Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 1997, Pages 85-88

Other People’s Mail

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

The Ferocity of Rubber Bullets

To the New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 16, 1997 (as submitted).

On page A-26, Sunday, June 15 the Picayune carried a story detailing "the fiercest clashes in the West Bank in several weeks, hundreds of Palestinians threw stones and firebombs Saturday at Israeli troops, who responded with rubber bullets."

The ferocity of the Palestinian attack with stones and firebombs was immediately evident to Picayune readers.

But Picayune editors made no effort to explain the ferocity of "rubber bullets." The uninformed reader will think of a "rubber bullet" as something similar to a rubber desk eraser. As the enclosed Associated Press dispatch verifies, so-called "rubber bullets" can and do inflict fatal wounds. The inside of the bullet is a lead ball.

I am amazed that over the years the local news media have not felt it necessary to reveal to readers and viewers the deception involved in the unexplained use of the term "rubber bullets."

Elmo L. Romagosa, Harvey, LA

Rahall-Originated Har Homa Letter

To Mr. & Mrs. Teddy Byrd, Merrit Island, FL, Aug. 13, 1997

Thank you for your very kind letter to me in praise of the letter to President Clinton concerning the Har Homa settlements. I appreciate hearing from you.

I not only signed the letter to President Clinton (printed on page 48 in the Oct./Nov. Washington Report), I originated it and urged my colleagues in the House and Senate to cosign it with me. I am pleased that I was able to obtain 17 signatures on the letter. I am also pleased to enclose a copy of the president's response to my letter for your reference.

Again, thank you for writing, and please know that your support is deeply appreciated.

Nick J. Rahall, II, Member of Congress, Washington, DC

The President's Reply

To The Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, House of Representatives, June 17, 1997

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the Middle East peace process.

We have been unrelenting in our efforts to restore a credible negotiating process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As you suggest, this requires an end to the violence and re-establishing the necessary confidence level between the parties. Our recent contacts with the parties have focused on specific steps both sides could take to restore an atmosphere necessary for productive negotiations. As our discussions develop, we will keep your suggestions in mind.

I appreciate you sharing your concerns and recommendations and assure you that I will continue to do everything possible to promote a stable and peaceful Middle East.

Sincerely, Bill

The White House, Washington, DC

Albright Not Known for Diplomacy

To the International Herald Tribune, Aug. 17, 1997 (as submitted).

I always enjoy reading articles by Anthony Lewis, a savvy journalist. However, I am not sure I agree with his suggestion that, "Albright has a chance to fill the vacuum of leadership when she makes her planned trip to the Middle East." Albright, a political appointee, is not known for her outstanding diplomatic skills. More important, her pro-Israeli policy will only be matched by such one-sided former secretaries of state as Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig and George Shultz. Ian Williams, a British journalist and president of the United Nations Correspondents Association, went even further when he recently wrote in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "Since Albright's arrival [at the U.N.] the U.S. position in the U.N. has on some occasions been even more obdurantly pro-Israeli than the Israeli mission itself."

Understandably, diplomatic mediation in international relations presupposes reasonable neutrality and human compassion. Some diplomats who worked closely with Albright at the U.N. do not believe she possesses these qualities. A case in point: according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, as of 1996 more than half a million Iraqi children had died of disease since sanctions were imposed against Iraq. When Albright was questioned about the genocidal effects on "60 Minutes" she replied, "We think the price was worth it."

Mohamed Alwan, Altea (Alicante), Spain

The Roots of Violence

To The San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 11, 1997 (as published).

Barbara Bergen of the ADL (Letters, Aug. 6) is annoyed at The Chronicle's suggestion that Israel shares responsibility for bombs in the Jerusalem marketplace. Such violence was anticipated. Rafael Eitan, Israel's former general and now head of the Tsomet Party, had boasted in the Knesset a while back: "We will harass these Palestinians 'til they move like drugged cockroaches in a bottle."

Any chronically frustrated people deprived of land and water and employment, with homes demolished, protesting children shot in the street and fathers tortured in prison, will in time resort to violence. Israel's ongoing scenario: set the stage, then shout "terrorism" while demanding security, will continue as long as the honest brokers in Washington look the other way.

Edward W. Miller, M.D., San Rafael, CA

Why More U.S. Aid to Israel?

To USA Today, Sept. 8, 1997, (as published).

The lead editorial of Aug. 29 says there's no way Congress will give large amounts of money to make long-delayed repairs to maintain and preserve our national parks ("Public faces tough choices as parks decline, costs rise").

However, for 1998 Congress and the Pentagon want to give Israel $464 million more in aid, in addition to the $14 million U.S. taxpayers give Israel every day.

To make matters worse, the CIA and several other sources have caught Israel selling top-secret weapons and technology to China or to the highest bidder.

The big question is, how would you feel if sometime in the future you have a loved one shot down and killed by an enemy plane exactly like our F-16 fighter plane made from U.S. technology sold to China by Israel?

Tell your president and members of Congress to stop their spineless pandering to Israel and act in America's interests before it's too late.

Carl W. Greeley, Barefoot Bay, FL

"Mrs. Albright and the Chameleon"

To Mr. Jim Hoagland, The Washington Post, Aug. 24, 1997 (as submitted).

Your story, "Mrs. Albright and the Chameleon" [Yasser Arafat], instantly reminded me of another slippery-but-successful political leader:

Once when even she was thoroughly confused by the twists and turns of British foreign policy, Queen Victoria asked Prime Minister Disraeli: "Doesn't Great Britain have any permanent friends?"

"No madam," replied Disraeli. "No permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests."

I also seem to recall stories to the effect that when the Hamas movement began it was encouraged by Israel in various significant ways as a rival to the PLO—the old "divide and rule" game.

Is it, therefore, "sporting" of Israel and the United States to be critical of Hamas if their joint Frankenstein has turned on them?

Finally, might not both the PLO and Hamas dwindle into insignificance if a truly independent Palestinian state comes into existence?

Roger D. Leonard, Bowie, MD

Trust Needed in the Mideast

To The Chapel Hill (NC) News, Aug. 15, 1997 (as published).

Very few people would disagree with my friend Adam Goldstein that "the PLO must act against terror" (CHN, Aug. 13). But the focus on the recent awful bombing in Jerusalem needs to be supplemented by considering the wider context, and my guess is that many members of both the Jewish and non-Jewish community would wish to do so. No more than Southern Baptists do we Jews see complex issues the same way.

* Whether this terrible atrocity might have been prevented by the Palestinian Authority is just beginning to be investigated by a tripartite panel headed by a CIA official.

* Arab governments seeking most intensely to control terrorist activities have been unable to do so: e.g., Algeria and Egypt.

* But above all, the behavior of the present Israeli government—especially its settlement activities—has produced such a widespread degree of anger among Palestinians as to make it almost impossible for the Palestinian Authority to act as Israel's pick-up police of persons suspected of terrorism. Most aggravating, and deeply symbolic, is the projected settlement of Har Homa, a hill deep among Palestinian villages. It is part of Jerusalem only through an act of "administrative holiness," as a recent Israeli commentator put it: the arbitrary tenfold enlargement of the historic boundaries of Jerusalem. Invariably accompanying such settlements are the expropriation of land, and the destruction of homes and olive groves to build massive access roads. The clear implication—as Palestinians understandably interpret it—is that, the Oslo accords notwithstanding, these expensive settlements will not be subject to further negotiations.

This is the context within which Mr. Arafat's regrettable lack of anti-terrorism enforcement needs to be seen. Creating trust, as both Dr. Goldstein and I wish, has to involve stopping settlements and other provocative activities by the Israeli government.

Henry A. Landsberger, Chapel Hill, NC

Suicide Bombings: Assigning Blame

To the San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 6, 1997 (as published).

Regarding Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's pitiful and useless words after the bombs in the Mahane Yehuda marketplace: After months and months of slapping the Palestinian Arabs in the face and calling it a "peace process," after years and years of this hot and cold war to take more land and more water and more dignity from people whose roots are far deeper than his in Palestine, what did Netanyahu expect?

He said the militants who committed these desperate, awful murders are like "savage animals." What are we to say about military rulers and state officials in occupied Palestine who administer a bureaucracy of discrimination, obstruction and insult that would make the Nazis smile with approval?

Strangling regulations and Uzi-toting soldiers and settlers are like a cage where Arab dignity and hope are murdered every day, in small ways and large. Is this perhaps where the fury and suicidal desperation of "savage animals" is born?

It is clear that the "peace process" is simply war by other means, a way to ratchet forward the dispossession and erasure of the Arabs of Palestine that has been grinding on since 1973, and has been the dream of the Israeli leadership since the beginning. The blood in Mahane Yehuda is simply a cost of this policy, and as much as anybody's, that blood is on Netanyahu's hands.

Wake up, Israel, before you lose your soul.

Terrel Brand, Oakland, CA

Palestinian Suicide Bombers

To Mr. Michael Daly, Managing Editor, the Connecticut Post, Bridgeport, Aug. 9, 1997 (as submitted).

On Aug. 3, you wrote an article in which you described the two Palestinian suicide bombers as religious fanatics and subhumans because innocent people were killed in the bombing. First of all, the two men did not go on a suicide mission because they believed they would go to heaven. They used these desperate tactics simply because the Palestinians are a conquered and persecuted people and do not have access to modern weaponry such as tanks and planes. If they did have the same amount of weaponry they would have been able to fight a "modern civilized" war and been able to do to the Israelis what the Israelis have done to them.

According to Amnesty International, the first month of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 killed 15,000 people in which 80 percent were innocent civilians. In the last three decades since Palestinians have been involved in "terrorist activities," the most conservative estimate shows that the Israeli government has killed 100 times more Arab innocent civilians than the number of innocent Israelis killed by Arabs. The Israelis justify the large-scale slaughter of civilians by stating that they only target military bases.

The overwhelming number of innocent civilians have not been killed by guerrilla groups or extremists. Governments who use their military superiority to conquer and impose their will on others are the subhumans who are responsible.

Alfred Zakhour, Fairfield, CT

Irrational Reaction to Indefensible Bombing

To the San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 6, 1997 (as published).

Nothing could be as indefensible as setting off bombs filled with shrapnel among unsuspecting civilians, as two men did July 30 in Jerusalem. But Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's decision to punish two million Palestinians for the crime is irrational.

The Israeli government has sealed off Gaza and the West Bank, sent Palestinian workers home without pay, is forbidding Palestinians to travel even to transport food or provide medical care and has stopped payment of $25 million in taxes and fees owed to the Palestinian Authority.

Israeli warships are blockading the Gaza coast to prevent Gazans from fishing. This attempt to starve them out will only add to the misery of Palestinians already suffering severely because of repeated border closings and the continuing loss of their land to Israeli settlements.

As they are pressed harder and harder to the wall, many will lose faith in the peace process and give support to extremists.

The prime minister's persistent attempt to discredit Yasser Arafat, toward whom he has shown little but hostility and contempt since taking office last year, could backfire.

Flawed as he is, Arafat is the only credible leader the Palestinians have. If he and his colleagues are driven from office they will either be replaced by their more extreme opponents or there will be no firm leadership, only political chaos. Either outcome would lead to more of the irrational violence that has taken too many Israeli and Palestinian lives.

Israel's best chance of security still lies in making peace with the Palestinians. By treating all Palestinians as if they were guilty of terrorism, and forcing them to go hungry, Netanyahu is making this goal impossible to achieve.

Rachelle Marshall, Stanford, CA

Reconsider This Country's Policies

To President Bill Clinton, Washington, DC, Aug. 11, 1997

Once again I urge you to reconsider this country's policies in the Middle East.

How some religious and ethnic groups in Israel can justify stealing land from the Palestinians based on a promise from God of a holy land, is more than the rest of the world can accept.

The United States has clearly told the rest of the world by its constant support of Israel in the United Nations that our moral and ethical standards are for sale to the AIPAC money interests.

If a war breaks out between Israel and the Palestinians, the United States will share the blame with Israel.

Time is running out and your conduct is vital to world peace.

John L. Hughes, Milwaukee, WI

Israel Vs. Palestinians

To the San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 21, 1997 (as published).

Regarding the letters on the question, "Did Netanyahu bring on attacks by Arab extremists?" (Aug. 11): The answer must be a ringing "yes," (even though the phrasing of the question should have been, "Did the extremist Netanyahu bring on...").

Killing is inhuman, but in times when it is commonplace, the number and kind of victims become important, too. Many more Palestinians have been and still are being killed by Israelis than the other way around.

Palestinians don't, and can't, retaliate the Israeli way. They can't close borders, arrest "suspects" by the gross, imprison them without trial, torture them (see Amnesty International), destroy homes of the families of "suspects" and expose the occupied territories to starvation.

Did Netanyahu bring on violence?

Who else started huge buildings in East Jerusalem before the status and sharing of Jerusalem had been discussed as the Oslo agreement mandated? Who else does whatever possible to undermine Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in his position as head of an entity willing to discuss peace? Who blames Arafat for suicide bombings when the whole Israel Defense Force was unable to prevent the murder (by an Israeli) of its own prime minister?

Ilse Sternberger, San Francisco, CA

Dehumanizing Images Still Used

To Newsday, Melville, NY, Aug. 27, 1997 (as submitted).

For many, the most enduring image of Nazi racist propaganda was the equating of Jews with rats in the film, "The Eternal Jew." WhenNewsday runs a political cartoon depicting an Arab organization, Hamas, as a rat it is no less racist and not without a certain irony in that it is using the same dehumanizing images employed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels on behalf of the Jewish State.

J. Melita, Great Neck, NY

Enclaves Aren't Enough

To The New York Times, Sept. 15, 1997 (as published).

William Safire's Sept. 10 column misses a fundamental point. Israel can live in peace with its neighbors only if it negotiates a fair peace with them. A solution based on Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and no rights to East Jerusalem could not be construed by even the most biased supporters of Israel as a fair settlement.

Sheikh I. Haque, Westford, MA

Peace Can't Be Built on Punishment

To The New York Times, Sept. 15, 1997 (as published).

"Ms. Albright's Daunting Agenda" (editorial, Sept.9) missed the mark in identifying what Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright needed to do to revive the Middle East peace process. The problem is underscored by the mission's failure.

You say that she should address the problem by "getting Binyamin Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat talking again." But that is hardly a meaningful objective, for it is what they have said to each other when they talk that created the crisis to begin with.

The U.S. has for too long limited itself to encouraging the two sides to stay at the table rather than helping define the substantive parameters for negotiations. As Ms. Albright stressed in her address on Middle East policy on Aug. 6, there can be no successful resumption of talks unless the parties agree on "the ultimate direction of negotiations."

You advise Ms. Albright to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel "can be more selective in its punishment of Palestinians." To be sure, there must be zero tolerance for terrorism, but are the Palestinian people nothing more than targets for various levels of punishment? Aren't there positive steps that Mr. Netanyahu might be encouraged to take?

In effect, Mr. Netanyahu has told the Palestinians that they won't achieve their objectives if they fail to exert maximum effort against terrorism and if they do engage in such an effort, they will still not achieve their objectives. The United States must make it clear to Mr. Netanyahu that we do not see this as a prescription for peace.

Henry Siegman, New York, NY

(The writer is a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations.)

Woolsey's Unfortunate Remarks

To the San Jose Mercury, Sept. 14, 1997

On July 14, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory hosted a talk by former CIA director James Woolsey on "Domestic terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." During that talk, Woolsey said, "Now, there are more and more terrorist groups who don't want a place at the table. They want to destroy the table and everyone who is sitting at it. I would suggest to you a reading of Judy Miller's God Has 99 Names, by way of background on the Islamic extremist movements of the Mideast. But Islam is certainly not the whole picture. Mad religious cults such as Aum Shin Rikyu are out and about in the world,..."

Woolsey's remarks were highly unfortunate. There are many Muslim employees at LLNL, and there likely were some in the audience that day. I wonder how they felt about their religion being maligned as a prime factor in the prospects for U.S. domestic terrorism, as well as hearing it lumped among "mad religious cults."

The former DCI's slander is all the more egregious because he clearly is capable of demonstrating sensitivity. Seconds later, while describing "home grown" sources of terror, Woolsey made reference to "identity groups, sometimes called Christian identity groups, although most Christians, I think, would run from that particular appellation..."

Woolsey apparently felt no compulsion to make similar ameliorative comments regarding so-called "Islamic extremist" groups. His failure to do so suggests either that he feels less compelled to be sensitive to Muslims, or that he believes terrorists who claim the Islamic faith are somehow acting within the tenets of Islam as viewed by the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

I hope Laboratory management will distance itself from Woolsey's remarks about Islam. I would like to see the Laboratory host someone of equal national prominence to provide a counterpoint to Woolsey's address. Such a speaker could help undo some of the damage inflicted by the former DCI, insignificant though it may seem among the daily U.S. media barrage against Muslims and their faith.

David Lappa, Livermore, CA

To Senator Trent Lott and Associates

The Hon. Senator Trent Lott, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, Sept. 9, 1997

In my more than 40 years of active involvement in U.S.-Middle East affairs, I have never seen anything as stunningly irresponsible as the letter to President Clinton dated Sept. 4, which was signed by you and Senators Mack, Lieberman, D'Amato and Hutchinson, and reprinted in a fund-raising ad by "The Committee for a Secure Peace" in The Washington Poston Sunday, Sept. 7.

Your many unsupported allegations concerning Yasser Arafat's role in the tragic suicide bombing incidents in Israel, and your demonization of him as the "villain who is unwilling to stop the terror," reflects an attitude held by only the most militant Israeli extremists who have opposed the peace process—not the attitude of the Israelis who desire peace based on meaningful negotiations rather than forced capitulation. The obvious purposes of the anonymous sponsors of the ad were to undermine efforts to re-start peace negotiations, and to focus U.S. attention only on the Netanyahu-Likud agenda, which is to nullify the existing Palestinian-Israeli agreements on the pretext of Israeli "security interests," and re-open the door to further Israeli expansion on Palestinian land. Your letter totally ignores the many Israeli provocations and violations of the peace agreements. You and your co-signers take the obviously untenable position that the Palestinian victims of an oppressive and illegal Israeli occupation, should be required to act as the guarantors of the security of the occupier—even as their lands are confiscated, their means of livelihood are denied and their fundamental civil and human rights are ignored by the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu—a government which has virtually shattered the hopes and aspirations for peace shared by the majority of Arabs and Israelis.

The ad says that "outrage must turn into action or more people will die." Ironically and sadly, that was perhaps the only accurate statement in the ad, because your letter is a prescription for more violence. The "action" that is so necessary is not hatemongering or dehumanization of the Palestinians or of their leaders. The actions that urgently need to be taken should be those that will mitigate the conditions which foment hatred and the terrible acts of desperation such as the suicide bombings, and those that will offer hope to the Palestinians and Israelis that their legitimate interests and concerns will be properly respected and addressed in meaningful peace negotiations.

The United States has vital moral, strategic and economic interests at stake in the Middle East. The preservation of those interests should be the foundation of our policies with respect to all states in the region. The letter signed by you and your four cosigners undermines the vitally important U.S. role as mediator, and your bias compromises our national interests and our relationships with the parties who desire peace. Worst of all, should the action you appear to be advocating in your letter be implemented, there is no question that more innocent people will die in future conflicts that a more enlightened and balanced Middle East policy could prevent.

Peace cannot be achieved or maintained on the basis of continued Israeli occupation or control of the West Bank, Gaza, southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. To be sure, Israeli military supremacy can perpetuate the occupation indefinitely, but it cannot eliminate active resistance by the indigenous populations. Moreover, Israel will be unable to achieve either national unity or national security on the basis of the perpetual occupation and subjugation of its Arab Muslim and Christian neighbors in a police state atmosphere. Land for peace, and mutual tolerance and respect are the only realistic options that can lead to an end to the cycles of violence in the area. To be sensitive and responsive to the needs of the millions of Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese suffering under Israeli occupation is not to condone or "yield to terrorist demands." Rather, it is to recognize that while we reject and condemn terrorist acts against innocent civilians, we will continue to support efforts to achieve lasting peace based on freely negotiated agreements.

Senator, whatever the motivations shared by you and your cosigners might have been when you signed that most unfortunate letter, you have all severely damaged the cause of peace in one of the most troubled areas of the world, and you have acted contrary to the best interests of your own country.

James F. Sams, Washington, DC (Former president and chairman, National Association of Arab Americans; former executive board member, U.S. Interreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East.)

Message of Peace

To The Orlando Sentinel, May 15, 1997 (as published).

Being of Lebanese origin, I feel so proud that Pope John Paul II's visit to Lebanon was such a great success. His calling on Sunday was touching and insightful. More than a half-million Lebanese people, Christians and Muslims alike, assembled in open air amid the rubble of Lebanon's 15-year civil war to hear the pope's message—to make peace in "martyr Lebanon, where the nation's suffering has not been in vain."

Indeed, the Lebanese hope that the pope's visit will help not only to mend divisions and make peace withinLebanon, but also accelerate the withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from south Lebanon and the "brotherly" Syrian forces in Lebanon, but also will show the world—especially the U.S. government—that Lebanon is safe and sound now.

Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL

A Farrago of Breathtaking Misstatements

To Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, Washington, DC, Oct. 2, 1997

Your letter of Sept. 19 on the Middle East situation contains such a farrago of breathtaking misstatements that I am forced to respond. It causes me to recall a boast a few years ago by a representative of the Israel lobby that all they had to do was "rattle your cage" and you would come out snarling in defense of Israel—no matter what! I can only conclude that the rattling must be pretty strong right now.

First, you (or your staffer who wrote this stuff) say that the Netanyahu government has chosen to continue on the path of the Oslo agreements. Wow! Do we live in the same world? In fact Bibi and his fellow Nazis have said quite clearly that they do not intend to continue on the path of Oslo charted by his predecessors—and he has backed it up with words and deeds to suit, from Har Homa to the latest attempt to murder a Hamas leader in Jordan. But surely you know this as well as the rest of us. I guess you figure that I am a nobody and you can say anything you please, no matter how false. Maybe you're right but I can tell you that I'm going to do my darndest to let everyone I know hear that you respond to constituents with these kinds of falsehoods.

I remind you that you represent the people of New York State, many of whom are not Zionist fanatics, and who more and more every day are starting to catch on that Bibi's style of Zionism is not one that our country should support. If Israel is the model democracy of the Middle East, as you say, it is certainly not the kind of democracy that most Americans would wish for our country, i.e. a democracy for Jews only.

As far as "imposing our views" on Israel I suggest that we do indeed have a right to ask them, in return for their yearly allowance of $5.6 billion, to adhere to minimum standards of international law, which they violate with impunity, and to kindly refrain from dragging the name of our once great country into the mud with themselves. The United States certainly know how to bring pressure to bear on other "outlaw" nations—none of whom are on our payroll.

Albert R. Doyle, Valley Cottage, NY