Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 1998, pages 82-86

Other People’s Mail

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

The “Why?” of Terrorism

To the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Aug. 18, 1998 (as published).

Once again, American civilians and others have been killed in action overseas. President Bill Clinton immediately clamored that all the resources of government around the world will be put into action to catch the killers. Newspapers editorialize about terrorists not being allowed to have their way. But we hear nothing about what that “way” is.

Nowhere in the mainstream media have I read the question being asked: Why? Following naturally is another question: “Why is it being ignored?”

I search my limited human database and can come up with only one answer: the unqualified support of the government of the state of Israel by the U.S. government, particularly the State Department.

There is no true dialogue between the government of Israel and those representing the legitimate interests of Arab peoples, only a charade. The fact is that the government of Israel believes it needs land and will not declare permanent borders, not even in exchange for security for its own people and its neighbors.

Where we the people are being led has frightening scenarios, some of which we recently have witnessed. When the big shooting begins and the dogs of war are unleashed, will we be standing on the side of the people or misguided, self-serving governments?

J.C. Sullivan, Northfield, OH

The Fault, Dear Brutus…

To USA Today, Aug. 26, 1998 (as published).

Both the media accounts and President Clinton’s announcement of the U.S. cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan depicted our action simply as a response to the Muslim terrorism of Saudi Arabian multimillionaire Usama bin Laden—the suspected perpetrator of the bombing of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in which 12 Americans and 257 Africans were killed.

In presenting these bombings simply as wanton acts of religious fanatics, cause was unrelated to effect. We overlooked Shakespeare’s pertinent observation, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves.” U.S. partisanship in the creation of the Israeli state continued with our foisting a biased Oslo “peace” agreement on a greatly weakened PLO and then refusing to pressure the Netanyahu government into a course of moderation. The abysmal failure of Oslo to alleviate the repression and oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza only further deepened hatred of the United States throughout the Muslim and Third Worlds.

As in the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, in the July 1985 hostage-taking of Americans in Beirut, and the March 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, it was again U.S. pro-Israel policy that fueled the hatred behind these acts. In a Sept. 30, 1960 letter to me John F. Kennedy warned, “American partisanship in the Arab-Israeli conflict is dangerous both to the United States and to the free world.”

We have sadly discovered just how dangerous this can be. Only U.S. support of the right of self-determination through the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza can bring to an end this vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence.

Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal, Washington, DC

A “Crime Against the People”

To President Bill Clinton, Washington, DC, Aug. 22, 1998.

Striking a terrorist training camp with inaccurate cruise missiles may be a reasonable response for destruction of American embassies. However, destruction of a pharmaceutical manufacturing site on the coopered-up reason that it was manufacturing an intermediate chemical from which nerve gasses could be made, without any proof, or at least a strong indication, that the intermediate was being so used, is a “Crime Against the People.”

What chemical or pharmaceutical company in the U.S. is not manufacturing intermediates useful for synthesizing nerve agents, illegal drugs, etc.? Why don’t you bomb them? Years ago, I remember reading a hate article stating that Monticatinni, an Italian manufacturer, was producing an acid used for making heroin. Note the use of the words “acid” and “making heroin.” They were referring to acetic acid, the acid present to the extent of 3 percent in vinegar, and an exceedingly important commercial chemical intermediate. What abject nonsense! What ignorant propaganda!

If you wanted to impress the world, free of credible criticism, how is it that Nighthawks with smart bombs were not used to do a really good job on the terrorist camp, leaving the pharmaceutical factory alone? Did the Simple Simons have to strike two facilities because two of ours were struck? Did they like the sound of the phrase, “intermediates for nerve agents”? What Washington, DC desperately needs is an influx of people with some common sense.

There aren’t many of us out here who are very happy about the propaganda regarding being prepared for more terrorist attacks. The U.S., in peacetime, has never had to worry about terrorism because it has always emphasized fairness to all nations. Talking about the possibility of terrorism may be stimulating, but it is stupid talk. While other peoples, e.g. Israelis, seem to enjoy living in an armed camp, not so, the Americans. If you are really serious about reducing terrorism and the threat of terrorism as everyone in Washington is saying, all the U.S. has to do is to reduce its tremendous favoritism toward Israel. Such favoritism can’t help but stimulate Arabs to hate us, and it would be a whole lot cheaper.

E. J. Soboczenski, (Col. USAR, retired, Ph.D. scientist), Lewes, DE

cc: Senators Biden, Roth, Rep. Castle, Secretary of Defense Cohen and Secretary of State Albright

Let’s Expose the Truth

To the Reno Gazette-Journal, Sept. 13, 1998 (as published).

The U.S. Embassy bombings and subsequent “retaliation” brought to mind one of Zionist Israel’s many historic crimes against its U.S. benefactors.

In July 1954, in what later came to be known as “The Lavon Affair,” in order to destabilize relations with the Arabs, Egyptian Jews in the service of Israel attempted to blow up the U.S. Information Service libraries in Egypt.

Moving along to 1973, Sen. Fulbright declared the U.S. was “subservient” to Israeli policies and bore “a very great share of the responsibility for the continuation of Middle East violence.” In affirmation of the above, a former head of the Israeli lobby boasted, “The Jews in America gathered to oust Senator Charles Percy and the American politicians got the message.”

The Israeli Mordechai Vanunu has spent 12 years in solitary confinement for exposing to the world Israel’s nuclear-weapons development.

Although truth is now less fashionable than ever, possibly one of the last resorts to avoid the ultimate terrorism is for the mainstream media to show like courage by shedding its culpability and exposing the Tel Aviv-Washington entanglement.

George Upperman, Reno, NV

Mikulski and the Law

To Senator Barbara Mikulski, Washington, DC, Aug. 29, 1998.

According to the Baltimore Sun of Aug. 26 you are now on record approving of the recent U.S. missile attacks on the alleged terrorist targets in the Third World countries of Sudan and Afghanistan. As a constituent, voter and citizen of the Republic, I would appreciate your views on the following important matters:

1. The Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8 (11), grants to the Congress the sole power to declare war. How can you justify giving that power away to Sandy Berger, and other unelected officials, in the White House?
   
   
2. The White House insists, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the plant the U.S. bombed in Sudan made nerve gas weapons and not pharmaceuticals. How can you in good conscience, assuming the White House is correct, condone a U.S. attack on that kind of plant knowing that if there were nerve gas weapons found there (mercifully there weren’t any), such deadly chemicals could have exploded and killed thousands of innocent civilians in the crowded city of Khartoum?
   
   
3. On Aug. 27, a respected syndicated columnist, Robert Novak, wrote: “Republicans on the Intelligence Committee have been told by senior administration officials that a long and bitter war with terrorism lies ahead. None—not even those who criticized the timing of the air strikes—question the wisdom of alienating one billion Muslims around the world. Administration spokesmen have adopted the Israeli line that terrorists are ardent foes of democracy and, therefore, strike at this country as its bastion…In truth, America is despised by ‘the street’ throughout Islam because of its unconditional support of Israel, its permanent sanctions against Iraq, and the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia. The dispatch of Tomahawks in the night was no defining victory in the struggle against terrorism, but it surely raised the level of hate.” What do you think of Novak’s opinion? Should the U.S. continue its “unconditional” support for Zionist Israel, and its fundamentalist-dominated regime, even if it puts the destiny of 260 million Americans at serious risk?
   
   
4. John McCaslin, a popular columnist for the Washington Times, on Aug. 27 reported a recurring rumor. He wrote that a foreign power, namely Israel, may have been behind Monica Lewinsky’s sordid sexual affair with the president. Many Americans would like to know why she was advised not to get that semen-stained dress cleaned, and how a then-obscure 21-year-old White House intern was allowed such intimate access to the president inside the Oval Office?

We do know that the Israeli P.M., the extremist right winger Binyamin Netanyahu, recently threatened to “set Washington on fire” if the Clinton administration didn’t stop pressing him to concede land to the Palestinians. Did Israel, now dominated by zealots like the erratic Netanyahu, which utilized the spy Jonathan Pollard to steal our valuable military secrets, also use the stalker Lewinsky to blackmail and/or destabilize the Clinton presidency? What is your opinion?

Bill Hughes, Baltimore, MD

cc: Sen. Paul Sarbanes

Airstrikes Wrong

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

Re: “Striking Back—Air raids on terrorists appear warranted,” Editorials, Aug. 21.

The Dallas peace and justice community deplores and condemns the use of violence to resolve international conflicts. Although it is true that Sudan and Afghanistan have been reported to have harbored terrorists—and the bombing of U.S. embassies certainly deserved a serious response—legitimate nonviolent options exist to handle these kinds of conflicts.

The United States, as a democratic nation, is pledged to the belief that an individual is innocent until proven guilty and deserves the right to trial by jury. With a new international war crimes tribunal in place, a system for nonviolently addressing such grievances exists.

The attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan not only violated basic American principles of due process and the innocent-until-proven-guilty principle, but also apparently came without regard to the national sovereignty of either country. We would certainly hope that another country, in an effort to redress a grievance against American nationals, would not launch a bombing mission against the United States. Such a violation of national sovereignty may constitute an act of war.

The Dallas peace and justice community calls for continued international efforts for nonviolent, diplomatic solutions. We are well aware of the deleterious effect that violent actions have in continuing a dangerous cycle. All too frequently, terrorist acts against the United States result in military actions against the aggressors, who then retaliate against the United States, and so on and so on. The cycle of violence must be stopped now.

Cliff Pearson, Media relations director, The Dallas Peace Center, Dallas, TX

Israeli Arms Sales To China

To The Christian Science Monitor, July 27, 1998 (as submitted).

The Monitor should be applauded for publishing the opinion piece “Selling U.S. Weapons to China” (July 22).

On several occasions, members of Congress and U.S. State Department officials have said publicly that the United States is investigating allegations of Israel’s illegal retransfer of American technology, and, if proved, will respond accordingly.

As the author pointed out, the evidence implicating Israel in reselling sensitive American technology already is overwhelming. It is so widely known in the defense and intelligence communities that it is reported openly (and routinely) in industry publications like Defense News and Jane’s Defence Weekly.

Unfortunately, despite such overwhelming evidence and the clear threat Israel’s activities pose to American security and commercial interests, no members of the executive or legislative branches of the U.S. government have been willing to penalize the Israelis.

Even worse, most of this American technology is provided to Israel courtesy of the American taxpayer, at more than $3 billion a year.

It is time that our elected officials let Israel know that enough is enough but, unfortunately, none of us involved in this issue are holding our breath until that happens.

Shawn L. Twing, Alexandria, VA

Israel and Britain: No Comparison

To The Washington Post, Sept. 21, 1998 (as published).

According to Charles William Maynes, Britain in fighting the Irish Republican Army and Israel in fighting Palestinian terrorists have adopted “methods that only made things worse: officially sanctioned assassinations, extra-legal arrests and detention, collective punishment [and] torture” [“Fighting Dirty Won’t Work,” op ed, Aug. 31]. It is true that Israel has engaged in all these tactics. Britain, however, has not. Consider the following:

(1) No IRA leader or terrorist has ever been assassinated, in any fashion analogous to the way that, for example, Israel has killed several PLO leaders. If there was an “officially sanctioned” British policy of assassination, how did Gerry Adams and other known IRA leaders survive unscathed? Mr. Adams’ address is commonly known (as are those of other IRA leaders), so what stopped these mythical British assassins from carrying out their task? There have been a handful of cases in which IRA terrorists have been shot while on the way to carry out bombings—the Gibraltar incident being the best-known example—but this is not what most people would call assassination.

(2) Israel does levy collective punishments on Palestinians, blowing up the houses of terrorists (and their neighbors). Britain used collective punishments in Malaya, Cyprus and Kenya, fining villages where terrorist incidents took place. But it never used such collective punishments in Northern Ireland.

(3) The use of emergency powers of arrest and detention are standard wherever major terrorist campaigns have occurred. Britain and Israel have used such policies, but so have Italy, Spain, Uruguay and the Irish Republic.

(4) “Torture” is an ambiguous term. My dictionary defines it as “the infliction of extreme physical pain,” which is how most people would use the term. In this sense the British forces have not used torture in Northern Ireland. The police did engage in “interrogation in depth,” in which suspects were hooded and deprived of food and sleep. If The Post thinks this is “torture,” why isn’t this term used to describe the treatment of Mohammed Saddiq Odeh at the hands of the Pakistani police? Instead The Post’s Sept. 4 news story is headed, “Bombing Suspect Alleges He Was Bullied Into Confession,” and the word “torture” never appears.

I have studied British policies in Northern Ireland and doubt their effectiveness. However, to compare them to the policies of Israel against the Palestinians is ridiculous.

Christopher Hewitt, Glen Echo, MD

Eloquent, Yet Unsatisfying

To the San Francisco Examiner Magazine, Aug. 23, 1998 (as published).

Thomas Friedman’s description of “Israel at 50” (Magazine, 5/31) was an eloquent and often moving analysis of that complex country. But it was unsatisfying in two respects. For one thing, the Arab population is largely absent. At least 20 percent of Israelis are Arabs, mostly either Muslim or Christian. They are at best second-class citizens. Their schools are crowded and underfunded and their communities receive far fewer government services than Jewish communities. In the West Bank and Gaza, 2 million Palestinians live under total or partial Israeli military occupation, subject to travel restrictions, arrest and detention without trial, and worst of all, to having their land seized and their homes demolished to make room for new Jewish settlements and bypass roads.

Israeli society is almost as deeply divided over the government’s treatment of the Palestinians as it is over religion. This month B’Tselem and other Israeli human rights organizations presented evidence to the High Court of Justice showing that out of 1,000 Palestinians arrested by Israeli security services last year, more than 850 had been severely tortured. They were hooded with sacks soaked in urine, handcuffed in agonizing positions for long periods, denied sleep and exposed to freezing cold. Most of the suspects were later released without charges. Israeli peace organizations such as Peace Now and Gush Shalom and Women in Black are at least as active as those in the United States. There is clearly a struggle going on in Israel over ethical and moral values as well as religious observance.

Finally, I wish Friedman had acknowledged that not all Jews find their identity in a Jewish state. On the contrary, some of us believe that Judaism is defined by its values of mercy, justice and obligation to others. A Jewish state by definition regards as lesser citizens its non-Jewish inhabitants, and therefore is almost bound to violate Jewish ideals. The substitution of Israel for God, and nationalism for spiritual belief, could eventually mean the end of Judaism as a religious tradition that has enriched civilization for 4,000 years.

Rachelle Marshall, Stanford, CA

Israel and Liberty

To Liberty , Sept. 1998, (as published).

I am astonished by Alan Bock’s defense of Israel (“Israel at 50,” July). Zionism combines the worst points of 19th century Eastern European ethnic nationalism and 19th century colonialism, sugar-coating it with a sickly-sweet appeal to the currently fashionable idea that “victimization” excuses any actions whatsoever taken by the “victim.”

It is repeatedly urged that, unlike those horrible Arab regimes, Israel is a democracy. Yes—and so was Mississippi in 1960, for the right sort of people. Even if it is a democracy, this is not the be-all and end-all; after all, almost all pirate ships in the “Golden Age of Piracy” were run on democratic, egalitarian lines, and this is not seen as an excuse for piracy. In any case, would the supporters of Israel be happier if, say, Syria were a democracy? If that were the case, the Syrian government could deploy its best units with no concern about being toppled in a coup, and the major Syrian parties could compete with slogans about how if they were elected, they would really punish Israel. Somehow, I can’t see the Israelis being very happy about that situation.

The thing that sticks in my throat the most about this situation, though, is that merely by being an American citizen, I am forced to take sides in a foreign conflict of no conceivable interest to me personally, and, to add insult to injury, I am forced onto the side I would not choose if obliged to do so. Israel’s dependency on the United States for subsidies and favors is equalled only by its ingratitude to its benefactors (the USS Liberty incident, the Pollard espionage case, and endless demands for more aid), its hypocrisy (denouncing Arab terrorists while electing former Irgunists to high office is not quite consistent), its repression of non-Jewish citizens with Catch-22 laws and plain old brutality.

If I thought Israel were somehow or other necessary to the safety of the U.S., or worth its keep in other ways, I could swallow all of this. But instead, I am convinced that had it never been established we would all be a lot better off. Its mere existence discredits democracy among many Arabs. Our open support of Israel, right or wrong, makes claims on our part to be proper mediators in the Middle East as transparently false as claims of imminent victory in Vietnam were.

Eric Oppen, Iowa Falls, IA

Demolishing Homes and Ethnic Cleansing

To Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Likud Party, Israel, Sept. 17, 1998.

I am dismayed at your policy of demolishing homes as part of your ethnic cleansing efforts. You are building generations of hate for yourself and for my country, the USA. As long as the ethnic cleansing continues I will keep harassing my Congress people to stop funding your government since I find it grossly immoral to have my tax dollars go toward your immoral efforts.

We need to make Jerusalem an international city governed by the United Nations. You cannot be trusted with any role in that city since you have broken every promise to work toward peace. You are as big a liar as our President Clinton when it comes to international citizenship. Both of you should be removed from office for treating the Palestinian Christians and Muslims like dogs.

Don Wolf, via e-mail

Making Citizens Homeless

To Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Likud Party, Israel, Sept. 17, 1998.

I have just learned of the second demolition of the home of Atta and Rodeina Jaber and their family and of the bulldozing of the fruit and olive orchards of Atta Jaber’s father. And it is in this regard that I write to you.

Mr. Prime Minister, these acts, which your military establishment has carried out against the Jaber family (and which it has likewise carried out in dozens and dozens of prior instances against other such families), are completely incomprehensible to me as the act of any intelligent and self-respecting nation! It is equally incomprehensible to me as the act of any nation which seeks, at whatever level, to establish “peace” with its neighbors and to achieve “security” for its own citizens!

What sort of nation is it, Mr. Prime Minister, which sets out on a deliberate policy of making its own “subjects” (they are surely not “citizens”) homeless? What sort of nation is it which turns fathers, mothers, children and grandparents out of their houses at a moment’s notice, smashes these houses to bits, and then leaves the former occupants angry and despairing beside piles of rubble which moments before were their homes?

What sort of nation is it which callously uproots the orchards of hardworking farmers, turns fruitful land back into desert, destroys the fruits of hard labor and patient labor, and demolishes the present livelihood and future earning capacities of farmers with wives and children to support?

What sort of nation is it which creates “legal” means to demolish personal property and to destroy human hopes and the well-being of entire families? What sort of nation is it which sends its own impressionable young men and women to carry out brutal destruction against unarmed and fundamentally powerless families, day by day by day? What sort of nation is it which purports to be interested in “peace” and “security” while at the same time carrying out brutal and heartless actions against those with whom it seeks to establish that “peace” and “security”?

Mr. Prime Minister, I plead with you to ask yourself these questions and to let your heart provide you with honest answers to each one of them! Your nation has just celebrated its 50th anniversary. Many words have been spoken in honor of this milestone in the life of your nation. But it is in fact a bitter legacy, a legacy of violence and brutality, which you are even now passing on to your children by demolishing the homes of the Palestinians, your neighbors in the land which you both share. I call on you to act swiftly and boldly to establish true justice and bring about true peace within your land.

Dorothy Jean Weaver, Harrisonburg, VA

“Peace” Bearing Bitter Fruit

To the Warrenton, PA News Record, Aug. 24, 1998 (as submitted).

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s assertions: 1) that Arafat is the master of Hamas, and therefore could “crack down on terrorism” by making mass arrests of its leaders, if only he wanted to; and 2) that responsibility for the impasse in the peace process lies entirely with the Palestinians. False!

In a recent interview on PBS “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer,” former Secretary of State James Baker (Republican) and former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (Democrat) agreed that the actions of the Netanyahu government have seriously weakened Arafat’s position in the eyes of his own people, making it impossible for him to order mass arrests without provoking a civil war.

The Oslo accords, welcomed with great hope by the Palestinian people four years ago, have borne bitter fruit. Unfortunately, the present “peace process” is not a negotiation between equals, as it is often pictured in the U.S. media.

One side enjoys all the advantages of an established state, supported by tremendous military and economic power, and by over $6 billion in U.S. aid every year. The other side remains imprisoned in enclaves.

Powerless to restrict unilateral Israeli actions, condemned to accept deteriorating economic conditions, Arafat is reduced to becoming an “enforcer” for Israel. And the Palestinian people’s despair grows daily.

In response to those who say that Israel has to stop and obey the agreement, the Israeli reply was: Mind your own business, we will keep building new and illegal settlements on Arab lands. Forget Oslo. Just keep the billions coming and shut up. Keep sending troops to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to defend the oil from Islamic religious fanatics, while our Jewish religious fanatics do their ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Don’t we as Americans have better things to do with our money? We must not be a party to the rogue entity of Israel.

Ray F. Dively, Baden, PA

Occupation vs. ”Psychological Security”

To The Washington Post, Oct. 10, 1998 (as published).

The Washington Post is right in its Sept. 30 editorial “The Middle East ‘Peace Process’” that under Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, “the Israelis are at pains to deny the goal of statehood that the Palestinians regard as the prize.” However, self-determination, statehood and the right to live free of military occupation are not “a prize” but are fundamental human rights belonging to the Palestinian people as much as any other.

The Post rationalizes the Israeli and American denial of these rights by claiming that Palestinians have yet to muster a strong enough showing for the psychological as well as physical security that is the “prime Israeli goal.” It is an absurd imposition to make the realization of Palestinian human rights contingent on the conditions of Israeli psychology.

Obviously, genuine security can never emerge under the oppressive conditions of occupation and settlement. Therefore, Palestinian statehood is actually in the interests not only of Palestinians but of everyone in the region and the world, including those Israelis whose primary goal is stability, peace and security.

Unfortunately, many Israelis, including ministers in Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet, view much of the West Bank as an inherent part of Eretz Yisrael, which must not and cannot be under any other sovereignty than Israel’s. It is this view, and not the need for “psychological security,” that has motivated the current Israeli government’s deliberate sabotaging of the Oslo agreements and obstruction of the peace process.

Hussein Ibish, Media Director, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Washington, DC

A Breath of Fresh Air!

To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 21, 1998 (as submitted).

David Grossman’s opinion (“What’s Happened to the Land of Our Dreams?”, p. M5, Sept. 20) is such a breath of fresh air! According to conventional wisdom, it is easier to criticize Israel in Israel than in the U.S. Certainly, as Grossman says, “something rare is slipping through our fingers,” and the U.S. has a unique opportunity to move Israel from its position of intransigence. Imagine if U.S. aid to Israel were contingent upon Israel’s compliance with United Nations resolutions—in other words, if we held Israel to the same standards as we do Iraq and all other nations of the world! Here’s to a better new year indeed.

Vicki Tamoush, Tujunga, CA

(Washington Report editor’s note: the article by Israeli writer David Grossman referred to in the letter above is reprinted in full in this issue’s Other Voices, a supplement to the Washington Report which is available to subscribers for a $15 annual subscription fee.)

George Will Way Off-Base

To The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 23, 1998 (as published).

I wish to comment on the June 22 article by George Will in which he condemns a courageous Jewish professor for saying, “The Palestinians are being forced into a tragic part too much like the one played by the European Jews 50 years ago.”

Does Will approve of Yitzhak Rabin’s order to the Israeli troops to break the bones of children who threw stones at soldiers after they had confiscated their parents’ land and demolished their homes?

The behavior of the Israel Defense Forces was classic Nazism in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The oldest IDF soldier to serve in Lebanon, was Lt. Col. Dov Yermiah, who revealed the brutality of the IDF in his memoirs. The defenseless cities of Sidon and Tyre were destroyed by massive artillery bombardment. The male Lebanese and Palestinians then were forced to lie on the beach in the hot summer sun for two days without food or water. Yermiah ordered tank trucks of water to be brought in to relieve the stricken refugees, but his order was countermanded by an aide to Gen. Mordechai Gur, saying, “The life of a single Israeli soldier is not worth the life of 1,000 Arabs.”

Meanwhile, The New York Times printed reports from Lebanon describing the activities of the IDF as a model of civilized behavior.

The American public is badly served by propagandists like George Will, and by the American media in general. The rest of the world, including Israel, receives far more accurate information on the Middle East than we do. I suggest that Americans read The Fateful Triangle,the U.S., Israel and the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky.

Alan Rhodes, Willoughby, OH

A.M. Rosenthal’s Lies and Deceit

To A.M. Rosenthal, The New York Times, Sept. 13, 1998.

When I read your article this morning, I felt very sad that smart people like you are blind and intentionally write about issues that are not true. I can understand the purpose of your article and I am sure there will be many more to come to orchestrate and influence the administration to attack the helpless Iraqi people. You know very well that the Iraqi people, especially the babies and elderly, are suffering from malnutrition due to the lack of medicine and food. This is so, thanks to the obstacles that the U.S. and Britain have created to delay the arrival of food and medicine to the dying Iraqi people.

You wrote this morning misinforming Mr. Clinton “that Iraq was about three years from making nuclear weapons, and six months from biological weapons; three years, six months.” You based this on Ritter’s testimony, which was refuted by Mr. Butler, and you are aware of this but still you go ahead and write as if it is true. In addition you described Iraq as “the military superpower of the Middle East, the germ warfare supplier to terrorists.”

Let us assume what you wrote above is correct. Why do you ignore the hard facts that no one can deny, that Israel has more than 130 nuclear weapons ready to be used. Israel has occupied Arab land for over 30 years and has warned its neighbors and others that it has no problem in using nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Israel has for many years had the biological weapons that it used on Palestinians when it occupied Gaza according to Naiem Giladi (an Iraqi Jew who lived in Israel). What you wrote about Iraq being a “military superpower” is laughable because there is only one superpower in the Middle East, thanks to the U.S., and that is Israel. You express concern about Iraq’s violation of U.N. resolutions, but did you ever write that Israel has ignored multiple U.N. resolutions during the past 30 years?

It is shameful that people like you write such articles full of lies and deceit. You must visit Baghdad to witness the babies dying and the rest of the country suffering from malnutrition and diseases.

Voltaire E. Warda, Houston, TX

Flawed Oslo accords Impedge Peace

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

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

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

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

Roger Feinstein, Newton, MA

Politicizing Embassy Move

To Representative John E. Baldacci (D-ME), Sept. 5, 1998.

I am very disappointed to hear that you and Congressman Ray Lahood have signed a Zionist-AIPAC-initiated petition to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I really cannot understand why the two of you, who are of Arab heritage, would do such a thing. This is not only an insult to all Arabs, including Christian and Muslim Palestinians, but it also violates U.N. Resolution 242. If you keep doing things like that, you might as well denounce your Arab heritage. I am really outraged!

It is not enough that AIPAC has virtual control of the U.S. government, judging from the large percentage of congressmen who received large amounds of money for their campaigns which resulted in their endorsing everything Israel wants; and judging from Clinton’s most sensitive appointments, cabinet and otherwise, of people of Jewish ethnicity with Zionist tendency.

By voting to move the embassy to Jerusalem, both of you are endorsing AIPAC’s corruption of the American political process.

David Zein, Clearwater, FL

An Open Letter to Mr. Edward Zwick

To Mr. Zwick, 20th Century Fox, 10301 W. Pico Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90064:

I just returned to my office after watching a private screening of “The Siege.” We at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) were seriously alarmed upon seeing the film’s initial trailers, yet somewhat assuaged by your assurances and by 20th Century Fox’s willingness to engage in a dialogue. However, nothing prepared us for what we saw today.

In a nutshell, the film is insidious, dangerous and incendiary. It is bound to have a negative impact on the millions of Arab-Americans and Muslims in this country. It incites hate, which leads to harassment, intimidation, discrimination and even hate crimes against people of Arab descent.

“The Siege” portrays Arabs and Muslims as a homogeneous, threatening mass who are repeatedly referred to as “these people.” Even when “these people” are incarcerated behind barbed wire, they do not elicit any sympathy, because they all look alike and different from the rest of “us.” Furthermore, a clear and direct link is made between Islamic religious practices and terrorism. Indeed, images of a Muslim washing his hands before prayer, as hundreds of millions of Muslims do every day, precede acts of terror in the film. This firmly reinforces fear of Muslims in the viewer’s mind. Without enumerating them, the film is packed with stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims as violent, unscrupulous and barbarous.

It is truly disappointing that the good-faith effort we made to establish a constructive dialogue with you and 20th Century Fox was in the end met with disregard for our concerns. When Arab-American and Muslim representatives met with you, they suggested several ways in which the perpetuation of anti-Arab stereotypes could have been avoided. For instance, it was suggested that the plot be modified to reflect the real-life tragedy of the Oklahoma City bombing, after which Arabs were unjustly blamed for this act of terror, as the media rushed to judgment. This in turn led to more than 200 incidents of harassment and hate crimes against innocent Arab Americans and Muslims nationwide. Yet, our suggestions were not heeded.

Anti-Arab stereotypes in the media help promote intolerance, and fuel a climate of hatred toward our community. The CEO of Northwest Airlines forcefully made this point when he addressed our National Convention two years ago. In response to our complaint that airport profiling had led to discrimination against Arab and Arab-American travelers, he candidly stated that even if airline agents were given directives not to discriminate based on ethnicity, their behavior would still be affected by what they see about Arabs in the movies.

As a civil rights group and the largest Arab-American grassroots organization in the United States, we had hoped that Hollywood studios would cease demonizing Arabs and Muslims, so that our children can grow up feeling safe and proud of their rich cultural heritage. We had hoped that you might take the lead in this effort. Unfortunately, our hopes were dashed when we watched the film.

No apology can help rectify the damage which has been done. Sadly, 20th Century Fox’s name is now associated with “True Lies,” and now “The Siege.” We urge you and 20th Century Fox to make a genuine effort in the future to portray Arab Americans for who they really are—honest, hardworking and law-abiding citizens who make valuable contributions to our nation.

In the meantime, we can only hold you responsible for any acts of hate directed against our community as a result of this extremely damaging and dangerous film.

Sincerely, Hala Maksoud, President