 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September 1987, pages 6-7 Other People's Mail "Gentlemen don't read other people's mail," an idealistic American official exclaimed between World Wars I and II as he abolished US cryptographic counter-intelligence programs. Times change, however, and some letters by or to other people are as informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves. Michael Ledeen and IranscamJuly 10, 1987 Sen. Daniel Inouye Dear Mr. Chairman: We are concerned over recent press reports which indicate that the House and Senate Select Committees to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran are now unlikely to call as a witness Michael Ledeen, the former National Security Council consultant who played a key role in the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran. A decision not to question Ledeen under oath would constitute a grave error and would create the appearance of a cover-up not only of Ledeen's central role in this affair, but Israel's role as well. The National Association of Arab-Americans (NAAA) has consistently warned Congress of US officials and "consultants" holding national security positions who have a history of protecting Israeli interests—even at the expense of US security interests. Evidence revealed so far would put Ledeen in that category. His role as the principal agent between the US and Israel and his advocacy of Israel's plan to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for US hostages must be thoroughly examined by Congress. Ledeen's conduct in this affair raises serious questions which must be addressed by your committee. These include: • Whether Ledeen was paid $50 a missile for an Israeli shipment of TOW missiles to Iran, as Lt. Col. Oliver North charged in a memo, or whether he otherwise illegally profited from his relationship with Manucher Ghorbanifar. • Whether Ledeen helped orchestrate a cover-up, or otherwise obstructed justice, when he met in his house with Oliver North and Robert McFarlane on November 21, 1986. This meeting preceded the "shredding party," as well as Attorney General Meese's announcement of the diversion of funds to the contras. • Whether Ledeen abused his security clearance authorizing access to top secret data. Former Pentagon official Noel Koch told the Washington Post that, for reasons he would not provide, he stopped letting Ledeen see the Pentagon's secret data. In light of ledeen's relationship with Ghorbanifar (whom Oliver North identified as an Israeli agent), and other Israeli officials, Congress must determine if Ledeen violated espionage laws by providing a foreign government with classified information. We strongly urge that Ledeen be required to testify on his role and Israel's involvement in the Iran arms sale. American interests are served by uncovering for public disclosure the full truth concerning this affair. David J. Sadd, Executive Director, NAAA, Washington, DC The USS LibertyCongress of the United States Mr. Mark H. Smith Dear Mr. Smith: I have received your comments regarding the USS Liberty. I share your intrigue with the circumstances surrounding the attack on this ship. From the information I have already received on this matter, I can only derive that the attack is one of the many tragic accidents common in war. In fact, the day before the Liberty incident, an Israeli aircraft bombed an Israeli armored column south of the West Bank town of Jenin. More recently, in June of 1982, during the war in Lebanon more than twenty Israeli servicemen were killed by Israeli Phantom jets in the eastern sector when their tanks were mistakenly identified as Syrian. Unfortunately, such tragedies occur in every army in the history of modern war. To accurately determine whether or not the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional or accidental is virtually impossible. There are too many contradictions in stories. For example, the question of whether or not the Liberty was flying a flag remains a major point of contention. I am afraid that the mystery behind the attack on the USS Liberty will always remain. Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. Buddy MacKay Congressman Buddy MacKay Dear Representative MacKay, Thank you for your June 29 letter. I am somewhat perplexed, however, by your statements about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. You state that "I am afraid that the mystery behind the attack on the USS Liberty will always remain." But that is what congressional investigations are for—to resolve such mysteries. It will only remain a mystery if there is no investigation. You say that to determine whether the attack on the Liberty was accidental or deliberate is "virtually impossible" because of contradictions in stories. My research into the matter suggests that the only contradictions in stories are the contradictions between the American stories and the Israeli stories. You mention the question of whether the flag was flying. The US government's position has been from the beginning that the flag was certainly flying. Virtually all American eyewitnesses attest to the fact that the flag was flying in a stiff breeze. After the Israelis shot down the first flag, another larger holiday flag was run up. Even if the flag was not seen, the ten-foot high identification markings on the bow were easily visible, and no sailor or pilot could have mistaken the distinctive profile of the Liberty, bristling with numerous antennae, for the decrepit Egyptian horse carrier, El Quseir, which was the ridiculous story the Israelis came up with to explain their attempt to sink the American ship. Admiral Thomas Moorer has noted that the Israelis reconnoitered the Liberty repeatedly before the attack and that "there could be no mistake." Are you familiar with the reply of the American secretary of state to the Israeli apology? He reiterated several of the points I made above and then said, "Accordingly there is every reason to believe that the USS Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality determined, by Israeli aircraft approximately one hour before the attack. In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the USS Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. At a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life." The Department of Defense noted that it "cannot accept an attack upon a clearly marked noncombatant US naval vessel in international waters as 'plausible' under any circumstances whatsoever." With regard to your suggestion that the Liberty incident be regarded as simply one of the inevitable accidents of war, as evidenced by incidents wherein the Israelis shot their own forces, let me point out that these incidents, like the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark, were characterized by short duration and momentary disorientation of a single pilot or two. The Israeli attack on the Liberty involved at least six aircraft and several torpedo boats attacking after eight surveillance flights, the attacks lasting an hour and a half. The Liberty received 821 hits by bullets, rockets, and cannon and torpedo fire, along with napalm. There seems to be little question that the real reason there has been no public investigation of the assault on the Liberty is that such exposure could threaten the "special relationship" between Israel and the United States. America's dismal relationship with the Arab nations, the severe damage done by Israeli spying on the US, Israeli intransigence in consistently thwarting all efforts to bring peace to the Middle East, as well as the attack on the Liberty, all suggest that we would all be better off without such a special relationship. Of course, I understand the difficulty you face, having a significant Jewish constituency that would likely be made unhappy by your support of a congressional investigation of the Liberty attack. But let me remind you that you have a larger non-Jewish constituency. I can only hope that you will reconsider your views about the desirability of having an investigation into the matter. Mark H. Smith Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian ConflictJune 9, 1987 The Philadelphia Inquirer I read with interest Marc Dovoisin's article on the "Origins of the Mideast Conflict." I have always been fascinated by the British generosity in the Balfour Declaration, "viewing with favor" the establishment of a Jewish homeland on someone else's territory (Palestine), which could hardly fail to infringe on the rights of the Palestinians. The even greater magnanimity of the United Nations in partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and a Palestinian state, which is akin to partitioning the United States between a military-ethnic group and the remainder of us Americans, is beyond belief. I am certain that most Americans would make every effort to retain or regain our country, and would not stop at so-called "terrorism." Nevertheless, the Palestinians, facing reality, and realizing that, with America supporting every Israeli wish, and the rest of the world not caring much, now ask to recover only a very small portion of their former country, where they can live as a people, and not as second-class citizens, or worse, in "Greater Israel." Unfortunately, with our help, the Israeli government throws up every possible roadblock, even to those much reduced aspirations of a proud people. Howard E. Barsky, Israeli Treatment of American CitizensJuly 10, 1987 The Most Rev. John L. May, President Your Excellency: I want to bring to your attention the attached newspaper report advising of discrimination by Israel against Arab-American visitors. I urge you to join with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in objecting to this action by Israel. As a Catholic layman, I note that my local Catholic paper, The Tidings, carries ads promoting travel to Israel. I believe that this should be stopped until Israel conforms to decent behavior toward all American citizens. The Catholic bishops in America should not be a party to helping a foreign government discriminate against Americans and should advise its press accordingly, as well as its clerical organization. I have always been amazed how the Catholics in America could ignore their suffering brothers and sisters in Israel, the Christian and Muslim population of that country who suffer under a most cruel and barbaric military occupation. I read or hear nothing of this in Catholic circles and the entire matter seems to be buried, as the Catholic officialdom in the United States goes along with the Israeli lobby in all that it does. This mistaken policy is akin to that of certain religious fundamentalist groups in America who believe that we are now in the final days, awaiting the anti-Christ, the tribulation, and the rapture as they interpret the Bible as foretelling. The bottom line is the same, a lack of courage, determination, and focus in supporting Catholic positions as set forth by the Holy See. I urge the Catholic bishops to at least take a stand on this matter of Israeli discrimination against American visitors and to stop promoting travel to Israel while it continues. Patrick F. Flynn The PLO and Anti-Terrorism LegislationWest Jerusalem, July 26, 1987 Dear Senator: I am writing to you concerning the bill known as "The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987," which is aimed at closing down the PLO offices in the United States. This is being presented as a "Pro-Israel" bill, and for that reason senators and representatives who consider themselves friends of Israel are being urged to support it. As a member of the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), I would like to dispute that view. I believe that achieving peace is a prime requirement for Israel's long-term survival and prosperity. There can be no peace without negotiations between the Israeli government., representing the Israeli people, and the representatives of the Palestinian people. Such representatives can only be chosen by the Palestinians themselves, and on each occasion that the Palestinians were asked for their opinion, they unequivocally expressed their support for the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO. Such, for example, was the result of the 1976 municipal elections in the West Bank, which were the last free elections to be held there. Similar results were the outcome of a public opinion poll, held in the occupied territories in August 1986. Indeed, the government of Israel itself, in refusing to permit new municipal elections in the West Bank, admits that in its view such elections would be won by supporters of the PLO. Together with many of my fellow citizens of Israel, I have been urging the Israeli government to reconsider its policies and to agree to negotiate with the PLO in the context of an international peace conference. Recently this idea has been spreading; not only opposition members such as myself, but also Ezer Weizmann, member of the Israeli cabinet, as well as several Knesset members from the Israeli Labor Party, have publicly voiced their support for Israeli negotiations with the PLO. Passage of the bill closing the PLO offices in the US would, in my view, constitute a grave setback for the Middle East peace process. It would mean total abdication by the US of any role as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. Hard-liners in the Israeli cabinet would be encouraged to persist in their intransigent position and their refusal to talk with the PLO. Far from "stopping terrorism," as it is supposed to do, this bill would further escalate the cycle of bloodshed and violence in the Middle East. Therefore, as an Israeli concerned with the well-being of my country and my people, I urge you to voice your opposition to this so-called "Anti-Terrorism Act." By so doing, you will not be taking an "anti-Israel" stand; on the contrary, the rejection of this bill will be compatible with the long-term interests of the State of Israel and will be seen as such by a substantial number of Israel's citizens. Major General (Res.) Matti Peled, |