 |
 |
DECEMBER 1999, pages 89-92 Other People’s Mail Some letters by or to other people are as informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves.
To The New York Times, Sept. 13, 1999 (as submitted). When in the late 1980s, Commentary called Edward Said “the Professor of Terror” it seemed at the time the lowest level to which a defamation attack could sink. In the interim, Said’s reputation as both a humanist and as a prominent spokesperson for the Palestinian cause has only grown. His scholarship, his humanist position and his continued commitment to the Palestinian cause have won him friends and supporters, not only in the United States and Europe, but among many Israelis as well. Said’s achievements seem now to have driven his enemies in the USA to even lower and baser methods of attack. His latest call, echoed by peace activists in Israel and Palestine, for a mutual acknowledgment of past sufferings, of the Holocaust and the Nakbah, seem to have especially irritated the Zionist establishment in the U.S. This is the background for the article in Commentary by Justus Weiner, a self-styled researcher, who has rewritten Said’s biography in such a clumsy and obvious way that the decision taken by professional editors to publish this fabricated research can only mean an a priori collaboration in a defamation campaign seeking to undermine Said’s personal life and legacy. According to Weiner, he received generous funding for this effort. Typically, he does not say from whom. The very decision to fund such a project is astonishing. The end result reminds us of smear tactics of a period in the not-too-distant past. We the undersigned, Israelis who have over the years learned to appreciate Edward Said’s courageous stance, will continue our constructive, genuine and meaningful dialogue with our Palestinian friends in order to enhance the chances for reconciliation and lasting peace in the land of Palestine. Zohar Eviatar, Reuven Kaminer, Susan Einbinder, Yerach Gover, Dan Rabinowitz, Ran Hacohen, Anat Mattar, Avarahm Oz and Ilan Pappe.
To the Washington Jewish Week , Sept. 16, 1999 (as published). I must take umbrage with your editorial (“A Nightmare is Ending,” Aug. 26). I do not believe the nightmare is ending for the Tello family and other citizens of Montgomery County (Maryland) because of the brutal nature of the crime committed by Samuel Sheinbein and the way his father aided him in fleeing from U.S. justice. Samuel Sheinbein appears to be unconcerned with the viciousness of his crime and a spoiled brat type, whose parents go to extreme lengths to protect him regardless of right or wrong. It seems to me that Sam Sheinbein and his parents owe the Tello and Needle families an apology to say the least. Justice will not be served by the significantly shorter sentence to be imposed under Israeli law. I do not consider the punishment to fit the crime. Perhaps, if Sam Sheinbein and family offered a plea for forgiveness, particularly during this time of year, I might feel differently. If a Palestinian terrorist who had committed such a brutal crime against an American or Israeli citizen were given a similar sentence, would the editorial also declare: “A nightmare is ending”? Edwin A. Morgenstern, Silver Spring, MD
To the Milwaukee Journal, Aug. 25, 1999 (as published). The article of Aug. 25 on teenager Samuel Sheinbein, who fled to Israel two years ago to escape Maryland murder charges, clearly shows the utter contempt the state of Israel has for justice and its claimed friendship for the United States (“U.S. Teen to Plead Guilty to Murder in Israeli Court”). The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September 1999, has an article stating “U.S. Aid to Israel Now Exceeds $90 billion.” That is a cumulative total. It does not include $10 billion in loan guarantees! I realize we should not buy friendship. However, even without our financial aid, Israel has acted irresponsibly. Our continued aid to Israel must be stopped until the country conforms to even minimal legal and humanitarian standards. John L. Hughes, Milwaukee, WI
To National Public Radio, Washington, DC, Sept. 9, 1999. In the 8 a.m. news bulletin this morning, Linda Gradstein reported on the release by Israel of nearly 200 Palestinian prisoners. At the end of the news spot, Gradstein said, “Meanwhile, Israel sealed off the West Bank and Gaza Strip, meaning that Palestinians cannot enter Israel until after the Jewish new year holiday.” What Linda Gradstein did not say, for inexplicable reasons, is that on every other day of the year, all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, except for a tiny minority who hold special permits from the occupation authorities, are forbidden from entering Israel or occupied Jerusalem. There has in fact been a permanent closure since March 1993. Today’s “total closure” simply tightens the existing closure by forbidding the special few with permits from entering Israel or occupied Jerusalem. Linda’s report gives the completely false impression that all Palestinians are free to travel into Israel or Jerusalem on all except a few days when there are special security fears. In fact on ordinary days Palestinians are not even allowed to travel freely within the occupied West Bank, or between the occupied West Bank and occupied Gaza, let alone into Israel. This misrepresentation is one that Ms. Gradstein used to make routinely prior to her lengthy absence from your air. It is sad that in the interim she apparently picked up little. Ali Abunimah, Chicago, IL To The Washington Times , Sept. 2, 1999 (as submitted). Regarding your “Israel’s Runaway Bride” editorial, Prime Minister Barak has been skittish about more than Wye agreement terms. When Barak was in Washington recently he was asked three times in press conferences about American citizens who have been tortured and are still held in Israeli prisons. He refused to answer the questions and changed the subject. Madeleine Albright has an obligation to American citizens to seek the release of all American political prisoners in Israeli prisons. The Reuters report of Aug. 30 details the claims of three Americans that they were tortured and otherwise mistreated. The report quotes a State Department official, “The stories they told were very compelling and we take their concerns very seriously. We reassured them that we will continue to take seriously and pursue vigorously all allegations of mistreatment of U.S. prisoners in foreign custody and we will raise such cases with host governments.” The administration has not raised this issue with Israel at the highest levels as yet. Secretary Albright’s role as a peacemaker is seriously compromised if she does not dare to seek the immediate release of these American political prisoners from the prisons of our closest Mideast ally, Israel. Jerri Bird, president and founder, Partners for Peace, Washington, DC
To the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 12, 1999 (as published). Why has it taken a ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court to incite the P-I to discuss Israel’s consistent violation of human rights, the subject of Thursday’s lead editorial? To quote your editorial, “…continued support of Israel by the American people depends to a great extent upon Americans’ faith that their support is fostering democracy and human rights…” Would “the American people” support Israel if they knew torture of Palestinian detainees, the subject of the editorial, is only one of many of Israel’s human rights violations? Other violations include confiscation (stealing) of private property, bulldozing of homes and imprisonment of Palestinians without trial, completely ignored by the U.S. media. To put it bluntly, the U.S. has supported Israeli actions that are in direct violation of the principles upon which our country was founded. Diplomatically, the U.S. supports Israel. It is usually the only major power to veto U.N. resolutions condemning Israeli human rights violations. Financially, U.S. “aid” has totaled more than $91 billion. If these facts were known to the American public, would this country continue its blind support of Israel? Hopefully, the P-I will include the complete and accurate facts in future reporting on the Middle East. John S. O’Connor, Seattle, WA
To the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 13, 1999 (as submitted). In printing my letter in Sunday’s paper regarding your Thursday editorial on Torture by Israel, you edited out two lines which define U.S. support of Israel in understandable terms. Your editorial writer stated America’s support of Israel depends on our citizens’ belief we are “fostering democracy and human rights.” The first item edited out defines how completely Israel violates those most basic beliefs: “The U.S. has supported Israel’s actions in Direct Violation …(of) four of the Ten Commandments, our Declaration of Independence, and Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 to the Bill of Rights of our Constitution.” The second excision eliminates the restatement of $91 billion total aid given to Israel into understandable figures: “Translated into figures you and I can understand, this means we have given Israel over $75,000 per Israeli family of five! (More than two years’ earnings for the average American taxpayer.)” Editing is essential to meet space requirements. However, even your editorial writer was apparently unaware that the U.S. finances Israeli actions which are the direct opposite of U.S. beliefs in democracy and human rights. The portions edited out were attempts to express those facts in words which would bring understanding. John S. O’Connor, Seattle, WA
To the Arab News (Saudi Arabia), Sept. 29, 1999 (as published). When it comes to reporting Islamic news, Western journalists are biased. Their bias is transmitted throughout the world, resulting in misinforming the people. Very few people know of an organization called Gush Emunim, an Israeli movement created to encourage Jewish settlements in the occupied territories “by fair means or foul.” Even Israeli writers such as David Grossman admit that ordinary Israelis fear members of Gush Emunim. Yet, no Western journalist has been courageous enough to write about it in the same detail as stories we get about Muslim and Arab “terrorists.” The cruelty and roughness of Israeli rulers get hardly any publicity in the Western media. Why don’t these same journalists write the truth about Kashmir, where brutal Indian soldiers are butchering Muslims? Or about the opposition against the Muslims in Mindanao, Chechnya, Burma, etc.? There is probably no Islamic country which gets better publicity in the Western press than Turkey and the reasons should not be hard to find. Apart from belonging to NATO, the regime in Turkey is based on a rigid separation between Islam and the state even though its politics revolve around religious issues. Any regime that is opposed to Islamic “fundamentalism” gets good publicity and whoever backs Muslims is condemned. This is what most people read about Islam. It is high time now for us Muslims to start challenging this malicious propaganda against our religion. In Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants kill each other. Why don’t these journalists call the murderers “Christian militants”? Journalists should be fair and professional in reporting Islamic events. Saleh Yislam Kiduchi, Alkhobar, Saudi Arabia
To The New York Times, Oct. 7, 1999 (as published). Anthony Lewis (column, Oct. 5) is right to question the fairness of Immigration and Naturalization Service policy. His criticisms could also be directed toward the agency’s use of secret evidence, which allows immigrants to be detained on charges which neither they nor their lawyers know or have a chance to rebut. This is the situation faced by Mazen Al-Najjar, a respected academic at the University of South Florida in Tampa and a father of three, who has been behind bars since May 1997 without being given a chance to see the evidence against him. This negates the most basic principle of our judicial system: that no one should be imprisoned without an opportunity to confront the accusation against him. Aly R. Abuzaakouk, Washington, DC (The writer is executive director of the American Muslim Council in Washington, D.C.)
To President Bill Clinton, Washington, DC, Sept. 3, 1999. We write to ask you to ensure that all American citizens be afforded equal protection by the government while traveling abroad. In most cases, the United States government is a model of vigorous protection for nationals abroad, but in the case of Arab Americans detained by Israel, a different standard seems to apply. In particular, it would appear that Arab Americans detained by Israeli authorities, who are being tried in military courts without the protection of a system of civil law and who are being tortured and severely mistreated, receive little or no support from the State Department. Affidavits delivered to the State Department by three Americans of Arab origin, Yousef Marei, Anwar Mohamad and Bishara Saidi, all of whom were tortured and otherwise mistreated when in Israeli custody, attest to the government’s lack of interest in these cases. The State Department clearly failed to protect these men. Moreover, reports suggest that there are many other cases of Americans of Arab origin who have been tortured and mistreated by Israel without an appropriate response from our government. The travel advisory issued by the State Department warning that “U.S. citizens arrested for security offenses [by Israel] may be subject to mistreatment during the interrogation period of their cases” indicates that the U.S. government is well aware of the problem, and still fails to do all it can to protect Americans of Arab origin who are being tortured by Israeli authorities. We insist that all Americans be treated equally, and that while traveling abroad, no matter what their national origin or the country they are visiting, the United States government defend their fundamental human rights. Mistreatment and torture of Americans must not be tolerated, especially when carried out by a United States “ally.” Americans of Arab origin are no less deserving of protection from torture than any other citizen, and the government must act accordingly. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Washington, DC
To Senator Charles Schumer, Sept. 21, 1999. In 1787, as minister plenipotentiary in Paris, Thomas Jefferson wrote James Madison, approving the proposed Constitution then being debated in Philadelphia. But he passionately insisted that there must be a Bill of Rights, including public trials and “the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws.” The Bill of Rights which Jefferson defined as “eternal” was adopted and enforced for centuries in this country, only to be compromised and diluted by recent legislation whose constitutionality, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, is highly invasive, of dubious validity, and threatening to the rights of all Americans. The most pernicious, threatening and racist form of that invasion is the Anti-Terrorism Act, which you co-sponsored a few years ago. At the time this legislation was introduced, there had been acts of terror by resident aliens. But there have also been just as serious acts of terror ignited by native-born Americans. Even upon its adoption, the constitutionality and warrant of this act was highly suspect. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that aliens enjoyed the same constitutional protections as other Americans. That Jefferson himself never exempted aliens from his beloved constitutional protections is underscored by his passionate opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts enacted under his predecessor as president and their subsequent invalidation by the Supreme Court during Jefferson’s presidency. Today, before our eyes, we confront growing evidence of secret, totalitarian, quintessentially star-chamber proceedings in jails around the nation. In one jail there is an Egyptian national who has been in solitary confinement for three years, has been denied bond, has been refused the right to confront his accuser, and both he and his attorney have never been allowed to view the evidence against the accused. There are numerous other aliens, including 12 Iraqis being defended by the former head of the CIA, who have been similarly treated. Is this America? If so, it is not the America of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, the latter an alien, all of whom argued for a truly democratic republic with equal rights for all. I suggest that the United States is not so weak or threatened or defenseless that it must take the first threatening steps toward abrogating the rights of all by egregiously and ominously trampling the rights of some. The ACLU is urging all Americans to support and promote the Secret Evidence Repeal Act. Will you have the courage to admit that there was not, and currently there is not, any threat so serious that it should undermine those critical protections that our founding fathers fought so hard to adopt and that for 200 years have defined our Republic? Your constituent, Mitchell Kaidy, Rochester, NY cc: Representative Louise Slaughter
To Mr. Mitchell Kaidy, Committee on Middle East Peace, Sept. 15, 1999. Thank you for writing in support of H.R. 2121, the Secret Evidence Repeal Act. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this important legislation. The United States has a long history of providing refuge to persons seeking asylum from persecution in their native country due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Like you, I believe we must strive for an immigration policy that does not betray our heritage and does not deny human rights. As you know, H.R. 2121 would ensure that no alien is removed, denied any benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or otherwise deprived of liberty, based on evidence that is kept secret from the alien. By eliminating the use of “secret evidence” against immigrants, this bill would restore the system of due process in the American judicial system for every immigrant who stands accused in U.S. courts. On June 18, H.R. 2121 was referred to the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. Be assured that if this legislation does reach the House floor for a vote, I will keep your strong support in mind. Louise M. Slaughter, Member of Congress, Washington, DC
To Provost J. Dennis O’Connor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, Sept. 9, 1999. In July I received your fund solicitation, which brought to mind the Holocaust Museum, prompting my letter (copy attached) to Senator Wellstone requesting the dollar amount our government gives annually to that institution. The response (copy attached) from an employee in Senator Wellstone’s St. Paul, Minnesota office is that the figure is $32.1 million for the current year. I suggest that you inquire of your congressional representative as to why this $32.1 is going where it is. It’s my understanding that the museum was to be built (and I resent the influence represented by its construction on what I consider honored United States ground) with private (even tax-deductible) funds; but it appears that once the foot was in the door of Congress, quietly all was changed. Imagine that! I would like to see this $32.1 million sent to the Smithsonian, a truly United States institution. Helen Overdiek, U.S. citizen/taxpayer, Hopkins, MN
To The Gulf Today (Sharjah, UAE), Oct. 2, 1999 (as published). The stand of the United Arab Emirates initiated by (UAE) Information and Culture Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan and his efforts to move Disney to consider the Arab and Muslims’ view over the brazenly untruthful portrayal of Jerusalem is very commendable as this reflected Arab unity and the importance of Jerusalem to Muslims. The most important thing is that Sheikh Abdullah stood up and made Disney hear the UAE’s, the Arabs’ and the Muslims’ point of view. I think what is most important is the fact that the UAE, led by Sheikh Abdullah, stood up to the challenge, aired the UAE opinion, tackled it the way it should have been, and sent shivers down the Disney spine by the boycott threat. I also applaud Sheikh Abdullah’s initiative for “better journalism standards” and I think this will go a long way in effectively putting a stamp on the fact that UAE is really gaining an important say in the international arena, especially when Dubai is setting up a business channel to be seen all over the globe. Sheikh Abdullah deserves all praise for his brave, ethical, moral, pious and logical stand. No one else could have done it better. Syed Imran, Dubai, UAE
To Mr. George Kalogridis, Vice President, Epcot Center, Orlando, FL, Sept. 21, 1999. I am writing in regard to Disney’s decision to permit an Israeli-paid-for exhibition at Epcot Center which claims that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I am not Muslim nor an Arab, but I am a believer in justice and fair play. For Disney to take the side of the Israelis who took over Arab East Jerusalem by force in 1967 is political treachery and bias. If Canada took the United States by force and then raised a pavilion stating Washington, DC is the capital of Canada, I daresay you would be angry. Well, that’s how the Palestinians feel—Christian and Muslim Palestinians. I will boycott all Disney products, theme parks and TV programming and I will ask every member of my extended family to do so for as long as Disney opts to take the side of the Israelis who have no claim to Arab East Jerusalem. What you are saying is that might makes right. Disney should not be saying this. Patricia McDonnell, Los Angeles, CA
To the Saudi Gazette, Sept. 24, 1999 (as published). If, like me, you are concerned about the Disney Corporation’s provocative actions over the planned exhibit depicting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, you can take your own individual action. Quite simply—refuse to buy any Disney products and inform the company of your decision. Greg Russell, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
To The New York Times , Sept. 22, 1999 (as published). If the Walt Disney Company wishes to avoid taking a political stance on the status of Jerusalem in its new Israeli pavilion at Disney World, there is a simple way to do this (news article, Sept. 18). Rather than take a side, all the company needs to do is to indicate that a dispute is taking place and state the separate opinions of both the Israeli and Arab sides as each wishes to present its view. Visitors would then have a chance to read the exhibit statement and think about it for themselves. Michael A. Burstein, Brookline, MA
To The Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 30, 1999 (as published). Regarding your editorial “Jerusalem Mickey-Mouse” (Sept. 24): I was struck by the dashed sentence “that the holy sites will always be open to all Jews, Christians—and Muslims.” Somehow that dash loomed large in my mind as a Muslim, as if Muslims were added as an afterthought. One only needs to read the history of Jerusalem to understand that the only time of peace, harmony and co-existence among the three faiths was under Islamic rule. Now this Holy City has become a marketing and public relations pawn in the Disney Epcot exhibit, bought and paid for by the Israeli government. This has sparked a worldwide controversy among Christians and Muslims that, along with the de facto Judaization of Jerusalem in Israel, has made any peaceful resolution to the city’s final status difficult. The American entertainment corporation run by a Jewish American, Michael Eisner, was paid in effect to market the Israeli claim to Jerusalem as its eternal undivided capital. The Arabs don’t—and shouldn’t—object to an Israeli exhibit since Israel is an independent nation. What they object to is Israel’s and Disney’s complicity in trying to pre-empt world opinion and ongoing negotiations in deciding Jerusalem’s fate. Our government, the Vatican, the European Union, and many U.N. resolutions do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Disney must present Jerusalem in its true historical light by stating that both the Israelis and Palestinians claim it as their capital and that its future is being negotiated. It must also give equal emphasis to its importance to the three Abrahamic faiths and not sell the city for $1.8 million. Jerusalem is not for sale. Mohamed Khodr, Winchester, VA
To The New York Times, Sept. 22, 1999 (as published). Re your Sept. 18 news article on the controversial Israeli exhibit at Disney World: The status of East Jerusalem is not simply a matter of competing claims between Palestinians and Israelis. There is a consensus in the international community regarding the political status of East Jerusalem. Israel conquered Arab East Jerusalem during the 1967 war. In the aftermath of that war, East Jerusalem was recognized as an area under foreign military occupation by United Nations Resolution 242, and Israel’s annexation of Arab East Jerusalem was declared null and void by the Security Council. Any representation of Arab East Jerusalem that ignores the reality of the military occupation that the Christian and Muslim Palestinian residents of Arab East Jerusalem endure will be flawed, incomplete and misleading. Hussein Ibish, Washington, DC (The writer is communications director, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.)
To Mr. Ken Whyte, Editor-in-Chief, the National Post, Ottawa, Aug. 9, 1999 (as submitted). The Canadian Islamic Congress and many of your readers were greatly concerned about the physical, mental and emotional safety of many Canadian Muslims upon the publication of Daniel Pipes’ article “Behind the Veil of Islam,” on Aug. 7. The article is misleading and contains hate literature. It uses rhetoric and chopped logic to stereotype Muslims. Dr. Pipes is associated with the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, along with Khalid Duran and Steve Emerson. All have a long anti-Islamic history in the American media. The article was unworthy of publication by a respected Canadian national newspaper like the Post. But now that it is published, the Congress requests you to publish the enclosed article. Mohamed Elmasry, Professor of Engineering at the University of Waterloo and member of the Canadian Islamic Conference, Waterloo, Ontario
To The Washington Post, Oct. 8, 1999 (as published). The Sept. 27 editorial “Living With Islam” would have been better titled: “Overcoming Islamic Fundamentalism.” Islam—like Judaism, Christianity and, indeed, other religions—lends itself to either a literal, “fundamentalist” or a liberal, moderate interpretation. To equate it with Islamic fundamentalism does grave injustice to Islam. It also plays into the hands of the fundamentalists, who like nothing better than being regarded as the “Islamists.” Muslim intellectuals who advocate and those Muslim leaders who seek to establish a peaceful, democratic society within the framework of the new world order are convinced that the task does not necessarily entail compromising any of the basic tenets of their faith. Accordingly many Algerians would find it particularly disturbing to be described, in the words of the last sentence of the editorial, as a model of how a country “once convulsed by Islam” now tries to live with it. Mohamed Ibrahim Khalil, Silver Spring, MD
To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 8, 1999 (as published). Re: “U.S. Nearing Key Juncture in Iraq Policy,” Aug. 29: If the UNICEF report states that child mortality rates have doubled in Iraq since sanctions were first imposed and that Baghdad and the sanctions should share the blame, please inform the readers that the death rate for children under five years of age is approximately 5,000 every month. To leave out this statistic is unconscionable. When are you going to report the killing of a nation? R.J. Pisapia, Westlake Village, CA
To The New York Times, Oct. 9, 1999 (as published). Re: “U.S. Wields Defter Weapon Against Iraq: Concrete Bomb” (news article, Oct. 7): When did Congress approve the “war” on Iraq that is mentioned? Most Americans are under the impression that the Persian Gulf war is over. And will dropping concrete from planes really diminish human casualties? It may not ignite, but it will certainly kill. If our concern is civilian casualties, why not stop dropping the most lethal weapon of all, the sanctions and embargo? (Sister) Arlene Flaherty, New York, NY (The writer is director of the Inter-Community Center for Justice and Peace.) X
To the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 27, 1999 (as submitted). Congratulations to Bob Jensen for having the courage to speak the truth about the Middle East “peace process.” (“A Peace Process to Break the Hearts of Palestinians,” Sept. 27.) I have many family members and friends living in the occupied West Bank who can attest first hand to how bad the situation is. Yesterday, the Israeli group Peace Now revealed that Barak’s government has issued tenders for 2,600 new housing units in Jewish-only settlements on confiscated Palestinian land. This is just one more reminder of how reality and rhetoric diverge when we talk about peace in the Middle East. Ali Abunimah, Chicago, IL
To The Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1999 (as published). In “U.S. Air Raids on Iraq Become an Almost Daily Ritual” [news story, Aug. 30], it is asserted that “more than a year has passed since Iraq shut down the U.N. weapons inspection program that President Clinton so often proclaimed as ‘essential to keeping the peace.’” This is inaccurate. The weapons inspection program was shut when its head, Richard Butler, withdrew the inspectors in December 1998 following the release of a self-contradictory report. On Dec. 14, The Post reported, “Clinton administration officials played a direct role in shaping Butler’s text during multiple conversations with him (at secure facilities in the U.S. mission to the U.N.).” The next day, Mr. Butler released the report, which stated that “the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the continuing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq’s cooperation”—yet concluded that “the commission is not able to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it.” With this tangled rationale, Mr. Butler withdrew the weapons inspectors from Iraq. On Dec. 16 (the eve of President Clinton’s scheduled impeachment vote) the United States began the bombing campaign “Desert Fox.” As for the weapons inspections being “essential to keep the peace,” why did the U.S. government undermine them by using them for espionage against Iraq? Further, why did the administration (contrary to U.N. Security Council resolutions) state that the devastating economic sanctions would stay in place even if Iraq complied with the weapons inspectors? These are hardly the policies one would expect if weapons of mass destruction were a pivotal concern for the administration. Sam Husseini, Communications Director, Institute for Public Accuracy, Washington, DC
To Senator Robert Kerrey, c/o The Senate Intelligence Committee, Washington, DC, Oct. 5, 1999. The New York Times reported on Sept. 13th that you were campaigning on Capitol Hill for a ground war on Iraq to “topple Saddam Hussain.” I can think of no act more ill conceived. In the first place the military ouster of the head of a foreign country is strictly forbidden by international law, forbidden by the United Nations Charter (to which the U.S. is a signatory) and forbidden by the Geneva Convention which we also signed. Moreover, our nine years of genocide of the Iraqi people has shamed us before the world. In last week’s U.N. meeting of the Security Council, France, the Soviets and China each criticized our Iraq policy, and several other nations on that Council disagree with us as well. Only our bullying approach to a compliant Council kept those sanctions against the Iraqi people from being voted down. I have had several occasions as a free-lance writer to interview ex-assistant secretary-general Denis J. Halliday, who quit his 33-year relationship with the U.N. and resigned as coordinator of the Oil-for-Food program in disgust over pitiless U.S.-British killing of the young and aged in Saddam’s country. I suggest that your Senate Intelligence Committee call Halliday as a witness, and listen carefully to what we have done and are doing to a generation of Iraqis. The continuing U.S.-British war against the Iraqi people is unconscionable and condemned by the International Red Cross, the Red Crescent, Amnesty International, Voices in the Wilderness, and ex-Attorney General Ramsey Clark and his group plus many others. We are seen, not only in the entire Arab world but around the globe, as the world’s terrorist nation, an arrogant, brutal government, behaving like the proverbial bull in a china shop. I am a retired surgeon (cardiovascular) and now free-lance writer. As a young man I served as a surgeon with the U.S. Navy in the Pacific in World War II and, called back from the Reserves, went overseas as a Battalion surgeon with the U.S. Marines during the Korean war. I have seen more than enough killing. You, Senator, seem to have learned little from your military years. Today, Senator, your friend Israel occupies parts of three foreign countries, shoots kids in the street, tortures thousands of political prisoners, steals water, land and the futures of over two million Palestinians, who still languish after half a century in refugee camps, and is setting up an apartheid state for the Palestinians. But you are too intimidated by Israel’s domestic lobby in Washington, DC to open your mouth about Israel’s human rights violations, its violations of international law, and the needless deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. Edward W. Miller, MD, San Rafael, CA
To the Arab News, Sept. 29, 1999 (as published). The Indian security forces recently killed several Kashmiris because they refused to cast their vote in the recent elections. Christians in small villages kept away from the polling stations for fear of vengeance from the losing candidates. As shown on Indian TV channels, thousands of voters in other parts of India openly boycotted the polls. They were not killed. It provides yet another evidence to the fact that Kashmir is not a part of India. If this is not the case, then why were the people of other states not only spared but also praised for their heroic stance while the Kashmiris were subjected to maximal brutality for the same offense? Kofi Annan recently said that the U.N. must intervene to protect civilians from war and mass slaughter and that massive and systematic violations of human rights should not be allowed to continue. I doubt if this statement would ever apply to Kashmir. The U.N. secretary-general is not supposed to act on his own. He has to be guided or misguided by the boss. The boss is, these days, going out of his way to pamper India because India is helping Israel’s economy by buying its armament and engaging its experts to train the Indian army. Israel and India are the first states that offered their support to Russia to curb the independence movements in Chechnya and Dagestan. In such a Catch-22 position, Kofi Annan can only speak out; he cannot set out. Shaukat Jamal, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
To The New York Times, Sept. 22, 1999 (as published). Re “Khat-Chewing Yemen Told to Break Ancient Habit” (news article, Sept. 19): As a native of Yemen and as a doctor who has worked there, I am acutely aware of Yemen’s suffering—economically, socially and medically—from this destructive habit. The effects are like those of amphetamines: mild euphoria, enhanced energy, increased communication, decreased appetite and sleep, followed by depressive symptoms in the evening. While chewing khat, Yemenis also consume large quantities of cigarettes and tobacco, leading to an epidemic of cardiovascular diseases at younger ages than in the West. Perhaps the United States should support President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s campaign against khat with more aid than what it now gives to Yemen, which amounts to 10 cents per Yemeni a year. Mohamed Khodr, M.D., Winchester, VA
To The New York Times, Sept. 19, 1999 (as published). Your report that devastating earthquakes in Greece and Turkey have improved relations between the two countries with “spectacular suddenness” is true, though individual Greeks and Turks, led by intellectuals and artists, have been working quietly for peace for decades (“Earthquakes Help Warm Greek-Turkish Relations,” front page, Sept. 13). In Greece, the efforts for peace have been led by Mikis Theodorakis, the composer and activist. He and Zulfu Livaneli, the Turkish composer, have encouraged artists from both countries to participate together in concerts and symposiums. An Athens concert to benefit victims of the Turkish earthquake in which the two men were to have appeared had to be cancelled because of the Greek tremors. One can only hope that the sympathetic vibrations of music and nature can achieve what politicians on both sides of the Aegean have failed to do for all these years. Spyros D. Orfanos, New York, NY
To The New York Times, Sept. 19, 1999 (as published). The recent earthquakes that claimed the lives of thousands in Turkey and Greece have shown what deep-rooted friendship exists between the Turkish and Greek peoples. Both countries have rediscovered their common cultural and humanistic values after these disasters, and I believe both will try to forget hostilities and build a future of peace and cooperation. I just wish we hadn’t paid such a high price to realize our true feelings. Salahattin Tumer, Ankara, Turkey
To The New York Times, Oct. 2, 1999 (as published). While the Clinton administration should use the new warmth between Greece and Turkey to help find a solution to the Cyprus issue, it should also take advantage of Turkey’s best chance to bring a peaceful resolution to the Kurdish conflict (news article, Sept. 29). The Kurdistan Workers Party has recently unilaterally enacted a cease-fire and begun withdrawing forces from southeastern Turkey. Abdullah Ocalan, the party’s imprisoned leader, sent a group of rebels to surrender as an expression of good will and pledged his commitment to working with Turkey to find a peaceful, democratic solution to the conflict. Despite this, Turkish officials have pushed forward with plans for a military victory that includes an eight-year, $31 billion military modernization plan. The administration should urge Turkey to forgo this plan and instead commit to a peaceful resolution of the Kurdish conflict. Michelle Ciarrocco, New York, NY (The writer is a research associate at the World Policy Institute.)
To Rep. Sam Gejdenson, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. John Kerry, Washington, DC, Aug. 15, 1999. I see that you all have received a “Friend of Zion” awards. For the past half-century Zionism has served as the ideological justification for the dispossession of more than a million Palestinians from their ancestral homeland and the slaughter of many thousands of Palestinians and other Arabs as well as the on-going oppression of those who remain under Israeli control. I am curious if you are “friends” of any similar ideologies such as National Socialism or Apartheid? J. Melita, Great Neck, NY
To VFW Magazine, Kansas City, MO, Sept. 9, 1999 (as submitted). Your story in the September issue, “Close Obsolete VA Buildings,” shows that the VFW is no longer a knee-jerk special interest organization but a national organization of veterans concerned with the common good. We in the VFW—and I am now a lifetime member of Clark-Hanson Post in Canby, MN—are a special-interest group, because we’re primarily concerned with veterans. That’s who we are. But your story on VA buildings showed that we have a concern in common with all Americans. I don’t advocate any foreign policy views for the VFW. But wouldn’t it be great if our own model of self-criticism by an enlightened special-interest group could be emulated by others? Must Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans and other ethnic groups all have their own foreign policy lobbies? We have perhaps 150 or more ethnic groups in our country. Wouldn’t the VFW example serve us all in considering the common good? C. Patrick Quinlan, Edina, MN
To the Kilgore News Herald, Sept. 5, 1999 (as published). Re: Charley Reese’s columns in KNH, Aug. 20 and 23, “Winners Decide Who Are War Criminals” and “Improvements Important to Diplomacy.” I have always been leery about the term “war criminals” since instituted after World War II. Reese mentioned Hiroshima and the A-bomb the U.S. dropped there in August 1945. He could have included Hamburg and Dresden, Germany. Dresden was the “art and cultural” center of Germany. There were no war factories; no troops stationed there…it was a civilian center only. Hamburg was more “iffy” as it was at least a port. Both German cities were leveled in a calculated manner. More people were killed in Dresden than at Hiroshima—old men and women, children and the infirm. Of course, this was the allies and thus not a war crime. I agree 100 percent with Reese when he wrote: “It is one of the more heinous perversions of language and morality to claim that killing unarmed civilians with rifles is a war crime but killing the same unarmed civilians with a bomb or an artillery shell is just ‘collateral damage.’” In 1982 more than 30,000 Palestinian refugees were killed by Israeli bombs in south Lebanon during the Israeli onslaught while more than 300,000 were made homeless. Most of the planes and ammunition used were given to Israel by the U.S. taxpayers. And people wonder why so many around the world actually hate the U.S. Israel dropped “cluster bombs” all over south Lebanon, just as the U.S. dropped “cluster bombs” over much of Serbia and Kosovo. And civilians and refugees are dying daily from all those cluster bombs but that isn’t a war crime unless your enemy does it and you win. Reese’s Aug. 23 column: Arafat has declared that Palestinians who were forced from their homes in 1948 should be allowed to “return and/or be compensated” as more than 40 U.N. resolutions have demanded of Israel. In fact, that was a condition for Israel’s membership in the U.N. to which Israel agreed May 12, 1949 after having been denied membership in December 1948. Quoting Charley Reese: “Barak, in fact, has already said there will be no return of refugees. The brutal truth is there is nowhere for them to return, since in most cases, their villages have been obliterated and replaced by Jewish housing, towns, cities, parks, etc.” Of course this “brutal truth” is in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention which Israel signed in 1952. The people of the U.S. are uninformed on Mideast facts now often in Reese columns that would take pages to semi-adequately discuss. So, for now, think about what Reese wrote in these two columns. Gip D. Oldham, Dallas, TX |
|
|