July/August 1994, pp. 76-80

Other People's Mail

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

"No Regrets"

To the San Francisco Bay Guardian, April 1, 1994

I'm astounded by the assertions of the new regional director of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith) that her organization "has done nothing wrong." In positioning ADL as civil libertarian, she inverts reality. During the past 40 years thousands of individuals and hundreds of groups, political and not so political, have been ADL spy targets. This is the stuff of McCarthyism and Watergate; not of an organization committed to assuring or extending civil rights.

What's more, in ADL's Barnum and Bailey world, its November out of court settlement with San Francisco DA Arlo Smith is offered as vindication. How? It was fined. The DA still holds its files. And ADL agreed to stop seeking California—only California—law enforcement agency intelligence information. Put another way, it agreed to stop doing what ADL says wasn't wrong to do in the first place. It's a formulation I'm sure George Orwell would find fascinating.

If ADL expects to rebuild its badly corroded public image and credibility, and continue to pursue its "fact finding" (spying) operations, it's ensnared in an impossible contradiction. If ADL expects to reach out again to minority communities, and yet Arab Americans' dossiers—perhaps more—remain locked in ADL's computer files, what will be the basis for new credibility? No, we are witness only to a public relations charade.

Maha Jaber, Coordinator, San Francisco Chapter, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, San Francisco, CA

The Only Moral Response: End the Israeli Occupation

To The Baltimore Sun, March 22, 1994

Last month, Israeli television showed scenes of settlers firing on Palestinian residents of Hebron while Israeli soldiers stood by, or even cooperated. After that, Dr. Baruch Goldstein slaughtered Muslim worshippers as they prayed, and the Israeli army fired on them as they fled.

There are many responses to this massacre. Some have already rejoiced, many will deplore it and feel ashamed and perhaps angry, the U.N. will issue another (its 67th) reprimand of Israel, and the American press will do "damage control."

But I am thinking of Gandhi's response when government officials told him that the Amritsar massacre was "not government policy." He said, "Despite the best intentions of the best of you, you must in the very nature of things oppress us to control us. It is time you recognized that you are masters in someone else's home."

The simple fact is this: It is Israeli government policy to rule over a people who want selfdetermination. The international community, including the U.S., has declared Israeli occupation and the settlements illegal; they are masters in someone else's home.

To enforce such an illegal and immoral occupation has, in the very nature of things, required terror and massive human rights violations. This massacre then, is not an aberration; it is an extreme case in point.

A few years ago, Israeli journalist Ari Shavit wrote in Ma'ariv, "It is not a matter of territories in exchange for peace. It is a matter of territories in exchange for our humanity." Of all the responses to the massacre, only one is truly moral: end the occupation.

G. Simon Harak, Baltimore, MD

Call Baruch Goldstein a Terrorist, Not a Madman

To The Washington Post, March 16, 1994 It was disturbing that the word "terrorist" was conspicuous by its absence from The Post and other media coverage of the massacre of Muslim worshippers in Hebron. Even more distressing was the media's passive acceptance of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's characterization of the killer as a "madman," a label which implies that responsibility for the massacre lies not with the man who carried it out, nor with his supporters—the settler movement in general, the Israeli army, etc.—but with some sort of mental illness.

The "madman" label and omission of the word "terrorist" imply that the murders were carried out in solitude by a sick and disturbed man. On the contrary, the killer, Baruch Goldstein, was a member of an organized group (the Kach Movement) that openly espouses violence against Arabs in Israel. His own supporters in the settler movement vigorously deny he was crazy.

Dan Metz, Baltimore, MD

Truth, Not Misrepresentation, Is Path to Mideast Peace

To the San Francisco Chronicle, May 20, 1994

Geraldo Joffe's comments to the contrary (SFC letters 20 May), Rachelle Marshall was absolutely correct in her statement that illegal Jewish settlers in the occupied territories, comprising 10 percent of the population, use 80 percent of the water. At a conference on Mideast Water Problems at San Francisco State University last weekend it was pointed out that Israel over its period of occupation has depleted the water table of the whole area, allowing settlers extravagant usage and punishing Arabs with high water costs for contaminated water. Southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights are being held not for "security" but to control present and future water sources.

Rachelle Marshall and Geraldo Joffe are both Jews. Both want a secure and prosperous Israel, but they approach their goal in divergent ways. Joffe has misrepresented the situation, hoping thus to gain political support for a more militant Israel, whereas Marshall has told the truth, believing with her many American supporters that a democratic Israel must realistically adjust to its Arab neighbors for a peace and security that only mutual trust, not guns, will accomplish. Rachelle Marshall is right on!

Edward W. Miller, San Rafael, CA

Judaism Isn't Israelism

To the Stanford Daily, April 22, 1994

It was troubling to read in Wednesday's Stanford Daily that many of the exhibits in the Jewish arts festival convey a message "reflecting Zionism—the support of a Jewish homeland in Israel." For me, as for many other Jews, Judaism and our Jewish heritage do not mean supporting the state of Israel but trying to live according to values and teachings that go back more than 4,000 years.

To us, Judaism is a way of looking at God and our fellow human beings, with reverence for both. At its best, to be Jewish means being rational, compassionate and always a little skeptical. It also means being burdened with a history not only of persecution but of great courage and endurance—a legacy that cannot be borne lightly.

The state of Israel, since its inception, has violated some of the most basic precepts of Judaism. The "homeland" celebrated in the current Jewish arts festival is today the fourth-ranking military power in the world. It holds territory seized by force from the Palestinians, has expropriated most of their land and water, crippled their economy, killed thousands of their young people, and systematically tried to destroy their culture and society.

How would we feel about a Chinese arts festival that featured China's occupation of Tibet? Or if a British arts festival focused on the colonization of India? There is much to celebrate in Jewish tradition and culture without emphasizing the most recent and shameful phase of our history.

Rachelle Marshall, Stanford, CA

Lerner on Mideast Peace

To the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 21, 1994

Not to detract from Michael Lerner's optimistic article, but I must object to his depiction of Palestinians as terrorists. Twice Lerner refers to the indigenous Palestinians as "terrorists" while describing the invading Israeli colonists of occupied Palestine as "settlers."

Semantics is not trivial: It reveals the individual's mindset and perspective. The sophistry of those descriptions should be selfevident. Historically speaking, the oppressor obfuscates by transferring the blame and labeling its oppressed victims as hooligans, rebels and terrorists.

Contrary to Lerner's contention that the world should be proud of Israel, I would maintain that the world should be proud of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people, in the redblooded American tradition of resisting tyranny, have triumphed over what Lerner describes as "one of the most powerful and sophisticated armies in the world" just as Americans, in our revolution, triumphed over the tyranny of the world's most powerful and sophisticated army, the English.

Furthermore, the lesson that Lerner claims Israel is teaching the world is not new; the two English peoples of the United States and the United Kingdom were subsequently able to reconcile and to become the staunchest of democratic allies. The two Semitic peoples of Israel and Palestine, hopefully, will be able to reconcile and become the staunchest of democratic allies.

Arch Miller, board member, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Los Angeles Chapter, Los Angeles, CA

Rosenthal Should Explain What Is the Alternative for Israel

To The New York Times, March 13, 1994

I read with great interest A.M. Rosenthal's March 9 column "The New Palestine," warning of Palestinian expectations of statehood since the declaration of principles was signed in Washington on Sept. 13. He seems to view a Palestinian entity as a great risk for Israel.

I believe that he and others who share his views have a responsibility to answer some basic questions: What is the alternative to the present policy? Do you prefer that Israel rule over two million Palestinians against their will, without political rights forever?

Should Israel risk becoming a bi-national or non-democratic state by annexing the territories, or should it seek a situation where the Palestinians run their own lives?

Do you doubt Israel's military strength so much, even after repeated victories against Arab coalitions, that you view a demilitarized Palestinian entity that has signed a peace treaty with Israel as a serious threat to Israeli security?

It goes without saying that any peace agreement will include, to use Mr. Rosenthal's words, "specific important guarantees" for Israel's security. But the attention Mr. Rosenthal focuses on these issues diverts him from addressing fundamental questions like those asked above.

The debate in Israel is not about security measures—it is not about early warning stations or positioning of troops. We are all concerned about those. Rather it is a substantial debate over national priorities and vision for the future.

Gad Yaacobi, Israeli Representative to the U.N., New York, NY

Address the Settlement Issue!

To The New York Times, March 13, 1994

During the implementation of the Camp David Accords, Menachem Begin urged Jewish settlers of Sinai to leave peacefully, while Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres visited Jewish settlers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, assuring them that if Labor were to form a government, it would never sanction dismantling any Jewish settlements. Thus, it was no surprise that, in the secret negotiations between the Israeli Labor government and the Palestine Liberation Organization that led to the signing of an agreement of principles last September, the Israelis deferred the matter of the settlements until "not later than 1996." The Labor government hoped the issue of the settlements would go away as Palestinians gradually accept a fait accompli.

According to the annual State Department reports on human rights practices in the occupied territories, the building of these settlements, initiated by a Labor government shortly after the 1967 war, violates the 1907 Hague Land War Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civilian populations under military occupation. The massacre of Palestinian worshippers in the Hebron mosque by an Israeli settler is a grim reminder that these settlements are an obstacle to peace.

The Labor government needs no further proof of the urgency of addressing the issue of the settlements now.

Shaw J. Dallal, adjunct professor of international relations and business, Utica College, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

A Great Success Story

To the Los Angeles Times, April 24, 1994 A Los Angeles Times story by Carey Goldberg referred to "One of the greatest success stories by a military underdog since 1948, when tiny Israel held off the might of a dozen Arab nations surrounding it..."

The reference is historically inaccurate. Even Israeli historians acknowledge that "tiny Israel" had weapons and trained soldiery which at least matched in numbers the Arab forces, and only three Arab nations were more than nominally at war.

This was one paragraph only in an otherwise very informative story, but it illustrates the enduring power of political mythology. I can only suggest that your reporter read Benny Morris, a contemporary Israeli historian, and that you scrutinize copy a little more closely.

C. Patrick Quinlan, Edina, MN

Effects of Hebron Closure on Medical Facilities

To Dr. Jonathan Fine, Association of Israeli-Palestinian Physicians for Human Rights International, March 22, 1994

Enclosed you will find a report on PHR activity following the massacre and a letter of complaint sent to various government officials about the current situation. At this point in Hebron 120,000 Palestinians live under curfew so that 415 Jewish settlers can move freely. This situation has lasted now for 24 days and from talks with Israeli officials we are led to believe that the curfew on Hebron will continue until the end of Passover.

We believe that pressure from individuals and organizations abroad might affect the decisions of the Israeli government and accelerate the lifting of the curfew in Hebron and closure of the occupied territories. Enclosed are the fax numbers of influential ministers from the Israeli government. We would appreciate it if you and other organizations would send faxes to the ministers stating your point of view on the situation.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin

Fax# 0119722664838 Minister of Justice David Libai

Fax# 0119722285438 Foreign Minister Shimon Peres

Fax# 0119722303367

We greatly appreciate your concern and assistance.

Neve Gordon, The Association of Israeli-Palestinian Physicians for Human Rights, Tel Aviv

The following letter regarding the effects of the closure on the Palestinian health system was sent by Physicians for Human Rights on March 17, 1994. Today, March 23, 1994, the situation has not improved.

Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, Defense Minister

Dr. Shuki Shemer, Deputy Director, Ministry of Health

Dr. Yitzhak Sever, Chief Health Officer, Civil Administration

Dear Sirs:

Re: The effects of the closure on the Palestinian health system.

EAST JERUSALEM

The closure imposed by the Israeli government on the occupied territories 20 days ago is causing serious problems for the Palestinian health system and severe harm to the whole population.

There has been a drop of some 50 percent in the number of patients reaching hospitals in East Jerusalem, which serves as a medical center for the Palestinian population in the occupied territories. Percentage occupancy of beds in Makassad Hospital (the largest hospital in the occupied territories) stood at 80 percent before the closure and has since dropped to 40 percent. Its outpatient clinics, which usually provide ambulatory treatment for 400 to 450 patients per day, have been treating only some 200 patients a day since the closure. At St. John's Hospital, patient numbers have dropped from between 150 and 200 to between 70 and 80 a day. Augusta Victoria Hospital has experienced a drop of some 30 percent in overall activity since the closure, both in occupancy of beds and ambulatory treatment.

A striking example of the severity of the situation is the problem of premature babies in Makassad Hospital, whose mothers are prevented by curfew from reaching the hospital in order to breast-feed.

All the hospitals report that the above figures are not proportional to population distribution and that patients living south of Jerusalem (in the Hebron region) make up the majority of those suffering from lack of access to the hospitals.

Medical personnel working in East Jerusalem have been required to arrange new permits for travel during curfew and closure, despite the fact that lists of such personnel were provided for the Civil Administration following the imposition of the closure of April 1993. Obtaining new permits takes up valuable work days for all the medical staff in East Jerusalem hospitals. In addition, vehicle permits held by doctors have been withdrawn, which limits their regular movement and is liable to cause a loss of life.

HEBRON

In Hebron, curfew prevents the use of any private vehicles. This greatly overburdens the ambulances, which are required to service not only patients but also medical personnel (for transport from their homes to hospitals and back).

In many cases, medical personnel's documents are not accepted at checkpoints. On March 15,1994 an ambulance taking a patient to East Jerusalem for a CT scan was refused entry, and a week earlier an empty ambulance traveling to Jerusalem to bring medicines was also refused entry.

PHR demands that a solution be found for all the problems mentioned and that the various allegations be investigated.

1. We request that Civil Administration offices granting travel permits for patients be opened 24 hours a day in all districts.
   
   
2. We request that the requirement for new travel permits imposed upon East Jerusalem medical teams be lifted, so saving hundreds of medical work days.
   
   
3. We request that permits for doctors' private vehicles be renewed.
   
   
4. We request that medical teams in Hebron be allowed to travel in private vehicles in order to reduce the impossible burden upon ambulances.
   
   
5. We request that orders regarding freedom of movement for medical personnel and especially ambulances be reissued to soldiers at checkpoints.

We believe that the only way to solve these problems entirely is by lifting the curfew and closure. We would like to ask you to bring to an end the collective punishment imposed upon residents of the territories.

Sincerely, Neve Gordon, PHR Director

Bosnians Have Right to Arms

To The New York Times, May 5, 1994

In "Don't Arm Bosnia" (OpEd, May 5), Claiborne Pell, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, and Lee Hamilton, House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, are mistaken on the law.

The United Nations Charter provides that the Security Council may limit the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense by states only by removing the threat to the peace or the aggression that gave rise to the right to use force in self-defense in the first place. Successive United States administrations, Republican and Democratic, have interpreted the Charter in this way.

The authors are mistaken on the consequences of lifting the Bosnian arms embargo. Their arguments are the same as those advanced to bar help to the Spanish Republic in the 1930s, the Afghan Mujahedeen in the 1980s, the contras, the South Vietnamese and the Israelis. Do the Bosnians, who are members in good standing of the United Nations, have no right to expect collective security to be a bulwark and a shield?

The perspective of the authors recalls many painful moments of history when those who could do the right thing turned away because they would not or could not recognize the congruence of self-interest and morality. The result of the chairmen's policy (which appears to be United States policy) is to encourage small states, particularly the states created after the Cold War, to adopt policies of "sauve qui petit." They foreseeably will include the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction as the ultimate guarantee.

Nicholas Rostow, Tulsa, OK (The writer, associate professor of law and history at the University of Tulsa, served as legal adviser to the National Security Council, 198793.)

Let Bosnian Muslims Arm Themselves

To The New York Times, May 13, 1994

My colleagues Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Senator Claiborne Pell, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, offer a seductive set of reasons against United States termination of the arms embargo against the Bosnian Muslims in "Don't Arm Bosnia" (OpEd, May 5).

Ending the embargo, they contend, would Americanize the war and encourage others to break the embargoes against the rogue regimes of Libya and Iraq. Pointing to the pullbacks of the Bosnian Serbs from Sarajevo and Gorazde, they note, "diplomacy is working."

Diplomacy may be working, but not for the Bosnian Muslims, who have been denied their right under the U.N. Charter to arm and defend themselves while their communities are uprooted, towns destroyed and civilians subjected to heavy gunfire.

Diplomacy has worked for the Bosnian Serbs. While their civilian leaders haggled over ceasefire proposals, their military leaders loosed tank, artillery and sniper fire on unarmed civilians, gunning down women and children as if for sport.

Ending the arms embargo against the Muslims would Americanize the war no more than it already has been since United States warplanes have engaged in air strikes under North Atlantic Treaty Organization imprimatur; nor can Bosnia's situation be compared to those of Libya and Iraq. Neither of those countries is fighting for its national life.

I have not been among those who believe air strikes alone will bring about a ceasefire, and the American people are manifestly unwilling to commit United States military ground forces to the conflict. The only honorable option, contained in a bill I have introduced, is to allow Muslims to arm themselves in selfdefense.

Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (RNY), Ranking Republican Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC

Muslims Going to Death

To The New York Times, May 5, 1994

Contrary to A.M. Rosenthal's "Bosnia and the Holocaust" column (April 26), the question is not: Is Bosnia another Holocaust? Bosnia is a separate immense tragedy, which might have been avoided by the United States and Western powers.

A news article from Sarajevo in the same issue describes the sickening suffering in Gorazde and how the Serbs deliberately targeted and shelled the hospital. Are we not to care about these mutilated and wounded because they are Muslims going to their deaths? Is the child slaughtered or maimed in Bosnia of less value than the child who perished in Dachau?

Eleanore Kennedy, New York, NY

No Ledger of Suffering

To The New York Times, May 5, 1994

Despite the great losses of relatives in the Holocaust, I am appalled by the tendency, as exemplified in A.M. Rosenthal's April 26 column, "Bosnia and the Holocaust," to compare every atrocity to this tragedy. People who are persecuted now do not suffer less because others were treated as badly or worse 50 years ago. A crime against humanity committed today is not more acceptable morally because the same or a worse crime was committed in the past. Let us stop arguing and start cooperating. That would be a better memorial to the Holocaust victims.

Marianne Rich, Jamaica, Queens, NY

Turkey Battles Terrorists, Not Kurds

To The Washington Post, April 16, 1994

Re "Tragedy in Turkey" (editorial, April 4): For more than 900 years, peoples of Kurdish background have lived on the Anatolian peninsula in peaceful coexistence with all other ethnic groups, a reality of the very basis of modern Turkey. However, certain extremists, who aim at destabilizing the region, found the turmoil after the Persian Gulf war convenient for using the Kurdish population in pursuit of their own ill agenda. The power vacuum after that war in areas bordering southeast Turkey has become fertile ground for the PKK—Kurdistan Workers Party—to breed its campaign of terror.

As a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group, the PKK had been stripped of its ideology with the Soviet Union's fall. Consequently, the PKK claimed to represent the Kurdish population with a socalled program of extreme nationalism under the guise of free thought and expression. Its intention is to carve a separate state out of the sovereign borders of Turkey.

Unfortunately, it is easy for Western societies to confuse the terrorism PKK represents with the Kurdish victims of the Gulf war, whom Turkey and the United States try to help through Operation Provide Comfort.

No government in Turkey has ever intended to solve the socalled Kurdish issue through "military means." Turkey's political leaders are wise enough to avoid the "Vietnam Syndrome." Instead, the Turkish government has accelerated economic and social reform programs for the Southeast region. Such measures have earmarked nearly 17.5 percent of Turkey's total investment capital for enormous development projects in the Southeast, such as the Southeastern Anatolia Project. The PKK realizes the huge constructive potential of such initiatives and attempts to impede them through violence.

You misunderstand the separation of powers in Turkey's democratic system when you speak of the Turkish government's banning a Kurdish-based political party and detaining five Kurdish members of Parliament. Not the government, but the Turkish Grand National Assembly—including nearly 100 Parliament members of Kurdish origin—voted to lift the immunities of the members in question through a democratic, legal and constitutional process.

They have been accused of capital crimes, but no capital punishment has been carried out in Turkey since 1984, although executions continue in other Western countries.

Turkey does not view its Kurdish citizens as a "minority," but as equal members of society. Turks of Kurdish origin have served as presidents, prime ministers, members of Parliament, governors and judges. We will not condemn these citizens to permanent minority status.

An unstable Turkey does not benefit the strategic interests of the United States nor serve peace and stability in a region already devastated by volatility.

Nuzhet Kandemir, Ambassador of Turkey, Washington, DC

U.S. Fights to Stymie Iraqi Compliance

To The New York Times, May 21, 1994

Secretary of State Warren Christopher is wrong on many of the issues he addresses in "Wobbly on Iraq" (OpEd, April 28). For example:

—The number of countries and people calling for a change in policy toward Iraq, particularly for lifting economic sanctions without delay, cannot be described as a mere "some." They include many Security Council member states, many Arab states and Iraq's neighbors Jordan and Turkey, which have also suffered the economic bite of the sanctions.

—The official statements by the Special Commission, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Secretariat on issues of Iraq's compliance contradict, rather than support, Mr. Christopher's notion that "Iraq is not now in compliance with any of the obligations the Security Council imposed at the end of the Persian Gulf war."

That is why the Security Council failed to issue a statement at the end of its March 18 meeting. Many members, including three permanent ones, insist that the Council should acknowledge Iraq's progress in compliance with Security Council resolutions. It was the United States representative who opposed such acknowledgment. Mr. Christopher's assessment does not represent the views of the majority of Council members.

—As to the Kurdish issue in Iraq, between April and August of 1991 extensive and serious talks took place in Baghdad between the government of Iraq and the leaders of six Kurdish parties, including those of Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani. A comprehensive agreement was reached on such issues as the shape and extent of autonomy in the Kurdish region of Iraq, the participation and the role of the leaders of those parties in the government and election of a new legislative council.

As news of the agreement, to be signed for implementation in September 1991, reached Washington, the State Department told the Kurdish leaders to send a delegation to review the agreement. When the delegation, led by Mr. Talabani, arrived in Washington, Edward Djerejian, then assistant secretary of state, who remained in his post under Mr. Christopher, told the Kurdish delegation not to go ahead because the agreement would strengthen President Saddam Hussain. Mr. Christopher could check this in the State Department records. All witnesses to the episode are alive.

—The development projects in the marsh lowlands of southern Iraq involve drainage, land reclamation and water resources. They were conceived in the 1950s by American and British experts, and proposed to the Iraqi government. American, British, Dutch and Russian companies were involved in the plans and their implementation in the '50s and '60s. The projects took many years and were not all completed.

The comprehensive economic blockade imposed on Iraq since 1990 has naturally had a dire impact on the food situation. Iraq was left with no alternative but a policy of self-sufficiency, especially in food production. All national resources were mobilized to complete those projects, because they would result in developing more than 1.5 million hectares of arable land.

Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister, Baghdad, Iraq

Robb Has Received $64,000 From Pro-Israel PACs

To Robb for U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, May 3, 1994

Dear Senator Robb:

Thank you for your recent mailout regarding the possible election of Oliver North, a convicted felon, to the U.S. Senate. Since I live in Washington, DC, I cannot vote for either you or Colonel North.

However, I take exception to your uncritical and continuing support of Israel. To date, I know that you have received $64,000 from pro-Israel PACs and have voted for aid for the Zionist state since the beginning of your senatorial career.

Even though I am Jewish, I do not support Israel. I am opposed to the housing subsidies Israelis receive and feel that the money would be better spent here at home to house the homeless of Northern Virginia.

To date, Israel has demanded and received close to $100 billion, none of which has been repaid and all of which has been converted from "loans" to "grants" under the infamous Cranston Amendment.

It sickens me to think about the numbers of Palestinian men, women and children murdered and maimed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF), who have been armed and trained by the United States government. I vehemently object to such use of my tax dollars.

I hope that in the future you will think more about the needs of the people of Virginia and less about the needs of overfunded, armed zealots posing as moral, religious people.

Kenneth R. Kahn, Washington, DC

Double Standard in Reporting On Pollard Spy Case

To Joann Byrd, The Washington Post, May 5, 1994

On April 15, 1994, I sent you a five page memo entitled "The Pollard Omissions." Perhaps not surprisingly, in light of the sensitive subject matter, I have not heard from you. Perhaps I was in error to think that the role of an Ombudsman was to communicate with Post readers? Now, however, recent events make my case all the clearer and stronger. Please take this opportunity to address my concerns.

The thrust of my prior memo was that The Post's coverage of the Pollard spy case was fair but truncated. That, for example, critical evidence from a very credible source, Seymour Hersh, was omitted from the story in question by reporter Ruth Marcus. This evidence supports the assertion by former Secretary of Defense Weinberger that Jonathan Pollard was guilty of treason. Comparing the Ames case to the Pollard case, I maintained:

"Thus, while it is already clear that Ames harmed U.S. intelligence interests, Pollard made the entire nation vulnerable to Nuclear Armageddon by providing the Soviets with all that we knew about USSR capabilities and our targeting of her."

First of all, among others, my April 1 5th memo was reviewed and commented upon by a professor at Yale University. As to the comparison of the Ames and Pollard cases made above by me, he stated:

"Technically, there is a U.S. constitutional question whether treason can exist here in peacetime. (Pollard was worse than Ames.)"

Secondly, in a very significant editorial of May 1, 1994 entitled "Aldrich Ames and the CIA," The Post concluded, inter alia:

"At his trial, Mr. Ames revealed himself as a moneygrubber prepared to casually betray his country, service and family" (emphasis supplied).

Third, here is The Webster's definition of "betray" applied by The Post to Aldrich Ames: "To give up treacherously; to be disloyal to...a traitor."

So, we easily reach the bottom line. While the Yale professor, my academic mentor, calls the Pollard case "worse than Ames," The Washington Post calls Ames a "betrayer," a traitor, while it calls Pollard a "spy for a friendly nation." This is the worst kind of double standard in reporting—one that is so inconsistent as to rise to the level of intellectual dishonesty.

Of course Aldrich Ames is a traitor, and I doubt you will see Americans organize to seek clemency for him. It just turns out that Jonathan Pollard is a more dangerous traitor. Can The Post deal with this kind of question with the depth necessary for a great paper? So far, one is not hopeful.

T.P. Ellsworth, Esq., Arlington, VA

Our Data Base on Pollard Espionage Was Incomplete

To Mr. Terry Ellsworth, May 13, 1994

Your patience, I see, is running thin. I can understand how it might.

I agree with you that quoting Seymour Hersh would give Post readers a different view of the seriousness of Mr. Pollard's acts—and a clearer understanding of why this administration refused him clemency and Weinberger said he was guilty of treason.

The Post database for the last year shows no reference to Hersh or his evidence in connection with the Pollard story. I don't think it's imperative in every story (and may not have been essential to Ruth Marcus' report). But it certainly does cast his acts in a different light.

I will suggest to editors and writers in the newsroom and the Editorial Page that readers ought to learn of the evidence that Israel passed the information to the Soviets. (I don't know whether Hersh is the only source for that information, but he is, as you point out, a reliable source.)

I suspect the Pollard case will be in the news again, and I promise the appropriate writers and editors will have seen your letters, and my endorsement of your central point. Thanks for waiting.

Joann Byrd, Ombudsman, The Washington Post