Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September-October 2002, pages 75-78

Other People’s Mail

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

U.S. Offers No Evidence

To The Boston Globe, July 30, 2002 (as published).

Scott Ritter, in “Is Iraq a true threat to the U.S.?” (op ed, July 20), says that the evidence suggests that Iraq is not a threat and is unlikely to become one. President Bush holds the opposite opinion but has not offered convincing supporting evidence.

This is odd because the United States has subjected Iraq to close surveillance by electronic interceptions, secret agents, aircraft, and satellites for 12 years and has monitored imports and exports carefully for many years. This is in addition to full implementation of the on-the-ground weapons inspections from 1994-98.

If Iraq now poses such a threat to the United States that preemptive war is necessary, then public documentation of the evidence is required as a first step. But the evidence notwithstanding, preemptive war cannot be justified. First, the intentions of a government cannot be known exactly, and a people cannot be punished for actions not yet undertaken. Second, better instruments exist, one of which is deterrence. Deterrence served well against the Soviet Union, a much more formidable opponent than Iraq.

The current rulers of Iraq may be repressive and anti-American, but they are not crazy. In any case, the United States has often worked with and cut deals with repressive dictatorships, the latest being Pakistan’s, which does possess an atomic bomb, a weapon that Iraq surely lacks. So there is perhaps even a better game than deterrence.

Thoms C. Hollocher, Sudbury, MA

Inspectors Bush’s Biggest Fear

To The Guardian, July 23, 2002 (as published online).

Former U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Iraq Hans von Sponeck asks whether “it really is too far-fetched to suggest that the U.S. government does not want U.N. arms inspectors back in Iraq.” The answer is, plainly, no.

Indeed, the U.S. is doing its level best to sabotage the resumption of inspections: refusing to give assurances—sought by Iraqi officials—to call off their planned military campaign if weapons inspections are resumed; explicitly stating that “regardless of what the inspectors do...the U.S. reserves its option to do whatever it believes might be appropriate to see if there can be a regime change” (Colin Powell); and trying (unsuccessfully) to dig dirt on U.N. weapons chief Hans Blix in an attempt to rubbish the inspectorate before it even gets to Iraq.

The reality is that, in the words of one top Senate foreign policy aide, the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq is “the White House’s biggest fear,” since it would impede their illegal military plans.

Andrea Needham, Voices in the Wilderness, UK

Before We Go to War

To The Washington Post, July 20, 2002 (as published).

Michael Kinsley’s July 12 op-ed piece about war with Iraq [“Who Wants This War?”] sent shivers through me as it brought back memories of being drafted in the spring of 1967 and sent to Vietnam with the infantry in early 1968. With each step in the draft process—the dreaded letter in the mailbox, the physical (the only exam in your life you wanted to fail), the swearing in, the training at Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo., and Ft. Polk, La., and the seemingly endless journey to Southeast Asia—I thought to myself: “The leaders in this country will come to their senses and put an end to this war before I ever have to fight.” As we know, they didn’t.

With each article I read advocating war with Iraq—Kinsley’s antiwar piece is an exception—I think to myself: “The leaders in this country will come to their senses before sending our soldiers off to die in Iraq with no support from our traditional allies, no support from the Arab world and no connection between Iraq and Sept. 11.” Yet the president, at the urging of a small group of the Washington policy establishment, continues to make plans of war. And he does so with little questioning from an indifferent public and a compliant Congress.

But there is still a Constitution that requires a declaration of war, a declaration that, if adopted, presumably will be preceded by a debate. The president, the Congress and the men and women of our armed forces are sworn to uphold the Constitution. I hope the president and Congress are as faithful to their oath as the members of our armed forces.

Thomas E. McMahon, Reston, VA

Europe Sees No Iraqi Threat

To The Washington Times, July 30, 2002 (as published).

While Germans, and Europeans generally, regard Saddam Hussain’s government as a vicious tyranny, there are far fewer who agree that he poses the sort of threat to America, much less Europe, outlined by President Bush (“Germany, reality and Saddam,” Editorial, Saturday).

The real reasons that neither Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder nor his conservative Bavarian opponent Edmund Stoiber are saying much about the issue are that most Germans do not believe in the supposed threat from Iraq (and even fewer believe that it is a European problem), and most of the political leadership there is profoundly skeptical but unwilling to embarrass the United States government by openly criticizing its gallivanting, bizarre foreign policy. Germany is also constrained by economic sluggishness, domestic political criticism within the current governing coalition and spending constraints imposed by the EU, so its participation or support in any American campaign would be largely rhetorical and moral. The Germans are not at all naive about terrorism—which they have been fighting, in various forms, longer than us—and they have been one of our best allies in fighting al-Qaeda. The United States would be extremely foolish to jeopardize or strain that alliance in order to satisfy an inexplicable vendetta against Iraq.

Daniel Larison, Albuquerque, NM

Twisted Logic of Iraq Attack

To the Los Angeles Times, July 31, 2002 (as published).

Ehud Sprinzak and Robert J. Lieber (“Oust Saddam First, Then Pursue Peace,” Opinion, July 28) are, in their own words, “180-degrees wrong” when they ask us to believe that a U.S. attack on Iraq is somehow necessary to make Israel “feel more secure in making the necessary concessions for a viable peace with the Palestinians.” This is twisted logic, putting the cart before the horse.

How does suppressing Palestinian national aspirations with a brutal occupation have anything to do with a threat from Iraq? It certainly does not make Israel safer from Iraqi threats. The opposite approach, ending the occupation and making peace with the Palestinians, would take away one of the excuses Saddam Hussain uses to rally support in the Arab states.

Furthermore, if Sprinzak and Lieber really want to identify “post-Oslo rejectionists,” all they have to do is look at Ariel Sharon. The authors would do well to clean their own house before pushing the U.S. to clean Iraq’s.

A.S. Nassar, Pasadena, CA

Building Bridges

To the San Francisco Chronicle, July 30, 2002 (as published online).

Your article, “Internal conflict for progressive American Jews” (July 29), showed only part of the picture, mostly drawn from academicians.

Although some “liberal” Jews are withdrawing, others are actively working for reconciliation and justice.

The evening before your article appeared, we were invited to Congregation Kol Emeth in Palo Alto to hear Orthodox Jew Eliyahu McLean and Muslim Ibrahim Abu El Hawa from Jerusalem describe their inspiring efforts in building bridges between Israelis and Arabs.

The Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue movement is rapidly growing in numbers and influence in cities and campuses across America.

Your readers would want to know that many progressive Jews are reaching out beyond their familiar circles to include Palestinians and other Arabs. All of us, regardless of religion or origin, must remember that we share a common human heritage and the Earth is our homeland.

Florence Beier, San Mateo, CA

Israel’s Second-Class Citizens

To The Boston Globe, July 29, 2002 (as published online).

In his column “Jews and Arabs, together” (op ed, July 18) Jeff Jacoby claims that Israel guarantees “the equality and freedom of its Arab minority.” Since Arabs have “every right” to live in Israel, Jewish settlers should be allowed to live in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, especially since “nothing in international law prohibits” Jews from living there.

However, Palestinian Muslim and Christian citizens of Israel are second-class citizens in every way, as documented by U.S. and Israeli human rights groups. Indeed, if Jews suffered such discrimination in any state, that country would be deemed “anti-Semitic.” Further, as Jacoby knows, Israel refuses to allow Palestinians who were driven out of Israel in 1948 to return.

As for the settlers, the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs Israel’s actions in the occupied lands, makes clear that Jewish settlements in those lands are illegal. The return of the settlers to Israel would be a major step toward peace and would allow Palestinians to regain the water and land resources stolen from them by Israel for use by settlers.

Israel is treating Palestinians as the white Europeans treated Native Americans. Such actions are to be condemned in both cases.

The Rev. Raymond A. Low, Rector, St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, Scituate, MA

Israeli Land Bias

To the San Francisco Chronicle, July 18, 2002 (as published online).

The news article, “Israeli land-sale proposal shelved” (July 15), rightly questions whether a truly democratic state may choose to discriminate against a portion of its populace by denying that group equal access to land.

However, the writer (Henry Chu of the Los Angeles Times) is wrong in saying that “Arabs, through tradition and solidarity, live in their own villages.”

Palestinian citizens of Israel have since the day Israel was founded been denied the opportunity to buy or rent approximately 92 percent of the land in Israel proper.

The Jewish Agency, a private organization, was appointed by the state in 1948 to administer all state-owned lands. The agency in turn openly stated that all lands it administered would be reserved for the sole use of the Jewish people. Palestinian (Arab) Israelis live in “their own villages” because these tiny spots are the only lands not administered by the Jewish Agency.

Lorraine Mann, Berkeley, CA

Sharon’s Peace

To the Los Angeles Times, July 25, 2002 (as published).

Re “Israeli Airstrike in Gaza Strip Kills 12,” July 23: The continuing siege and enforced curfew of Palestinians will never bring the security that Ariel Sharon promised Israeli voters (by 100 days) after his election. He is not a man of peace. He either does not know how or is unwilling to bring it about. The latest example is the assassination of a Hamas leader (plus the deaths of 14 others and the wounding of many).

The raid was carried out after Hamas’ spiritual leader publicly said his group would call off suicide attacks if Sharon would pull back his forces from the West Bank. Is there the political will and wisdom in Washington to bring the violence to an end? We have the means to do it. Or are the president and the majority in Congress beholden to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the conservative Christian coalitions?

The people of Israel and Palestine deserve the chance to live their lives in peace and possibility.

Marie Cardwell, Seal Beach, CA

Impose a Solution

To the San Francisco Chronicle, June 24, 2002 (as published online).

President Bush is rightly fearful of the political consequences of decisive intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Meanwhile, the sickening death toll on both sides mounts day by day, and the intifada/reoccupation vendettas are radicalizing not only the Palestinians but the entire Islamic Mideast, threatening dire consequences.

It is clear that the two sides cannot settle their differences and that outside intervention is required, just as it was in Kosovo. It is time for the United States to call for either NATO or the United Nations to separate the two parties and impose a permanent solution.

Indeed, if the United States had acted earlier, Islamic militants might have ceased viewing America as simply the ally of Israel and Sept. 11 might never have happened.

Dick Kidd, Corte Madera, CA

Halt Military Aid to Israel

To The Christian Science Monitor, June 27, 2002 (as published).

Last December, the Defense Department signed off on the sale of 52 F-16 fighter jets and 106 million gallons of jet fuel to Israel through the Foreign Military Sales program (earning Lockheed Martin $1.3 billion and Valero Energy $95 million). If this doesn’t constitute a green light to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to continue his siege of Palestine, it certainly enables it.

While the administration complains about Iran shipping small-arms weapons to the PLO, it’s beyond dispute that Israel is armed to the teeth with U.S.-made weapons. If President Bush is sincere about his call for an Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian statehood, then he should suspend military aid to Israel.

S. Melmouth, Peoria, AZ

British Arms to Israel

To The Guardian, July 10, 2002 (as published online).

Being a very worried Israeli, I am appalled by the decision to allow exports of F-16 components to Israel. This decision shows the British government’s nice words about helping both sides in the Middle East to reach peace as hypocrisy.

Lifting the de facto arms embargo on Israel may do a favor to Sharon, but it sure does no favor to us, ordinary Israelis.

Tirza Waisel, London, UK

Illegal Intel Plant

To the San Francisco Chronicle, July 9, 2002 (as submitted).

Thanks for publishing Henry Norr’s article (7/8/2002) on Intel building its Israeli plant on land Israel took illegally from the native Palestinians. This is symptomatic of one of the greatest problems facing an honest resolution of the Middle East crisis. The right of refugees to return is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13), the Covenant on Civil and Economic Rights, U.N. Resolutions (e.g. UNGA 194), and elemental justice.

An overwhelming body of data now clearly demonstrates how and why the catastrophic situation of Palestinian refugees was created and perpetuated by Zionist colonization and expansion (what today we would call ethnic cleansing). This history is now even attested to by leading Zionist intellectuals and historians. The refusal to remedy the situation remains anchored in racist and supremacist insistence on the desire for a homogenous “Jewish state.” After all, research showed that the right of refugees to return to their homes and lands is not only legal and right but also feasible. From a human rights perspective, perhaps we should listen to Amnesty International, which stated:

“In Israel, for example, several laws are explicitly discriminatory. These can be traced back to Israel’s foundation in 1948 ....Various areas of Israeli law discriminate against Palestinians. The Law of Return, for instance, provides automatic Israeli citizenship for Jewish immigrants, whereas Palestinian refugees who were born and raised in what is now Israel are denied even the right to return home. Other statutes explicitly grant preferential treatment to Jewish citizens in areas such as education, public housing, health, and employment” (Racism and the Administration of Justice Report by AI 2001, also found at http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/
racismreport.pdf).

Companies that invest in Israel are helping Israel to liquidate this basic human right.

Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, Co-founder, Palestine Right to Return Coalition.

Destructive Caterpillars

To Benjamin Cordani, Director of Social Responsibility, Caterpillar, Inc., July 3, 2002.

My family and I are involved in social justice initiatives and are dedicated to a just and peaceful solution to the crisis between the Palestinians and Israelis in the occupied territories.

We are increasingly aware of the destructiveness that is brought to bear in the occupied territories by demolition teams, using both Caterpillar bulldozers and German Merkavah IV tanks.

By now, you should know that Germany has decided to stop selling motors and other replacement parts to keep the Israeli tanks running. Germany’s decision is based on its opposition to Israel’s war against the Palestinians on their own land.

Bulldozers bearing the Caterpillar name join the Merkavah tanks in ripping through homes and municipal buildings, tearing up water and sewage mains, and destroying roads and acres of planted vegetables and olive trees. The homes are lived in by families whose ties with any militant person or group are not even known. Destruction is random and vindictive against innocent people. More and more Palestinians are thus made homeless. And Caterpillar equipment is a part of this demolition and dispossession.

Your reputation for Social Responsibility is declining as more and more countries realize that your equipment is serving as adjunctive attacking armor. We ask you to place on hold all orders from Israel for new Caterpillar equipment, and stop selling replacement parts to the Israeli government until a true peace process is begun and Israel pulls totally out of the occupied territories.

Norman and Sheila Linton and Family, Louisville, KY

Dismantling Dummy Outposts

To The Washington Post, July 17, 2002 (as published).

David Makovsky [“A Reward for Reform,” op-ed, July 10] said, “Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer has started taking down a few outposts—including trailer homes abandoned since the start of the Sharon government.”

Mr. Makovsky did not report that Zvi Handel, a member of the Knesset, has admitted that nine of the 11 dismantled outposts were hastily fabricated sites. These dummy outposts were assembled to deflect action against the more than 70 actual illegal outposts that have been established since Binyamin Netanyahu’s administration. Israel’s way of dealing with this form of illegal expansion by enterprising settlers has been to evacuate or freeze a few symbolic outposts only to allow them to be reconstituted later. Considering Israel’s policy history concerning outposts Mr. Makovsky’s “good start” is a nonstarter.

Susan Miller, Philadelphia, PA

Transfer Is Ethnic Cleansing

To The Christian Science Monitor, July 16, 2002 (as published).

Letter writer Lawrence Cranberg uses only a partial definition of “ethnic cleansing” when refuting that the term can apply to the transfer of Palestinians (Readers Write, July 11). [Editor’s note: The definition includes both expulsion and mass execution.] The reason that mass murder is largely associated with the term is because it is difficult, if not impossible, to remove people from their longtime (and rightful) homes by force without killing a great many of them!

Rest assured that if the Israelis attempt to carry out the proposed “transfer” of the Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank, there will undoubtedly be massacres in Palestine just as there were in Bosnia.

Avilee Goodwin, Richmond, CA

Israel’s Peace Initiative

To The New York Times, July 12, 2002 (as published).

I was gravely disappointed to read about the closing of Sari Nusseibeh’s office in Jerusalem (“The Wrong Target,” editorial, July 11). With both President Bush and Ariel Sharon’s administration calling for reform and change in the Palestinian government, it seems counterproductive at best, dangerous and provocative at worst, to raid and confiscate all the possessions of the leading voice for peace and moderation that the Palestinian people have to offer. Dr. Nusseibeh, the Palestinian Authority’s representative in Jerusalem, is precisely the type of person whom the seekers of peace want to be dealing with.

With this current action, the Sharon government is calling into question whether it is actually seeking peace. Dr. Nusseibeh has been courageous and bold in his actions for peace and reconciliation, and it is a shame that he is being treated like a criminal.

Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater, Kingston, NY

Israel’s Fear of Monitors

To The Christian Science Monitor, July 11, 2002 (as published).

Helena Cobban’s column “Protect Palestinians now,” on the problems of Palestine, is quite right. In the short term, there will not be a reduction in violence unless independent forces stand between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Day after day, the Israel Defense Forces are killing completely innocent and helpless Palestinians and are making Palestinian lives absolutely unbearable.

It is very sad that the Israeli government will not willingly allow independent forces to stand between the two peoples. It is also fairly clear that Israel is pursuing its own agenda of settling the occupied territories in defiance of international law. Israel is clearly afraid that this agenda will be hindered if the Israel Defense Forces are kept out of the occupied territories and replaced with independent monitors.

Christopher Leadbeater, Oxon, England

Zionists for Pollard

To President George W. Bush, July 16, 2002.

Hopefully, you will not cave in to Israeli pressure to release Jonathan Pollard, the Zionist “American” (?) who so purposefully betrayed our country!

Even your predecessor was able to hold up under such pressure from Netanyahu and Barak. Surely you won’t succumb and free such a traitor to your country and mine. Also, keep in mind who was paying and encouraging Pollard to execute his heinous deeds—our supposed “ally,” the government of Israel.

Robert L. Gabler, Kingwood, TX

The Armenian Genocide

To The Christian Science Monitor, June 26, 2002 (as published).

Regarding “A call to nations to prevent genocide” (June 20, Ideas): As Samantha Power documents in her book, which you praise, Raphael Lemkin coined the word “genocide” in 1944, using the 1915 Armenian genocide as an example. However, you betray the author’s intent by referring to the premeditated Armenian genocide merely as a “slaughter.” The planned mass slaughter of a people can only be called by its proper name, genocide.

As Ms. Power told a recent audience in Los Angeles: “The sad irony is that [the Armenians] would have to struggle for the term to be applied to [their] tragedy,” despite the fact that Lemkin used the Armenian experience as a primary example of this type of crime.

Arin Gregorian, Watertown, MA

Bosnia’s Homeless Muslims

To The Times of London, July 10, 2002 (as published online).

The anniversary this week of the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men in Srebrenica in 1995 (report, July 6) should prompt European policymakers to address the continuing hardship faced by those who endured and survived ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia.

Of the million Bosnian Muslims forcibly expelled (of whom 200,000 died between 1992 and 1995), the vast majority still cannot return to their homes. They live in poverty, squatting in inadequate accommodation, unable to exercise their right under the Dayton agreement to reclaim homes in the Serb-led Republika Srpska entity in eastern Bosnia.

Officials in Republika Srpska, supported by British and European aid, continue to obstruct efforts by Muslims to return to their homes. Thus only a fraction of the million expelled have been able to return. Given the large-scale assistance which the EU and Britain give to Bosnia, should we not insist on results rather than promises of reform from Republika Srpska politicians?

Roger Barking, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Richard Holme, Julia Neuberger (Patrons), The Bosnian Support Fund, London, UK

Deaf Media, Not Muslim Silence

To the Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2002 (as published online).

As someone who grew up with Abou El Fadl, I was devastated to read his article. Abou El Fadl has fallen into the simplistic trap of Muslim-bashing.

As a member of the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council, I am personally aware of dozens of events commemorating the victims of 9/11, as well as condemnations issued by American Muslim organizations and leaders. The problem is not silence by American Muslims; the problem is the deaf ears of the media. I can list several events sponsored by American Muslim organizations where the media failed to provide any coverage whatsoever.

Furthermore, the three suggestions made by Abou El Fadl were implemented months ago by Muslim groups, including the Muslim Public Affairs Council. A unified statement was issued by all major American Muslim organizations on 9/11, as this was the day American Muslim leaders were scheduled to meet with President Bush (a meeting that was postponed and took place three weeks later). Muslim organizations are already working in partnership with the FBI to deal with the scourge of terrorism. Muslims under an organization formed in New York (American Muslims Against Terrorism) visited ground zero and expressed in no uncertain terms our solidarity with the victims. Here in Los Angeles, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, in a public forum, offered thanks and donations to police and fire personnel.

Summer Hathout-Blackshire, Pasadena, CA

Anti-Muslim Bigotry

To USA Today, June 28, 2002 (as published online).

Michael Medved’s recent commentary showed the kind of anti-Muslim bias that fosters American-Muslim animosity rather than understanding (“Admit terrorism’s Islamic link,” The Forum, June 24).

I doubt USA Today would have carried such a column with similar prejudices aimed at Jews and Judaism.

Medved says, “It is impossible to find Christian, Jewish or Buddhist equivalents to the recent Saudi telethon that raised millions for the families of homicide bombers.” But what of the uncritical support among the leaders of major U.S. Jewish organizations—as distinct from a significant number of U.S. Jews—and fundamentalist Christian groups for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a man responsible for the killing of thousands of Palestinian and other Arab civilians since 1954?

Instead of being welcomed in the White House, called a man of peace by President Bush and receiving support for his brutal actions in the West Bank, Sharon should be tried for war crimes.

If Sharon’s victims had been Americans, Europeans or Jews, he would be condemned as a terrorist and criminal.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Executive Director, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA

Bombing Afghans and the ICC

To The New York Times, July 23, 2002 (as published).

“Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead” (front page, July 21) acknowledges that “the American air campaign in Afghanistan, based on a high-tech, out-of-harm’s-way strategy, has produced a pattern of mistakes that have killed hundreds of Afghan civilians.”

Many people believe that at the very least it is both cowardly and immoral to wage war from 30,000 feet in the air, and through local proxy forces on the ground. Regrettably, however, since the end of the Vietnam War, “force protection” and “overwhelming force” have become the watchwords and the primary objectives of the American military, at the expense of civilian populations.

Given this outlook, it is no wonder that American military policymakers vehemently reject the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court.

John S. Koppel, Bethesda, MD