Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 1999, pages 54-59

Other People’s Mail

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

The Sheinbein Case

To The Washington Post, March 15, 1999 (as published).

The Post’s Feb. 27 editorial on the Sheinbein case focused on the Israeli law that prevents the extradition of Israeli citizens and conflicts with Israel’s obligations under its extradition treaty with the United States.

But the real problem is that Israel’s Law of Return automatically confers Israeli citizenship on any Jewish person from the moment that person arrives in Israel for whatever reason. Whether Samuel Sheinbein acquired his Israeli citizenship through his American Israeli father or through his own presence in Israel after he fled there from the United States is immaterial. That a U.S. citizen who had never before set foot in Israel can acquire Israeli citizenship instantaneously and thereby escape the U.S. judicial system is egregious.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court abetted this situation in one of its worst decisions of recent decades, Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), which permitted a naturalized U.S. citizen who had later become an Israeli citizen to retain both nationalities. Afroyim had the effect, when combined with subsequent court decisions, of gutting our nationality act so that American citizens can have dual or multiple nationalities unless they formally and voluntarily renounce their American citizenship. Hundreds of thousands of dual Israeli-American citizens live in Israel, the United States and elsewhere. The combination of our own misguided court decisions and Israel’s unreasonable Law of Return accounts for the unpardonable Sheinbein case.

Robert V. Keeley, Washington, DC

The Israeli Law of Return

To The Washington Post, March 23, 1999 (as submitted).

In his letter to the editor (“For Israel, No More Sheinbeins,” March 23), the deputy chief of mission of the Embassy of Israel concedes that the Israeli law under which Samuel Sheinbein was allowed to escape trial in Montgomery County (where the brutal murder of which he is accused was committed) is “archaic.” Anyone familiar with the recent history of the persecution of the Jews should understand why he feels that this law once served a purpose. Beyond understanding, however, is his assertion that the Israeli apartheid system is “equitable.” The Israeli Law of Return grants any Jew born anywhere in the world the right to “return” to Israel even if he never lived there. Non-Jews, even if born on soil now claimed by Israel, have no such right. Like Sheinbein’s father, both of my parents were born in Palestine. In fact, my mother was born in Jerusalem, which Israel insists is the “eternal and indivisible capital of Israel” and has annexed in violation of international law. Yet, Israeli law would not allow me to claim Israeli citizenship even to escape a Montgomery County parking ticket. The significant difference between Mr. Sheinbein and me under Israeli law is that he is Jewish and I am not. This is not equity.

Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, President, Minaret of Freedom Institute, Bethesda, MD (The Minaret of Freedom Institute is an Islamic think-tank).

Netanyahu: “Statehood Response Will be Harsh.”

To the St. Petersburg Times, March 15, 1999 (as submitted).

Recall that in 1948 Israel declared statehood that was hastily recognized by the U.S. This was without considering the Palestinians who represented the majority of the population. If Harry S Truman did (as rumored) accept over $1 million in cash for his support is perhaps a moot point today except to say that it shows the skullduggery involved. The fundamentalist Christians supported statehood as well, rationalizing that all the subsequent confiscation of land, bigotry and racism (apartheid) was God’s doing, not theirs. God gets blamed for a lot of things.

It is obvious that the intention of the Israeli administration, with the financial support of the U.S., is to continue stalling the peace process and to continue appropriating Palestinian land with the ultimate objective of complete control. The fate of the Palestinians will be the same as that of Native Americans. In today’s modern world that should be unacceptable.

Netanyahu’s new threat of a “forceful response” by Israel if Palestine statehood is declared in May (the deadline of the Oslo peace accord) is of little significance to a people who have already suffered 50 years of dispossession, refugee camps, exile, etc. How much more forceful than that? Why should Palestinians believe that any worthwhile result can come from continued negotiations while behind the scene roads and “settlements” for Jews only are being built as fast as possible on illegally occupied lands? As Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Most of the remaining indigenous people of Palestine have this attitude.

A quote in Dr. Alfred Lilienthal’s The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace? states: “Palestine is a Holy Land, sacred to Christian, Jew and to Muslims alike, and because it is a Holy Land, Palestine is not, and can never become a land which any race or religion can justly claim as its very own.” There cannot be peace otherwise.

Dr. and Mrs. James Rogers, Palestine Human Rights Campaign, Stone Mountain, GA

An Appeal to Rescue Bethlehem

This is a cry for help from Bethlehem on the eve of the 2000th anniversary of Jesus Christ’s birth from INFOPAL, the Palestinian News Network, March 9, 1999.

The Bethlehem district has suffered like its sister Palestinian towns and villages from such unjust Israeli practices and policies as settlement creation and expansion, construction of bypass roads, house demolitions and diversion of our water resources to Israel and its settlements resulting in acute shortages—adding to already devastating drought conditions due to sparse rainfall. In addition the Bethlehem district, whose main source of income is tourism, has faced economic strangulation due to various Israeli actions. But under the current Israeli government, these activities have intensified to an unprecedented level.

The northern sections of Bethlehem, including the main entrance from Jerusalem, remain under total Israeli control. Instead of turning this entrance into a place befitting the gateway into this place of such religious and historical significance, the army has transformed it into something resembling a narrow, heavily guarded prison gate. Total and partial closures not only hold our people hostage in their own homes, but also discourage pilgrims and tourists from spending time here. Adding insult to injury, some Israeli tour guides deliberately try to frighten tourists about entering areas under Palestinian control—especially the Bethlehem district—even though there is no record of any tourist ever being harmed in an attack in any of these zones.

At the same time, land in the Bethlehem district is under rabid attack in virtually every possible location from Israeli settlers, backed and encouraged by the Netanyahu government. Our agricultural, archeological, religious, cultural and historic sites face relentless assaults from brigades of Israeli bulldozers.

Bethlehem residents, like the vast majority of Palestinians, truly want peace. We were looking forward to the approach of the third millennium as a time that would bring peace, tranquility, prosperity and freedom to this special place—the birthplace of Jesus. In anticipation of this, we have tried to maintain self-restraint, patience and resolve to protest non-violently as we struggle against this onslaught to our land, heritage, future and the idea of peace. We have written innumerable appeals in the hope that the international community and peace-loving peoples around the world would come to our aid. Yet, apart from empty lip service and empty optimistic talks, help has failed to materialize. We continue to stand alone. And we worry that what we have witnessed so far may just be the tip of the iceberg.

As a result, the good faith and hope with which the population of Bethlehem was looking forward to the occasion of the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus have now been replaced with the all too familiar feelings of anxiety, uncertainty and fear of the future.

This is the Netanyahu government’s contribution to the Millennium celebrations.

We feel that the situation in the Holy Land has reached a point so grave and so alarming that genuine, substantive intervention by the world community has become a moral, political and practical obligation. We ask—no, we demand you take action to protect the city of Bethlehem from wholesale devastation by Israel’s government. This is the only way to save this timeless treasure of humanity, to restore our people’s hope and to give peace a remaining chance.

Hannah Nasser, Mayor of Bethlehem

A Courageous Remembrance After Decades of Coverup

To The Washington Post , March 30, 1999 (as published).

The Post’sobituary of Capt. William McGonagle, skipper of the USS Liberty, ambushed by the Israelis on June 8, 1967, is a courageous remembrance of a perfidious sneak attack—after decades of calculated coverup and shunning.

During the days of the event, as American consul at Stuttgart, Germany, I assisted Air Force Gen. David Burchinal, who was in charge of U.S. Armed Forces in Europe and North Africa at the time, in planning the evacuation of Americans from North Africa and the Middle East. The evacuation later comprised more than 30,000 Americans.

At one point the general asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Who, repeat who, are the enemy?”—meaning Soviets or Israelis. And the Joint Chiefs did not answer for two days. Aside from other uncertainties in the fluid situation, a cruel enigma remains: Why were two fighters launched by the Sixth Fleet to rescue the Liberty recalled almost at once to their carrier? Who gave superior orders to the Sixth Fleet? Was the Liberty wittingly abandoned to bloody attack?

George F. Bogardus, Bethesda, MD

A Cordial Invitation

To Hon. William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, March 9, 1999

The USS Liberty Veterans Association is holding its next reunion on June 2-6, 1999 at the Holiday Inn Sunspree Resort located at 3900 Atlantic in Virginia Beach, VA. We cordially invite you or your designated representative to attend the reunion in order to explain the official American position on the attack on our ship and to respond to questions from the crew. While our interest is in the attack as a whole we would appreciate your being able to speak specifically on the following issues:

• When will the Department of Defense release the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry Report that was prepared by Admiral Isaac Kidd? The report that has been released has obviously been modified significantly since it does not contain the testimony of Lt. Lloyd Painter concerning the machine gunning of our life rafts in the water. Missing also are statements of two dozen USS Liberty crewmen that were presented to the court and the detailed statement of Lt. James M. Ennes, Jr., who was the officer of the deck during the morning watch.

• Why has the Department of Defense waived its obligation under Department of Defense Directive 5100.77 with regard to the USS Liberty? You have ignored hundreds of requests made by this organization to investigate the violations of the laws of war that were committed by and against the United States during the attack upon our ship despite the requirement that your own directive obliges you to investigate them completely.

We look forward to seeing you or your officially designated representative at our reunion.

Joseph L. Meadors, Vice President of the USS Liberty Association, P.O.Box 260822, Corpus Christi, TX 78426-0822

Racism and Sexism

To the New Hampshire Keene Sentinel, March 28, 1999 (as published).

How did the Arab-Israeli conflict start? The best answer to that is in a 130-page book by Israel Shahak: Jewish History, Jewish Religion: the Weight of Three Thousand Years.

I always thought if I knew who shot or beat up whom first, I would find the answer as to how it all began. My sympathies were, of course, with the natives rather than with the colonizers, but I still did not know who “fired the first shot.”

Shahak does not bother with this Hatfield-McCoy approach I had been working with. He says the first Zionist colonizers of a hundred years ago were out-and-out racists and that, simply put, explains the origin of the conflict.

No kibbutz, liberal as it may have been in political philosophy, was ever open to Arab laborers. Further, racism has always been a major factor in Israel’s history and a factor also in Jewish history. It exists today particularly among small but powerful religious conservative groups and in the core of the army (and also the Mossad, according to another authority).

Most Jews, even those who know about it, do not speak out against it. It is discussed more as an issue in Israel, says Shahak, than in the Diaspora, especially the U.S. and England, where it is not discussed at all. It exists today largely in the Hassidic Judaism, which has its headquarters in New York City.

One does not like to criticize Israel because often one has Jewish friends who support that country, sometimes financially, and are proud of their support and of the country. One’s Jewish friends are kind, congenial and are often humanists in the finest sense and are not racists.

Shahak correctly points out, however, that racism best flourishes when it is ignored; or by common and tacit agreement it is not discussed—or when it is discussed, but only in terms of the faraway South or the long-gone but much-remembered Holocaust.

Why were the first Jewish colonizers racists? Why weren’t they like the Jews we know who are opposed to racism? Shahak points out that most of the colonizers came from “the Pale,” that part of Russia (which formerly belonged to Poland) where most of the world’s Jews lived.

The Pale was least exposed to Western ideas, and was autocratically controlled by conservative rabbis whose ideas were about as modern as 800 A.D. The Jews of the Pale in 1800 were just emerging from the Middle Ages. The main religious concern of the rabbis was not only how to obey the will of God, but also how to behave toward gentiles. Gentiles were definitely an inferior creation and should be so treated.

Further, the culture of the Jewish Pale developed an absolute contempt “for agriculture...and for peasants as a class, even more than for other gentiles, a hatred of which I know no parallel in other societies. This [writes Shahak] is immediately apparent to anyone who is familiar with the Yiddish or Hebrew literature of the 19th and 20th centuries.” The author documents this all beyond a reasonable doubt.

From this pool, then, came the first settlers into Arab Palestine, and they brought with them not only financial backing and recently acquired advances in Western technology, but also their racist, anti-gentile, anti-peasant ideas of the pre-modern period of Judaism.

The Arab peasant had little money, little technology and no racist ideas. Innocent though he was, he was doomed from the start.

Shahak contends that Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora have to confront the racism and sexism in their own culture just as Christians have done.

I encourage both my friends and my critics to read Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion.

James G. Smart, Keene, NH

Misrepresentation Concerning Deir Yassin

To Simon Spungin, Ha’aretz Magazine, Tel Aviv (as submitted).

In your commentary on Deir Yassin (Ha’aretz, April 9, 1999) I was misrepresented. I never said that 254 Arabs died at Deir Yassin. I said that The New York Times reported this number were killed (April 13, 1948, p. 7). And what was the source of that number? It came from Mordechai Raanan, commander of the Irgun, at a tea and cookies party held for foreign journalists at Givat Shaul on the evening of April 9, 1948. It was not an Arab fabrication; it was a Jewish number that was repeated in many books and articles over the past 51 years.

The Zionist Organization of America has tried to discredit Deir Yassin Remembered, claiming we deliberately inflated the figure of those murdered at Deir Yassin. But the ZOA’s vile revisionism of the history of the Deir Yassin massacre has only served to put its members on a par with those who would deny the Holocaust.

Under its current president, Morton Klein, the ZOA has published unbelievable propaganda called “Deir Yassin: History of a Lie” in which it denies that any massacre occurred at all! I expect their next publication to cover extensive research into Dr. Baruch Goldstein’s “battle” at the Ibrahimi mosque on Feb. 25, 1994 and to tell us, with great piety, that this holy martyr fought off hoards of Arabs before he was overpowered while serving the state of Israel.

Bobby Brown, aide to Prime Minister Netanyahu, was quoted last November as saying, “We’re a people who had not only our property and lives stolen from us but also had our history stolen from us. And it’s incredibly important that we be able to recover our history.” I never met Bobby Brown. Is he Palestinian?

Daniel McGowan, Hobart & William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY

The Attempt to Change History

To the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 26, 1998 (as submitted).

According to Robert L. Lappin’s letter (Oct. 23) there was no Palestine before 1917. “The land was barren and depopulated, except for Jewish pioneer farmers and a small number of non-Jewish nomads.”

There is a wonderful unbiased description of said territory. Karl Baedeker’s 472-page guide titled Palestine and Syria. The English 1898 edition is a translation of the German, 4th edition, written by university professors, experts of the region with no axe to grind:

• The total population of the area was 3 to 3-1/2 million, made up of: Franks (Europeans), Jews, Syrians and Turks. Jews are described as mostly recent settlers from Europe, Syrians are all the descendants of the people who spoke Aramaic at the time of Christ, later changed to Arabic. The small Arabian population were either settled or nomadic.

• Syria was divided into 5 areas, Palestine was one of them with about 650,000 population.

• There were railroads from Beirut to Haifa to Tripoli, to Damascus and from Jaffa to Jerusalem. You could have sent telegraphs from offices in 48 towns.

If you are interested, you can find information of how many Christians, Jews and Muslims lived in each town, how they lived and worshipped as well as life in the many villages.

Palestine was not a barren depopulated country. The attempt to change history in order to justify the treatment of Palestinians today is cheap and weak.

Helga Kasimoff, Hollywood, CA

“The Two Faces of Arafat”

To the New York Post , March 23, 1999 abridged, (as submitted).

Whoever writes your editorials on Yasser Arafat, the Palestinians and Israel could not be more off base. What is never acknowledged by this person is the very root of the Palestinian-Israeli issue: the fact that Israeli independence resulted in nothing less than the displacement and dispossession of an entire people. Zionism was and remains a form of racism. Yes, there has been a lot of terrorism on the Palestinian side, but their country and land was taken from them by force when Israel was created! All subsequent actions by the Palestinians result from this original injustice! Yes, Israel is the land of the Jews and I do believe they have a right to it—a part of it, not all of it. Zionism never addressed the fact that Palestinian Arabs had resided in Palestine for thousands of years. Why do you think that the majority of the Jordanian population is Palestinian? Because they were thrown off their land by the Jews when Israeli independence was proclaimed.

Denying Israeli actions in this mess is absolutely akin to neo-Nazi claims that the Shoah was a scam. Why can you not admit Israeli/Jewish fault? That is nothing short of blasphemous. Oslo and Wye have brought Arafat nothing. An Israeli-administered airport in Gaza (big deal), endless settlement expansion in the West Bank. Talk about unilateral actions. Netanyahu should be thrown out of office. Why can’t Arafat claim independence just like David Ben-Gurion did over 50 years ago. Why? May 4 cannot pass unrecognized.

Please don’t misinterpret my opinions. I am pro-Israel and would love to visit, but Israeli actions have put such a sour taste in my mouth for Israel that I cannot go there. Obviously I am pro-Palestine. All these years I was thinking that the Palestinians were terrorists and nothing else. How sadly wrong I was!

Michael Prinz, Deer Park, NY

USA Is Too Pro-Israel

To USA Today, March 19, 1999 (as published).

A just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict can only be achieved if U.S. policy is based upon American moral principles and a strict adherence to international law.

I am strongly opposed to the continued Israeli occupation of Arab territory and the denial of basic rights and freedoms to Palestinians under Israeli military rule.

No peace initiative will ever succeed in the long run if it denies the Palestinians the liberty to which all people are entitled. Unfortunately, the United States has always been silent about Israel’s continuing occupation, obediently providing military, political and financial support that only strengthens Israel’s belligerent posture toward its neighbors.

The confiscation of Arab land to build more Jewish settlements, the expulsion of Palestinians, their arrest and imprisonment, the systematic torture in the prisons, the total absence of due process, the demolition of homes, the diversion to Israel of scarce water resources and the often indiscriminate killing of men, women and especially children are violations of international law and moral standards.

We as Americans have a special responsibility to put a stop to these abuses because they are being carried out with our military and political support.

James J. David, Marietta, GA (The writer is a retired Army National Guard brigadier general whose active duty included eight years in the Middle East.)

A Biased Interpretation

To The Detroit News , March 17, 1999 (as published).

The March 9 article “Palestinian Schools Teach ‘Hate,’ Local Mothers Say” appears to be quite one-sided. Only one person cited in the article has ever seen the allegedly hate-filled programs that The News discusses. At the end of the article, there is a call to action on behalf of a group wanting to cut off educational aid to the Palestinian Authority.

The News accepts on faith the interpretation given by a longtime supporter of Israel. While there is certainly nothing wrong with supporting Israel, one must understand that an active supporter of Israel may not be entirely disinterested in her analysis of Palestinian motives.

By turning to an Arab American for a second opinion, The News likely believed it was giving both sides of the story. However, the source was not familiar with the children’s program. Why did The News not view the program firsthand or find a person who had viewed the program through an unbiased eye? I am troubled that a respectable newspaper can allow such shoddy reporting.

Ben Williams, Columbia, MO

Bombing the Innocent

To The New York Times, Feb. 18, 1999 (as published).

James Windle (letter, Feb. 13) justifies the United States’ bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan last August as a display of “American resolve to combat terrorism” and cites the “ferocity” of Israel’s responses to terrorism as a model. The fact that chemists found no evidence that the plant was producing the ingredients for chemical weapons is not important, Mr. Windle writes, because “the message to terrorists was loud and clear.”

But the chief message of the bombing was that the United States is willing to punish innocent people for the crimes of others. The bombing also sent a signal to the rest of the world that the United States is willing to violate international law by attacking other countries at will on the basis of flimsy evidence. Finally, such actions arouse further resentment and hostility among people who are already feeling aggrieved, and thereby contribute to the conditions that breed terrorists.

Rachelle Marshall, Stanford, CA

ADC’s Open Letter to AP

To Mr. Tom Kent, International Editor, Associated Press, 50 Rockefeller Plaza. New York, NY, 10021, April 14, 1999

A Lexis-Nexis search indicates that on April 11, 1999, Associated Press Online ran a news article about an Israeli air attack against Lebanon entitled “Israel Jets Bomb Terrorist Targets.” The AP story itself was unbiased, stating that “Israeli warplanes attacked suspected guerrilla positions in southern Lebanon on Saturday, Lebanese security officials said.” The article goes on to quote an unnamed Israeli military spokesman as stating that Israeli military aircraft had attacked “terrorist targets” in southwest Lebanon.

While the text of the article is fair, the headline clearly is not. The headline accepts the Israeli definition of Hezbollah and the Lebanese resistance against Israeli occupation forces as “terrorists,” while the text of the article correctly states that “The targeted area is believed to be used by Hezbollah guerrillas to launch attacks against Israeli troops and allied Lebanese militiamen in the Israeli-occupied zone of south Lebanon.” It is unfortunate that your article failed to mention Israel’s obligation to withdraw unconditionally and “forthwith” from Lebanon under U.N. Security Council Resolution 425, which has been ignored for 21 years. Attacks on foreign occupation troops, especially those in violation of a direct order of the U.N. Security Council, are not consistent with any definition of “terrorism.”

The United States government has recognized the distinction between legitimate resistance and terrorism, and, commenting on the activities of Hezbollah in Israeli-occupied southern Lebanon, the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, David Satterfield, said: “We make a distinction between resistance and terrorism, and we do not view this [Lebanese] resistance as terrorism.”

The use of the term “terrorist targets” in the headline for this story is indefensible, and clearly at odds with the text. This headline, if indeed it was attached to the story by AP, raises serious questions about the standards and practices at work. Other news organizations whose employees have made similar mischaracterizations of Hezbollah and its resistance activities in southern Lebanon, such as CNN, have assured us that they will not repeat this error in the future.

Hussein Ibish, Media Director, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Washington, DC

Israel’s Reaction to Kosovo

To National Public Radio News, Washington, DC, April 14, 1999.

Steve McNally’s report on “Morning Edition” today, about the reaction to the Kosovo war in Israel, was deeply one-sided and contained a number of inaccuracies. McNally examined only the opinions and divisions among Israeli Jews and ignored an excellent opportunity to explore points of convergence in the perception of history between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. While many Jews sympathize with the Kosovars and compare their plight to that of the Jews in Europe, Palestinians also overwhelmingly identify with the Kosovars because they see the Kosovars’ mass expulsion and dispossession of their homeland as being very similar to what happened to the Palestinians in 1948.

My mother on first seeing the pictures of the Kosovar flight said to me, “I felt so sorry for them when I saw them on the back of trucks and tractors—it looked just like we did when they forced us to leave Palestine.” She and her family were forced by proto-Israeli forces to leave their village of Lifta, west of Jerusalem, in early 1948. She is not the only one who had this reaction.

Israel, while it has sent a token field hospital, and taken in 17 families, who it decked out in Israeli flags and T-shirts as they emerged, blinking from their aircraft, has seen a tremendous publicity reward from its small investment, while much poorer countries in the region, such as Jordan, who have raised as much or more money and aid, have been ignored by Western reporters.

McNally did report, however, that some Israelis, such as Sharon, do not condemn Serbia because they see a parallel between Serbia and Israel, and do not like the precedent of a “sovereign” country being forced to give up land to a restive “minority.” McNally then went on apparently to confirm the validity of the comparison in his own words, saying “Israel has a sizable Muslim minority, who aspire to independence.” This is inaccurate nonsense.

If by this McNally was referring to the one million Christian and Muslim Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin (who are the descendants of the rump Palestinian population that was not expelled in 1948), then he is completely wrong. Most of them pointedly do not aspire to independence from Israel. Rather, as NPR has occasionally reported, they aspire to equal citizenship and equal rights in a non-religious “state of all citizens.” Currently they are second-class citizens in a state that gives special rights and privileges to Jews. The candidacy of prominent Palestinian Israeli politician Azmi Bishara for the prime ministership of Israel in the forthcoming elections embodies this analysis and is an attempt to draw attention to it.

If McNally was referring to the Palestinians (again, both Christian and Muslim) who live in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, then again there is no comparison. Their right to self-determination, freedom from Israeli occupation and sovereignty in their own land is enshrined in international law, resolutions of the United Nations, and the overwhelming opinion of the international community, with the notable exceptions of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and, last but not least, the United States.

It is Israel that, like Serbia, is trying to change the facts on the ground. What was once done by forced expulsion and terror is now done mostly with bulldozers and administrative orders of demolition, expulsion and confiscation.

It is a disappointment that McNally’s report reduced the Palestinians to merely a problem for Israelis struggling with difficult issues, and once again rendered them voiceless in a situation where they, too, have much to say.

Ali Abunimah, http://www.abunimah.org

Kosovo: The Cleansing and the Cost

To The Washington Post, April 16, 1999 (as published).

As an American election supervisor assigned to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s mission in Bosnia in 1997, I worked in the northeastern Bosnian town of Zvornik, where the first horrors of ethnic cleansing began in that country in 1992.

There is a large empty space in Zvornik, an eerie field of grass in the heart of the town with no fountains, no monuments, only the occasional game of soccer by Serb children. This was the site of the largest mosque in Zvornik. Yet not even signs of a foundation remain. Memories of the Muslims in the town, like the mosque itself, have been erased, both physically and from the minds of a new generation of residents. This horrific and tragic form of urban planning is once again underway in Kosovo.

This has been the Orwellian goal of Slobodan Milosevic and his accomplices from the beginning—to “correct” history, change borders and convince any remaining or newly settled Serb inhabitants that nothing was ever any different.

For many years, because of a stubborn but disastrously misplaced desire to remain “neutral” in the face of Serbian aggression, the international community was a handmaiden to nationalist Serbs. Now Slobodan Milosevic continues his murderous project in Kosovo. How many more mosques or multi-ethnic communities will be ground into the dirt and turned into soccer fields?

Today we have another chance to rescue history. Do not forget Srebrenica, do not forget Racak, and do not be deaf to the silence of the voids of the Balkans. Their presence cries out for our steadfast support of NATO’s late but vital operation.

Darius Suziedelis, Washington, DC

Bad Public Relations

To The New York Times, April 10, 1999 (as submitted).

The greatest crime the Serbs have committed was their failure to engage an Israeli public relations firm. If they had, instead of reading about their vicious and genocidal cleansing campaign, we would be hearing that the Kosovars voluntarily left their homeland to make way for five invading Muslim armies, whose goal it was to drive the heroic and peace-loving Serbs into the sea. And after having defeated these Islamic hordes and the unrepentant Nazi advisers who no doubt were assisting them, the victorious Serbs could have then circulated one of their legends, concocted in the Bronze Age, that the lands of Kosovo had been given to them and their holy seed forever by God. This would make any of the Kosovars who remained behind unholy trespassers on the land of the divinely chosen owners, subject to expulsion at any time. And finally the Serbs could then have gone on record that they were a people divinely raised above all others and should therefore be a sort of model of “light among nations.”

Too bad. I guess the Serbs blew it and now they have to endure a horrific pounding by B-2 bombers and cruise missiles.

J. Melita, Great Neck, Long Island, NY

Double Standard

To the Austin American-Statesman, April 10, 1999 (as published).

A double standard in the foreign policy of the United States is evident when a parallel is drawn between the Yugoslavian Serbs and the Israelis. The Israelis all but destroyed the infrastructure of Lebanon in 1982, killing more than 17,000 people in an invasion that violated international law. In addition to allowing U.S. weapons to be used in the invasion, the United States vetoed the United Nations condemnation of Israel. Unlike the Albanians, who will return to the Serbian province of Kosovo following the bombardment that will leave Serbia’s military in shambles, the 800,000 Palestinians who fled to Lebanon and Jordan during the Arab-Israeli wars continue to live in refugee camps and are not allowed to return to their ancestral homeland.

Prof. & Mrs. Paul Peter Hatgil, Austin, TX

Comparing the Serbs and Zionist Settlers

To the International Herald Tribune, April 3, 1999 (as submitted).

President Clinton has stated that Slobodan Milosevic wants to “keep the land of Kosovo and rid it of its people,” (IHT, April 3).

Of course, that was precisely the approach of the European settlers of what is now the United States toward the native Americans and of the Zionist settlers of Palestine toward the Palestinians. The ethnic cleansing was called “pioneering” in North America and “redeeming the land” in Palestine. Americans tend to consider both transformations wonderful, even divinely ordained.

Perhaps the newfound ability to distinguish right from wrong in Kosovo’s case will cause Americans to re-evaluate these prior (and, in Palestine’s case, continuing) instances of ethnic cleansing and their own moral obligations toward the survivors and their descendants.

John V. Whitbeck, Paris, France

To Canadians, Sisters and Brothers in Humanity

Press Release, April 3, 1999

Dear Canadians, sisters and brothers in humanity. We represent the tolerant mosaic of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-racial society. We are a proud nation of all people of humankind. We have gathered today to peacefully protest the Holocaust taking place once again in the heart of Europe. The Oxford and Webster dictionaries both define Holocaust as “a wholesale destruction of a nation.”

In the last year of the last decade of the last century, two millennia after Jesus Christ, we all have been witnessing before our own eyes a most horrible tragedy. As repeatedly confirmed by the news media, millions of people have been subjected to genocidal crimes that have affected countless innocent children, women and men. Enormous pain, suffering, deprivation and most inhumane torture, inflicted upon their innocence, will continue haunting and tormenting our human conscience until eternity.

It is the irony of all ironies, this Good Friday has been such a Bad Friday, such a terrible Friday, for countless Albanians—bewildered, frightened, ordinary and average human beings. It is hypocrisy of all hypocrisies that these crimes are again taking place in Europe.

This most evil precedent, yet again occurring in Europe, is not lost on wicked dictators in Asia and Africa. It has enticed humanoid psychopaths to take a cue from the destruction of Croatia and the rape of Bosnia. As a result of this menacing medieval archetype, we have also witnessed the subsequent devastation of Somalia, Rwanda and the Caucasus.

Encyclopedia Britannica has dubbed this century the century of “ethnic cleansing”—a euphemism for genocide. For the first time in the history of humankind, civilians have been the primary targets in the genocidal wars of this decade where pedophiliac rape and torture have been used as “weapons of war.”

We appeal to peace-loving people from all backgrounds to support democracy, to support the rule of law, and to support civility and humanity. This is our public appeal to all good human beings—the overwhelming majority of us ordinary, average people—to rise again against Nazi Fascists, against Stalinist and Hitlerian inhumanity in Europe. Otherwise, this catastrophe will engulf many other countries and will threaten the very existence of humankind on our unique miracle planet.

If we neglect our civic duties and moral responsibilities now, what will our future be? Will humankind survive? Fellow Canadians, if we abdicate our moral obligations and discard human conscience and empathy then surely we know what goes around will once again come around. Whose turn will tomorrow be? “Never again” will we humans allow a Holocaust to take place.

Dr. Mel Dilli, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Why Don’t You Resign?

To H.E. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, United Nations, New York, NY, March 10, 1999.

Your attention is invited to The Washington Post’s lead story of March 2, 1999 encaptioned “U.S. Spied on Iraqi Military Via U.N.”

From this unrebutted story it appears that the colonization of the United Nations is now complete. Your tenure, Sir, has succeeded only in bringing ignominy on the once august body. Please do the necessary (and honorable) thing by tendering your resignation forthwith. In doing so you will be rendering a service to the United Nations.

El Haj Miraj H. Siddiqi, Chairman; M. Aslam, President; and Shaheed Chaudhry, Secretary-General, Council of Pakistani-American Organizations, Arlington, VA

The Consequences of the Iraq Embargo

To Mr. Dale Vree, Editor, New Oxford Review, Berkeley CA, April 3, 1999.

Kudos to New Oxford Review and Nicholas C. Lund-Molfese for having the courage to inform readers of NOR concerning the ongoing American embargo of Iraq and its horrible consequences on the people of that country. His article is an articulate and passionate protest to this most unfortunate American foreign policy.

American Catholics perhaps do not realize that they have many brothers and sisters in faith within the country of Iraq. Half a million Catholics live in Iraq, and are suffering under the sanctions just as much as their Muslim neighbors. They are primarily of the Eastern rite, with Assyrian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Catholic and Latin Catholic denominations present. Pope John Paul II is currently planning a visit to Iraq in the year 2000 to support the Catholic Christians within Iraq.

The Catholic community of Iraq, and indeed the entire population, needs our help. I challenge American Catholics to support our brothers and sisters in the following ways:

1. Become educated about American foreign policy toward the peoples of the Middle East. Although the Iraqis are suffering as a result of the American embargo, so are Palestinians suffering under Israeli occupation which is supported by 6.3 billion dollars of American taxpayer money each year.

2. Write, telephone and pressure your elected representatives in Washington to respect the basic human rights of all peoples throughout the world. Help them to realize that bombing a population and destroying a country’s infrastructure with the aim of toppling the current leadership is illogical and morally reprehensible.

3. Pray unceasingly for peace in Iraq, in Palestine and throughout the world. Pray for our president and our elected officials to pursue foreign policies which do not involve indiscriminate killing but instead look to foster future peace and stability. Become involved with groups such as “Voices in the Wilderness,” which Mr. Lund-Molfese mentions in his article.

Thank you for helping educate your readers about the deleterious effects of the Iraqi embargo. People are dying, young and old alike, due to this misguided policy. The time has come for the American Catholic community to take a stand for social justice not just in America, but throughout the world.

Anthony Ughetti, Hebron, IN