September 1990, Page 34, 35, 36

Other People's Mail

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

'The Armenian Tragedy That Has No Name'

To The Washington Post, May 4, 1990

One of the books that shaped my view of the world was "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh," which I read as a boy and reread a few years ago. Even without that moving evocation of the tragedy suffered by the Armenian population of Turkey in the wake of World War I, The Washington Post feature story [Style, April 25] would arouse the strongest sentiments of sympathy and sorrow. That is, however, no justification for wholesale condemnation, or for the tone of hate and encouragement of revenge that pervades the article.

As indicated in the article, Princeton Prof. Bernard Lewis, an acknowledged authority, states that the events of the period were complicated, with passions and fears on all sides. This, of course, does not justify brutalities; neither do those brutalities justify the murders of Turkish diplomats with which Armenian nationalist/extremists have disgraced their cause in recent years.

No people is entirely good or bad. The history of relations between nations and sects has ample examples of evil conduct-and a few of good conduct. If one is to judge the character of the Turks, it is useful to recall that almost 500 years ago they gave refuge to the Jewish fugitives from the Inquisition, who have lived peaceably in Turkey ever since.

-Seymour J. Rubin, Washington, DC

The Unpleasant, Unmentioned Facts About Israel

To the Rochester Times-Union, July 24, 1990

Sandy Bodzin writes (July 10) that he wants to set "the facts straight" about Israel. Then he carefully manipulates bits of propaganda, omitting practically everything that reflects unfavorably on Israel. Some of the omissions:

That terrorism against civilians was invented by two men who became Israel's prime ministers-Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin-and that Begin himself admitted and described the terrorism in his book "The Revolt." That was eight years before the PLO was founded.

That Israel, which has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, bombed Iraq, a country that signed the treaty and whose nuclear works were under international inspection. Iraq has never retaliated.

That in 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon and still occupies a portion of that sovereign country. Israel has bombed Lebanon for at least 15 years.

That Israel conceived, aided and abetted the Sabra and Shatila massacres of Palestinian civilians, including children, has seriously injured almost 100,000 and is imprisoning over 5,000 without charge or trial.

That when Israeli soldiers fire on unarmed civilians, as they do daily, Israel illegally misuses American weaponry since American law prohibits the use of our weapons except for defensive purposes.

That despite massive, long-standing subsidies from the American people, Israel tried to sink the American ship USS Liberty, causing 34 deaths of American seamen and 171 injuries.

Putting these facts into perspective along with others he omitted, Bodzin can now understand why Israel is in serious trouble with the American people, with the taxpayers refusing to finance that militaristic country's continuing terrorist policies against her neighbors.

-William Surrey, Rochester, NY

Survey Respondents Impatient With Israel

To The Hon. Jim Moody, Aug. 3, 1990

It's exactly ten weeks since the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle printed the three-column headline: "Survey respondents impatient with Israel over Peace: Moody." Under it you're quoted as saying that-despite the fact that 68.7 percent of over 10,400 survey respondents in your 5th Congressional District favored decreasing aid to that country-your "support of Israel is not going to change, assuming Israel continues working hard for peace."

Meanwhile, many fine Israelis have, indeed, continued "working hard for peace," but they don't seem to be the ones who've been receiving our annual foreign-aid billions. While Congressman Aspin has indicated that it isn't clear through whom in Israel those grants are channeled-there being no accounting to either Israeli or American taxpayers-developments over there suggest that they must be going to the likes of U.S.-defying, human rights-violating, foot-dragging, peace-sabotaging Prime Minister Shamir.

This fact, presumably, is what underlies Wisconsin voter resistance to continuing subsidies to Israel at their present level, if at all. If you have information, therefore, on any peace-inducing agency, organizations, projects or elements in Israel that benefit directly from the largesse our government must borrow to donate to them, please publicize it loudly and clearly, indicating the standards and procedures whereby they are selected for U.S. dollar aid.

Otherwise, I feel you have a mandate from 68.7 percent of your constituents still.

-L. Humphrey Walz, Janesville, WI

Self-Determination in Kashmir

To The Washington Post, July 7, 1990

The timely and sensitive comments in "Back From the South Asian Brink" [editorial, June 18] about the "churning conflict in Kashmir" need to be supplemented by some observations from the viewpoint of the people of Kashmir itself. These deserve to be borne in mind by all those who wish the conflict to be justly resolved once and for all.

First, the upheaval in Kashmir is the culminating point of a freedom movement that goes back to 1931, when the people first rose against the feudal ruler foisted on them under colonialism. As the annexation of Kashmir by India is based on an act of that feudal ruler, there were nonviolent uprisings against Indian occupation in 1953 and in 1964 to 1965, which were brutally crushed. The scale and intensity of revolt now are explained not by support from Pakistan but by the wave of freedom rolling across wide areas of the globe.

Second, it is unrealistic to expect India on its own to "find ways to widen the realm of popular choices." That requires not merely friendly counsel from the United States and other powers but a sustained and focused multilateral effort. There is no possibility now to conciliate Kashmiris through political concessions. Their demand for the demilitarization of their land and for a free vote to decide their status stems from the intolerable position that, of all the territories now legally included in either India or Pakistan, theirs is the only one that has been treated as chattel. To regard the Kashmir question as a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan that can be resolved by some compromise between them or by making Indian rule less barbarous is to misunderstand it altogether.

Third, there does exist a practical plan to ensure Kashmiris the exercise of their inherent rights. It is contained in the resolutions of the United Nations, which were formulated after negotiations with both India and Pakistan and were accepted by them. The fact that India (or, as India would wish us to believe, Pakistan) did not comply with those resolutions does not mean that they are unworkable. The recent case of Namibia has fully proven the capability of the United Nations to ascertain the wishes of a population under conditions of fairness and impartiality. There is no reason why what was achieved in Namibia should not be feasible in Kashmir.

Fourth, there is nothing in the United Nations plan that is incompatible with pluralism. We do not wish to foreclose any of the three possible options for the people: independence, accession to Pakistan or accession to India (despite all the atrocities committed by India). We refuse to believe that fairness is an impractical proposition.

-Ghualm Nabi Fai, Executive Director, Kashmiri-American Council, Washington, DC

A Meaningful Exchange

To Mr. Joseph A. Hamdan, June 18, 1990

Thank you for contacting me with your concern about my vote on House Resolution 290, expressing Congressional support for a unified Jerusalem. I believe that Jerusalem should remain an undivided city where the rights of all ethnic and religious groups are protected. And, I believe that all parties involved in the peace process should work to bring about negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian representatives. Those goals were fostered by the resolution.

Nothing is more important in this region than a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestine. I must support efforts to obtain those objectives. I will carefully monitor events in the Middle East with our hopes for peace in mind. Also, I will share your concerns with my colleagues as Congress debates our foreign aid commitments and the peace process in this region. Please keep me informed of your views.

-Sherwood Boehlert, Member of Congress (NY)

To Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, June 28, 1990

Thank you for taking the time to answer my letter. I cannot agree more with you about the need to have a united Jerusalem where the rights of all ethnic and religious groups are protected. Do you really believe that this is going to be achieved under Israel's control? Please note what happened in the Christian quarter of the Old City with the takeover of St. John's Hospice by Jewish settlers, planned and financed by the office of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. He probably was using our own TAX DOLLARS.

Yes, Jerusalem should remain united but under international control. Perhaps then we can say that all ethnic and religious groups are protected. Not, however, under the present oppressive state of Israel. A Jerusalem that is only Jewish would not be acceptable to Christians, Muslims or even to Jews of good faith. PEOPLE WHO OPPRESS OTHER PEOPLE CANNOT BE FREE.

-Joseph A. Hamdan, Oneida, NY

Clearing Up Matters

To Representative Douglas Bereuter, House of Representatives, June 9, 1990

Israel's leaders reneged on no-new-settlement promises to Jimmy Carter and George Bush, and recently Israel lied about its sponsorship of Jewish movement into the Christian quarter of Jerusalem. This zealous pursuit of a greater Israel is manifested by the fact that, despite your vigilance and assurances from Israelists like Rep. Levine, some 75,000 Jews, in defiance of U.S. policy, are housed in West Bank settlements. A person would have nothing but gossamer-winged fairies flitting within his head to believe that U.S. aid did not directly finance those settlements. So, while your meaningless colloquy with Levine dispelled the appearance of "condoning more Jewish settlements on the West Bank," another $500 million fungible tax dollars was dutifully sent to Israel. . .

Congressional support for a Zionist (racist) Israel legitimizes the concept of racial/religious/national discrimination. If you haven't heard, that concept is a blatant contradiction of America's ideals. Think how many died for those ideals. Think how many died for those ideals, and you'll understand the passion that drives me to condemn Zionism and its supporters.

-Mike Paproski, Omaha, NE

To Mike Paproski, June 30, 1990

Your rather antagonistic letter left me somewhat puzzled. You seem to suggest in your letter that my voicing of opposition to further Jewish settlement of the occupied territories is, in fact, a priori evidence of my complicity in a conspiracy to facilitate additional settlements. I should inform you, however, that I am not the conspiratorial type. When I raised the issue of Soviet Jews being settled in the occupied territories, I did so in a serious manner. The colloquy on the Floor with Representative Levine was not pre-arranged, but rather was entirely extemporaneous. Without my intervention his effort could have been construed as condoning more Jewish settlements on the West Bank and a reversal of U.S. policy. I join with President Bush and Secretary of State Baker in believing that it is in Israel's long-term national interest to prohibit the new wave of emigres from settling in the occupied territories.

Whether you choose to believe that is, of course, entirely your decision.

-Doug Bereuter, 1st District, Nebraska

Unfair Blame

To the Toledo Blade, June 25, 1990

Rabbi Arnold Bienstock does well to denounce anti-Semitism in all its forms. But to blame the new wave of anti-Semitism in part on increasing sympathy for Palestinians, as he did in Judy Tarjanyi's June 16 article, is unfair, inaccurate and irrational.

Is the rabbi unaware that an Israeli citizen admitted last May that he desecrated 80 to 90 tombstones in Haifa cemetery with the specific intention of fomenting anti-Palestinian sentiments? That in the early 1950s terrorist cells were organized by Israel within Egypt to carry out attacks on U.S. and other installations in an effort to undermine the apparently close relations that existed between the U.S. and Nasser? (The Lavon affair.)

Political opposition to Israeli policies is a legitimate and democratic activity that should not be equated with anti-Semitism. Sympathy for the terrorized Palestinians does not foment anti-Semitism; it helps bring about justice and peace.

-Maryse Mikhail, Toledo, OH

Will There Be an Answer?

To James Baker III, Secretary of State, July 4, 1990

You have a man named Richard Schifter as an Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights. He is the founding President of the Jewish Institute for National Security (JINSA). This is an anti-Arab group which lobbies for the Israeli arms industries. Does he work for the United States or for Israel?

-Thomas D. Hardwick, Richmond, CA

Jewish Congressmembers Can Initiate Reappraisal of Aid to Israel

Dear Representative/Senator: (sent to every Jewish member of Congress)

Enclosed is an op-ed piece of mine that reflects my deep concern about the situation in Israel and the occupied territories.

I am sending it in the fragile hope that, as a Jewish member of the House of Representatives, you will re-evaluate your unquestioning support for massive American aid to the current government of Israel. I realize the enormous pressures, both personal and political, that you bear in relation to this issue. Nevertheless, I feel it is my obligation, as a citizen and a Jew, to implore you to reconsider.

As a result of a trip to the West Bank and Gaza last year and my reading ever since of translations from the Israeli press and English-language Palestinian publications, I am convinced that a tragedy of catastrophic proportions is impending in Israel and the occupied territories. Encouraged by the intransigence of Likud leaders, there is growing sentiment in Israel for "transfer," the mass expulsion of all Palestinians from their historic homeland in the West Bank and Gaza. The barbaric "solution" is further encouraged by the anticipated influx of thousands of Soviet Jews, 90 percent of whom, if given a free choice, would choose not to go to Israel. The Israeli government has not concealed its intention to settle as many of these unwilling immigrants as possible in the occupied territories.

For the Palestinians, this will mean the end of all hope for a peaceful end to their suffering and humiliation. Despite a gallant and overwhelmingly non-violent uprising for the past two years, the world and the Israelis will, once again, have spat in their faces. The resulting despair can only lead to violence on a scale and of a duration that will be unprecedented even in this battle-weary corner of the world. The next Israeli-Palestinian war will be fought, not for six days or six years, but for generations and the hatred that provoked it will pale in comparison to the fury with which it will be waged.

Just as despair will lead to rage among the Palestinians, despair will lead to resignation among the finest men and women in Israeli society. It is a bitter irony but there is now a significant Jewish exodus from the land of Israel. Moreover, this emigration includes some of the best young minds in the nation, students who, unwilling to accept life in an increasingly joyless, militarized and theocratic country, never return from their studies abroad.

I am further convinced that the men and women uniquely in a position to avert this terrible tragedy are the Jewish members of the United States Congress. This is an agonizing responsibility to assign to you and your colleagues but I'm afraid the logic of history has made it yours.

The only national political figures who can publicly question the unjust and self-destructive policies of Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism are the Jewish members of the House and Senate. You and your colleagues are the only ones who can open the public debate on this grave moral issue. You are the only ones who can legitimize an honest reappraisal of the wisdom and morality of sending billions of dollars annually to support current Israeli policies. Your silence can only give aid and comfort to the worst elements in Israeli society and reinforce the deepening despair of the brave, decent Israelis who are resisting the folly of their government. Your silence can only lead to more killing and suffering on this already blood-soaked ground.

If not out of a sense of the common humanity of the Palestinians, then out of a concern for the future and meaning of the Jewish state, I implore you to join with your colleagues to open this critical debate before it is too late. The time is short and the price of delay will be pain and sorrow beyond measure.

-Marvin A. Gluck, Topanga, CA

Arafat Nomination for Nobel Prize

To the Norwegian Nobel Committee, July 1, 1990

In awarding each year's Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee may honor efforts toward peace which have not yet reached fruition but reflect courage and vision and could perhaps, with the help of the unique benediction which a Nobel Peace Prize confers, reach a fruition which would not otherwise be attainable.

I am naturally thinking of your decision to award the prize to President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, a decision which surprised the public at the time but unquestionably played a major role in restraining the United States from actively opposing the Arias Plan and thus made possible the recent progress toward peace with some measure of justice in Central America.

Today, there is no place where peace with some measure of justice is more desperately needed, or where the failure to start a "peace process" worthy of that name poses a greater danger of a major non-conventional war, than the Holy Land. With this sad reality and the Arias precedent in mind, I would like to nominate for the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize President Yasser Arafat of Palestine.

The courage and vision which President Arafat has demonstrated in rallying the Palestinian people behind the momentous decisions adopted by the Palestine National Council in November 1988 and in keeping the Palestinian national movement on a peace-oriented, non-violent course ever since are a matter of public record. . . I would simplify call to your attention three beneficial effects which such an award could be expected to produce:

(1) In the face of deepening frustration at the total absence of any positive responses to the Palestine peace initiative from the Israeli and American governments and at the formation of a new Israeli government of the extreme and blatantly racist right, the Palestinians within the occupied territories and in exile, as well as Mr. Arafat personally, would find the wisdom of their decision to put their faith in a peace-oriented, non-violent path dramatically recognized. . . Their understandable frustrations would be much less likely to produce total despair and a return to armed struggle.

(2) The Israeli and American governments. . . would have to confront with less blinkered vision the virulently anti-Palestinian prejudices which currently block any progress toward peace and the reality that Palestinians are human beings entitled to basic human rights.

(3) The problem of Israeli-Palestinian peace would be placed squarely at the top of the international agenda, making it much more difficult for those who could help solve the problem to avoid constructive efforts on behalf of peace. . .

You should also appreciate that the 150 to 2 vote in the U.N. General Assembly and the 14 to 1 vote in the U.N. Security Council are ample evidence that the justice of the Palestinian cause and the gravity of the injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people are even more widely appreciated by the world community than [is] the justice of the Tibetan cause. . .

Having met personally His Holiness The Dalai Lama, as well as with President Arafat, I must commend you with all my heart on your decision to honor His Holiness and, through him, the Tibetan people and cause which he personifies. Indeed, the Palestinian and Tibetan peoples must share the distinction of being the victims of the two greatest injustices inflicted on one people by another since the second World War. . .

I honestly believe that you have the opportunity, by awarding the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize to President Arafat, to stimulate the commencement of a true "peace process" in the Holy Land and thereby to alleviate one of the world's greatest continuing injustices and to eliminate one of the world's greatest continuing threats of war. I hope and pray that you will seize this opportunity.

-Very truly yours, John V. Whitbeck, Paris

< Prev		Next >