 |
 |
December 1999, pages 3, 100-102 Letters to the Editor In that article, where Pipes excoriates many (and in his view, the most powerful) American Muslims for their "chauvinist" efforts in which they "aspire to make the United States a Muslim country," the use of unsupported generalizations and innuendo is truly disturbing. The irony in that article is, of course, that Dr. Pipes and other radically and blindly pro-Zionist American Jews are much farther along the chauvinist and ultimately anti-American spectrum than are even radical American Muslims. Yet Dr. Pipes, despite his own apparently strong, even blind, support for the Israeli state and its policies--even those policies that are attacked by thoughtful Israelis themselves as racist and oppressive--sees no incongruity in his condemnation of many Muslim Americans as a threat to the American state and democracy. William A. Graham, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (Dr. Graham is Professor of History of Religion and Islamic Studies at Harvard. He is former director of Harvard's Center for Middle Eastern Studies [1990-96], and was at one time Pipes' Arabic instructor.) For more information about the PNA, you and your readers can go to our Web site at <www.pna.org> Suleiman Baraka, Gaza, Palestine The time has come, therefore, for Christians, Jews, Muslims and others to begin to reduce misunderstanding by using more precise terms such as "anti-Zionist," "anti-Muslim," "anti-Christian" and "anti-Jewish" instead of "anti-Semitic." I leave you with two questions: Is there anything wrong with the term "anti-Jewish"? Is there any reason for not discarding the term "anti-Semitic" from the modern English language? Bill Buckel, Columbus, OH We're convinced. We'll drop it entirely (we thought we had but you caught us) except when we're quoting its use by others or in cases where individual authors, for reasons of their own, prefer to retain it. Israeli journalist Danny Rubinstein argued plausibly that that massacre was a turning point for Hamas, after which it became much more aggressive. He writes: "In the period between the 1991 Madrid conference and the massacre carried out by Baruch Goldstein at Hebron's Tomb of the Patriarchs, Hamas made it known that its people were concentrating on aiming their attacks against IDF soldiers and refraining from attacking civilians. Those were the days of kidnappings of soldiers and frontier policemen and attacks on Shin Bet agents. After the Goldstein massacre, Hamas announced that it would now attack civilians" (Ha'aretz, 10/23/98). In a preceding article Rubinstein noted that: "Six months separate the signing of the Oslo agreement and the massacre in the Tomb of the Patriarchs. Although this is a relatively brief period, a close look at terrorist activities during those six months leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the Oslo agreement did not directly produce a significant rise in the number of terror victims. In the six-month period following the signing of the agreement, 16 Israelis were killed in attacks launched by Palestinian terrorists. Nearly the identical number of Israelis--15 to be precise--were killed by Palestinians in the six months that preceded Oslo." (Ha'aretz, 9/28/98). This was later reiterated by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. In a Ha'aretz article dated March 22, 1999, Amira Haas writes: "Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin told Ha'aretz yesterday that the organization's military operations have always sought to 'avoid harming civilians. All of the operations carried out against civilians were in response to massive operations against civilians, starting with the murder that Baruch Goldstein perpetrated in Hebron.'" Sami Deeb, South Kingston, RI However, Robin Kinloch, deputy U.N. special representative for Western Sahara, told the BBC last month, "We are now confident that we are within a year of the referendum." In June, U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy passed a bill which requires the U.S. State Department to report periodically about the steps the parties are taking to support the referendum. It was also rumored in The Washington Post that the U.S. lobby firm Cassidy & Associates dropped its $1 million contract with Morocco because of the embarrassment caused by Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara. Here in Britain, over 100 MPs have twice sponsored motions in the House of Commons in support of the referendum process, while 144 members of the European Parliament wrote to Hillary Clinton about the country. It appears the pressure is now working. Indeed, the U.N. secretary-general tells us in his latest report that Driss Basri, the Moroccan interior minister, asked him to take steps to achieve the referendum as quickly as possible. Your readers may be interested to see <http://www.arso.org>, which includes weekly news about Western Sahara. In the U.S., information can also be obtained from the Western Sahara Foundation at 3014 Castle Road, Falls Church, VA 22044. Richard Stanforth, Western Sahara Campaign, Leeds LS1 3 AX, England E-mail 100427@.3223@COMPUSERVE.COM Here's another article I thought was good, on the Kosovo attacks. Maybe you'll print it. Probably not, as it goes beyond the U.S./NATO propaganda line to examine the strategic objectives of the U.S. in the region. Read more Chomsky. You'll eventually understand. Ken Scudder, San Francisco, CA Verbally it all sounds wonderful but the facts on the ground are a different story. And what are they "giving up"? You cannot give what you do not own. It is also most worrying that the USA is pressing for the Fourth Geneva Convention to exclude Israel's occupation of Palestine. If the USA succeeds , this will be a grave attack on international law and of course absolve Israel from complying with U.N. resolutions. What can we do? May you prosper into Y2K and continue your excellent journal. Too many people would be lost without it. Joan McConnell, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada Thanks for your thoughts and also for enrolling as a Mezza Soprano in our 1999 Choir of Angels. Here are two paragraphs from his letter: "Thank you for sharing your thoughts about convening the Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, as stipulated by a vote of the U.N. General Assembly on Feb. 9, 1999. "I share your view [not what I wrote] that assembling the High Contracting Parties to the Convention for a conference on Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories is a bad idea.... The U.N. resolution violates both the spirit and the letter of the Oslo accords and subsequent written commitments by the Palestinians. I therefore support the efforts of the U.S. representative to the United Nations to gather support for a cancellation of this conference." Hashem Sherif, Tinton Falls, NJ Believe it or not, we get calls from staff members in congressional offices congratulating us on finding a way, through the cards enclosed in each issue of the Washington Report, to help our readers and their constituents demonstrate to Members of Congress that the majority of voters in most constituencies do not share the conventional media wisdom on Mideast-related matters. One Midwestern senator's office suggested that we put an extra line in the sender portion so that our readers can provide a full mailing address (if they choose to) enabling the senator to respond. Let's hope that most congressmembers read the cards more carefullly than Representative Holt apparently did. Who in their right mind could have envisioned a decade ago that the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, an organization once labeled a terrorist group by the U.S. Justice Department, would one day be shaking hands and negotiating a settlement with the leadership of Israel, a nation which once had a prime minister who arrogantly boasted of the nonexistence of the Palestinian people? It seems too good to be true, but truth always seems to be stranger than fiction. What can we as Americans do to encourage the positive developments in the Middle East? Whoever is elected the next president of the United States could follow the example of Dwight D. Eisenhower and try to pursue a more even-handed approach toward the Israel-Palestine conflict and not bow down to the pressures of special interest groups who sometimes put the interests of foreign entities above those of the United States. Let us hope and pray that the resolution of this tragic conflict will provide the momentum to world leaders to seek peaceful solutions to other seemingly endless conflicts such as those in Kashmir, Kurdistan, Chechnya, the Balkans and the Sudan. Srinidhi Anantharamiah, Clinton, MS Please find enclosed two checks, one to cover my subscription for two years and the second a meager $100 donation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all you have done and gone through and still are continuing to do and go through. It does not seem to be getting easier! Your vision coupled with your insight is unparalleled. I applaud the efforts you started some time ago to point out the importance of getting Arab Americans and Muslim Americans to realize their potential, ability and how to make a difference. This patriotic effort will bring sanity into our foreign policy and domestic policy as well. Thanks again and may God bless you and help you accomplish your mission. S.M. Siddeek, Monterey, CA At the moment I will do what I can to help repeal the "secret evidence" provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which are blatantly unconstitutional. Carl Feldman, Menlo Park, CA Your reply to Geoffrey M. Young's "implication that" the Washington Report only opposes genocide when "Muslims are the victims" (letters, Sept. '99), is based on a totally false premise. No country went to war with the Nazis "to help halt genocide," least of all the U.S., which entered the fray belatedly and only as a consequence of the Pearl Harbor attack. France, Britain and the Dominions declared war ostensibly to protect Poland. It was only after unconditional surrender and the allies had absolute control of the axis countries that to our complete surprise concerted claims of systematic mass murders ensued. If you expect people like me to stand up for factual objectivity you have to do the same. John Mortl, Bala, Ontario, Canada Dr. Zogby describes this terror succinctly: "Like McCarthyism, this campaign cloaks itself in absolute self-righteousness. It makes no effort to discuss or debate differences. Rather, it seeks to silence debate. By utilizing harsh and excessive rhetorical attacks, this campaign dehumanizes its targets, pushing them 'beyond the pale.'" Presumably WRMEA supports this description--but, based on your record, not in the case of "the Holocaust." In that case you change jerseys and join the pack of rhetorical attackers and censors of discussion. I wonder if it occurs to you that this very same reign of terror which Dr. Zogby explains in relation to criticism of Israel also applies to "Holocaust" revisionism--in fact, to a much greater degree. Anyone questioning the slightest aspect of the "Holocaust" canon routinely can be expected to be accused of anti-Semitism and worse, including loss of his professional reputation, employment and even physical assault. I wonder, are you aware of this? Do you doubt it? Do you care? As I would assume you are aware, "The Holocaust" is now the focus of the greatest propaganda blitz since World War II. How could anyone miss it? It virtually didn't exist for 25 years after the war but is now the focal point of innumerable "museums," virtual extortion schemes, school "education" programs, full-page ads in The New York Times, etc. And, worst of all, the "Holocaust" reign of terror is suppressing open discussion of a legitimate area of inquiry as Dr. Zogby sees so clearly in the case of criticism of Israeli actions--only the suppression is much worse in the case of "Holocaust" revisionism. If you don't see this I would be very surprised and disappointed, regardless of your opinion on revisionism in general. Why can't this subject, of all subjects, be discussed? Albert Doyle, Valley Cottage, NY For a showman of his stature, to be ignored must be painful; to be denied the camera's eye, excruciating. The written word is less in a society enamored of the spoken word. Maybe the Washington Report could knock out a few written words on Abba. He might even contribute some background or delight in tossing some darts at the Right wing from the Left. I expect to read any day that Abba has departed to regale the hosts of heaven, so too bad if he cannot use the Washington Report for a few digs on earth. Elias Souri, Park Ridge, IL Years ago I tried to contact Reese to give him some references that refuted a lot of his pro-Israeli statements; 15 to 20 years later he is using some of those references though I have no idea if he ever saw my several letters to him via his syndicate. If he did, it took him 15 years to absorb my first message. Gip D. Oldham, Dallas, TX The important thing is that in his widely syndicated column he's dead right on Israel/Palestine now, and brave enough to write it in his marvelously succinct and incisive style. The new October/November Washington Report issue arrived today. The picture on the back is a stunner. Bless you all for the good you do and the light you spread. Karen Ray Bossmeyer, Louisville, KY I enjoyed reading your September issue, particularly the articles about coordination between Muslim and Arab communities. Mohamed Alwan, Annapolis, MD We believe that our policy of threat and terror against the evil regime of Saddam Hussain must be replaced by alternative measures to bring that country into the family of nations. Some of those measures are:
None of these changes will occur overnight, but unless we begin now, the enmity that binds the region will continue to grow. Theodore and Evelyn Herman, Cornwall, PA; and Edie, Kelly and Philip Johnston, Mt. Gretna, PA; Austin Hardy, Lancaster, PA; Charles Lane, Lancaster For the past 50 years the U.N. could not resolve the Kashmir conflict because of the Cold War rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Western nations still turn a blind eye on Kashmir, which has become a pawn for rulers in India and Pakistan keeping weak coalition governments and corrupt regimes in power. India and Pakistan have now acquired nuclear weapons. The danger in the Indian subcontinent has reached new heights. One-fifth of the world's population inhabits the subcontinent and could be decimated in the blind fury of war or an accident. Kashmir, known as the "paradise on earth," could become the subcontinent's Chernoble, or worse. The present governments in India and Pakistan are in no position to take the initiatives to resolve their differences. The Kashmir conflict is used to perpetuate hate and belligerency between the two countries. The most recent flare-up in Kargil on the border between Pakistani-occupied Kashmir and Indian-occupied Kashmir is an illustration. What sticks at the core of this issue is that the people of Kashmir for the most part want no part of the mutual hatred of the two countries. They want to be left alone to choose their way of life and live in peace and harmony with all their neighbors. The conflict in Kashmir is not a dispute about borders between India and Pakistan, nor is it a separatist or secessionist movement. According to international agreements between India and Pakistan, endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, Kashmir does not belong to India or to Pakistan. At its core, the conflict is about the most fundamental human rights of the Kashmiri people, the right of self-determination. Kashmiris want to live in freedom and democracy as a member of the United Nations. The U.S. as world leader and a supporter of the original U.N. resolution needs to persuade the rulers in India and Pakistan to remove their armies and war material from Kashmir and let the people decide their own future, leave Kashmir for Kashmiris. The border war in Kargil was contained because the United States government insisted upon restraint. This is a laudable achievement of our government. However, until a resolution of the overall Kashmir dispute is facilitated, there can be no lasting peace in the subcontinent. A nuclear holocaust can still become a reality. Therefore, the United State's policymakers need to shift their focus from containing the conflict to resolving it. Our government policy is in a large measure determined in response to public opinion. Thus, all of us who wish to avoid the possibility of nuclear holocaust on the subcontinent and who want to help bring peace to Kashmir, which can, in turn, lead to the prosperity of the subcontinent, must convey our opinions to the policymakers in Washington. An easy way to do this is by a letter or telephone call. Telephone numbers for Washington are listed in this magazine (p. 90). For more information on how Washington Report readers can help, telephone the Kashmir Human Rights Foundation, (323) 662-7686; e-mail: Rafikhan@aol.com Rafique A. Khan, Glendale, CA The enclosed letter from Senator Carl Levin is for your information. The back page, especially, made me angry. In it he wrote, "The supplemental aid package plays a vital role in protecting Israel's security, encouraging the development of the Palestinian economy and supporting Jordan. This aid should be provided as promised, with both parties fulfilling their commitments made at Wye..." Melanie R. Martynow, Royal Oak, MI Being overseas has presented a bit of a problem in that occasionally the issues do not make it to me. I know this is not the fault of the Washington Report. This year, two issues so far have disappeared: Jan./Feb. and the June issue. I have complained to my local post office telling them I know the magazines have been sent to me but they plead innocent saying they deliver whatever they receive. They added that there are a few stops before they get overseas mail: the main airport, customs, the main post office and then the state post office. I let the local post office know that this magazine was not cheap for me to subscribe to and each one that disappears is a fair chunk out of my pocket when converted to the local currency. The manager said there was really nothing they could do unless the mail is sent registered or insured. If it is insured, they will have to pay to replace whatever is lost. So, I would like to ask your advice as to how I can prevent any further issues from not making it to my doorstep. I would also like to ask if it is possible to request back issues for the two that have so far not made it to me. Since this is not the fault of the Washington Report, I would like to deduct the cost of these two issues from the incoming subscription renewal if there is not enough of a balance in my current subscription. Please also advise me as to whether future issues can be sent registered (or insured) and how much extra that might be. Ghazali Thompsen, Marang, Malaysia We've sent replacements for both of the lost issues to you at no extra charge. If it continues to be a problem, we'll try to work out something better. |
|
|