Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2003, pages 5, 91-92

Letters to the Editor

 

DeLay's Duality

I am becoming more and more concerned about the divergent tracks our government is spreading across the Middle East at the worst possible time. Our nation must do everything possible to avoid another 9/11 here at home. U.S. efforts to solve the embroglio south of the Levant are inconsequential. Israel continues to build settlements, its parliament bans Arab/Israeli marriages, and Sharon builds walls across West Bank territory belonging to thePalestinians, while Tom DeLay states, "in Israel," that a 90-day holiday from Palestinian violence is worthless because murderers never take holidays.

DeLay needlessly dares disenfranchised Palestinians to take on the United States here at home, and notwait to see if the president's efforts bear fruit which might end it.

Ihopethe Washington Report will address DeLay's Israel visit from the perspective that he appears not to bean American patriot. He may be an Israeli patriot, butour public must decide that.

Bob Miller, via e-mail

Unfortunately, the House majority leader was not the only elected American legislator who made a pilgrimage to Israel during the August recess. See Shirl McArthur's "Congress Watch" on p. 24 of this issue.

 

The PAC Link Now Rocks, Too!

Just wondering why the initial <wrmea.com> site link to AIPAC (<http://www.wrmea.com/aipac/index.htm>) has the 2000 congressional receipts for Israel and not the 2002 one. You're doing a great job, but to the layperson, this aspect of the site is a bit hard to manage. I can find the 2002 list when I go to Google, but not from the domain name itself. Obviously a pretty big deal, but I'm sure you're happy to know regardless. You guys rock! I'm so pleased with your work. Thanks again.

Kyle McGaa, via e-mail

Thank you very much for bringing this matter to our attention. Our Web site, <http://www.wrmea.com>, now contains a direct link to the 2002 compilation of pro-Israel PAC contributions to congressional candidates (first published in our June 2003 issue). Among the links to the left of our home page is one enabling you to "Keep Track of AIPAC." This will take you to the home page of the American Israel Public Affairs Committe and enable you to see what they're up to. Funny, though--they don't seem to have a link to us.

 

Where Are PAC Contributions?

At one time you had a spreadsheet available with AIPAC's contributions to American politicians both for the most recent election and for "life."

Where has it gone? Has AIPAC pressured politicians to have you remove it from your site?

John Francis Lee, via e-mail

We publish PAC charts every election year--i.e., every other year--to cover the two-year period since the previous election. Early next year we will give the totals for 2003 (the first half of the 2004 election cycle). From then until the November election, we will publish each new reporting quarter's cumulative totals. The following spring we publish the complete totals for the just-ended election cycle.

Even though the final totals are not available until after the election, it's instructive to look at the early figures. As the Israel lobby is so fond of saying, "Early money is like yeast"--it makes the dough rise.

AIPAC, by the way, does not itself give money to congressional candidates--presumably, it's too busy making the rounds of Congress and writing legislation like the infamous Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). Instead, the money is contributed by a scattering of smaller political action committees with innocuous names like National PAC (the largest), Chilipac and San Franciscans for Good Government. These so-called (by us) stealth PACs mysteriously seem to know which candidates in all 50 states have earned their keep. After looking at the Federal Election Commission reports filed by a few of these PACs devoted to the best interests of a foreign country, one can virtually predict the recipients of all the others.

 

A Bloc Vote as Dialogue

Before I get into this important "subject/discussion," I would like to reiterate my utmost appreciation and regards to all of you at the Washington Report for the truthful, balanced and completely selfless reporting you provide us. Thank you. Also, please accept my enclosed meager contribution.

Reading the letter in the May issue on "The 2000 Bloc Vote," by Barbara Olsen, and your comments on it, inspired my thoughts as follows:

1. The present two-party system we are saddled with is not conducive to "democratic rule." Both parties answer to the same BOSSES--special interest groups, corporations and lobbyists of different ideologies and concerns not necessarily in the interest of the U.S. democracy, which is crying for help.

2. You pointed out that a third party was a reality in the 19th century. That means: a) There is a precedent. b) There must have been a reason, a necessity. c) It may have required a lot of organization, hard work and efforts and, d) it has been a long time since we had a third party. The need for a third party is obvious. It may take some time to materialize. Granted, that, in the meantime, the communities of Arab and Muslim Americans in this country will continue to suffer. I am one of them. I am suffering now. Also, like them I suffered in the jails of Iraq, in the late 1950s in my case. I believe they learned, as I did, to cope. Also, I believe they prefer, as I do, a permanent solution over a band-aid. A solution that acknowledges them as full CITIZENS, immune from insults, abuse and harassment urged upon them by the media, especially that of Rupert Murdoch's.

3. The "bloc vote" idea is marvelous. Thanks to you it came to fruition. It should be maintained and strengthened. After all, this is how the Israel lobby gained the political power it enjoys now. We should also remember that it took them a long time to acquire and consolidate this power. I do not believe in a quick fix; it does not work.

4. A bloc vote in support of a third party is the way to go. A third party now is very necessary for democracy to survive. Since the Green Party is already here, the bloc vote's support will help it become not only a viable, but also a competing, force, one to be reckoned with. It will take time. An old Arabic proverb says, "They planted, we ate; we plant, they will eat."

5. It is desirable to see a contentious dialogue about the "bloc vote" going to keep it present in the minds of the concerned. With your valuable help that could be achieved. It will be great if the honorable Ralph Nader got involved in it. Maybe an official invitation from the Washington Report will accomplish that.

6. My sincere thanks to Barbara Olsen and the Washington Report for opening this discussion.

S.M. Siddeek, Grand Junction, CO

 

Don't Endorse a Racist

The articles in your magazine are always a source of hope that there is a chance for peace, justice and ethnic equality in Palestine. However your response to Barbara Olsen's letter in the June issue has me worried. In it you state that you will support a bloc vote for either one of the two major parties in the upcoming presidential elections.

Any serious reader of the articles in your magazine should be appalled to find that you will cast a racist vote, that you are ready to elect a candidate who openly supports racism and ethnic inequality in Israel. Not one Democratic candidate has consistently stood up against the human rights violations of Israel and the inherent racism of Israel's insistence on being a Jewish state in a multi-ethnic area.

How can we expect peace if America doesn't demand a just solution based on ethnic equality for the source of the Middle East problem, Palestine? How is a president who is not held up to these standards by the American people ever going to create peace, justice and freedom, not only in the Middle-East but also within the U.S.?

A racist Democratic president unable to deal justly with the Palestine issue will be forced to continue in this destructive path of protecting Israel's interests in the Middle East, which goes directly against our own interests.

The Green Party is the only party who openly supports the right of return of the Palestinians into Israel. It is our duty as Americans to demand from our government that they will act by the same rules as we teach our children. We must say no to violent state racism. If we vote Green, we will help "wreck" these elections and have another four years of Bush's insanity, and hopefully by 2008 the Democrats will have learned their lesson, and the peace movement, having grown tired of protesting every spin-off war, will finally acknowledge the source of the problem. Then we stand a real chance of having a candidate who demands an end to this blatant and most obvious violation of every human rights standard this modern world claims to believe in.

My hopes for peace at home and in the Middle East are greatly reduced if influential sources such as the Washington Report are casting a racist vote. It seems rather strange that the Washington Report is not anxious to get a pro-Palestinian article written by a prominent figure.

I join Barbara Olsen's challenge: at least you should contact Ralph Nader and invite him to write a piece on the Palestine issue.

Best wishes and with hope,

Sophia van der Harst, via e-mail

We have indeed asked Ralph Nader to write an article on behalf of a third-party vote, and hope to continue this important debate up until the November election. Meanwhile, see pp. 28 and 29 for the latest developments regarding the Muslim-American 2004 bloc vote.

 

If Not Bush, Who?

I was surprised and even shocked by Richard Curtiss' endorsement of George W. Bush. But now, I have read an analysis of the Democratic candidates' Israel positions, in the Jerusalem Post. They are all strongly committed to supporting Israel, so much so that the Post urges American Jewish voters to consider other issues.

I have been opposed to virtually everything President Bush has advocated, in foreign and domestic affairs. But, given the Democratic candidates' caving in to money and organization on the Israeli side, what else is an objective voter to do, other than vote for George W.?

C. Patrick Quinlan, Edina, MN

For an assessment of two of the outside contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, see Richard H. Curtiss's article on Howard Dean and Wesley Clark on p. 22 of this issue.

 

E-Mailing the White House

In a recent attempt to send an e-mail to the White House, I discovered that the system has recently been changed. It is now necessary to choose one of the listed topics (none of which seemed to have any relevance to my e-mail) and to state whether or not I support or oppose the Bush policy (the site does not state the policy). The site has multiple Web pages and is almost impossible to navigate.

I can only assume that if I say I am opposed to any Bush policy, my e-mail will automatically be routed to the trash bin. Mr. Bush has figured out how to avoid hearing from people who disagree with him.

It is predictable that future press releases will report that "no dissenting e-mails on any topic have been received by the White House; the public supports all of the administration's policies." Next time I'll try phoning!

Angela Bradshaw, Los Angeles, CA

 

Talk Back to Talk Radio

I first heard of your publication when your publisher, Andrew Killgore,was interviewed on a local AM radio talk station here in Denver, www.KNRCradio.com.I appreciate yourefforts to provide accurate information regarding the Middle East, andam inspired by theextensive letters to the editor section that includes activism ideas. One underutilized tacticis calling intothis country's vastnetwork of talk radio programs.I've found it to be surprisingly easy to get through to both local and national programs, andto challengewhat's being said about the Palestinians, Iraq, immigrants, the environment, and so forth.The format demands concision, and patience to endure all the ads and temperamental hosts, but it only takes a moment to interrupt reactionary patterns of thought and to suggest alternative sources of information to the audience.

I feel it's imperative thatpeople concerned with U.S. foreign policyparticipate in these daily political discussions that influence millions of Americans, and are monitored by many media professionals and elected representatives. There are stations in San Francisco (KGO) and Denver (KOA) that have 50,000-watt signals that reach dozens of states and regularly have audiences in the hundreds of thousands.While the Rush Limbaugh Show may be heavily screened, many programs are not (Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy).Some conservative hosts welcome dissent, like Michael Medved, who devotes every Thursday to callers who disagree with him, and has interviewed figures like Noam Chomsky. There are even a handful of progressive people doing talk radio, like Enid Goldstein on KNRC in Denver, Randi Rhodes on WJNO in Palm Beach, and Thom Hartmannon www.ieamericaradio.com, all of whom have been leading critics of the attack on Iraq.

While independent radio efforts like "Democracy Now!" and "Alternative Radio" deserve our support, it's key that we go beyondplaces of agreementand reach out to people who have not discovered the Washington Report or thework of Edward Said.Hopefully, thefriends ofyour fine journalwill join the growing movement totalk back to talk radio.

Preston Enright,Denver, CO

You don't have to convince us! Publisher Killgore, in fact, who for many years has appeared on radio shows around the country, is encouraged by the positive responses his interviews invariably generate. Such radio appearances, moreover, are a prime opportunity to inform listeners about the Washington Report and offer them a free sample copy. Predictably, however, it also often happens that, once the producer or host learns what his point of view is, the invitation is withdrawn. Friends of our "fine journal" might want to persistently encourage their local talk show hosts to invite Ambassador Killgore and other Washington Report staff on their programs.

 

A Truth That Doesn't Hurt

I hope you receive this e-mail in good health and spirits. I bet you're very busy nowadays with what's going on in the Middle East. Americahas created its own "Hollywood" there, with all of the violence and drama. Unfortunately, the characters and special effects are so real this time--unlike in their Hollywood movies.

I am writing to ask if you could please have the Washington Report send copies of both its August and September issues.Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SHPR) needs credible resources pertaining to Palestine, and to tell you the truth, your issues contain the best and most factualinformation about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Rima Alhajj in Canada, via e-mail

We are happy to serve as a resource and thank you for your kind (and insightful!) words.

 

Libya's Pan Am 103 Offer

It smacks to me of extortion! Libya has pragmatically recognized that accepting blame--whether justified or not--will be cheaper for it than enduring more sanctions.

How much did the United States pay for the 390 victims in the Iranian civilian airliner brought down by the U.S. Navy?

Finally, it is my understanding that the family of a U.S. service person killed in combat receives $100,000--a long way from $10 million!

Roger D. Leonard, Bowie, MD

See publisher Andrew I. Killgore's latest update on the Lockerbie affair on p. 18 of this issue.

 

Americans Misled

Israel and its U.S. supporters, including those in this administration, have misled the American people about the nature of the conflict there. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and former Prime Minister Netanyahu unraveled Oslo long before this war broke out. In addition, the fault for the current violence lies more on the Israeli overuse of indiscriminately lethal force than on the Palestinians for failing to curb terrorism. Israel is using U.S. funds for settlements and U.S. arms to kill terrorists and innocent civilians almost with abandon. This must stop and will stop only if the U.S. establishes red lines for Israeli military behavior to include prohibiting violations of the rules of war and international law, such as collective punishment and settlements. Israel has systematically destroyed the Palestinian infrastructure and the capacity of the Palestinian Authority to comply with Israeli security demands. Now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is asking for a $12 billion supplemental aid package. America's credibility and interests in the region are at stake--American taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize violations of the Geneva conventions and crimes against humanity!

David J. Abram, Washington, DC

 

Zuckerman Faves

You omitted my favorite quote on [Mortimer] Zuckerman: "He has the morals of a snake"--Gloria Steinem, ex-gal.

You also omitted the incident when he assailed Mike Wallace at a reception, after "60 Minutes," with the help of the late USC journalism professor Michael Emery, exposed the truth behind the falsified Temple Mount Massacre.

And another thing--this guy continually writes one-or two-page columns about the Middle East, Israel, etc., without once mentioning his personal interest as head Jewish honcho [president of the Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations]! Is this an ethical problem? His current one in U.S. News & World Report deals with Iraqi oil (ignoring the pessimistic analyis of <www.fromthewilderness.com>, with its conclusion that peak supply has just about arrived), concluding that "we" (this "we" is his American "we") must remain in control of Iraqi oil, period. I suppose the identity of American with Israeli interests has simply long been assumed.

Anthony Saidy, via e-mail

 

Desecrating Haram Al Sharif

In today's [Aug. 29] New York Times is a front-page article about so-called Israeli religious "tourists" who are desecrating Haram Al Sharif. Article 56 of the Regulations Annexed to the 1907Hague Convention No. 4 applies to Haram Al Sharif since it is "occupied territory" under international law and practice:

"The property of communes, that of religious, charitable, and educational institutions....shall be treated as private property."

These so-called Israeli religious "tourists" areperpetrating a trespass upon the "private property" of Haram Al Sharif since they do not have permission from the IslamicWaqf to be there. Furthermore, this trespass is a war crime. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) on The Law of Land Warfare, paragraph 499 defines a "war crime" as: "the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." As is well known and the Field Manual makes quite clear, the 1907 Hague Regulations are an integral part of the "law of war."

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law, University of Illinois College of Law, Champaign, IL

 

The Spirit of '76

Our President's statement on July 4 that the spirit of 1776 still echoes around the world, sounded like a typical Bush bombastic faux pas. However, in retrospect, he did make sense. The spirit of 1776 embodied the desire of people to throw off the yoke of tyranny and suppression by an occupying power. Is this not what the Iraqi people are trying to do?

The British had committed none of the transgressions in colonial America that we have in Iraq. They were not invading the homes of the common people, commandeering their possessions and shooting women and children; they had not turned large areas of this country into rubble; they had not scattered cluster bombs and radioactive waste on our cities; nor had they destroyed this country's infrastructure or attempted to commandeer our resources to reimburse their chosen contractors to "rebuild" at exorbitant cost. Their only oppression was to attempt to recoup their expenses for the Seven-Year War by taxing Americans.

Mr. Bush should learn a lesson from 1776--it is impossible to impose your will on people, thousands of miles away, who only want their freedom and are willing to die for it.

Charles Prendergast, via e-mail

< Prev		Next >