Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/August 1998, Page 85

Other People's Mail

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

A Reprimand to Days Inn

To Mr. Joseph R. Kane, President, Days Inn, Parsippany, NJ, Feb. 23, 1998

Dear Mr. Kane:

I have traveled more than two dozen times to the Middle East, in addition to my travel throughout the United States. I was very disappointed to learn that Days Inn has assumed controlling interest in the seaside hotel, The Palm Beach Israel, in the occupied Gaza Strip. I understand that access is denied to Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip and others. In effect, Days Inn is benefitting financially from the continued occupation of the Gaza Strip, in defiance of United Nations resolutions. I shall refrain from using Days Inn hotels for as long as you continue that practice.

Thank you for considering my views.

Scott Kennedy, Vice Mayor, Santa Cruz, CA

A Palestinian Has a Dream, Too

To the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 25, 1998 (as published).

Thanks to whoever chose the photograph of the elderly, beautiful Palestinian man being followed by smirking Israeli soldiers with giant artillery for the newspaper’s second page on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

Please remember that a Palestinian has a dream, too.

Naomi Shihab Nye, San Antonio, TX

Netanyahu Overrules All

To The Washington Post, April 29, 1998 (as submitted).

In the Post edition of April 28 I read the statements of Mr. Netanyahu, clearly showing his lack of interest in a prompt and just peace agreement with the Palestinians. He acts with unlimited arrogance as if he were the ruler of the world, with total authority over its nearly six billion people and the United Nations.

As you remember, the world, through the United Nations, in 1947 decreed the establishment of a Jewish State and a Palestinian State. Who gave Mr. Netanyahu the authority to overrule the decision of the U.N.?

In addition, Mr. Netanyahu, again against the will of the whole world that approved the basic principles of the right to self-determination and of human rights without excluding any ethnic group, now declares that self-determination must be limited.

Since our government does not find anything unacceptable in the statements made by Mr. Netanyahu, should not the U.S. media, at least, make some comments on this matter?

René Espinosa, Sr., Fall Church, VA

Mideast Talks

To the Los Angeles Times, May 14, 1998 (as published).

Perhaps America can use Binyamin Netanyahu’s refusal to participate in a Middle East summit (May 9-11) as an opportunity to right the horrible wrong done 50 years ago when the U.S. and most of the rest of Europe legitimized Zionism by recognizing the so-called state of Israel. In so doing, the West (through its surrogate, the United Nations) attempted to legitimize the theft of Palestine from its indigenous populace, i.e., the Palestinians.

Now would be an opportune time for the West to withdraw its diplomatic recognition of the racist, apartheid settler state, Israel, and recognize in its stead the Palestinian Authority as the sole representative of all the people of Palestine, from the West Bank to Gaza.

Ronald O. Richards, Los Angeles, CA

Shame on Both the Democrats and Republicans!

To the Los Angeles Times, May 14, 1998 (as published).

Land for peace was the basis for an agreement signed by Israel, the PLO and the United States. Israel now wants to renege on its agreement and keep the land and have peace as well. If Netanyahu digs in his heels for 12 months for only 2 percent of the land, will he ever be serious about the final settlement involving a lot more land?

It is time that Congress puts U.S. interests and U.S. credibility before Israeli interests. Shame on both the Democrats and the Republicans for not having the guts to stand up to the Israeli lobby and do what is right for the U.S. and the world.

Jamshed H. Dastur, Balboa Island, CA

U.S. Must Stand Up to Israeli Bullying

To The Atlanta Constitution, May 19, 1998 (as published).

Monday we learned that “the Clinton administration on Sunday backed away from a threat to suspend its mediation of Mideast peace talks, even though Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not accept a U.S. proposal for territorial compromise.” It’s just another example of the tail wagging the dog.

The United States is the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and this is demonstrated by its lopsided support of Israel no matter what violations it commits. The influence of Israel’s lobby and political affairs committees has turned Congress and the White House into yes- men for Israeli interests. Israel should get out of our politics and stay out. The promiscuous use of the label “anti-Semitic” to tar and feather any critic of Israel must also stop. It’s time for the United States to get tough with Israel.

James J. David, Marietta, GA

Arafat Is More Than Ever Under Israel’s Thumb

To the Warrenton, PA News Record, May 1, 1998 (as submitted).

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, referring to the Palestinians, said, “You can dream every night and you will still wake up every morning and see there is no Palestinian state. There is no Palestinian state. There is not and there will not be a Palestinian state.”

Once a leader with great power and independence, Arafat is now under the Israeli thumb as never before. Arafat must challenge Netanyahu forcefully and unequivocally on the question of statehood. The Palestinian State has existed since November 1988 and has been accorded diplomatic recognition by 124 other sovereign states since that year. The Palestinian State has existed for almost 10 years, five years prior to the Oslo accords. Arafat should proclaim the existence of the state of Palestine and begin to act like a head of state.

The real problem is the policy of the U.S. government. As long as it refuses to see that Palestinian statehood is a major issue in the permanent status, peace will not exist. Israel is the aggressor and has been illegally occupying Arab territory since 1947. Israel continues to violate international law. The U.S. must cut off all aid to Israel immediately. Our generosity has been violated too often.

Ray F. Dively, Baden, PA

Clinton Is Right to Pressure Israel

To The New York Times , May 11, 1998 (as published).

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s claim that a 13 percent withdrawal from the West Bank would harm Israel’s security (front page, May 7) lies in the teeth of the conclusion reached by his own general staff only a month ago.

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright deserves the appreciation of all those who care deeply about the security of Israel. She understands, as did Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, that the alternative to the fulfillment of the Oslo accords will be war. When that war is over and the dead have been buried, all of the problems besetting the Middle East will still be there.

There is no alternative to peace, and there are no benefits from protracting the process, only unacceptable risks.

Theodore R. Mann, Philadelphia, PA

(The writer is a past chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.)

Peaceful for a Reason

To the Toronto Globe and Mail, May 7, 1998 (as published).

Re “Something’s Missing” (letter, May 4):

Mark Silverberg attempts to discredit your editorial’s criticism of Israel (April 30) by asking: “Do we [Canadians] have to live next to hostile neighbors? Are our teenagers asked to guard buses from the threat of suicide bombers?”

No, we don’t have such terrible problems, but we certainly would if Canada were behaving like Israel and illegally occupying its neighbor’s lands while killing, brutalizing, oppressing, humiliating and dispossessing the inhabitants.

Gary D. Keenan, Vancouver, BC, Canada

The First Lady and the Palestinians

To the New Hampshire Gazette, May 18, 1998 (as published).

Again, the first lady of the United States has demonstrated far more independence and courage than her husband.

Hillary Rodham Clinton recently stated, via satellite to a group of Israeli and Palestinian youth in Geneva for a conference on the prospects for a Mideast peace, that she felt it would be in the long-term interests of peace and stability in the region for the Palestinians to have their own state.

She went on when answering questions to add that the long-suffering Palestinians will have the governmental responsibilities of providing services for their people, such as health care and education, and for developing industry and commerce.

No sooner did those words leave her mouth than the president’s spokesman and entire Clinton administration disavowed her comments, saying they were her own “personal” feelings and did not reflect official U.S. policy on this question.

What? All Mrs. Clinton did was to state the obvious and that is peace negotiations and talks are not an end in themselves. She knows what the end game is and she came right out and said it: the Palestinians need a state of their own.

And the criticism and heat she has received for having “the nerve” to come right out with this has not subsided from the Israelis and their American patrons.

Three cheers for Hillary Clinton for showing that at least someone in Washington has the guts to speak the truth.

Steven P. Duplisea, North Attleborough, MA

A Salute to the First Lady

To Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Washington, DC, May 8, 1998

This is to congratulate you on your courage and your integrity in your message to the Palestinians, that they deserve a state of their own. I had read previously that you had met at the White House with Arab-American and Muslim groups, but my most vivid impression of you previously was your trip to Jerusalem with the president—a visit which included only Jewish and no Christian or Muslim holy places.

You will be accused of advancing your husband’s political agenda in Middle East peace. Perhaps you have, in spite of White House official denials. But I believe you presented your own personal beliefs, and that most informed Americans agree with you. Thank you.

C. Patrick Quinlan, Edina, MN

Bravo, Hillary!

To the Los Angeles Times, May 14, 1998 (as published).

Re: “First Lady Rocks Boat of U.S. Mideast Policy,” May 8. Bravo, Hillary! It took a brave woman to stand up to Netanyahu, the Jewish lobby, Congress and the president to finally express this self-evident truth. There can be no peace in the Middle East without a sovereign Palestinian state. So, how about it, Hillary for president?

Reno S. Zack, San Dimas, CA

Take Another Strong Stand

To Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Washington, DC, March 3, 1998

Dear Madam Secretary:

Now that Prime Minister Netanyahu has succeeded in wrecking the peace process, you must establish a new and more balanced foreign policy in the Middle East. We can no longer allow the Israeli lobby and domestic politics to influence our policy in that region. President Clinton and you were able to make Saddam Hussain back down because you took a firm stand, but our government is reluctant to take an equally strong stand with the government of Israel.

In addition to weapons of mass destruction, Israel has continually waged war against its neighbors. Please don’t buy the Israeli claim that these wars were forced on it by its Arab neighbors; the facts prove otherwise. I don’t have the time or space to lay out the facts for all of these wars so I’ll only refer to the 1967 war. (See attached sheet.)

First, you’ll have to make changes in our peacekeeping team. Dennis Ross and Aaron Miller as well Martin Indyk were all involved with various pro-Israeli think tanks and AIPAC and should be disqualified as this is clearly a conflict of interest. (See article on Martin Indyk taken from the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, Sept. 26, 1997.)

There are approximately 5 million Jews in the Middle East and about 250 million Arabs; we must have a more balanced policy that reflects the interests not only of our own country, but also all the countries of that region. This will improve the possibility of a solution that will allow Israel and its neighbors to live in peace. This will happen only as a result of a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians that requires Israel to give up the West Bank and Gaza completely. Why is our government so reluctant to point out to Prime Minister Netanyahu that the settlements are a violation of Article 49-E of the Fourth Geneva Convention?

Paul Wagner, Bridgeville, PA

Not A Grave Threat

To The New York Times, May 11, 1998 (as published).

“Critical Moment in the Mideast” (editorial, May 6) is another example of how the debate over West Bank percentages has obscured the underlying realities of Israeli security in the 1990s. A Palestinian state that includes Gaza and 80 percent to 90 percent of the West Bank remains the best and perhaps the only way to insure Israel’s long-term security.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu pretends that Israel’s war on terrorism depends on withholding land from the Palestinian Authority. But terrorism does not pose an existential threat to the state of Israel; suicide bombings are horrific, but they are a far cry from Israeli defeat on the battlefield.

Israel has about 200 nuclear weapons, retains the firm backing of the world’s only superpower, and has repeatedly demonstrated the qualitative superiority of its conventional forces.

Jeremy Pressman, Somerville, MA

No Way to Make Peace

To The Washington Post, May 23, 1998 (as published).

Your May 12 editorial “The Israelis and the U.S.” stated that “Israelis face in the Palestinians an adversary with a cruel terrorist streak.” Both my grandfathers were born in Palestine, moved to the United States during World War I and joined the U.S. Army to help fight injustices in Europe and the Middle East. The grounds at Arlington National Cemetery must be buckling under tourists’ toes because my grandfathers must be rolling. In one fell swoop you brand my entire heritage “terrorist.” I think it’s time for you to be fairer in your views and reporting about the Middle East. Here’s an idea: Let’s help Palestinians and Israelis make peace. They don’t need any help hurling stones at each other.

Fred T. Hadeed, Fall Church, VA

Public Funds for the Holocaust Museum

To The Washington Post, March 6, 1998 (as published).

“Holocaust Museum Ousts Director [front page, Feb. 19] states incorrectly that the museum is “privately funded.” In fact, at least 61 percent of its annual budget comes from public funds. And it is crucial to consider that fact in light of the Yasser Arafat incident and museum director Walter Reich’s subsequent removal.

Since the museum not only “sits on federal land near the Mall” but receives money for operations from the federal government, is it unreasonable that the government might want a say in who should—or should not—visit the museum?

As for “the awkwardness of having federal officials sit on the museum’s governing council,” I fail to see fault in a government that gives money to an enterprise and wants at least some representation in the institution it helps finance.

Milton Goldin, Tarrytown, NY

Letter to Janet Reno

To The Appleton, WI Post-Crescent , May 6, 1998 (as submitted).

News media have reported that 62 members of Congress “have signed a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno demanding that the Department of Justice prosecute Palestinian Arab terrorists who have murdered U.S. citizens.”

No one will deny that murdered American citizens ought to have their murderers brought to justice. But one does have to wonder about the selective indignation of the congresspersons who signed the letter cited above.

Not since June 8, 1967, when Israeli aircraft bombed and napalmed the USS Liberty and Israeli torpedo boats tried to finish the job, has Congress shown any interest in bringing the murderers of the 34 crew members to justice.

The term “murderers” is not used here capriciously.

The late George W. Ball, undersecretary of state during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, described the Israeli attack as “the blatant murder of American citizens” and pointed out that since “America’s leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.” (The Passionate Attachment, p. 58).

Among the signers of the letter to Attorney General Reno was Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who has received a total of $100,434 from pro-Israeli PACs over the years. (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May 1998, p. 27.)

Gingrich’s purchase by pro-Israeli PACs and the virtual purchase of the entire Congress by them undoubtedly explains why members of Congress are so selectively indignant respecting the murder of American citizens.

Robert E. Nordlander, Menasha, WI

Don’t Write Those Letters!

To Congressman J.C. Watts, Jr., Washington, DC, March 29, 1998

You wrote to me asking for support for Black America’s Political Action Committee. I am impressed that you are the only Black Republican in the U.S. Congress, but I am terribly disappointed in some of your actions.

Your name continues to arise due to some of the unfortunate and misinformed letters you have supported addressed to President Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. I am appalled that members of our Congress can take such improper positions. As I recall, you were elected to represent the people of Oklahoma, not the state of Israel. You also speak for the American people and I resent your statements in support of a renegade state.

Perhaps you did not have time at the University of Oklahoma to learn much about world history. That would be understandable since you were making your mark in another field. However, now that you are on the national scene, it behooves you to be better informed. If you do not know about the violations of international law by Israel, the group punishment, the demolition of homes, the settlements, the seizure of land, the humiliation of the Palestinians, the torture of prisoners, etc., it is time for you to learn.

There are several sources you should examine to broaden your perspective. First, read the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. It is an outstanding journal written by professionals there in DC (P.O. Box 53062, Washington, DC 20009). I will strongly encourage you to read it so that you can have some information that you will never find in The Washington Post or hear from AIPAC.

Second, you might look into the Council for the National Interest, (1511 K St. NW, #1043, Washington, DC, 20005), run by one of your former colleagues, Paul Findley. I understand you are a religious person. In that case, you should read some of Grace Halsell’s books, particularly Prophecy and Politics . The Washington Report has an extensive book listing in each issue, including Grace Halsell’s books.

You are part of a people who have suffered indignities; it is baffling that you do not have compassion for the Palestinians who also have suffered so much oppression. The saddest part about your misinformed positions is that they work against U.S. national interests. We have significant interests in the Middle East and the actions of Israel do not support our long-term interests. I urge you to broaden your outlook.

Richard Hobbs, Col., U.S. Army, Retired, Sparks, NV

The Program Director Replies to March Letter

To Mr. John L. Hughes, Milwaukee, WI, April 16, 1998

It was disappointing for me to read your letter indicating you will not renew your membership because we do not air controversial programming.

We have aired many programs over the years concerning the Israel/Palestine situation, and I have been verbally threatened because of these programs.

Whether it is “Frontline,” “In the Life,” “P.O.V.,” or special documentaries, Channel 10 has aired, and will continue to air controversial programs presenting different viewpoints and life styles. “People and the Land” is not the only program covering this issue. If we do not air this series, we will in the future continue to air programs dealing with this issue.

Tom Dvorak, Director of Programming Operations, Milwaukee Public Television, Milwaukee, WI

A Reply to Mr. Dvorak’s April 16 Letter

To Mr. Tom Dvorak, Milwaukee, WI, April 21, 1998

I can understand your problem with airing controversial programming; e.g., abortion is a very controversial subject and there are many sides to that thorny issue.

However, the Israel/Palestine situation is based on historical facts and present- day conduct of Israel. Is the truth controversial? It should not be!

If your station does not present “factual” documentaries, how do you expect your viewers to form opinions and evaluate the situation?

I concluded from my viewing of “People and the Land” that it seemed to present a very factual and truthful story. Your refusal to air it seems to capitulate to special interest groups.

I’d suggest you base your programming efforts not on whether a subject is controversial but on whether the subject is presented truthfully.

The Public Television stations are supported by the public who rely on the truth in programming and who do not deserve censorship.

John L. Hughes, Milwaukee, WI

Encouraging Democracy

To The New York Times, May 2, 1998 (as published).

“A Rising Tide of Freedom By-passes the Arab World” (Week in Review, April 26) poses the question: Can Arab states “reform their political life without the detour, the excuse of nationalism?” This implies that democracy and nationalism are incompatible.

But it is because the two are not that the United States has supported autocracies, which it can control, and has discouraged democracies in the Middle East. A democracy might, after all, succumb to the virus of nationalism and decide to put its national interests ahead of American interests—a threat to American domination of the region.

Louise Green, St. Louis, MO

Government is Breaking Its Own Laws

To the Santa Barbara News-Press , April 13, 1998 (as published).

Thank you for printing the story on Muslim women, the news of the Israeli Arabs’ march on Land Day, and the outstanding essay by David F. Neunuebel on Israel’s history.

May I add a bit to each?

Feminists may be surprised to know that in Tunisia equal pay for equal work is the law. There is an active family-planning service and any woman with four children is encouraged to have an abortion—no questions asked.

In Saudi Arabia working women are given two months off, with pay, for childbirth. They have equal rights to education. In 1985 36 percent of university students were women. If they seem invisible to the West it is because of the quaint local notion that photographing women is disrespectful.

April 9, 1948, the day of the Deir Yassin massacre, is remembered as the first day of the Dispossession—418 villages razed to the ground, the inhabitants killed or driven out, a million Palestinians forced out of their own country, their property confiscated, not a penny in compensation paid and Israel’s ever-expanding borders.

Arab-American women are now embroidering 418 2'x2' squares which will be worked into a 40'x40' quilt. Each square will represent one of the destroyed villages. When finished it will tour major U.S. cities and be displayed on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on June 14.

While Palestinians are commemorating 50 years of Dispossession, Israel is celebrating 50 years of statehood during which it has received $77.7 billion in aid from the United States that continues at the rate of $15 million every day. It has earned more than 70 U.N. Security Council Resolutions condemning its actions. The Foreign Assistance Act, sections 502(b) and 116(a), prohibits military or economic aid to any country that engages in “a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized rights.” Our government is breaking its own laws.

Note: All the above facts and figures have been published by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Saudi Arabia’s Evolution. They are all verifiable.

Alice F. Smith, Santa Barbara, CA

Threatened by Israel

To The New York Times, May 5, 1998 (as published).

Your assessment that “the Middle East has learned to live with Israel’s nuclear capability” is wishful thinking (“A Whole New World of Arms Races to Contain,” Week in Review, May 3). The large-scale efforts by Saddam Hussain of Iraq and the leaders of Iran, Egypt, Syria and Libya to obtain weapons of mass destruction are all driven largely by their unwillingness to accept an Israeli nuclear monopoly over the region.

Arthur L. Lowrie, Lutz, FL

Whose Threat?

To the Khaleej Times, Dubai, UAE, April 6, 1998 (as published).

There is a war threat to Iraq from the U.S. due to the risk of it possessing biological weapons. Let’s ask ourselves some questions. Which is the sole country in the Middle East possessing nuclear weapons and refusing to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and which bars international inspections?

It is Israel—the same country that blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 171 American sailors. A high-ranking United Nations diplomat was also assassinated in Israel—the man who ordered the assassination became prime minister.

And which country is the United States threatening to bomb because “U.N. Security Council resolutions must be obeyed”? It is Iraq. But Israel seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Maybe this is because Israel has the second most powerful lobby in the United States (according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders).

Adeel Usman, Lahore, Pakistan

Remembering the USS Liberty

To the Erie Morning News , June 4, 1997 (as published).

On June 8, the 30th anniversary of the attack on the USS Liberty will be observed.

The USS Liberty was a naval intelligence ship in the international waters of the Mediterranean Sea during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

The Liberty was attacked by both naval and air forces of the government of Israel. The ship was attacked with torpedoes, napalm and rockets and its life boats were strafed. It was ultimately scrapped. Israel eventually paid some reparations.

This event was never investigated by Congress. After 30 years it is time for Congress to hold hearings and investigate this tragic loss of American servicemen.

Remember the Liberty on June 8.

George Shahin, Erie, PA

Revisiting Mideast History

To The Washington Post , May 24, 1998 (as published).

The Post published a letter on May 2 by the president of the local region of the Zionist Organization of America. The writer denied the occurrence of the massacre of more than 100 civilians by Zionist militias at Deir Yassin in 1948, calling it an Arab “Big Lie.”

But not only was this “Big Lie” reported in The New York Times, acknowledged and decried by figures like Albert Einstein and Martin Buber, it also was admitted to by the perpetrators of the killings. They provided candid and horrific details of what happened on that day (see Remembering Deir Yassin, by Marc Ellis and Daniel McGowan, Olive Branch Press, 1998).

Moreover, to claim that Birzeit University claimed that the massacre was a “hoax” is ridiculous and tantamount to joining the supporters of historical revisionism.

Jonathan A.C. Brown, Chevy Chase, MD

Will Christians Care?

To the Austin American-Statesman, April 5, 1998 (as published).

A March 30 story in the American-Statesman, “Israel’s Birthday a Testy Occasion,” will certainly be a “testy” one for the Palestinian survivors of the cruel expulsion from their native land 50 years ago. Massacres occurred as the terrorist Jewish gangs went about destroying the Palestinian people, their homes and possessions. In one notable massacre, at Deir Yassin, Palestine, prime-minister-to-be Menachem Begin led his Irgun gang in the killing of more than 260 men, women and children. More than 400 Palestinian villages were completely obliterated. Dispossession and oppression of native Americans by our European forbears is a parallel case, but more civility is expected today.

Palestinians will commemorate the 50 years since The Cataclysm (al nakba) and Dispossession. They still suffer oppression by the celebrating state as more of their remaining land is taken at gunpoint. Will “good” Christians care?

William V. Kelly, Austin, TX

Sidney Zion is Guilty of Revisionism

To the New York Daily News, April 11, 1998 (as submitted).

In commenting on the British foreign secretary, Robin Cook, and his recent tribute to the victims of the Deir Yassin massacre which occurred on the west side of Jerusalem almost 50 years ago (3/23/98, p. 27), your reporter, Sidney Zion, is guilty of practicing the kind of historical revisionism equivalent to that of so-called “scholars” who would contend that there is another side to the millions killed in the Holocaust. That is blasphemy and (in the voice of Elie Wiesel) “unworthy” of your paper.

On April 9, 1948, The New York Times interviewed the Jewish “terrorist groups” (direct quote) who perpetrated the massacre that very same day. On April 10 The Times reported that more than 200 Arabs, half of them women and children, were killed along with four of the terrorists from the Irgun and the Stern Gang (p. 6.). On April 13, 1948 (p. 7) they reported, “…Deir Yassin, a village on the edge of Jerusalem, where 254 Arab men, women and children were killed by a combined force of Irgun and the Stern Group, terrorist organizations, were buried yesterday.”

For Mr. Zion to claim that 120 Arabs and four Jews were killed and at the same time to call this a “battle” is not only absurd, it is malicious. It is analogous to speaking of the “battle” of My Lai or the “battle” of Kielce (7/4/46) when 42 Jews were massacred in Poland after World War II.

On Dec. 4, 1948 The New York Times published a letter to the editor that said, in part, “The terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.” The letter was signed by Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt and other prominent Jewish leaders of the time.

For Mr. Zion to now claim that the massacre of Deir Yassin was “one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century” is revisionism at its worst. What is Mr. Zion trying to hide?

Is he trying to resurrect the myth that Israel was “a land without people for a people without land”? By his own admission Arabs were asked to leave and those who did not were killed or driven out. This occurred with over 400 Arab villages and the exodus of over 700,000 Palestinians. This was clearly ethnic cleansing and it continues today in the occupied territories.

Is Mr. Zion trying to resurrect the myth of “the purity of arms,” whereby Jewish soldiers never draw blood unnecessarily? Surely the war in Lebanon and the breaking of bones on television during the intifada laid that nonsense to rest.

Is he trying to hide the fact that if those massacred at Deir Yassin could arise from where they were buried they would be looking straight at Yad Vashem only 1,400 meters to the south? This is a chilling thought, especially when the message at that most famous Holocaust memorial is “to never forget.”

Is he trying to hide the fact that the center of Deir Yassin is now surrounded by an Orthodox Jewish settlement and that, in spite of promises to the contrary, not one building has been returned to its rightful Arab owner after 50 years? If property confiscated in World War II should be returned to its rightful Jewish owners, and I believe it should, why is it a “blood libel” to ask for restitution of the homes and lands of Deir Yassin to their rightful Palestinian owners?

Deir Yassin raises a lot of painful issues. But to hide or deny them, as Mr. Zion does, is not only blasphemous, it is also damaging to peace and understanding of the histories of both Jews and Palestinians.

Daniel A. McGowan, Director, Deir Yassin Remembered, P.O. Box 4078, Scandling Center, Geneva, NY 14456

A High Level of Coverage

To the Los Angeles Times, April 14, 1998 (as submitted).

It’s interesting that the Times saw fit to devote an entire section to the 50th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel (Sunday, April 12, 1998). I wonder how many other nations have received this level of coverage by the Times on their golden anniversaries. Twice as many pages could have been devoted to the people on whose backs Israel stands. The myriad regional problems resulting from the illegal seizure of land beginning in 1948 continue—and intensify—with each passing day. Zionist attempts to annihilate the indigenous Palestinians have been unsuccessful; the Palestinian spirit and people remain on the remnants of their former state.

But it is not necessary to rely upon Arab voices to hear the story of Al Nakba, “The Catastrophe,” as this period of history is known in Arabic. American and Israeli Jews who remain true to their morals readily acknowledge Israel’s many violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and other human rights abuses. For example, Amy Wilentz quite regularly evaluates the present situation and its genesis. Her observations on the role of Hamas in Israeli and Palestinian society (p. 1, Opinion Section, April 12, 1998) contains only one error: the Palestinians have paid “with their blood and freedom,” not only since 1967, but since 1948.

Vicki Tamoush, Tujunga, CA

Slimy Propaganda by Dr. Krauthammer

To the International Herald-Tribune, April 1, 1998 (as published).

Regarding “What Arafat Teaches Young Palestinians: Slimy Propaganda” (Opinion, March 7) by Charles Krauthammer:

Continuing disturbances on the West Bank make a mockery of Mr. Krauthammer’s absurd claim that “the occupation is over” simply because most West Bank Arabs live on land run by the Palestinian Authority. Israel still occupies most of the West Bank, and checkpoints allow Israel to control the movement of Palestinians.

Israel is using this domination, based on military force, to continue to colonize the West Bank, to strangle the Palestinian economy and to divide the Palestinians into apartheid-style enclaves, depriving them of any hope for self-determination. With America ducking its responsibility as guarantor of the Oslo peace accords, the Palestinians have nowhere to turn.

Mr. Krauthammer cites a poll in which 77 percent of Palestinian respondents supported an attack on Israel by Saddam Hussain. He ignores the desperation behind this figure. An even greater majority of Palestinians supported the peace accords before Binyamin Netanyahu took power.

Earl Gould, Baillargues, France