October 1991, Page 51

Other People's Mail

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

The Israelis Linked the Aid

To The New York Times, July 16, 1991

"New US Dispute with Israel Seen" quotes Thomas A. Dine, executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro Israel lobby in this country, arguing that absorption of immigrants to Israel must not be linked to the peace process.

But the first to make this linkage was not the Bush administration; it was the Israeli government. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has twice declared in the past year and a half that Israel needs the occupied territories to absorb immigrants. Every time Secretary of State James A. Baker III visited Israel in the last few months, he was greeted by a new settlement, erected, with barely concealed government sanction, to make the same political statement.

Despite official undertakings to the United States government not to settle Soviet immigrants in the new territories, much of the last year's new housing construction has been beyond the 1967 borders. Housing Minister Ariel Sharon has made the linkage to the peace process explicit: he wants to prevent any possibility of Israel's relinquishing territories.

It is the Israeli right wing that has made the absorption of immigrants a very political issue by using Israel's desperate need for housing to advance the de facto annexation of the territories. These ultra-nationalists agree with Mr. Baker that the settlements obstruct the peace process, but that is exactly what they desire.

Given the Shamir government's settlement policy, it is impossible at this stage to separate aid to Israel from the peace process: more money means more settlements and less chance of a territorial compromise. If Mr. Dine and the Israel lobby support aid without a change in Israeli policy, they should be honest enough to accept these consequences and not hide behind the smokescreen that aid is apolitical.

David Biale, Berkeley, CA

US Cities Should Come First

To President George Bush, Aug. 14, 1991

As Mayor of the City of Santa Paula, it has recently come to my attention that the United States government is considering a request from Israel for United States housing loan guarantees. This proposal would give Israel the opportunity to use the United States government as support for borrowing funds to build needed facilities in that country.

It is my concern, as Mayor of the City of Santa Paula, that the United States government should consider the needs of its own cities before that of another country. Our cities here in California, and nationwide, are having a difficult time providing the necessary housing, education, jobs, roads, utilities and other infrastructure to satisfy the growing demands of our constituents. For the United States to place these kind of funds for the benefit of a foreign nation while ignoring the needs of its own citizens is unthinkable.

Please list me among the many local government elected officials opposed to this kind of activity.

John A.F. Melton, Mayor, Santa Paula, CA

Or Should They?

To David R. Bowen, Executive Director Council for the National Interest, Aug. 21: 1991

I am in receipt of your letter to Boston Mayor Raymond L. Flynn concerning Israel's request for $10 billion in loan guarantees. Please be advised that Mayor Flynn has expressed his support for these guarantees.

America's cities have many needs, as you note, but playing off our cities against one of our most reliable allies is, at best, a cynical approach. To my knowledge, no one in CNI's Board of Directors has ever spoken out actively on behalf of our distressed cities.

Our cities have enough problems without organizations claiming to be our allies using our need to advance their agenda. If you are confident of your argument, let the debate continue but don't drag our cities into it.

Howard Liebowitz, Director of Federal Relations, Office of the Mayor, City of Boston, MA

Let's Ask the Voters

To Mr. Howard Liebowitz, Director of Federal Relations, Office of the Mayor, City of Boston, MA, Aug. 27, 1991

I am indeed surprised that you believe Boston Mayor Raymond L. Flynn feels the needs of the taxpayers of a foreign government should be given priority over those of Boston. While Israel is one of many friendly nations whom the United States wishes well and, moreover, gives large sums of foreign assistance, $5.6 billion this fiscal year alone the addition of $10 billion in US guaranteed loans to be spent on whatever the Israelis wish, with only slim prospects for repayment in any way other than the usual one, that is, with American tax dollars, may be a greater gesture of friendship than the voters of Boston would wish.

I am pleased that your observation that "no one in CNI's Board of Directors has ever spoken out actively on behalf of our distressed cities" was preceded by "to my knowledge." Former Members of Congress Paul Finely, Pete McCloskey, John Anderson, Martha Keys, and I have all done that during our congressional careers, and we feel that requiring a foreign government to come into the American capital market and borrow money with no more special favors than those given the City of Boston or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is consistent with that concern for America's cities.

David R. Bowen, Executive Director, Council for the National Interest

Issue is Political, Not Personal

To The Dallas Morning News, Dec. 1, 1990

Cecil Liken's eye-for-an-eye attitude expressed toward American Arabs in his recent letter "Some Advice" can merely serve to further widen the schism between American Arabs and American Jews.

Contrary to popular belief, animosity between Arabs and Jews in Palestine did not begin until the rise of Zionism and die subsequent massive migration of European Jews into Palestine in the early part of this century. The conflict flared when Palestinians began losing their homes and property to the new immigrants. The Jewish people were welcome to share the land of Palestine, not take everything for themselves.

I take issue with the message implied by Mr. Liken, that the anti Israel sentiment held by many American Arabs (specifically, American Palestinians) is due to some kind of inherent aversion to Jews, as if somehow all Arabs have an ancestral mandate to despise the Jewish people. Certainly, Palestinian immigrants to the United States possess a resentment of Israel and her supporters due to the current violence enacted toward them in the occupied territories and Lebanon. And anyone aware of Israel's brutal policies toward Palestinians in the occupied territories must take a stand against further occupation of Arab land by Israel on humanitarian grounds. But the conflict is a political one. The Palestinian Diaspora would not be easier to swallow if instigated by a culture other than the Jews. Ethnicity is not the issue.

American Arabs and American Jews are Americans first. And, for any American, native or naturalized, to express satisfaction at the loss of a fellow American's rights and dignity does a disservice to the democratic principles the United States represents.

Layla Goushey, Carrollton, TX

USS Liberty Still a Secret?

To The Washington Post, June 16, 1991

I was pleased to read the June 15th article on the White House reception for the USS Liberty survivors, but why did it take the Post one week to publish the account?

The 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty brings to mind Franklin Roosevelt's characterization of the attack on Pearl Harbor as "a day that will live in infamy" and yet, 24 years after the event, the President of the United States cannot bring himself to greet the survivors or award the presidential unit citation himself. What a commentary on the political process in this country.

Slator C. Blackiston, Jr., Bethesda, MD

Human Rights in Turkey

To The Washington Post, July 25, 1991

We are very concerned that the Post's editorial ["Talking to Turkey About Rights, " July 19] criticizing Turkey's human rights record bore no relation to the realities of modern Turkey.

Turkey is a well functioning democracy with all democratic institutions, including checks and balances between the three branches of government. The Turkish constitution, penal code and governmental policies categorically outlaw all human rights violations. The system's dynamics ensure that all instances of abuse are well publicized in the Turkish press, debated in the parliament and prosecuted in the courts.

A parliamentary human rights commission now oversees human rights practices and ensures that they conform with contemporary standards. Parliament has reformed the country's legal system, abolishing those articles that allegedly restricted freedom of speech and assembly. In April a general amnesty was granted to all prisoners, and all death sentences were commuted.

The Turkish constitution, penal code and governmental policies categorically outlaw the inhumane treatment of detainees and prisoners. Those suspected of such offenses are prosecuted and subject to severe sentences.

The government has moved to promote the educational level of law enforcement personnel. Courses on human rights are mandatory in the curriculum of police academies. Police methods are being modernized and police interrogation centers standardized.

The judiciary is scrupulously independent. Hearings are open to the public. Detainees have access to their attorneys throughout any pre-arraignment detentions. Confessions and testimony taken by police or prosecutors during detention cannot be used in court unless substantiated by other evidence. Guilty pleas by defendants must also be supported by concrete evidence.

In becoming party to the European Convention Against Torture, Turkey accepted the role of outside observers in investigating allegations of torture and monitoring detention facilities. Turkey has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights as well as signed and ratified the UN Convention on Torture. The Turkish government's recognition of the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights was another positive step.

None of the above facts is reflected in the Post's editorial, which is therefore misleading to Post readers. A more accurate and objective analysis would show that Turkey is demonstrating more and more its respect for and dedication to the principles of human rights.

Aydin Sahinbas, MinisterCounselor, Charge d'Affaires, Turkish Embassy, Washington, DC

Cypriots Waiting for Justice

To The Washington Post, Aug. 13, 1991

Your editorial call for action on Cyprus (July 19) is useful even if it omits some essential facts for understanding the divided island. For 17 years, Cyprus has waited for justice, while the Vietnam War ended, the European Community moved toward a single market, the Cold War subsided and the Berlin Wall fell. But the aspirations of the Cypriots have been forgotten as Greek and Turkish intransigence were blamed.

The United States must accept great responsibility for the division of Cyprus into occupied and free sectors. Our government supported for seven years the Greek dictatorship that finally fell after its disastrous attempt to colonize Cyprus. Our government encouraged resistance by the Turkish government to pressures to end its occupation of the northern third of the island.

It is not consistent for any country like Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that aspires to join the European Economic Community, to continue armed occupation of a neighbor when those organizations are committed by their charters to preserve democratic institutions.

Greece and Turkey have failed in their responsibilities to the Cypriots by insisting on gaining or holding advantages for their ethnic segments on the island instead of working for the tiny republic's integrity.

It will take more than a presidential visit to Greece and Turkey to discharge the American responsibility for nearly two decades of neglect. For nearly four decades we have used the valuable real estate in those two countries for our purposes, which were not always consistent with the interests of their citizens. We were prepared to ignore awkward situations like Cypriot independence. Both the United States and Britain have also used Cyprus for extraneous defense purposes. It is time to pay an overdue debt for such use.

A forceful and joint movement is needed by the European Community, in whose geographical area Cyprus lies and whose members have long ties to the island, and by the United States, which is in military alliance with both Greece and Turkey. Neither of those two countries should be allowed to retard or to veto a fair settlement that preserves the integrity of the republic and full protection for its Turkish and Greek populations,

Clifford P. Hackett, Washington, DC

Israel's Historical Revisionists

To Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Washington, DC, July 19, 1991

Thank you for the requested copy of the text of your March address before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, DC.

I am most optimistic that our differences about which you expressed regret have a good chance of being resolved! There is much to indicate that they come from a difference in basic information.

Had it not been for some charges and heavy internal criticism of Prime Minister Begin by other Israelis, initiated in 1982, the "official " Israeli historical accounts of the invasion of Lebanon might have remained largely unchallenged, except for accounts from mostly non-Israeli sources.

You may recall the controversy within Israel during this war. As Israeli historian Simha Flapan saw it, "massive antiwar opposition erupted for the first time in Israel's history while the guns were still firing" (The Birth of Israel, page 5). In the defense of the invasion and tactics in Lebanon under criticism, Prime Minister Begin referred to the policies and plans of Israel's first prime minister BenGurion during the 1948 war and pointed to his wholesale destruction of Arab villages within "the borders of Israel" and the expulsion of their inhabitants from the country. Begin claimed that the only difference between himself and the first prime minister was that BenGurion had used subterfuge while he himself was carrying out the policy openly. This defense by Begin challenged the widely held belief that the 1948 war was not provoked by the Israelis.

Needless to say, intense interest focused on the Israeli Ministry of Defense publication of BenGurion War Diaries, released about this time. Also, the Israeli State Archives and the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem began publishing thousands of declassified documents.

Israeli historical revisionists were born and other historians reborn. I refer you to three Israeli historians: Avi Schlaim, Benny Morris and Simha Flapan, all of whom have recent books. I have found both Simha Flapan's The Birth of Israel Myths and Realities and Clifford Wright's Facts and Fables to be particularly well referenced and useful. The latter book includes outstanding appendices with related documents. Among these are some basic Israeli laws and demographics in Palestine, 1870-1946, UN Resolutions 194, 242, 3379 and a partial listing of about 40 UN resolutions violated by and/or ignored by Israel. They also include a listing by name of over 400 Palestinian villages that were depopulated and whose structures were either demolished or transferred to Jewish colonial settlements. The appendix numbered 17, Plan Dalet: Zionist Military Operations before the entry of Arab Regular Armies inside Areas Allotted to the Arab State by the UN Partition up to May 15, 1948 (when the British Mandate ended) may arouse your particular interest.

I refer you also to the Jewish reporter for The New York Times, Thomas Friedman, who was in Beirut at the time of what you referred to in your address as "the operation in Lebanon in the hope of securing Israel's borders by driving the PLO out of Southern Lebanon. " His book, From Beirut to Jerusalem, gives a more complete and accurate account of the invasion. He makes reference to the indiscriminate shelling of Beirut (page 73) and the bombing of apartment buildings. On page 159 of his book, Friedman wrote, "Ignoring an oral promise to the US not to enter West Beirut ... Israeli troops fanned out across the Western half of the capital ... where there were no guns, no amino, and no fighters. But there was evidently something more dangerous books about Palestine, old records and land deeds belonging to Palestinian families ... historical archives about Arab life in Palestine, and most important, maps of pre 1948 Palestine with every Arab village in it before the state of Israel came into being and erased many of them .... In a certain sense, this is what Sharon most wanted to take home from Beirut. "

Thomas Friedman's almost hour-by-hour reconstruction of the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps can be found on four full pages of The New York Times of September 26, 1982. His interview with the overall commander of Israeli troops in Lebanon, Major General Amir Drori, a week after the massacre seems to be summarized with the rest of his investigation by a concluding remark. "So the next morning I buried Amir Drori on the front page of The New York Times and along with him every illusion I ever held about the Jewish state. "

In your address, you said you have made a special effort in these recent years to be a student of Israel and the Middle East. I hope, Senator, that my comments and references will serve as a catalyst to encourage you to continue your special effort, and that it will include the works of Israel's historical revisionists. In your list of overriding principles for our quest for peace, Senator, perhaps you can explain how this will not defeat your very first principle that "we the United States, must be fundamentally trusted by both the Arab states and Israel to play an effective role in the peace process."

Finally, you mentioned your 1989 visit to Israel with your family. You stated, "Through that visit, I felt the vulnerability of the Israeli people. " With such commendable sensitivity, did you not see the obvious vulnerability of the Palestinians there, as well as their hope, their passion and their heroic resolve to survive?

Norman D. Duncan, Vienna, OH

Krauthammer's Distortions

To The Washington Post, Aug. 14, 1991

"Israel wins every war, and the great powers step in to save the Arabs. " According to Charles Krauthammer in his "Road to Nowhere" [oped Aug. 2], that statement has been the "rule" of Middle East politics. The result, he said, has always been "more war," because the vanquished Arabs are enabled to return and fight another day. The Bush administration, by endorsing "land for peace" in Palestine, stands accused by him of attempting to apply this odious "rule" at the expense of Israeli security.

In furnishing examples of his "rule," Krauthammer commits the most common sin of America's pro Israeli journalists. His inventions and distortions of historical events are so crude and clumsy that even the most right-wing Liked official must blush at reading them. When he cites the 1956 Suez crisis as his lead example of a "great power" conspiracy to rob Israel of the fruits of victory, one has to wonder whether he has remembered the right war. In 1956 Israel successfully invaded the Sinai only after most Egyptian troops had been evacuated to defend the Suez Canal against an Anglo/French attack that had been coordinated with the Israeli strike. If Israel's 1956 relinquishment of the Sinai was abetted by the great powers, so indeed was its taking of it. Equally unhistoric is Krauthammer's statement that, 10 years after Suez, Egypt "started" the Six Day War. Any Israeli history book would inform him that the 1967 war, like the 1956 war, began with a massive preemptive strike by Israeli arms.

Mr. Krauthammer believes that Israel's military security would be diminished if the occupied Arab territories were relinquished. Maybe so, but where does that assumption take American foreign policy? The present situation, in which more than a million human beings have no civil or political rights, in which whole villages can be razed to make way for Jewish settlements, should be intolerable to any American. Should we say to Israel what we say to South Africa if you cannot live without the land and its resources, you must grant full citizenship to the people who were born on that land? Or should we advocate, as some do, the forced expulsion of a million Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza?

If President Bush is skeptical that the Israelis are prepared to embrace the Palestinians as fellow citizens of a unified state, and if (as I hope) he has ruled out mass expulsions as a solution, then "land for peace" makes a great deal of sense. Prolonged, iron fisted domination of more than a million miserable Christians and Muslims by a not much larger Jewish community is the real "road to nowhere. " The president and his secretary of state should be congratulated, not caricatured, for acknowledging this reality and acting upon it.

William W. Chip, Washington, DC