What Well-Wishers Request in Open Letters to President-Elect Clinton

From a Saudi Intellectual: Continuity in U.S. Foreign Policy

Your Excellency:

Let me begin by congratulating you on winning the confidence of the American people. Whatever can be said or written about the circumstances that accompanied your path to the White House, the verdict of the electorate was decisively for change in all aspects of governance, including personnel, policies and working methods. It was domestic concerns that motivated the electorate, and we hope that you will meet with every success in achieving what you have promised your people in terms of new policies and remedial measures to restore to the United States of America the confidence and determination needed to play an effective role in a world peppered with disaster.

Your excellency, if it is your desire for change on the domestic level that has presented you with the keys to the White House, permit me to express my own hope that you will place equal emphasis on another goal expressed implicitly and explicitly in your statements: that is continuity in the policies of your predecessor on the international level. These are the wishes expressed by a great portion of the American people, whose concerns shifted away from every issue other than that of the American economy. These concerns were addressed in the slogan of a previous American election campaign: "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." Mr. President, it seems that history is repeating itself, for it was not the fear of war, cold or hot, that earned you the confidence of millions of your people. It was rather the current American preoccupation with "bread and butter issues" that guided your path to victory!

Your excellency, let us, therefore, assume that in dealing with international affairs you favor pursuing the political path of your predecessor. Foremost among those international concerns is the cause of peace in the Middle East, which has been the focus of intensive consultations and conferences over the past year. This in itself has given us, the people of this region, a feeling of cautious optimism that your administration will deal with our region realistically, seeking to strike the proper balance which ultimately will serve the principles of peace, justice and righteousness.

Permit me, your excellency, to add an additional consideration to those that I imagine, or hope, condition American policy in the Middle East. Achieving justice and peace in this part of the world will serve U.S. interests in the area. Foremost among considerations to achieve these interests are the following:

a. Continued tensions in the area will result in Israel continuing to be a military and economic burden on the American taxpayer, just as it is also a moral and ethical burden on the values and principles of the American people. This is attested by long years of experience during which Israel took from America more than it gave, if it gave anything at all!

b. Realization of a just peace in the region under U.S. auspices and with international support will be a tremendous asset for the international credibility of and respect for the American people and their government. It will enable your country to participate effectively in solving the problems of other trouble spots all over the world. This would enhance the principles and values which underpin the constitution of your ancestors and which champion liberty, human rights and human dignity. Nothing could reflect more positively or support more effectively America's present and future political and economic interests.

Sincerely,

Abdulrahman Alsadhan, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abdulrahman Alsadhan, secretary-general of Saudi Arabia's Civil Service Board, has for many years written a column in the Saudi weekly Al Yamana magazine. This open letter to President-elect Clinton was printed in one of his columns.

From a Military Retiree: A Mideast Policy in the U.S. National Interest

Dear Governor Clinton:

As a retired military man, I write to you with some trepidation. However, you are about to become our commander-in-chief. Then you will represent all Americans, not any special interests.

One area where you can do a great service for our country is in the Middle East. Our policies there, particularly concerning Israel and the Palestinians, have not served our national interests. I do not know if you read PPE [Philosophy, Politics and Economics] at Oxford (I did not receive a Rhodes but ended up as an Olmsted Scholar in France), but I feel sure you were taught that states do not have friends, they only have interests. One of your largest problems will be to try to screen out the emotions, special interests, and politics as you try to define the U.S. national interests.

The Palestinians have been grossly mistreated for many years and they deserve their own homeland, most of which has been taken from them. It is sad to see how Israel has become what it hated most: an arrogant, oppressive, outlaw state. Israel, which has so much talent, is a pariah state which exists only because of the lavish support it receives from the U.S.—more than any other country and more than states such as Arkansas.

This terrible behavior by a people who consider themselves basically ethical is beginning to be studied as a mental problem. It seems to some that "the entire Jewish community suffers from a collective case of post-traumatic stress disorder. Every Palestinian act of violence toward Israel triggers a group flashback to the Holocaust and all of the anger connected with it. This, in turn, causes Jews to react to Palestinians with a mixture of fear and rage, seeing them as Jew-hating Nazis rather than occupied people with legitimate grievances." (Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, "Breaking the Cycle of Abuse," the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Feb. 1992, p. 27.)

It is becoming more clear that abusers almost always turn out to be people who were themselves abused. I commend this magazine to you to give you access to facts that are not generally available in this country and to provide balance to your views.

You seem willing to listen to experts. I would suggest that you call in people like Ambassador Andrew Killgore and Richard Curtiss from the American Educational Trust, which publishes that magazine, or Ambassadors Richard Murphy or Roy Atherton, both former assistant secretaries of state for Near East and South Asian affairs, or many others who truly know the area and hold America's interests first. They would provide a more realistic appraisal for you than some of the people who are your advisers.

If you apply the zeal to this problem that you applied to your successful campaign, you would accomplish a major feat for America, and really for Israel too. You would be a true soldier of peace and would be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Sincerely,

Richard Hobbs, Sparks, Nevada

U. S. Army Col. Richard Hobbs was political-military adviser to the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs prior to his retirement.

From a Holy Land Jew: A Non-Sectarian Palestinian State

Dear President-elect Clinton:

We, the undersigned Jewish Palestinians, wish to acquaint you with the predicament we Jewish Palestinians—Neturei Karta (Guardians of the Holy City)—find ourselves in. Undoubtedly, you are cognizant of the situation of the indigenous Palestinian population, which has been under Zionist occupation ever since the Zionist occupiers declared their "independence" and established their state in 1948, and of the blatant violation of internationally recognized human rights of those under their occupation. We, the tens of thousands of the descendants of the Jewish Palestinians who arrived in the Holy Land centuries before the incursion of the Zionists into the Middle East, wish to inform you of the perilous situation we are encountering.

The Torah attests that God promised the Promised Land to the Jewish nation, on condition that they uphold His Will: His Commandments. He fulfilled His promise, but when the Jews forfeited this stipulation and sinned, they were expelled by Divine decree from the Land and were charged by Divine oath not to try God's temper by casting off the yoke of exile and taking over the rule of the Holy Land against the will of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. Violation of this oath will ultimately result in dire consequences. The Zionists are telling God, "It appears as if you are incapable of returning us to the Holy Land, so we'll just roll up our sleeves and take ourselves back." This audacity is endangering the Jewish people, as explicitly stated in the Talmud (Ketubot). According to Jewish theology, the Zionist state is considered a "heresy" and is forbidden to exist. We are to await the Messianic era, during which the Wisdom of God will be made known to all of mankind.

We beseech you, Mr. Clinton, to grant the Palestinians their independence and statehood, so that we, who chose to live in the Holy Land in order to serve God, and are now compelled to live under a sacrilegious rule, will be enabled to continue our residency in the Holy Land under a Kosher alternative government: the State of Palestine. Numerous Jews throughout the world are awaiting this opportunity, which will enable them to immigrate to the Holy Land and practice their religion in the nonsectarian State of Palestine, just as Jews live under non-Jewish governments throughout the world, the United States of America serving as exhibit A.

A delegation of Jewish Palestinians is now serving as advisers to the Palestinian delegation during the Middle East peace conference, now taking place in Washington, DC. We entreat you, Mr. Clinton, to give top priority to alleviate our plight, and that of the Palestinians under occupation, in due time, in order to prevent the Middle East from erupting, and thus involving the world in this catastrophe.

May God grant you success in all of your endeavors for seeking to uphold the rights of the oppressed, and may God bestow His Grace upon you and your future government, and upon all those under your rule. Amen.

Rabbi Moshe Hirsch

(In the name of the seven-man Neturei Karta Supreme Council)

This letter was first published in the Nov. 16, 1992 issue of Al Fajr newspaper, Jerusalem.

From an American Jewish Supporter: U.S. Pressure for Land For Peace

Dear President Clinton:

Last November more than 80 percent of Jewish voters cast their ballots for you. I happily contributed to that lopsided figure but urge you not to be misled by it. Your unqualified support for Israel was not a deciding factor. Contrary to what some pro-Israel lobbyists would have you believe, Jews are not single-issue voters. We worry about jobs, health care, the environment, and personal and religious freedom. Like most other Americans we supported you for a variety of reasons.

Many of us are traditional liberals, who were drawn by your pledge to bring Americans together and end the divisiveness of the Reagan and Bush administrations. We feared the Republican Party platform's promise of intrusion into our personal and religious lives and its narrow interpretation of "family values." We believed you and Mrs. Clinton would bring humanity back to the White House with your concern for the millions of Americans who suffer from inadequate health care, housing and education.

We wanted an end to the kind of government that wages covert wars in defiance of Congress and the Constitution, and that secretly arms dictators. We hoped that you would no longer regard the Mideast simply as a geopolitical arena and a lucrative market for U.S. arms. We hoped that your administration would make human rights a cornerstone of American foreign policy.

In addition to sharing these concerns, virtually all Jewish Americans want to see Israel survive as a secure and independent state, at peace with its neighbors. But here our unanimity ends. Our support for the state of Israel should not be interpreted as support for the policies of its government.

Despite the claims of leading Jewish organizations, Jewish Americans are by no means united in their views on the Israeli government's continued occupation of neighboring territory and its treatment of the Palestinians. Too often the organizations that purport to speak for all Jews on these issues are less concerned with finding a just solution to the Middle East conflict than with securing unconditional U.S. aid for whatever Israeli government happens to be in office. They represent only one segment of the Jewish community. I hope that as president you will listen to other voices as well.

Last spring, for instance, while the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was lobbying strenuously for $10 billion in U.S. Loan guarantees to Israel without the requirement of a settlement freeze called for by President Bush, polls showed that more than 60 percent of Jewish Americans (and 57 percent of Israeli Jews) favored such a freeze as a condition for the guarantees and nearly 70 percent approved the statement, "Israel should trade some land in the territories" in exchange for peace. Meanwhile, many of us were working through such organizations as the Jewish Peace Lobby, New Jewish Agenda, Friends of Yesh Gvul, and the International Jewish Peace Union in support of moderate Israelis and Palestinians who believe that Israel's survival as a democracy depends on its withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza.

Their fundamental premise, which I hope you will adopt as your own, is that ending the Middle East conflict is not a zero-sum game. There cannot be a winner and a loser, only winners or losers. Palestinians and Israelis must find a mutually acceptable way to live together in peace or they both may eventually perish. Moderates on both sides have long agreed that a peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians requires a settlement that recognizes the Palestinians' right to an independent state and guarantees secure borders for both peoples.

As president of the United States, you can play a crucial role in bringing about such a peace. The peace talks that began with such fanfare in Madrid a year and a half ago are at a standstill and will remain so without your intervention. The huge disparity in strength between the two sides makes it almost inevitable that Israel will refuse to grant concessions to the Palestinians unless it is pressured to do so. Meanwhile, as negotiations produce no results, and the hardships under occupation remain severe, more and more Palestinians are becoming disillusioned with the peace process. If the moderates fail and are supplanted by extremists there may soon be no one for Israel to negotiate with.

The cruel irony of this situation is that the longer their hopes are deferred, the more difficult it becomes for the Palestinians to maintain unity. Hard-liners in Israel and the U.S. then point to the resulting dissension as evidence that the Palestinians are incapable of self-government.

The problem is exacerbated because neither the U.S. nor Israel will talk to the Palestine Liberation Organization, the only organization that can legitimately claim to speak for the Palestinians. (In an election at Bir Zeit University last fall that was seen as an indication of popular sentiment on the West Bank, PLO supporters overwhelmingly defeated Islamic fundamentalists.) By re-establishing contact with the PLO you would not only help speed up the negotiating process but send a signal that the U.S. intends to act, at long last, as an evenhanded arbiter in that process.

U.S. recognition of the PLO would also help to end Israel's interference in the choice of Palestinian negotiators—a privilege that is unprecedented in the history of international peace negotiations and has caused unnecessary delays and disruption. Last fall, for instance, the Israeli delegation walked out of international talks on refugees because they objected to the Palestinian representative, Dr. Muhammad Hallaj. He is a distinguished political scientist who has lectured and taught at major American universities since receiving his Ph.D. at the University of Florida in 1956. The Israelis objected to him because, like Dr. Edward Said, who holds an endowed chair at Columbia, Hallaj was a member of the Palestine National Council. The episode cast serious doubt on Israel's sincerity in negotiating the refugee issue.

As an impartial facilitator of the peace talks, you will be in a position not only to discourage such delaying tactics but also to help end the violence that continues to plague the occupied territories. You can help persuade Palestinian and Lebanese militants that peace talks will bring an eventual end to the occupation, but only if Israel can be assured of secure borders. At the same time you can pressure Israel to stop torturing Palestinian prisoners, disband the roving death squads, end the bombing of southern Lebanon, and release the thousands of political prisoners now being held in preventive detention. These abuses serve only to increase bitterness and make reconciliation harder to achieve.

Amnesty International and other human rights groups have fully documented Israeli human rights violations. Yet the U.S. continues to send Israel nearly $6 billion a year in aid. There seems little reason why American taxpayers should be asked to subsidize a government that sanctions torture, whether it is in Israel or any other country. I count on your administration to give more than just lip service to human rights.

In becoming president of the world's one remaining superpower you have taken on what seem to be unsolvable problems, both at home and abroad. Settling the Middle East conflict is not one of them. If you will ignore the chorus of negative voices and consider the basic issue—the need to achieve a just compromise between two peoples who claim the same land—there is a solution. The Palestinians, through the PLO, have agreed to give up their claim to all the land that was once Palestine and in which, until 1947, they were the majority population. They are now willing to settle for a state of their own in 22 percent of that land, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

Palestinian aspirations for a nation of their own are not hard for me, as an American and as a Jew, to understand. The Jewish refugees who fled to Palestine to escape the Holocaust had the same aspirations. So did Americans in 1776.

Last Nov. 2, the day before your election, the Palestinian delegation's spokeswoman, Hanan Ashrawi, began a talk at Stanford University by jokingly apologizing to the audience for diverting it from the campaign. She then paused and added wistfully: "I envy you. What you take for granted every four years is all we are struggling for—the right to hold free elections, to choose our government."

She made it clear that although the Palestinians did not insist on a particular timetable, they would never settle for anything less. If peaceful negotiations fail, she warned, extremist violence will become uncontrollable.

Exactly a year earlier, in November 1991, an Israeli reserve officer expressed a similar message in a letter to The New York Times. After referring to the "devastating effect" on Israeli democracy of the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Shalom Lappin warned that "By incorporating a disenfranchised and hostile population into our country we are creating a basis for permanent and insoluble communal conflict." He concluded that "only a solution that will end our control of the territories will achieve the genuine peace that is our best hope for security."

It seems clear, Mr. Clinton, that the Palestinians' desire for self-determination and the Israelis' concern for peace and security are not incompatible. With the courage to be evenhanded, your administration can reconcile these goals and help to achieve them. Millions of Jewish Americans will support your efforts.

Sincerely,

Rachelle Marshall Stanford, CA