Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2009, pages 5-6

Letters to the Editor

The “Ethnic Cleansing” Debate

ON P. 6 OF the December 2008 issue, the Washington Report vows never to use the term “ethnic cleansing” again. You might have to argue the point with Ilan Pappé who used the term in his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, one of the most damning indictments of Zionist aggression I’ve ever read. I won’t enter the lists to defend or attack the term’s semantics, but, due to our press/media, it does have popular currency, particularly when one tries to communicate to newcomers the complexities of Israel’s relationship to the rest of the Mideast.

Dave Morton, Longmont, CO

We take your point on the common understanding of the term—and that certainly is an important factor when trying to communicate to a large audience. Letter writer L.A. Johnson’s point was that the term is—and was intended to be—a euphemism. Israel’s attempts for the past six decades to rid the land of its original inhabitants seem to fit the definition of genocide. (This country’s complicity in those attempts make it a party to genocide as well.) In the final analysis, we believe the Washington Report’s best approach is to report Israel’s actions and let our readers arrive at their own conclusions.

Variations on a Theme

I subscribe and will continue to subscribe to the Washington Report. What I don’t understand is why you keep publishing, month after month, the same anti-Israel article. Only the authors’ names seem to change. Did you in your March issue need to mention, for example, a myriad of articles about anti-Israel rallies? Couldn’t you have had one copy editor summarize or paraphrase all of them into one article?

And where is this “balance” you tout on p. 5 of each issue? Wouldn’t even you find it refreshing to publish one article presenting Israel’s viewpoint? Would you give any space of any length to, say, a Dershowitz?

Finally, we readers get the point. Israel is all bad all the time in every way. We get it! Can you now sometime play a different tune?

Jerry Axelrod, via fax

Firstly, we commend your commitment to continue reading this publication despite your objections. We only wish more people shared your open-mindedness. Perhaps we don’t mention often enough the names of the many Israelis we admire—Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, Linda Breyer, among others—as well as the fact that debate on the issues that concern us is much more open and robust there, as exemplified by the fine publication Haaretz. Were the debate as open here, we could count on the mainstream media (MSM) to do more than tout the Israeli line. Since they don’t, we try to provide “balance” by covering stories the MSMrefuses to touch (such as the Israel lobby, which we reported on in Vol. I, No. 1 of the Washington Report, published 27 years ago). And, most recently, for example, The Washington Post failed to cover several local demonstrations—one in front of its very door!—against Israel’s assault on Gaza.

Ultimately, what we and many others find unacceptable is the ideology upon which the state of Israel is based: that only Jews have a right to live there. We don’t see “another side” to racism or to genocide. Nor do we recall similarly “balanced” stories about apartheid South Africa, genocide in Rwanda, or Nazi Germany during World War II. Would you have demanded that Goebbels be asked to provide “balance”?

Is Frank Rich PEP?

I long regarded Frank Rich a champion, whose fearless exposures of moral hypocrisy in our culture and the media rang true. My view changed after this New York Times columnist gave a talk at Cornell University in October 2007.

Mr. Rich was asked about our media’s reporting in the Middle East and their unwavering presentation of Israel-as-victim. How is it that Americans are so poorly informed that a large fraction believes that the Palestinians are the illegal settlers in the occupied territories? Mr. Rich was asked why he, as a media critic, had remained silent on this biased coverage? Mr. Rich replied, “I’m Jewish.”

His candor is refreshing, but what does he mean? Is Mr. Rich suggesting that being Jewish precludes criticizing Israel? Is he suggesting that Jewish American reporters (and more insidiously, publishers) feel compelled to defend Israel? Where is professional responsibility to the American public?

Some say that the U.S. media are playing enabler to the Israeli government. Israel’s own newspapers are far more rigorous and critical toward its failed policies, thus provoking debate among informed citizens. And their democracy is stronger for it. This irony surely is not wasted on Mr. Rich.

David Morris, <www.usmediaandisrael.com>, via e-mail

Your letter made us recall a Nov. 19 posting by Philip Weiss (who also is Jewish) on his Mondoweiss blog, <www.philipweiss.org>, entitled “PEP, and Why You Don’t Want to Be PEP.” Referring to an earlier post by Anne Silver titled, “It is an awful and uncomfortable situation to encounter Jews who are progressive on every issue but Palestine,” Weiss writes: “The other night I found out that others have already turned this rock over, and they have a name for it: ‘PEP.’ As in, He’s PEP. Or, yo mama is PEP. And PEP means ‘Progressive Except for Palestine.’…I’m planning to accuse a lot of people of being PEP in the days to come. It feels as good as it used to to say someone was PC. Hey stop with the PEP, man.”

Nor, we suggest, does this apply only to progressives:how about “Principled Except for Palestine”?

Demanding Accountability

I would like to know how we can put pressure on our government to demand an investigation into the unlawful use of weapons on the civilian population of Gaza and take Israel to court on the matter. Also how can we demand an end to all foreign aid to Israel until it complies with whatever the verdict is? It seems we can’t depend on Congress, since it is, to quote Pat Buchanan, “Israeli-occupied territory”! Israel’s immoral behavior is like the Nazis when they intentionally target women and children and other noncombatants—and the U.S. is complicit, since it sells them the weapons and does not seem to care when Israel violates the terms of their use.

Are there any organizations seriously looking into this and if so, what can ordinary citizens do?

Mary Ann Fadae, via e-mail

Two organizations that are calling for such an investigation and a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel are Amnesty International USA, <www.amnestyusa.org> and the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, <www.endtheoccupation.org>.

Nor is Congress completely a lost cause. Former presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Ron Paul (R-TX) have spoken up on a regular basis, and Kucinich continues to do so (see p. 47 for a report on the hearing he sponsored on Gaza). Most recently, Reps. Brian Baird (D-WA) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) visited the Gaza Strip (see p. 21 for their report).

Finally, American voters should demand of, not depend on, their elected representatives to actually represent them! The congressional postcards included in every issue of this magazine (this and last months’ about Gaza) are one way to make our voices heard. The other way, of course, is the ballot box. The May/June issue of the WashingtonReport will feature the summary of pro-Israel PACcontributions to candidates in the 2008 election. In addition to providing this information prior to every election, our biannual “Halls of Fame and Shame” summarize the voting records of every U.S. senator and representative. Use it or lose it!

Postcards to The President

I’m a subscriber to the Washington Report, and I had an idea about the postcards that are in every issue. I think it might be fruitful to add one to the president on the side that has the subscription cards. I doubt people use all three subscription cards. You would just need to make a note of it on the regular postcard side, and maybe an announcement somewhere in the magazine the first time it’s there.

Lisa McMurray, via e-mail

We like your idea, and are implementing it with this very issue.

Bosnia’s Silajdzic Misquoted

In a “Special Report” in the January/February 2009 issue of the Washington Report (“To the Detriment of Its Citizens, Bosnia’s Politicians Continue to Play Nationalist Cards”), Peter Lippman writes:

“The conflict between Bosnia’s nationalist leaders escalated after Silajdzic, the Bosniak member of the country’s three-part presidency, gave a speech before the United Nations late in September. There, he called on the U.N. to ‘reverse the recognition of the Republika Srpska,’ which he described as a ‘genocidal creation.’”

I wish to warn you, however, that Mr. Lippman has completely fabricated the quotes that he offers. For evidence of this fabrication, I refer you to the official text of the speech, as well as the actual webcast of the same speech, on the U.N. Web site:  <http://www.un.org/ga/63/generaldebate/bosniaandherzegovina.shtml>.

Mr. Lippman further claims that there was “a similar [speech] Silajdzic subsequently gave before the Council of Europe.” Likewise, I refer you to the official text of the speech and the webcast of that speech on the Council of Europe Web site: <http://www.coe.int/t/dc/files/pa_session/sept_2008/20080930_disc_Silajdzic_en.asp> and <http://coenews.coe.int/vod/080930_w05_w.wmv>.

Given this evidence, I hope that the Washington Report will appropriately sanction Mr. Lippman for the fabrications he makes so publicly and issue a repudiation of these statements.

Damir Arnaut, Adviser for Legal & Constitutional Affairs, Cabinet of Dr. Haris Silajdzic, Member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Based on the sources you have provided, it is clear that Dr. Silajdzic did not utter the words attributed to him, and we apologize for that serious error. Lippman tells us he relied on a Nov. 7 briefing by the Democratization Policy Council, which footnoted the quote—but the source footnoted did not in fact cite Dr. Silajdzic as having used those words. Lippman failed to check the original sources, and that is his error as well as ours. We have removed the article from our Web site until we can ensure its accuracy.

< Prev		Next >