September/October 1993, Page 42

Other People's Mail

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

Ethnic Cleansing's Many Forms

To the Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 1,1993 "Ethnic cleansing" is a revolting expression. For more than a year, Americans have recoiled in horror at the unbridled brutality and mayhem rampant in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia.

The essence of ethnic cleansing is dispossession of other peoples' rightful possessions—land, homes and liberty to govern themselves. Chauvinistic leaders seem to be a requirement, exploiting real or nebulous grievances. How the perpetrators rationalize ethnic cleansing is suggested by W.H. Auden's maxim, "Those to whom evil is done do evil."

Ethnic cleansing can take other forms than the Bosnian model. Screened from public view and carried out methodically over time, it passes without recognition for what it is: unjust dispossession.

It is this form of ethnic cleansing to which the Arab Palestinians have been subjected by successive governments of Israel. Its intensity increases even as peace talks between Israel and Palestinians continue. The most visible evidence, started soon after the June 1967 war, has been the continuous building of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. Other features encompass the present growing violations of human rights in Israeli-occupied territories.

George V. Parmelee, Willoughby, OH

Bosnian-Palestinian Parallel

To the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, June 27, 1993

Sometimes there is an important connection between international events that no one wants to recognize. Your May 25 editorial and op-ed pages contained an editorial lamenting the fate of Bosnia's Muslims and a column by an Israeli, Gerald Steinberg, attacking Palestinians for refusing the limited autonomy Israel seems willing to grant them.

While the Star-Telegram's editorial pricks our consciences for allowing the Serbs to use "murder, rape and pillage" to drive Bosnian Muslims from their homes and herd them into so-called "safe havens, " Steinberg says of the Palestinians only that they "fled" their cities and villages and now ought to accept the consequences of their weakness and homelessness.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Israel employed the same means in 1948 to drive the Palestinians from their ancestral lands that the Serbs and Croats now are using against Bosnia's Muslims? Here is an excerpt from Israeli Prime Minister Rabin's autobiography describing his 1948 role in ethnic cleansing, Israeli style:

"While the fighting was still in progress, we had to deal with a troublesome problem: The fate of the [Arab] population of Lod and Ramleh, numbering some 50,000 civilians. . .

"What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion [Israel's first prime minister] waved his hand in a gesture which said, 'Drive them out.' I agreed it was essential to drive the inhabitants out .... The population of Lod did not leave willingly. There was no way to avoid the use of force. . . "

Steinberg said the Palestinians are "guided by a fundamental rejection of the Jewish state." To the extent this is true, it is because of the way the Palestinians were expelled from their homes and have not been allowed to return. Would Steinberg, the editor of the Star-Telegram or any other reasonable person expect the Bosnian Muslims to accept the loss of their homes to a Bosnian Serb state? If not, why should the same thing be expected of the Palestinians?

John Taylor, Fort Worth, TX

A Letter From Senator Boxer

To Mr. Campbell D. Titus, San Francisco, CA, April 27, 1993

Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding United States policy toward Israel. I believe that the United States has strong moral and strategic motives for remaining closely allied with Israel.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and the United States' longstanding commitment to supporting democracy around the world is reason enough for continuing aid programs. Furthermore, Israel's strategically important location in the region is important to our nation.

I believe that the United States must also support Israel's efforts to absorb tens of thousands of immigrants from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union. As a member of Congress, I fought to secure the release of Soviet and Ethiopian Jews and as a senator, I will work to provide the means to finish this important work.

I am very hopeful that the new Israeli government will be able to negotiate an agreement for lasting peace in the region. I believe that the United States must always be willing to facilitate the peace process— as it did in the Camp David accords. Thank you again for writing.

Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Washington, DC

Several Distortions of Fact

To Senator Barbara Boxer, June 17, 1993 Thank you for responding to my letter. With all due respect, however, not only did your letter fail to address the concerns I tried to bring to your attention, it contained several distortions of fact.

Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. Turkey, with all its problems, is a healthy, functioning democracy. As for Israel, with its citizens divided into two different classes of citizenship wherein one national-religious group receives preferential treatment while equal national rights are denied the other, it can hardly be defined as a democracy in our sense of the word.

I would suggest to you that it is not the responsibility of the U. S. taxpayer to resettle Russian emigres in Israel, many of whom left successful lives behind in Russia. To expect the U. S. taxpayer to assume this burden in the light of our own homeless and hungry, our infrastructure crumbling about us and our troubled economy is untenable. It is even more unthinkable because the unused glut of housing for that privileged class of Jewish citizens in the occupied territories is denied to the other category—the Palestinian.

Consider the continuing Israeli destruction of Palestinian homes; the push to "cleanse" the Galilee of its Arab citizens; the expropriation of Arab land—illegal under international law; the wanton murder of Palestinian children; Israel's use of collective punishment in violation of international covenants; and its massive human rights violations duly confirmed by our own State Department as well as by international organizations. Under Article 501 of the Foreign Assistance Act, you are required to suspend all aid to Israel because of these violations. In addition, Congress is forbid den to send aid to nations developing nuclear weapons in violation of anti-proliferation agreements. Israel is one of those nuclear weapons violators.

Despite these facts, Congress continues to reward it with increased aid. Your letter does not give me much hope that Congress is listening to the overwhelming majority of American citizens who not only want foreign aid reduced, but specifically reduced. I suggest you re-evaluate your assessment of the degree to which your constituency is informed, and I strongly urge you to rethink your position.

Campbell D. Titus, San Francisco, CA

Another Coup For Israel?

To the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Richmond, VA

Another coup for Israel? According to former Congressman Paul Findley, chairman of the Council for the National Interest, Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat from Hawaii, is behind a proposal to move our Sixth Fleet to the port of Haifa.

The cost of home-porting this fleet in Israel would run into billions of dollars. Millions will be needed to upgrade the port, build schools, housing, hospitals and other facilities for our servicemen and their families.

This outrageous plan is designed to benefit Israel by adding the protection of our fleet to its already over-manned defenses, and the addition of 3,000 to 5,000 U.S. servicemen and their families certainly will boost the economy of that country.

It's ironic that while we are closing hundreds of military bases and laying off thousands of Americans, this plan to export U.S. jobs to Israel should surface, undermining whatever respect I have left for this administration.

Robert A. Hay, Richmond, VA

Home-Porting in Haifa

To Hon. Paul Findley, Washington, DC, July 15, 1993

We are the professional organization of over 25,000 Naval Reserve officers and have republished your article from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs on "Haifa Home-Porting" in the July issue of the Naval Reserve Association News.

A member who criticized us for publishing the article has alleged that you were a paid lobbyist for certain Arab causes including Libya. I would appreciate your comments to enable us to respond to such charges. Thank you for your cooperation.

J. Robert Lunney, National President, Naval Reserve Assoc., New York, NY

Findley's Answer to Questioner

To Captain J. Robert Lunney, USNR (Ret), July 16, 1993

The Washington Report has faxed me your letter of July 15. I appreciate the opportunity to reply.

I served in Congress from 1961 through 1983. Since then I have written two books about Israel: They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel 's Lobby and Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U. S. -Israeli Relationship.

So many readers wanted to do something about the influence Israel exerts over U.S. policy in the Middle East that I joined other former congressmen and diplomats in forming the Council for the National Interest. I serve as chairman of the board of directors. It is a Washington-based group that advocates policies that serve the American national interest in the Middle East. I serve without compensation in any form and pay my own expenses when attending directors' meetings.

As you may know, anyone who voices criticism of Israeli policy runs the risk of being charged with all kinds of evil deeds, including anti-Semitism. So it is not surprising that the article on Haifa home-porting that you printed elicited some criticism.

To answer the specific charges, I have never been a paid lobbyist for any person or entity, Arab or otherwise. I have never been on the payroll or retained by any foreign individual or entity. When I speak up for what I perceive to be the American national interest, supporters of Israel sometimes equate this with pro-Arab sentiment.

One of my proudest moments was serving in the United States Navy in World War II as a lieutenant (junior grade), USNR. I was supply officer with the 72nd Seabees during the invasion of Guam and occupation of Japan.

Sincerely, Paul Findley, Jacksonville, IL

The True Cost of Israel

To the Beaufort, S.C. Gazette, July 6,1993 My compliments to Robert Morgan for his highly enlightening letter published in your newspaper on June 25. My thanks, too, to the Gazette for publishing it.

His letter outlines the Clinton administration's intention to construct a large naval base and U.S. Sixth Fleet home port at Haifa, Israel . . . an initial allocation of $57 million has already been made. Sen. Daniel Inouye has been the administration's point man in guiding ongoing largesse despite his failed attempt, a few years back, to subsidize a school for Jewish children in France with U.S. taxpayers' money. Sen. Inouye, incidentally, was the recipient of $86,850 from pro-Israel political action committees during the 1991-92 election cycle, according to reports of those PACs filed with the U.S. Federal Election Commission.

Morgan notes that U.S. aid to Israel amounts to $3.5 billion annually. This figure would appear to be only a portion of U.S. aid to Israel. The June 1993 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reports under " Cost of U. S . Grants to Israel in Fiscal Year 1993" the following (in billions):

—On foreign aid budget—$3.091 —Off foreign aid budget—$1.180 —Total 1993 grants—$4.271

—Interest paid by the United States on money borrowed for 1993 grants to Israel (in billions)—$.050

—Total grants and interest—$4.321 billion —U.S. Loan guarantees to Israel for FY 1993—$2 billion.

—Compound interest on previous loans (grants) to Israel (1951-1992)—$5 billion —Total 1993 grants, interest and loan guarantees—$11.321 billion

Further, the Washington Report points out that the government of Israel has never repaid a U.S. Loan. Loans to Israel have been routinely changed to "grants" by congressional action.

I fully concur with Robert Morgan. The continued outpouring of U.S. taxpayers' money into the coffers of a foreign state, especially in times such as these, shows an unconscionable lack of principle on the part of Congress.

Robert W. Rickert, Lady's Island, SC

Racist Republican Research Report?

To Representative Louise Slaughter (DNY), Washington, DC, July 8, 1993

This is my second request for two reports of the House Republican Research Committee Task Force on Terrorism & Unconventional Warfare: Iran's European Springboard ? Sept.3, 1992, edited by Yossef Bodansky, and The News Journalist International, Feb. 1, 1993, edited by Vaughn Forrest.

These reports, as reviewed in the journal of the Islamic Committee for Palestine, Inquiry, are evidence of a racist hate campaign by the House of Representatives against Muslims. Please respond to define the citizens' right to know about this propaganda, and to identify the perpetrators.

Ronald C. Johnson, Pittsford, NY

A Catholic Voice of Protest

To the Right Rev. William H. Keeler, President, National Conference of Facts for Mr. Rosenthal

To The New York Times, July 19, 1993

Regarding A.M. Rosenthal's column of July 16 ["The U.S.-Iran Oil Scam"]: Since Mr. Rosenthal apparently took some of his material from an article of mine in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, let me offer your readers some facts Mr. Rosenthal left out.

Mr. Rosenthal makes much of the U.S. oil companies' trading in Iranian petroleum overseas, though U.S. Law does not permit them to import it into the United States. Such trade is intended by the law. Among other things, it helps to moderate prices. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran have been openly warring for some time now over petroleum market share. When U.S. oil companies buy from the Iranians it means that the Iranians are giving them the best price. Forbidding the U.S. majors to buy Iranian petroleum will not stop Iran from selling it; nor will it stop terrorism.

More importantly, Mr. Rosenthal neglects to mention the one-way nature of U.S.-Iran trade. Last year, despite stringent trade regulations, the U.S. sold $749 million worth of goods directly to the Islamic republic. This does not count indirect sales via third countries. Using first-quarter figures for this year, I estimate (this was not in my article) that American direct sales to Iran may reach $900 million in 1993. On the other hand, because Americans are forbidden to import almost anything Iranian, the U. S. bought only $800,000 worth of Iranian goods last year. That figure will stay the same this year, give or take a few thousand dollars. In other words, Iran's net foreign exchange drain to the U.S. is approaching $1 billion a year. We are not funding the Iranians in their endeavors; they are funding us in ours.

Colin MacKinnon, Chief Editor, Middle East Executive Reports, Washington, DC

Plea for a Kashmiri Leader

To Ms. Sarah Thomas, India Research, Amnesty International, London, UK, May 29, 1993

This letter is to inquire about the status of my request to include Mr. Shakeel A. Bakshi, a Kashmiri student leader incarcerated by Indian authorities in Kashmir, in the Amnesty Prisoner of Conscience Program.

According to the information received by the Kashmir Human Rights Foundation, Mr. Bakshi is a student leader and one of the founder members of the Kashmir Islamic Student League (KISL). The league is a political party organized since 1978 by college students of Kashmir to protest political corruption in Indian-occupied Kashmir.

Mr. Bakshi, according to published reports, is a political activist who advocates human rights in Kashmir. He urges dialogue among Pakistan, India and representatives of Kashmiris to find an honorable solution to the Kashmir conflict which centers around the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir within the context of related United Nations resolutions.

Mr. Bakshi,31, was first arrested in 1974 when he participated in a general strike for political rights in Kashmir. He has spent the last 11 years of his life in and out of Indian government-run jails in Kashmir. Since 1980 he has been arrested nine times. For the last three years he has been jailed at Balwal interrogation center in Jammu without any charges. He is not allowed visits from relatives. He is being tortured and denied appropriate medical treatment. It is reported that wounds on Mr. Bakshi's thighs, from hot iron torture, are infected.

Mr. Bakshi has been involved in peaceful protests organized to demand political rights. Demonstrations which were addressed by Mr. Bakshi demanding human rights for Kashmiris attracted large crowds. One such demonstration organized in 1990 at Char Sharif reportedly attracted close to a million people.

Mr. Bakshi's family has been harassed by the Indian authorities. His father, Molvi G. Muhammad Bakshi, was arrested and kept under detention without trial for one year for the political beliefs of his son. One of Mr. Bakshi's younger brothers has been under detention for the last three and a half years. Another younger brother, Mohammad Sharif, was shot in the leg by Indian forces. His mother and sisters have been subjected to indignities during many searches of the Bakshi house in Batmaloo, Kashmir.

Shakeel Bakshi should be declared a prisoner of conscience. Please use your best effort to secure his unconditional release.

Rafique A. Kahn, Managing Director, Kashmir Human Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, CA

An Open Letter To Palestinian Peace Talks Delegates

July 11, 1993

Many recent visitors to Palestine . . . have commented on the general malaise and discouragement with the "peace process" they confronted at every turn. Perhaps in academic and political circles, the deadlock (or dead end) in the process initiated in Madrid 21 months ago is still a topic of ardent debate, but for the ordinary Palestinian "the process" died a long time ago.

In the old days, after the first, second, or third round, we waited for you with eager expectation, either to greet you with a hero's welcome at the bridge, or to attack your position in the spirit of "Palestinian democracy" at the universities and public halls or in the newspapers. Everyone, whether for or against the peace process, felt involved. But now, no one is waiting. At first, maybe some believed that your efforts would bring some relief, that the promised "concessions" would lighten their burden and make life just a little bit easier. But now, 325 deaths, 500 demolished houses, 415 deportations, and a strangulating military closure later, expectations are lower. . .

Perhaps what is most worrisome is that the jungle you predicted would emerge without the hope for a solution is beginning to flourish in our midst. It is not simply a matter of the tragic casualties of domestic and internecine violence we hear about or experience every day, but the bitter and callous nature of our everyday interactions. The fabric of our lives and humanity is beginning to fray.

The problem is not, as some petty administrators seem to believe, that there is no money. The problem, to paraphrase Caesar, is in ourselves. We have become underlings to those who told us that we have no alternative, that we have the most to lose by not going along with their plans. We are underlings to have accepted the judgment that we were too weak to resist. . . We are underlings to succumb to financial or political blackmail and sacrifice our self-respect.

So, no one is waiting for you . . . But this is not to say that we have lost hope. One way or the other, we will manage to survive and you know that your people have remarkable endurance . . . We know our future is in our hands, not America's, not the Arab states, neither the West nor the East. We believe in our right to self-determination. We will develop ourselves from the bottom up, not the top down, and the bottom line is our human dignity. We don't need technical committees to' formulate elaborate schemes to fit the requirements of international financiers, but we could use technical advisers— our sons and daughters in whose education we invested—to work with us, to take our dreams and help us turn them into reality.

With open hearts we say: We need you, here and now.

Dr. Jan Abu Shakrah, Jerusalem

Editor's Note: The American-born director of the Palestine Human Rights Information Center in Jerusalem wrote this letter in her personal capacity as a concerned citizen of the Palestinian state-to-be.

Loans and Grants to Israel

To the St. Paul Pioneer Press, July25, 1993

In the context of (a) domestic needs and of (b) Zionist abuses of the Palestinians, aid for Israel is particularly significant. From the Wall Street Journal of Sept. 19, 1991, we have learned (a) that between 1974 and 1988, Congress converted loans totaling $16.4 billion into grants to Israel and (b) that for several years Congress has provided Israel with special assistance covering annual installments on other loans. Before Mr. Bush granted guarantees for commercial loans to Israel, Parker Payson explained that such guarantees would cost American taxpayers between $3.1 billion and $117 billion (Washington Report, Nov. '91). Rational minds can readily comprehend the domestic value of such funds in responding to natural calamities. Why does Israel command priority over American needs?

Floyd R. Nelson, W. St. Paul, MN, and

William L. Knaus, Mendota Heights, MN

Concern Yourself About Bosnia-Herzagovina

To President Clinton, July 22, 1993

I am writing to you regarding the genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia has now been relegated to a second-class issue in the media, and people have forgotten the Muslims, forgotten the killing, forgotten the tragedy. No longer is anyone shocked by the pictures; we have all grown callous and immune to their sobering effect. While we're busy looking for easy, hollow victories by picking our enemies carefully—like the now impotent and near-death Iraq or a fugitive warlord in Somalia—the real moral dilemma continues in the heart of Europe. With the expected fall of Sarajevo, it is clear that things have only gotten worse for the European Muslims.

Last November, Bosnian Foreign Minister Haris Silajdzic announced the grim news that 100,000 Muslims had been killed by Serbian militias. In July of this year, he announced that the figure had reached 200,000 people. Of course, these figures do not include the countless others who have been raped, blinded, maimed, or placed in concentration camps that the Serbs like to call "detention centers. " Meanwhile, the world has stood idly by.

The failure of appeasement is all too reminiscent of the events of Munich in 1938 on the eve of war. But this time, the echoed cries from World War II can no longer be heard. Instead, all that is heard is the sound of Serbian shelling.

Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic is a self-styled Hitler. While the world has remained fearful to move against him, he and the Serbians have grown exceedingly confident in their strength and have stepped up the atrocities against the Muslims. Serbian corps commander Major General Momir Talic summed up the Serbian attitude of defiance when he said, "Any American who comes here probably won't be leaving. You mustn't forget, we are not Iraq." Indeed, the Serbians have become so intoxicated with their own delusions of grandeur that not even the U.S. military causes them fear.

Milosevic himself coined the term "ethnic cleansing. " And what does that term imply? It means the "final solution" for the Muslims in Europe. Why are they being killed? Because they are different and not the same, because they read the Qurtan and not the Bible, because they pray in mosques and not churches, because they are Muslims.

This is not, as some have suggested, a "civil" war. As Serbian Defense Minister Bogdan Subotic put it, the Serbians "believe it is not in the interest of the American people that we have a Muslim republic here in the heart of Europe."

As was the case with the appeasement of Germany, every concession to the Serbs is not a step toward ending the war, but rather whets their appetite for more violence. It is clear that whatever concessions and sacrifices the Muslims give in a vain attempt for survival will be unacceptable to the unappeasable Serbs.

It has become increasingly clear that our memories are both short and selective. The horrors of the Nazis were deemed unforgivable; their deeds were human barbarism at its height and were both disgusting and revolting. The world as a whole was condemned for what we allowed to happen to European Jews. Our self-imposed punishment was to "never forget," so that these revolting deeds of human cruelty and mass genocide would happen "never again." Now, it seems that no one remembers these lessons.

The United States, throughout its proud history, has remained the bulwark for democracy and human rights, and has always stood against naked aggression. Yet the massacre of Muslims continues. Over a month ago, Mr. President, you made a vow to respond with military force if the Vance-Owen peace plan was not approved. Yet this was shown to be an empty promise, and your attempts at lifting the arms embargo have shown a lack of initiative and success. Now, the Bosnian Muslims pay with their lives for these mistakes. What has happened to America's high-minded principles— principles based on the protection of the meek, the weak, the underdog? Now, we say that this genocide is a "European" problem and blame others for not wanting to get involved. America used to lead the way for Europe and other countries. Now we do nothing but blame each other.

Perhaps the Serbs are right—maybe it's not in our national interest to have a Muslim nation "in the heart of Europe. " The Muslims, stereotyped and stigmatized, have for years been portrayed as violent barbarians, fundamentalists, and even terrorists. A stable Muslim country in Europe would therefore be incompatible with the existing negative Western stereotype.

What is the price of a Muslim's life these days? Obviously not enough to warrant Western support. After the Serbs eventually complete their plans for Muslim extermination, what will be left will be little more than a small population of refugees, unwanted, roaming from country to country, and unable to return to their homeland. Others who survive will be living in the equivalent of "reservations" or "ghettos" in a new "Greater Serbia."

As an American, a Muslim, and a human being, I am appalled by the massacre of the Muslims in Europe. Mr. President, I plead with you to increase your efforts in exerting pressure on the world community and in keeping Bosnia alive in the hearts of the American people. We cannot allow the death sentence of Bosnia to be carried out.

If we wish, we can have America live up to her reputation as the savior and protector of those who cannot protect themselves. Or we can even help the Bosnian Muslims by not lifting a finger, without loss of American lives or materials. All we have to do is lift the arms embargo.

The Bosnian Serbs are being supported by other Serbians, but the Muslims have no such ally in Europe. If the embargo is lifted, other countries will surely help the Muslims. At least, then, the fighting will be carried out on a level playing field and the Muslims will be given a fighting chance for life. We all have an interest in Bosnia. Are we not all human beings? Muslims are no different than anyone else. Like all people, they have the right to exist, to live, and to defend themselves. Let us not allow the final chapter to be written in blood, telling the tale of Muslim genocide and a "civilized" world that failed to care.

Mohamed Sarhan, Warwick, RI