difference.

Rather than unwittingly help Binyamin Netanyahu and his successors accomplish their vision of a dismembered entity, called a state, under Israel’s control, where Palestinians end up living, for many years to come, in fragmented boroughs separated by Israeli roads, troops and settlements, Arafat ought to exploit the May ’99 date to better advantage. He could set out to make a deal with the U.S. and Israel whereby the peace process under the Oslo accord is extended by, say, 12 to 18 months in return for a formal declaration by President Clinton, à la Balfour Declaration. In it, the U.S. government would state unequivocally that they view with favor the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on land occupied since 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object in the final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority by the end of the extended period of the Oslo accord. This may look like mission impossible but it is worth a try.

Given the political and military strength of Israel, and its arrogance, only the U.S. is in a position today to help the Palestinians realize their legitimate aspirations. Let’s not lose them as allies.

Samih A. Sherif, Montreux, Switzerland

It’s our understanding that Yasser Arafat came to Washington hoping that if he agreed to delay proclaiming a state on May 4, President Clinton in turn would pledge U.S. recognition of a Palestinian state at the end of the peace process. The resulting Clinton letter did not did not make that specific pledge but was better than nothing (see our report on p. 6 of this issue).

Fighting the Good Fight

We appreciate the fine work you are doing and the war you are fighting to bring the truth to the American public. I was glad to see the letter from Shawn Twing in the Sept. 27 Christian Science Monitor regarding the illegal transfer of American technology to Israel’s customers.

Sorry my donation could not be much larger.

Bill Palmer, Hydesville, CA

Palestinian Compensation

A few weeks ago I asked Arab-American lawyers, through posting on the Shilla list, to look into the subject of compensating the Palestinians for the land and properties the Israelis stole from them. This, it was assumed, is in line with compensating the Jews the world over for the properties the Nazis stole from them. One lawyer took a preliminary and quick look at the subject and found out that a Palestinian can sue an Israeli person or firm in an American court should that Palestinian be able to prove that the Israeli person or firm now has possession of his/her (Palestinian) property, and also that the Israeli person or entity has funds deposited in the United States. We all know this is a tall order and almost impossible to prove. The original idea was to file a class action suit on behalf of all Palestinian Americans against the substantial Israeli assets in the U.S.

I then consulted a well-known American firm good at litigation. They indicated there would be no guarantee of the outcome and there would be substantial fees throughout the “process.” Since this could take a long time (and therefore would cost a lot of money), I consulted many (about 60) Arab-American businesses, organizations and wealthy individuals in the San Francisco Bay area and requested them to offer a “pledge” to help finance (and keep a proper accounting of) the process. Only one business offered a symbolic amount of a few hundred dollars.

Next I turned my attention to government officials. Our local representatives told me that such a “bill” has no chance of passing. Letters were sent to President Clinton and Vice President Gore, congressional leaders and all seven Arab Americans in Congress. Clinton said that the subject should be resolved by the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators! Gore said that “taking away Palestinian land is not helpful and complicates an already difficult situation.” No responses were received from the legislators.

The question now is what to do next! We all know that the Israelis, one way or another, were able to do it. I believe that Arab Americans can and should do it. I also believe they have the financial resources to do it. I am therefore asking everybody to find a way to pursue this matter further. It is an absolute shame to prove spineless and to drop such an important cause.

JamalZeid@aol.com

Don’t Hide My Name

I take notice of your January letter acknowledging my very minor contribution to your Trust. It is not a generous contribution, but will have to do for the moment.

What caught my eye in your thank you letter was the choice of having public recognition of one’s contribution to the Washington Report or avoiding such recognition. I shall try to increase my contribution. You need not hide my name on your donation list.

Alexander F. Nahas, Politically Incorrect, Danbury, CT

Greatly Appreciated

Please know that although you may not hear this often enough from subscribers and others, many people are grateful for your work. Your personal sacrifice and commitment to justice are greatly appreciated. You are making a difference in the lives of individuals. Thank you.

Nader Ayish, Alexandria, VA

Actually we do receive many, many grateful and often very moving expressions of gratitude and support. We wish we had the space to print them all. We don’t, but they help us ignore the threats and extraordinarily mean-spirited (and often illegal) things a few people do to intimidate us at work and at home.

If Nationality Were Different

If an American-born youth of Muslim parents had been accused of murder in Maryland, and then fled these shores to seek refuge in the land of his father’s birth (say Libya), and that country refused to send him back to Maryland to be tried, Congress would have sounded like a zoo at feeding time, and we’d have bombed the stuffing out of them, as we do everyone else we don’t like.

Let’s watch to see what Congress does in the case of Samuel Sheinbein and Israel, still one of the world’s smallest countries but by far the largest recipient of U.S. aid.

T. Weed, Hoboken, NJ

Economic Sanctions Against Iraq

Your expanded coverage of the Iraq tragedy in the March issue of the Report is very much appreciated, especially the articles by Paul Findley, Kurt Holden and Richard Curtiss. As a spokesman for Arab Americans, Dr. Zogby left out many of the important issues. Apart from pointing out a well-founded “firm Arab belief that the United States practices a double standard in its application of international law, in its expression of compassion and in its administration of justice and use of force,” Dr. Zogby was too easy on his friends in Washington. Like most commentators in the commercial news media, his focus was on a demonized Saddam, whose ruthless rule of his people is indefensible. No less indefensible are the means adopted by Washington and London to bring down Saddam’s government through strangulation and starvation of his people.

Cruel as Saddam is, his attempt to bring an end to the sanctions and daily savage bombing in the so-called “no fly zone” is hardly a “provocative game of manipulative public anger”! Moreover, his urging of fellow Arab rulers to listen to the voices of their citizens is no more “cruel” than the very powerful, intimidating and determined pressure by the American and British “friends” of these Arab rulers in obliging them to go along with their shameful policy. Contrary to their claim as the leading advocates of democratic rules, they are leading these rulers to ignore the aspirations and views of their own people, especially in maintaining the sanctions and use of their territories to bomb their Iraqi brothers. Such a pressure is more than cruel. It is intolerable and highly immoral.

Although the ill intention of the U.S. and Britain toward Iraq is no longer invisible under a U.N. fig leaf, Dr. Zogby failed to acknowledge the extreme cruelty and the role of his friends in the Bush and Clinton administrations. While Saddam’s sins against his people are unforgiven, the sins committed against the people of Iraq by the U.S. and friends over the past eight years have by far exceeded those committed by their ruler. Not even the legendary atrocities by Hulagu against that unfortunate country in the 13th century can measure up to our own violent destruction of that country.

Clearly, the solution to the Iraqi dilemma is not in more threats of bombing, starvation and isolation of the people of Iraq, but rather in a genuine dialogue, yes even with the dictator of that sad country. It is time to begin building up hope and aspiration of the Iraqi children and time to restore faith in humanity. It is time to restore the sovereignty and dignity of the people of Iraq. These decent acts are well overdue.

Mahmood S. Suleiman, Menlo Park, CA

History Repeating Itself

It is said that “those who learn nothing from history, are doomed to repeat it.” We are seeing the truth of that now in Yugoslavia. Milosevic’s brutal treatment of the Kosovars includes driving them from their homes, looting and then burning villages, murdering innocent civilian males, and pushing thousands of refugees per hour into Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro.

This is exactly what the Israelis did to the Palestinians, sending them fleeing into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Had the Zionists been punished rather than supported by the U.S. after what they did to the Palestinians, our government might not now be faced with halting and reversing, at risk to American lives, almost identical ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

Virginia L. Oldham, Dallas, TX

Show Americans Their Hypocrisy

Sorry about the mix-up. I called you today asking why my “Other Voices” hadn’t been included since the 1999 issues began. You are entirely correct, my ADC renewal membership had only the amount for WRMEA renewal. Here’s an additional $15 for a year’s subscription to “Other Voices.” You were nice enough to give me the benefit of the doubt and promise to send all the ones I missed.

Is it possible to remind the world, especially America, that the Palestinians have been through the genocide and “transfers” that now horrify us? Because Israel does what Serbia does makes the ethnic cleansing even more unjust. Why does the U.S. not see that the Palestinians must also be given our backing, even by force against Israel, to return them to their homes and lands? Because Jews are the U.S.’s “chosen people”? I think Americans are ready to be shown this hypocrisy.

Beverly Deraney, West Roxbury, MA

Your letter provides us the opportunity to remind Washington Report subscribers that they only receive the “Other Voices” supplement (whose table of contents is listed in the magazine) if they add $15 to their subscription, bringing the total cost of a subscription to the Washington Report ($25) and “Other Voices” ($15) to $40 in the U.S.

Palestinian Parallels

One cannot but be struck by the parallels between the refugee situation in Kosovo and the refugee history of the Palestinian people: Both are a population that has peacefully lived in villages and on land for years but are now dispossessed and terrorized by a zealous, supernationalistic idealism of another people. Both have been damaged in a thousand ways.

But one, the Kosovars, are the recipients of world sympathy. Their story has been told in words and TV pictures, on the Web and by e-mail, to an anxious world waiting to give all kinds of support. This is as it should be.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been relegated to a non-person status, by both Arabs, Europeans and Americans. No TV pictures, no sympathy, no multinational handouts. Holocaust guilt, the Zionist cause and political expediency have silenced the world. And the Palestinian population continues to suffer. Will the Kosovars suffer the same fate? We’ll see. But I wouldn’t bet on it!

Brayton Gifford, via e-mail

No. They won’t suffer the same fate, partly because Europe and, to a lesser extent the U.S., have learned that if they aren’t restored to their country now, they could remain a refugee population, like the Palestinians, for generations. In our opinion it’s important that NATO stay the course until the Kosovars are restored to their homes, and equally important that we all work to make Ariel Sharon’s prediction come true that Israel may someday get the same treatment as the Serbs if it doesn’t let the Palestinians return to their homes.

Muslim Stereotyping

I am a self-proclaimed student of Islam. I read everything that I can get my hands and eyes on about the subject. I have spent a lot of time in the Middle East, both as a soldier in the Gulf war and as part of diplomatic security in Israel during the peace process failure of 1995-1997. Now I study political science and philosophy at the University of Colorado. The Middle East is a passion of mine. The stereotype of all Muslims being terrorists and anti-Western concerns me also. People in America have jumped to conclusions, with the aid of CNN, and have no real exposure to the peaceful ways and good-natured people of the Middle East that go unrepresented because the media choose to present a negative canvas based on the actions of radical Muslims who have deviated from the sacred text of the Qur’an.

Gibb Clarke, via e-mail

God bless you. The publisher and executive editor of this magazine stumbled into the same passionate concern to reverse unjust U.S. policies in the Middle East while going about Uncle Sam’s legitimate business there in the 1950s. We may not live to see the establishment of true peace with justice there but, with the dedication of new generations of people like you, it will happen. Then everyone, Americans and all Middle Easterners, including the Jews of Israel, will finally be liberated from preoccupation with this nightmare of injustice to develop their full potential to make the world a better place for all.

Thanks for the Tunisian Stories

I would like to thank Delinda Hanley and Janet McMahon very much for the articles on Tunisia in the April/May 1999 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, and particularly for the article written about our National Family and Population Board and its role in promoting South-South cooperation in the field of reproductive health, population and development. Thank you again for sending me a copy of this issue and I wish to receive another one, if possible, to send to the Partners Secretariat in Bangladesh. Wishing you all the best and looking forward to seeing you again in Tunisia or elsewhere.

BelHaj Aissa Adnen, Office de la Famille et de la Population, Tunis, Tunisia

You’re Wrong on Tunisia

You have had two issues of the Report that featured and showered almost unqualified praise on the Tunisian regime of Ben Ali. This regime, unlike the government next door to them in Algeria, seems to have learned the fine art of spin doctoring. In this “image-is-everything” world, with the prevalent and pervasive (Zionist-inspired) Islamophobia spread by the Western media, the Ben Ali regime has succeeded in projecting an image of a modern (read Western), reasonably democratic and liberal government. This spin has won kudos for the regime from a few eager (or perhaps overeager?) supporters, including your own magazine. In their image creation campaign the Tunisian authorities have gone even as far as creating a fake Amnesty-like Web site extolling their own “progress” in human rights.

In my mind there can only be two explanations for anyone supporting or praising the Tunisian regime. Tunisia was one of the first Arab regimes to jump on the “Peace Process” bandwagon and begin cozying up to Israel. And why not? After all don’t they both share that common enemy, the ever-feared Islamist? Will we treat the Arabs as equal human beings, equal to those of us living in the West (or the East), with equal human rights? Not only the people of that region, but I believe that history itself will judge us on how we choose to answer that question.

Saif Hussain, Woodland Hills, CA

We’re seldom accused of carrying water for Israel and we don’t think we need lessons in supporting human rights everywhere. But instead of rattling on about defending to the death your right to say disagreeable things about us, we’ll point out a third explanation for our favorable articles about Tunisian development (in three issues, not merely two), particularly in the fields of equal rights for women, public health, universal education and economic development the hard way—meaning by hard work to make the country stable and attractive despite the absence of oil or gas. The third, and in this case correct, explanation is that we’ve been there—many times. Have you?