March 1990, Page 26

Other People's Mail

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

US Bankrolling Resettlement of Soviet Emigres

To the Hawaii Advertiser, Jan. 23, 1990

Since you mentioned reforms of foreign aid allocations, let us above all consider the most important reform leading to the elimination of any lobby, foreign or domestic, from governmental decision making. In the final count this will also exclude "favors" leading to HUD and S/L scandals. You mentioned that "Israel's politically potent lobby is already at work pointing out a need for even more money to settle Soviet Jewish refugees." Only a few days ago (Jan. 18) Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declared his intent to hold on to the occupied territories to accommodate the influx of Soviet Jews. Here we face an extremely dangerous and degrading situation: Our congressmen are accepting kickbacks from the Jewish lobby to finance, with US taxpayers' money, more Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. Bankrupt Israel needs more money, more settlers, and more living space. Hitler often spoke of this "Lebensraum" before his occupation of Czechoslovakia and attack on Poland.

Roman Makarewicz, Kilauea, Hawaii

Amnesty International Bias?

To W. P. Nagan, Amnesty International USA, Dec. 27, 1989

I recently received a six-page letter over your signature requesting continued support for Amnesty International. In your letter South Africa was mentioned four times, Iraq three times and Ethiopia three times, but Israel was not mentioned at all. Given Israel's abuse of human rights—frequent use of torture (including torture of children), imprisonment without trial, extrajudicial executions—I find your omission strange, to say the least.

The US has little influence over Iraq, Ethiopia or South Africa but has huge influence over Israel. Israel could not continue to occupy the West Bank, East Jerusalem or Gaza without the $3 billion the American taxpayer provides. Israel could not continue to abuse the Palestinians without US aid. Why does Amnesty International USA try to influence events where American influence is minimal, while ignoring Israeli human rights violations?

Do South Africa, Iraq and Ethiopia present convenient targets because they do not have powerful and well-financed domestic lobbies in the US?

Let me assure you Palestinian children feel just as much pain as those in Iraq and Ethiopia.

John Taylor, US Coordinator, Association for the Reconstruction of Emmaus, P.O. Box 100652, Fort Worth, TX 76185

Israel and Panama

To the Washington Times, Jan. 22, 1990

The article "Panamanian Jews fear backlash" in the Washington Times of Jan. 3 should be commended for its thorough factual reporting on a topic that most Americans know little about.

The revelations of Israeli interests backing deposed Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega are very disconcerting. We give the Israelis $3 billion annually on the theory that they are a reliable ally, yet Israeli interests are decisively arrayed against us in Panama and foursquare beside our sworn enemy Gen. Noriega. The Israelis also seem to be into other odious alliances, like Colombian drug gangs and South African apartheid.

Expressing the concerns of the Panamanian Jewish community, Moises Mizrachi, chairman of the Panamanian committee of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, noted that Gen. Noriega was "always friendly to Israel" but he was shocked by the Pictures of Adolf Hitler and Moammar Gadhafi on Gen. Noriega's walls.

While I have been hesitant to buy into the leftist line that Israel practices "fascism," one is judged by the friends one keeps.

Dino Joseph Drudi, Washington, DC

Zionism, Racism and the UN

To the Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 7, 1990

Regarding the opinion-page column "The UN's Decree on Zionism," Jan. 16:

Almost 10 years before the UN passed in 1975 a resolution describing Zionism as a "form of racism and racial discrimination," it had included descent in its definition of racism.

In 1965, UN resolution 2106 resolved that "racial discrimination is any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin." Both the US and Israel supported the resolution. It provided the basis for the 1975 act equating Zionism with racism.

Israel's 1950 law of return gives every person "born to a Jewish mother," or one "who converts to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion," the right to immigrate. The 1952 citizenship law says that Jews who immigrate under the law of return acquire Israeli citizenship upon their arrival. Palestinians born in Israel may not exercise the same rights bestowed upon these Jewish immigrants to Israel.

Palestinians in Israel when the state was created were designated as citizens with Arab nationality under the registration law. Jews who go to Israel receive citizenship with Jewish nationality. Israel has no Israeli nationality; citizenship and nationality are not equivalent there.

Under Israel's status law, Israelis with Jewish nationality enjoy certain rights denied to Israelis with Arab nationality. Chief among these rights is ownership or use or the very land which was expropriated from the Palestinians.

It is these discriminatory laws of the state of Israel which compel the conclusion that Zionism is a "form of racism and racial discrimination."

Shaw J. Dallal, Utica College of Syracuse University, New Hartford, NY

To the Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 7, 1990

It takes callous arrogance to complain about the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism at a time when Israeli military leaders commit gross violations against Palestinian civilians.

When Israel concludes a fair settlement with the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, it will be time to repeal this resolution.

Alan Rhodes, Willoughby, OH

Dole's Initiative

To the Star Tribune, Jan. 24, 1990

Sen. Robert Dole's proposal to reduce by 5 percent the US foreign aid given to the five largest recipients as a means of financing the legitimate and unforeseen new requirements arising, mainly in Eastern Europe, deserves our applause.

An attractive alternative might be a rather more significant cut in the military aid provided to countries around the world. There would be poetic justice in such a measure, made possible by the reduced level of mischief emanating from the evil empire, as a means of helping its legatees to find new, democratic pathways to freedom. Countries that based their claims on the US Treasury on their being bulwarks against godless communism surely have less credence in today's world.

Bruce Stedman, Hayward, WI

Pat Buchanan and AIPAC

To the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 4, 1990

I would always switch channels whenever Pat Buchanan showed up on the tube—not any more, not after reading his column [See Other Voices, p. 33]. It has been long overdue for anyone of Buchanan's stature to speak up against "the mighty American-Israel Political Action Committee," but, of course, Buchanan is not running for political office. Note Sen. Pete Wilson's column ("Arafat's Roadblocks to Peace") on the same page. He is one of those who has permitted himself to be cowed into shameful silence, as Buchanan states, and hopes to be our next governor.

Wilson writes the same old tired rhetoric—we should "support America's strategic ally, Israel." No doubt AIPAC will be sending him a nice check to help his campaign.

John M. Concilio, Garden Grove, CA

Senator Dole on American Hostages in Lebanon

To Mrs. Jack Ramsey, Sept. 5, 1989

I appreciate your letter concerning the issue of American hostages in Lebanon, and the recent action of Israel in abducting Sheikh Obeid.

As you know, I have criticized Israel's action, which I believe was undertaken without due regard to the impact on important American interests in the region and, particularly, without consideration of the fact that it might directly endanger the lives of Americans held hostage. Although we do not know the details of Col. Higgins' death, the possibility that he might have been executed in retaliation for Israel's action underscores the high risks involved.

The overall point, of course, is not that we expect Israel to consult and coordinate every last one of its activities or initiatives with the United States, any more than I would have us feel an obligation to coordinate every one of our actions with Israel. But when any allied or friendly nation contemplates unilateral actions which clearly will put at great risk either vital American interests or American lives, there is an obligation to weigh those factors very, very seriously and, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, at least to inform us of the contemplated action.

On Aug. 1, I made a statement on the Senate floor expressing my views of these matters. I have enclosed a copy of that statement for your information, but I did want to underscore two points. First, we are engaged in a deadly struggle against international terrorism, and all civilized nations who are the real or potential victims of terrorism must stand together; we cannot allow ourselves to be split asunder, either by the acts of the terrorists, or by any ill-conceived actions of our own.

Second, the US and Israel continue to share many fundamental goals and interests in the Middle East and globally. That will not change. And I will continue to do everything to insure that US-Israel relations remain strong and mutually beneficial.

But the best way to achieve that is for us to communicate frankly, as friends. Through that kind of candid communication can come closer, more realistically based friendship, which can serve our common interests, and can help us advance our common fight against terrorism.

Robert Dole, United States Senate

Israel as a Strategic Asset for the US

To the Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 12, 1990

The article "Israel Mulls Strategic Role," Dec. 12, correctly highlights Israeli concerns that the United States' perception of Israel as a "strategic asset" may diminish as tensions with the Soviet Union ease.

US citizens and taxpayers should realize, however, that this perception is a myth. Israel has never had value to the US as a strategic asset in containing communism in the Middle East.

In terms of strategic assets in containing communist expansion, Islam is the most valuable. Our national interests in the Middle East include the protection of access to oil resources, promotion of moderation and political democracy in all regional states, and the protection of human rights throughout the area. Uncritical support of Israeli expansionism over the past 25 years has worked against all of these.

The unprecedented changes we witness in Eastern Europe have their parallel in the Middle East—in the intifada, the Jordanian parliamentary elections, and the demobilization of divisions in Iraq. Just as the European changes provide opportunity for us to reassess our policies there, changes in the Middle East should be seen as a similar opportunity.

If we seek to retain influence in the region, we must jettison the false idea of Israel as a strategic asset or ally, and adopt an evenhanded approach to all states of the Middle East.

Gary R. Hobin, Atlanta, GA

Senator Wendell Ford's Views on Aid to Israel

To Welby P. Campbell, Dec. 19, 1989

Thank you for your recent letter expressing your thoughts on United States assistance to Israel; I can certainly understand your concerns.

While I, too, believe that we should decrease the foreign aid program in order to bolster domestic programs, I nonetheless support Israel. Since their creation as a state, Israel has remained one of our strongest allies. In addition, the geopolitical significance of the Middle East makes support of Israel in the national security interests of the US.

Wendell Ford (D-KY), US Senate

Lost in the Translation

To The New York Times, Jan. 21, 1990

Today's edition of The New York Times carries an erroneous translation of the Arabic text that appears in the photo on page six. The photo depicts a demonstration of Lebanese journalists "protesting attempts by Gen. Michel Aoun, leader of the Christian militia, to censor news reports." The translation of the demonstrators' sign in the caption below reads, "In Allah's hands we are safe." The actual Arabic text is something entirely different. Translated into English, it says, "Freedom of the Press/Yes to the [Printed] Word, No to Terror."

Mistakes do happen, of course. I would venture to speculate, however, that the erroneous translation slipped by because it was congenial to Western notions of the Arabs as fatalistic. I doubt very much that a news photo bearing a similar translated message, but ascribed to a group of demonstrating Israeli journalists, would have slipped past your news editors. It surely would have been sent back for double checking, since such a fatalistic message would not have "fit" preconceived notions of Israeli journalists. Thus, the "news that's fit to print" also fits our cultural and political notions.

Nabeel Abraham, Dearborn, MI