Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2007, pages 5-6

Letters to the Editor

“Could I Possibly Be Next?”

THANK YOU for publishing “Dr. Rafil A. Dhafir at Terre Haute Prison’s New Communication Management Unit” by Katherine Hughes in your May/June issue (p. 12). The article addresses two issues: the questionable establishment of a separate prison for Arab and/or Muslim inmates in the Federal System, and the continued persecution of Dr. Dhafir, an Iraqi-born U.S. citizen of some 30 years from Syracuse, New York.

Many Americans generously assisted directly and indirectly the people, and particularly the children, of Iraq, who were being killed daily due to the impact of U.N. sanctions imposed and maintained for 12 years by the Security Council member states, led by Washington and London, after the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait in early 1991. Dr. Dhafir was one of those Americans, who through great generosity conspicuously gave of himself and of his financial resources. He founded “Help the Needy” for that very purpose and sent over one million dollars in food aid and medical assistance to the Iraqi people.

Other U.S. citizens who sent humanitarian aid to Iraqi children and adults in defiance of U.N. sanctions had civil fines imposed by Washington, but none were imprisoned. In contrast, Dr. Dhafir is serving 22 years for his humanitarian outreach in defiance of these U.N. sanctions that I among others consider to have been genocidal. Does this mean that a different standard is being applied to U.S. citizens who are Muslim? The establishment of the special prison to isolate Arab and Muslim inmates seems to underline that the correct answer is yes.

It appears that Dr. Dhafir has become a victim of American injustice that applies double standards. He seems to have been swept up in anti-Islamic anti-Arab madness that has corrupted the American justice system. It is past time that all humanitarian-minded, decent Americans ask themselves, could I possibly be next? And then begin to understand better and take action in keeping with the responsibilities of citizenship, particularly now when American values together with American democracy are endangered, before it is too late.

Denis J. Halliday, former U.N. assistant secretary-general and head of the U.N. Humanitarian Program in Iraq 1997-98, New York, NY

Unlike former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who in 1996 told “60 Minutes” that the death of half a million Iraqi children was “worth it,” you resigned your position on principle, for which we applaud and thank you. Your point about a double standard certainly is well taken: Voices in the Wilderness, for example, whose members actually traveled to Iraq several times bringing medicine, was fined $20,000, and no one has been sentenced to prison.

Author Hughes has since informed us that as a result of the terrible health care provided at Terre Haute’s CMU, one inmate has died and another suffered a burst appendix.

The “New Palestinians”

With more and more of “our” cowardly members of Congress marching to AIPAC drums, with the highly suspicious events of 9/11 (which were responsible for dragging us into war against Iraq, with all of the subsequent, unnecessary deaths of innocent humans), and with the concurrent loss of American liberties, most recently the actions of the Department of Defense, in denying American citizen-soldiers fighting in Iraq the right to access Internet Web sites, it becomes more apparent daily that Americans are becoming the “New Palestinians.”

I hope and pray that, with the spotlight on AIPAC activities, and the lessening of the influence of the neocons on foreign policy, it is not too late to reverse the trend toward home-grown Fascism.

Enclosed is a small check, which I wish could be more. Please continue providing access to the truth—which is a service to democracy. May God Bless you all at the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs for your good work—HANG IN THERE!

Sam and Vi Parks, Albuquerque, NM

Your financial and moral support over the years is one reason we’ve made it to the ripe old age of 25, and we are most grateful for both. We hope and pray you’re right about the lessening influence of the neocons, but we intend to remain vigilant!

Origins of Israel

Regarding your report on the Palestinian Heritage Foundation Celebration (July 2007 Washington Report, p. 38), may I add some points on Israel’s origins?

The Balfour Declaration was not authored by Balfour, but was drafted by Zionists Chaim Weizmann and Lord Rothschild and handed to Balfour by Rothschild. Some members of the British cabinet were in strong opposition, but Balfour prevailed. He declared at one point, referring to the principle of self-determination, that he had no intention of consulting the wishes of the 700,000 existing inhabitants of Palestine. When the terms of the declaration were included in the terms of the proposed British Mandate for Palestine, the House of Lords voted against it. The government overruled the lords, who—not for the only time—had more regard for human rights than the elected house.

Both the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent outcomes of the post-WWI Versailles conference included a provision that it should be “clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The Zionists undertook to observe the provision, but effectively disregarded it from the outset.

The Palestinian Arabs were certainly hostile to the Zionists from an early stage. That sprang partly from the lively unease they had long felt over the distant discussions in which they had no effective voice. But real alarm was engendered in the Arabs by the behavior of the Zionist Commission invited by Britain to visit Palestine in 1918. The visit was intended by Britain, inter alia, as an opportunity for the Zionists to help establish friendly relations with the Arabs and other non-Jewish communities. Instead, the Zionist stance was aggressive from the beginning. They demanded, for instance, the right to participate in the (British) military administration of the time; to nominate Zionist-approved experts to form a Land Commission; to select Jewish candidates for the police force (and to supplement their pay); and to form their own military defense force, which they indeed began to train. The military government was charged with preserving the status quo and the demands were refused, but the cat was fully out of the bag. The Arabs had been suspicious for many years, but British reports after 1918 made it clear that they now feared ultimate economic and political subjugation by the Zionists, along with denial of their own right of self-determination. As time has shown, their forebodings were 100 percent justified.

Incidentally, with regard to post-WWII events, one little-cited influence must have been President Roosevelt’s 1944 declaration in a letter that he was “in favor of the opening of Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration and colonization and such a policy as to result in the establishment there of a free and democratic Jewish commonwealth.”

John Tippler, England, via e-mail

The Power of Words

Thank you for your magazine. There is so much information that you make available my mind reels, but I will work to take action on what I can. I have a criticism, however, on something said in the article by Robert Hirschfield, “Rabbis for Human Right Founders Receive Raphael Lemkin Human Rights Award” (March 2007 Washington Report, p. 48). In the section on Eid and Ascherman, which was interesting and had some good insights, Bassam Eid was quoted as saying “after Arafat’s death, we [thought we] would be rid of the Abus...”

I understand the point he was trying to make, but I find it offensive that he used in a derogatory fashion the word “Abu” as a synonym for a weak, pliant individual. Abu simply means “father of,” and followed by the name of the eldest son, is a common title in the Arab world. Years ago, I overheard a racist bigot call the Arab owners of the nearby store “abus”...”they” are all named Abu, he said. Although I was disturbed at the obvious intent to demean and insult, I didn’t know what it meant then, but I do now, and it is offensive and racist to misuse the word in this manner.

Erin Wade, Seattle, WA

We were impressed with the determination of Bassam Eid, himself a Palestinian, to criticize his own as well as Israeli leadership, but certainly share your objection to its bigoted use to dismiss an entire culture. If only more Americans were as sensitive and well-informed as you!

“Anti-Semitic” Semites?

Allan C. Brownfeld’s article, “Desperation Drives Stepped-Up Efforts…” (April 2007 Washington Report, p. 60) was interesting and informative. However, he overlooked one aspect of name-calling with the term “anti-Semitic.” It is sometimes used as a personal or group insult directed toward non-Jewish Semites. Avid Zionists seem to be using the term just to be mean.

Calling a Semite an “anti-Semite,” would be like me labeling you “anti-American” when we have a different point of view on a political issue. If I were to make such a comment, it would go beyond saying that your opinion is unwise or poorly thought out. I would be demeaning you as unpatriotic or an unworthy American.

Back in 2006, I posted an essay on my Web site titled, “Anti-Semitic—A Hate-Speech Term?” (<www.billbuckel.com/anti-sem.htm>).

Incidentally, I am not a Semite, but I have friends who are. And, they are offended when someone, in effect, says the only Semites that really count are Jews.

Bill Buckel, Columbus, OH

Others have wondered why the simple word “racist” does not suffice.

Spread the USS Liberty Word

Thank you for the e-mail about the USS Liberty. The fact that Israel attacked an American naval ship, that there was complicity, that there was cover-up, that there was denial from Israel, that the U.S. government chose to limit the investigation must be placed before the American public, so it can know what a criminal act was committed against the United States. Our naval personnel must never be put aside. Israel must make restitution and acknowledge this outrageous attack.

Mike Severson, via e-mail

See Paul Findley’s article on the implications of Washington’s response to the Israeli attack on p. 23 of this issue and, on pp. 22 and 61, reports on the Liberty survivors’ observance of the 40th anniversary of the attack which killed 34 of their shipmates and wounded 172. According to VFW magazine, this represents “the highest per capita casualties—70 percent equating to 206 Purple Hearts—in hostile action of any American ship since World War II.”

Readers interested in receiving our e-mail advisories and alerts should visit our Web site, <www.wrmea.com> and, in the column at the left, click “Join our e-mail list.”

Hate Crimes in Word and Deed

While I’m opposed to laws providing for more severe punishment to those who commit so-called “hate crimes,” let me say nonetheless that mailing a toy bulldozer to Rachel Corrie’s parents with the message “I’m glad Rachel died” would qualify as such a crime.

Stephen V. Gilmore, Charlotte, NC