 |
 |
SEPTEMBER 1999, pages 50-54 Other People’s Mail Some letters by or to other people are as informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves.
To The New York Times, June 5, 1999 (as published). Re “Fruit of Miscalculation” (front page, June 4): Contrary to the idea that there are no winners in the Kosovo war, in fact there are many. The winners are ethnic, religious and racial minorities in years to come. The Kosovo precedent instructs would-be dictatorial ethnic cleansers that the rest of the world will not necessarily be indifferent to their internal military actions. It is of course true that the Muslims in Kosovo are not United States nationals. But their fight was and is our fight. In a dramatically changing world, they are United States internationals. They have a human bond linking them with citizens in the United States and in every other country, a bond that the NATO powers have been willing to step up, enforce and guarantee. Anthony D’Amato, Chicago, IL
To The New York Times Magazine, July 4, 1999 (as published). There are honorable sentiments expressed in Steven Erlanger’s “Lives” column (June 13). But as an admirer of his reporting from Serbia and Kosovo, I was dismayed at his conclusion: “Serbs, however misled, have a right to their patriotism, and to their own national myths.” No, no, no! Not when those myths rationalize—and encourage—the oppression or destruction of an entire people. The lesson of the 20th century, with its displaced, ethnically cleansed and murdered millions, is that such myths are no longer acceptable. Kay Chernush, Arlington, VA
To Mr. Ted Koppel, Washington, DC, June 22, 1999. I am a faithful viewer of your nightly program—a very fine one. Your reports on Kosovo do reflect “man’s inhumanity to man.” As I viewed “Road of Death,” I could not help but think of the Palestinians. Will we ever see on “Nightline” anything about the Palestinians and their plight? The issue of Jerusalem? I suppose I can dream. Evelyn Abdo, Member of American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and New York State Retired Teachers Association, Syracuse, NY To the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal , June 21, 1999 (as submitted). Be advised that there is very little difference between the Kosovars of 1999 and the Palestinian Arabs of 1948-49. They were both forced to flee their homelands by aggressor nations! One difference, however, is profound—the Palestinians could not return to their homeland following the Arab-Israeli war of ’48-’49, because of the passage of early Israeli laws! One might also mention that in those early years of the founding of the state of Israel, 400 Palestinian villages were completely destroyed, and bulldozer tractors completed the job! Tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were not allowed to return to their homes in those historic villages. These statements are based on historical fact, as recorded by thousands of Arab witnesses of the era. Walter H. Koehler, Littlefield, TX
To the Boston Globe , Dec. 17, 1998 (as published). There has been much written about the need to make restitution for property taken from the Jews of Europe during the Nazi period. This is fair and fine and just. But how come these same people and organizations don’t also urge restitution to the Palestinians for homes and property stolen and appropriated by Israelis? That also would be fair, fine and just. David D. Van Strien, Peterborough, NH
To National Public Radio News, Washington, DC, June 22, 1999. I listened closely to Bob Edwards’ interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman on “Morning Edition” today about the efforts of Israeli Prime Minister-elect Ehud Barak to form a coalition government. Edwards said that Barak is trying to attract religious parties in order to “form as broad a coalition as possible.” Friedman expanded on this theme of broadness and inclusiveness using such phrases as “broad coalition,” and “broad latitude to negotiate” several times. He said that trying to form a coalition was like solving a Rubik’s Cube and that Barak was “constantly moving the squares around looking for the right combination,” which Friedman assured us, Barak would eventually find. At no time did either Edwards or Friedman mention or question the fact that Mr. Barak has specifically excluded the three Arab parties from the coalition negotiations, even though, with 10 seats, they have the same number as his major ally Meretz, and more than any of the Center Party, Shinui, Mafdal, or Israel B’Aliya, all parties who can take their presence at the cabinet table almost for granted. Friedman did however explain why it is so important for Israeli parties to negotiate with Barak, noting that Barak has “got a lot of goodies to pass out and these parties are not going to want to go without it.” Well for the Arab population, 95 percent of whom voted for Barak, there is no choice. They are effectively disenfranchised, because Barak, who allegedly represents the liberal wing of the Israeli polity, cannot contemplate a government whose “broadness” includes citizens of Israel who happen to be Arabs and non-Jews. Your reporting consistently ignores this and continues to propagate the impression that Mr. Barak is seeking to form a coalition from among all the parties in the Israeli Knesset. In fact the qualification to join the Israeli government is that one must be Jewish. This may perhaps be appropriate in a “Jewish state” but not in a “democracy.” Which one is Israel? Ali Abunimah, Chicago, IL
To the Whittier Daily News, May 20, 1999 (as submitted). A.M. Rosenthal’s column, “Don’t expect democratic Palestinian state” (May 14th), disturbed me greatly. It cannot be dismissed without some dissent especially now that Ehud Barak has won election in Israel and will be replacing Binyamin Netanyahu, who specialized in postponing peace efforts and provoking Palestinians. I disagree with Rosenthal’s prediction that when the Palestinian state is created it will be a dictatorship. It may take time but too many people have suffered for too long under Israeli rule for them to be satisfied with a continuation of others always dictating to them. The desire for some control over their own lives is too strong and they have learned some of the methods of protest. Rosenthal’s obvious love for Israel and Israelis appears to have blinded him to some of Israel’s policies and methods that are unjust, unfair, undemocratic, illegal, unrealistic and destructive. Palestinians have suffered greatly from Israel’s occupation and have been forced to live with conditions that are inconsistent with democratic attitudes, institutions and protections. Illegal settlements, illegal expropriation and annexations, incarcerations without fair trials, discrimination, invasions of other countries, bombing raids on neighbors, death squads, assassinations, massacres and other methods have been used by Israelis during the occupation. Under Israeli laws, Arab prisoners can be tortured. Bonebreakings were ordered as a method for Israeli soldiers to use against Palestinians including the young. Many Palestinians have been left with permanent damage—mental and physical—after struggling for freedom and the end of occupation. Snipers, assassins, bomb experts and death squads have been used against unarmed civilians. Especially targeted for elimination were leaders and potential leaders. One technique that has been used is to intimidate and humiliate Palestinian leaders in various ways as evidence of Israel’s power over them. Some of the ways have been petty, some embarrassing (strip searches), some degrading but some have backfired and created sympathy for the victims. Other conditions have increased the difficulties to be overcome. Children were left uneducated when Israelis closed Arab schools. Border closings and other restrictions have often made it impossible for fathers to work and earn money for food for their families. Hungry people are more concerned with food and are struggling just to survive. Parents unable to protect their children from Israeli soldiers and officials have been humiliated and this alters family structures as parents lose their authority and control. Insecure, confused individuals find ways to express their frustrations, their fears, their anger and societies suffer. People who have been oppressed sometimes adopt the methods used by their oppressors. A few become terrorists. Some Israeli soldiers frightened, injured, insulted and degraded Palestinians daily while serving in the occupied territories. Some soldiers feeling guilty refused to serve in the territories and be a part of the process. Some even committed suicide rather than be a witness to the activities of their fellow soldiers or endure the hate they saw being created. Refugee camps and occupied areas are not the best atmosphere for living, for raising children or for developing democratic ideas, attitudes and institutions. Frightening night raids on homes, turning off of electricity and water, destruction of personal property, house demolitions, uprooting of trees, destruction of wells, group punishment, bulldozing of villages, forced separation of families, forced exile, excessive taxation and fees and other methods have been used against the Palestinians. These are facts—not opinions. These are the realities that Palestinians have endured and they desire changes—not more of the same. They need and deserve their Palestinian state. In my opinion, it will not be easy and there will be problems. It will be difficult and they will need help but some have survived a brutal occupation. Some may be weakened by the struggles but others have been strengthened and are now eager to work for a better future. They want something better for their children and grandchildren and they will not tolerate a dictatorship. I believe they deserve our help and support. Florence Richards, Whittier, CA
To The Washington Post, June 19, 1999 (as published). Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, is understandably upset that the State Department Middle East team’s sole Arab American, Joseph Zogby, might refer to Israel in its occupation of the West Bank as an “alien oppressor” and “abuser” [letters, June 12]. Klein is particularly offended because Zogby was once affiliated with a pro-Palestinian “anti-Israel propaganda group.” That Klein himself represents a leading pro-Israeli propaganda group is apparently a matter of no concern, nor does he find it disconcerting that two chief U.S. policymakers on the Middle East, Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, are both Jews with strong ties to Israel. The latter was also at one time a pro-Israel lobbyist. Klein’s view is that no one who is hostile to Israel should be involved in the formulation of America’s Middle East policy, making loyalty to Israel almost equivalent to loyalty to the United States. Klein and his like have effectively silenced most critics of Israel, making any objective discussion of genuine American interests in the region impossible. Philip M. Giraldi, Purcellville, VA
To the Los Angeles Times, July 6, 1999 (as submitted). After reading Teresa Watanabe’s article (page B-1, July 5) on the Zionist Organization of America’s campaign to block Salam al-Marayati’s appointment to the congressional commission on anti-terrorism, I wonder why these pro-Israel groups are so virulently opposed to this refined young man sitting on the commission. Why are these Israel-supporters expending so much energy to smear al-Marayati by falsely accusing him of links to terrorism? Could it be that al-Marayati’s Zionist detractors fear the presence on the commission of an Iraqi-born Muslim immigrant who is far more eloquent than they in English and who is infinitely smarter as well? Samir Twair, Past President of the Arab American Press Guild, Los Angeles, CA
To the Dallas Morning News, June 26, 1999 (as submitted). Re: DMN, 6/26/99, page 9A story by Sharon Waxman of The Washington Post : “Friendship brings to light Nazis’ 1935 anti-Jewish documents”... Quoting story opening (from the Nuremburg Laws) paragraph one, Sept. 15, 1935: “Marriage between Jews and citizens of Germany or German-related blood are forbidden. Marriages which have been performed in spite of this law, even if they have been performed in a foreign country, are void. Whoever acts against paragraph one will be punished with forced labor.” Not surprisingly, maybe because Waxman feared a charge of plagiarism against Israel, she did not mention that when Israel was formed in 1948, one of the first acts of the Israeli government was to re-write the Nuremburg Laws of Nazi Germany, freely substituting “Jews” for “German” and “goyem” for “Jews” for the first laws of Israel. Initially there was a “hue and cry” among American Jews not fully accepting Zionism “that the Zionists were adopting exactly that which they had abhorred in Germany under Hitler.” That “hue and cry” was quickly smothered by Zionist power in the U.S. and our media. Check Israeli laws on marriage, land ownership, immigration, citizenship. You will be surprised, especially if you believe “Israel can do no wrong.” Gip D. Oldham, Jr., Dallas, TX
To the St. Petersburg Times, May 28, 1999 (as published). Re: “Why is this man in jail?” by Robyn Blumner, May 16. It’s past time for Blumner’s column about the plight of Dr. Mazen Al-Najjar, a longtime Tampa resident. As she points out, one does not have to be pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel—or even to see someone as guilty or innocent—to see the unfairness of being held on “secret evidence.” However, many people (due to unfair reporting about the plight of Palestinians, many of whom are stateless) do not understand the situation and therefore will not even try to do anything about this situation. Blumner also points out that Al-Najjar is not accused of being a terrorist but is generally accused of “associating” with a terrorist group without any facts or proof being presented. This “terrorism” accusation seems to have evolved because of a successful think tank at the University of South Florida run by Arab professors—or worse, Palestinian Muslims—that brought attention to pros and cons of Palestine/Israel issues, an interesting subject no matter which side of the fence you sit on. Being called a “terrorist” is a frightening thing. Thousands of us have experienced this for daring to present the other side of the Palestine/Israel issues as eyewitnesses to the brutal occupation, squalid refugee camps, etc. Outspoken Jews, Christians and Muslims have been insulted and threatened. Many were stunned into silence. There have been cases of lost jobs. Some sued and won, but none of us has experienced what Al-Najjar has. We have believed in our justice system and that if we were ever arrested, we would be given the right to know why we were arrested, that we would be given a fair trial or released. Blumner states that unless the public gets involved in this, nothing will happen to end the unconstitutional use of secret evidence. It matters not whether one believes Mazen Al-Najjar is innocent or guilty. It matters that “secret evidence has no place in our system of justice.” James and Jean Rogers, Oldsmar, FL
To Mr. Clifford A. Rieders, Esq., Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Waffenschmidt, Williamsport, PA, June 8, 1999. I read your letter to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and am somewhat disappointed that your firm would engage in a legal representation based on the statements of your client without verifying the facts. Therefore, for the record, I offer the following: There are numerous Jewish authors who write about the massacre at Deir Yassin. These include Benny Morris, 1948 and After; Tom Segev, 1949: The First Israelis; and Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel. Has your firm been engaged to intimidate them because of their position and reports on the same massacre? There are a host of American writers, including former Congressman Paul Findley and Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. who wrote about the massacre. Then there is Sir Martin Gilbert, the appointed official biographer of Winston Churchill. He has also authored a definitive history of the Holocaust. He has a home in Jerusalem. How about a class action suit against Jewish British and American authors who write about the massacre? In Tom Segev’s book, he quotes material taken from the State Archives, Prime Minister’s Office, Absorption of Immigration in Agriculture, 7133 5559/C which states, “Resettling Deir Yassin within a year of the crime, and within the framework of ordinary settlements, would amount to an endorsement of, or at least an acquiescence with, the massacre. Let the village of Deir Yassin remain uninhabited for the time being and let the desolation be a terrible and tragic symbol of war, and a warning to our people that no practical or military needs may ever justify such acts of murder and that the nation [Israel] does not wish to profit from them.” A few months later, there was an exchange in the Knesset over the return of 100,000 Arab refugees to Israel. Those involved in this exchange also discussed Deir Yassin and not in an amicable way. Here is the debate: Yakov Meridor [Herut]: “Soviet Russia knew how to solve the problem of the Volga Germans during the war. There were 800,000 Germans in that region...They transferred them to the east, beyond the Urals. If there should be a second round of fighting, where shall we transfer this fifth column [Palestinians?] With the coastal region being only ten miles wide, how shall we do it? Or perhaps we’ll have to evacuate them to Tel Aviv so as to settle them there and keep an eye on them.” Tewfik Toubi [Communist]: “You’re preparing another Deir Yassin.” Meridor: “Thanks to Deir Yassin we won the war.” A. Ben-Eliezer [Herut]: “Don’t be so sad.” A. Cizling [MAPAM]: “Don’t boast about Deir Yassin.” E. Raziel-Naor [Herut]: “There is nothing to be ashamed of...” These exchanges can be found in The Knesset Record, Vol. II, P. 1201, August 1, 1949. The next day, Aug. 2, the Knesset saw this exchange: Zalman Aran [Mapai]: “As a member of the Knesset I must comment on interjection that was heard here yesterday from the Herut benches. The interjection was, we are not ashamed of Deir Yassin.” A. Ben-Eliezer: “You don’t have to bring up something that you yourselves performed.” Aran: “I don’t know that we performed any Deir Yassins.” A. Ben-Eliezer: “If you don’t know, you can ask the Minister of Defense.” Aran: “If I thought that the State of Israel would be capable of Deir Yassins, I would not only wish to be an Arab here—I wouldn’t want to be a Jew here.” Ben-Gurion sent a special message from the Jewish agency to Abdullah [King of Transjordan], disclaiming all responsibility for the attack and condemning the perpetrators [Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Lehi (Stern Gang)]. Menachem Began writes in his book, The Revolt [p. 106], “In connection with the capture of Deir Yassin the Jewish Agency found it necessary to send a letter of apology to Abdullah whom Ben-Gurion, at a moment of great political emotion, called ‘the wise ruler who seeks the good of his people.’” Would Ben-Gurion apologize for something that did not happen? On April 13, 1949 Mark Etheridge (U.S. Delegate to the Palestinian Conciliation Commission) from Jerusalem, wrote a secret message to Secretary of State George Marshall. In that message he has a section on refugees and states: “Israel does not intend to take back one refugee...” Ben-Gurion and Michael Comay (Israeli delegate to the U.N.) then countered that refugees were an inevitable result of war. Etheridge moves on to say: “I flatly told Ben-Gurion and Comay that while the Commission was no tribunal to judge truth or contentions, it could not for the moment accept that statement in the face of Jaffa, Deir Yassin, Haifa and all reports that come to us from refugee organizations that new refugees are being created every day by repression and terrorism such as now being reported from Haifa.” Should we indict officials of our own government for confirming atrocities? Eric Silver, British journalist, relates the results of the Deir Yassin massacre. He states that the Irgun and Sternists shot at anything that moved and blew up houses with people inside. “World Leaders Past and Present—Menachem Begin.” Schlesinger, Arthur. Chelsea House. In Sir Martin Gilbert’s book, Israel: A History, he reports on page 169 the following: “The official account written in 1961 by Lieutenant-Colonel Netanel Lorch who had fought in the war, and was later head of Military History of the Israeli General Staff, describes how Irgun and the Stern Gang forces ‘massacred hundreds of villagers, took the rest prisoner and paraded them proudly through the streets of Jerusalem.’” Here is a war participant and a high official in Jewish services confirming the massacre. Was his reputation besmirched or was he drummed out of the General Staff when he wrote his report? The final word on the massacre appeared in Yediot Ahronot on May 4, 1972 when Colonel Meir Pail, former communications officer for the Haganah, an eye witness at Deir Yassin, was interviewed. He describes the murder of 25 civilians in a quarry and the busing of survivors to Jerusalem. Was the Colonel’s account challenged by your client? Deir Yassin did happen. To represent a client who wishes to erase the truth is the greatest tragedy of all. I would suggest that you brush up on the subject before taking on revisionist history issues. Let it be known that if litigation of any kind is brought against the Washington Report or others, I will be the first to volunteer to scour libraries for material on the subject that would assist the defendants in their case. Robert J. Pisapia, Westlake Village, CA
To Mr. Robert J. Pisapia, Westlake Village, CA, June 16, 1999. Re: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs—Deir Yassim [sic] Thank you for your letter, received and reviewed June 14, 1999. I wish I would have received your letter at the appropriate time, in order properly to have it reviewed and verified or disputed. We have already received appropriate apologies since the position of ZOA was misrepresented. That was the gist of our representation. I will forward a copy of your letter to Morton Klein, with whom you may correspond directly. Based upon what I know of the sources you cite, I believe it is you, sir, who is engaging in “revisionist” history. Clifford A. Rieders, Esquire, Williamsport, PA
To the Associated Press, (info@ap.org), July 7, 1999. “Clinton Gives Palestinians Support,” a report by AP Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid, dated July 1, 1999. In the above-mentioned report, Mr. Schweid wrote the following misleading statement: “For the first time, Clinton spoke in support of Palestinian refugees, who for generations have claimed they were expelled from their homes with the establishment of Israel in 1948 and are demanding a right to return.” (emphasis added) That the vast majority of Palestinian refugees have been expelled, or were terrorized into fleeing via well-timed massacres, are now established facts. In the 1980s Israel declassified some of its 1948 “War of Independence” records and published Ben-Gurion’s War Diaries. These revealed, beyond doubt, that many of the once-accepted “truths”—e.g. that Arab leaders called on the Palestinians to leave their homes temporarily so they could return later with the victorious Arab armies—are fabricated myths. Being a frequent Middle East reporter, Mr. Schweid is surely familiar with these new findings. Based on the declassified Israeli records, many authoritative books were written, mainly by renowned Israeli historians, in the years 1986-87. Such books include: Benny Morris’ The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949, 1987; Simha Flapan’s The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, 1987; and Tom Segev’s 1949: The First Israelis, 1986. Furthermore, the right of the refugees to return, regardless of why they left, is granted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13, of 1948. Mr. Schweid’s statement that the refugees “claim they were expelled” is a half-truth that conceals the facts, and hence indicates either bias for Israel or carelessness in reporting, both of which do the Palestinian refugees further injustice. In light of the Associated Press Managing Editors’ Code of Ethics, which states that “The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation,” I kindly ask you, and especially Mr. Schweid, to work on rectifying such inaccuracies in your future reporting. Sami Deeb, South Kingstown, RI
To the San Antonio Express News , June 13, 1999 (as published). In his May 30 letter, Joe Lyons tells Express News readers that it was possible that the USS Liberty was attacked by Israel during the Six-Day War because the ship might have been providing Israel’s enemies with critical information about Israeli operations. Such dangerous and unfounded assertions cannot go unanswered. I was an officer in the USS Liberty’s radio intercept department when we were attacked without warning. I know for certain that our ship was not providing information about Israeli operations to anyone. In fact, our intercept target was the Russians stationed in Egypt. The war between Israel and the Arab states merely provided an excuse to be in the area. We did not even have a Hebrew linguist on board. Retired Lt. Cmdr. James M. Ennes, Jr., Woodinville, WA
To The Globe and Mail, June 14, 1999 (as submitted). Your article “Sub Was Sunk By Accident: Experts Say” (June 12) erroneously states that the strafing of a U.S. spy ship by the Israeli air force during the 1967 war was “accidental.” In fact, it was an intentional and premeditated act designed to prevent the United States from learning that Israel was about to invade Syria. The one-hour assault on the defenseless USS Liberty began at 2 p.m. on June 8 in bright sunlight and, according to Lt. Cmdr. James Ennes who was on the bridge, involved repeated attacks by Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats. Thirty-four American sailors were killed and 171 wounded. Ennes and his fellow survivors also testified that the Liberty was painted in U.S. Navy colors, flew an American flag and had been under surveillance by Israeli reconnaissance planes since 6 a.m. The truth of this tragic event has been suppressed for “national security” reasons. In addition, government officials such as then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Chief of Naval Operations (later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Admiral Thomas Moorer are on record accusing Israel of purposely attacking the Liberty. In his memoirs, Dean Rusk wrote: “I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation....I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.” Gary D. Keenan, Vancouver, BC, Canada
To The Washington Post , July 3, 1999 (as published). Your coverage of the recent Israeli bombing of Lebanon (filed from Jerusalem, naturally, not Beirut) presents it as a “response” to Lebanese resistance rocket attacks on Israel [news story, June 25]. This makes the Israeli attack seem almost reasonable, however disproportionate. But later in the article, we discover that in fact the rocket attacks were themselves in response to the earlier shelling of Lebanese villages by Israeli forces. It makes an enormous difference to present the story as an almost justifiable Israeli “reaction” to resistance attacks, rather than as justifiable resistance to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians. As long ago as 1978, United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 called upon Israel to end its occupation of Lebanon. The resistance comes in response to the occupation, not the other way around. Saree Makdisi, Washington, DC
To The Orlando Sentinel, June 26, 1999 (as submitted). The Arab-American community in Central Florida and all other concerned and compassionate Americans vehemently condemn as ruthless, inhuman and illegal Israel’s most recent “heavy air attacks on Lebanon” [June 24, 1999]. To bomb an independent free country and its respected capital, killing nine innocent people—mostly unarmed fire fighters with their distinct yellow suits—to completely bomb and destroy three necessary bridges, the two biggest and newest power stations (after they were bombed by Israel in 1996!) and a communications site near Beirut, and hence ruin much of Lebanon’s infrastructure, is beyond comprehension or imagination. And, now, to read that our U.S. State Department condones and even excuses this barbaric deadly assault, is totally reprehensible. Indeed, the Lebanese are afraid that Netanyahu might completely destroy all of Lebanon before he leaves office in two weeks’ time. Such a hate-mongering and destructive evil man must be hunted by the U.S. and NATO, along with Milosevic, as a war criminal, and charged with horrible crimes against society and humanity. Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL
To The Washington Post, June 28, 1999 (as published). The June 14 op-ed column “Dampening the Fires of Kashmir” by Teresita and Howard Schaffer rightly points out that the fighting in the Kargil sector of Kashmir has disproved the Cold War notion that nuclear capability prevents conventional conflict. India and Pakistan, which last year justified their nuclear detonation in such terms, have had to backtrack. However, as the article points out, the settlement the writers propose would not resolve the Kashmir problem. Satisfying the aspirations of the Kashmiri people is essential to resolving the dispute. If the coalition representing the Kashmiri people were to accept internal autonomy under India with a representative political process, Pakistan would have no complaints. But it is doubtful that the Kashmiris would settle for anything short of independence. That is why the Pakistani opposition has proposed substituting a land-based solution with a people-based solution. Instead of determining whether Kashmir should go to India or Pakistan, the Pakistani opposition suggests that India, Pakistan and the All Parties Hurriyet Conference accept open borders between India and Pakistan. As part of this peace package, India would withdraw its troops from Srinigar and Pakistan would police Muzzafarabad. Pending a final solution, the two assemblies could meet independently and perhaps jointly. “Dampening the Fires” saw autonomy in Kashmir as a first step toward expanded autonomy within other parts of India. We believe that devolution of decision-making in our region, as in other parts of the world, would provide more effective government to our people. Greater regional autonomy also would help our people make the best use of available resources, from within the country and from donors, in tackling the problems of poverty, illiteracy and backwardness. Benazir Bhutto, Islamabad, Pakistan (The writer is chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party and leader of the opposition in Pakistan.)
To Mrs. Hillary Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC, July 9, 1999. Dear Mrs. Clinton: As a former Republican congressman with foreign affairs experience in the House of Representatives for several terms, I still hesitate to give a First Lady advice on a delicate subject—Jerusalem. However, as head of a foundation very involved in the problem, I would like you to seriously consider surfacing in your campaign a proposal which we think will satisfy most if not all of the factions swirling around the issue of moving the U.S. Embassy, What does make sense to me and most of the foreign policy advisers to the foundation is for the U.S. to declare that it will move its Embassy at the appropriate moment when a consensus has been reached, at which time a second American Embassy would be opened in East Jerusalem on the site of the present American Consulate General. Israeli members of the Municipal Council and Palestinian and Vatican officials with whom we have discussed this proposal for two American Embassies in Jerusalem think it could turn the present looming confrontation over the city into a more reasonable dialogue. There are 190 thousand Palestinians in East Jerusalem, including 7,000 Palestinian Americans. They need representation. This proposal has been put in the form of a sense of Congress resolution and is now circulating on Capitol Hill. We think such a signal from the U.S. would help, not hinder negotiations. At present six nations have independent Consulate Generals in East Jerusalem. As a former politician with his ear to the ground on this issue, I think a real majority of Americans, including Jewish Americans, will feel comfortable with supporting two embassies over a controversial move of only our Embassy to Jerusalem. The Holy City of three religions cannot remain at peace unless some formula is found to share it. Sincerely, Paul (Pete) McCloskey, Redwood City, CA
The Honorable Bill Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC, July 9, 1999. Dear President Clinton: My 22 years as a member of Congress ended in 1983, long before your presidential terms began. I served most of those years on the Foreign Affairs Committee, for the last 10 eventful years as senior Republican on the Middle East subcommittee. My son, Craig Findley, and grandson, Andy Findley, have had the honor of meeting you, but, regretfully, I have not. Through the years I have been deeply concerned about the Arab-Israeli dispute and have tried to be a voice for fairness to all parties and particularly for the advancement of U.S. national interests in the region. In this letter, I take the great liberty of suggesting three items that I believe deserve priority in your upcoming discussion with H.E. Ehud Barak, prime minister of Israel. I hope you will consider stating forcefully and urgently the need for the state of Israel to adopt and carry out these fundamental policy changes:
The state of Israel has maintained these violations of international law for years. Because of our intimate relationship with the Jewish state, these policies are, I believe, a serious embarrassment to the people of the United States. The prime minister could take these confidence-building measures and should take them both to accelerate peace talks and to bring Israel into conformity with U.S. and international laws. Sincerely yours, Paul Findley, Jacksonville, IL |
|
|