December 1995, Pages 43-46

Other People's Mail

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

A Demeaning Act as Mayor

To the "Mayor" of New York City, Oct. 25, 1995

What a despicable, disgusting, disappointing and demeaning act on your part.

Your political pandering in expelling President Arafat from a concert for world leaders is the most asinine and absurd action, obviously taken to satisfy and encourage fanatical terrorism through stupidity and naíveté. It is truly unreal and unsettling to think that a person of such ilk occupies any position of leadership in the United States of America.

With utmost disgust and Shame on you.

Nick J. Rahall, II, Member of Congress (D-WV)

An Open Letter to Giuliani

To the Honorable Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of New York, Oct. 27, 1995

The whole world heard about the concert at which the New York Philharmonic Orchestra performed for the leaders of the world. Indeed it was an important and prestigious event. The news about not welcoming Mr. Yasser Arafat overshadowed all of the social and political aspects of the concert. Three main topics remained in the memory: Mr. Arafat; Beethoven's Ninth Symphony—including the "Ode to Joy," the text of which is dedicated to the promulgation of Brotherhood—and you, Mr. Giuliani.

Your decision not to welcome the leader of the Palestinian people to enjoy the concert leaves moderate and reasonable people in a state of confusion. The Palestinian people have also undergone great hardships to work for peace. As you know, Mr. Arafat has always been at risk to lead the Palestinian people in their quest for peace. As such, to demean him in a personal way is to malign the Palestinian people and their culture, as well as the peace efforts. Your actions only fuel the unreason and the negative voices in your city as well as in the world at large. In the judgment of many people, your action in this matter takes us back to the unpleasant history of hatred and bloody confrontations. Don't we all love and promote peace? Don't we all sacrifice for peaceful solutions all over the world? The Palestinian people do.

As the conductor and music director of the Galilee Orchestra, it is our hope to perform in the near future Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. We hope to dedicate the concert to the peace lovers including Mr. Arafat. We also hope that you will be among our invited guests.

Nabil Azzam, Conductor/Music Director, The Galilee Orchestra, Nazareth, Israel

(See page 14 for a report on Mr. Azzam and the Galilee Symphony Orchestra.)

From David to Goliath

To President Bill Clinton, Washington, DC, Aug. 17, 1995

Reading in today's New York Times that the Israeli government has reaffirmed the use of "torture" to elicit information from Palestinian suspects (I needn't remind a lawyer that—at least in this country—a suspect has only an unproven charge against him), the following questions occur to me.

Why does the United States contribute fully 30 percent of its annual foreign aid to a country that regularly detains suspects without charge, regularly employs torture, and regularly seizes their lands and property?

Why do we characterize a country that follows these practices as a democracy?

Is there a connection between the conduct of the Israeli authorities vis-â-vis the disenfranchised Palestinian minority and the slow but steady transformation of that minority into an increasingly outraged, action-prone group?

How is it that Israel is consistently portrayed in the American press as a little, embattled country—the boyish David—even though it long ago became Goliath?

Yours sincerely, John K. McDonald, New Haven, CT

Forced Confessions

To the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Sept. 1, 1995 (as published).

Thank you for the splendid editorial Aug. 28 on Israel's use of torture to extract information from Palestinian prisoners. It is past time for the United States to apply to Israel the same standards regarding human rights that it applies to other countries. For too long the United Staes has not only turned a blind eye to abuses committed by Israel, but it continues to pay for them with disproportionate financial aid to the small nation of Israel.

I am convinced that a far better way to ensure the security of Israel is to deal with the issue of settlements soon. With all the talk about ensuring the safety of the settlers and building separate roads for them on Palestinian land, we seem to have forgotten that the settlements are illegal. In the past, the United States occasionally protested the building and expansion of settlements. I haven't heard any of that lately. On the contrary, I fear there is an assumption that the settlements, "facts on the ground," are there to stay. If so, I do not see how there can be a just peace with security for Israel and the Palestinians.

Florence Steichen, St. Paul, MN

A Hollow Slogan

To the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Sept. 1, 1995 (as published).

The Israeli government now says it's OK to "force confessions" from suspects in terrorist investigations? It also says it will not prosecute the soldiers responsible for the ultimate war crime of murdering prisoners because of the statute of limitations? This is the same country known for its diligent investigation of crimes against humanity engineered by the Nazis more than 50 years ago. The slogan "never forget" rings kind of hollow, don't you think?

James Gustafson, Mounds View, MN

Thanks For Your Column

To the Southwest Times Record, Ft. Smith, AR, June 30, 1995 (as published).

Thank you for publishing Leonard Larsen's "Israel Escapes the Budget Cutting" in your May 21 issue. At last we have a columnist who explains in the clearest of terms how Israel's partisans in this country—which includes nearly every politician—have bamboozled us taxpayers on behalf of Israel and themselves. It's an outrage!

H.L. Overdiek, Hopkins, MN

Tired Old Propaganda

To the Orlando (FL) Sentinel, Oct. 3, 1995 (as published).

Cal Thomas, in his Sept. 20 column, seems like a clone of Abe Rosenthal of the New York Times. The tired old propaganda parroted by Thomas is long on bombast and devoid of the truth.

Israel's only hope of a lasting peace is reaching an agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization and its Arab neighbors sooner rather than later.

Sometime in the future Israeli control of our Congress will end and with it the $6.3 billion per year U.S. taxpayers give them. This ill-gotten, undeserved largess is the sole reason for the Israelis' arrogant, obnoxious behavior these past 47 years.

Ted Byrd, Merritt Island, FL

Peace Must Be a Two-Way Process

To the Grand Rapids (MI) Press, Oct. 1, 1995 (as published).

Cal Thomas's Sept. 21 column rightly pointed out the concerns of many for the mean rhetoric of Yasser Arafat against the nation of Israel. As one who prays for the peace of Jerusalem, I too am disturbed about the current Israel-Palestine conflict.

Yet one must ask the question: "Why does animosity exist between these two peoples?" Certainly neither of them have been good neighbors, as one can ascertain from the reports of journalists, Amnesty International, other human rights groups, the United Nations and the U.S. State Department. While Palestinian children were throwing stones at Israeli soldiers and Hamas continues to mastermind much of the terrorism against the Israelis, the other side is not without its share of faults.

Do a people who have been living in a land for the last several centuries not have the right to self-determination and possession of what they consider their homeland? Repeated U.N. resolutions have said yes to these questions since 1948. Would such a people appreciate release of their political prisoners, a curtailment of curfew and collective punishment, a guarantee to continued existence and worship in East Jerusalem, a control over their own water supply and a feeling of security from the threat of Jewish settlers in their territories?

Peace is never a one-way street unless one is an uncontested victor from warfare. Certainly one must be willing to make concessions in order to have reconciliation. While Cal Thomas believes the current peace agreement is not in Israel's best interests, perhaps he does not know that according to the current peace agreement, it is the Palestinians who will come up short on many of the above-mentioned issues.

If the Jewish settlers continue to remain in the West Bank, if they continue to bear arms and if Israel continues to build settlements on Palestinian territory, what should we expect from the peace process?

Fred Karlson, Grand Rapids, MI

The Fleecing of America

To Tom Brokaw, NBC News, New York, NY, Aug. 16, 1995

Your evening newscast is the best; we watch you (or Bryan Williams) every night of the week. But, to save you time, let me address your interesting segment on the Fleecing of America. People need to know more about this!

If you want to get into a real "fleece" upon our citizenry, I think we can engender some interest on your part simply by revealing that the annual fleecing in this category amounts to between $5 billion and $8.3 billion—and that has been the case just about every year for the last 10 years!

Let's turn to the wide screen of foreign aid appropriations. Herein lies the crux of the fleecing to which I refer. Did we not just recently "forgive" the old Egyptian debt to America, in the amount of $7 billion? And we still appropriate $2 billion annually to that state.

Israel is another story. Two years ago our "gift" to Israel topped $6.3 billion (including military aid).

Then we wonder why radical Muslims oppose Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza! It was our tax money that made it possible for the settlements to be built in the first place!

So it's more than simply a "fleecing" of America; it creates the very conditions in the Middle East that we claim to abhor—terrorism, and on both sides! In essence, by sending all that money, we've delayed, if not put off, the long-term peace process!

I'm sure you'll want to check my story out before trying to include the figures in a future "fleecing" segment, but you may find that your top executives would prefer not having this particular "fleecing" segment appear at all. That alone should engender much more interest on your part. I certainly hope so!

Walter Koehler, Littlefield, TX

U.S. Shouldn't Aid Israel

To the Bremerton (WA) Sun, May 6, 1995 (as published).

How ironic! Vice President Al Gore warning Yasser Arafat to crack down on terrorists in a country that was born of Israeli terrorism some 48 years ago.

If Arafat can't control the actions of a desperate people who have had their land stolen, their homes destroyed and their children shot, he'll not get $73 million to clean up Gaza, the hell hole Israel created and doesn't want. Yet Israel receives $73 million from the U.S. every five days!

The peace process is a sham. While Palestinian leaders thought they were negotiating an end to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the Israeli government was busy confiscating at least 27 square miles of Palestinian territory, building new settlements in violation of its agreement with the U.S., and constructing sophisticated highway systems to further isolate the Palestinians.

Last September a poll by the Wirthlin Group revealed that 64 percent of Americans want to phase out financial aid to Israel. Enough is enough.

Lauralee Hanson, Bremerton, WA

Your Reply Shocked Me

To Vice President Al Gore, Washington, DC, Oct. 19, 1995

Your letter of reply to Edna Homa, reprinted in the Oct./Nov. edition of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs [concerning cancellation of the appointment of Richard Marius] "shocked" me in two ways:

First, I don't believe that hiding behind "long-standing policy" is an advertisement for intellect! Thomas Jefferson advised us that each generation should make its own rules—and not, in effect, suffer government from the grave! (And, if we want the Office of the Vice-President to operate on the basis of "long-standing policy," maybe we don't need the expense of an incumbent; we can just pull out of the file any "long-standing policy" that we need!)

Second, I don't like the idea of a public official in a democracy who doesn't "comment" on personnel matters. As a former Equal Employment Opportunity counselor in the federal government I can assure you that lesser lights in the federal system are required to "comment" (and more!) on personnel matters!

I can see no justification for a "no comment policy," whether or not "long-standing," on any aspect of your Office other than the need at some point—past, present or future—to cover up some dark deed! If there is another justification, I am sure that many of us who contribute to your salary would like to hear it!

Roger D. Leonard, Bowie, MD

Why Don't You Show Integrity?

To The Hon. Pete Domenici, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, Oct. 24, 1995

Subject: Senate Bill S1322

Text: We have today sent the following fax message to Senators Abraham, Byrd, Chaffee, Hatfield and Jeffords:

"We congratulate you on the integrity and devotion to our nation's interests demonstrated by your refusal to join the 93 senators who voted to pass S1322, directing the U.S. Embassy to be moved to Jerusalem. We believe history will not fail to demonstrate the folly of that narrowly self-serving and politically inspired legislation."

We deeply regret that the vote of our own senator from New Mexico precluded our directing a similar expression to you.

Mr. and Mrs. George Luecker, Albuquerque, NM

International Illogic

To The Washington Post, Oct. 11, 1995 (as published).

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has asked President Clinton for clemency for Jonathan Pollard, now serving a life term for spying against the United States for Israel ["Rabin Appeals for Spy," news story, Sept. 30].

Mr. Rabin insists that Israel has never spied on the United States and that Mr. Pollard was engaged in a "rogue" operation. Why, then, does Mr. Rabin care what happens to Mr. Pollard?

Nathaniel, S. Preston, Washington, DC

A National Bias is Obvious

To Mr. Charles William Maynes, Editor, Foreign Policy, Washington, DC, Oct. 22, 1995

I worked under your supervision briefly in the fall of 1979 as the NEA advisor to USUN when you were assistant secretary for U.N. Affairs. I enjoyed and learned from the experience, and I remember in particular your deft handling of the congressional delegates during the briefing sessions in Washington. And your name comes up here often because you have an aunt active in UNA-Minnesota and in the local Committee on Foreign Relations.

So I am particularly grieved that you printed Dr. Yossi Shain's essay on America's "multicultural" foreign policy in your Fall edition. First, because I think any non-American writer on this subject, whatever the nationality of the writer, would naturally have a national bias. Secondly, because, with a few exceptions, Dr. Shain's essay presented mainly arguments against hyphenated-American foreign policy lobbies until his surprise conclusion that the lobbies were good for America. (And, of course, good for Israel, good for Greece, good for Irish Republicans, etc.) His conclusions argued against the substance of his essay.

I would certainly agree that American ethnic groups have long been a factor in American foreign policy. My own group, Irish-American, is a prime example. But has Irish-American lobbying ever advanced the American national interest, or for that matter the cause of a united Ireland? Given our particularist ethnic and religious ties in Irishness and the Roman Catholic church, is it good for either us or for America if we allow a foreign war to divide us from other Americans?

Did the Greek-American lobby in its opposition to our aid to Turkey advance our American national interests in the Cold War? And, of course, since Dr. Shain advances a multi-ethnic view of American democracy, we must ask whether American support of Israel is designed to unite the American-Jewish community or to support American national interests in the Middle East.

We could share an American heritage and American nationalism while still cherishing the cultural traditions of particular ancestral heritages. But can we remain one nation with—as of today—185 different American foreign policy views dividing us?

C. Patrick Quinlan, Edina, MN

Agrees With Wu

To The Jewish Week, New York , Sept. 15, 1995 (as published).

Chinese human rights advocate Harry Wu is precisely on target in calling on Israel to cease military sales and services to China ("Don't Sell Arms To Tyrants," Sept. 1). His analogy to selling arms to Hitler is not unfair.

He uses it because he says as survivors of the Shoah, today's Jews should feel a special sense of connection with struggles against tyrants who indulge in widespread and severe human rights violations. The Torah says no less than 36 times that we should remember that we were strangers in the land of Egypt and must not oppress the stranger. The Torah demands this sensitivity. Is that a double standard as regards Jews and the State of Israel? It sure is, and as a Jew it is one that I am proud of.

The ugly fact is that Israel has a long history of providing military hardware and services to a long list of regimes guilty of oppressing their own people. The list includes Gen. Ky's Vietnam, South Africa, Somoza's Nicaragua and the Iran of the Shah—even the Ayatollah. In the days of Israel's diplomatic isolation, its response to criticism of this practice was, "We take our friends where we can find them." This is hardly an excuse today—if it ever was.

It is high time for Israel to take a close look at the morality of its involvement in the international arms trade. The Uzi has been a symbol of repressive governments for too long.

Rabbi Philip Bentley, President, The Jewish Peace Fellowship, Nyack, NY

The Lingering Image of Arafat

To The Washington Post, Oct. 21, 1995, (as published).

When Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat came for a meeting at your paper, I hoped it would provide an opportunity to break down the myths and stereotypes that have long misinformed America's perception of the Palestinian people and their leadership. From the three articles that appeared in your paper in the week following, it is clear that writers Thomas Lippman ["The Domesticated Revolutionary," Style, Sept. 30], Jim Hoagland ["Arafat's Latest Reinvention," op-ed, Oct. 5] and Stephen Rosenfeld ["Question for Arafat," op-ed, Oct. 5] have a long way to go.

Rosenfeld hit on an important point when he noted "that Arafat is still on the defensive...much of diplomacy is devoted to getting your agenda established as the one that must be tended to first." This defensiveness directly follows from the asymmetry of power that has long characterized the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this asymmetry works on a deeper level as well: The hegemonic influence of pro-Israel politicians and pundits has created asymmetries in perception and even of compassion.

Neither Arafat nor the Palestinians have been understood or portrayed on their own terms. The basis of this negative image campaign lies not primarily in an opposition to terrorism—a weapon to which Israel and its leaders have also resorted when it suited their purposes. Rather, at issue is the refusal to accept Palestinian rights. For two decades the Palestinian leaders were objects of "taboo" in the United States. There was legislation forbidding their entrance into the country and outlawing official contact with them. U.S. political leaders who braved simple discourse with the PLO saw their political careers end in ruin. The logic behind the Israeli insistence on a "no talk" policy with the PLO was best described by Yitzhak Rabin. Speaking in Washington in 1985, he stated that his objection to U.S. contact with the PLO was that "whoever agrees to talk to the PLO means he accepts, in principle, the creation of a Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan." And this, he noted, Israel would never accept.

Now Rabin and Shimon Peres have recognized Palestinian rights and moved toward peace—but the legacy of the decades-long campaign lives on in the continuing vilification of Palestinian leaders with tired clich¡s.

Lippman, for example, describes Arafat as "once the living symbol of terrorism" as if that were a universally accepted truth. But that biased view was only accepted in the United States, where it had been hammered home with such intensity and repetition that it came to be believed. In most of the world's capitals, including those of many of our European allies, Arafat has been accorded the respect of a head of state.

It is true that the PLO did condone and commit acts of terrorism. It is also true that Palestinians and Lebanese have their memories of Israeli acts of terrorism. As Egypt's late President Anwar Sadat pointed out almost two decades ago, both sides have their history of pain. In their historic handshake, not only Rabin but Arafat also had to muster the courage to forgive his former enemy. The issue for Israelis and Palestinians is not what their leaders were but what they are now committed to do.

Sadat's thesis, however, is apparently unacceptable to Hoagland. For him, Arafat is "the personification of Palestinian terrorism" and not to be trusted or believed. Arafat is now "Yasser Everyman" in Hoagland's eyes, a pathetic and deceitful figure cleverly manipulated by wise Israeli leaders who use him to serve their purposes. It is ironic how closely this portrait agrees with that of Arafat's secular and Islamic opposition.

Israel's opponents of peace have been systematically preying on this residual U.S. distrust of Arafat. They have taken to distributing excerpts of his speeches in an effort to discredit him and the peace process itself.

One such effort focuses on Arafat's use of the word "jihad." Rosenfeld is troubled by Arafat's use of the word and dissatisfied with the Palestinian leader's explanation of its meaning. In fact, however, Arafat's explanation that "jihad" means the "struggle to reconstruct life," the struggle to do good and confront evil, is both sound theology and good politics. To understand Arafat's speeches in Gaza, one must understand the deeper meaning of Islam's articles of faith and appreciate the daily reality of life in that impoverished and surrounded strip.

Arafat is speaking to a despairing and cynical constituency, angry after 28 years of occupation and frustrated by the continuing difficulties they face from the Israeli government. With more than 60 percent unemployment—higher than before the Declaration of Principles was signed two years ago—Gaza remains fertile ground for calls to violence. In an attempt to counter this call with the image of peace, Arafat adopts the religiously symbolic language of the opposition and restores its authentic meaning.

Arafat is not "winking at terrorism." He has cracked down, at times violating the political and civil rights of those who preach violence. Israel's leaders are convinced Arafat is sincere, but apparently Rosenfeld is not.

This has less to do with Arafat needing to further prove himself than with writers at your paper taking a long, hard look at their own failure to understand the extent to which their perceptions of the Palestinians and their leadership are still colored by past prejudice.

James J. Zogby, President, Arab American Institute, Washington, DC

Threatened by Act

To The Orlando Sentinel, May 11, 1995 (as published).

On behalf of the Arab-American community in Central Florida, allow me, please, to comment on the "Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995."

While we strongly condemn the horrible Oklahoma massacre and the brutal death of innocent children, parents and other Americans, we feel very hurt, humiliated and so threatened whenever any "terrorism" happens.

But what is most threatening is the dangerous "counter-terrorism" legislation, which is basically targeted against the Arab Americans, and our civil liberties and rights as Americans.

This legislation would criminalize legitimate giving, violate due process of law and reintroduce the unconstitutional idea of "guilt by association" based on secret information—in secret actions—in which only President Clinton decides who is guilty and who is innocent. Furthermore this legislation would, in my opinion, create three classes of American citizens: citizens with full rights, Arab- and/or Muslim-Americans, and Green Card citizens with few and restricted rights.

Indeed, we strongly support legal actions against anyone or any group involved in attacks on innocent people. But strong laws exist already against such evil actions. Therefore we must all oppose this unfair and unconstitutional act.

Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL

Formula for More War

To The New York Times, Oct. 5, 1995 (as published).

The text of the accord on broad principles to govern a peaceful settlement in Bosnia, which we brokered between Bosnia, Croatia and Yugoslavia (the Serbs), and which you published Sept. 27, contains just the opposite of what President Clinton so proudly proclaimed.

Under this accord Bosnia is to consist of two substates, the Bosnian-Croatian federation and the Republika-Srpska (Bosnian Serbs).

Two-thirds of the parliament and two-thirds of the collective presidency are to be assigned to the federation. One-third goes to the Republika-Srpska created by the indicted war criminals Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. The Karadzic-Mladic third is given a veto over all acts of state.

Net result: a sham of a government. The patient is sewed up with the bone left in his throat.

This United States-sponsored accord does not promote Bosnian unity, but division on ethnic lines. It is not designed for peace but for gridlock and continued war. It is the bitter fruit of our caving in to the ethnic cleansers and the administration's support of apartheid as the way to peace in Bosnia!

Robert H. Silk, New York, NY

Tight Security in Marzieh Debut

To the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 2, 1995 (as published).

If you can imagine the painting "Liberty Leading the People" springing to life, you can get some idea of the galvanizing impact the singer Marzieh made on a largely Iranian audience Saturday at the Pantages Theater in Hollywood. And why the current regime in Iran regards her as dangerous.

At 71, Marzieh is already a musical icon, having embodied the spirit of Persian classical songs for more than 50 years. But with her defection in 1994, after 15 years first of government-imposed and then self-imposed silence in opposition to the mullahs, she upped the ante by joining the Mojahedin Khalq, a leftist resistance group. So the concert, her first in the United States, became a political as well as a musical event.

Security was tight. Everyone had to pass through metal detectors, which delayed the program about 45 minutes.

Marzieh entered to tremendous applause, which redoubled when she kissed one of the Iranian flags at the side of the stage. At the break, when people carried flowers to her, one man knelt and kissed her hand, as did a young violinist when she distributed the flowers to the orchestra.

Marzieh often looked austere and imposing, but the years vanished when she smiled or sang of a young woman's longing. To a Western ear, her throaty mezzo ranged from the urgent expressivity of a flamenco singer, not yet in vocal tatters, to a more lyric lightness.

Her colleagues included Shapour Bastan-Siar, who led the orchestra with self-effacing authority; and Hamid-Reza Taherzadeh (playing Tar) and Kamyar Izadpanah (Santoor), who both offered virtuoso solo work.

Chris Pasles, Los Angeles, CA