Articles
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October/November 2000, pages 3, 80-82
Letters to the Editor
Grace Halsell’s Passing
In the July issue of the Washington Report the editor made a statement in the “Letters” section about the writing skills of Grace Halsell and indicated that readers might like to add a comment.
I was invited to a Christmas dinner in 1990 and had the good fortune to be seated next to Grace Halsell. Our conversation touched upon many subjects, including music, the arts and world affairs. We shared similar views on the political aspects of the Gulf war, though those views were unpopular at the time.
In the ensuing months I went to the library and took out all the books I could find authored by Grace. I discovered that she was writing, in a most revealing and forceful way, my own convictions and feelings about human relationships. During recent years I kept up with her travels to sensitive spots around the world and appreciated her forthright reporting and her concern for the downtrodden and those under subjugation. She was a beautiful and talented lady.
David Hunter, Arlington, VA
It is with great sadness that we report Grace Halsell’s death Aug. 16 from complications of multiple myeloma. See publisher Andrew I. Killgore’s “In Memoriam” and a transcript of the remarks made at her memorial service by John Mahoney, executive director of Americans for Middle East Understanding, beginning on p. 48.
Continued Interest
Regarding the letter by Mitchell Kaidy (“FLAME, CAMERA Queries”) on p. 74 in the July issue of your fine publication:
I am sure that the editors of Harper’s and The Atlantic Monthly would be surprised to learn that they are “pro-Zionist publications.”
But we also publish on a regular schedule in such decidedly non-Zionist media as Insight Magazine, Human Events, Mother Jones, The Nation, The New Republic, The National Review , The New York Times, The Washington Times National Weekly, The Weekly Standard, World Magazine and quite a few others.
We also publish monthly in about 50 small-town newspapers all across the country.
The research that Mr. Kaidy did could not have been very profound, because he did not even get my name right. It is “Gerardo” and not “Fernando.”
As for our financing: We don’t get any from Israel (either “directly or indirectly”) and have only minimal support from one foundation. Virtually all of our support comes from over 25,000 Jewish and Christian contributors, in amounts that average $25 or $30. Very many people believe what we do is right and very important.
Thank you for your continued interest in FLAME. Our offer to advertise in your fine publication is still available, of course.
Gerardo Joffe, President, FLAME (Facts and Logic About the Middle East), P.O. Box 590359, San Francisco, CA 94159
We are sure that the editors of some of the publications you cite would be surprised to learn that they represent the “non-Zionist media.”
The late Grace Halsell wrote extensively on the often bizarre, and dangerous, alliance between Zionist Jews and fundamentalist Christians in such books as Journey to Jerusalem, Prophecy and Politics and her last work, Forcing God’s Hand: Why Millions Pray for a Quick Rapture—And the Destruction of Planet Earth. Her books are available through the AET Book Club at a discount to Washington Report readers.
AAI and Burger King
The July 2000 issue of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs featured a piece on the Muslim-American and Arab-American campaign against Burger King (p. 6). A sub-section of that article entitled “Quid Pro Quo” included references to the Arab American Institute and to me personally. The information presented was incomplete and most unfair. I was especially troubled by the fact that we were never called by the writer of the article for comment or clarification.
Through innuendo, “Quid Pro Quo” makes it appear that the Arab American Institute’s decision not to support the renewed boycott against Burger King was bought by a $25,000 donation made by Burger King to AAI’s Foundation. This is a totally untrue and, in fact, slanderous insinuation.
We supported the initial boycott because we strongly believed that the decision by Burger King’s Israeli franchise holder to open a Burger King in Ma’ale Adumim on the claim that “it was a part of Israel,” and that he had the right to extend his franchise authority to all areas “under Israeli control,” was in violation of the law and was, additionally, unfair to Palestinians who might seek Burger King franchises in the Palestinian Authority. I had worked for three years to help Palestinians secure franchises from various multinational corporations. Oftentimes our efforts were frustrated by the insistence of Israeli franchise holders that the West Bank was their domain as well. We had to fight this claim and, in some cases, we won.
We, therefore, felt that this Burger King situation had to be corrected and that the corporation had to rule on the issue of jurisdiction. We were pleased when Burger King agreed that Ma’ale Adumim was, in fact, not part of Israel and ordered the Israeli company to close down its operation. The Israeli company has refused and so Burger King has taken the Israeli company to court. The matter is now in arbitration. Apparently, since the matter is in arbitration, Burger King is unable to comment on the case other than to note that it is being arbitrated.
My concern with the renewed call to boycott Burger King was that it was directed not at the offending Israeli company, but at the independent Arab-owned companies. The owners of the 84 Burger Kings in the Arab world are independent owners who have no connection with the Israeli company. When I saw the initial flyer issued by one of the U.S.-based groups involved in the new boycott, I was disturbed that it ended with a rather incendiary reference to the Burger King restaurant in Mecca. This is owned by a Saudi individual who surely should not be held responsible for the operations of the Israeli company. I felt that the reference was unfair and misdirected and, therefore, I told the group that I disagreed with this and said “I can’t be with you this time.”
Our decision not to punish Arab-owned Burger Kings for a situation they did not create and cannot affect was based on our understanding of how multinationals work. The matter is in arbitration and we should continue to press Burger King to hold its ground. But we should not force a new boycott or worse on independent Arab Burger King owners.
I am disturbed that before WRMEA wrote the article no one ever called to ask my views on this matter.
Dr. James Zogby, President, Arab American Institute, Washington, DC. For comments or information log on to <http://www.aaiusa.org> or contact < This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >.
Burger King Boycott Update
Eighty-Four Burger Kings located in Arab countries, primarily Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, may be closed in the near future, according to a Sept. 4 Agence France-Presse (AFP) article. A recent meeting of Arab foreign ministers decided to “pressure the company by threatening to end contracts for branches spread out across the Arab world.”
This action is a result of Burger King’s apparent decision to renege on a commitment to close an outlet located in Ma’ale Adumim, the illegal Jewish-only Israeli settlement in the West Bank, three miles east of Jerusalem. Following Burger King’s apparent about-face we renewed our boycott. We are glad to see the Arab League moving toward joining this boycott. Corporate investment in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land is unacceptable.
American Muslims for Jerusalem continues to urge people of conscience to reject Burger King, its products and its regrettable embrace of an occupation the international community has declared illegal. AMJ will continue this call until Burger King implements its Aug. 26, 1999 commitment to remove the Burger King brand from Ma’ale Adumim immediately.
Organizations participating in the boycott include: American Muslims for Jerusalem (AMJ); Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR); Friends of Al-Aqsa (UK-based); Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); Council for the National Interest (CNI); Partners for Peace; Muslim Women’s League; Association of Arab American University Graduates (AAUG); Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
Fahhim Abdulhadi, Director of Communications, American Muslims for Jerusalem
A Vote Against Lobbies
I read with great interest Richard Curtiss’ article in the June 2000 issue of the Washington Report (“The Case for a Muslim- and Arab-American Bloc Vote in 2000”).
Mr. Curtiss discussed two candidates, Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, but he neglected to mention a third: Ralph Nader. I actually think backing Mr. Nader to be the wisest choice for those interested in the Middle East.
Thanks in great part to your magazine, I have become aware of the Israel lobby’s domination of our electoral process. Being sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, one would think the logical move would be to support an Arab-American lobby. But I do not throw my support behind any lobby, because I think lobbies, the way they operate now, destroy the democratic process. They use large amounts of money to get their favorite candidate elected. Money talks, rather than the individual’s vote.
I am familiar with Ralph Nader’s position ont the issue of lobbies, and I think he is the best candidate to back, for those of us interested in a truly just Middle East peace. I think the best thing for both the United States and the Middle East is the elimination of lobbies in the U.S. I am not against organizations that try to educate voters and get out the vote; but I do oppose lobbies that corrupt our democratic process by funding their favorite candidate. We claim to have democracy in the U.S., but what we really have is money-ocracy.
Ralph Nader’s Green Party gets my vote this November.
Judy Keller, via e-mail
A Political “Home”
It is obvious that Arab Americans and Muslim Americans are looking for a political “home.” The two major parties do not have their interests at heart. The Libertarian party, 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20037, is the only political party that advocates freedom and justice for all people. It is time for all Americans to return to the principles of liberty which the founding fathers advocated.
John K. Gilbreath, Chattanooga, TN
Voting on Aid to Israel
I’d like, if possible, to obtain Rep. Frank Wolf’s voting record since 1981 on aid to Israel. In addition, how much money has he received from pro-Israel PACs during that time? I hope this is not too much trouble. Thank you.
Dr. Mohamed Khodr, Winchester, VA
Since aid to Israel is included in the overall appropriations bill, it’s impossible to isolate support solely on the basis of aid to Israel. It can safely be assumed, however, that recipients of generous donations from pro-Israel PACs take aid to Israel into account when voting for foreign aid appropriations. Although as of June 30 he had received no pro-Israel PAC contributions for the upcoming election (PAC money seems to be going primarily to Virginia Sen. Charles Robb’s re-election bid), Representative Wolf has received a career total of $38,250.
The First Farewell Address
I am faxing you excerpts from George Washington’s Farewell Address. It seems to be particularly appropriate at this time when our government is, in my opinion, destroying every moral value we once cherished and there seems to be no way this can be brought to the attention of the people because of a controlled media bent on furthering this agenda.
Fonville Kelly, Sturgis, SD
Washington’s warning that “permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others should be excluded [in favor of] just and amicable feelings towards all” is, unfortunately, one that seemingly remains unheeded.
A Great Resource
We want to thank you so much for the work Book Club director Hugh Galford put into our consignment sale of AET books for our teacher workshop on June 13 and 14 of this year. The evaluations reflected the teachers’ appreciation at his selection of books on the Maghreb, the Levant, and children’s books. As we explained to him, the Outreach Program is dedicated to giving the teachers in the Intermountain West and especially in Utah the very best information and teaching materials available. AET has proven to be a great resource for us to provide materials on the Middle East to these dedicated teachers.
We will be ordering materials from AET for our yearlong seminar on The Levant. The service you provide to us is extremely valuable and very much appreciated. Your trust in our ability to sell the selection of books on consignment helped us provide an interesting and informative workshop to our participants. We thank you again for the service, friendship, and excellent materials AET provided to us.
June N. Marvel, Outreach Program, University of Utah Middle East Center, Salt Lake City, UT
We’re happy to provide back issues of the Washington Report as well as selections from our Book Club to teacher workshops, conferences and other gatherings. If organizations will let us know what their needs are, we’ll try our best to accommodate them. It’s why we’re here.
Not Unbiased
As a new reader of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, I would like to congratulate you on a job well done putting together such a powerful and tightly organized magazine. I found it to be very engaging. I do, however, need to make one emphatic criticism. Certainly the editors of such a well-researched and well-written journal as yours are knowledgeable enough to be aware of the fact that their materials have a bias. I am not disputing the validity of the positions taken by the Washington Report, rather I am suggesting that you have the courage to stand up and declare that you do in fact have an editorial stand in opposition to the policies of Israel.
Regardless of how accurate your information, it is not balanced. You may not agree with the Israeli positions, and that is your privilege. However, if you do not dedicate equal space to Israeli points of view (other than the few far left voices that you do print) then you are not a “balanced” journal.
Jeffrey Rothman, via e-mail
As stated in our masthead, our mission is “to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states.” If the mainstream media provided “balanced” coverage of the Middle East, there would be no need for a counterweight.
While we of course appreciate that you do not contest the accuracy of our reports, we wonder if you have similarly inquired of The New York Times, for example, why it fails to cover “all the news that’s fit to print.”
China in Kashmir
In his article “Old Foes Spoiling for a Fight” (May 2000 Washington Report, p. 31), Eric Margolis says nothing about the role of China in the Kashmir dispute. After all, China and Pakistan are allies, or at least they were in the past, and China does occupy a portion of Kashmir, so the Chinese would not be indifferent to a potential nuclear war on its borders. In addition, China and India are rivals, which would make a nuclear conflict all the more deadly.
I have enjoyed reading your publication. It is depressing reading at times, but the truth must be told and, unfortunately, the mainstream press will not reveal it.
Karen Stroshane, via e-mail
Immoral AND Illegal
I take exception to a point made in Ian Williams’ generally excellent article, “Camp David Talks Addressed Letter, but not Spirit, of U.N. Resolutions” (Aug./Sept. 2000 Washington Report, p. 12).
He says: “While the partition resolution may have been immoral it was nevertheless legal...”
At least several observers, including former U.N. official Conor Cruise O’Brien, have claimed that the Zionists pressured smaller members of the General Assembly with threats of economic retaliation if they voted against partition.
Under U.S. (and presumably English) law such pressure can be considered “tampering,” and nullifies the tainted decision rendered by the jury or judge(s).
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Arab members of the U.N. attempted to query the World Court whether the General Assembly had the power to partition a territory against the clear wishes of a substantial majority of its inhabitants.
But according to the U.N. Charter, a majority of the members must approve such a query (which in any case would be “advisory” only!), and Zionist “lobbying” defeated the initiative—by one vote.
Roger D. Leonard, Bowie, MD
Renewing Acquaintances
After my initial tour in Baghdad (1966-67) as a BNC Grantee I spent the rest of my 30-year USIS career in Latin America and Southeast Asia, so I pretty much lost track of Middle East personnel and affairs. I was, therefore, interested to learn a few days ago, from a Jerusalem-born Palestinian vacuum cleaner salesman, about the Washington Report and (according to him) Andrew Killgore’s and Richard Curtiss’s key role in its production. Once he gave up trying to sell me the machine, we had a very interesting, and for me nostalgic, discussion of the Middle East.
Having found your Web site and e-mail address, I couldn’t resist at least saying salaam to my first foreign service bosses and admired colleagues and to add congratulations on what they both are still doing to promote understanding between the U.S. and Middle East peoples.
Keep up the good work. I will keep an eye on your Web site.
Bob Brown, via e-mail
U.S. Should Use Aid Influence
I am an 18-year-old, soon-to-be college student at either American or George Washington University in Washington, DC. Currently I am looking for information/arguments on what role America should play in the peace process between the Palestinians and Israel. My thesis is that America should use its financial influence over Israel to ensure a lasting peace for the Palestinians. Do you have any articles arguing that America needs to do more on behalf of the Palestinians? Or any articles saying they should do less? Any help that you could lend me would be greatly appreciated, since I am still at home in Salem, Oregon (we are kind of secluded from the whole process out here). Thank you!
Natalie Hand, Salem, OR
For the former, try our Web site: <http://www.washington-report.org> For the latter try President Clinton in the White House, Ambassador Martin Indyk in the U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv, or AIPAC at (aipac.org). The latter three are interchangeable.
Print Facts not Fiction!
I am responding to “The Turkish-Israeli Alliance is a New Destabilizing Factor in the Middle East and Southern Europe,” published in the April issue. It was written by M.C. Geokas and A. T. Papathanasis, both obviously of Greek background, which is most likely the reason they are feeding misinformation to the ignorant.
It was a surprise to read an article in this day and age that recalls one of the largest propaganda efforts in history, the supposed “1915 Genocide of the Armenians, who were killed by the Turks.” Why is it consistently dismissed that there was a battle between the Turks and Armenians in 1915, in which both Armenians and Turks were killed, as a part of war? The fact is that the only reason that this is described as “genocide” is because there are a great many affluent Armenians right here in the States. If 1.5 million Armenians were killed back in 1915 there would not be any Armenians alive today.
The fact is that in 1915 the Armenians and Turks were living together, happily, at which time the Armenians conspired to kill the Turks in an ambush attack, pretty much like terrorists. Their intentions were leaked to the Turks and a battle ensued. That is the truth. It seems short and simple, but at least it is the truth. If your news magazine is going to print misinformation, at least let the readers know that you are printing fiction and not the facts.
This only follows the American saying, “Kick ’em while they’re down.” Turkey takes a lot of flack for all its political actions, but let us keep in mind that the reason Turkey has a schizophrenic government is because Armenians, Jews and Freemasons are in positions of power and in the parliament. The so-called “Islamic Fundamentalists,” as named in the article, have little or no power in the government.
As we move through the 21st century, let us come to the realization of what Islam is: A peaceful and loving way of life in which total submission to the way of Allah is the main principle. Again, there is no formal fanaticism or fundamentalism in Islam. There are only true worshipping Muslims and ignoramuses who know little of Islam performing actions in the name of Islam.
F.Z. Levent, Garland, TX
We’ll let the Armenians speak for themselves, since we are well aware that both Turks and Armenians (not to mention Assyrians) have very different versions of the Armenian massacres that both believe sincerely. As for fanatics being present in all religions, none are more aware of this than the editors of this magazine. What we welcome most are adherents of all religions who take the trouble to expose the fanatics within their own denominations rather than among other religions. That’s why Rachelle Marshall and Allan Brownfeld are our most effective writers on Zionist extremism, Grace Halsell on Christian Zionists, and Muqtedar Khan on Islamic extremism. Stick with us long enough and you’ll find we’re equal opportunity offenders.
Your False Information
Your article “Vanessa Redgrave: A Passion for Justice,” by Rachelle Marshall, contains the statement that “neither Redgrave nor the PLO had ”˜vowed to destroy the Jewish homeland.’”
The Palestinian National Covenant (PNC) may be viewed at <http://womeningreen.org/pnc.htm>. It clearly states that Palestine shall have the boundaries it had before 1948, i.e., present Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza, and that Jews born in Israel will not be considered citizens of this Palestine. Further, armed struggle is the “overall strategy,” not just a phase of the “liberation” process—that is, diplomacy and making treaties are ruled out. It further intends to “repel Zionism,” that is, it rejects the idea of a Jewish homeland, and declares Israel to be no more than an “instrument” of the Zionism it intends to repel.
All this means just one thing: the destruction of Israel.
Dov Midalia, via e-mail
In 1983 Yasser Arafat “renounced terrorism” and accepted on behalf of the PLO Israel’s right to exist and U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 which calls upon Israel to “withdraw from territories seized in the recent conflict” in return for Arab acknowledgment of Israel’s “right to exist within secure and recognized borders.” That seems pretty clear to us. But in case it isn’t to you, on behalf of the Palestinian Authority Arafat has declared the PNC “inoperative” on numerous occasions.
More Stealth PACs Please
I was deeply impressed with your book Stealth PACs (1996) by Richard Curtiss. I am studying relationships between Jewish political power and Clinton-Gore, especially Albert Gore and Jews in the face of the 2000 presidential elections.
If you have a new version of Stealth PACs (2000?) or some information concerning my above-mentioned research theme in your magazine, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, please send me the issues and invoices.
Prof. Tadayuki Sato, Dokkyo University, Saitama-Ken, Japan
Unfortunately we do not have the funds to print a campaign 2000 updated edition of Stealth PACs this year but hope to before 2002.
Will the Lobby Be Affected?
I was wondering if anyone at the Washington Report is familiar with Al Gore’s recent campaign finance reform proposal and how it might affect the Israel lobby, if at all? I am hoping it might reduce their influence. If you can shed any light on this matter, it would be very helpful. I have looked at his proposal, but I’m not really up on the details of soft money and hard money and need an expert to explain it to me.
Judy Keller, Grand Rapids, MI
We can provide two generalities: (1) Legalizing soft money supports the Israel lobby since it can’t be traced and exposed. (2) The McCain-Feingold bill, which hasn’t passed, will not hurt the Israel lobby. The only campaign finance reform that will hurt The Lobby is limiting the amount of donations to members of Congress from outside their constituencies. Probably banning outside contributions completely would be ruled unconstitutional. But forcing congressional (or any) candidates to raise, say, 90 percent of their campaign donations from their own constituents would instantly free most members of Congress from all special interests. The candidates aren’t running to represent the AARP, the Israel lobby, Guns, Tobacco, Labor or Big Labor. They’re campaigning to represent the people in their own constituency. Therefore any outside contributions don’t merely dilute democracy, they block it, as has so clearly happened with the Israel lobby’s seizure of control of Congress, and the mainstream media’s refusal, almost without exception, to explain the simple and obvious truths we’ve just stated. So neither Gore nor Bush nor McCain has shown courage in this regard.
A Call for Open Disclosure
I wish to thank you for your great effort at keeping us informed! I especially find the list of contributions by pro-Israel organizations to the U.S. congresspeople quite instructive. What a difference it would make if candidates for office were required to disclose their sources and amounts of campaign funds on every ad.
Just two suggestions: (a) I think it would be extremely helpful if you would add one more column, listing the contribution from pro-Israel organizations as a percentage of the total contributions that the candidate received (including other sources). In other words, how big a fraction of the campaign funds come from pro-Israel sources? (b) Looking at the total number ($500,000 so far this year), it appears enormously small. By the least estimates, there are about two million Arabs in America, and four times as many Muslims. If each of us contributed just $1 to campaign funds, we could buy the U.S. Congress several times over! Why cannot we organize ourselves for that undertaking?
Dr. Rami A. Kishek, Silver Spring, MD
Actually by the end of the Election 2000 campaign cycle the total of hard money pro-Israel PAC contributions will be about $2 million and who knows how much in soft money, which can’t be traced. Nevertheless your query echoes a source of unending mystery to us, and probably of enormous frustration to the many members of Congress who would like to give up lives of crime and go straight on the Middle East since their sins there on behalf of the Israel lobby are especially egregious. In all honesty, however, it isn’t only fear of Israel lobby money and “the Jewish vote” that terrorizes them. It’s also fear of what the enormous power of the coopted mainstream media now can do to them if they don’t toe the Zionist line.
Staying Informed at 78
As a 78-year-old priest, I get what I need to be informed by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Ronald Metz, Washington, DC
You Help Muslims
The Washington Report is the best way I have to keep updated on political/social/economic, etc. issues that affect Muslims. My top priorities are Palestine, Islamic vs. secular law, and Aceh, Indonesia.
Chris Aceto, Portland, ME X
