September/October 1994, Pages 79-81

Other People’s Mail

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

Self-rule in the West Bank: An Old Promise

To the Christian Science Monitor, July 20, 1994 (as published)

Your timetable "Selected Turns in Israeli-PLO Conflict," July 1, misleads in at least one major respect: The entry for 1979 describes the Camp David accords as having provided for "self-rule in Jericho and Gaza."

The accords are not, in fact, so limited. They refer not to Jericho and Gaza, but to the West Bank and Gaza, a considerably larger area. A naive reader might think that the Palestinians now have what was promised them at Camp David and that autonomy for the rest of the West Bank is to be an additional and unagreed-upon reward.

M.A. Orend, Los Angeles, CA

Statue of Honor, Not Insult

To the Press Enterprise, April 21, 1994 (as published)

Last Saturday, I watched the celebration to unveil a new statue of an American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee leader by the name of Alex Odeh, who had been murdered in 1985.

I remember the tragedy and wondered why the murderer couldn't be found; how the whole incident seemed to disappear. However, after all these years, I had forgotten about it and was happy to see the statue in his honor and the Arab-American community working together.

Mr. Odeh was a good man, a man who supported the PLO cause for a homeland, but did not condone violence or terrorism. Your paper reported that the Jewish Defense League calls the statue an insult to Orange County residents. I cannot understand this and am deeply offended.

Marie Cullen Maloof, Riverside, CA

What About Israeli Compliance?

To Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), June 16, 1994 (as submitted)

Today I read in the Jerusalem Post that you are a co-chair of the new Senate Peace Accord Monitoring Group. According to the newspaper report the purpose of the group is primarily to monitor "PLO compliance with the Oslo agreement." I wonder if the group will also be monitoring Israeli compliance with the Oslo and Cairo accords as well. If not, I would like to know why not.

I enclose a copy of the latest statement of the Coordinating Committee of International NGOs working in the West Bank and Gaza. The closure of the Occupied Palestinian Territory has moderated somewhat since the statement was issued 10 days ago—currently children under 16 years of age and women are permitted to enter East Jerusalem and Israel without a permit. However, the statement cites numerous instances in which Israel has already violated both the letter and the spirit of the Oslo and Cairo accords. The closure has denied many sick Palestinians access to health care. Restrictive Israeli economic policies continue to contribute to the strangulation of the Palestinian economy. Education for Palestinians—especially on the university level—has been severely disrupted. Any Senate group which is monitoring the peace accords should be interested in these issues.

I will look forward to your response.

Chip Poston, Mennonite Central Committee, Jerusalem, Palestine

Israelis, By and Large, Back Peace Process

To The New York Times, June 23, 1994 (as published)

"If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem" by William Safire (column, June 13) and "Arafat's Secret Weapon" (op-ed, same day) by Ruth Wisse restate the Israeli opposition's arguments to the government's peace process.

But, as we learned last week on a mission to Israel, it is hardly as Mr. Safire states that "Israelis see where the 'peace process' is headed, and they want to get off that train."

On the contrary, the Israeli right has been unsuccessful in mobilizing the broad public against the peace process, though it has used precisely the arguments offered by Ms. Wisse. Even among West Bank settlers, surveys show about half would leave if it were financially possible to move.

The Israeli public is relieved that its soldiers will no longer have to risk their lives patrolling hostile Gaza refugee camps. It is carefully reviewing further steps in the peace process.

We found no one in Israel who simply wants to return territory, as Ms. Wisse suggests. On the contrary, any withdrawal would follow the Gaza-Jericho precedent and be accompanied by strict security provisions including demilitarization.

Ms. Wisse writes as if nothing has changed since 1967. But the collapse of the Soviet Union, the failure of the Arabs to attain military parity with Israel and the necessity for several regimes to seek economic cooperation as a condition of survival have driven them to enter serious peace negotiations with Israel.

The resolution of these negotiations cannot be foreseen. That is why it is wrong to conclude, as Mr. Safire does, that the result of any settlement will be Israel's ceding of all East Jerusalem. There is consensus in Israel for retaining Jerusalem as Israel's eternal and undivided capital in any final agreement. There are proposals for achieving this end while still providing meaningful representation for Jerusalem's Palestinian population.

The government of Israel has taken bold action to end the 100-year war between Israel and the Palestinians. While we recognize the risks, the dangers of not acting and remaining in a continual state of war are far greater. We believe Israel's leaders deserve the admiration and support of those who aspire to a lasting peace with security.

Richard S. Gunther and Linda Heller Kamm, Presidents, Americans for Peace Now, New York, NY

Jerusalem: Coexist Peacefully and Equally

To the Christian Science Monitor, July 6, 1994 (as published)

The author of the opinion-page article "Can Jerusalem's Status Be Resolved?" June 22, seems to believe that might makes right (unfortunately, an all too prevalent view these days). The author ignores the fact that East Jerusalem is an occupied territory, in violation of the 1949 Geneva Accords. The author implies that the world must accept the illegal Israeli settlements because it is not feasible to remove them. If this is true, at a minimum, Israel must make reparations to Palestinians whose land has been illegally expropriated.

The author also implies that, because not much will change regarding Jerusalem's status in the next two to five years, there is no need to discuss it before then. This ignores well-known Israeli plans to expand its settlements around Jerusalem. The plans require the annexation of several hundred dunams [quarter-acres] of Palestinian land. If Jerusalem is not discussed immediately, there will be next to nothing to negotiate in five years.

The author states that coexistence has worked in Jerusalem. When one is a member of the group in power, it is easy to be blind to the reality. For example, Palestinians are rarely granted building permits, while Israelis rarely have to apply for them. Since March 1993, Palestinians from the West Bank have not been allowed in Jerusalem—depriving them of jobs, health care, and educational opportunities.

A just and lasting peace requires negotiations with the perspectives of both sides being considered equally. "Solutions" should not be imposed unilaterally by those in power. The resolution of Jerusalem's status should require Israel to pay reparations to the Palestinians for the theft of Palestinian land and water. If settlers cannot be removed, no new settlers should be allowed, and all available housing in East Jerusalem should be reserved for Palestinians. Finally, Jerusalem must be discussed now, or there will be nothing to discuss.

Ronald Forthofer, Longmont, CO

U.S. Troops on the Golan? It Worked in Sinai

To The New York Times, July 8, 1994 (as published)

Re "Americans on the Golan" by A.M. Rosenthal (column, June 28): Should American troops be stationed on the Golan plateau? The short answer is an emphatic yes! It is the essential condition of an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement.

Let's put aside the half-century of the self-serving business of the Syrians firing down upon peaceable Israeli farmers in the Hula Valley. The Israelis did as much as they could to antagonize the Syrians by their continuous, arrogant plowing of another furrow closer to Syria in the demilitarized zone. You could look it up.

But this is not the point. I refer you to the Sinai agreement between Israel and Egypt.

I had the honor of being the senior United States military adviser to the State Department and the president's special negotiator for the Middle East peace talks (the "autonomy negotiations") in 1979-82. It devolved upon me to negotiate with the military representatives of the two parties the final withdrawal of Israel from the Sinai Peninsula and the establishment, organization, financing and "hiring" (I use the word advisedly) of the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai.

The Multinational Force and Observers has worked nearly perfectly for two reasons. First, Egypt and Israel wanted it to work. There is no reason to believe that either Syria or Israel would not want such a force on the Golan Heights to work.

Second, the United States was a major participant in the force. It cost us an airborne division—one battalion in the Sinai, one training to go there, and one training back to its original mission, which meant that we lost a whole brigade, effectively wiping out the division. But the United States was there.

Did anyone think that either Israel or Egypt would try to run through an American paratroop battalion? The emphasis is not on "battalion" but on "American" (although Menachem Begin, then Israel's prime minister, was much impressed by the word "battalion" because that was the largest force fielded by either side in the 1948 independence war).

I maintained in the negotiations that all we needed to do the job was an American infantry captain in an orange beret (the multinational force equivalent of the United Nations blue beret), with a .45-caliber pistol and an American decal on his shoulder, and an experienced American master sergeant with a .45 and a radio, stationed somewhere in the middle of the Sinai, say, at An-Nakhl.

Just as they can at El Quneitra on the Golan. Neither Israelis, Egyptians nor Syrians are going to try to run over an American battalion, or an American captain and sergeant, anywhere. They need us.

Does Mr. Rosenthal really think Syria will challenge our troops on the Golan? Their presence worked in the Sinai, and it will work on the Golan as well.

Thomas A. Pianka, Annapolis, MD (The writer is a retired U.S. Army colonel.)

Choosing Investigation Targets Gingerly

To Mr. Andy Rooney, c/o "60 Minutes," CBS Television, Rowayton, CT, June 3, 1994 (as submitted, abridged)

Your program and commentary dealing with people who claimed they won the Medal of Honor was most interesting.

In Milton, Wisconsin, there lives a person who makes your subjects look like penny-ante pikers. David Rubitsky had the media of this country believing that he had been denied the Medal of Honor in 1942 because of the anti-Semitic prejudices of his superior officer. He claimed to have killed some 600 Japanese soldiers all by himself during the Battle of Buna in New Guinea while serving with the Wisconsin/Michigan "Red Arrow" 32nd Division. The Army found his claim to have been absolutely without merit.

An examination of the Army report will show that Rubitsky also claimed that anti-Semitic prejudices prevented him from earning the Medal of Honor for another allegedly heroic feat. That time, Rubitsky claimed to have single-handedly wiped out seven Japanese machine-gun nests, killing some 200 Japanese soldiers in the process. The army did not investigate that claim, either because they found it too ridiculous or because Rubitsky failed to pursue the matter.

In 1989, the American media were filled with sympathetic stories about the "plight" of David Rubitsky. Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey got 70 congressional colleagues to sign a letter dated Nov. 17, 1989 addressed to Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh, Jr. pleading Rubitsky's case.

How was it possible that you and CBS "60 Minutes" did not include this monumental case of fraud in your review of claims respecting the Medal of Honor? Is it possible that you consider the Rubitsky attempt to steal a Medal of Honor deserving a separate segment all by itself on "60 Minutes"? Or did you choose deliberately not to pursue it because a significant portion of American society possessing a great deal of political and economic clout would object to it? I refer to Rubitsky's original and enthusiastic supporters. I even had lunch with the guy two times and I was suckered into believing him until I started investigating the facts by simply reading the official U.S. Army history of the Battle of New Guinea.

It is interesting to note that although Rubitsky's congressman at the time he submitted his claim, Les Aspin, then chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, pressured the Army to investigate Rubitsky's claim to the Medal of Honor, Aspin refused my request to have his Armed Services Committee vigorously investigate the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, which occurred on June 8, 1967 and resulted in the deaths of 34 young Americans. He refused to treat the surviving members of the USS Liberty with the same courtesy he showed David Rubitsky. I received similar refusals from both of my Wisconsin senators, Herb Kohl and Robert W. Kasten, Jr., who had supported Rubitsky's claim. Senator Kohl even tried to pressure the Army to come up with a finding favorable to Rubitsky.

Will you and "60 Minutes" consider doing a segment on the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty from the perspective of the surviving crew members? Or is this topic too hot for you as we approach the 27th anniversary of this tragedy? After all, former Undersecretary of State George W. Ball referred to this despicable Israeli deed as the "blatant murder" of American citizens in his book The Passionate Attachment, written with his son Douglas Ball, the co-author.

Surely, a news organization with integrity would pursue the Rubitsky fraud, and the Liberty disaster, with enthusiasm and diligence regardless of the potential negative fallout from one particularly powerful special interest.

Robert E. Nordlander, Menasha, WI

"Careless Generalizations" About Arabs and Muslims

To The Washington Post , July 9, 1994 (as published)

In the article "Tradition of Shame" (front page, June 21), the Post compounded the deplorable practice of selling brides in India by inserting racist stereotypes of the "Arab Sheik" and implied that this despicable practice is an Arab phenomenon. Such careless generalizations foster racism and hate crimes, of which Arab Americans have often been the target.

The sale of brides is widespread—even extending to American consumers—and is a practice all should find disgusting. The irony here is that a painful, human story has been twisted to malign another group.

We must condemn evenhandedly all those who abrogate the legitimate right of women to make their own choices and also strive to alleviate the fundamental conditions of poverty that lead families to sell their daughters in search of a better life.

Albert Mokhiber, president, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Washington, DC

Pakistan Doesn't Flog

To The New York Times, July 8, 1994 (as published)

"Beyond Singapore: Corporal Punishment, A to Z" (The Week in Review, June 26) unjustly mentions Pakistan as a country where "sentences of flogging continue to be imposed and carried out."

It must be pointed out that even though such punishments remain on Pakistan's statute books as an unfortunate legacy of the erstwhile military regime, no incident of flogging has taken place in the last three years. Pakistan today is a full-fledged democracy, and Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's government is fully determined and deeply committed to preventing any misuse of Islamic laws.

Syed Rifaat Hussain, Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, DC

Kashmir Belongs in South Asia Peace Equation

To the Christian Science Monitor, July 6, 1994 (as published)

This letter is in response to the opinion-page article "U.S. Efforts Can Cap India-Pakistan Nuclear-Arms Buildup," June 16, which accurately identifies the potential for nuclear conflict in South Asia, but miscalculates the solution for peace.

The article correctly identifies the conflict over Kashmir as the source of ongoing and escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. Now, with both sides possessing the capability to assemble and deliver nuclear weapons, the rising tensions threaten to become far more than cross-border skirmishes. The Kashmir conflict threatens, as stated by President Clinton before the United Nations, "to take on murderous proportions."

It is therefore illogical and unreasonable to advocate a process for peace and denuclearization in South Asia that purposely ignores the Kashmir conflict. The two issues are inseparable, with resolution of the Kashmir dispute being the key to greater stability and confidence for resolving the larger regional issues. Just as peace in the Middle East became possible only with the inclusion of the Palestinians, peace in South Asia can only be achieved with Kashmiri participation.

Once peace is established in Kashmir, the governments of India and Pakistan will have eliminated a source of bitter resentment. Once confidence is established, the two sides can more easily be approached on the nuclear nonproliferation issue. Absent that confidence, however, neither side will have the incentive or the inclination to deter its nuclear weapons buildup. The result of that buildup in a region with rising tensions and no end to conflict in sight could be disastrous.

Ghulam Nabi Fai, Exec. Director, Kashmiri-American Council, Washington, DC

Dealing with Nonproliferation

To the Christian Science Monitor, July 6, 1994 (as published)

The author advances several scenarios to deal with the nonproliferation issue in South Asia. But he overlooks the fact that it is Indian posturing and intransigence that are impeding a nonproliferation agreement in South Asia. Pakistan has, over the years, tabled numerous proposals addressing this issue, at both the United Nations and other forums, only to be met by Indian stonewalling. The resolution of the Kashmir issue is a simple one: India should hold the U.N.-mandated plebiscite adopted by the Security Council more than 40 years ago. Let the Kashmiri people decide their own political future.

Syed Rifaat Hussain, Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, DC

All Kinds of Contradictions

To the Washington Times , July 11, 1994 (as submitted, abridged)

Today's editorial, "The Return of Yasser Arafat," sounds as though it were written by Editor-in-Chief Wesley Pruden! (It is also the lead editorial on the page.) The editorial states: "Mr. Arafat is used to getting money—a great deal of money—from Arab governments, in exchange for only the small promise that he won't send his people into their countries to overthrow their governments. (Although even Saudi Arabia refused to cough up after Mr. Arafat decided to throw in his lot with Saddam Hussain during the Gulf War.)"

The second sentence above seems to clearly contradict the first! Is or is not Saudi Arabia "afraid" of Yasser Arafat? ("Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!")

Would a lot of people get quite angry—and charge "anti-Semitism"—if someone suggested that Israel gets a lot of money from the U.S. because its supporters here "threaten" members of Congress? I would like to see many members of Congress given lie detector tests of their real feelings toward Israel and the "American" Jewish lobby!

As to the editorial's complaint about Jordan restricting the movement of Jews in East Jerusalem, the government of the U.S. even today forbids harmless Cuban nationals from visiting close relatives in the U.S.! And forbids, under penalty of law, even innocent trade between the two countries! Is there really a "commonality" between the actions of Jordan that are criticized and those of the U.S.?

Is it the basic "logic" of the editorial that it is not what is done that determines "right" or "wrong," but who does it?

Roger D. Leonard, Bowie, MD

The Phony Islamic Threat

To The New York Times Magazine, Dec. 12, 1993 (as published)

It's about time a prestige journal did something to counter the rising tide of Arab and Islam bashing in America ("The Phony Islamic Threat," by Edward W. Said, Nov. 21). Said rightly points out that there is no necessary conflict between the culture of Islam and the West. Muslim fanatics are a menace to both. Witness their attempt to overthrow the moderate Egyptian regime.

In discussing terrorism, some of which stems from Muslim fanatics, the news media should avoid using inflaming rhetoric that indicts Islam.

Ernest W. Lefever, Chevy Chase, MD