Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2003, pages 3, 90-91

Letters to the Editor

Frustrating Delay Ameliorated

The major problem I have with the Washington Report is that you are always about three to four weeks behind the news. By the time I receive the Report I have already read reports and analysis of events from the other sources I access. So your material always has a certain "stale" quality (due to its delay).

I know this is difficult to solve (and I am not denying your usefulness), but I find it continuously frustrating. I wish you continued success.

Vahe Tiryakian, New York, NY

With this issue, we will be publishing a leaner, meaner Washington Report 10 times a year rather than nine, and hope thereby to ease your frustration. (See the "Publishers' Page" for complete details.) Not only do we have one of the quickest turn-arounds in the business (each issue is mailed five days after it goes to the printer), but we doubt Americans can rely on the mainstream media for an unbiased--i.e., accurate--account of events in the region. Nevertheless, we shall continue our unceasing efforts to get world leaders to do a better job adhering to our deadlines.

Palestinian Christian Exodus

The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species. When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago, the number was down to 80,000. Now it's down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left.

Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.

So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?

We have lost hope, that's why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do conveniently forget.

I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see the modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to Paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to Hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.

Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don't enter into anyone's calculations.

The views of the Israeli Right are well known : they want us gone.

Less well known are the views of the American Religious Right. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said: "God Appeared to Abraham and said: 'I am giving you this land,' the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true."

House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) was even more forthright: "I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank...I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave."

There is a phrase for this: Ethnic cleansing.

So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well...since Christ?

Do not think I am asking for special treatment for Christians. Ethnic cleansing is evil whoever does it and to whomever it is done. Palestinian Christians--Maronite Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Armenians, Baptists, Copts and Assyrians--have been rubbing shoulders with each other and with other religions--Muslims, Jews, Druze and (most recently) Baha'is--for centuries. We want to do so for centuries more. But we can't if we are driven out by despair.

What we seek is support: material, moral, political and spiritual. As Palestinians we grieve for what we have lost and few people (the Ashkenazi Jews are one) have lost more than us. But grief can be assuaged by the fellowship of friends.

Prof. Abe Ata, via e-mail (<awa@myriad.its.unimelb.edu.au>)

(The writer is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian born in Bethlehem. He is a visiting Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne, and an author of 11 books, including Intermarriage between Christians and Muslims (Melbourne, 2000).

The Christian Wrong

I gave up on your questionnaire because I just wanted to check every benefit item as Yes! Yes! Keep It Up!

My own focus of interest is shifting from lambasting the evildoing of the Israeli army and the machinations of American Jewish Zionism to the question of how to deal with the increasingly zealous Christian Wrong (most folks still call them the Christian Right). In an effort to find a usable handle for them, the best I can do so far is "Doomsday Christians."

Other than the charismatic charlatans who mislead them, these people, who are generally pretty intelligent and mean well, are working to bring on World War III. They include some of my own beloved family. Therefore, I cannot attack them, but must find a way to inform them gently. Can you help readers like me formulate approaches?

A book I discovered recently, that I don't find in your list, and should, is An End of Days by Gershom Gorenberg (Oxford University Press, 2000). A friend who recently bought it on my recommendation reported that it has been updated to deal with 9/11/01. Take a look at it!

W. A. Rogers, Mechanicsburg, PA

We've often found ourselves stymied when trying to debate Christian fundamentalists, whose arguments are based on an absolute--"It is God's word"--and hence not subject to discussion. We invite readers who may have succeeded in this regard to help all of us "formulate approaches."

U.S. Christian Activism

Enclosed is a check for $75 for AET to use as needed. Please enter this contribution in the name of Lawrence D. Thompson, who has been a longtime subscriber and supporter of yours.

Larry (my husband) and I recently taught a church-based adult education "survey course" on the Israel-Palestine conflict. It was only three sessions, a grand total of 412 hours (next time it will be four and six), but 12 serious and intelligent adults stayed with it, and some of them will become politically active as a result. (We meet again in two weeks' time to determine what we'll do next in the way of education and political action.)

In preparing materials for our course, I called the Washington Report and spoke to a very pleasant woman, who sent me a stack of sample issues. Our stock-in-trade as instructors went up when we pulled out those handsomely produced Washington Reports! People pounced on them, and I hope at least a few subscriptions resulted. So this check is by way of saying "thank you."

We'll be calling on Washington Report for more freebies in February, because we're going to offer the course again--and, we hope, again and again.

Kristine Montamat, Arlington, VA

We're happy to get the word out in any way possible--and could not do it without the committed efforts of Americans such as yourselves. Thanks, too, for the reimbursement--it will help us cover costs for those who may not be able to.

Spreading the Word

You will be glad to know that Prince George's, MD Public Library System does subscribe to the Washington Report. In fact, 10 library branches are listed as having it on shelf. It also shows that the subscription began in 2002, so I don't know yet how many issues might actually be on display, but I will check at Hyattsville later this week. I was surprised and very pleased. Now if you find another local library system that doesn't subscribe and doesn't have the funds to subscribe, but would make the magazine accessible if they had a subscription donated for them, let me know. Maybe I could help.

Diane Haddick, Washington, DC

If there's one thing we never reject, it's an offer of help. Our circulation director, Asma Yousef, who maintains lists of just such libraries, will be in touch with you soon.

Lying by Omission

I know that the Washington Report will be on top of the latest story about Israel's request for military aid and loan guarantees, particularly the AP story claiming that there is no cost to the U.S. in the guarantees if the loans are repaid (wrong) and that Israel has never defaulted on a loan (wrong in that they never have to repay). Go get 'em!

But I want to call to your attention another piece of pro-Israel propaganda in the story. It suggests that a reason for the aid is Israel's preparation for the repercussions of the U.S. attack on Iraq--no mention is made of the costs of Israel's current military oppression of the Palestinians in response to the Palestinians resistance to the illegal occupation and settlements. Nothing. A lie can be by omission too. Another example of our pathetic "mainstream" press.

Albert Doyle, Sanibel, FL

In the original version of last issue's article on the high cost of the occupation to Israel ("Israel's Fruits of War Now Seen Spoiling on the Vine," p. 10), Thomas R. Stauffer wrote, "Between 1992 and 1998 [Israel] spent $10 billion in borrowed funds, fully guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury, to bolster their serious foreign accounts deficits. It would require a massive rescue of that magnitude to offset the current problems, since there has been no structural reform in the Israeli economy, given that they have trusted in recourse to the U.S. and the U.S. taxpayer." As the December issue was being edited, Israel made its request for U.S. funds-- precisely "of that magnitude."

In our current issue, see news editor Delinda C. Hanley's article on p. 6, and our postcard insert on the subject.

Mutual Admiration

I just received the November issue of your magazine and have begun to read it. As usual, I intend to read it from the first to the last page.

I praise myself for being your subscriber and, in spite of my limited resources, I have also been your supporter. I am enclosing my latest contribution to AET for the current year.

I adhere to the praises expressed in the letters your receive. I particularly enjoyed the letters from Mr. and Mrs. Sam Parks, and the one from Ms. Jean M. Connell.

I am sending you a copy of the letter I recently wrote to Sen. George Allen. The same letter, with minor modifications, was sent to Sen. John Warner. Of course, neither one wrote a response, since it is easy to understand that they fully support the folly of Mr. Bush and, on the other hand, they cannot give an adequate answer to my questions.

René Espinosa, Sr., Falls Church, VA

We praise ourselves for having you as a subscriber and supporter, and are humbled by your presence in our Choir of Angels.

Lieberman's Protective Aura

As a long-time voter in the state of Connecticut, I realized when Joseph Isidore Lieberman came on the scene it would not be good--and he has certainly proven me right.

It seems that only those of us peace activists/Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians, etc., who live here in Connecticut fully realize the danger of Lieberman, and that the rest of the country seems, for some very strange reason, to hold him in esteem.

What immediately provoked my concern was the printing of AMJ's Congressional Voting Record, wherein Lieberman's name is blatantly missing from The Hall of Shame--and so too with the recent [Sept./Oct. 2002] issue of the Washington Report. For the life of me, I can't understand what's going on. While working for the local Republican Party prior to the last senatorial election I was actually reprimanded for making non-complimentary remarks about him. Again, as a long-time political activist I know these comments to fellow party members are a matter of course in elections--so you can imagine my shock when I was threatened with dismissal from the executive board because of my remarks! At no time did I resort to profanity, and my confusion at the lack of criticism of an unworthy opponent which amounted to absolute reverence was astounding!

It's almost as if he has some supernatural aura which guarantees his untouchability. We can joke about poor Reagan's Teflon coating, but whatever Lieberman has working for him is NO joke. The man is a dyed-in-the-wool Zionist, and only that power raised him to the level of the presidency, if even for the duration of the campaign. But this protective aura has taken hold.

We now have racist-zionist control emanating from Israel (Sharon). What would it be like to have it right here in our White House with Lieberman pulling the strings? So, again I ask, why was he omitted from the Hall of Shame?

Maryam Fritsch-Mason, Wallingford, CT

Because they voted for the Senate version of the Hate Crimes Bill (S.625), 16 senators did not join 11 of their colleagues in the 107th Congress' Hall of Shame. All 27 were represented in the two negative columns. Interestingly, of the five relevant indicators, Lieberman voted only for S. 625. Crazy like a fox, we'd say.

A better picture can be gleaned from pro-Israel PAC contributions. In 2000, when Lieberman was up for re-election as Connecticut senator he received $86,000 in pro-Israel PAC contributions, bringing his career total to $226,508. Before he was named his party's vice presidential candidate that summer, he had received the most such contributions of any senatorial candidate. After agreeing to run on the national ticket, Lieberman declined to allow another Democrat to seek his Semate seat--thus leaving it vulnerable to a Republican in the event of a national Democratic victory. That's what we call hedging one's bets big time. As for Lieberman's "protective aura," we can only ask along with you, "Why is this senator different from any other senator?"

Of Utmost Importance

The Washington Report is the only U.S. publication which attempts to educate the American public on complex Middle East issues (a formidable effort under present conditions) by presenting the truth, dispelling long-held misconceptions and refuting misleading information. It is undertaking a task the Arab-American community failed to shoulder. It is therefore crucial in the struggle for the adoption of a balanced U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and thus securing U.S. interests in the area. To me, the Washington Report is of utmost importance.

Y.E. Sifri, Wilmington, NC

While Arab Americans may be best positioned to explain the reality of the Middle East to their fellow countrymen, we believe that, since all Americans are paying for Israel's murderous occupation of Palestine, it is crucial that, once they become informed, they act.

A Pleasant Surprise

I have just bookmarked your Web site. What a treasure trove!

Civilised and intelligent discourse about the Middle East from an American source is such a pleasant surprise in these dark days.

Keep it up.

Bruce Cockburn, via e-mail

We gather from your "civilised" spelling that you live across the pond. Thanks to the Internet, however, the world keeps getting smaller--and, we hope, better informed.

More on the Gulf

In his letter in the January/February 2002 issue Amin Fournasseh is quick to judge the Washington Report for what he sees as an error in referring to the "Persian Gulf" as the "Arabian Gulf." He rushes to insult the magazine's writers, suggesting that either ignorance on their part or flat out corruption were to blame. Unfortunately, it's Mr. Fournasseh who is wrong when he writes that "there is no such thing as the 'Arabian Gulf.'"

Seven countries of the eight bordering on the Gulf call it the Arabian Gulf, most encyclopedias mention both terms, and the European Union uses the two in its official documents. The facts clearly show that both terms are well established in their usage. While Mr. Killgore is correct in choosing to use the Persian Gulf, the usage most common in the U.S., it is not wrong to refer to the gulf as the Arabian Gulf.

More disturbing about Mr. Fournasseh's letter is his insinuation that "rich and wealthy Arabs" seek to trick the public into calling the body of water the Arabian Gulf. This is nothing short of hate, suggesting that Arabs want to revise geographic names. Furthermore, Mr. Fournasseh suggests that the Arabs, as relative newcomers to the Gulf region, have somehow lost their right to have their geographic names be well-recognized internationally. Here again, Mr. Fournasseh has only his ignorance to blame. In fact, Arabic-speaking tribes have been the predominant inhabitants of all the coasts of the Gulf for hundreds of years, even on the Iranian side of the water. This is a ridiculous and unjustified insinuation.

The Persian/Arabian Gulf is not the only example of a place having multiple names. Just travel through Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine and you will find scores of cities with several names, all in use and well recognized. Though some try to politicize the use of one or another of the names, no one should have the right to impose anything on anyone.

Nemr Janus Kanafani, Salmieh, Kuwait

Not only is the world getting smaller thanks to the Internet, but certain issues keep coming back to haunt us! We thank you for your contribution to the debate.

More on AIPAC "Invincibility"

I am glad that Ahmed Bouzid, president of Palestine Media Watch, is finally convinced that AIPAC is not invincible (Letters to the Editor, December 2002). His complete turn around speaks well of Mr. Bouzid's open mindedness when facing the mounting evidence of AIPAC's failures, including the defeat of three AIPAC-supported U.S. Senate candidates and the Democratic governor of Georgia, Roy Barnes, in whose official mansion AIPAC presented its various annual awards the weekend of Oct. 5-6, 2002.

But the available facts belie Mr. Bouzid's claim that he had always believed that AIPAC was not invincible.In his Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) article (<http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0802/0823mckinney.html>), he clearly concluded that "the message is loud and clear: Unless you want the kiss of political death, stay clear of Arabs and Muslims." He also wrote me, in support of his claim, stating, "The evidence that compels me to think that AIPAC is powerful is the fact that Congress is now virtually almost unanimously pro-Israeli," and that he "also know[s] that when AIPAC targets candidates, ....they lose."

Furthermore, he dismissed Rep. Cynthia McKinney's (D-GA) own refusal to blame her defeat on AIPAC by citing an Aug. 21, 2002 Washington Post article discussing tensions between Jews and Blacks (<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/articles/A47064-2002Aug21.html>), as further evidence of his belief in AIPAC's omnipotence.

Additionally, in private communications and via an Aug. 24, 2002 public message directed to the Palestine Media Watch monitoring the AJC, he challenged me to prove that pro-Israeli funds did NOT lead to the candidates' defeat as per the conventional wisdom in which he believed.

Shortly after I refused to indulge the futility of trying to prove that something (AIPAC's power) did not exist, my membership in the Palestine Media Watch group was abruptly terminated.

Mr. Bouzid is also wrong in concluding that I had read his original manuscript citing my comment about the absence of any reference to AIPAC in the AJC article. This omission was glaring to anyone who is an avid reader of your publication.I never read his manuscript; I was more concerned with the negative effects of his AJC article to worry about an unpublished manuscript.Furthermore, for Mr. Bouzid to imply that the AJC article did not reflect his original manuscript is an insult to the professionalism, capability and fair-mindedness of Mr. David Beasley, the AJC opinion page editor.

Issam Nashashibi, Dawsonville, GA

Speaking of issues that come back to haunt us! Now that both have been fully aired, we hope we can put them both in perspective--we value our Gulf friends and will fight our AIPAC foes--and get down to business. There's much to be done.