November 1991, Page 74

Other People's Mail

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

Settlements and Chickens

To The Washington Post, Sept. 19, 1991

The confrontation between President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Shamir, as The Post has pointed out, is less about money for housing Israel's Soviet Jewish immigrants than about Israel's settlements policy. It is a classic case of chickens coming home to roost. Reagan-Bush administration chickens, to be precise.

Under the Carter administration, the United States had a clear-cut position in regard to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories: They were illegal. State Department adviser Herbert Hansell drew up a brief to demonstrate why this was so, the legal argument based principally on the fourth Geneva convention, which forbids an occupying power from settling its population in occupied territory.

This US position did not cause Prime Minister Begin's government to stop settlement activity, but it had some deterrent effect. The Israelis moved cautiously, and whenever they did establish a new settlement, the State Department issued a public statement denouncing the move and reiterating the position that settlements in the occupied territories were illegal.

All this went out the window with the Reagan administration. In fall 1980, in the heat of the election campaign, Ronald Reagan announced that he, unlike his opponent, definitely did not consider Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to be illegal.

After Mr. Reagan took office, my colleagues and I in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs devised a formula we hoped would accommodate the new president's position while making known to Israel that the United States still disapproved of settlements. What our formula said was essentially "the matter of legality aside, settlements are an obstacle to progress toward peace. " It was given to one of the president's top foreign policy people. He read it and answered, "Even if I agreed with this, which I don't, I wouldn't show it to the president."

For the next 18 months, the US government remained mute on Israeli settlements. American silence was all the signal Mr. Begin's Likud government needed to launch an accelerated settlements program. By September 1982, the administration realized what damage it had done to its Middle East peace efforts, and the formula "settlements are an obstacle to peace" became standard State Department usage—too late, however, to have much of an impact.

When Jimmy Carter left office, there were fewer than 10,000 Israeli settlers in the occupied territories. A decade later, as George Bush struggles to prevent the Israeli government from using its settlement policy to close off all chance for serious negotiations, there are more than 100,000.

David A. Korn, Washington, DC

Populist PAC Man

To The Nation, Oct. 14, 1991

With regard to David Corn's article on Tom Harkins' candidacy, "What Harkin May Herald," your readers should know that Tom Harkin is the third-highest all-time recipient of campaign contributions from pro-Israel political action committees. The statistics I use come from the April Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. In receiving a total of $359,980 in contributions from 1978 through 1990, he ranks behind Paul Simon of Illinois ($580,794) and Carl Levin of Michigan ($422,038). This places him ahead of Alan Cranston, Frank Lautenberg, Howard Metzenbaum, Tom Daschle and former Senator Rudy Boschwitz. In 1989-90 alone, Harkin received the second-largest sum of PAC money, $245,550, ranking behind Paul Simon ($262,655) in pro-Israel largesse.

With his so-called populist campaign so dependent on such beneficence, it makes one wonder just how Tom will come down on the very critical issue of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. I think his grass-roots credentials have been tainted by a nation whose human rights record leaves much to be desired.

James Toth, Somerville, MA

Does Congress Represent US or Israel?

To The Tennessean, Sept. 20, 1991

First, we saw the arrogance of Israel's Yitzhak Shamir when he asked the US Congress to consider a $10 billion loan to resettle Russian Jews after President Bush had asked him to delay this request.

Then we saw the president stand up to this defiance and inform Congress he would veto the measure if passed. In spite of this, about 1,200 pro-Israel lobbyists are in Washington trying to work their will on the Congress. We will see if the US Congress represents America or Israel.

Few Americans are aware of Sec. 529, Public Law 10 1-513, commonly referred to as the "Cranston amend ment." It states in part "...it is the policy and intention of the United States that the funds provided in annual appropriations for the Economic Support Fund which are allocated to Israel shall not be less than the annual debt repayment (interest and principal) from Israel to the United States..."

So, we lend money to Israel and then annually provide the funds to pay back our own money. Should this $10 billion loan guarantee come to pass, there is no doubt this outrageous demand will be added to the national debt. It's time for the US Congress to vote for America ... for a change.

Andrew M. Dolan, Crossville, TN

Guarantees Could Cost $117 Billion

To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 16, 1991

Douglas Jehl and Norman Kempster's article about President Bush's decision to delay Israel's $10-billion loan guarantee request for 120 days requires clarification. They wrote that "the plan would cost the American taxpayers nothing as long as Israel repays the loans." This is simply untrue.

One cost is the amount of loan reserves that must be set aside in case Israel defaults on the loans. The Office of Management and Budget has yet to determine the actual amount that must be set aside. The reserves would be real monies and would constitute a cost to the taxpayer. A second cost is administrative—the costs of simply operating and monitoring the program over its 30-year life span. The figures that I have seen indicate that these administrative costs could vary between $40 million and $140 million per year.

If Israel defaults on the loan guarantees, then the US taxpayer will have to pick up the tab. The total cost may then run as high as $112 billion to $117 billion (average 8.6 percent interest rate). For those who maintain that the chances that Israel would default are negligible because Israel has never defaulted on any loans, I must point out that the only reason that Israel has never defaulted on a loan is because either Congress forgave the debt or because Congress gave Israel the money with which to pay its US debts.

Arch Miller, Arcadia, CA

Should America Co-sign Israel's Loans?

To The Washington Post, Sept. 19, 1991

Israel and its supporters have characterized the $10 billion US loan guarantees Israel seeks as humanitarian assistance and have resisted any linkage with Israel's construction of illegal settlements in the occupied territories or with the peace process. They also maintain that the influx of immigrants will spur economic growth sufficient to compensate for the debt burden that will result from these and other loans to be requested from European banks. The facts do not support such a conclusion.

Israel's credit-worthiness is shaky. The US government would be, in effect, cosigning a loan for Israel. If Israel defaults, the loans will be paid off by the American taxpayer. Israel claims that its repayment record is perfect. What is not said is that Israel's ability to make these payments is the result of a 1984 law known as the Cranston Amendment that guarantees that US assistance to Israel does not fall below the amount Israel owes the United States in scheduled repayments of past debt. In fact, we are already financing Israel's ever increasing debt.

In addition to the $1.2 billion that Israel depends upon for its annual economic aid from the US, it also receives an additional $1.8 billion—all from American taxpayers. The net effect of granting the loan guarantee is the acceleration of Israel's economic dependency on the United States.

Israel stresses that the only loan-guarantee cost to the US is a small administrative fee mandated by the Credit Reform Act of 1992. But the fee, otherwise known as the "rate of subsidy," has not yet been calculated and may not be so small. Indications are that the Office of Management and Budget will recommend a high rate of subsidy, $800 million or more. This amount will be placed "on budget," requiring money to be taken from other programs to compensate, or requiring Congress to pass legislation raising the budget limit.

There is an unmistakable connection between massive Soviet immigration to Israel and increases in settlement activity in the occupied territories. Israel has confiscated nearly 60 percent of the land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It is rapidly creating a network of settlements designed to make negotiations based on the principle of land for peace almost impossible. In fact, these loan guarantees will provide Israel the funds with which to complete the colonization of the occupied territories in contravention of our long-standing foreign policy.

An opportunity for peace in the Middle East exists today because of American efforts. It would be a tragic mistake to act in a manner harmful to those efforts. I support our president's request for a delay on these loan guarantees in order to give peace a chance.

Rep. Nick J. Rahall, II (D-WV), Washington, DC

Defending Bush

To the Washington Jewish Week, Sept. 26, 1991

I am distressed at your recent treatment of President Bush. As all insiders know, the mass immigration of Ethiopian Jews would not have taken place without him. Yet I have heard many say quietly (and at least one Israeli official say publicly) that the president is an anti-Semite.

You are tactful enough not to make the anti-Semite charge. But in your editorial, you say that the president made "an appeal to the basest anti-Israel sentiments in this country. " Your Washington Watch correspondent, Doug Bloomfield, says, "Bush declared war on Israel."

I believe that the Bush position is principled: he wants peace in the Middle East and knows that the settlements in the West Bank are not only an obstacle to peace but are also morally wrong. In fact, during the Days of Awe, as our religion dictates, the Israeli government should have asked the Palestinians for forgiveness (for the unexcused killings, for example). Instead they announced to the world they would continue to build new settlements.

As for the argument that the loan guarantees are humanitarian aid, let's be honest with ourselves. If foreign aid were based on humanitarian concerns, Israel and Egypt would not receive the bulk of it. The crying need for humanitarian assistance now is for Liberian and other African refugees, the millions suffering from famine, the thousands left homeless by floods in Bangladesh, the Vietnamese expatriates living in cells in such civilized places as Hong Kong, and (yes) the downtrodden in our own inner cities.

"Humanitarian aid" is generally political. And in that time-honored tradition, the Bush administration wants to provide the housing guarantees for partly political ends freezing the West Bank settlements, thereby bringing the Middle East closer to peace. As an added dividend to Israel, the freeze would be conditioned on the end of the Arab economic boycott.

I went to the Soviet Union three times on behalf of Soviet Jews and was active in the Ethiopian Jewry movement as early as the 1970s (when most American Jews did not even know of the existence of Ethiopian Jews). I desperately want the housing guarantees. And I support a freeze of new settlements on the West Bank to expedite them.

I have also been to Israel five times and know there is no need for the new settlements. The same economic incentives that make settlements on the West Bank attractive could be used to attract settlers to the mostly Arab Galilee. Most settlers are not ideologues but simply cannot afford housing anywhere but in the West Bank.

Community leaders should talk to younger Jews. I do not know if I have talked to a representative sample, but those I have conversed with oppose the settlements, support "land for peace" and view Israel as an oppressor. Sociological studies I have read clearly show that the younger you are, the less you identify with Israel.

For Judaism to thrive in America, Israel must again become the light among nations. President Bush's efforts to bring this about should be (even if only quietly) applauded, not publicly attacked. The Israeli government's actions that threaten the guarantees should be (at least quietly) criticized.

Edward Eitches, Falls Church, VA

An Even Tougher Stand

To the St. Petersburg Times, Sept. 16, 1991

Re: "Bush: Delay Israel Package," Sept. 7.

I would change just one word of the above headline. Make "delay" "cancel."

Also note, and I quote, "Foreign Minister David Levy said Israelis would live on bread and salt rather than compromise its security for US aid. " Good! Many people in the United States are doing that now. Think what these billions of dollars could do here in our own country.

Dorothy E. Karkheck, Palm Harbor, FL

The Bryant Amendment

To Paul S. Larudee, Richmond, CA, Aug. 13, 1991

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for my amendment to the Foreign Assistance Authorization bill for fiscal years 1992 and 1993.

I believe the policy of the Likud government of Israel to rapidly expand settlements in the West Bank and Gaza is a serious threat to Israel, is wrong, is an obstacle to peace, and endangers America's reputation for fairness.

I offered my amendment because it is no longer possible not to conclude that these settlements are wrong. They are wrong because it is always wrong to take the land of a neighboring people, because this policy is undermining the historic American consensus of support for Israel, and because they constitute a serious obstacle to peace, which is the only way to ensure Israel's security .

The principal obstacles to peace in the region remain, of course, the refusal of the Arab regimes to recognize Israel, to negotiate with Israel, and to abandon their economic boycott of companies that do business with Israel. But the Likud government cannot use these adverse circumstances to justify creating an additional obstacle.

I submit that the US has an obligation not only to spend tax dollars for Israel's benefit, but to spend a little of our own political capital to protect the moral foundation upon which support of Israel has always rested, to protect the people of Israel from an ill-conceived policy of the Likud government, to protect the reputation for fairness of the United States, and to protect the possibility of peace in the Middle East.

Rep. John Bryant (D-TX), Washington, DC

Why Didn't You Support Bryant?

To the Honorable George Miller, US House of Representatives, Washington, DC, Aug.26, 1991

Since you voted against Congressman Bryant's amendment, I would be interested to know in what ways you disagree with his position, as articulated in the enclosed.

Paul S. Larudee, Richmond, CA

Thanks For Your Support

To Paul S. Larudee, Richmond, CA, Aug. 15, 1991

This is to acknowledge and thank you for your August 5 letter which I received in my office on August 13.

Please know that I appreciate your expression of gratitude for my recent Yes vote on the Bryant Amendment to the foreign aid authorization bill. You were thoughtful to take the time to comment as you did, and I appreciate it. I hope I can merit your continued confidence.

With best wishes for you, I am

Rep. Carroll Hubbard (D-KY), Washington, DC

The State Department Agrees

To the Honorable Dante B. Fascell, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, Aug. 13, 1991

The Administration strongly supports the principles expressed in House Concurrent Resolution 43, which expresses the sense of the Congress that Israel should take immediate steps to reopen all the universities in the West Bank and Gaza. We have urged the Israeli government on several occasions to reopen the universities as expeditiously as possible. The Administration supports the adoption of this resolution.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Janet G. Mullins, Asst. Secretary, Legislative Affairs, US Department of State, Washington, DC

Foreign Influence

To The Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1991

The Sept. 19 letters to the editor concerning the loan guarantee for Israel were illuminating in what they said, but disappointing in what they did not say. None of the writers noted the egregious effrontery shown by Israel—a foreign government—in its brazen attempt to influence Congress. It offended me.

It is true that those individuals who came to Washington by the busload to lobby their senators and representatives are American citizens, and they are therefore entitled to express their views to their elected representatives. Nevertheless, it is outrageous that this enterprise was conceived, planned and staged by a foreign government.

Edmund Wellington Jr., Bethesda, MD

Anti-Arab Myths

To The New York Times, Aug. 29, 1991

Several articles on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International have made references to "Arab" or "Islamic" involvement with the bank in a manner reminiscent of the anti-Semitic assumptions about Jewish money's controlling various financial institutions.

For example, one need only refer to your August 1 front-page story reporting on a "group of Arab agents who acted on behalf of BCCI." Had the word "Arab" been replaced with "Jewish," the repugnancy of such a statement would be self-evident.

The "Arabs, " who number more than 200 million, have about as much to do with BCCI or any other financial institution as "Americans" have to do with crack cocaine.

The bank's case should be tried in the courts on the legal merits and not in the media on scurrilous innuendoes of ethnicity or religion.

For too long, the Arab image has been violated and stereotyped, usually by those either politically or racially motivated. The New York Times should not add insult to injury, wittingly or not, in perpetuating anti-Arab myths.

Albert Mokhiber, President, American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Washington, DC

We Owe Seven-Day Week to Babylonians

To The New York Times, Aug. 25, 1991

Your book review of Witold Rybczyns Waiting for the Weekend discusses his preoccupation with the idea of the week and weekend. Sometimes it is a shock to discover how much of one's ordinary expectations are not necessarily part of a natural order, but products of human invention. So it is with the week. Long known in anthropology as an invention of the ancient Near East, the seven-day week was discussed as an item of cultural diffusion as early as the time of A. L. Kroeber.

A more thorough investigation was made by Prof. Daniel McCall of Boston University in the 1970s. He found that the seven-day week was Babylonian in origin, the names of the days of their week being connected to seven gods, themselves connected to seven heavenly bodies, whose influence moved in a cycle that had consequences for human activities. Here lay the birth of astronomy and its more conservative twin astrology.

By contrast, for example, West Africans had a four-day week, based on a cycle of market days. Professor McCall also found that the notions of 3 and 7 as sacred numbers arose in Babylon, coming down to us in the same inherited cultural package.

Mr. Rybczynski might also have asked why hours have 60 minutes and minutes 60 seconds and circles 360 degrees. All these were products of the old Babylonian 20 system, still surviving in French 80 (quatre-vingt or four 20s), ultimately replaced by the Roman decimal system. I have known civil engineers who went nearly crazy upon hearing that a circle did not have 360 degrees! Yet in Norway, one can use a circle with 100 degrees.

Harold C. Fleming, Pittsburgh, PA