November 1989, Page 26, 27

Other Peoples' Mail

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

Censorship

To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 17, 1989

The Christians don't want us to see "The Last Temptation of Christ."

The Muslims don't want us to see "Days of Rage."

Thank God I'm and atheist.

Arthur Armstrong, Los Osos, CA

Death of Amjad Hussein Jibril

To the Arizona Republic, Sept. 11, 1989

I am very sad for Amjad Hussein Jibril's recent death, not just because he was only 14 years old and not just because he was an American citizen who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. I am sad because he happened to be an Arab-American and nobody except Joseph Sobran cares that he died.

I remember when Leon Klinghoffer was killed on the Achille Lauro. The entire country was enraged and the story received front-page coverage for many days. Mr. Klinghoffer was Jewish and was visiting the land of his heritage. Amjad was Palestinian and was attending prayers at a mosque in his new village and the land of his heritage. His death wasn't swift; he was tortured, beaten and his left eye was ripped out by Israeli soldiers. And no one in this country has cried out in indignation.

Terrorism is not synonymous with the word Palestinian. The Israelis are committing heinous crimes, using the weapons supplied by our tax dollars. As an American citizen, I resent my government looking the other way just because the country committing these acts is an "ally." Murder is murder.

Amin I. Sahli, Phoenix, AZ

Israeli Terrorism

To US News & World Report, Aug. 28, 1989

The President certainly should have expressed outrage at the Israeli commando kidnapping of the Moslem religious leader. The Israeli Army and commando units are terrorists just as the Iranians, Syrians and other hostage takers are.

P.C. Manning, Calabash, NC

To Newsweek, Sept. 4, 1989

Israel's kidnapping of a Shi'ite Hizbullah leader in Lebanon demonstrated once again that the Israelis are just another ruthless Mideast terrorist gang. At least the Arabs don't insult our intelligence by posturing as humanitarians dedicated to supporting Western moral values. America and its hostages will continue to suffer the grievous consequences of Israeli arrogance if we do not realize that Israel's interests are often antithetical to those of the United States and the rest of the world.

Oke G. Pamp, Toronto, Ontario

Iranian Jews are Mideast Hostages

To The New York Times, Aug. 18, 1989

There is another hostage crisis in the Middle East that is driving Israeli foreign policy on Iran and may be getting in the way of our foreign policy: More than 200,000 Iranian Jews are trapped in Iran. Like other religious minorities there, they can be persecuted or exterminated overnight. That is not lost on Israel or Iran.

Although Iran has sworn to destroy Israel, the Israelis cannot afford to do anything to alienate or harm the Iranians, lest another Holocaust begin. And Iran has a trump card to play against Israel at any time. That is why Israel became involved in the Iran-Contra fiasco of trying to smuggle arms and spare parts to Iran, and why it is a third party in negotiations to free American hostages.

The hostage crisis of Iranian Jews has to be confronted if we are to understand the Byzantine world of the Middle East, where the bottom line is "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." We also cannot let Israeli policy toward Iran become our foreign policy.

James S. Mellet, New York, NY

Symptom and Cure

To The New York Times, Aug. 27, 1989

"What do the terrorists want?" you ask ("Bring Americans Along on Terrorists," editorial, Aug. 9).

The same things in the Middle East that the Irish Republican Army has been fighting for in Northern Ireland for 70 years: recognition, self-determination, noninterference by "imperialist powers."

Is it too much to suggest that terrorism will be linked to Israeli and American targets so long as we fail to deal with root causes? And that dialogue with Iran and the Shi'ites should be coupled with an effort to talk with all parties about a settlement?

With the Soviets and our moderate Arab friends, we could orchestrate a beginning of (1) a political settlement in Lebanon, (2) a settlement based on land and disarmament and demilitarized zones in the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights in exchange for recognition of Israel, and (3) international guarantees of the status quo in Jerusalem and assurances of access to the holy places for all three religions.

My first foreign service posting was Jerusalem. David Ben-Gurion told us one time that Israel wanted a long-term peace based on satisfying the Palestinians with their own state if they wanted it. He would not hesitate now.

Terror is not a disease to be cured. It is a symptom of something deeply wrong in the body politic. Let's cure it. We know how.

Eugene Bird, Washington, DC

Time to Speak Out

To the Rochester Times Union, Aug. 29, 1989

It was refreshing to read Henry L. Bretton's article "US Must Recognize Roots of Terrorism." On the same page were letters condoning Israel's actions. They were outraged that Israel was criticized in an earlier editorial Aug. 1.

I am not the first of your readers to observe the silence of our "human rights" preachers when it comes to the murderous actions taken by the Israeli army against unarmed Palestinians in the occupied territories.

It is time to expose the "conspiracy of silence" that seems to have overtaken the American press on the subject of Israeli racism and brutality.

Amnesty International and the International Red Cross have censured Israel for its actions. Israel has not had a moment's peace in its 40 years of existence and they never will have until there is justice for the Palestinians.

As long as we have timid politicians who dare not speak out against Israel's policies, our position in the Middle East will never change.

Kaliopy Hames, Rochester, NY

Salute to "Days of Rage" Producer

To Jo Franklin-Trout, producer of "Days of Rage," Sept. 6, 1989

Your very moving "Days of Rage" has just finished airing, and in these first few minutes of recollection and review, I felt I should share my thoughts with you.

As an Arab, of course, I was cheering you as you walked through our squalid camps, as you gave us an audience, as you faced the horror of our injuries and deaths. But perhaps more importantly, as an American, I am grateful for your courage. It takes little more than the mere idea of presenting the Palestinian point of view to ruin a journalist's career.

Even if your film had been a total disaster, you would have served a forceful purpose in promoting debate, in panicking these PBS stations into scrambling for local Zionist spokespersons to attempt to delegitimize your work. I hate to admit it, but I love to see them worry so.

On the technical side, the filming was a work of art. The lighting in the indoor interviews was refined and delicate, and the overall feel was one not only of realism, but of depth and texture and complexity.

Consider "Days of Rage" an incredible victory. It shook the media, and a lot of other folks across the country who fought the showing tooth and nail, into creating a respsonse that defies logic. It did my heart good to see the shallow analysis the panelists presented; what else could they say when faced with the truth, spoken by children's voices and captured by the camera?

Tonight, I cried a great deal. I always cry when I see our kids' mangled arms and bruised psyches, and our moms prematurely aged. But I want you to know that as soon as I calm down, I'm going to do two things: I'm going to write to my local PBS affiliate and remind them how valuable "Days of Rage" is. And then I'm going to say a long, serious prayer for you as you travel along the craggy road to justice, alongside your brothers and sisters in Palestine.

Vicki Tamoush, Chicago, IL

Democracy For Whom?

To The New York Times Book Review, Aug. 20, 1989

In his review of "From Beirut to Jerusalem" by Thomas L. Friedman (July 9), Roger Rosenblatt agrees with Mr. Friedman's assertion that Israeli leaders have avoided choosing among these three options: (1) "a nation of Jews living in all the land of Israel, but not democratic"; (2) "a democratic nation living in all the land of Israel, but not Jewish"; and (3) "a Jewish and democratic nation, but not in all the land of Israel."

Translated: Israel can be both a democratic and a Jewish state only if it gives up the West Bank and Gaza-or, at least, the bulkk of the Palestinians in those areas. Unstated is the premise-a myth repeated endlessly even by astute observers such as Mr. Rosenblatt and Mr. Friedman-that Israel was both democratic and Jewish in its pre-1967 war borders. But before 1967, Israel was a democracy only for Jews. Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel were and are second-class citizens precisely because Israel is a Jewish state in ways that grant special privileges to all Jews (including Mr. Friedman, Mr. Rosenblatt and this writer), privileges denied Palestinians. That is, before 1967, Israel was already a binational state, in fact if not in law.

Nor have Israeli leaders (Labor and Likud) refused to choose since 1967. They differ only on whether to keep all or much of the occupied lands. Neither party intends to give citizenship to significant numbers of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, numbers that might threaten the Jewish monopoly of power and privilege.

American Jews (and the news media) should no more laud as "democratic" a "Jewish state" than a Christian, Muslim or white state. Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, along with equality for Israeli Palestinians, will make Israel a democratic society. It could still be "Jewish" but only in ways that do not deprive Palestinians of basic rights.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Framingham, MA

Immigration and Citizenship Rights For Whom?

To the St. Petersburg Times, Aug. 22, 1989

What kind of a democracy would America be if immigration and citizenship rights were based only on religious and ethnic origin? Think about it!

American Jews are not convincing when they defend Israel's violations of human rights from the comfort of their homes while enjoying their full civil and human rights and the protection of the US Constitution, donate millions in tax-free money, visit to show support, and come back to declare that Israel is safer than New York City. They wouldn't even think of going to live in that "democratic state."

If peace is to be based on truth and justice, they better disabuse themselves of the notion that Israel can forever live on top, without the Palestinians. To these and their Israeli brethren we say: "Read our lips; we represent ourselves. The PLO and the Palestinians are one and the same. If 'terrorist' Arafat can represent us, too. It is our land, our birthplace, to most our only country. We are madly in love with it; we are not going away. The only way to get rid of us is to kill every last one of us, and even then we still have a few relatives who will most likely come around asking questions. So get off our backs, let's live side by side, separately with dignity and respect for all."

Ed Talji, St. Petersburg Beach, FL

US Needs Broader Vision

To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 27, 1989

I commend Rep. Levine for his call for a demonstration of "American resolve and staying power in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East." Indeed, it has been 10 years since we assumed an assertive and activist role of the kind we performed in securing the Camp David accords.

But to be effective, President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker must have a broader vision of the US role than Levine's. The US must demonstrate a respect for the views of Israelis and Palestinians, a commitment to the legitimate rights of both, and a conviction that a continuation of the conflict is abhorrent to the US, not because of our national "interest and prestige," but because of our basic values as a nation. These are what compel us to seek a peace that will relieve the human suffering this conflict has imposed upon Arabs and Jews.

Levine refers to the death of Israeli soldiers and to PLO leader Yasser Arafat's "support for the odious policy of killing 'collaborators' resulting in 100 deaths." Although he failed to mention it, I know he must hold equally as odious the death of more than 600 Palestinians and the imprisonment of thousands at the hands of the Israeli military authorities.

This administration has taken an important step: Affirming its support of Israel, it opened the dialogue with the PLO. This move and the intifada itself have served as a catalyst in creating a fresh opportunity for progress, and in eliciting the Israeli proposal for elections in the West Bank and Gaza.

Yes, this is a time for a diplomacy of action. But there is no need to do it alone. Egypt, the Soviet Union, and others can make a valuable contribution, as Sweden has already, and should not be excluded.

The urgency of this historical moment calls for a more embracing view of the possibilities.

Rabbi Leonard I. Beerman, Los Angeles, CA