October/November 1995, pgs. 42-46

Other People’s Mail

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

The Truth Catches Up With You

To Mr. Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 229 West 43rd Street, New York, NY, May 13, 1995

Your article "Ah, for the Life of a Statesman or Diplomat..." in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel dated 5/12/95 was interesting and very perceptive.

I thought I'd add to it along similar lines you might have overlooked:

In my next life I want to be an Israeli statesman. I can promise to stop settlements on stolen Arab lands, then break my promises several times to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world. I want to proclaim we are a democracy but arrest hundreds, and keep them in jail for one to two years without a hearing. I want to lie to the world about my own nuclear weapons and work to prevent other nations from obtaining them. My good friend the U.S.A., exercising an obvious double standard, supports that deception, not even suggesting Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The good thing about the truth, however, is that it usually catches up with you. Nations, as well as people, eventually are caught when they live by deceit. When that happens in the Middle East, being an Israeli statesman will no longer be such an easy job.

John L. Hughes, Milwaukee, WI

A Plea for Vanunu's Freedom

To Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Embassy of Israel, Washington, DC, July 24, 1995

I am writing to protest the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Mordechai Vanunu. I find his prolonged solitary confinement to be particularly offensive. Mr. Vanunu's only crime appears to be telling the truth after Israel's lying to the U.S. about Israeli nuclear capacity. Although I am only one individual, and lack political connections, I am not in favor of a swap for Mr. Jonathan Pollard, as Mr. Pollard was a paid spy and Mr. Vanunu was acting as a concerned global citizen. I also would like to point out the fine job the publication the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is doing to correct the misinformation Israel disseminates. As a Christian, I have a deep love for the Jewish people and their rich heritage. However, their treatment of the Palestinian people and those who support them leaves much to be desired. I am pleased to see some progress is being made. A real sign of progress would be the release of Mr. Vanunu, who has no doubt suffered greatly for his crime of revealing Israel's deception to the world. As a resident of both Maryland and Pennsylvania, I intend to write and call every politician I can to bring Mr. Vanunu to their attention. The man has been in solitary confinement for years. Let him go. Demonstrate to the world community you are a man of both honor and compassion. I, one small voice, plead for his freedom. Thank you.

Kenneth E. Iman, York, PA

Continue Your Stand on Foreign Aid

To Representative H.L. Callahan, Mobile, AL, Sept. 24, 1995

Thank you for your continuing stand on cutting foreign aid. Cuts in the federal budget were necessary and many people here at home in the United States are shouldering these cuts.

But parts of foreign aid, outside the United States to non-citizens of the U.S., were not touched—including that of Egypt and Israel.

Under separate cover, I am having sent to you a July/August 1995 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. I draw your attention to the following sections:

* Other People's Mail (pp. 80-81)

* The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers (p. 84)

* Public Opinion (p. 86)

* Congress Watch (p. 89)

This reading can help give a more truthful and balanced view of the Middle East. I sincerely hope you will be more successful by including this information in your arguments for cutting foreign aid.

W. R. Canaday, Foley, AL

Israeli Income on a Par With Ours

To Congressman James Ramstad, Bloomington, MN, Sept. 7, 1995

Israel's largest circulation daily has published an article by a respected journalist claiming that Israel's average wage or salary is now only slightly below the U.S. average. Moreover, the article was distributed to the Prodigy net by the Israeli Ministry of Information, which gives it some credibility. I enclose a copy from the monthly Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

This has shocked several Middle East academic specialists of my acquaintance from the University of Minnesota, Hamline and St. Catherines. Nevertheless we will reprint it in the Middle East Peace Now newsletter, "Connections," and wait for comment.

As you know, we do not provide four-plus billion dollars a year aid to Israel for economic or philanthropic reasons. The Israeli standard of living has been above that in some parts of Europe for many years.

The executive branch would oppose any change in the level of our aid to Israel on the grounds that this would affect the "peace process" by damaging Prime Minister Rabin's chances for re-election next year.

I—and I think most academic students of the Middle East—would say that a reduction in American aid would shock Israeli voters into realization that the present level of American aid cannot continue without progress toward peace, and that the present stalemate in negotiations offers little prospect for that peace, either with the Palestinians or the Syrians.

I would appreciate your view of these arguments.

C. Patrick Quinlan, Edina, MN

cc: Senator Paul Wellstone, Senator Rod Grams

From Minnesota to Hawaii

To Mr. Peter Knerr, Kailua, HI, June 29, 1995

Having seen your letter in the June Washington Report, I mailed that issue to Common Cause Minnesota with a brief sentence inviting Bishop Putnam's comments. I enclose the response.

Helen Overdiek, Hopkins, MN

From Common Cause

To Ms. Helen Overdiek, Hopkins, MN, June 26, 1995

Thank you for your letter concerning Mr. Knerr's letter printed in the Washington Report. Since Bishop Putnam was out of town, I contacted our Washington office to discuss with them what their response has been.

As indicated in the response (a copy of which I've enclosed), Common Cause does not, for the most part, take on specific lobbies, but rather is concerned with the impact of PACs generally on candidates and campaigns—looking at systems change rather than any particular PAC.

I hope this is helpful in answering Mr. Knerr's concerns and any you might have. Thanks for writing.

Joan H. Higinbotham, St. Paul, MN

Letter from Common Cause

To Mr. Peter Knerr, Kailua, HI, June 6, 1995

Thank you for your letter informing us of why you have chosen not to renew your membership with Common Cause.

We are deeply saddened to lose such a valued member, who has been with us for over 20 years. In response to your suggestion that we "take on" the pro-Israel lobby: our fight against the special interest PACs is aimed at the present system of congressional campaign financing which allows PACs to have an influence on our elected officials through generous campaign contributions. Our focus is not on a specific lobby but on the undue influence of PACs over individual citizens.

Not every member can always agree wholeheartedly with every position taken (or not taken) by the organization. The great hope, of course, is that members have a core of strong objectives in common which they deem important enough to enable them to go along with the organization's consensus on the issues on which they disagree.

We hope that you might reconsider your decision to terminate your membership with Common Cause. Our capacity to make substantive strides towards a more just, ethical government is completely dependent upon the support of our members, members such as yourself.

Dorothy Cecelski, Secretary, National Governing Board, Common Cause, Washington, DC

Moving the Embassy

To the Washington Times, June 4, 1995 (as submitted).

Israelis are not now yammering to immediately move the U.S. embassy—wisely recognizing that much larger and more important issues demand immediate attention and the earliest possible resolution.

For the United States to now recognize Jerusalem—any part of it—as Israel's capital would be in direct violation of the U.S.-supported U.N. General Assembly resolution that made the existence of Israel recognized under international law! This resolution specifically exempted Jerusalem and its suburbs from inclusion in either the Arab or the Jewish states that it created.

The permanent status of Jerusalem will be worked out eventually to the satisfaction, if not the delight, of both the intelligent Arabs and the intelligent Jews. Then the United States can try to find the money—hopefully without further cuts in social programs—to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem!

I suggest that all of us try to remember and practice the words of the great Rabbi Hillel: "If a thing is hateful to you, do not do it to others. That is the law; all else is mere commentary!"

Roger D. Leonard, Bowie, MD

The U.N. Laundry List

To the New York Times, June 27, 1995 (as submitted).

Noticeably absent from A.M. Rosenthal's laundry list for the U.N. ("Anniversary Waltz," New York Times, June 27, page A 17) is any reference to human rights violations by Israel against the Palestinians. Also missing is any mention of the open defiance of U.N. resolutions by Israel concerning those violations.

Nor does Mr. Rosenthal find it unusual that only the U.S. and Israel opposed many proposals that did not become resolutions only because of the American vetoes. His column is typical of such regular omissions from the pages of the paper he once ruled. He leaves a tarnished legacy.

Roy Bercaw, Cambridge, MA

Israel's Jerusalem Policy

To the Raleigh News and Observer, July 7, 1995 (as submitted).

In your issue of June 12, Joe Elinoff writes: "While the Government of Israel controls a large part of the West Bank, this was land which was in Jordanian Government hands and transferred to the Israeli Government as the result of the 1967 war."

The implication is that Israel's acquisition of West Bank land was the result of routine legal action. For a more factual account, I recommend to Mr. Elinoff and your other readers recent comment in our mainstream media, notably: "The West Bank Land Grab," Washington Post Weekly, July 3; "Allowance for Murder," The Progressive, July 10; and your own pickup of the AP report by Said Ghazali that Jerusalem officials have a policy to keep the number of Palestinians below 28 percent of the total population.

For more detail, I recommend "Israeli Land Seizures and Settlements," lately issued by the Council for the National Interest in Washington.

Curtis F. Jones, Chapel Hill, NC

Flagrant Support for Israel

To Newsday, Melville, NY, June 18, 1995 (as submitted).

Rep. Rick Lazio (R-NY, 2nd district) sits on the budget committee. He's in favor of domestic budget reductions. Yet, he's against reducing the foreign aid budget in the Mideast. So reports Charles Zehren, "Reaffirming Mideast Support," June 16, 1995.

Rick Lazio must know that polls have consistently revealed that a majority of Americans want reductions in both areas. Polls also show that a majority of Americans prefer reductions in foreign aid be spent helping Americans at home who will be hurting from domestic budget cuts.

Rick Lazio surely knows that over 40 percent of the foreign aid in recent years is allocated for Egypt and Israel. He probably knows that since 1951 the United States has provided Israel with over $60 billion. In real terms, using constant 1993 dollars that take into account the effect of inflation, total direct aid since 1951 has been about $100 billion ($100,000,000,000). If he doesn't know this he can refer to the Congressional Research Service publication of the Library of Congress (#93-513) and bring the figures up to date.

Possibly Rep. Lazio's position on the issue of reductions in foreign aid to Israel is so out of touch with the overwhelming consensus of the American people because he is in touch with Israeli political action committees, from whom he received $4,500 in 1994.

It seems that the American people have reached the conclusion that it's time those receiving the greatest percentage of our foreign assistance should also be able to take some cuts. It's obvious, however, that Rep. Lazio hasn't reached that conclusion.

Richard J. Gallo, East Islip, NY

Balancing the Budget

To The Hon. Christopher Bond, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, May 30, 1995

Why should I or any other conscientious citizen have serious interest in balancing the budget or reducing the debt when congressmen themselves have reservations on legislation that benefits their personal well-being?

In 1993, Congress voted $4.271 billion in aid to Israel, plus another $2 billion in loan guarantees which are really grants in disguise. The interest on these loans is not due for 10 years. Israel will never pay back any of this, not even one cent in interest. This makes the loan guarantees much larger than $2 billion. This is repeated for five consecutive years.

Israel has violated every agreement it has ever made with the United States. Prime Minister Rabin has violated his own promise in 1992 to stop Israeli government expenditures on Jewish settlements in Israeli-occupied territory. Bill Clinton therefore is obligated to reduce Israel's loan guarantees by the amount Israel spends on new settlements. The Israeli government spent $437 million in 1993 and the loan guarantees were reduced accordingly. However, Bill Clinton then arbitrarily added $500 million in direct U.S. aid in 1994. Israel therefore received its money back plus a gift of $63 million for breaking its promise. Bill Clinton also told the Israeli government that the 1994 and 1995 aid levels would be no less.

The Rabin government is building or planning to build new residential units in and around East Jerusalem for another 80,000 Israelis. The Israeli government authorized the construction of 1,833 houses on the West Bank in 1994 and 3,220 more in 1995. It plans to build in East Jerusalem and on the West Bank 30,000 more units in the next three years.

In the 1991-1992 election period 54 active pro-Israel political action committees gave $4 million (conservative figure) to 403 candidates for Congress. Members of the Appropriations, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Operations Committees and subcommittees received the largest sums.

The donation of millions of dollars to candidates for Congress purchases appropriation of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Israel. This money subsidizes Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and illegal expropriations of their land for Jewish settlements. I don't believe this is how your constituency wants you to represent them.

To further destabilize the region and undermine the peace negotiation—and to create more hatred toward Americans—Congress has introduced the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act (S.770 and H.R. 1595). It is not the business of the U.S. government to help Israel establish its capital in Jerusalem. At this time of spending cuts, I don't believe we need a new embassy anywhere.

What about the U.S. government's consistent position that unilateral action on the part of any state in the region will not be recognized as changing the status of Jerusalem?

This is very explosive for the peace negotiations. In fact, this would seal the end to the peace negotiation if confiscating land and building new settlements hasn't already done so.

Maybe there is something I don't know about why our Congress deals with Israel in this manner. Please inform me if I'm incorrect on what I write. I can't help but believe it is the power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the pro-Israel PACs it has established to influence our Congress.

I'm not a bit proud of what is happening with the United States-Israel relationship. America is known for its democratic principles and as an advocate of human rights.

Ralph Hill, Warrensburg, MO

cc: Senators Robert Dole, Tom Daschle, Representatives Richard Gephardt, John Ashcroft, Ike Skelton, Newt Gingrich

Opposition to S.770

To Senator Robert Dole, United States Senate, Washington, DC, June 7, 1995

I vehemently oppose S.770, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995, and I am sickened at the spectacle of your prostrating yourself—and our country—at the feet of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Israel-firsters. This dangerous, reckless legislation would give Israel still more carte blanche in the Middle East.

Jerusalem is sacred to three faiths—should it have escaped your knowledge, Senator—not only to Jews but to Muslims and Christians. Unilateral measures to alter the status of Jerusalem (such as you propose) are illegal and certainly would not promote peace, should it be that in which you are interested.

H. L. Overdiek, Hopkins, MN

cc: Rep. Gingrich

"When the Unthinkable Happens"

To Professor Elie Wiesel, Andrew Mellon Professor in the Humanities, Boston University, Boston, MA, May 22, 1995.

I attended your presentation, "When the Unthinkable Happens," and I was most impressed by your compassion and devotion to exposing and correcting injustice suffered by oppressed people all over the world. As an advocate of human rights, I found myself in total agreement with virtually everything you said. But as a student and teacher of Palestinian history, I was most troubled by what you did not say.

You have defended the rights of Soviet Jews, Nicaraguan Indians, Argentinian victims of its "Dirty War," Cambodian refugees, Kurds and others, but you make no mention of Palestinians who have been oppressed and dehumanized by Israelis and by Arabs for almost half a century. Palestinians, painted by the media as terrorists and religious fanatics, are rarely recognized as victims whose villages have been eradicated, whose history has been denied, whose land continues to be expropriated, and who are systematically denied the right of self-determination.

You traveled to South Africa and fought against the abhorrent system of apartheid. Why do you remain silent at today's apartheid, which is so obvious and virulent in Israel? Surely you realize that over 40 percent of the people within the borders controlled by Israel are humiliated daily by being forced to carry separate identity cards and by being subjugated to a myriad of regulations which are not imposed on others simply because of their religion.

Your parents and other victims of the Holocaust found it unthinkable that Germans could have committed such atrocities as they did. Palestinians find it unthinkable that Jews could commit massacres such as that which took place at Deir Yassin, a stone's throw from today's Holocaust museum at Yad Vashem. They find it unthinkable that school closures as collective punishment could have been imposed by the Israeli government during the intifada just as the Nazis did to Jews in Warsaw. They find it unthinkable that the Israeli government has not allowed a simple memorial to be erected at Deir Yassin (whose massacre occurred on April 9, 1948), when a large memorial has been already erected to Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the American-Israeli terrorist who just over a year ago killed 29 and wounded scores of other worshipers by shooting them in the back while they were praying.

I hope that when you next go to Israel you will ask to see the prison camp for Palestinians in the desert at Ketziot. It is, by definition, a concentration camp, not unlike Dachau in the 1930s. It is not an extermination camp, like Auschwitz, in which you suffered, but it is horrible nevertheless. And I hope that you will visit Gaza and, in the name of peace, work to remove several thousand "settlers" who occupy the best one-third of the land while 863,000 Palestinians are crowded into the remaining two-thirds. You might note that most of these "settlers" have two passports, while most of the Palestinians have none.

In his new book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Professor Israel Shahak (also a Holocaust survivor and a resident of Israel for over 40 years) has shown that Jews and non-Jews can be strong supporters of Israel without caving in to social pressure and blind patriotism "which reduces them to silence when confronted with the discrimination and oppression of the Palestinians." I hope that, like Professor Shahak, you will continue your outstanding work in the defense of human rights, including the human rights of Palestinians.

Although I was denied the opportunity to speak with you during your brief visit to our colleges, I reaffirm the invitation made several months ago to join the board of advisers of Deir Yassin Remembered, a bi-partisan group which, when fully constituted, will consist of equal numbers of Jews and non-Jews, and of men and women, whose purpose will be to memorialize those men, women and children who perished at Deir Yassin. I realize you are a very busy man, but I respectfully ask for your reply.

Daniel A. McGowan, Professor of Economics, Hobart & William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY

Anti-Arab Insinuations

To the Twin Cities Reader, Minneapolis, MN, May 5 (as published).

Noah Adams and Sam Cohen (and other people in the media) owe Arabs a sincere apology for goose-stepping in unison to present a united front to blame Arabs and Palestinians for the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. We now know the terrorism was probably done by, yes, an American. The automatic, unthinking hatred of Arabs manifested by the uncritical rush to blame them for the bombing shows just how well the media have taught us to hate. Shame.

Vaughn Klingenberg, St. Paul, MN

Hanan Ashrawi's Story

To the New York Times Book Review, July 30 (as published).

David B. Green, in his review of Hanan Ashrawi's memoir, This Side of Peace (July 27), concludes: "Mrs. Ashrawi...is not yet capable of relinquishing her narrative and acknowledging that both peoples have deep, real roots in the land."

Surely one does not write a memoir in order to "relinquish" one's "narrative." But for decades Israel strove to obliterate the Palestinian narrative. It is therefore telling that Mr. Green can envision peace only on the condition that the Palestinian narrative remain unspoken.

David R. Adler, New York, NY

The Shabby Firing of Marius

To Vice President Al Gore, Washington, DC, Aug. 12, 1995

I am dismayed and very disappointed by the shabby manner with which you dismissed Mr. Richard Marius, having first engaged him enthusiastically to be one of your speechwriters. But I am not surprised at your action. Those of us trying for decades to inform the American public about the truth of Israeli colonialist wars and occupation have long since experienced the powerful arm of the American Zionist information gestapo and their pervasive tactics. After this recent incident, however, it is ever more clear who serves whom: the Zionists have bought themselves a president, a vice president and an administration; the First Amendment and the right of the American people to the truth are bent out of shape!!

As a native of Jerusalem of five generations' standing, of Jewish parentage and now an American, I can assure you that Zionism has not achieved much that is good, except that there is in Israel far greater freedom of information, including hideous truths, even without a written Constitution. Indeed, individuals in Israel who have frequently referred to Jewish-nazis in the regime (the late and much revered Prof. Yesha'ya'hu Leibowitz, for one) have not been "fired." And Prof. Moshe Zimmerman of the Hebrew University, who has recently called attention to the young people among the Jewish settlers in Hebron by likening them to Hitler Youth as a result of the "education"/brainwashing to which they are subjected, has not been ousted from his position as head of German Studies.

I shudder to think what your friend Martin Peretz and his minions around the U.S. would have perpetrated had these outspoken—and very caring—persons lived in our country.

I grieve for America where the Zionists have the power to devise the litmus test of intellectual propriety; and that you as vice president administer it.

Edna Homa, D.B.A., Cambridge, MA

The Vice President Replies

To Edna Homa, Sept. 7, 1995.

Thank you for taking the time to express your views regarding recent personnel decisions in the Office of the Vice President. I welcome this opportunity to respond.

Under the long-standing policy of this office, we do not comment on personnel matters, including hiring decisions. However, I hope you will feel free to write the Vice President on other issues of concern to you.

Once again, thank you for contacting this office.

Sincerely, Al Gore

Shocking

To the Dallas Morning News, Aug. 30, 1995 (as published).

Re: "Retired Israeli general describes killing prisoners," Aug. 16.

The Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service distributed the shocking revelation of the Holocaust-like atrocities committed by the Israelis in the 1956 Sinai campaign.

Born into the Jewish religion, I am appalled by those outrages.

When the Israelis next plead for more American money, I hope the United States will think long and hard about it. If you print this letter, the Mossad and American Israel Public Affairs Committee may think I am being "traitorous." I think I am being fair.

Leonard Schecter, Dallas, TX

Out of Tune

To the International Herald Tribune, Aug. 9, 1995 (as published).

Abraham Foxman, who complained in a letter (July 25) about an article on John Whitbeck, is out of tune with Israeli realities.

I have known Mr. Whitbeck for years, and have followed with admiration his activity for a compromise on Jerusalem. His proposal for joint Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty in Jerusalem is very close to a statement recently signed by more than 500 prominent Israelis, including six laureates of the prestigious Israel Prize.

Under the headline "Our Jerusalem," the statement called for a "United Jerusalem, capital of two states—the state of Israel and the state of Palestine."

Uri Avnery, Tel Aviv, Israel

Israel is Insincere

To the Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 24, 1995 (as published).

The opinion page article, "Israeli-Palestinian Coexistence," July 5, assumes that the "peace" process is being carried out in good faith by Israel and that a Palestinian state would emerge naturally in due course.

The Declaration of Principles and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are explicitly based on trading land for peace. However, contrary to the resolutions, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir summed up Israeli intentions when he confessed that he was stalling, and ready to employ delaying tactics for 10 years while the process of "Judaizing" the occupied territories continued.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's preoccupation is also to create these "facts on the ground" in the West Bank and Jerusalem, making it impracticable for the Israeli military to withdraw.

According to the Declaration of Principles, Palestinians are envisioned to have the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, which makes up only 22 percent of mandated Palestine.

Worse still, the settlers have received title to 65 percent of the 22 percent of land from the Israeli government.

Mr. Rabin is following in the footsteps of Mr. Shamir by stalling to offer the remainder of the original mandate of Palestine.

Israel has practically derailed the "peace" process by refusing from the beginning to acknowledge that it is an occupying power.

The Monitor rightly pointed out in its Jan. 18 editorial "Unsettling Settlements" that "Building settlements not only 'creates facts' on the ground by de facto wiping out Palestinian claims on the land, but also calls into question Israel's desire for peace."

Mohamed Alwan, Annapolis, MD

Open Letter to Mordechai Vanunu

To Mordechai Vanunu, Ashkelon Prison, Ashkelon, Israel, July, 1995

Greetings from an American supporter who, in a small way, is following your example by exposing nuclear secrecy and nuclear business-as-usual in his own country.

Both of us are imprisoned for nuclear truth-telling—you for breaking silence on Israel's secret nuclear weapons program, I for breaking laws that veil America's continuing preparations for waging nuclear war. We share this bond, even though there is much that distinguishes your incarceration from mine.

You inhabit a locked concrete cubicle sealed off from other prisoners; I share a room with three others in a dormitory where we are free to come and go.

You must take your daily walk alone in an exercise pen screened off from the outside world; I take mine on an outdoor track that threads its way past vegetable gardens and playing fields in an unfenced campus scented with the fragrance of a surrounding pine forest.

Once or twice a month you are allowed brief visits with your two brothers—by telephone, through a thick window, guards hovering close by, listening to every word; my visitors join me half a dozen times a month—often four or five of them at once—on a sun-drenched patio furnished with benches on which inmates may embrace their loved ones and enlivened by the shrieks of children at play.

I will be out of here in a few more weeks upon completion of my six-month sentence; you are not quite half way through a term scheduled to last 18 years.

My deprivations as an imprisoned American peace activist seem trivial compared with yours, which are unique in the global annals of nuclear resistance. But my symbolic journey in your footsteps has deepened my understanding of your action and of how we may most suitably respond.

I used to look upon your release from prison and Israel's acknowledgment of its nuclear arsenal as the primary goals of the U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu. Those are still important objectives for which we should continue to strive, no matter how difficult of attainment. But in recent months I have discerned a more universal goal that transcends the particulars of your case. We should work not just for your release from prison, but for our own release from the bonds of nuclear secrecy. And we should do so by following your example.

Yes, you are a courageous whistle-blower who ought to be honored rather than tortured for telling the truth. And yes, Israel ought to forsake nuclear weapons for its own safety as well as the safety of the volatile Middle East. But the secrecy and suppression that guard Israel's nuclear arsenal mirror the protectors of larger and deadlier arsenals elsewhere in the world.

Let us not limit ourselves to the support of one brave man in one small part of the world. Let your risk and sacrifice in the cause of nuclear truth-telling inspire us to similar action in the same cause in our own country, where the threat is far greater and the risk and sacrifice far smaller.

This is the message I take from your poem, "I Am Your Spy," written years ago in Ashkelon Prison, in which you called on us to pick up the burden you had dropped. It is the message I draw from your current writings about the world-wide danger of nuclear secrecy. It is the message I hope will be heeded by growing numbers of Americans inspired by your example. Thank you for being our teacher. Shalom.

Sam Day, Oxford Federal Prison Camp, Oxford, WI

Mideast Peace Won't Be Stopped by Extremists

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

Re "Israelis Want Peace" (letter, Aug. 25): Despite Israel Polak's claim to the contrary, the objectives of the Palestinian organization Hamas and the Israeli right-wing Likud Party are parallel and in agreement on the first task at hand. Both wish to stop the peace process and deny the other people statehood.

Hamas and Likud are both on record as opposing the Arab-Israeli peace process. Hamas leaders talk of an escalating war against Israel while the Likud leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, denounces the idea of a Palestinian state and calls Palestinian autonomy the only option for a secure Middle East. They differ over methodology, and the Hamas reliance on suicide bombers is more horrific to witness, but both have supported policies that result in needless death.

What both sides have missed is that their extremist rhetoric has been bypassed, as a majority of Israelis and Palestinians tire of absolutist platforms. If Palestinian elections are held as scheduled in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the next year, the ability of any group to reverse the process will be doubtful. Hamas and Likud oppose the peace process in part because it is relegating their approach to the dustbin of history.

Jeremy Pressman, Middle East Project Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC.

Away on Vacation?

To the Washington Jewish Week, Aug. 10, 1995 (as published).

Have your editorial writers been on vacation these past four years?

I cannot believe that anyone following the events in Bosnia could label that conflict a civil war, somehow comparable to the American Civil War, and one where the goal is just land acquisition, "Not Another Shoah" (WJW, July 27). I do not recall reading of "ethnic cleansing" or summary mass executions in our Civil War.

You refer to the "alleged raping, killing and the possible existence of at least one concentration camp..." Why "alleged"? You can't possibly have any doubt, can you? Perhaps you fear a libel suit by the Bosnian Serbs.

I note that you drop the "alleged" in a subsequent paragraph. Possibly the news just reached you that the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal had indicted the Bosnian Serb leaders for genocide and crimes against humanity.

Of course, as you correctly claim, the Bosnian war is not another Shoah. But so what? Nothing is ever likely to match the enormity of the Holocaust, and it should not be necessary to demonstrate such equivalence before strong action is warranted. The barbarism taking place in Bosnia is sufficient.

Abraham Finkel, Silver Spring, MD

Your Reader Was Correct

To the Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sarasota, FL, Aug. 18, 1995 (as submitted).

If you are really serious about your published "Right to Know" policy, then your readers deserve a retraction of your "Correction" insert on the Aug. 10 editorial page which disputed the $17,317,808 Israel receives per day of U.S. taxpayers' money, accurately stated in a writer's letter published on July 25.

Your "Correction" is the typical media obfuscation of the true cost of annual aid to Israel, because it obviously excludes the resulting additional costs of the $3 BILLION in appropriated foreign aid grants, plus another $1.271 BILLION in budget and off-budget items awarded to Israel. Your "Correction" also ignores the $0.5 BILLION in interest the U.S. must pay on money borrowed to pay for the grants to Israel.

So far, the above costs add up to $4.321 BILLION. To this amount must be added the $2 BILLION more for the annual U.S. loan guarantees to Israel and you have a total of $6.321 BILLION. Divide that amount by 365 (days per year) and the result is $17,317,808 (MILLION) per day, 365 days a year, that U.S. taxpayers are giving to Israel.

B. J. Swartz, Sarasota, FL

Israeli Injustice

To the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Aug. 5, 1995 (as published).

What is the most significant accomplishment of Israel's friends in the United States?

Could it be their ability to deliver $6 billion in aid and credits year after year in the face of domestic budget cuts? Or is it the U.S. government's insistence that Arab nations sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while ignoring Israel's arsenal? Also in the running is New York Sen. Alphonse D'Amato's introduction of a bill written by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to embargo trade with Iran.

All of these accomplishments, however, pale in comparison with injecting "principles" of Israeli jurisprudence into the American legal system. The Marzook affair, reported in the Star-Telegram last week, illustrates that the racist underpinnings of Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank have begun to creep into our system of due process.

Mousa Abu Marzook, a 14-year legal resident of the United States and a Louisiana State University graduate, was arrested in New York upon his return from abroad. He and his children—natural-born American citizens—were strip-searched because Marzook is on a so-called State Department watch list. He remains under arrest while the U.S. Justice Department tries to find something to charge him with and the Israelis try to conjure up grounds for his extradition. According to legislation recently signed by President Clinton, Marzook is unable to determine how his name was placed on the list or to question his accusers.

In Israel, Palestinian refugees from Gaza, as Marzook is, are suspect and deprived of the legal protections of a free society. Do we really want to begin abrogating the rights of citizens and U.S. residents in deference to the demands of a special-interest group, regardless of its favor with the current administration?

Louis Farshee, Fort Worth, TX