Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October/November 1998, pages 88-92

Other People’s Mail

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

Can U.S. Bombs Police the World?

To The New York Times, Aug. 23, 1998 (as published).

An Aug. 21 editorial asserts that “the United States has every right to attack suspected terrorists if there is credible evidence showing that they were involved in attacks against American citizens or were planning such attacks.”

No state has the right to exact retribution through an armed attack on another country. Even the Security Council of the United Nations can order an attack only in the interest of restoring peace and security, not to punish. Nor does any country have the right to launch missiles against a country it believes to harbor terrorists.

President Clinton’s bald assertion that the strikes were justifiable because the Sudan and Afghanistan have consistently failed to heed United States demands to eject Osama bin Laden and others is extraordinary.

President Clinton and his defenders argue that the “target was terror.” I disagree. The real victim was a world in which rules matter and those responsible for acts of violence are brought to justice, not simply killed.

James C. Hathaway, Ann Arbor, MI

Beware in This Tit-For-Tat World

To The New York Times, Aug. 23, 1998 (as published).

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright’s comments after the bombings of the Sudan and Afghanistan notwithstanding, mass destruction of the sort carried out by the United States can have only one consequence in today’s tit-for-tat world: an equal or greater measure of violence from the other side (front page, Aug. 21).

If terrorists understand only the language of force—a premise I reject—then it is inevitable that they will respond to our actions with more terror.

The answer to the global crisis of terror is nonviolence and the firm and consistent application of international laws.

Carl-David Birman, Brooklyn, NY

A Matter of Simple Fairness

To The Washington Post, Sept. 1, 1998 (as published).

Have I missed something in The Post’s commentary [“In Self-Defense,” editorial, Aug. 21]? True, the United States could not have bombed Sudan’s alleged manufacturing of a component of nerve gas without destroying the pharmaceutical factory. But Sudan still will be without enough pharmaceutical supplies. The United States should donate the drugs that would have been made by the factory.

This is a matter of simple fairness and of improving relations with the people of Sudan and elsewhere. In attempting to show that the plant made only drugs, Sudan is presenting the United Nations with recent bills it sent out for its drugs. These bills will make it easy to estimate what drugs would have been made in the future and which need to be provided.

Richard Wendell Fogg, Director of the Center for the Study of Conflict, Inc., Baltimore, MD

The Shadow Enemy

To The Washington Post, Sept. 2, 1998 (as published).

President Clinton’s missile raids into Afghanistan and Sudan raise a serious question: How can we claim to be a civilized nation when, in the name of fighting terrorism, we use the same violent tactics used by our enemies?

Mr. Clinton’s attacks indiscriminately killed at least 21 people in Afghanistan and at least five more people in Pakistan. Because of unprovable suspicions of chemical weapons production, he destroyed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, a facility which was producing life-saving drugs, including malaria medication, to that famine-stricken nation.

President Clinton made no diplomatic effort to try to catch the terrorists. He rationalized that the Afghan and Sudanese regimes would not be helpful in prosecuting such individuals. Yet the result of his actions will be that these governments will be less likely to cooperate with us in the future.

There is no justification for the embassy bombings. However, the United States should critically examine policies with which Arabs have legitimate grievances. The U.S./U.N. sanctions against Iraq, by the United Nations’ own estimates, have caused the deaths of more than 1 million Iraqis, including more than 700,000 children. Our Israel policy unfairly puts higher demands on Palestinians to renounce violence than on Israelis to halt new settlements. Why do we refuse to see the flaws in these policies? Is it easier to demonize those in the Arab world who oppose them as a way of diverting attention from our own mistakes?

There will be retaliation against the United States without doubt. Even more tragic is the damage that will be done to our credibility. It now will be more difficult to get cooperation on Iraqi weapons inspections, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and the extradition of terrorists, because Arab leaders will see U.S. rhetoric condemning violence for the hypocrisy that it is.

Nancy A. Hey, Hyattsville, MD

Our Own Worst Enemies

To the Gulf News, Aug. 27, 1998 (as published).

I am a Muslim by birth who practices Islam because I like what it teaches and because it makes sense. Normally, I don’t feel the need to make such announcements but given the prejudiced nature of Muslims today I felt compelled to do so.

I have been reading in your newspaper and in others of the region about how arrogant Americans are by attacking Afghanistan and Sudan. The ones who are really arrogant are the so-called “Islamic organizations” although what is Islamic about them I have always failed to understand.

They are so arrogant that they kill Americans, then openly announce intentions of further killings and expect no retaliation. Then if America retaliates they get all upset and give fatwas that it is a war against Islam. Which world are they living in and which Qur’an do they read? The Qur’an I read forbids the killing of innocent civilians, especially women and children.

Arrogant are these Muslims who see nothing wrong in one Islamic state attacking another for the sake of oil and wealth. The Qur’an I read leaves no forgiveness for a Muslim who kills another Muslim. America came over to help us from such Muslims and all that we do is spit at them.

We suddenly get these warm feelings for Saddam Hussain who throws nerve gas on his own people, who again happen to be Muslims. Where are these saviors of Islam, bin Laden and his cronies, when this is happening? Where is bin Laden when Muslims in Somalia scrape a few crumbs of food from the ground and eat boiled leaves at other times?

At that time we again want America to send food because bin Laden is busy spending his money in thinking up a way to kill 12 Americans. I respect the Americans for they at least tried to keep the human casualties low by attacking at nighttime unlike the very intelligent Muslims who killed 12 Americans and 200 others. The Americans could have killed more but showed restraint and the Muslim terrorist could have killed fewer but didn’t.

The enemy of Islam is not America but we Muslims who do not stop these terrorists and punish them ourselves. It is our responsibility to keep a list of all organizations suspected of creating terror in the name of Islam and then we should denounce them collectively. Why do we allow a few thousand to blacken the name of millions of us? Because the peace-loving Muslims are cowards and have no confidence in their convictions.

Ayesha Nazar, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Selective Outrage

To the Gulf News, Aug. 30, 1998 (as published).

I, as a Muslim, fully agree with Ms. Ayesha Nazar (Aug. 27) that we should first set our house in order and only then talk about others. When we Muslims, in spite of claiming to follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah, can create such mayhem and destruction, we have no right to talk about American policy and its bias against Muslims.

I am not justifying what America did in Sudan or in Afghanistan, but I urge every Muslim to look at what the so-called “Islamists” did in Kenya and Tanzania. If anybody had watched satellite news on the days following the bombing, they would know the havoc these people created on the innocent citizens of Nairobi and Dar es Salam. We have a right to ask: Where were these protesters who are now making such a big hue and cry about lost lives, when 250 innocent lives were lost in Nairobi and Dar es Salam?

In Nairobi, we are told that the sole breadwinners of the families who had come from far-off places to make a living and support their families lost their lives. Is there any one of these people who can justify this act from the Qur’an or the Sunnah which they profess to follow? These “Islamists” must first set our house in order. They should cure their, and our, own problems like the sectarian violence in Karachi, the infighting in Afghanistan, the lawlessness and famine in Somalia, and the poverty, malnutrition, educational backwardness, internecine quarrels, etc., that afflict many Muslim societies.

Only after correcting these wrongs we have done to ourselves, can we talk about the wrongs done to us by the West.

Masood Sherif, Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia

Share the Sudan Evidence

To the International Herald Tribune, Aug. 27, 1998 (as published).

The case against Osama bin Laden is clear-cut. Through his self-proclaimed sponsorship of terrorism against the United States, he has in effect declared war on it. So it was proper to strike at his camps in Afghanistan without warning.

The strike against Sudan is more complicated and requires detailed clarification if the Clinton administration is to garner the support it needs from the international community.

Sudan is on the short list of states accused of sponsoring terrorism. Still, it is not a failed state like Afghanistan, with no credible central government. It has diplomatic relations with most of the international community, including the United States.

At the time of the bombing, U.S. relations with Khartoum were badly strained, but discussion was possible through back channels. Such contacts were good enough to secure Mr. bin Laden’s expulsion from Sudan in 1996, before he moved on to Afghanistan. Why were those channels not tried before an attack was launched?

Sudan has protested the attack on Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, claiming that it was not a plant to build important components for chemical weapons but a benign commercial venture that produced half of the country’s medicines.

In response, the Clinton administration says it has evidence that Iraqi scientists were helping to produce elements of VX, one of the deadliest nerve agents in existence, at the plant. The claim rests on a soil sample secretly obtained months ago outside the factory.

So far, American officials have rebuffed calls from Sudan and other countries to share that evidence. On Monday, the U.N. Security Council put off a request by Arab nations to send inspectors to search the rubble in Khartoum for signs of chemicals related to VX. The United States seems to have rejected that request.

If this evidence is as compelling as the administration says, why not allow others to judge for themselves? An independent U.N commission, for example, might do the job.

There may be legitimate concerns behind the administration’s insistence on keeping its intelligence operations secret—for instance, the danger of putting human lives at risk. If that is a fear, those people can probably be moved to safety.

If there is strong evidence that the Shifa plant had become a site for producing VX, the attacks can be justified. But until the administration discloses the evidence it has, worldwide skepticism will continue.

Milt Bearden (a former CIA chief in Pakistan and Sudan)

Sorrow for Africa

To the Arab News, Aug. 31, 1998 (as published).

Many countries, leaders and people of the world saw what happened in Nairobi and Tanzania.

Many people lost their lives. Thousands were injured. Innocent victims—men, women and children. Muslims and non-Muslims.

Where is the sorrow for Africa? Where is the outcry against this aggression and violation of Africa’s territories and its sovereignty? The letters column of Aug. 23 was full of shameful opinions of those who no doubt turned their heads, turned blind and closed their ears to the disaster in Africa.

Why do sympathizers and perpetrators feel that they have a right to defend the violence they heap on others?

Don’t blame Clinton or democracy for retaliation, or accuse them of aggression. Open your eyes: Africa was violated, struck first, by outside assistance and criminals. Should this be ignored? Don’t abuse others if you wish not to be penalized.

As seen time and time again, sympathizers, media and negative critics turn their heads and silence their voices when the innocent are victimized, but hastily rush to the defense of criminals and those who terrorize others. Wake up, world!

U.R.P., Kamis Mushayt, Saudi Arabia

Nairobi Lessons

To The Kuwait Times , Aug. 19, 1998 (as published).

Judging from the U.S. response to the East African bombings, it is clear that Washington is not interested in addressing the issues at the root of terrorism. No amount of surgical operations can remove the basic cause of anti-American feeling in the Middle East. Instead of correcting its policy mistakes, it is tilting at windmills.

Shabaz Khan, Sharjah, U.A.E.

Greek Lobby Hurts America

To The Washington Times, Aug. 18, 1998 (as published).

The majority of Greek-American organizations in this country, including the American Hellenic Media Project, seem to be unable to accept anything positive written in the U.S. press about Turkey, as the letter by Paul Kutscera amply demonstrates (“Taking Turkey to Task for Exploiting Western Largess,” Aug. 10).

The fact is that Turkey is a secular Muslim country that has made huge strides in the 75 years since its foundation. It is a solid, strategic ally to the United States, a member of NATO and a country that deserves its rightful place on the American agenda. Surely it is not a perfect country, but neither is Greece for that matter. Even the latest report by the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights states that the Macedonian, Gypsy and Turkish minorities in Greece are subject to discrimination, harassment and racism. The Turkish minority is not even allowed to call itself “Turkish,” a restriction of the minority’s civil rights that even the Greek Supreme Court condones. I guess that would make Greece also a lesser democracy and unworthy of American support.

It seems as if Greek-American organizations are looking at Greece for guidance in their evaluation of Turkey and a U.S. policy vis-â-vis that country. Unfortunately, Greek and American interests do not overlap in this area. The United States wants to see Turkey as a regional power with a strong Western orientation. But Greece’s categorical blackballing of any positive steps taken toward Turkey only serves to fuel the flame of the extremists in Turkey, to which Mr. Kutscera refers, who argue that Turkey has gained nothing but grief from its close relationship with the West. Unfortunately, those circles have been affirmed again with the recent snub by the European Union (EU), which shut Turkey out from its enlargement plans, despite U.S. pressure—a decision largely attributable to Greece’s veto on Turkey’s membership.

Mr. Kutscera wrongly states that Turkey receives “billions in military and economic U.S. aid.” In fact, Turkey has refused U.S. aid for the past two years. And even when it did receive “aid,” it was mostly in credits that were paid back to the United States at market rates or came back to this country as military sales. On the European side, compliments of Greece, Turkey is still waiting to receive billions of dollars of EU grants due Turkey under several EU programs. This all comes at a time when Turkey has lost more than $32 billion in revenue for its support of the embargo on Iraq. Therefore, Mr. Kutscera should do his elementary homework first, before he accuses your writer of “sophomoric analysis.”

Greek-American lobbying against Turkey is hurting American interests. The United States should treasure Turkey and the strategic relationship that it provides, as much as Turkey values its American partnership. Greek-American organizations need to recognize that a strong Turkey, which develops in the right direction, is good for America. And if these same organizations are for American interests first, they should support a strong U.S.-Turkish partnership—rather than stand in its way .

Guler Koknar, Executive Director, Assembly of Turkish American Associations, Washington, DC

Israel and Netanyahu

To the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 5, 1998 (as published).

Re James J. Zogby’s “America Must Challenge Netanyahu’s Obstructionism,” Commentary, July 29.

We were in the West Bank in 1997 and were stunned by the aggressive Israeli program of extending settlements and connecting roads into and around Palestinian villages. In spite of many Israelis as well as Palestinians who protest against Israeli policy, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu continues to ignore local protests as well as mounting international opposition.

In the meantime, the U.S. sends $3.5 billion each year with no strings attached while Netanyahu thumbs his nose at us. The recent vote in the U.N. for Palestinian representation is a barometer of just how far our administration and Congress are out of kilter.

Gwen and James Johnson, Corona del Mar, CA

Peace Going Downhill

To the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 18, 1998 (as published).

Any way you slice it, the Middle East peace process has gone downhill since Binyamin Netanyahu became prime minister of Israel.

This unsettling stance of a key political leader has eddied out into other parts of the area and beyond.

The United States should sharply reduce or eliminate the billions of dollars in subsidies given to the Israelis. That will get Netanyahu’s attention and perhaps get negotiations back on track.

Bill Lynde, Cypress, CA

The Flawed Oslo Process

To The New York Times, Aug. 18, 1998 (as published).

A connection can be drawn between your Aug. 15 news article reporting the severe Israeli rationing of water for West Bank Palestinians (while nearby Jewish settlements are awash with water) and the breakdown of the Oslo peace process described by Ron Pundak (Op-Ed, Aug. 15). The cause for this latest outrage may be the lack of balance in the Oslo process itself.

Oslo provided for the removal of clauses in the Palestinian Covenant objectionable to the Israelis. This was not balanced with a demand to delete or modify Israeli documents that command or justify exclusive Jewish occupancy and control of large land areas, together with water, mineral, commercial, travel and air rights in and around Palestine.

As long as the world community supports the flawed Oslo process, it is unlikely that progress toward peace can be made.

Roger Feinstein, Newton, MA

Balance Arab-Israeli Issues

To the Worcester, MA Telegram and Gazette, June 25, 1998 (as published).

Your front page color photo of two Palestinian young men confronting two Israeli settlers with the caption, “Land dispute,” June 9, was given the kind of attention this important international issue deserves.

While The Boston Globe failed to mention this most recent appropriation of Arab land in East Jerusalem in their issue the same day with either text or a photo, the Telegram & Gazette has demonstrated far more concern that ethnic cleansing should not be tolerated anywhere, be it in Bosnia or in the West Bank.

These outrages by the far-right Israeli settlers remind me of the actions of the South African apartheid regime of a decade ago.

Was this what House Speaker Newt Gingrich had in mind when in Israel he claimed that all of Jerusalem, including Arab East Jerusalem, belonged to Israel?

Clearly, these Israelis took his statements to heart. Maybe with another visit to the region, Gingrich can succeed in starting a full-blown Arab-Israeli war.

Steven P. Duplisea, Lake Pleasant, MA

Palestinians Need State

To the Traverse City, MI Record-Eagle, June 27, 1998 (as published).

As one who has been to Israel and the illegally occupied territories of Palestine four times within the past five years, I have to take exception to the diatribes against the Palestinian leadership and the whitewash of Netanyahu’s government coming from your simplistic and very prejudiced columnist Cal Thomas (“Speaker Gingrich Shows How Real Friends Behave,” May 29).

This man is a blind sycophant of poor Israel’s present Likud government for one reason. Cal is a Christian Zionist who equates Israel’s military might and materialistic success with the coming of the Millennium and the final battle of Armageddon, i.e., the end of the world and the return of the Messiah.

Many people of this viewpoint are willing to ignore the all-too-human abuses of the secular government of Israel. They demonize the suffering people in the Palestinian community who have been subjected to a pogrom the equivalent of anything done to the Jews who suffered at the hands of the Czar of Russia.

Granted: Israel is a remarkable little country of talented, brave and energetic people. Regardless of the very questionable and morally dubious way in which its land was taken from the indigenous people of Palestine in 1948, it is here to stay, God, Yahweh and Allah willing.

But we must acknowledge the loss suffered by the Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, and support justice for them, which means a sovereign state in the areas awarded to them by the 1947 United Nations partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. Only this will give Israel itself a real chance at survival, much less a lasting peace.

James McCormick, Traverse City, MI

Outraged by Newt Gingrich

To Representative Newt Gingrich, Washington, DC, July 9, 1998.

I have received a copy of your Citizens Task Force letter in which you ask for my support. While I enthusiastically support reduced government and lower taxes, I am outraged at your pro-Israel, anti- peace comments made before, during and after your trip to Israel to participate in its 50th anniversary celebration. I cannot support you in your endorsement of Israeli racism, terrorism and torture.

The enclosed photo from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs shows a scene that also took place during the 50th anniversary celebration. While you and other U.S. congresspersons were shamelessly blaming the long-persecuted and much-maligned Palestinian people for freezing the peace process, acts of police brutality such as that depicted were taking place throughout Israel. If you want my vote and support you will have to find the courage to condemn Israeli racism and brutality against the impoverished minority Palestinian population.

Neil V. Himber, Mason, OH

Lobbying Corrupts

To The New Port Richey (FL) Suncoast News, June 13, 1998 (as published).

Regarding Newt Gingrich’s remarks to the Israelis that Jerusalem “is the united and eternal capital of Israel,” perhaps we should shed light on why Mr. Gingrich and others behave that way.

According to the March issue of the Washington Report, up until March of this year, Mr. Gingrich had collected $95,434 in campaign contributions from political action committees (PACs) directed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group. Furthermore, his wife, Marianne, has accepted a public relations position with an Israeli-American company that is developing a free port and tax-free industrial zone in Israel. Gingrich refuses to reveal her total compensation package, which is based not only on a salary but also on commission for each U.S. enterprise that she convinces to set up operations in the zone.

It seems to me it has become a ritual for presidential hopefuls to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and compete in kissing the rear-end of Israel and its powerful AIPAC lobby in Washington for money. Gingrich is not the exception in Washington, but the rule. That’s why both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress are reluctant to approve campaign finance reforms.

Lobbies for foreign governments have corrupted the U.S. political system to the extent that it is jeopardizing the security and stability of this country and is alienating other countries abroad.

David Zein, Tarpon Springs, FL

A Nation for Palestinians

To the St. Petersburg Times, July 21, 1998 (as published).

Re: “What Israel May be Too Late to Avert,” by Susan Taylor Martin, July 15. One of the most cruel (and ill-informed) statements ever made was by Israel’s Golda Meir, born in Russia, educated in America, when she said that there is no Palestine, there are no Palestinians, that they didn’t exist. This was not long after the decision was made by the U.N. General Assembly to partition Palestine, a decision the United Nations had no legal or judicial authority to make.

The article by Ms. Martin explains the reality of Palestine very well with quotes by an expert in international law, John V. Whitbeck, who went so far as to say that Palestine’s President Yasser Arafat did not even need to declare a Palestinian state because it already exists.

The decision to partition Palestine by the General Assembly is finally being undone to some extent by the recent decision to give Palestine a bigger role. The original decision was so controversial that two committees were set up to study it because: Britain, the mandatory power, had nothing to do with the partition; and how could a decision to divide Palestine be legal without the consent and contrary to the wishes of the population of Palestine, the majority of whom were Arab Christians and Muslims? But that is what happened. The Palestinians were ignored.

As John Whitbeck said, statehood for the Palestinians is “not within Israel’s power to grant or deny.” No longer is turning a blind eye to this tragedy justified, because more information is available today about what really happened and what is still happening as more and more land is confiscated for Jewish use only, an apartheid system no longer acceptable even in South Africa.

There is a Palestine. It is past time to stop the genocide and “culturecide” of Palestinians and strive for real peace and equality.

Jean Rogers, Secretary, Palestine Human Rights Campaign, Oldsmar, FL

Ignoring or Unaware of Justice in Mideast?

To Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO), Washington, DC, April 12, 1998.

Your reply did not address the specific issue raised in our letter. Instead, you have simply stated all the old hackneyed arguments that are normally spouted in support of an immoral and un-American policy of unqualified and unconditional support of Israel, even when its government indulges in criminal behavior and egregious violations of human rights.

When a small section of our pluralistic society becomes so powerfully influential that our elected representatives do not dare even to listen and respond to other points of view on certain issues, then our constitutional democracy has been undermined.

Regarding the morality of our Mideast policy, we refer to you the line from the Bible: “The truth shall set you free.” And the truth, Senator, is the first casualty of the totally one-sided and narrowly based approach that our government, particularly the Congress, has historically taken in its Mideast policy. Eventually all untruths and injustices shall dissolve in the face of the ultimate truth and the justice it represents. On which side will you, and those like you, be when that happens, Senator?

Saif and Najma Hussain, Woodland Hills, CA

Build Bridges

To the Boston Herald , May 21, 1998 (as published).

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu studied architecture and received a degree in that discipline as well as an MBA from MIT in Cambridge. It’s a shame he didn’t study civil engineering. He could’ve used those skills to build bridges to the Palestinians.

Jan Atamian, Longmeadow, MA

The Trip to China Rates a “B”

To President Bill Clinton, Washington, DC, June 28, 1998.

The reports of your trip to China in my opinion warrant a grade of “B.” However, if you are genuinely convinced, as you say, that “certain rights are universal” and you “believe that everywhere people aspire to be treated with dignity,” I would suggest you re-examine your policy on the Middle East.

The leaders of Israel have consistently demonstrated they intend to conquer Palestine and deprive the Palestinians of their homeland. Hillary is right, Palestine should become a State.

It is obvious to the rest of the world that Israel is a nuclear-armed bully, an oppressor of the Palestinians, denying them the truth and justice to which human beings are entitled. Shouldn’t we change our policy toward Israel? Why is the United States giving Israel billions of our taxpayers’ money and our unqualified support for anything the Israelis want to do?

You are on record with the world that human rights are important; now please implement that philosophy to include the Palestinians.

John L. Hughes, Milwaukee, WI

Shameful Israeli Stance

To the Dupage County, IL Daily Herald, (as published).

Israel calling the Palestinian attempt to change its U.N. standing a violation of the peace accords is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Netanyahu’s delaying tactics give him time to illegally build more and more settlements on Palestinian land, and seem designed to gradually take all of Palestine.

U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson says the resolution granting the Palestinian U.N. delegation more rights could undermine the peace process, but he doesn’t explain how. Palestinians have few rights. Violent death at the hands of Israeli soldiers and settlers is an everyday experience for them. When they protest, they are called “terrorists,” while the Israelis who violate basic human rights of Palestinians are called “freedom fighters.” I’m ashamed of the U.S. stance regarding this insane conflict.

Jean L. Baker, Wheaton, IL

“Western Province of Israel”

To the Pensacola News Journal, July 26, 1998 (as published).

The support of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands—and of no one else, except of course Israel itself—in the latest U.N. vote on the subject of Palestine should be a clear indication that the United States government’s blind support for Israel flies in the face of reason, logic and world opinion.

There is no doubt but that Congress supports this anti-Arab, pro-Israel position as the direct result of the intense lobbying and financial support of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Israeli-controlled PACs.

Apparently the administration is hardened to the humiliation of being the sole Israeli supporter. It is not as if this fawning support of Israel pays off—we can’t even get Israel to agree to stop seizing Palestinian land and homes to make room for more non-Palestinians.

It was once said that the State of Israel should be the “51st state.” Perhaps, in the light of present-day realities, it is we who are “the Western Province of Israel.”

Frederick U. Wells, Gulf Breeze, FL

George Will Wrong About Israel

To the Lexington Herald-Leader, June 2, 1998 (as published).

George Will’s column justifying the Israeli government’s hesitance to pursue the principle of “land for peace” is flawed in every way. Will portrays modern Israel as a frail, vulnerable state whose existence is threatened; but in reality, Israel is the dominant military power in the region. The Israeli military is the best-trained, best-equipped, and most technologically sophisticated force in the area. And this ignores Israel’s substantial nuclear arsenal.

Israel’s current intransigence is not about security, but about settlements. If Israel were to return an additional 13 percent of the West Bank, some Israeli settlements would pass into partial Palestinian control. The fundamentalist parties in Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, who hope to annex all of the West Bank, will not stand for such a move. These settlements, made possible in part by our tax dollars, are built on land confiscated from Palestinians and in violation of international law concerning the treatment of citizens in occupied territories.

A Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza does not threaten the security of Israel. The establishment of such a state threatens only those who dream of a Jewish state stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates and who see the Palestinians not as a people with rights and a long history of oppression of their own, but only as an obstacle to the achievement of a “Greater Israel.” Israel deserves to live and to live in security, but the Palestinians, too, deserve to live and to live in justice.

Gary Brooks, Lexington, KY

Israeli Intransigence

To the St. Paul, MN St. Paul Pioneer Press, Aug. 3, 1998 (as published).

We were both amused and bemused by the July 18 letter from Daniel Spiegel and Steven Derfler of the American Jewish Committee pointing out that the United States, virtually alone, had voted against the General Assembly resolution upgrading the Palestinian position at the United Nations. (One can only speculate as to the motivation of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, the only countries that joined the United States and Israel in this vote.)

It should be obvious that the world as a whole is fed up with the current stalemate in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and is sending a message. The blame is placed squarely on the intransigence of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his government against taking any meaningful steps to advance the peace process agreed on at Oslo.

As to why the United States votes one way and the rest of the world another—look to the stranglehold of the Zionist lobby on American policy in the Middle East.

Aref and Barbara Jabr, St. Paul, MN

Maryland Voters Complain

To Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Washington, DC, May 20, 1998.

I am writing on behalf of three registered voters in my household to express my disagreement with aid to Israel. In fiscal year 1997, American taxpayers lost $5.675 billion as a result of aid to Israel. This includes charges incurred by us as a result of interest payments on the money we borrowed to give grants to Israel. We should not continue supporting Israel because the Israeli government is blatantly anti-American in actions and beliefs. For example:

Israel does not treat all people equally. Among its citizens, Jews have full rights, while Christians and Muslims are treated as inferiors. The Christians and Muslims under its military occupation are not eligible for citizenship and have no legal rights at all.

I am amazed that any of my representatives continue to support Israel. I am aware that you, personally, have accepted huge sums of money from pro-Israel PACs, and I disapprove of your acceptance of money from groups whose first loyalty is to a foreign government. I hope you reconsider your practice of accepting money from such groups, and hope I have convinced you to support American values.

Ehab Shehata, Clarksville, MD
cc: Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Look At This Photo

To Rep. Rob Portman (R-OH), Washington, DC, July 7, 1998.

The enclosed photo from the back cover of the July/Aug. 1998 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs documents Israeli police brutality against a minority. I strongly resent my tax dollars being used to support such blatant racism.

I urge you to call for an end to aid to Israel until such time as its government and citizens can respect the basic human rights of all people.

Neil V. Himber, Mason, OH
cc: Senator John Glenn, Senator Mike DeWine, President Bill Clinton