Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August/September 1997, pgs. 76-79

Other People's Mail

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

NPR Biases are Clear and Outworn

To National Public Radio, June 5, 1997 [via fax: (202) 414-3329].

I was disappointed, but hardly surprised, by your segment in this morning's news, covering the 30th anniversary of the Six-Day War.

Characteristically, you tell the story from the vantage point of Israel, the initiator of that war, and as we so well know, its victor.

All interviewees were jubilant Israelis. Not even a minuscule mention of the tragic suffering that war and its aftermath inflicted on one-and-three-quarter million Palestinians. Yes, they too are people! And among them are mothers and fathers, grandparents and siblings. Especially in a week when the American media loudly parades its human losses in Oklahoma City, someone among your ever-so-sensitive journalists could have acknowledged the despair, loss and sadness of the people against whom a war has been prosecuted these last 30 years.

Your biases are clear, but ever so worn. By contrast, in every respect, the report on the BBC's World Service was a model of fairness and balance.

(Dr.) Edna Homa Hunt, Cambridge, MA

Promised By God

To The New York Times, April 19, 1997 (as submitted).

This is in reference to the full-page advertisement in the April 16, 1997 issue of The New York Times by a group of fundamentalist Christian preachers in which they maintain that "Jerusalem must remain undivided as the eternal capital of the Jewish people."

As a Christian, originally from Jerusalem (my name, Makdisi, means in Arabic "from Jerusalem") who can trace his ancestry back two thousand years to the first Christians who believed in Jesus Christ, I am shocked and appalled by the ignorance of those preachers of the historical background of the inhabitants of the Holy Land, and who thus deny the Christian population their right to live in the land of their ancestors.

Even if we are to succumb to the rationale of those preachers that the Biblical land of Israel was promised by God to the descendants of Abraham, it is easy to prove that, both genetically and historically, the Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims, are more so than the present Jewish population of Israel.

The facts are that, in the years following the crucifixion of Christ, an increasing number of the Jewish population became Christians. Then, following what is known as the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, when the Jewish population revolted against their Roman rulers, a good number of Jews were forced to leave the country, while most of those who remained were converted to Christianity.

Then, up to the Muslim invasion in 640 a.d. of what had become part of the Eastern Roman Empire, the great majority of the inhabitants of the Holy Land were the now Christian and originally Jewish population. Following the invasion, those inhabitants were given the choice of either converting to Islam or remaining Christians and paying a tribute. While more than half of them chose to convert, the others remained Christian.

Those Christians and Muslims, or Palestinians as they are now called, are, therefore, the original Jewish population who have perpetually lived in the Holy Land since time immemorial.

Nadim Makdisi, Ph.D., Washington, DC

Why Not Divide Jerusalem?

To the Boulder Daily Camera, April 4, 1997 (as published).

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is now gravely endangered because Israel insists it will not share political control of Jerusalem. Violence by Palestinians is wrong. It should be ended. It could be ended today, if Israel would only abide by its commitment to negotiate in good faith about the final status of Jerusalem.

By what right does Israel claim sole authority in Jerusalem, which is also sacred to Muslims and Christians? I have yet to hear a logical answer to that question. Those who argue that the Jewish state has an historical right to all of Jerusalem are on dubious and potentially embarrassing ground.

How did the Jews get control of Jerusalem in the first place? The Bible (2 Samuel 5:6) states that King David stole it from the Jebusites, who were loathe to give it up but succumbed to superior force. No one can stake a morally justified historical claim to it. If Israel wants to stake its claim simply on superior force, let it at least say so openly and honestly. If Israel wants to stake its claim on prior possession, then the Palestinian claim is as good as the Israeli claim.

There are many good reasons for Jews to accept shared control of Jerusalem. Above all, shared control is the prerequisite for real peace and security for Israel (which would also be beneficial to the Palestinians and to the United States). I have heard no compelling reasons for Jews to insist on sole control, and I cannot think of any. The next time you hear the refrain, "Jerusalem must never be divided," simply ask: Why not?

Ira Chernus, Boulder, CO

Chavez Errs on Israel

To The Denver Post, April 1, 1997 (as published).

Linda Chavez doesn't understand why Israel's plan to build additional housing is a problem ("Jerusalem can't be negotiated," March 19): This housing is being built on someone else's land. East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank are occupied territories, and it violates the 1949 Geneva Convention for Israel to place any of its population there. Chavez, like Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, dismisses the Oslo accords that called on the Israelis and Palestinians to do nothing to alter the situation on the ground.

Chavez says that Jerusalem is important to the Jews, and that's the end of discussion. She ignores that Jerusalem had been predominantly an Arab area, vital to Palestinian Christians and Muslims for most of the past 1,350 years. In contrast, Jews have had a major presence there for but a small fraction of Jerusalem's almost 4,000-year history.

Chavez also seems unaware that many Christians don't share her joy over Israeli control of Jerusalem. Churches for Middle East Peace's full-page ad in the Dec. 21, 1996 New York Times stated, "Jerusalem at peace cannot belong exclusively to one people, one country or one religion."

Finally, non-negotiation on the crucial issue of Jerusalem is likely to kill any chance for peace in the Middle East.

Ron Forthofer, Longmont, CO

Israeli Abuses

To The Denver Post, April 13, 1997 (as published).

Viewing the recent developments in the Middle East from the Palestinian perspective proves enlightening. Two recent articles in The National Geographic shed some light on the Palestinian struggle.

A Palestinian farmer lived in a house that his family had owned since 1930. In 1984, the Israeli government removed him and demolished his house to make way for Jewish housing. He now lives in an old school bus on the corner of his former homestead in Jerusalem but will eventually be ousted.

That is deplorable but tame compared with Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. While Gaza was occupied by Israeli troops from 1967 to 1994, Palestinians living in Gaza were treated as prisoners, confined to their homes at night under curfew. About 390,000 of Gaza's 900,000 residents live in squalor in refugee camps. Unemployment is over 50 percent.

While the Palestinians tolerate these horrible conditions, the 5,000 Jewish "settlers" in Gaza enjoy living in areas where Palestinians are not allowed.

In light of the conditions Palestinians must tolerate, it is incomprehensible that the American government can continue to support the Israelis with billions in foreign aid. The Israeli treatment of Palestinians is surprisingly similar to the treatment of Native Americans by the American military in the late 1800s. As a society, we have come to be ashamed of that part of our history, yet we continue to support the Israelis' reprehensible treatment of the Palestinians.

Stephen Laudeman, Denver, CO

Oslo Means Nothing

To The Denver Post, April 13, 1997 (as published).

Israel's actions in building the Har Homa housing project on East Jerusalem land is just another, yet very egregious, of the many violations of the spirit of the peace process. Israel has shown her cards. There is no serious commitment to peace. The Oslo accords mean nothing. Netanyahu's recent speech and rhetoric sound chillingly similar to Hitler's speech in the late 1930s. The way Netanyahu talks about and blames the Palestinians the victims reeks of racism.

It's time to be clear about what is happening. There is no material difference between Israel's actions against the Palestinians and Saddam Hussain's failed attempt at capturing Kuwait. Both are guilty of aggression, confiscation of another's land, violations of human rights, and rightfully drew United Nations condemnation.

The difference is that Palestinians have no oil, and Israelis have a powerful lobby in Washington. It's time for all with a conscience to insist that Israel behave and Jerusalem be shared.

The Rev. Rick Barger, Littleton, CO (The writer is senior pastor at Abiding Hope Lutheran Church.)

The "Holocaust Observance"

To the Lubbock, TX Avalanche-Journal, May 14, 1997 (as submitted).

In your May 10 editorial entitled "Holocaust Observance" you note that "memories of the horrors will help guard against allowing the circumstances that would bring about similar ones." But could not the takeover and ultimate occupation of Palestine by early Zionists and today's Israelis be considered a "similar" circumstance? Just look at Israel's well-documented record in this regard.

It has carried out:

1. Land confiscations
   
   
2. Settlement building
   
   
3. Anti-Christian and -Muslim discrimination
   
   
4. Judicial torture
   
   
5. House demolitions
   
   
6. Imprisonment of Palestinians without trial
   
   
7. Nuclear proliferation (refusal to sign non-proliferation treaty)
   
   
8. Spying against the United States
   
   
9. Transfer of U.S. military technology to Red China

To quote again from your editorial, "While the Holocaust showed us the worst of man's inhumanity, it also brought out the best in the triumph of those who survived to build new lives."

Unfortunately "those who survived" included Shamirs and Begins who ignored Elie Wiesel's own dictum, "never again," by creating a new state in the Land of Palestine with no regard for the cost in lives lost! Is that the "best in the triumph of those who survived"?

The editorial also found "Americans... guilty of failing to appreciate the freedom... we enjoy in this country." But how can we as a nation allow an ally to take away that same "freedom" from a people who have lived peacefully on their own land for 13 centuries?

I think the best "Holocaust Observance" by Americans would be to point up the current activities of the radical Zionists in the heart of Hebron who have built a shrine at the grave of Baruch Goldstein to memorialize his terrorist act of killing 29 Palestinian worshippers and wounding 70 others while they were praying in a Muslim mosque on Feb. 25, 1994! Americans should ensure that "never again" applies to all crimes by all people at all times.

Walter H. Koehler, Littlefield, TX

Second Coming Must Be at Hand

To each of 16 directors listed on mastheads, of the Seattle Times & Post-Intelligencer, May 16, 1977.

When I returned from a short trip and read the editorial on torture in the May 11th Post-Intelligencer, I thought the Second Coming must be at hand.

This is the first time in the eight years I have been concerned when I have seen an issue discussed by a major newspaper in "Americanese," with black called black, and neither ignored nor called white.

This lack of honesty in discussing the Middle East situation has contributed to 50 years of war and conflict in the Middle East, and has cost us dearly, both in international respect for our integrity, and in dollars.

Although we American citizens remain ignorant, the world is not deceived when the U.S. hesitates to give China "favored nation" status, but supports Israel, whose abuses of human rights are far worse than China's.

The world is not ignorant of the U.S.'s lack of integrity when we preach support for human rights, but on resolutions attacking Israel's human rights abuses, such as the one this spring, 130 nations vote "Yes" and only the U.S. and Israel vote "No."

There is only one reason for that conflict. Israel would not accept the 1947 United Nation's Partition of Palestine even though it was exceedingly generous. At that time Jews owned only 6 percent of the land, were 31 percent of the population, but were given 55 percent of Palestine.

Before Israel's declaration of independence on May 15, 1948, the Zionists had "cleansed" 400,000 Palestinians, with an additional 400,000 ejected forever from their homes by the end of the year. More than 394 Palestinian villages and towns were obliterated. The same process is still in progress, although with more sophisticated procedures and the use of the term "settlements," making the process sound normal to American ears.

If you, in the media, had been reporting the issue of settlements in the same "Americanese" as the issue of torture in Sunday's editorial, the American public would not have permitted the billions of dollars to be given to Israel in support of actions which are in direct violation of both U.S. laws and the principles upon which our country was founded.

What kind of billions are we talking about?

The Congressional Research Service lists foreign aid by year, every year, with the exception of 1950. It does not list certain other costs included in departmental budgets such as the Defense Department, interest costs, or even the loan guarantees. However, with all these exclusions, the total is over $82,000,000,000 ($82 billion).

Every dollar has been a deficit dollar upon which we must pay interest until it is repaid. This will not be in your lifetime or mine. However, at the current government interest rate of about 7 percent, interest alone will add $5,740 billion this year before 1997 "aid" is included.

Billions of dollars are beyond our comprehension. Let us reduce this to figures we can comprehend. Since the single reason for this conflict has been and continues to be more land, let's talk in those terms. Essentially, our $82 billion have been given for settlements.

There are 160,000 settlers now in the occupied territories which Israel wishes to retain. Counting five individuals per family, this totals 32,000 families.

Simple arithmetic gives an understandable answer. Israel's refusal to accept the United Nations 1947 Partition has cost the United States $2,562,500 per Israeli settler family! This does not include interest cost, which will continue far, far into the future.

The question: From a business standpoint, have we gotten our money's worth? Could this money have been spent more profitably within the United States?

A second question: As an American newspaper, would it not be appropriate to continue the approach of the initial Post-Intelligencer editorial on torture, and discuss Middle East problems in "Americanese" language, in terms of U.S. laws, and the principles upon which our country was founded?

Since the root cause of the Middle East conflict has been and is confiscation of property, would not a discussion of settlements be appropriate to inform your largely ignorant readers of that phase of the problem?

Additional issues which could be profitably addressed in terms of their conflict with U.S. law, our Declaration of Independence, and Constitution, could include:

• Administrative arrest and imprisonment
  
  
• Israeli terrorism in disguise
  
  
• Assassination by army units
  
  
• Human rights violations
  
  
• Home demolitions.

John S O'Connor, Seattle, WA

Rhetoric or Conduct?

To the World Press Review, June 1997 (as published).

So now Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu claims that Yasser Arafat's inflammatory rhetoric is the cause of the recent suicide bombing in Tel Aviv [Viewpoints, May]. Wasn't it less than two years ago that Netanyahu denied that his own militant rhetoric was to blame for the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin? One suspects that this latest bombing has little to do with any perceived incendiary commentary by Arafat and very much to do with Netanyahu's never-ending series of provocations against the Palestinians, the latest being the building of new settlements on confiscated Arab land. The question that we Americans must ask ourselves is: Why does the U.S. government, which never fails to veto United Nations resolutions condemning this robber-baron policy, continue to support such grotesque provocations on the part of the Netanyahu government? I, for one, am sick of it, and would request of my political representatives that no more American tax dollars be used to support the racist, apartheid policies being promoted by Netanyahu.

Ronald O. Richards, Los Angeles, CA

Israeli Peace Guidelines

To The New York Times, Feb. 3, 1997 (as published).

"A Convergence of Views in Israel" (editorial, Jan. 29) sees progress in Israeli society in peace guidelines proclaimed by some Labor and Likud leaders. You presume that "Israel can be united" if its Jews take a common stand regarding negotiations with the Palestinians. But 17 percent of Israel's citizens are Arabs, and they certainly don't agree with the document's position that "no Jewish settlements should be forcibly uprooted."

Jews-only settlements set back peace. The absence of laws guaranteeing equal protection for ethnic and religious groups dooms multitudes, Arabs and Jews alike, to certain death in communal violence.

Lenni Brenner, New York, NY

"Israel Took Golan Out of Greed"

To The Boston Globe, May 5, 1997 (as submitted).

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for telling it like it was in your excellent May 2 article: "Israel Took Golan Out of Greed, Dayan Says."

This is a truth that many of us who fight the good fight against Israeli occupation of stolen Palestinian land have known for a long time. The lies that consecutive Israeli governments have fostered about the Golan are on a par with Golda Meir's famous pronouncement that "There are no Palestinians," and the current assertions of Netanyahu that the Har Homa housing project for Jews only is to be built on Jewish land when it actually planned for overwhelmingly Arab East Jerusalem.

"Truth crushed to earth will rise again" in regard to the Arab/Israeli conflict when newspapers like The Boston Globe pick it up on their backs and carry it in the headlines. Surely then, and only then, will it be possible to bring fair dealing and peace to the Middle East.

Marion E. Sittler, Washington, DC

More Conciliatory Iran-U.S. Relations

To America Online Bulletin, May 16, 1997 (as submitted).

I am a Texan born in Mississippi, so by birth and residence some would consider me a "redneck." But I am embarrassed by parochial words and actions. My views are different from those people. I have a better understanding and appreciation for the country, people and culture of Iran because I was privileged to live there for five years.

Even though many Americans are generally jingoistic and prejudiced, there was a time when attitudes were different for Iran. It was not until the hostages were taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran that the mood changed radically.

Furthermore, American attitudes regarding terrorist action by different groups in the Middle East were generalized to include all countries, religions and ethnicities. Just as the relationship between Iran and the U.S. changed in less than a year (1978-79), it could again change in a short period.

For that to happen, people everywhere must develop a better understanding of their world neighbors, adopt a more conciliatory posture, and realize that public words and actions often represent the views of those few who express them. I'm sure you'll agree.

I believe that most Americans will agree, also, and extend a warm "Welcome to America"!

Hugh Mitchell [From America Online Bulletin@iranian.com (The Iranian)]

No to Racism, No to Zionism!

To Dr. Ueli Vischer, President of the Basle City Council; Swiss Federal Ministry of Justice, Bern; The University of Basle; Chief Editor, Basler Zietung, May 17, 1997

We, whose personal lives have been materially and spiritually affected by the century-old conflict in Palestine, wish to make the following statement regarding the decision of the authorities of the City of Basle, Switzerland, to formally endorse and support the celebrations of the 100th anniversary of the Zionist movement in their city [in August 1997].

On Nov. 2, 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration. This represented the first major victory for the Zionist project of transforming Palestine from a part of the Ottoman Empire into a Jewish state a project which came to fruition on May 15, 1948, with the proclamation of "the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine."

As a result, the Palestinian people now live either under Zionist rule or in exile. Those in exile are not allowed to return to their homeland because their mothers are not Jewish. Those in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 (many of them refugees from areas occupied in 1948) live under continuing harsh military rule; those in the territories occupied in 1948 are second-class residents in a Jewish state, denied the rights and privileges accorded to those residents recognized by the state as Jews.

The Jewish state, far from becoming a "light to the nations," has become an armed, ultra-nationalist camp. In its operations in Africa, Asia and Latin America, Israel represents a major link in the world network of repressive regimes. Its nuclear weapons capacity, developed in alliance with South African apartheid, is a danger to the entire Middle East, and to the whole world.

In spite of this, Jewish communities have been recruited by Israel as both support and justification for its activities. The historic suffering of Jews, particularly the Nazi murder of six million European Jews, are held to justify Israel's existence and behavior. The state of Israel purports to represent the Jewish people in international affairs without any mandate to do so.

On the base of our principled opposition to colonialism, racism and racial discrimination, and in order to encourage a just, honorable and lasting peace in Palestine/Israel, we kindly remind the Swiss authorities and the City Council of Basle of Switzerland's role toward Jewish victims of Nazi racial discrimination, which makes it a special duty for them to oppose all forms of racism and racial discrimination, including Zionism.

We also wish to remind the Swiss authorities that the State of Israel and the Zionist movement do not represent the Jewish people, neither morally, legally nor in any other way.

We urge the City Council of Basle to cancel the celebrations of the First Zionist Congress. We remind the University of Basle to uphold recognized academic standards regarding the issue of Zionism.

We call on the Swiss government to ensure the enforcement of Swiss federal laws against the dissemination of racist ideologies, including Zionism.

84 signatures headed by Elias Davidsson, Reykjavik, son of victims of Nazi racial persecution.

Israeli Hypocrisy

To The Dallas Morning News, April 20, 1997 (as published).

How can anyone put credence in any statement or proposal by the Israeli government after the hypocrisy and arrogant self-righteousness it has displayed in its latest attempts to prevent an equitable peace settlement with the Palestinians?

While voicing pretenses for peace it makes a ridiculous, demeaning offer to return less than 10 percent of the occupied West Bank. It compounds the stupidity and arrogance of last year's tunnel opening by deciding to build more apartments for Jewish residents in East Jerusalem, knowing this would derail the peace process. It announces plans to expand existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank. And the world is to believe that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians?

While announcing the latest apartment expansion, the government repeats a lie it has used every time such expropriation and building have been done: that apartments would be built for Arab residents also. Since 1968, despite such repeated promises, almost 40,000 apartments for Jewish residents have been built on expropriated Arab-owned land in East Jerusalem, and none have been allowed for Arab residents. So much for honesty and integrity. Yet, when the Palestinians protest, the sanctimonious cries arise that "we will not negotiate with terrorists." Of course, what is meant is Palestinian terrorism. If Jewish settlers do terrorist acts, they receive minimal sentences, if any. Their families' homes are not bulldozed or dynamited as are those of Palestinians accused of terrorism. Israeli ultra-right settlers are permitted to carry their automatic weapons and they use them, as the killing of two Palestinians the day after Binyamin Netanyahu's hard-nosed visit to Washington shows. But, if anyone should accuse Mr. Netanyahu of encouraging or tolerating terrorism, we would be drowned out by the protests.

The United States cannot impose peace on the Middle East, especially when territorial aggrandizement is more important to one of the parties than peace. But is it not finally time for us Americans to stop subsidizing this Israeli government that continues to suppress another people and to deny them their basic human rights? Is it not time to stop using our veto power in the United Nations, alone among nations, to block motions critical of Israel's imperialist actions? Is it not time to stop the mantra of "the only democracy in the Middle East" (so long as you're not an Arab) as a justification for our support and toleration of what is clearly a government bent on maintaining its domination of another people and its territory?

Donald J. Dupier, Plano, TX

Failed Broker

To The Dallas Morning News, April 22, 1997 (as published).

Crowds are rioting, bystanders are killed, exasperated people are throwing their hands up, or blowing themselves to pieces in the prevailing frustration about the deteriorating horror story of the Middle East peace.

We in general, and the Clinton administration in particular, have to take more than just some blame for this bloody situation. While we are dancing around, trying to please everyone, people are dying and suffering.

Binyamin Netanyahu's actions are forfeiting the goodwill generated toward Israel during the past decades, and we are at least partly to blame, by allowing Israel under Mr. Netanyahu to become l'enfant terrible of the world.

It appears in this case that the tail is wiggling the dog. Our knee-jerk policy allows the sabotaging of the peace process by those who are benefiting from chaos.

Mr. Clinton should sit down with Mr. Netanyahu and firmly outline the rules by which we are willing to play and mediate. We also should instruct our ambassador to the United Nations that next time, before voting, take a deep breath and count to 10.

The administration's ambiguous policies are making us appear as an insincere broker of a long-sought peace.

A.T. Marton, Dallas, TX

An Arab Boycott is Viable

To The Arab News, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, April 2, 1997 (as published).

The United States' support to the radical Israeli government is responsible for the latest cycle of violence in the occupied territories. Washington's two vetoes in the Security Council against resolutions that sought to condemn the Israeli settlement policy in occupied East Jerusalem had the effect of reiterating Israel's unjustified demands. Such actions will only erode any credibility the U.S. government has left in the Arab world and the world at large.

Contrary to the statements of U.S. diplomats, the key to saving the peace process is for America to stand with the international community, condemning Israeli policies and all of the provocative measures against the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian struggle is legitimate by international law. It is a struggle for our own existence, self-determination and human dignity which the Zionist state of Israel, with the help of the U.S. government, has deprived us of.

It is time that the U.S. government learned to respect the rights of the Palestinian and Arab people. An Arab world boycott of American products and technology is the most viable approach that would make the American people themselves question the wisdom and actions of the U.S. government as it is the American people that stand to lose the most from the potential that the Arab world market with its 250 million people offers.

M.J. Kharoufeh, Alkhobar, Saudi Arabia

Thievery Should Not Be Sanctified

To The Post-Crescent, May 15, 1997 (as submitted).

The Gary, IN Post-Tribune editorial published in The Post-Crescent on May 13 contained an eloquent plea for reparations to the owners or their heirs of $400 million in gold stolen from Jewish victims of the Nazis during World War II. The gold has been resting in Swiss banks.

No one can say that the gold should not be returned to its rightful owners. Thievery should not be sanctified and blessed with the passage of time. However, there has been another grand theft of property that has occurred. But this thievery has never been condemned by the mass media and establishment opinion-makers in the United States. This thievery is also in danger of being sanctified and blessed by the passage of time.

Since the State of Israel was created over a million Palestinians were either expelled or chose to flee the conquering and victorious Israelis. These mass expulsions occurred, for the most part, in the wars fought by Israel in 1948 and 1967.

The property of the Palestinians who had left Israel was expropriated by the Jewish state and was either leased or sold to Jewish citizens of the State of Israel. No compensation or reparations were ever paid to the Palestinian victims of Zionist thievery.

Surely, if justice is to be finally rendered in the case of the property the Nazis stole from European Jews, isn't it time for the State of Israel to compensate the Palestinians for the property that was stolen from them?

William Gartland, Rio, WI