Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2001, page 43

Other People’s Mail

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

Double “Standards” at NPR

To NPR News, April 13, 2001.

Reviewing the news of April 12, the following is an accurate summary of what happened in the occupied territories:

A Palestinian boy aged 14 was shot dead in the occupied Gaza Strip. A 34-year-old Palestinian farmer was shot dead in the occupied Gaza Strip. A seven-year-old Palestinian schoolgirl was shot in the face with a rubber-coated metal bullet in the occupied West Bank when soldiers gassed and fired at her school. Palestinians foiled an Israeli car bomb plot which apparently attempted to kill a senior aide to Yasser Arafat.

One Israeli soldier was reported injured on April 12 when a firefight broke out after Israeli forces attempted to enter the “Area A” village of Beit Jala.

As far as I can tell none of this was reported on “Morning Edition” today. Let us suppose instead that the previous day an Israeli 14-year-old had been killed by Palestinians, or that Palestinian Authority police had attacked an Israeli school and shot a seven-year-old Israeli child in the face. Now let us suppose that Israeli police foiled a plot to bomb the car of a senior aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, would NPR have reported the events or ignored them?

If past experience is a guide....

Ali Abunimah, Chicago, IL

Krauthammer for Bombing Tel Aviv?

To The Washington Post, April 26, 2001 (as published, with the passage in italics deleted by the Post).

The policies advocated by Charles Krauthammer (What Happened to the Powell Doctrine?: April 20) were pursued, disastrously, on a vast scale by Ariel Sharon when close to 20,000 civilians were massacred in Lebanon in 1982 in “retaliation” for the wounding, by the Abu Nidal group, of the Israeli ambassador in London.

I lived in Beirut at that time (1982-86) and can attest that the three-month incessant, daily air, sea and land assault with cluster, phosphorous and implosion bombs only increased the determination to resist of Sharon’s victims. It did not “make the war short and make victory certain.” The same policy was repeatedly put in practice by the Nazis—at Lidice, etc.—where resistance to occupation met with just the response Krauthammer is advocating. Such retaliation is recognized as a war crime, now explicitly advocated by Krauthammer and those of his persuasion.

It also should be pointed out that as Israel, the occupying force, clearly is the aggressor with its ethnic cleansing and disproportionate slaughter of the Palestinians in their struggle for independence, it is Israel that should be on the receiving end of Powell’s “massive retaliation.” The carpet bombing of, say, Tel Aviv might make Krauthammer rethink his seeming infatuation with mass murder as justified retaliation.

Brian Johnston, Pittsburgh, PA

U.S. Politicians Running for Knesset?

To the Los Angeles Times, April 16, 2001 (as published).

Ever since the creation of Israel, most of our politicians and many of our intellectuals have been guilty of intellectual sterility and historical obfuscation. They are well aware of two commandments: Thou shall not criticize Israel and thou shall tell the truth, except when it pertains to Israel.

Edward Said has been under attack for years for courageously speaking the truth about the Palestinian cause. [Alexander] Cockburn should be commended for his editorial integrity. Listening to our politicians campaign for office, they sound as if they are running for the Knesset, not the U.S. Congress. Just ask a few members of Congress and intellectuals who dared to speak.

Remo G. Tabello, Los Angeles, CA

U.S. Supports Israeli Domination

To the Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2001 (as published).

The spin of Robin Wright’s article (“Middle East Leaders Urge Bush to Act,” April 3) is that the U.S. is somehow holding back on involvement in the Middle East, remaining excessively, perhaps dangerously, detached from events in this volatile area.

The truth, of course, is that the U.S. is passionately and overwhelmingly committed to supporting one party in the Arab-Israeli conflict. American taxpayers present an annual $3 billion stipend to the Israeli government, and massive, taxpayer-funded gifts of high-tech American arms have made Israel the largest and most violent military power in the Middle East. On March 27, in fact, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have provided U.N. peacekeepers in the Israeli-occupied territories to prevent further bloodshed.

Clearly, U.S. policy favors ongoing and increasing Israeli domination of the region; if this means the starvation, suffering and death of the Arab population, it seems that no American president is going to lose any sleep over it.

Randall Smith, Del Mar, CA

Israeli Actions Whitewashed

To The Oregonian, April 6, 2001 (as published).

“Six Palestinian demonstrators die in clashes with Israelis” reads the front-page headline on March 31. The passive voice deliberately obscures the fact that heavily armed Israeli government troops shot and killed unarmed stone-throwing demonstrators.

That the U.S. government supports and arms these same Israeli troops with taxpayer money to the tune of $3 billion to $6 billion annually is horrific enough. That U.S. journalists consistently fail to report that the Israeli government continues to illegally occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip, build illegal settlements, jail and torture Palestinians, is unconscionable.

“Israeli occupying forces murder 6 Palestinian demonstrators” would be a more honest and accurate headline.

Lawrence Galizio, Tigard, OR

Israeli State Terrorism?

To the the Albuquerque Journal, March 31, 2001 (as published).

In the Albuquerque Journal of Wed., March 21, there was a report by Barry Schweid in which President Bush is quoted as saying (in respect to the Mid-East peace process), “...we will work with those responsible for peace.”

Has the president asked,“Who is most responsible for not maintaining the peace?” Is it those who control virtually all of the weapons (the Israeli army)? Or those who are virtually without weapons and who have, for the past 53 years, been held in subjugation under an occupation which is illegal under international law?

The crimes committed by the Israeli government against civilian Palestinians are acts of State Terrorism against an all-but-defenseless people.

To support these acts with our tax dollars is indefensible from either a legal or a moral standpoint. Our sympathies lie with those who have been most abused and have the least recourse to justice: the Palestinians.

We do not want our tax dollars spent to support a nation which will not abide by international law and the provisions of the 4th Geneva convention.

Mr. and Mrs. Sam Parks, Albuquerque, NM

Israel Harming U.S. Interests

To The Daily Telegraph (London), April 23, 2001 (as published).

Toby Harnden concludes his article (Opinion, April 19) by stating that Israel is America’s indispensable ally. So far, it has an unwritten alliance with the United States that has seemed to be, up to now, extremely advantageous to both sides.

The junior partner—Israel, for those who might wonder—has thus all the advantages of alliances without being bound by the necessary restraint. The senior partner—America—can appear to be unaccountable for the misbehavior of its “undisciplined ally.” Can this continue for long? I believe not.

A serious strategic debate will inevitably soon surface in Washington on the nature of the American-Israeli relationship. Is Israel still a strategic asset or is it gradually becoming a strategic burden and a liability? Today, after the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of Arab militant regimes, the regional system is profoundly conservative and pro-Western.

Israel, by its insatiable territorial appetite, is defying, de-legitimizing and destabilizing the network of friendship America enjoys in the region. Arab public opinion, from Morocco to Muscat, is boiling. Islamic public opinion, from Nigeria to Malaysia, is angry at the perceived American complacency over and complicity with Israel’s endless occupation of Palestinian territory. Israeli regional expansion, if perpetuated, can disrupt and endanger American global interests.

Afif Safieh, Palestinian General Delegate to United Kingdom

USS Liberty Cover-up?

To Sen. Russell Feingold, April 25, 2001.

On June 16, 2000 you sent Rep. Marlin Schneider, then assistant minority leader in the Wisconsin State Assembly, a copy of a letter from Barbara Larkin, assistant secretary for legislative affairs, United States State Department. The letter, dated May 13, 2000, lied about the Naval inquiry into the June 8, 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.

That U.S. Navy inquiry was not a full investigation. It investigated only crew performance, as any surviving crew member will inform her. As for the Department of State having no information that would corroborate the allegation of USS Liberty survivors and others that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was indeed deliberate, a reading of the book by Jim Ennes, deck officer of the Liberty at the moment of attack, called Assault on the Liberty provides information on this subject, as do the writings of many others.

By the way, Representative Schneider lost his position as assistant minority leader in the Wisconsin State Assembly because of his leadership in espousing a resolution calling for a congressional investigation of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.

On April 23, 2001, The New York Times reported the publication of another book which proves the Israelis were lying and that the attack was deliberate. The book is by William Bamford and is called Body of Secrets.

Surely, it is time for Congress to investigate what the late George Ball called the “deliberate murder of American citizens” by Israel.

Will you call for this investigation and allow the surviving crew members to have their story told to Congress?

Robert E. Nordlander, Menasha, WI

A Troubling Report

To the (Traverse City, MI) Record-Eagle, April 13, 2001 (as published).

It was disturbing to read in the April 3 Record-Eagle (“Israelis rocket Jihad leader”) that four Israeli helicopter gunships assassinated a Palestinian “suspected” of planting roadside bombs. Evidently it is now Israeli state policy to charge, convict and execute Palestinians on the basis of suspicion only. Imagine the uproar if any other country flouted international law in this manner, sending assassination squads beyond its national borders to eliminate individuals it suspected of intending harm.

The AP report was also troubling because it shows again how the media portrays Israeli violence as “good” violence (because it is carried out by “soldiers”—not rebels—who are “retaliating” or acting to “prevent” attacks), while violence by Palestinians (against an occupying force) is labeled as the terrorist acts of fanatical individuals.

Finally, consider what impact this assassination has had on the children and adults pictured around the wreckage of Mohammed Abdel Al’s truck. The Israeli military has given the Palestinians yet another reason to hate Israel and its 33-year-long occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

The United States yearly gives Israel about $5 billion in aid (40 percent of all U.S. aid). Shouldn’t we use this leverage to make Israel respect international law (which prohibits state-sponsored assassinations) and honor its stated commitment to end its military occupation? Withdrawing Israeli military forces from the occupied territories and lifting the state of siege that holds 2.6 million Palestinians prisoners in their own land is the best step to take to break the cycle of violence.

Connie Soma, Cedar, MI

Aid to Israel

To The Chicago Tribune, April 28, 2001 (as published).

I applaud Salim Muwakkil’s courageous April 23 column criticizing the U.S. media’s slanted coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Opinion pieces in U.S. media most often stand by Israel, saying that Israel is holding back or that U.S. criticism of Israel is unwarranted—at least in those rare instances when the U.S. actually faults Israel.

They too easily forget, or ignore, that Israel is an imperialist force that is occupying another people’s land; that most of the violence occurs not inside Israel but in those occupied territories; that the Gaza Strip and West Bank settlements, which are often reported the targets of Palestinian fire, violate international law and should not exist in the first place.

As for the biased coverage, I think it’s fair to say that U.S. taxpayers are entitled to a higher standard of journalism, especially because Israel is the principal recipient of U.S. foreign aid.

Abbas Khan, Prospect Heights, IL

Settlements an Affront

To the San Francisco Chronicle, April 14, 2001 (as published).

How nice to see an editorial in The Chronicle criticizing Israel’s most recent expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestine. Certainly the timing of this particular expansion is indiscreet, and a direct affront to President Bush, who has asked for a pause in Israel’s relentless expansion.

The most fundamental fact of the whole Mideast conflict is that Israel was conceived, created and has never paused in its expansion as an officially Jewish-settler state sworn to redeem Palestine from the non-Jewish indigenous population, despite the eternal bloodshed such racist programs entail.

Every day that Palestinian families are barred from returning to what’s left of their homes within the borders of Israel, simply because they are not Jewish, is yet another day of gross ethnic violence against them. That ongoing violence is just as wrong and as fatal to peace as any additional bulges in Israel’s avowed domination of the region.

David Kersting, San Rafael, CA

Settler Ignores the Obvious

To The Washington Post, May 16, 2001 (as published).

In her May 14 op-ed column, West Bank settler Shari Lederman Mandell claims that there is “no escape” for people such as herself from the Palestinian uprising.

She ignores the most obvious escape, one that is called for by nearly the entire international community: Israel’s abandonment of settlements built on confiscated Palestinian land for expansionist purposes.

I hope that the Bush administration will heed the Mitchell Committee’s report and pressure Israel to freeze its settlement building.

Tait Graves, San Francisco, CA

The Security Ploy

To the San Francisco Chronicle, April 19, 2001 (as published).

I wish it were true that Israel “only seeks security for its population” (Letter by Stephen Schoenfeld, April 15).

Treating the Palestinians justly is the only way to achieve that. But Israel seeks more Palestinian land as well, and continues to take it, destroying homes and expanding its illegal settlements—then is outraged when Palestinians protest.

Israel treats the Palestinians like beggars on their own land, as if it were up to Israel to decide how much charity to bestow on them if they would only behave.

I am ashamed by U.S. support of Israel’s arrogance, injustice and hypocrisy. Who are the “terrorists” when nine out of 10 of the nearly 500 killed in the last few months are Palestinians?

Zoe Goorman, Mill Valley, CA

Israel Must Acknowledge Refugees

To the Los Angeles Times, May 11, 2001 (as published).

Your May 9 editorial makes the critical mistake that the Mitchell report made in outlining a strategy to end the intifada. While the Palestinians consider the issues of settlement-building and full military withdrawal from the occupied territories to be critical to renewing the peace process, the refugee issue is even more central.

There are over 5 million Palestinian refugees, over 3 million of whom are registered with the U.N. They are denied their basic human rights to return to their homes and receive material compensation for their losses. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights resoundingly supports these rights. In conflicts from East Timor to Kosovo, in recent years, refugees have been granted the right to return, and both survivors and victims of the Nazi Holocaust have been granted their rights to compensation for their material losses. The precedent clearly exists for taking the moral and legal steps to go beyond the supposed clarity of the Mitchell report and truly achieve peace in the Middle East. It is up to Israel to acknowledge this and move forward.

Rabee Sahyoun, Beirut, Lebanon

How Israel Treats Americans

To The Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary of State, April 11, 2001.

Many of my constituents in Santa Cruz travel to many different countries around the world, as tourists, to visit families or to observe the social and political situations of other areas. They assume that in their travels they will be afforded the protections of American citizenship.

I am writing to express my concern at the apparent failure of the State Department to extend such protection to American citizen Ms. Hanan Abu-Khdeir. I understand that Ms. Abu-Khdeir was arrested and detained without charge by Israeli police on March 12, 2001. According to information that I received from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Ms. Abu-Khdeir was tortured during 10 days of detention, including being shackled to a small chair and deprived of sleep; being held in a tiny, filthy cell; served unhealthy and inadequate food and given insufficient water. In addition, Ms. Abu-Khdeir reportedly was not allowed to see a lawyer for at least four days of her detention.

Although she was released on March 22 and no charges were filed against her, Ms. Abu-Khdeir’s United States passport has not been returned to her, and she is not allowed to leave Israel. She is not permitted by Israel to enter Palestinian Authority areas, on pain of enormous fines, and she must report to the Israeli police twice a week or whenever she is summoned.

I am writing to ask what effort United States diplomats have made to defend the United States citizen who appears to be persecuted by Israeli authorities. This stands in marked contrast to high-profile efforts by your department on behalf of a Chinese scientist recently detained by her government, even though she is not a United States citizen. At a minimum, I would expect that Ms. Abu-Khdeir has a right to expect an urgent, forceful and public call by the Department of State for her immediate release. Beyond that, I would expect that you and the Department of State demand that Israel respect the human rights of United States citizens and all people.

Scott Kennedy, Councilmember, City of Santa Cruz, CA

Powell’s Watershed Remarks

To The New York Times, April 19, 2001 (as published).

Re “Powell Assails Israel for Gaza Incursion” (front page, April 18): Our government’s critical reaction to the Israeli army assault may well mark a watershed in American foreign policy toward Israel. Up until the declaration by Secretary of State Colin S. Powell, our government consistently pursued a policy of support for Israeli aggressive actions toward the Palestinians.

In doing so, we gave aid and comfort to an Israeli policy that not only violated human rights doctrines but was also self-destructive. A change in American policy may well lead to peace in the region.

Albert Liebman, Mequon, WI

Israel in Lebanon

To The New York Times, April 18, 2001 (as published).

Israel has been bombing Lebanon and violating its territory for decades. The recent actions deep inside Lebanon do not represent a new Israeli policy under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, as your April 17 editorial suggests.

Israel occupied southern Lebanon despite many United Nations resolutions. Under that occupation, Israel killed, wounded and detained thousands of Lebanese civilians. Under the Labor administrations before Mr. Sharon took office, Israel repeatedly bombed electric power stations, bridges, schools, refugee camps and even United Nations sanctuaries.

The bombing of Syrian military targets in Lebanon on Monday could actually be seen as an “improvement” in the Israeli acts of aggression against Lebanon.

Wael A. Jaber, Shaker Heights, OH

It’s the Occupation, Stupid

To The New York Times, April 19, 2001 (as published).

Re “Israeli Airstrikes in Lebanon” (editorial, April 17):

It astonishes me to see how you continue to ignore the root cause of the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors: Israeli occupation.

Israel has militarily occupied Palestine since 1967 and, ever since, the Palestinians, backed by international law, United Nations resolutions, and common sense, have struggled with whatever meager means they have been able to find to end this form of apartheid.

To believe that the United States should again dispatch “a high-level envoy to calm rising tensions” not only misses the point but also shows naïveté over where we are today, and why. Focusing on talks and security instead of ending an illegal occupation through a just political agreement is wasting American taxpayer dollars.

Sam Bahour, El Bireh, West Bank

Haggadda Lesson for Israel

To The Christian Science Monitor, April 20, 2001 (as published).

Regarding Helen Schary Motro’s April 19 opinion piece “Israel’s forgotten lesson”: As the adoptive father of a Kurdish son, I know first-hand the genocidal policies under which Kurds have to live in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and elsewhere in Europe where governments are—at best—embarrassed by their presence. Their experiences are as much a lesson in tolerance as any in the 20th century.

It is a tragedy of biblical dimensions that the Israeli government cannot remember for even 24 hours the lesson of Haggadda, which they read at Passover. They forget who delivered the Israelites from tyranny, and forget to show thanks, as the Haggadda instructs, by never doing to another what was done to them.

I deeply appreciate the Passover lesson in Ms. Motro’s article. The story of the Passover, the story of Easter, the story of the feast following the hajj, the universal story of any renewal of the mercy which brings us to existence, performed and retold by believers in every community of the human family everywhere, tells us about our responsibility to take care of others who have less than we do. That is a universal truth, and the foundation of all that it means to be human. We all forget, and we all have to remember, and keep on remembering.

Issa Kocher, Al-Khod, Oman

A Court to Embrace

To The New York Times, April 15, 2001 (as published).

William Safire (column, April 9) charges that the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court allows for prosecutions “for an undefined crime of ‘aggression.’”

In fact, the new court will have immediate jurisdiction over only three crimes: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The crime of aggression is subject to future negotiations, and unless states individually ratify an agreed definition, the court will have no jurisdiction over it.

Nor is the court likely to start political persecutions against Americans and Israelis, as Mr. Safire suggests. In cases where the Security Council does not act, the court is limited to situations where national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute their own citizens.

The United States should embrace the International Criminal Court as an institution that will strengthen the rule of law and human rights.

William Zabel, Chairman, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, New York, NY

Clinton Policies Lost U.N. Seats

To the Los Angeles Times, May 9, 2001 (as published).

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright attributes the expulsion of the U.S. from two United Nations panels to “several unilateral moves the United States has taken recently.” She is in denial, for the resentment felt around the world of U.S. policies and actions did not build up in the 110 days Bush has been in office. It has built up over time, over arrogant and uninformed policies she was instrumental in making.

Bassim Shawwaf, Los Angeles, CA

Israel, Kissinger Caused U.N. Snub

To The Christian Science Monitor, May 16, 2001 (as published).

To Dennis Jett’s opinion piece, let me add the following: In a May 10 opinion in <www.ledevoir.com> one finds other reasonable explanations for the U.S.’s ouster from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the International Narcotics Control Board.

The author, Serge Truffaut, offers three arguments that militated against our remaining on the commission and the board. First, with seeming arrogance, the U.S. failed to campaign for membership where we had sat since 1947. Although the U.S. cavalierly failed to lobby for votes, we strangely expected to play a traditional role on the commission and the board.

Then, on the issue of human rights—especially the death penalty—there was less than satisfactory agreement between U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and the U.S. Also, the fact that the U.S. had for a long time rejected any criticism of Israel for what many saw as the use of excessive force in occupied Palestinian territories surely did not help our candidacy.

Finally, says Mr. Truffaut, the U.S. did support less than democratic regimes during the obsessively anticommunistic phase of our recent history. Thus reluctance on the part of certain Americans (e.g., Henry Kissinger) to recognize and admit political errors no doubt also contributed to the slapping of our country for its lack of remorse. Having been hurt by the hubris of Henry, some may have been eager to see the U.S. eat humble pie.

BenoÓt G. Philippon, Wayne, NJ

Why Sanctions on Iraq?

To the Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2001 (as published).

After Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the shah of Iran, Islamic fundamentalism threatened to engulf both Iraq and Kuwait. The U.S. backed Saddam Hussain with weapons and Kuwait lent money to help finance the long and ugly Iraq-Iran war that killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Following the truce, Kuwait demanded full repayment plus interest and ignored Iraq’s protest that Kuwait should write off those loans as being its fair share of the cost of the war fought with Iraqi lives to save them.

To help finance repayment, Iraq then demanded the return of the long-disputed border oil fields. When Kuwait refused, Iraq asked the American ambassador what the U.S. would do if Iraq occupied those oil fields. “Nothing,” replied the ambassador—but after that occupation the U.S. prompted the U.N. to declare war.

Why is Saddam vilified? Why are the Iraqis still burdened with the U.S.-U.N. sanctions?

Bill Ross, Santa Ana, CA

American Muslims’ Dream

To the Los Angeles Times, April 27, 2001 (as published).

Re “Arabs See Jewish Conspiracy in Pokemon,” April 24: As an American Muslim, I look forward to the day when all Americans are given the truth about Islam by the media. I look forward to the day when Islam is portrayed as the religion of 6 million Americans who contribute to their communities and neighborhoods. A day when everyday American Muslims are interviewed for their courage and discipline in the month of Ramadan and their charity work to keep kids off drugs and alcohol.

Unfortunately, that day is not today, as all too often I see images that only portray Muslims as extremist, violent and intolerant. Some irresponsible media outlets are willing to compromise facts for rumors. I only need to look at the Oklahoma City bombing to show my cause for concern. Americans need to get the entire facts about Islam and its message.

Abobaker Tukhi, Corona, CA

Afghanistan in Peril

To the Los Angeles Times, May 11, 2001 (as published).

Thank you for having the gumption to run “Where Misery Is Daily Bread” (May 8) dead-center on the front page. The plight of the Afghan people at the tyrannical, hands of the Taliban should be kept at the top of everyone’s prayer list. Hopefully, prominent coverage like yours will help provoke the U.N. and/or the U.S., not to mention every feminist organization in the world, to action someday soon.

Shelley Kostelnak, Redondo Beach, CA