Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2000, pages 3,72,74

Letters to the Editor

You Must Survive

Several days ago, I received a check for an article which I wrote about two brothers who are Iraqi-Kurds imprisoned in California detention centers. The article was published in the Aug./Sept. issue of the Washington Report.

Inasmuch as I did not know that I would be paid for this article, it was quite a lovely surprise to receive this check. But I am returning it to you, and hope that my request for its use is acceptable.

I would appreciate very much if you would apply the money to a subscription for another year for myself to the Washington Report and if you would apply the balance as a donation to the American Educational Trust on behalf of the magazine. God knows I need money, but I don’t need money as much as you all do. You are barely surviving and you must go on—for many, many years.

Thank you all for your dedication to achieving justice in the Middle East. No one but yourselves can know the full extent of your difficulties in doing so; we can only imagine what must be a small part. What courage you have and how indefatigable! If only there were 10 million more just like you.

Betty Molchany, Attorney at Law, Alexandria, VA

Thank you for your support, as a writer and a donor. Perhaps this is a good place to address the latest canard being launched against us, which is that the magazine receives donations from governments. It doesn’t. Period. Many embassies in Washington, DC subscribe to the magazine. Sometimes a government or government-owned entity purchases an advertisement for an event or a service. And obviously many, many government officials, particularly U.S. government officials, subscribe or donate privately as individuals, which is their right. In general most foreign officials are happy to see their names listed in our Angels’ Choir and the U.S. officials are not—a sad commentary on freedom of expression in the U.S. But, to repeat, the magazine does not receive donations from foreign governments. That’s why we so desperately need donations from all readers who can afford to make them.

Zionists Seeking “Jewish Genes”

Consider the following information an addendum to the Washington Report’s ongoing series of articles on Zionist racism and discrimination in Israel.¹ The mainstream press refuses to deal with these issues.

In an attempt to determine how the Jewish people differ from the non-Jewish world, Israeli scientists have conducted studies which they say show that Jews as a group differ significantly from non-Jews in a genetic-biological sense.²

What’s even more interesting about these research projects is that they highlight the hypocritical double standard that is so deeply ingrained in certain segments of society. It’s morally acceptable for Jews to conduct such research projects. Anthropologist Roselle Tekiner suggested that queries into Jewish genetics may be motivated by a desire to “justify” and bolster Zionist nationalism; the idea of a “Jewish race” with a special set of “Jewish genes” could serve to unite world Jewry.³ There is no highly visible, widespread public condemnation of these inquiries, which there would be if others were to conduct similar studies. Indeed, Zionists would probably be the most vocal of all protestors if, for example, it were found that Anglo-Saxon scientists were attempting to determine how the British or northern Europeans differ from Jews in a genetic-biological sense.

Enter Dr. Jared Diamond, a prominent Jewish scientist and columnist for Natural History. In an article that appeared in this prestigious scientific monthly, respected scientist Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: “There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.” ⁴

The implication here is obvious. The Zionist elite is planning to refuse a person the right to settle in Israel if they do not have “Jewish genes.” Too bad about converts to Judaism. They’ll have to share with the Palestinians the less than 7 percent of the state of Israel still open to its non-Jewish citizens. With this in mind, consider point #4 of the Nazi Party program of May 25, 1920. It reads: “None but members of the nationality may be citizens of the state. None but those of German blood, irrespective of religion, may be members of the nationality.”⁵ In contemporary terms, only those with “German genes” could be citizens of Nazi Germany. I can’t emphasize enough that this is similar to the type of Israeli policy that Diamond describes.

What is utterly amazing is that the U.S. mainstream press is ever so sensitive to the slightest manifestation of racism or discrimination when it is practiced against Jews. Yet, when the Jewish state of Israel plans to or actually does discriminate against non-Jews, the media watchdogs remain silent. Why such hypocrisy?

The Zionist groups represented in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations have become a power elite within American society, with their influence being especially pronounced in the mass media. They have successfully injected their hypocritical double standard (condemn non-Jews for racism but remain silent when Zionist Jews are guilty of it) into the collective consciousness of the American mass media.

Paul Grubach, Lyndhurst, OH

Footnotes

1See Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (July/Aug. 1999), pp. 14-15, 120.

2Nature , March 21, 1985, p. 208.

3Roselle Tekiner, Samir Abed-Rabbo, Norton Mezvinsky, eds., Anti-Zionism: Analytic Reflections (Amana Books, 1988), pp. 63-89.

4Natural History, November 1993, p. 12.

5See Robert Vexler’s Germany: A Chronology and Fact Book: 1415-1972, p. 129.

Change Our Israel Policy

After reading “The Israeli Deception That Led to the Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 Over Lockerbie, Scotland,” in the Washington Report, Oct./Nov. 1999, p. 22, I am convinced that we should break off all relations with the state of Israel, and severely limit Israel’s political activity in the United States.

Thomas N. Scollan, Vallejo, CA

Web Site Instead of Print

To save costs you might start putting some of your material on your Web site instead of in print.

Nahid Khan, Minneapolis, MN

Unfortunately, it works the other way. People pay for a subscription to the magazine but the Web site, on which all 11,000 pages of previous issues are available, is free. We don’t put the current issue on the Web site, however, nor do we put the contents of our other major publication, Other Voices, on the Web site at all since we pay copyright fees for one time use only for most articles in that publication.

Gideon’s Spies Causing Stir

Since your executive editor wrote the review of Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad, you may be able to forward this letter to the appropriate person at St. Martin’s Press who might be interested in the consternation over that book here in Madison. In fact, a sting that would undermine the publisher’s credibility in retaliation for publishing Gordon Thomas’ book came to my mind when the book about George W. Bush being recalled by St. Martin’s Press due to errors/lies was recently made known.

I called local bookstores to find they were out of Gideon’s Spies and did not expect to receive any more, except one bookstore near the University of Wisconsin campus. When I picked up the book I was questioned about where I had learned of it.

Public libraries throughout Wisconsin are divided into districts. Madison’s Dane County and several other counties comprise a district that serves at least 15 percent of Wisconsin’s population of five million. They have one copy of this book in the whole district. Contrast that to 20 copies of Case Closed, by Gerald Posner, in our library district. Also, one can search on the computer by subject and Mossad as a subject is listed; but no reference is made to Gideon’s Spies.

Gordon Thomas’ explanation of the sayanim was a real eye opener for which I am most grateful.

Beryl M. Madson, Madison, WI

Fortunately we still have Gideon’s Spies in stock and if the publisher ever lets it go out of print we are quite prepared to work with Mr. Thomas to bring out a new edition in the U.S. This is what we have done with Victor Ostrovsky’s books. A brand-new set of Mr. Ostrovsky’s audio-taped versions of his two inside exposés of the Mossad, By Way of Deception and The Other Side of Deception, has just been issued and is available from our catalog. And we will be marketing new printed editions of both books when the original editions no longer are available elsewhere, as Mr. Ostrovsky has bought back the rights to both books from the original publishers.

We’ll also have a letter from author Gordon Thomas in the next issue.

Using “Secret” Evidence

The ongoing and perhaps increasing use of “secret” evidence by the INS and the FBI is most disturbing. Especially perturbing is the tendency by these government agencies to target innocent persons of Arab descent!

Hopefully, the enclosed press cutting on the same subject from The New York Times of Oct. 29, 1999 will be useful to your courageous organization in some way.

E.A. Bernstein, Paradise, CA

Candidate Rod Driver

In August I wrote to several hundred Rhode Islanders—about half of them Republicans—asking their thoughts about my possible run for Congress next year in the second district. I indicated in that letter that I was unsure whether to consider running in the Republican Party or as a third-party or independent candidate.

The results have been encouraging. Many people have urged me to run, but the advice about party affiliation has been mixed. Some friends have suggested staying with the Republican Party. Some have recommended joining the Reform Party and some have other ideas.

So I am forming an exploratory committee to help me decide how to proceed. Anyone who would like to join the committee, or simply offer suggestions, is most welcome. Please call me at (401) 539-7985.

My top concerns are foreign policy and human rights. Some say these topics are not of interest in Rhode Island and suggest not talking about them. I’ve never been very good at not saying what I believe. But if I become a candidate I’ll certainly talk about other things too, especially matters on which I have a published record including education, the environment, gambling and the cost of health care.

We hope to hear from you.

Rod Driver, P.O. Box 156, West Kingston, RI 02892

If Washington Report readers would care to help with the expenses of this exploratory effort, contributions can be sent to Friends of Rod Driver at the above address.

Immoral “Honor Killing”

The mere existence of honor killings is appalling, and the logic used in defending them is equally atrocious. The research we have been conducting in the past few weeks has led us to question the reasoning and motives behind crimes of honor.

We are students at the University of Richmond attempting to increase awareness of issues surrounding honor killings. Coming from different cultures (Jordan and the United States) has enabled us to examine honor killings from a broader perspective. We challenge the manner in which people interpret the Qur’an and apply it to issues concerning women. First and foremost, there is no mention of honor killings in the Qur’an. Therefore, the practice of honor killings and the reasoning associated with them is a social construct that manifests outside of Islam.

People misinterpret the Qur’an’s references to sexual misconduct and how it should be handled. Many honor killings are based on suspicion, and not on the evidence the Qur’an requires for punishment. The Qur’an requires four witnesses to the adulterous act in order to pass sentence. In fact, suspicion and rumor are inadmissable, and “those who accuse honorable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them [with] 80 stripes and never [afterward] accept their testimony.” (Surah 24:4) Even if the accused are proven guilty by the Qur’an’s standards, the punishment is that “The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each of them a hundred stripes...” (Surah 24:2) In essence, people who commit honor killings violate the Qur’an for the following reasons: suspicion of sexual misconduct without proof is not punishable; if the sexual misconduct is proven, the Qur’an calls for 80 stripes—not murder, in which case the punishment applies to both the man and the woman. In other words, the Qur’an does not deem it necessary to kill a family member in order to restore the honor, which is jeopardized by the adulterous act.

Because the Qur’an calls for the punishment of the man and the woman, the woman is not solely responsible for the family’s honor.

Islam calls for men to be the protectors of women. However, some people abuse their role as protector by exercising inappropriate power and control. They do so by placing the family’s honor with women’s sexuality, thereby enabling them to control women’s behavior under the guise of protecting them. So women are restricted considerably in most aspects of their lives, because anything they do is open to scrutiny from friends, family and society, who may possibly construe their behavior as immoral. This results in women living in constant fear of damaging their reputations as well as the family’s honor.

The threat of being a victim of an honor killing reinforces this fear to such an extent that objecting to their restriction becomes an implausible concept for women. Society then has the ability to prevent women from reaching their highest potential in terms of education, travel and career because they can restrict them under the pretense of protecting them. This restriction not only limits women, but also robs society from the benefits of utilizing more fully developed citizens. So, the belief that the honor of the family is defined by women’s sexuality allows men to control all aspects of women’s lives, resulting in the oppression of women through fear. The extent of this oppression is revealed in the extreme, but all too common causes of honor killings.

Laura Samir Haddad and Candice E. Renka, Richmond, VA

We’re not sure why you wrote to us about this subject because, as best we can recall, we’ve never dealt with it in any way. But since we found your research interesting, so may some of our readers. However, when we stray from politics, which most people enjoy discussing, to religion, which many people do not, the roof generally falls in on us. If it does this time, we’ll ask you to help us build a new one.

Wrong on Every Point

While leafing through the December 1998 issue of WRMEA, I noticed a letter which I had previously overlooked which whitewashed British repressive measures in occupied-Ireland compared with Israeli measures in Palestine and almost pronounced the British means of dealing with Irish guerrillas as being “benign” in comparison.

Torture may be an ambiguous term to the writer of the letter, but it is not an ambiguous term to the European Commission on Human Rights, which has cited Britain for more human rights violations than any other member of the European Union or of all the other members combined.

To attempt to decide whether or not British repression in Ireland is less repressive than Zionist repression in Palestine is like trying to decide who was less harmful to humanity—Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

William Gartland, Rio, WI

Tunisia Setting Example

In a politically, economically and socially changing Arab world, where democracy and economic liberalism make up the Western values, Tunisia, less anchored in a traditional political culture, plays once again a pioneering role and sets the example.

It is unfortunate to notice the lack of interest of the American media in the pluralistic presidential and legislative elections currently taking place in this North African and Mediterranean country which is open to the West, and which is deepening in a gradual and determined manner its process of economic reforms and political democratization.

By its economic achievements, its political stability and social accomplishments, Tunisia has been able to fulfill the pre-conditions that ensure a concrete and long-lasting democratization of its institutions as well as a successful political pluralism.

Evidently, the stakes of the presidential elections are limited. The obvious popularity of the incumbent President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the excellent overall economic situation which has prevailed for a decade in the country, and the attachment of the great Tunisian majority to the social policy of President Ben Ali ensure the latter of a comfortable re-election.

The allocation to the opposition of only 20 percent of the seats in the parliament and the precedent set by this pluralistic presidential election will not fail to enrich the democratic debate, to strengthen the introduction and the role of the opposition and to ensure the practice of democracy.

To date, the rare hasty and improvised democratic attempts in some Arab countries have shown their limits and their fragility. The Tunisian model, evidently slow but based on a gradual, pragmatic and educational approach, appears more serious and would last for a long term.

Pamela Hunt, Rockville, MD

Friends of Peace and Justice

After several years of struggle against Israel’s policy of massive demolitions of Palestinian homes on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, we—Israelis, Palestinians and our supporters abroad—thought we had turned the corner. We succeeded in making house demolitions an international issue. (Interior Minister Sharansky, the human rights “hero” who ironically turned into the greatest antagonist of human rights in the Israeli government, recently complained that he cannot demolish a Palestinian house anymore without it becoming an international event.) And we steadily reduced the numbers of demolitions from 249 in 1997 to 175 in 1998 and “only” 74 so far this year—although each demolished home represents the destruction of a family’s entire world.

We had high hopes when the Barak “peace government” came into office in June, but the government continues to issue hundreds of demolition orders, to haul before the courts and sentence to heavy fines tens of families who have built “illegally” because they are denied permits, and to send its brutal “field inspectors” to harass the residents. In the meantime, the Israeli government continues to expropriate thousands of acres of West Bank land, uproot thousands of olive and fruit trees for their massive “by-pass roads” connecting settlements, and frantically expanding the settlements themselves. The reality “on the ground” does not in any way conform to a “peace process.”

And now the war against the Palestinian people has moved in full force to Jerusalem, where houses in the eastern part of the city are being demolished at an ever increasing rate...(Jewish homes in the western part of the city are never demolished, even though 70 percent of the building violations occur there.) Here a cynical and cruel game is played out between the Municipality of Mayor Ehud Olmert and the Interior Ministry of Natan Sharansky. Where the city has agreed to a moratorium of house demolitions (in Beit Hanina, for example), the Interior Ministry demolishes...Where the Interior Ministry indicates it might not demolish (as it did when Ministers Sharansky, Ramon and Beilin agreed to set up a committee to review the demolition issue, promising that houses would not be demolished in the meantime), then the Municipality demolishes.

Although presented as a technical matter of planning, permits and law enforcement, the demolition of Palestinian houses is in fact a purely political act. It derives from the government’s open and declared policy of maintaining a 72 to 28 percent demographic majority of Jews over Palestinians in Jerusalem. Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are confined to highly circumscribed parts of “East Jerusalem.” This area of 70 square kilometers (70,000 dunums/ 17,600 acres) constitutes two-thirds of Jerusalem’s total urban area. Yet since 1967, 35 percent of the land comprising East Jerusalem has been expropriated for Israeli neighborhoods, roads and other facilities, while another 54 percent is forbidden for Palestinian construction (for such reasons as security, zoned “green spaces,” and new Jewish neighborhoods). That leaves only 11 percent of East Jerusalem available for Palestinian housing and other needs—only 3.5 percent of the city’s total urban space for almost 200,000 people. And a building permit for a Palestinian costs upwards of $10,000. Under these conditions Palestinian residents of the city cannot take out permits, and are therefore forced to build “illegally.” A city that must demolish tens of homes a year—and then only of a particular community—cannot defend its policies on legal or planning grounds.

It is time to say “Enough!” No more political demolitions on the West Bank, in East Jerusalem or in Gaza (where 70 demolition orders were issued by Israeli authorities against the Khan Yunis refugee camp only a month ago). Your protest is crucial, urgent—and effective. Send your protests to:

• PM Ehud Barak—e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it (fax 972-2-5664838)

• Mayor Ehud Olmert—e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it (fax: 972-2-629-6014)

• Interior Minister Natan Sharansky—e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

• Justice Minister Yossi Beilin—e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it (fax: 972-2-6285-438)

Also:

• Secretary of State Madeleine Albright—e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it (fax: 202-736-4461), and to your representative in Congress/Parliament.

In peace,

Jeff Halper, Coordinator, The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Rehov Tiveria 37, Jerusalem, Israel. e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Web site: http://www.net-a.org/hdemol, fax 972-2-623-6210.

What a Nibbly Review

What a nibbly review Walter Goodman wrote in The New York Times July 5 of Edward Said’s BBC production of “In Search of Palestine.”

The Muslims and Christians (a/k/a “non-Jews”) of Palestine must be the only crime victims in all history who are expected—for some inexplicable reason—to spout their persecutors’ propaganda. The Zionists must be the only criminals in history to demand that their victims do so.

The situation would be egregious enough if the Zionists had a case—but once beyond the smoke and mirrors and lies, no half-way observant person can escape the fact that they don’t have, they never have had, and they never will have a case.

Meantime the Palestinian case is clear. The facts support the moral—if morality exists—and the legal—if law exists—justification of their arguments, and in any sane court of justice they would win hands down.

As a knowledgeable person (who “saw the light” long before I did) once remarked to me, “It’s a good thing the Zionists have that word chutzpah, because if they didn’t, it would have to be invented for them.”

Our public television is not offering Edward Said’s “In Search of Palestine” this week, so I hope it will be available on video-cassette and that you will offer it in your catalog.

The BBC had a hand in the “Frontline” show “Nazi Gold”—probably the very worst excuse for a documentary it has ever been my misfortune to watch. The BBC also had a hand in that appalling “50 Years of War” which PBS showed back in January. Perhaps producing “In Search of Palestine” is the BBC’s way of assuaging a guilty conscience.

Keep up the good work. God bless you all.

Karen Ray Bossmeyer, Louisville, KY

Retire Term “McCarthyism”

Edward Said’s article on his defamation by Commentary magazine—a slander that was picked up on by other anti-Arab media across the country, is described in the Washington Report title as “Anti-Arab McCarthyism,” although that phrase is not used by Dr. Said. It is a terrible propaganda smear word, that itself embodies and perpetuates a lie.

In the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy accused various people of being Communists, for which he was labeled as a malicious liar. However, McCarthy was right, and yet is still being slandered today by those who want to perpetuate the fiction that there were no Communists in politics, entertainment, etc., during and after World War II. But what really got McCarthy into very big trouble was when he accused the British of helping North Korea while the U.S. was engaged in a war there. (British ships were carrying material and men to North Korea.) Bad, bad McCarthy. But he was right on that, too.

“McCarthyism” has entered into the popular lexicon as connoting an unjust, untrue accusation. It is “shorthand” for a demagogue who deals in lies and bombast to slander and defame the innocent. In this present affair, the great Edward Said is thus the later “McCarthy” in his honesty, and likewise, with legions of enemies bent on his disgrace and ruin for telling the truth.

I believe “McCarthyism” is thus a misleading phrase that should be retired in honest journalism and discourse. It not only covers up and distorts reality, but also maligns Joe McCarthy, who used his congressional office 50 years ago to courageously warn the American public about clear and present dangers, for which he was hounded to death.

Patrick F. Flynn, Yorba Linda, CA

The Holocaust-Israel Connection

We were disappointed that you did not reprint our letter in the October issue of the University of Chicago Alumni Magazine in the most recent issue of the Washington Report. We are long-time contributors to WRMEA who have between us succeeded in getting numerous letters on the Middle East printed in publications like The Economist, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

If the letter’s non-inclusion was a reflection of a policy not to print material attacking the Holocaust, we would like to point out that our letter is an explanation of how promoting the Holocaust has become the principal underpinning and moral justification of the pro-Israel lobby. In that light, we believe that examination of it is directly relevant to the cause of an even-handed U.S. role in the Middle East, which we all support. If Holocaust-generated guilt is the ultimate weapon in the Jewish lobby’s arsenal, diminishing its credibility will render them just another group with a discreditable agenda. In that light, the Holocaust is not just a peripheral issue. It confers a special status and entitlement on the World Jewish Community which has been translated into immense political and economic power. In a certain sense, the Holocaust may be pretty much the only issue.

Philip M. Giraldi, Purcellville, VA and John K. Taylor, Ft. Worth, TX

Actually we put your letter from the University of Chicago magazine in the line-up for “Other People’s Mail” for this issue, but since it was seven paragraphs long instead of the two in your letter above, which makes the same point, its chances were very close to zilch.

Just to give you a feel for our problem, the line-up for “Other People’s Mail each month would fill 12 to 16 pages, and starting with this issue we have only four pages for “Other People’s Mail” and another four for “Letters to the Editor.” As for the subject matter, we received three separate reviews of Peter Novick’s book, which inspired your original letter, from regular Washington Report columnists. We used the shortest, were able to find a home for the longest with an academic quarterly, and asked the author of the third to give us a new topic for his column, which he did. Our “policy” on the Holocaust ought to be pretty obvious to long-time readers. It happened, and there are other publications available to discuss the tragic details. How that tragedy has been misused to justify what we call the “Holocaust in the Holy Land” is of interest to our readers, and when we come across insights on the subject that are new to us, as in the Novick book, of course we’ll find space for them.

< Prev		Next >