Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2000, pages 80-83

Other People’s Mail

 

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

 

Mr. President, Create Khalistan

To President Bill Clinton, March 10, 2000.

During your visit to India we request that you visit the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Punjab, and meet with the Sikh leaders involved in exposing human rights violations against the Sikh Nation. There are over 500,000 Sikhs in the U.S. who will greatly appreciate this.

Mr. President, Sikhs are a separate nation. They ruled Punjab up to 1849, when the British conquered the Sikh homeland. India was divided on the basis of religion. Sikhs took their part with Hindu India on the solemn assurances of the Hindu leaders that the Sikhs would have the glow of freedom in the northwest part of India, which is Punjab.

Unfortunately, the Sikh Nation, instead of enjoying the glow of freedom, faced Indian government injustice and oppression. There is a long list of these grievances which the Sikh leadership in Punjab will bring to your attention. There are tens of thousands of Sikh political prisoners rotting in Indian jails without charge or trial, some of them since 1984.

Mr. President, India is not a friend of the United States. Last May, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes presided at a meeting with the ambassadors from Cuba, Red China, Russia, Iraq, Libya and Serbia designed to create a security alliance “to stop the U.S.” The Indian government supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. India votes against the United States at the United Nations more often than any nation except Cuba.

Mr. President, I respectfully request that you prevail upon the Indian government to release the tens of thousands of political prisoners and allow self-determination for the Sikh Nation and all the minority nations seeking their freedom. Only freedom for the Sikh Nation and the other nations will bring peace and stability to South Asia. God bless you and God bless America.

Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, Washington, DC

 

Sikh Massacre in Kashmir

To Lord Nazir Ahmed, House of Lords, Westminster, London, March 26, 2000.

There was a horrific raid on the Sikh village of Chattisinghpura in Kashmir in which 35 Sikhs were brutally murdered. The massacre occurred in the early hours of March 20, on the day President Clinton arrived in New Delhi on an official visit.

The Indian government and press were quick to blame Muslim militants for the raid. But that is hard to believe.

Seven units of the Indian army are billeted near the village. Nighttime curfew has been in force for 11 years in the area. Civilians have not been the targets of freedom fighters in Kashmir. The Mujahideen take great care to avoid causing casualties and damage to Sikhs because they are sympathetic to their cause.

India, on the other hand, has been eager to portray the freedom fighters as wanton murderers. The Indian version appears to be incorrect. If the attackers were Muslim militants, why did they spare military targets in the area? Why did they carry out the massacres of Sikhs (whom they never targeted in the past) right there under the noses of seven army units at a time when they were sure to get the worst possible publicity?

The BBC, CNN and the AFP interviewed the survivors of the massacre, who said it was carried out by the Indian security forces. The aim of India is to draw Sikhs into the struggle in Kashmir against the Muslims. That the Indian leaders and the media are urging the Sikhs to arm themselves also proves that.

It was synchronized with the visit of President Clinton to India to demonize and isolate Pakistan and to discredit the freedom movement in Kashmir. Indian leaders are also urging the Sikhs to vacate the Vale of Kashmir as Hindus have done. They do not trust the Sikhs to keep quiet over the mayhem they witnessed in Kashmir.

The World Muslim Sikh Federation held a meeting and decided to request MPs and members of the House of Lords to draw the attention of Her Majesty’s Government to the anxieties of their Sikh constituents.

Samiullah Malik, General Secretary, World Muslim Sikh Federation, London

 

Crimes Against Algerians

To the Chicago Tribune, April 26, 2000 (as submitted).

Your article from the Tempo section only perpetuates the transgressions against the poor Algerian people. The crimes committed against the people of Algeria are truly horrendous. What is more horrendous is the bias that the Chicago Tribune and other media outlets have in their reporting. Instead of carrying out their journalistic duty and delving deeper and uncovering truths, the Tribune et al. are satisfied in being conduits for the military junta’s propaganda.

The military takeover in 1992 was a defeat for democracy, a defeat for freedom, and a victory for tyranny and oppression. The likely victory of the Islamists in the elections was reason enough to revoke all semblances of liberty and democracy, and was supported by our government and portrayed positively by our media. The terrible crimes committed thereafter, involving massacres of thousands and abductions of thousands of others, are blamed on the “Islamic fundamentalists,” those same who were about to win the public election.

But who is placing the blame? The only media reports coming out of Algeria are from the military. Hardly any mention is given to the bloody evidence pointing to the government as perpetrating these vicious crimes. Reports have established very clear evidence that the military, specifically dressed in garb befitting the “fundamentalists” and sporting fake beards, is carrying out the massacres. Some of their own soldiers have even come forward, in disgust with themselves.

The crimes that have been committed violate the very basic principles that the “fundamentalists” are accused of harboring, that being their adherence to the Islamic faith. Islam does not permit killing except of enemy soldiers in the event of war. It specifically prohibits innocents from being killed, even to the degree that trees and other vegetation cannot be harmed.

The most ironic bit from the article was the cover picture, which purported to show armed Islamic thugs, yet the photograph clearly shows the soldiers wearing patches which read in Arabic “Al Amn Al Watani” which means “National Security Forces.”

Oman Haydar, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL

 

“Rules of Engagement”

To USA Today, April 10, 2000 (as submitted).

On occasion this country’s film industry is morally no different from that of Nazi Germany. On April 7 I saw the new Paramount film “Rules of Engagement.” It is the most racist and religiously bigoted film that I have ever seen.

The story has actor Samuel L. Jackson playing a U.S. Marine officer defending the U.S. Embassy in Yemen. He is forced to order the liquidation of a crowd of Yemeni adults and young children because of their own behavior. The Yemenis, including young female children, are killed by the gunfire of the U.S. Marines.

The U.S. Department of State Web site <http://travel.state.gov/yemen.html> for Yemen mentions it having a culture with a traditional, tribal and Islamic composition. It also mentions fundamentalist Muslim influences. A combination of these four cultural elements would seem to be unlikely to lead to the arming and weapons training of young female children. Paramount, however, seems to have had no moral qualms in producing a film likely to incite hatred against Arabs and Muslims.

I am British, and having lived in the U.S. for five years I have to say that I fully appreciate this country’s Anglophilia. However, I would have to add that on occasion this country’s film industry is morally no different from that of Nazi Germany.

Robert Berache, Plano, TX

 

ADC to Paramount (Abridged)

To Ms. Sherry Lansing, Chair, Paramount Motion Pictures Group, Hollywood, CA, April 11, 2000.

On Jan. 27, 2000, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the nation’s largest Arab-American membership organization, approached Paramount Pictures with serious concerns about “Rules of Engagement,” which were raised by images included in trailers for the film which were then available. We reiterated those concerns during numerous telephone conversations with Paramount Executive Vice President Blaise Noto. Our concerns were never directly addressed, and our repeated requests to view the film were ignored. In spite of this almost total lack of cooperation from Paramount, we continued to hope against hope that “Rules of Engagement” would not be defamatory against Arabs, and showing the utmost restraint, withheld judgment until viewing the movie in a commercial cinema after its general release.

I have just returned from that viewing. Nothing in my 36 years as an Arab-American, and my years as a graduate student studying literature and popular culture at the University of Massachusetts, and my one and a half years as communications director of ADC, during which I thought I had seen it all, prepared me for the explosion of hatred that burst through the screen during “Rules of Engagement.” The incessant torrent of negative, hateful and harmful images of Arabs, Arab culture and the Arab world in “Rules of Engagement” is unequaled by anything I have previously encountered. I tell you frankly that, as an Arab-American, and a fairly thick-skinned one at that, the experience of watching the film was like being physically beaten. “Rules of Engagement” contains so many negative portrayals of Arabs that it would be quite impossible to list and analyze all of them. On the other hand, sympathetic or positive images of Arabs are easy to list: there are none….

The objectionable images are repeated time and time again throughout the movie. For most Americans who see it, the film will contain the most “information” about Yemen that they will ever receive in an hour and a half, and possibly in an entire lifetime. Why Paramount chose Yemen for this outrageous exercise in national character assassination and slander, we will never know. But the fact remains that you have done so.

In all honesty, I never thought that a film produced in the present-day United States could be this unabashedly racist. Mr. Noto’s letter of March 30, the only formal communication ADC has received from Paramount during our long months of fruitless effort to engage in a constructive dialogue, claims “Rules of Engagement” is not anti-Arab, anti-Moroccan or anti-Yemenite but rather “anti-extremist.”

“This film is not a negative portrayal of any government or people,” Mr. Noto writes. In fact, “Rules of Engagement” does not really belong in the same category with most films that include negative or racist portrayals of Arabs. The film does not focus on a terrorist group or band of fanatics, but casts its aspersions far wider by explicitly and directly defaming a whole culture and society…

In retrospect, it is easy to understand why Paramount stonewalled all our attempts at dialogue and refused even the elementary courtesy of a pre-release screening. It is because this movie is absolutely indefensible in its portrayal of Arabs and Arab culture. These are the images that define the Arab as the quintessential “other” in contemporary American culture, that depicts all Arabs, men, women and children, as the inherent, irrational and implacable terrorist enemy of the United States…These are indeed the images that lead to the high incidence of hate crimes against Arab Americans, that produce airport profiling, that have led to the use of secret evidence in American courts, that make the everyday lives of Arabs in the United States that much more difficult and dangerous.

No apology can undo the damage done by “Rules of Engagement.” Sadly, Paramount’s name will be forever associated with this truly appalling film.

Hussein Ibish, Communications Director, ADC, Washington, DC

 

Please Be Responsible!

To Ms. Sherry Lansing, Paramount Motion Pictures Group, Hollywood, CA, April 17, 2000.

I saw your film “Rules of Engagement.” I admire Tommy Lee Jones and his acting skills. The movie would have been a lot better, though, had you selected a fictional country and a fictional group of people. I have friends from Yemen and they are peaceful and pure people. As to Muslims spreading the word to kill Americans in your film, this could also have been avoided by inserting another fictional sect. This is a time when our government is trying hard to support peace between the Arabs and Israel, which will lead to peace between Muslims and Jews.

But the Israel lobby and biased media are misusing the entertainment world to induce Americans to support Israel instead of peace. Once there is peace between Arabs and Israel, America can support both sides. Then and only then will the Arabs have no cause to be against either Israel or America.

In order to help our government and all sides in the peace process, we all need to be responsible and stop feeding the American people bad images of Arabs and Muslims. Please be responsible. You could have drawn a lot of people to the box office with Mr. Tommy Lee Jones and Mr. Samuel Jackson without offending any group of people or a whole country or an entire religion! The audience could have cared less if the American Embassy depicted was in Yemen or Zambmen!!

A very disappointed moviegoer, Robbie Ashcar, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

A Disillusioned Constituent

To Senator Connie Mack (R-FL), Washington, DC, March 26, 2000.

I was shocked and greatly disillusioned to receive back the postcard I sent you concerning the suffering of the Iraqi people. Knowing that none of your colleagues ever have returned such cards unread, I ask why you took such a nasty action. Are you really such an angry, hateful, evil-spirited and loathsome man as to stand alone against the unbearable suffering and needless deaths of Iraqis and their children and grandchildren? Yes, I believe you are.

I wonder what you would do if the sorrowful mother pictured on the card were your wife and the dying child were yours, and you were all living there with no chance of a better life or a normal future?

What hurts me most is your total disregard and disrespect for and arrogance toward your own constituents. Shame, shame on you.

Happily, this is your last term in office. If people had known you as I have come to, they wouldn’t have elected you in the first place. So, good riddance and may God unbless you.

Ms. Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL

 

A Respect for Islam

To The New York Times, May 8, 2000 (as published).

Ali Abunimah (“Terrorism’s Real Locale,” Op-Ed, May 8) states correctly that most terrorism in the world today is not Muslim-inspired, as we in the United States are glibly inclined to assume. That assumption bespeaks not only ignorance, but also the arrogant provincialism of too many Americans.

As a matter of pragmatism, to say nothing of respect, we Americans would do well to inform ourselves more fully and accurately of the historical facts and spiritual depth of the Islamic tradition, which should be venerated rather than criminalized. Any claim to moral leadership in the world demands nothing less.

William N. Smith, New York, NY

 

“On Trial in Iran”

To The Washington Post, April 14, 2000 (as submitted).

Your editorial “On Trial in Iran” of yesterday shows your justified concern for the lack of opportunity of the accused to have access to independent and good legal representation, in addition to other aspects that do not promise a fair trial.

Your reaction to this case contrasts deeply to your lack of reaction in connection with the thousands of trials in Israel in close to 50 years in which Palestinians who are arrested are not told what crimes they are accused of and in almost all cases have no legal defense.

It took more than 10 years for basic moral and legal principles to reach the minds and hearts of the members of the Israeli Supreme Court in the case of Lebanese men who were taken as hostages. This action, totally repugnant and one that cannot be accepted under any decent legal system, never prompted any adverse commentary in The Post. It is easy to conclude that your mind and heart work in perfect harmony with the Supreme Court of Israel. Or have I missed something?

René Espinosa, Sr., Falls Church, VA

 

Al Sharq

’s Position on Israel

To The Washington Post, May 13, 2000 (as published).

The May 2 op-ed column “Peace and Poison in the Middle East” cited comments supposedly made in the Al Sharq newspaper published in Qatar.

First, Al Sharq is not an “official newspaper,” and its views are not always in line with those propagated by the Qatar government. It tends to reflect public opinion.

As the editor-in-chief of Al Sharq and a devout Muslim, I hold the view that prostitution and practitioners of this trade defy nationality and culture. Al Sharq does not hold the opinion that Israel is seeking to undermine Gulf economies using prostitutes. That would be simplistic. We also have not published extracts from the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, although other Arabic papers have.

Last, let me point out that it is Israel’s policies that are hindering the advent of peace in the region. By repeatedly bombing populations in its neighborhood and refusing to return land that was forcibly taken from Palestinians 50 years ago, Israel is not only an interloper but insolent in its belief that it always can have its way.

Abdul Aziz Al Mahmoud, Editor-in-Chief, Al Sharq , Doha, Qatar

 

Brutality in Pakistan

To The Washington Post, May 20, 2000 (as published).

The May 8 front-page article “In Pakistan, Women Pay the Price of Honor” associated Islam with brutal practices rooted in centuries-old tribal customs.

Islam, like most other religions, strongly disapproves of sex outside of marriage for both men and women; however, it does not countenance the physical mutilation of women nor grant men the authority to enforce morality by taking the law into their own hands.

Successive governments in Pakistan have been reluctant to curb this barbaric practice for fear of provoking the anger of tribal leaders. Ironically, it has taken a non-democratic, military government to take some steps toward rooting out this evil.

Contrary to the impression the article gives, Islam has striven to inject a humane dimension into the ancient customs and cultural norms of tribal and feudal societies in Asia and Africa. It has urged its followers to abide by principles of human equality and compassion enshrined in the Prophet’s traditions. Unfortunately, it has only been partially successful in moderating and refining brutal customs.

Syed Amir, Rockville, MD

 

War in Afghanistan

To The New York Times, May 8, 2000 (as published).

Re “The Changing Face of Terror” (editorial, May 3): You assert that “Pakistan is a key source of support for the Taliban, providing arms, food, fuel and, not least, thousands of volunteers for its fighting forces.”

Yet you do not discuss the role of Russia, Iran, India and the Central Asian countries whose support of the anti-Taliban northern alliance is manifest in arms consignments, mercenaries, food and medical supplies, military advisers, counterfeit currency, an operating base in Tajikistan and diplomatic support, all of which assures a continuation of war in Afghanistan.

It is also important to note that the war in Afghanistan is a war for economic dominance in the vast Central Asian marketplace and therefore in the best interest of the supporters of the anti-Taliban opposition to maintain the status quo.

Bruce G. Richardson, Topsfield, MA

 

Save Mosaics From Flooding

To The New York Times, May 14, 2000 (as published).

Inexplicable is the only word for Turkey’s decision to proceed with a dam project that when completed will flood and destroy an archeological site of priceless value (“Watery Grave for a Roman Ruin,” editorial, May 9). Inexplicable but not unexpected.

Turkey shows little disposition to protect its cultural heritage and appears to disdain that of others.

In Cyprus, 25 years of military occupation have seen churches turned into barracks, stables and hotels. Looted antiquities have surfaced in European auction houses, where Cyprus must buy them back.

Turkey would like to join the European Union. Wouldn’t it be more likely to find a receptive hearing in Brussels if the basic norms of behavior were observed?

James Delihas, Pound Ridge, NY (The writer is a consultant to the Cyprus Ministry of Commerce.)

 

FLAME ADS

To Victor Navasky, Editor, The Nation, New York, NY, May 22, 2000 (as submitted).

On Oct. 27 of last year I wrote you in detail regarding the ads entitled: FLAME. I never received the courtesy of a response. I quote from my 1999 letter:

The FLAME ads: “contain material insulting to the six million Christian and Muslim Arabs living in this country. Not only are many of the statements in FLAME blatantly false and misleading, but these ads are intended to arouse anti-Arab and anti-Muslim feelings among your readers. Americans who often know little of Mideast history and politics are easily swayed by such misinformation printed in a nationally-recognized magazine.”

With the difficult on-going Middle East peace negotiations, honesty and openness in discussion of the issues are necessary if both sides are to reach a fair and lasting settlement. As an editor you owe this approach to your readership. There is no excuse for allowing false and misleading and hate-inspiring material in your publication. Were the situation reversed and FLAME directed against the Israelis, the ADL would be making every attempt to close you down.

The FLAME ad printed this May 22 states “the Syrians shelled the settlements of northern Israel almost daily and made life there intolerable...Miraculously Israel was able to repel the aggressors and to occupy the Golan Heights.”

Israel’s minister of defense during the ’67 war, Gen. Moshe Dayan, in an interview by Jewish journalist Rami Tal and published after Dayan’s death by his daughter Yael, a leftist Knesset member, said that he (Dayan) had made a serious error in ordering the Golan to be seized, which land, Dayan stated, presented no significant military advantage to Israel. Dayan was forced, he admitted, into this decision by political pressure from representatives in the Knesset of Israeli farmers who yearned for the Golan’s “rich farmland and ready access to Jordan water”…Dayan added that those pre-war border shellings were 80 percent provoked by the Israelis themselves.

The FLAME ad continued: “What used to be a wilderness has become, under Israeli administration, a successful province with prospering cities and flourishing agriculture.” The fact is, in seizing the Golan, Israeli forces destroyed over 214 Syrian villages and displaced over 500,000 prosperous Syrian farmers, merchants and their families. Quneitra, a thriving Golan Heights city of 41,000, evacuated under Israeli pressure during the ’67 war and relatively untouched in the fighting, under terms of the 1973 treaty was to be returned intact to its Syrian residents.

Quneitra, however, was completely destroyed by the Israeli army the week before its scheduled return. Homes and businesses were leveled, mosques and Christian churches shelled and their expensive furnishings stolen. Both Christian and Muslim graves were opened and vandalized and the plundered coffins left open. A generation of Syrians will never forgive this hideous hate crime.

I suggest, Victor J. Navasky, you print my letter, and let your readers decide whether continuing the FLAME ads bespeaks the moral and editorial standard we have come to expect from TheNation.

Edward W. Miller, MD, San Rafael, CA

 

BBC, CNN Misinformation

To CNN and BBC, May 15, 2000.

I have a question. In your Middle East reporting, why have you switched terms and now refer to the Israeli rubber-covered bullets as pellets? In case you don’t know, pellets are tiny soft lead objects, roughly equivalent to the size of two BBs. They are used in children’s toy air guns. Bullets are almost exclusively steel or copper, whereas pellets are typically cheap lead.

Your switch is as ridiculous as it is blatant misinformation. Unless the Israeli army has switched to air rifles similar to the models made by Daisy and available in any Sears or K-Mart, they are not using pellets.

Mike de Beauvoir, via e-mail

 

Secrecy and Civil Rights

To the St. Petersburg Times, May 24, 2000 (as submitted).

We appreciate Susan Aschoff’s May 23 article, “Shedding Light on Secrecy and Civil Rights,” and her other articles on this issue. After reading the article, we feel compelled to respond on behalf of Dr. Mazen Al Najjar, a local Palestinian refugee, who seems to be unconstitutionally incarcerated due to the Israeli/Palestinian quagmire and pressure by American Jewish organizations that support the use of secret evidence. We find commenting on this very difficult because any criticism of these organizations is immediately dismissed as just being anti-Jewish in motivation.

The use of secret evidence is an Israeli-type law and contravenes the U.S. Constitution. It is against our inherent belief in justice in which every person may face an accuser in legal actions. According to Ms. Aschoff’s article, the ADL and other Jewish organizations claim to have supported the civil rights of others, but it is obvious that when it comes to Palestinians, the issue becomes very subjective. It is time that we stand up for our constitutional beliefs and abolish such outrageous laws that allow uncorroborated secret statements to be used to incarcerate people in America.

Dr. and Mrs. James Rogers, Oldsmar, FL

 

Letter to Congress: Secret “Evidence”

To Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), Washington, DC, May 17, 2000.

Let me begin by congratulating you on your recent primary victory. As one of your constituents, I am writing in connection with two issues of grave concern to me.

First, I am writing to urge you to co-sponsor H.R. 2121, The Secret Evidence Repeal Act. This important piece of legislation, if passed, would assure that no more people will be held for years in U.S. prisons without charge, on the basis of secret “evidence,” which neither the prisoner nor his lawyer can see.

Enactment of H.R. 2121 would end once and for all a practice which several federal courts have already ruled unconstitutional. Currently, H.R. 2121 has 91 co-sponsors, including 74 Democrats and 17 Republicans. I very much hope you will add your name to it and urge your colleagues to support the bill. I will call you in a few days to follow up on this matter.

Second, I want to reiterate my thanks to you for co-signing the Campbell/Conyers letter to President Clinton last January urging an end to the economic sanctions on Iraq, which your honorable colleague Rep. David Bonior termed “infanticide masquerading as policy.” I urge you to continue to remain engaged in this issue and to continue to oppose sanctions which achieve no useful foreign policy purpose, while imposing incalculable suffering on innocent civilians.

Thank you for your attention to these important issues and for the principled positions you have taken.

Ali Abunimah, Chicago, IL

< Prev		Next >