September 1995, pgs. 79-82

Other People's Mail

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

What is the Middle East Connection?

To Robert D. Novak, the Washington Post, July 17, 1995 (as submitted).

Knowing you to be a balanced commentator on Middle East issues, I want to comment on your Post column of today's date with respect to Gingrich vs. Dole: "What's the Middle East Connection?"

You will recall that the pro-Israel folks went after Bush with a vengeance for his stance on loan guarantees and his sanctioning of Baker's tough talk with AIPAC. Although the peace accords have split the pro-Israel community and sown some confusion in their ranks, the hard-liners don't trust Dole even though he's put some real teeth into proposed legislation to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. As a possible one-term president because of age, and with a mind of his own with respect to Israel (which won't prevent him from pandering on the issue throughout the campaign), a provoked President Dole would be a good bet to show even more backbone than Bush in going to the American public to force Israel's hand on settlements, human rights violations and what we get in return for $6 billion annually in U.S. taxpayer handouts.

Gingrich presents no such problems. His allegiance to Israel-firsters is in no doubt. With Dole out of the way, they can't lose with either Gingrich or Clinton.

But I weep for Republicans who really believe Gingrich is a viable candidate in 1996. Yes, Gingrich, because of his in-your-face style, has generated a lot of populist applause from Americans who believe in shock therapy for the body politic. In a campaign against Clinton, which I think Clinton would welcome, Gingrich would eventually self-destruct on his own stream of consciousness and extremist sound bites. Only Gingrich could make Clinton's persistent vacillation into something resembling virtue. Dole, if his health holds out, can nail Clinton to the woodshed door.

And I speak to you as a lifelong liberal Democrat.

Robert Norberg, Washington, DC

Does Israel Fit With "Moral Contract"?

To the Grand Rapids (MI) Press , May 24 (as published).

Rev. Jerry Falwell's desire to create a "Moral Contract with America" (Grand Rapids Press, May 14) piqued my curiosity. I would agree that America's problems are due to an erosion in recognizing accepted moral standards. But how does this fit in with a renewed effort (as proposed by Falwell) to back the nation of Israel? The article stated that he would like us to accept the Abrahamic Covenant with Israel. What does this mean? Should we never criticize political decisions taken by Israel?

The U.S. already gives Israel more foreign aid than any other country, $3 billion annually. Present designs to cut the budget will not include lowering these levels, but will instead cut foreign aid to more needy nations suffering from poverty and health problems.

The U.S. is giving Israel a $10 billion loan for new settlements. Yet Israel is in violation of the Oslo Peace Agreement with the Palestinians. It is expropriating land from East Jerusalem and elsewhere in Palestine. All of this is contrary to its loan package, and the peace agreement.

Additionally, Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, using as its excuse that it has no nuclear weapons. Most major nations, including the U.S., suspect that Israel has nuclear capabilities. Meanwhile, we pressure Arab/Muslim nations to sign this treaty whether or not they have nuclear weapons, but not Israel. All of this is destined to abort efforts to make peace in the Mideast.

How then can we renew U.S. support for Israel? Our ethic should be that of seeking to live peacefully with all men. Entrance into the Abrahamic Covenant is faith in the righteousness of God, not in any political position.

In my mind, Rev. Falwell again confuses the role of church and state. Yes, we have ethical obligations and sensitivities to fulfill to all peoples. This is really one of the chief goals of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Fred Karlson, Grand Rapids, MI

Be Fair

To the Washington Jewish Week, July 6, 1995 (as published).

I am writing to you both as a supporter of Israel and as a foreign affairs professional to protest the support being given by AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) to the Helms/Gilman foreign assistance bills.

I understand, of course, that the primary purpose of AIPAC is to ensure U.S. support, including continued budget support and military assistance to Israel, and that the Helms/Gilman bills continue this support. I would, however, hope that AIPAC and the Jewish community at large would consider the big picture.

Given the vast differences in living standards between the two areas, I am also aware of the extreme dichotomy between aid given to Israel/Egypt and to the rest of the world. The proposed bill, which severely cuts development assistance to non-Camp David countries, indefensibly widens this discrepancy.

The effect upon Israel's new national ties should also be considered. Predictably, justified anger can be expected from the African-American community over AIPAC's support of a bill (fortunately not shared by most Jewish members of Congress) that eviscerates development aid to Africa while leaving aid to Israel and Egypt untouched.

The harm that passage of this bill will do to President Clinton, who has been more supportive of Israel than any president in recent memory, should also be considered.

Finally, I would hope that we in the Jewish community will consider the moral implications of AIPAC's stand. After all, did not one of our great teachers, Hillel, say: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I?"

Herbert H. Werlin, College Park, MD

Israel Should Ask for Forgiveness

To the New York Times, July 20, 1995 (as published).

Daniel Pipes and Tonya Ugoretz Buzby ("The Word on the Arab Street in Israel") complain that many Palestinians, while accepting "formal peace negotiations with Israel continue to harbor strong antagonism toward Israel." The authors cite polls showing Palestinians "doubt Israel is serious about achieving peace," and then they urge the U.S. to press Arab leaders to "push for reconciliation" with Israel. They blame the Arab media for making it difficult for Arabs to form "positive impressions about Israeli intentions."

But how can Arabs—or Americans—take Israeli pretensions seriously when the Rabin government continues to expand settlements, confiscate Palestinian land—evicting some Palestinians in the process—torture prisoners and apply collective punishment? Palestinians do not need their media to see that Israel daily oppresses them, violating international law, human-rights conventions, various United Nations Security Council resolutions, and even the Israeli agreement with the PLO.

If any government treated its Jews the way Israel treats Palestinians, it would be denounced—rightly—as "anti-Semitic." Nor would the Jews in question be urged to

accept the "need to compromise goals and aspirations" if that meant forgoing basic human rights such as self-determination and the right to live in one's homeland.

Mr. Pipes and Ms. Buzby cite polls where 39 percent of Palestinians still support the destruction of Israel, and 46 percent support armed attacks against Israeli targets. But a much higher percentage of Israelis oppose the right of Palestinians to their own state and few Israelis oppose torture and other oppressive measures of their government. Blaming the Palestinians—the victims—for not accepting Israel while Israel oppresses them is akin to having demanded that black South Africans reconcile themselves to a continuation of some aspects of apartheid.

The authors should heed Israelis like social scientist Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, who argues (in his book Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel) that "there will be no reconciliation without an open admission [by Israelis] of the basic injustice involved in Zionism" and a readiness by Israelis to "atone for the sins of colonialism...The Israelis' problem is asking for forgiveness; the Palestinians' the readiness to forgive."

That is, Palestinians can forgive Israelis, but only when Israelis—and their ardent U.S. supporters—ask for forgiveness by, for example, ceasing to steal the land of Palestinians and returning at least some Palestinian lands stolen since 1948. Reconciliation will follow.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Executive Director, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA

Denying the Message

To the San Francisco Chronicle, June 24, 1995 (as published).

In response to my Open Forum article on Israeli terrorism (May 19), three letters and an Open Forum piece attacked the messenger (one accused me of using the "Big Lie" technique of Nazi leader Joseph Goebbels) and denied the message.

One attacker asks "who finances" SEARCH. Our support comes from Jews like myself and non-Jews who realize Palestinians deserve the same rights as Israelis.

Facts remain. Israel's current massive violations of human rights violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and international conventions against torture and on the Rights of the Child. These violations are documented by U.S., Israeli and international organizations such as Amnesty International, Swedish Save the Children, the State Department, and the Association of Israeli-Palestinian Physicians for Human Rights.

U.S. law forbids granting foreign aid to nations like Israel which practice a "consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." Hence the questions: why violate U.S. law by giving Israel over $3 billion of foreign aid when that money underwrites human rights violations?

As a Jew, I suggest it is as wrong for a so-called "Jewish state" to discriminate against Christians and Muslims as it is for "Christian" or "Muslim" states to discriminate against Jews or other out-groups.

Justice for Palestinians and security for Israelis are interdependent, not mutually exclusive goals. Security for Israelis requires justice for Palestinians, as more Israeli and American Jews now recognize.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA

"Not Good Enough"

To the Chicago Sun-Times, June 22, 1995 (as submitted).

Now that rock superstar Michael Jackson has announced that he will re-record a song in his latest album to change lyrics that were called anti-Semitic, and after Jackson's apology and original plan to include an explanation of the lyrics was labeled by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others in Hollywood: "Not good enough." It's long overdue that Hollywood start changing scenes, dialogue and lyrics that negatively caricature Arabs and Muslims.

Popular disc-jockey Casey Kasem, an American of Arab heritage, has compiled over the years a list of instances of U.S. entertainment industry defamation of people of the Middle East that now numbers in the thousands of items. The feelings of Americans on the receiving end of this systematic abuse are just as high as those aroused by Michael Jackson's lyrics.

Hollywood, you made Michael Jackson re-do his work. It's time for you to re-do some of your own work.

Paul Thomas, Chicago, IL

Point Avoided: Duality Noted

To the San Antonio Express News, June 25, 1995 (as published).

Re: The "Another View" columns by Alan Parker (May 28) and Mark Freedman (June 11):

I read with interest the above and was quite disappointed in the position of the Jewish Federation through its designated spokesman.

Freedman could have attempted, in the large amount of space allotted to him, to reply to much that Parker said. Rather, he spent his effort in trying to advocate a censorship of Parker's remarks, quite contrary to the First Amendment right of freedom of speech, which so many Americans have died to protect and which the Express News so patriotically and unselfishly provides in these columns.

An ancillary point that most born in this country don't think about is that, unlike those of us of other faiths, those born into the Jewish faith by a Jewish mother (in that faith descent is through the mother and the matriarchal side rather than through the father and the patriarchal side) have the absolute right to walk into any Israeli consulate worldwide and, upon production of proper documentation, walk out with an Israeli passport.

The point made here is that those of Jewish faith in any country can have a dual citizenship and dual allegiance that nearly all the rest of the people do not have.

At age 66, this is my first-ever letter to the editor of any publication. I thank you for allowing all to be read in your newspaper.

George West, San Antonio, TX

Appalling Misrepresentations of Truth

To Mr. Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor of U.S. News and World Report, July 10, 1995 (as submitted).

I read your editorial, "The Truth in Ancient Stones" last Thursday while en route home from a two-week visit in the Holy Land. I am appalled at the misrepresentations of current truth.

The truth is that Israeli policy, enforced by Uzi-carrying soldiers, is that only Jews are entitled to worship freely at their sacred sites. Christians and Muslims, even those who live in Jerusalem itself—or who, as their ancestors before them, have lived all their lives in the same homes in the immediate area—are not entitled to worship at their holy places. Young Muslims who live in Jerusalem are barred from worshiping at the Dome of the Rock. Christians from Bethlehem and other West Bank areas were denied the right to follow the Via Dolorosa on Good Friday, or participate in the rite of the Holy Fire on Holy Saturday at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. At Christmas, Palestinian Christian residents of Bethlehem cannot worship at their parish church, the Church of the Nativity, unless they spend hours and/or days to obtain the necessary permit from the military authorities.

Both Palestinian Christians and Muslims are justifiably outraged by this denial of their religious freedom; so is this American!

On June 30, all West Bank residents, even those with permits to go to Jerusalem, were denied access to the city during the hours the Muslims sought to pray. I was outside the city with an Episcopal priest. We were denied entrance to the city by armed soldiers three times at three different locations because our driver was a Palestinian—even though the 65-year-old resident of Bethlehem had a valid permit (for which he'd stood in the sun for 7 hours only 8 days before), and we were in the marked car of the hospital for which he's worked for 41 years!

I first went to Jerusalem in 1961, and have returned there 12 times since then. The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians has worsened exponentially during that time. I have also lived in South Africa during the days of apartheid. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is worse than white South Africa's treatment of the African people.

Only a week ago, on the Israeli a.m. English-language news, I heard the state justify the use of torture (even to death) "because we need the information." I watched people stand in lines all day—and/or for days—for the right to go to their jobs (which many have held for many years). And I have heard Israelis say, "But I'm only following orders," and "We must"...which translates into "The end justifies the means." Aren't those just the rationales and mentality and actions the Jews complained about when such things were done to them?

Elizabeth B. Mulford, Attorney at Law, Cupertino, CA

Dividing Palestine

To the New York Times, July 23, 1995 (as published).

Morton A. Klein (letter, July 16) writes that the League of Nations defined Palestine as including the Kingdom of Jordan; hence Arabs already have three-fourths of Palestine. He omits that Palestinian Muslims and Christians made up 90 percent of the population in 1920, and that they should have been allowed (as promised) self-determination.

Palestinians were again wronged in 1947, when the United Nations partition plan gave Jews, now one-third of the population, 56 percent of the land West of the Jordan River (no Jews lived on the East Bank, only Jordanian Bedouins), as well as in 1948-49, when Israel drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and increased its territory 50 percent.

Rod Parrott, Associate Dean, Disciples Seminary Foundation, Berkeley, CA

Islam in Amber

To the Washington Post, June 29, 1995 (as published).

In his paean to Russian neo-imperialism ("Russia: War Against Fanatics," op-ed, June 6), Sergo A. Mikoyan first asks whether "Islamic democracy" is possible, then responds by saying such a system would be intolerant and fundamentally undemocratic.

Democracy may have a troubled history in the Middle East and Central Asia, but this should not be laid at the doorstep of Islam. Muslims upheld the primacy of shura (consultation) and ijma (consensus) in politics 1,000 years before Jean Jacques Rousseau and the social contract. There is nothing in Islam or its teachings that precludes democracy. Rather, a number of prominent thinkers and scholars across the Muslim world have called for democratization as a way to reinvigorate Islamic politics and governance and the return to the original sources of Islam.

In the past, Christianity—especially Roman Catholicism, with its "divine right of kings" and rigid clerical hierarchy—was held to be anti-democratic. Yet Christian teachings were reinterpreted, and the church was a mainspring in the democratization movements of Latin America and Eastern Europe. It may play a similar role in Africa and South Asia.

Today, Britain's Queen Elizabeth II continues to reign as constitutional monarch and as head of the Church of England ("Defender of the Faith" is the official title), while members of Germany's ruling party call themselves "Christian Democrats." No one, though, believes that the United Kingdom or the Federal Republic are intolerant theocracies.

If Mr. Mikoyan had listened to the political debate among Muslims, he would have found democracy at the top of the agenda. Islam is timeless, yet the methods of its application—including political systems—are subject to interpretation and reinterpretation. Democratic forces in the Muslim world could do without the apologetics for totalitarianism and expansionism thinly veiled under the guise of concern about "fanaticism" and "Islamic fundamentalism."

Abdurahman Alamoudi, Executive Director, American Muslim Council, Washington, DC

An All-Purpose Enemy

To the Washington Post, June 29, 1995 (as published).

It is becoming clear that any oppressive government can now justify political repression, civil war or invasion merely by claiming its actions are part of the worldwide struggle against "Islamic fundamentalism." Sergo A. Mikoyan proves this point with a clumsy and stereotype-laden analysis of Russia's role in Tajikistan's civil war.

He attempts to smear Islam as an undemocratic ideology, yet he offers no evidence to support this claim. In fact, anyone who studies the law and history of Islam will discover that consent and mutual consultation are essential components of Islamic governance.

The first political successor to the Prophet Muhammad was chosen more than 1,400 years ago not by divine right or force of arms, but by the informed judgment of that society's respected leaders. Today, Islamically oriented candidates have campaigned for elected office in countries as diverse as Jordan, Turkey, Malaysia, Pakistan and Kuwait.

Mr. Mikoyan unwittingly reveals much more than the writings of home-grown Islam-bashers. Even the most strident American opponents of Islamic renewal would hesitate to use phrases such as the "virus of Islamic extremism." It is also interesting to hear a spokesman for a former Communist state speak of an "Islamic extremist tide [sweeping] over Central Asia." Perhaps Mr. Mikoyan was also a proponent of the "Red tide" theory.

It is time to stop letting self-serving alarmists set the agenda in America's relations with the Muslim world. A constructive dialogue—based on shared values of political independence, religious freedom and free-market economics—is in the best interests of the United States, the Muslim world and even Russia.

Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Washington, DC

Bahrain: Identify the Enemy

To the Wall Street Journal, July 18, 1995 (as published).

In response to your June 12 page-one article on the unrest in Bahrain, I am particularly interested in this matter because my family and I spent three wonderful years in that lovely country when I was U.S. ambassador from 1986-89.

You failed to identify the true culprit causing much of the unrest in Bahrain—the Iranian ayatollahs. You do quote Information Minister Tariq Almoayed as saying that the discontent on the island is isolated to a small number of people who have received instructions from the outside. But anyone who knows Bahrain knows that Iran is the outside influence to which Mr. Almoayed was referring. You were negligent in failing to inform the American people of this fact.

While Iraq has occupied our attention in recent years, we must never forget that in the long run Iran remains America's most formidable enemy in the Middle East. Shi'i fundamentalist groups sponsored by Iran have been wreaking havoc and unrest throughout the region for decades. These groups prolonged the agony of the civil war in Lebanon, and are currently fomenting unrest in Israel, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt in addition to Bahrain. Bahrain is a particular target of Iranian political aggression because of Iranian claims to the island as part of its historic dominion of Persia and because of Bahrain's indigenous Shi'i majority (even though the vast majority of Bahraini Shi'i are loyal to their country). Also, Bahrain's unswerving support of the U.S. aroused the ire of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and those Shi'i in Bahrain loyal to him.

The Al-Khalifa regime is not a model for pluralism judged by American standards, but in recent years the country has taken tremendous strides in the area of human rights, especially women's rights. In Bahrain women hold numerous positions of authority. For instance, the Bahraini social services and telecommunications agencies are both headed by women.

There is some discrimination in societal status and the job market, and economic hardship has given some in Bahrain reason to protest. However, Blacks in the South suffered far worse discrimination in this country only 40 years ago, and while we have made progress on the race issue, who can say that racism is not still a problem here? Who are we, then, to lecture other countries on racial equality?

Sheikh Isa Al-Khalifa is one of the most accessible heads of state in the world. At least once a week he holds an open court where any person in Bahrain can have a cup of coffee and discuss whatever may be on his or her mind. I can't even imagine walking into the White House and having a cup of joe with Bill.

The American press has always been quick to judge our allies when their system of government does not fit neatly into some rigid egalitarian template, while at the same time giving our totalitarian enemies on the left a free ride. (Witness recent calls to lift the U.S. embargo against Castro's murderous regime.) American journalists were critical of the shah in Iran in the 1970s and we ended up with Khomeini. Now they are critical of Sheikh Isa for dissolving parliament, whose very resolution called for throwing the U.S. Navy out of the country. When will they learn?

Sam Zakhem, U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain, 1986-89, Denver, CO

Ruthless Suppression of Dissent

To the Wall Street Journal, July 18, 1995 (as published).

Your article helps to draw much needed attention to the momentous developments over the past half year in Bahrain. The ruthless suppression of dissent by the authorities has resulted in unprecedented human-rights violations, including wide-spread arbitrary arrests, the killing of demonstrators, the torture of detainees, detention without trial and the forcible exile of Bahraini nationals. In addition, wounded demonstrators have been prevented from receiving medical treatment, and makeshift detention centers are being used to hold the several thousand arrested since December.

Instead of considering the protesters' demands or receiving their petitions, the government has tried to quell the demonstrations by resorting to force, including the use of live ammunition and other weaponry. And perhaps it is the prospect of such events spreading into Saudi Arabia itself that has prompted the Saudis to back up Bahrain's security forces with Saudi Arabian riot police.

Amnesty International has requested repeatedly since December to be allowed to send delegates to the country to discuss this situation with the government, but so far has been refused access.

Unaccustomed to the kind of international attention you have helped to bring, perhaps the authorities will finally realize that continued repression will result in even greater coverage and that attempts to silence their opponents by force will result in even greater scrutiny.

Curt Goering, Deputy Executive Director, Amnesty International USA, New York, NY

Give Muslims a Chance

To the New York Times, June 25, 1995 (as published).

Western timidity in the face of Serbian aggression over the last three years is truly staggering!

The fact that every Serbian outrage—taking United Nations peacekeepers as hostages, shelling United Nations "safe havens," shooting at and downing NATO planes and an American pilot, and stealing heavy weapons from U.N. collection sites—to name a few—results in more Western concessions to the Serbs and their masters in Belgrade implies either that the West has taken leave of its senses, or that something sinister is afoot.

Perhaps it is true after all that the West, especially Britain and France, is so determined to prevent a Muslim majority state near the heart of Europe that it will let the Serbs get away with murder. How else can it insist that the Bosnian victims have no arms to fight back? And the only embargo it is willing to lift is the economic one against Serbia, which continues to give total military support to the rebel Bosnian Serbs.

When a supposedly neutral United Nations and its chief certify that Serbia is complying with U.N. conditions for embargo relief when it is not, deceit is all-pervasive. Surprisingly, former President Carter, too, is toeing the Serbian line and calling for a "negotiated settlement."

What do the armed aggressors and their unarmed victims negotiate about? Have the United Nations and the West got the Serbs to agree to anything yet? The only "negotiation" the Serbs are interested in is the total capitulation by the Muslim majority Bosnian government.

Now that the United States, too, seems to have abandoned it, the Bosnians know that only they will have to fight for their survival. Astonishingly, as the Bosnians consider breaking the siege of Sarajevo with their lightly armed infantry, the United Nations, the United States and the Europeans are sternly warning them not to do it!

Even at this late stage, let the Bosnians fight for their state. if President Clinton is willing to compromise with the Republicans on deficit reduction, he can work with them to lift the arms embargo and give the Bosnians a fighting chance!

Fakhruddin Ahmed, Princeton, NJ