Letters to Newspapers Editors and Others  re: The Middle East Crisis
 

1.  Attacks on Credi uncalled-for  (Gannett papers 7/30/91)

        It is disheartening to read the insensitive letters hurled at Mr.  M. Credi simply because he honestly defends the cause of an aggrieved and powerless people.

        Historic claims from ancient times, past grievances or the spoils-of-war theory weigh little in the scales of justice against the present plight of the downtrodden.

        Where are those sentiments of compassion, hospitality, forgiveness and justice we all learned from the Hebrew scriptures as children?  Why does the cry of the poor and the displaced go unheeded and echo off  hearts of stone?

        Why are present  policies so harsh, vindictive and expansionist toward those who also can claim Abraham as their father?  Instead of attacking Mr. Credi, why not search our hearts and see if there is not room for compromise and land for all God's children?

************************************

2. Scrooge off Base - a response to a letter "Holiday for Hypocrits" (The Jounral News 12/1992)

The vicious and ignorant diatribe of Albert Nuccitelli's letter "Holiday for Hypocrits" merits contempt and some comment.

His sarcastic and hate-filled letter questions whether Jesus ever existed.  Before making such an inane statement he should research the writings of first century non-Christian writers like Josephus and Pliny the Younger. It is hardly likely that a non-person could so incredibly alter the course of history.

The fact that many of the traditional customs of Christmas are of non-Christian origin only shows that the church does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it lives as a faith-community-in-history enriched by various customs and cultures. That the secular world has pre-empted Christmas does not  negate the great mystery of the Incarnation - which  is what the feast is all about.

What really indicts this 20th century Scrooge, however, is his stereotyping Christians as "hypocrits" from the lofty tower of his own self-righteouness. The first to cast a stone at his Christian neightbor, this pompous misanthrope ignores countless, nameless Christians around the world, not all Mother Teresas, who work for humanity.

No, Sir.  After Christmas everything will not "go back to normal."  The soup kitchens, hospitals and shelters will not close. The work of Christian charity will continue. May you be spared the indignity of having to spend the last days of a terminal illness being treated by the "hypocritical" hands of a Christian nun.

3. A Call for Rational Discourse  (Gannett papers, June 1992)

        Letters to the editor such as that of Ed. K. (6/25) add little to rational discourse on the complicated subject of the Middle East.  His intemperate and ad hominem attacks on Medhat Credi hardly veil an hysteria that often clouds the issue.  Whether one agrees with Mr. Credi or not, his presentations are always calm, lucid, and well documented.

        Readers like Mr. K. should understand that one need not be a "bigot" nor "anti Israeli" to criticize the behavior of a nation or some of its citizens.  There are, for instance, many Israelis of conscience who deplore the treatment of the Palestinian people. Does that mean that they hate their country?

        Simply stating that Israel "respects the holy places of all religions" flies in the face of the recent joint statement of the Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic Patriarchs and heads of Christian churches in Jerusalem enumerating such abuses as the occupation of the St. John's Hospice adjoining the Holy Sepulcher by settlers, the limiting of freedom of access to the Holy Places, the stabbing of the Syrian Catholic Patriarchal Vicar and assault on his convent, the vandalizing of Byzantine mosaics, the bulldozing of numerous Christian archeological sites for highways, etc.  Obviously all is not "balm in Gilead," Mr. K.

        Rather than heap insults and scorn on Mr. Credi, readers like Mr. K. should welcome the intelligent, moderate, and rational contributions to a complex issue of Medhat Credi who represents and speaks out for those who, in this country, all too often have no voice.

*************************

4. Two views on Israel  (The Journal News, July 5, 1993)

        Two contrasting views of supporters of Israel in these pages within a few days bear reflection.  Arthur C. considers the aid U.S. taxpayers have given Israel (almost 60 billion dollars since 1948) a "cost-effective investment and "our biggest bargain."  He also lauds the "value of the military intelligence which is shared with the U.S."

          How then, upon reflection, does one explain Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard?  A gift from "our most reliable ally"? How does one justify the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (June 1967) that left 34 Americans dead and 171 wounded?  How does one explain Israeli agent, Victor Ostrovsky's revelation that 241 U.S. Marines might not have been killed had Israeli military intelligence been "shared" with the U.S.?  In sum, Mr. C., in what way is U.S. aid "our biggest bargain.?

        In contrast, Roni Ben E.... challenges the U.S. taxpayer:  "Your government is subsidizing the suffering of the Palestinians."  This person also loves Israel, but is a refreshing voice of conscience shared by many Israelis.  They cannot ignore the cruel oppression of a stateless and powerless people-  an oppression that would not be possible without U.S. taxpayer support.

    Of the two views, I would suggest that the second takes the high moral road.  It is in our national interest that in the Middle East our tax dollars work for peace, justice, human rights, and nothing else.

   **************************

5. Letter to Human Events, August 3, 1993

Re: the forthcoming National Christian Breakfast in "Honor of Israel." (Human Events, 7/31/1993) I would remind my fellow Christian Conservatives in their haste to demonstrate their "unconditional love and support for Israel" of the following:

The Christian Gospel mandates unconditional love for all men.  This includes Muslims and Arabs as well as Jews and fellow Christians.  Once that has been established there can be no argument.

As far as "unconditional support" is concerned, however, one can ask how much support we owe an ally who paid (and continues to pay) a Jonathan Pollard to spy on the U.S., an ally who has yet to justify the 1967 attack on the "USS Liberty" that killed 34 Americans and wounded 141 - an "ally" whose shared military intelligence might have spared the lives of 241 Marines in Lebanon.

What kind of unconditional  support does the U.S. owe one of the world's leading colonialist governments that- with American tax dollars - is curently carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people (many of whom are Christians) in violation of international law?

Christian love for all God's children. Yes.  Unconditional support?  No way!

***************************

6. Mother Angelica's EWTN Network  (Journal News, January 15. 1997)

Catholics who look forward to the arrival of Mother Angelica's EWTN network to the Westchester area should not hold their breath.
With a few exceptions it remains for the most part an embarrassment. Surely the Catholc Chruch in America with all its resources can come up with something better.  Mother Angelica, unfortunately, is still recovering from the First Vatican Council (1869-1870).  Judging from the programming, the Second Vatican Council might as well never have happened.

Much of the programming is insipid and nostalic for the "old days" of Cathlic triumphalism.  Furthermore there is much overt anger and bitterness therein directed at fellow Catholics who do not share Mother Angelic's rather reactionary vision of the church.  As a writer in the respected Jesuit weekly  America  pointed out, "The level of vitriol she directes towards some elements of the church would be called Catholic-bashing if it came from other quarters." (8/12/1995)

Sometimes the programs are just plain dumb. How so? Consider a recent call-in program heard over EWTN's short-wave broadcast.  Why, the caller asked, is Wisdom in the Old Testament referred to as "she"?  Because, the omnscient cleric replied, the Latin word for wisdom, sapientia, is feminine.  As if the the books of Proverbs (Hebrew) ansd Wisdom of Solomon (Greek) were written in Latin. Compounding this blooper, he added that all first declension  nouns in Latin, such as agricola, are feminine.  Sorry, but every first year Latin student knows that agricola is an exception to the rule and irrevocably masculine.  Caveat emptor.

*************************

7. The Track of History (National Catholic Reporter, May, 1997)

        Hopefully NCR will not be deterred by the likes of Tom P's letter (5/7/97) from its laudable and courageous coverage of the oppression of the Palestinians.

        He maliciously insinuates that Israel's conflict is with "Muslim Palestinians," hoping we will forget that many of the Palestinians are our Christian brothers and sisters.  Let's be honest.  It is the Arab population, Christian and Muslim, that is the object of a deliberate system of old-fashioned apartheid.

        Secondly, the 1947 partitioning of Palestine was adopted by the UN General Assembly, not the Security Council, and, as such, was but a recommendation.  The fact remains that two thirds of the population of Palestine was Arab and no one asked these people for their opinion about this partitioning.

        Finally, Mr. P. repeats the tired and long discredited propaganda that the Arab leaders "urged the Muslim Palestinians to flee their homes."  On the contrary,  Israeli historian, Simha Flappan, in The Birth of Israel estimates that 84% of the Palestinians left in direct response to Israeli actions.  Irish journalist, Erskine Childers, examined all of the British and American monitoring broadcasts in the area at that time and concluded that "There was not a single order, or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948."

        NCR has not "lost track of the history of Israel,"  but Mr.. has lost track of the truth.

**********************************

8.   The  ersatz "Catholic League" boasts of having gotten "Nothing Sacred" off TV. (Fall, 1997)

Mr. William Donahue
The Catholc League

What a sad day for American Catholicism with this latest return to a ghetto mentality and cult of victimhood.  Of course there is Catholic bashing and occasions when we Catholics should to defend ourselves and our values.  But "Nothing Sacred" is not such a case.  Here you have missed the boat completely and acted (overreacted) to a point that you make us look ridiculous.

This latter-day Inquisition you are advocating makes us look plain stupid, anti-intellectual, and anti-art.  For God's sake, can't you tell the difference between good theater and persecution? You folks are the real bigots here, not the producers or sponsors. You shot from the hip and made a fool out of the Catholic Church along the way. Do you think that with all the scandals in the church and clergy you can perpetuate the mythology about the clergy with a boycott?

This is a godawful embarrassment and makes us look like cultural Neanderthals.  You probably would have boycotted the novels of Graham Greene and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales if you could have. And you are crowing away about your Pyrrhic victory while the church's image will be further tainted as antediluvian, defensive and reactionary. Some victory.  Some image of the priesthood.  Some dialog with today's world.

**********************************************

9. "Dulce Bellum Inexpertis" (The Journal News - February 19, 1998)
 
       Thus wrote Erasmus of Rotterdam long ago:  "War is sweet to those who  have never tasted it."

        The press has by and large ignored the pleas of the pope, the American  cardinals and bishops to "use the instruments of diplomacy and dialogue to avoid any use of weapons." Anglican bishops have also opposed military action against Iraq "on the basis of the Christian conviction that innocent citizens have the right not to become the targets of threats and violence."

        The present embargo is also immoral.   Catholic bishops in Iraq have appealed to all Christians saying that the embargo "is killing our people, our children... our beloved Muslim brothers and sisters."  Health agencies have reported that more than a million Iraqi civilians have died since the embargo, including 600,000 children. One respected theologian described the embargo as
"an act of war that violates the Geneva Conventions by depriving citizens of the means to live normal lives."

        Is there no end to our global arrogance and double standard of selective indignation?  After all, haven't other nations (some we consider friends)  flaunted UN resolutions in the past?  Did we bomb them? We conduct business as usual with China, no paragon of human rights.  And weren't we pioneers in the manufacture and use of "weapons of mass destruction"?  And aren't we front-runners  in the sale of arms around the world to some countries who use these same weapons against their own people?

        There's got to be a better way.  Make your feelings known.

******************************

(9-A)  Isareli Prisoner also Deserves Clemency (The Journal News,  April 21, 1998)

Advcates for clemency and the early release of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard would have more credibility if in the same breath they had also called for the release of Mordechai Vanunu from an Israeli prison.

Vanunu, who was released from solitary confinement only last month after 18 years of captivity, is eligible for parole.  The former nuclear technician's crime was to blow the whistle on Israel's nuclear secrets to The Sunday Times of London.  His punishment for this has been egregious and, by comparison, trivializes Pollard's.

If  "enough is enouigh" for Pollard, a spy in prison for 11 years, where is the similar "groundswell of support" among Pollard's advocates for Mordechai Vanunu, a prisoner of conscience for 18 yeaes.  Is it not possible that both desreve our compassion?

************************************************

(9-B) Letter in the New Oxford Review, August 1998)

As a church musician for over 50 years as well as a teacher and practitioner of Gregorian Chant I can endorse Father Stravinskas' call for a renewal of reverence and beauty  in the liturgy.  (NOR 6/98)

But his generalized description of today's worship ("banal, pedestrian, narcissistic," etc.) is a bit unfair.  With all due respect, the same might be said of most of what went on before Vatican II.  Has he forgotten the ugly fiddle-back vestments, the unintelligible Latin mumblings and horrible incantations from the altar that passed for Gregorain chant, the mutilple fly-swatting crosses made over the chalice, and, above all, the trite 19th century waltzes that passed for hymns (e.g. "Mother Dear, O Pray for Me" or the insipid Latin Mass of Saint Basil that was sung in most churches?

As fas as "outlandish innovations" are concerned, Father's recommended genuflection before receiving Holy Communion ranks right up there with the best!  There are various modes of prayer - adoration being one.   Benediction of the Bessed Sacrament comes to mind. The Eucharist, however, means "thanksgiving."  It is clear that it is not a private devotion. The Communion Rite includes a communal procession to the sacred banquet (sacrum convivium).  To interrupt this rite with a private devotion is truly out of p;ace, "outlandish" and downright tacky.

*******************************************************

10. Letters to the Editor,  Adoremus, 4/18/1999 on the Roman Catholic liturgy

As one who has been active in music ministry for over fifty years I must take issue with the sweeping generalities in Fr. Pasley's recent lament over "What Happened?" between "Tantum Ergo" and "They'll Know We Are Christians."

Certainly there has been more than enough bad music written since the Council.  But to indulge in such a broad condemnation as part of his nostalgia trip is a bit.

Most of what was sung in our churches in Father's pre-Vatican II Golden Age was not Gregorian Chant.  Nor was it Palestrina, Vittoria or Lassus. Other than the few brave parishes that used the St. Gregory hymnal it was the classic Saint Basil Hymnal that graced our land in those halcyon days.

A recent nostalgia trip of my own into my treasured edition was most revealing.  Of the over forty Marian hymns therein, for instance, there were a good number of trite Victorian melodies that were no more than sentimental waltzes ("Mother Dear, O Pray for Me",  "On This Day, O Beautiful Mother", "Bring Flowers of the Rarest" to name a few. Any musician worth his salt can have a ball with these tunes in 3/4 time.

Then we find such profound theological phrases as "flowering meadows, mirthful praises, seraphic love, fragile bark, diadems crowned, garlands day by day, nestling in thy bosom, bright as moonbeams, sweet as the warbling of a bird, my enraptured ear, life's tempestuous sea, and lisping children," etc.

Do these saccharin bonbons explore the theology of the theotokos, the strong woman of the Gospel, or is it sentimental syrup from another era that is best laid to rest? But this was our Marian diet.  Is this the Mariology of John Paul II?

With all its faults much of contemporary Catholic hymnody tries to be rooted in scripture, especially the psalms.  Can we say the same of the above?  And why, Father, is it such a terrible thing for God's people to sing His words. Are they so dumb they can't sing the scriptures without deifying themselves? Since you seem to have it in for Oregon Catholic Press (OCP) please come up with an English hymn from Saint Basil that is on a par with Dan Schutte's "Holy Darkness" or Bernadette Farrell's "Restless Is the Heart."

**********************************

11. Letters to the Editor,  Adoremus, June 17, 1999 on the Roman Catholic liturgy

Your review of the imbroglio over kneeling vs. standing in the liturgy was most welcome and informative, albeit a bit biased.  It may be a slight overstatement to suggest that those who advocate the standing position are any less devoted to the Real Presence or other articles of faith.

Consider the following: 

1. The earliest Christian iconography always depicts Christians at the Agape and (otherwise at prayer) in the "orans" position, i.e. standing with arms extended heavenward. A visit to the Catacombs will verify that.

2. In the ancient Eastern-rite churches (Orthodox and Uniate), from ancient times to the present, the faithful stand (sometimes for hours!) during the celebration of the liturgy. These traditions are older than our present rites.

3. Anyone who has visited the ancient Roman basilicas and the cathedrals of Europe knows that they were never designed other than for people to stand at prayer in the liturgy. The addition of kneelers (and sometimes chairs) is a much later afterthought.  It is not the ancient tradition.

4. The posture of kneeling in Christian art is very much connected with the feudal system: knights in obeisance to their lord, etc. As such it is a wonderful posture of humility, submission, adoration, etc. Agreed.

5. Thus kneeling is an appropriate gesture of adoration, for instance,  in the exposition or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Forty Hours Devotion, private prayer, etc.  But one must ask is this really the same mode of prayer that is called for at the public celebration of the Eucharist?  Is the Sunday Eucharist primarily an exercise in adoration?  Is it not rather primarily an act of Thanksgiving as the name implies? This is not to deny the act of adoration, but I don't think it is not main focus of the sacred action at the altar.

For instance, the liturgy calls for an affirmative sung acclamation of the assembly after the elevation of the Sacred Species as well as the response of the "Great Amen" at the fianl doxology before the "Our Father". Is kneeling for these sung acclamations of the assembly really the right posture for these moments?  Is the espressive mode of prayer at these times simply  adoration or is it not much more?  Does it not perhaps make more sense to have the people on their feet for these sung  acclamations?  From a musical point of view alone (I am a liturgical musician) I find it awkward and meaningless to have the congregation sing these jubilant acclamations of praise and affirmation on their knees. It simply is the wrong modality of prayer. It is not the way to "proclaim the mystery of faith."

6.  I hesitate to use the same "argumenum ex tourismo" that has been effectively used by those who find great convenience and sense of unity in attending the same Latin mass wherever in the world they travel.....but as a matter of fact standing during the Eucharstic prayer seems to be most prevalent outside the United States and may well indicate a return to perhaps an even more ancient practice.  Who knows?

*********************************

12.  "We Stand with Israel"   Response to some of Catholic signers of a paid advertisement in the New York Times sponsored by the American Jewish Committee  (10/27/2000)

        As a fellow Catholic I was truly shocked and disheartened to see your name, together with that of other Catholic leaders, listed in a full page as "We Stand with Israel" in the New York Times.  I feel this is an unbalanced and biased stance and I would like to tell you why.

        I fear you have bought into the carefully cultivated mythology created by the supporters of the state of Israel.  You have signed a statement, along with other pandering politicians, rejecting "terrorism against Israel."  Yet there is no rejection of terrorism against Arabs, no mention of the slaughters of Arab children, the illegal colonizing of Arab lands, and the oppression of an entire people by a state you label "America's partner in democracy."  A democracy for whom?

        I cannot believe that you are unaware of the discrimination and oppression  this apartheid regime has wrought  for decades upon the Palestinian people- many of whom are your fellow Catholic Christians. Are you unaware of the cries of anguish over the years of the various Christian leaders in the Holy Land including the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah?

        Have you sat down with your Catholic or Moslem Palestinian brothers and sisters, many of whom are Israeli "citizens" and heard how they are treated and abused in a systematic manner?  Are you aware of how the Christian population of the Holy Land has been decimated;  how once Christian towns like Nazareth and Bethlehem no longer have a Christian majority?  In 1948, the Christian population of the Holy Land was over 18%.  By 1999 it had dropped to 4% and today it is less than 2%.  Why?

        Sadly the damage (caused by  your letter) is done.  You have put your seal of approval, as a Catholic leader, on a truly neo-colonialist state, a once exemplary supporter of South Africa, and today a carbon copy.

        I sincerely regret your endorsement of this manifesto;  yet I remain sincerely in Christ.

*********************************

13. Sanctions on Iraq  (The Journal News, September 2000)

        Your editorial, "Defiant Iraq Finds Allies" (9/29? errs in describing Saddam Hussein as "Kicking out U.N. inspectors."  While it is true that Saddam is not allowing the inspectors to return, they left Iraq as usual in mid-December 1998 at the end of their last inspection tour.  Then, UNSCOM withdrew all its personnel from Baghdad just before the US/UK bombing started.

        Also misleading is the statement that "the last direct action against Iraq came in 1998" with US and British air strikes. One need only read the "fine print" in the NY Times to know that US bombing raids on Iraq have been going on almost daily up until the present time.

        Yet another way to wage war against a people is through the kind of sanctions imposed on Iraq.  Dennis Haliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General resigned his post in 1998 protesting the sanctions:  "We are destroying an entire society.  It is as simple and terrifying as that."  Sanctions, he said, are a "totally  bankrupt concept."  That same year UNICEF stated that "approximately 250 people die every day in Iraq as a result" of these sanctions.

        Catholic Archbishop Gabriel Kassab of Basra, pleading for an end to these immoral sanctions, has described the unspeakable suffering of his people resulting in the death of thousands of children for lack of food and medicine as well as "operations done without anesthesia."  He says: "It is the people and only the people who are suffering from the sanctions."

        Though their motives may be far from altruistic three cheers for the French, Russians and others who are beginning to ignore these criminal sanctions."

*****************************************

14.  Letter to Monsignor John M. (one of the signers of the "We Stand with Israel" manifesto, November 2000)

         Thank you for replying briefly to my letter.  It is reassuring that you are supportive of the peace process in the Middle East and I hope you took a moment to read some of the material I sent you and to respond.

         I am quite sure that your signing the New York Times statement sponsored by the American Jewish Committee was meant to be an ecumenical good-will gesture on your part toward your neighboring Jewish community.  Reading it carefully, however, one can only conclude that it is a highly sophisticated Israeli propaganda effort.  Getting a few Catholic clergymen to sign it was a real coup.  You will note that, although there is an appeal for peace (and who isn't for peace?), there is not one word about justice.  Furthermore the entire blame for the violence in the Holy Land is laid upon the Palestinian population. Israel, on the other hand, is made to look squeaky clean.

         It was my good fortune when touring the Holy Land as a university student with the Centre Richelieu of the University of Paris (a French-led scripture/archeological pilgrimage directed by French priests and scholars) that I came into contact with many Palestinian Catholics, especially in Jerusalem and Nazareth.  I listened to tales of their plight and ever since have tried to become more informed on the whole question of the rights denied the Palestinians and the treatment they have undergone for so many years.

         I am involved with several groups who have been addressing these issues.

         One such organization is The Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation ( http://www.hcef.org ) which seeks to increase awareness among American Christians of the urgent needs of Christians in the Holy Land. It is especially concerned, as is the Vatican, about the fact, as I mentioned in my first letter, that so many Christians are leaving the Holy Land because living conditions under Israeli occupation are so desperate. We have a Catholic family from Nazareth in our own parish that has experienced outrages in the past and whose family back home continues to do so. The HCEF web site provides plenty of information on this subject. The Latin Patriarch, Michel Sabbah, is on the advisory board of this ecumenical organization as well Father Drew Christiansen, Secretary of the U.S. Catholic Conference.

         Another organization, Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) has a web page at  http://www.cmep.org/ A Father Tim Keating, S.M. of the Catholic Conference of Major Superiors, is one of the leaders of this organization.  These folks are also working for justice in the Middle East and their web site is very interesting. They are very concerned over Israeli attempts to make Jerusalem the sole and exclusive capital of Israel.

         I believe I also sent you the web site of a couple of Israeli peace groups as well who are concerned over the injustices Israel inflicts on the Palestinians.  These groups, Bat Shalom, Gush Shalom and others,  put their lives on the line by demonstrating against the policies of their government.

         Thanks again for acknowledging my letter.  I had hoped for a bit more in the way of explanation as to why you signed the statement in question and I am not sure why you didn't say more.  Perhaps a visit to the two above web sites might whet your appetite for a Christian perspective on the policies of Israel toward the Palestinian people.

************************************

15.  To the Director of the Institute of Judeo-Christian Studies (November 10, 2000)

Institute of Judeo-Christian Studies

Dear Sister R.,

             I hope you received my letter of a few days ago wishing you good luck on your visit to Israel.  I hope by this time you will have returned and will have a moment to develop the theme of your brief message as you left- namely that "it pains me to see your responses."  I meant only to tell the truth and I regret that it is painful.

             I want to thank you (I assume it was you who mailed it) for sending me the publication of the two lectures given by Dr. Fischer and Father Stransky which I am in the process of studying.  I am also preparing a few comments on the statement that you sent me "We Are Outraged"  and of which you apparently approve.

             For the present, however, I am wondering how you can reconcile the following two statements culled from what you sent me:

             First, as stated in Father Stransky's 1997 lecture as published by your  Institute:

             "With realism, the Jerusalem Christian leaders join the Vatican (and others) in proposing for the walled Old City a special juridical and political statute, stable and permanent, which the international community guarantees: Jerusalem is too precious to be dependent solely on municipal or national authorities, whoever they may be."

              Second,  the NCLCI May 1999 statement (reaffirmed on the "We Are Outraged" document you sent me which you apparently also approve:

             "NCLCI also reaffirms its conviction that Jerusalem should remain the single, undivided political capital of Israel."

             Which is it, Sister?  Can we have it both ways? It's also interesting that the statement reads that Jerusalem should "remain" the capital of Israel.  Right now it is recognized as  the capital of Israel by  El Salvador and Costa Rica- period.  For the rest of the world it's Tel Aviv and I feel it should remain that way as long as the Israelis are unwilling to share it with the world, including the Palestinians. No  one owns it  exclusively.

             I am eager to hear from you. Thanks again for the interesting literature.

**************************

16.  No One Side Has a Monopoly on Justice (Gannett papers, August 26, 2001)

        Robert G. (Aug 22 letter) may be correct in stating that the Irish Republican Army has been "negotiating in good faith" over the past years.  One would wish that the "Real IRA" faction had subscribed to a similar policy.  It hasn't.  What are we  to think, furthermore, of the three IRA lads arrested last week in Columbia for training FARC rebels in urban warfare and explosives?  Good-faith negotiators?

        Taking a cheap shot at the Palestinians along the way does not further the writer's cause, either.  Speaking of "negotiating in good faith," he says that the Palestinian authorities "do not know the meaning of that word."  This is a simplistic generalization that reveals no grasp of the complex issues in  play in the Middle East crisis.  It also reveals a prejudice unworthy of any third party.  It lacks the balance found in the Mitchell report and the kind of evenhandedness the belligerents in the Middle East deserve from America.  Arab-bashing is also somewhat disingenuous coming from one who supports an organization that in the past has not hesitated to accept arms and financial aid from Libya's Col Moammar Gadhafi.

       The call for justice in Northern Ireland is praiseworthy.  But no one side is a dispute has a monopoly on justice.  To promote one's cause in an overly righteous manner while denigrating others reminds one of the "God-in-on-our-side" extremists on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That's not how problems are solved.

****************************

17.  Fair Solution  (National Catholic Reporter - January 25, 2002)

            Your  editorial "Breaking out of the futile deadly dance" (NCR Dec. 28)  fairly addresses the Middle East dilemma. When however, you ask why "Yasser Arafat  inexplicably walked away from a settlement" the answer is not such a mystery. There is an explanation. He was offered nothing he could take home and sell to his people.  First of all, the so-called "offer" at Camp David was never presented in writing, let alone accompanied by maps.  It was orally conveyed - a strange way of conducting serious negotiations.

             Second, this "generous" offer consisted of dividing the West Bank into three separate cantons surrounded by Israel.  So not only would the Palestinians have to cross Israel to go from the West Bank to Gaza, but also to go from one canton to another within the West Bank.  Such an arrangement would have made the future Palestinian state less viable than the Bantustans created by the South African apartheid government.

            Third, according to this "offer,"  Israel would annex  9 percent of the West Bank in exchange for 1 percent of its own territory.  In addition, it would control 10 percent of the West Bank in the form of a "long-term lease."  This area would mainly be located along the Jordan River, which meant that Israel would also control Palestine's international borders.  Furthermore Israel "offered" to control the air space and the water resources of the new Palestinian state.

            How generous!  As Robert Malley, a member of the American team in the Camp David summit, wrote in the New York Times July 8, "the measure of Israel's concessions ought not to be how far it has moved from its own starting point, but how it has moved toward a fair solution."

            Given the above, the "offer" was anything but fair.  It perpetuated the occupation, albeit under another form.  It did not allow the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and sowed the seeds of another conflict. There is nothing "inexplicable" about the Palestinian rejection of such an offer.  The Israelis, who hold all the cards, must decide whether they want a genuine peace based on justice or an indefinite conflict.

***********************************

18.  Quick action against Iraq? (The Journal News, February 15, 2002)

          So Senator Lieberman has joined those hawks salivating to wage another war on Iraq (Journal News, Feb. 11) -  an unwise action that would involve sending  American servicemen into further harm's way.  And for what?

          The "Wolfowitz cabal", made up of such disparate figures as William Kristol, Richard Perle, Tom Lantos, William Saffire, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer et al., is not satisfied that we have bombed Iraq almost daily for the past decade and crippled an entire society with sanctions.  Jim Lobe, in Foreign Policy in Focus (11/30) notes that these "neo-conservatives" (few of whom ever served in the military) "are decidedly aggressive when it comes to supporting Israel, particularly Likud."

            Such lobbyists remind me of the words of the Renaissance humanist, Erasmus,  "War is sweet to those who have never tasted it."  Secretary Powell, who knows war, prudently stated that an attack on Iraq would destroy what remains of the international coalition President Bush has assembled and that there is no evidence linking Iraq to the attacks of Sept. 11. Now, under pressure, even he is being dragged into the belligerent camp. We should recall that former Secretary of Defense William Cohen told the president in January 2001 that Iraq no longer poses a military threat to her neighbors.

            This call to arms is a diversionary tactic; a desperate attempt to distract Washington and the nation from pursuing a balanced policy towards a just solution to the Palestinian problem.

*************************

19. Letter to the Senior Managing Editor (The Journal News - March 5. 2002)

                As an "outsider" third party observer (neither Jewish nor Arab) of your paper's coverage of the Middle East crisis I appreciate any attempts you make to be fair and balanced in your presentation of the terrible events as they unfold daily.

                 It sometimes appears to me, however, that there often emerges some bias on the paper's part in favor of the Israeli position.  In many ways this reflects the very position of the present U.S. administration.  But one expects the press to pose hard questions and do more than simply reflect current popular opinion or official government policies.  Sadly your paper sometimes appears to be more open-minded to the plight of the Israelis via-a-vis that of the Palestinian population.  There are tragedies and horrors on both sides and many innocent victims. I would hope that, reading your paper, one would never infer that the life of an Israeli is worth more that that of an Arab. All life is sacred; no life expendable.

                I will just cite one instance in today's paper that bothered me somewhat.  See what you think.

                In today's (3/5) paper on page 3-A under "Briefings" there is a paragraph entitled "Axis" allies blasted on rights records." The paragraph goes on to single out Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and others.  What the paragraph fails to mention is that the State Department also lists Israel, an supposed "ally,"  as an outstanding member of this list of human rights violators.  Why was this omitted, I wonder?

                I have attached the State Department's document from their web site for your perusal.

               Again, I trust you will try to be scrupulously fair, balanced, and objective when you report of the on-going tragedy in the Holy Land.

************************

20.   Sometimes Dissent Can Be Patriotic  (The Journal News, March 19, 2002)

            Amid the endless violence in the Holy Land, where Death never takes a holiday, the voices of grassroots peacemakers on either side are rarely heard. One heartening sign of late, however, has been the refusal of hundreds of soldiers of conscience in the Israel Defense Forces to serve in the Occupied Territories.

            One such person is Major Ishai Menuchin, a twenty-year veteran.  Writing in the New York Times (3/9) of his moral convictions he says: “I will defend my country, but I will not participate in a military occupation that has over the decades made Israel less secure and less humane.”

            He will not “obey illegal orders to execute potential terrorists or fire into civilian demonstrations.” He will not prevent civilians from moving from town to town or carry out house demolitions. For Major Menuchin this is a “moral matter.”

            The lesson should not be lost here at home. Moral dissent can sometimes be the highest  form of patriotism. Just as we hold our children to a high standard of behavior and admonish them when they are wrong so too we much hold our nation to its high calling of doing what is right and just. This is why it is wrong to suggest as some official have that it is somehow unpatriotic to ask hard questions about government policies, actions, or the kind of “foreign entanglements” that George Washington warned about.

            The slogan “My country- right or wrong” does not cut it in the moral order. Love of country is a higher calling.   Surely the degree of one's patriotism cannot be measured alone  by the size of the flag on one's SUV.  Serious thinking, probing questions, conscience and prayer may be in order as well.

*******************************

21.  The Primacy of Conscience (The Journal News - March 2002)

            It is sad that Laura L. (3/23) of all people would not champion the primacy of conscience, as shown by Israeli reservists, over blind obedience. Listen rather to Rabbi Michael Lerner and hundreds of supporters of Israel in a recent statement:  “These soldiers have witnessed their own army violate human rights, practice torture, destroy homes, and perpetrate violence against civilians...they won't be silent partners to the Occupation any longer."  (New York Times, 3/22)

             Instead of supporting Major Ishai Menuchin's moral courage in refusing to participate in what he considers criminal actions she dismisses him and others who "disobey orders."  After all, she says, "War is hell."  The world needs more hell?

            Has Ms. Lewis never heard of the "Judgment at Nuremberg"?   Doesn't she know that "just following orders" is no longer an excuse for violating one's conscience. Soldiers of conscience like Major Menuchin deserve our support and admiration, not the kind of reproach unjustly heaped upon them by Ms. Lewis. Famed cellist Mstislav Rostropovich describes conscience thus: 

“You know a bad conscience can eat away your body, eat away your health.  And I am happy to say I have a very clear conscience."  (New York Times, 3/23/03)

            Violence on either side of the conflict can no longer be seen as a legitimate means of expressing grievances and must be condemned.  Major Menuchin and the reservists are patriots and show us the way to peace.

            Yesh Gvul, an Israeli peace group, distributed this message to the IDF forces:  “Soldiers, it’s in your hands.”

Sources:

1. Rabbi Lerner:  The New York Times,  March 22, 2002
2. Mstislav Rostropovich: The New York Times  March 23, 2002
3. Publication of Yesh Gvul  (“There is a Limit”) an Israeli peace group and  distributed to IDF soldiers

 *****************************************

22.  Increased Criticism of Israel Justified (The Journal News, April 20, 2002)
 

            Robert K. (4/6) is “troubled” by Mr. Amiri’s reasoned presentation of the Palestinian cause. More troubling to him should be the erosion of good will toward Israel that has long existed in America.

            Ariel Sharon, proposing peace and security, has brought nothing but misery to Israel. Attila the Hun has devastated Palestine. The National Catholic Reporter (4/12) editorializes that President Bush has remained until recently “almost silent about the state-sponsored terrorism that Israel has visited on the Palestinians for decades.” Sharon’s arrogant denial of Bush’s belated request reminds one of Moshe Dayan’s famous quip: “Our American friends offer us money, arms and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.”

            Israeli columnist Uri Avnery writes that Sharon’s intentions are “to destroy the Palestinian nation, its institutions and leadership, once and for all, leaving only bits and pieces, human wreckage that could be disposed of anywhere… Nations are built on myths. I was raised on the myths of Massada and Tel-Chai that formed the consciousness of the new Hebrew nation. The myths of Jenin and Ramallah will form the consciousness of the new Palestinian nation… No good for Israel will come out of this adventure.” (Ma’ariv, 4/13)

            Speaking of Israeli actions in Jenin, Ta’ayush (4/10) reminds fellow Israelis: “We shall not be silent in the face of these atrocities. Each and every person of conscience among us has the obligation to remind the government and our fellow Israelis of the boundaries imposed by human morality.”
 

********************
23. Military Solution Leaves No Winners (The Journal News-May 20, 2002)
 

             Charles Krautheimer’s defense of Israel’s “military solution” to the present conflict  is short-sighted (5/15). Citing the “moral and material ruin” of the Palestinians  Krautheimer ignores the real damage to Israeli society itself - another part of the nightmare.  For that we must turn to the voices of Israeli human rights activists - rarely heard in these pages.

             Gila Svirsky of Bat Shalom, an Israeli peace organization working for a just peace between Israel and its neighbors, recently pointed out areas of concern to those who love Israel. She notes the “unapologetic racism (expelling Palestinians -- the avowed plan of several cabinet members)”.

            She expresses the alarm over the “heightened militarization of Israeli children (encouraged by schools to write thank-you letters and send packages to soldiers), the deliberate lies in the media (humanitarian aid given to the refugees, when it wasn't), the clampdown on criticism (an evening in honor of a famous, older singer canceled because she supported the refuseniks), and the ongoing portrayal of foreign protest against Israel as anti-Semitic.”

            While all wars are violent and brutal, she adds, “this war as compared with others has seen more brutal attacks on civilian targets, more flouting of international law, more looting by soldiers, more destruction of non-military property and goods, more humiliation of the other, and more deliberate cover-up -- denial of access to journalists, human rights workers, and relief organizations; and opposition to the UN investigative commission -- than any other.”

            There are no winners in this conflict, Mr. Krautheimer.

Source:  Bat Shalom, April 29, 2002

*********************

24. Catholics Should Be Aware of the Plight of the Palestinians (letter to Catholic New York, June 2002)
 

    Mr. M's attack on his co-religionist, Victor Lama, does great disservice to the cause of the beleaguered Christian community in the Holy Land. This is the home to over 160,000 Christians, many of whom are descendants of the first Christians. In 1948, the Christian population of the Holy Land was over 18%.  In 1999 it was less than 2%.  Why?  In Jerusalem, the Christian population has shrunk from 30,000 to 2,000 since 1944.  Why? Three times as many Christians from Bethlehem live in the Palestinian diaspora as in Bethlehem itself.  Why?

    Because, as the Holy Land Christian Christian Ecumenical Foundation points out, "Christians are leaving the Holy Land because living conditions under Israeli occupation are desperate.  The Israeli government rarely gives Palestinians permits to build new homes;  existing homes are often confiscated or demolished.  There are few job opportunities, and medical care is inadequate.  Road are closed in and out of villages - some roads are for Israeli use only.

    "Identity cards issued by the Israeli government to Palestinians are often confiscated, preventing Palestinians from moving freely within their own territories.  Water is periodically cut off and cisterns have been destroyed."  Palestinian Christians are the "forgotten faithful," ignored by our media and, all too often,  by the Catholic press as well.  While we Catholics must condemn all violence in the Middle East, whatever the source,  we also must demand justice for our suffering brothers and sisters in the Holy Land.  Peace will only come when justice prevails.

************************

25. Back to the Stone Age  ( The Journal News - June 28, 2002 )
 

Martin K. (6/20) encourages Israel to abandon “self-destructive ethics” and retaliate to the Palestinians with the same “tactics” as the suicide bombers.  What a disheartening, eye-for-an-eye, Stone Age solution.

Despite terrible failures throughout history, the loftiest moral traditions of all three Abrahamic religions regard violence and vengeance, murder and suicide as evil.  There is no moral justification for the suicide bombing of innocent Israelis; neither is there justification for the killing of Palestinian civilians- casually dismissed by Mr. K.  as “accidental.” Terrorism comes in many disguises. The names and causes of death of 54 Israeli and 232 Palestinian children under 18 killed between September 2000 and March 2002 have been documented. But no numbers game here. The death of one child is one too many.

Pax Christi (Peace of Christ), an organization to which I belong, is a Catholic voice of non-violence. It holds that true patriotism cannot be a motivation for destroying other nations and their civilians. Pax Christi supports both security for Israel and a viable Palestinian state, the immediate end to sanctions in Iraq, the promotion of human rights, reversing the prominent role of the US in the international arms trade, and strengthening international institutions such as the United Nations.

Mr. K.’s approach is a prescription for Death. Life is fragile. We have it in our hands but a short while.  Answering violence with more violence, as he advocates, leads not to life, but to more death. This is no legacy for our children.

Sources:

B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
LAW - the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment
The American Educational Trust
Pax Christi USA

************************************

26. Dance of Death (The Journal News, - July 31, 2002)
 

Shortly after an American-made Israeli F-16 destroyed the lives of innocent women and children (Journal News 7/24) Pope John Paul II in Toronto forcefully admonished the world that “Too many lives begin and end without joy, without hope.”

The pope’s words sum up the plight of Palestinian children for the past fifty years – “without joy, without hope.” Today it has sadly become the lot of innocent Israeli children as well. How then could Ariel Sharon conduct an operation that will doubtlessly bring further reprisals on the Israeli populace? The Israeli-Palestinian “Dance of Death” will surely begin again.

Referring to Sharon, Ari Shavit, writing in Ha’aretz this week says, “Along with a series of additional racist and brutal decisions he has made in the past month, this latest one raises serious questions about the mental world of the man who is in charge of our fate” and “blurred beyond recognition the moral image of the country.”

Rabbi Michel Lerner of Tikkun put it bluntly, “No wonder, then, that social justice-oriented American Jews feel betrayed by Israeli policies that seem transparently immoral and self-destructive.”

 What of our role in this on-going tragedy? The State Department has finally begun to raise concerns about the use of American-made arms (F-16s, Apache helicopters) by Sharon against Palestinian civilians. These laser-guided bombs might as well have American flags attached to them.  The message is not lost on the Arab world.

 America is not called to arm the world but to work for justice and reconciliation.
 

Sources:

Ha’aretz, July 25, 2002

Fellowship, July-August, Vol. 68, No. 7-8 for quotation of Rabbi Michael Lerner

************************************

27. The Scandal of Catholic Infighting   (The New Oxford Review, December  2002)
 

 This reader is overwhelmed by a sense of sadness in reading page after page of NOR devoted to endless carping directed at perceived heretical co-religionists, not to mention the infighting among those of you who share the same myopic vision of our church.

One is reminded of Erasmus of Rotterdam’s description of those “who dig up vexed long-deceased questions, ridiculous trifles over which they do battle as if their very existence were at stake…who judge, condemn and pass sentence.” One cannot but suspect that many of those who write for NOR and their readers are more concerned with the “institution” itself than the person of Our Lord and suffering humanity.

 You really ought to sit back, relax a bit, contemplate the Gospel, and try to figure out how you might better love those with whom you so obsessively disagree.  This constant bickering has to be a turn-off for those who seek the Lord in simplicity of heart.
Must fighting over the Eucharist, for instance, go on ad infinitum?   In his own day Erasmus found the “present mode” of thinking on the subject “so contaminated with the teachings of Aristotle and the invention of petty human beings that I can hardly taste in it the faint flavor of the undiluted Christ. What does Christ have to do with Aristotle?”

 Yet the word-wars continue as we try to dictate to the Divine how, in human terms. God help those who don’t accept our terminology!  One yearns for the simplicity of an Erasmus who says: “It would be simpler to say that Christ is present in the Sacrament and leave the manner up to God.”
 

***********************************

28. Time for Death to Take a Holiday (The Journal News- September 4,  2002)
 

Nobel prizewinner Albert Camus, voice of the French Resistance in World War II, was once asked how, speaking as an agnostic, to deal with the problem of evil. He replied:  “It may not be possible for us to create a world in which no innocent children suffer. But it is possible to create a world in which fewer children suffer. And if we look to the Christians and don’t find help, where else will we go?”

Christians should raise their voices against the obsessive war hysteria emanating from Washington. Fortunately many ecumenical voices have condemned as “immoral and illegal” any plan to attack Iraq. Iraq has neither attacked nor threatened us.  In England the Archbishop of Canterbury, other Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops, Protestant leaders, academics and theologians, have deplored the notion that any nation could “regard war, and the threat of war, as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy.” Pax Christi USA takes a similar position.

Saddam is evil and the Iraqi people deserve better-  but not more war.  What hypocrisy to condemn today Saddam’s use of gas against the Kurds and Iranians when at that time he was our ally and we said nothing about such war crimes.  As long as Saddam was killing Iranians he was our friend. There are ways to deal with Saddam just as we have learned to deal with North Korea and China, bristling with weapons of mass destruction and worse human rights records.

It’s time for Death to take a holiday.

Sources:

The National Catholic Reporter,  August 16, 2002

Pax Christi USA  “Peace Pledge”

Pax Christ USA   “Pledge of Resistance”

***************************************

29. No Grounds for Waging War (The Journal News, October 3, 2002)

President Bush sent envoys to “axis of evil” North Korea to reopen security talks. (Journal News, 9/26) Dialog - but no talk of war - with a hostile nuclear power already bristling with “weapons of mass destruction”!

What about Iraq?  Forget dialog and diplomacy! This is a Bush family vendetta.

Not long ago Osama bin Laden was Public Enemy # 1 - wanted “dead or alive.”  Not having caught Osama, now Saddam has become our focus as if he were another Hitler or Stalin. While most of those in Washington salivating for war have never worn a uniform experienced military men have urged caution. Must our noble republic become an empire?

Bad as he is, Saddam has never attacked us:  On June 8, 1967 Israel attacked the clearly marked “USS Liberty” in the Mediterranean for over two hours with aircraft and torpedo boats killing 34 young Americans and wounding 171.   We did not go to war with Israel.

Retired Israeli General Aharon Levran writes in Ha’aretz, “The Bush administration has no solid grounds for waging war on Saddam. The arguments about the variety of risks Saddam poses are exaggerated.”

A war on Iraq will kill hundreds of American troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians.  It will destabilize the Middle East and alienate our allies. Our attention should be focused on Al-Qa’eda and what created such hatred.  A just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would do more to take the wind out of the terrorists' sails than any war with Iraq.

Sources:

The Journal News, September 26, 2002.
Ha’aretz, Israeli daily
http://www.ussliberty.org

**********************************************************

30.  Oil Is the True Motivation  for War (The Journal News.  November 5, 2002)

Letters to the Editor

Is anyone still duped by the propaganda about promoting democracy in Iraq?  In reality it’s all about oil.  Joe Lesly (10/15) exposed the real motivation of the administration and sadly of some Americans:  Iraq’s oil does not really belong to Iraq.  It’s ours and we will have it.  War advocates are bent on taking control of these reserves to maintain “our way of life” no matter what the cost.  American servicemen and countless Iraqi civilians will shed their blood for oil. North Korea, a real menace with nuclear capacity has no oil.  So we will talk with North Korea rather than go to war - but not to Iraq.

Contrast this attitude with that of the Sisters of Divine Compassion and other Christian faith communities. (10/22)  An unprovoked, unilateral invasion of Iraq would be illegal, unjust and immoral.  It does not meet the traditional criteria for a “just war” -  even if one accepts such a concept: imminence, gravity, proportionality (the end result outweighs the destruction caused), civilian non-combatant immunity. Nor have all non-violent avenues been exhausted.

Then there’s that outrageously neo-imperialist call for “regime change.” Since when do we alone have the right to perpetrate such a thing? Can’t any country then change the regime of a neighbor it doesn’t like? Such an interventionist policy would put our president in league with a notorious band of scoundrels:  Hitler (Poland); Kaiser Wilhelm (France, Belgium); Stalin (Ukraine); Mao (Tibet); Saddam (Kuwait); Sharon (Palestine); North Korea (South Korea).

Regime change begins at home.  Vote!.

Sources:  The Journal News.  October 15, 2002
           The Journal News.  October 22, 2002

*****************************************************

31. What America’s Critics Are Saying (The Journal News Community View, January 4, 2003 )

Most Americans are in a state of puzzlement or utter disbelief at all the manifestations of animosity and perceived hatred toward the United States.  Why then are so many people trying to get into this country, legally or otherwise, for a better life if we are so bad? Upon examination it becomes clear that most of this hostility is directed at our foreign policy and not the American people themselves who are almost universally admired.

 Much of the resentment and fear of our foreign policy comes from “far-away places with strange-sounding names.” According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (December 2002) a familiar story circulating these days  in the Muslim and Christian Arab world  is “Why did it take President Bush so long to prepare his Middle East policy for his speech at the UN?" The answer?   "Because it had to be translated first from Hebrew.”

But when criticism comes from old international friends it is harder to swallow. It can range from sarcasm to insult.  So we are shocked when 400,000 Italians and other Europeans gathered recently in Florence to condemn our foreign policy as fascist; puzzled when the Canadian Prime Minister’s communications director calls President Bush a “moron;” outraged when, during a discussion of why Germany will not support the Bush administration in its war plans, a commentator suggests that, given their recent history, the Germans have learned to recognize a Nazi when they see one.

Such hyperbole can of course be dismissed outright.  The problem posed by our foreign policy remains, however, and the criticism needs to be addressed.  Much of our domestic media when acting as the voice of those in power will dismiss any criticism from abroad with equally bellicose simplifications. This adds nothing to the discussion.

Jesuit Father John Kavanaugh recently wrote in America magazine (9/9/02), that if one risks asking whether there might be “reasons why the United States triggered such hate, not only in the madness of 9/11, but in the Muslim street, the shrill response is that you are defending the abominations and you think America deserved it”- a despicable thought.

Cannot one ask hard questions, however, and go beyond CNN or Fox News to find out why, unfairly or not, our policies are so hated? Whatever the merit or validity of the criticism it is important to know what others are saying in order to be able to respond with more than simple sloganeering.

America’s critics claim that the main goal of our foreign policy is not about promoting democracy in the world, not about destroying weapons of mass destruction, and not about the violation of UN resolutions.

First, they contend, our goal is not about promoting democracy.  After a positive legacy toward Germany and Japan after World War II we began to cultivate and support a series of thugs and despots in subsequent decades: Trujillo, Marcos, Battista, Diem, Noriega, Somosa, the Shah, Sukarno, Pinochet, Duvalier, Mobutu, etc. Our critics do not buy our stated goal of promoting democracy in the world.

Nor, our critics say, is it about eliminating weapons of mass destruction; because the United States is not eliminating its own weapons of mass destruction. We wrote the book on the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians by our nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people,” (Howard Zinn). Our critics note that we are the world’s leading arms dealer. They consider breaking the Anti-ballistic Missal Treaty hypocritical, as well as our rejection of the Kyoto, land mine, and international criminal court accords, our boycotting of the recent international conference on racism

Nor is it about the violation of UN resolutions. Our critics note that, while Iraq has indeed violated 16 UN resolutions, Israel has violated 65 documented UN resolutions; yet no one is advocating war with Israel.

What then, in their eyes, really is our goal?  Anatol Lievan, Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment, sums it up as the emergence of the U.S. as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole supremacy and authority as planetary policeman.  The leadership in Washington is committed to “unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority,” he writes. It is about the arrogance of power, other critics say, about pre-emptive war, when and where the president chooses, about control of the world’s resources for our own use. I suspect this is the main reason for their distrust, fear, even hatred. I would suggest it is helpful to recognize, question and respond to such criticism.
 

Sources:

 America magazine. September 9, 2002
 Other Voices: The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Dec. 2002
 Fellowship of Reconciliation
 Catholic Peace Voice: Pax Christi U.S.A. Vol. XXVII, No.3\
 Paul Findley, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the US/Israeli
            Relationship  (Chicago: Lawrence Hill, 1993), pages 166-192.
 C-Span

**************************************

32. Letter to Charles Krauthammer, columnist

Having read your recent article in the Gannett paper, “The United Nations has again demonstrated its growing irrelevancy,” my comment is as follows:

 Your column only confirms a bias and hidden agenda I have long suspected.  Why don’t you have the honesty to come right out and admit that the interests of Israel are your main concern. It comes as no surprise to learn that you would have no use for the UN: while Iraq is in violation of 16 UN resolutions Israel remains in violation of 65 well-documented resolutions (attached) about which you say nothing whatsoever.

 Have you not the courage to acknowledge your bias toward Israel in your efforts to link US interests with those of Israel?  America’s interests are not the same as Israel’s. .  It is precisely the fact that this administration is captive to the desires of Mr. Sharon and his supporters in America like yourself that we are in the mess we find ourselves.

 One waits in vain for you and others who share your unspoken agenda to come out openly and admit your real interests.  I fear that will never happen because you are having your way just fine right now.

Respectfully,
************************************** 

33. Letter to Joseph P. attacking me in the Gannett paper.

Dear Sir:

I read your letter to The Journal News (Feb. 12) with interest concerning the “hundreds” (800 + to be exact) of demonstrators against Mr. Bush’s war. I was among the group of so-called “hippies and children of hippies” as you describe them.  You are a bit off base, sir.  I am a registered Republican with two masters degrees, the son of a Republican judge.  My family was Republican probably before your ancestors even came to America.  My great grandmother bounced Wendell Wilkie on her knee in Elwood, Indiana at the turn of the century.  Do you know who he was? Check your Republican history?

 I do not need a lecture on patriotism, sir.  I am a Son of the American Revolution (SAR) with four ancestors who participated in the American Revolution. My great grandfather was in the Union Army at Vicksburg; another relative died in the Confederate Prison in Andersonville, Georgia. My dear sir, the Party of Lincoln has been hijacked by the cabal that is presently rushing into an unprovoked and immoral war.  Abe Lincoln would turn over in his grave if he could witness the war lust of that born-again Caesar in the White House and the gang of neo-cons and Israeli lobbyists who are calling the shots around him.

I doubt if you listened to Ozzie Davis at all even though you made sure to note his color.  There certainly were people of color there.  And judging from the honking cars with thumbs up during the march it is obvious that people of color, Hispanics and others know only too well who will be in the front lines as canon fodder when the war starts, while the big shots who never wore a uniform courageously send them into battle.

You entitled to your fantasy that “Westchester is firmly behind this war,” as you state.  Wait till the body bags start to come home and see how popular the war becomes.  This president (and you, sir) is willing to sacrifice the cream of American youth for the oil barons to which he, Cheney and Ms. Rice are so inseparably linked.

Among the 800 demonstrators you dismiss so cavalierly were priests, nuns, Protestant ministers, Quakers, and members of Pax Christi (the Peace of Christ), an international Roman Catholic peace and non-violence organization I represent. If you think we fit into your definition of “hippies and the children of hippies” you really need help.

 You would have done better to have listened to the woman speaker who lost a relative in 911 and who belongs to a group of family survivors of 911 who area against war and violence.  Then tell me something about patriotism.

 In the peace of Christ,  I remain

Richard E.  Cross, M.A., M.S. 

*********************** 

34. Follow-up letter to Joseph P. in response to a Feb. 12, 2003 letter

Dear Joseph,

Thank you for your courteous response to my letter in response to your own letter to the Journal News of February 12. The fact that you bothered to answer me was quite encouraging.

Although you did not respond to all the matters that I brought up in my letter I do appreciate hearing from you.  If you are on the Internet we could continue our exchange via e-mail. You could reach me at:  recross@cloud9.net

You asked me to be honest in my assertion that I am a registered Republican and if the GOP’s views were that of my own “ideology.” I repeat what I said to you, namely that the present GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln that he would find it unrecognizable, that it has been hijacked- and by whom? I would say, first of all, by the so-called neo-cons who are in the pocket of the oil industry  (if you are not aware of how deep into oil Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice are I can send you the data- up to their necks in fact. Condy Rice even has an oil tanker named after her!) and, secondly, by those close to Bush who just might have a disproportionate concern for the interests of Israel, i.e. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, Douglas Feith, Under Secretary for Policy, Div Zakheim, Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, chairman Under Secretasry of Defense for Policy, Kenneth Adelman, Eliot Cohen, David Jeremiah, Henry Kissinger, James Woolsey to name a few.

 In my view the incentives for the proposed war is therefore first for oil and secondly for the interests of Israel, her security and her Middle East dominance as the only nuclear power there enabling her to blackmail all her neighbors with a nuclear threat. So if you want to question my Republican loyalties you may do so.  My point is that the party as it exists today has strayed from its traditions.  The present administration is arrogant in its imperialistic world view, its over-involvement in the kind of  “foreign entanglements” George Washington so warned us about.

I rejoice that you say you do not want war but I despair when you say you that you don’t need “any more evidence.” I am curious as to what evidence you have.  The UN Security Council seems to want more evidence than its has right now World opinion is certainly not as sure as you and Mr. Bush seem to be.

Now to address some of the specific points you raise in your letter:

1. You say, “I don’t want any more 9/11’s.”  Neither do I. The fact is, however, that Saddam Hussein, bad as he is, had absolutely nothing to do will 911. In fact 15 out of 19 of the 911 terrorists came from our “ally” Saudi Arabia where the particular distorted version of Islam is cultivated. Furthermore, by his very action, Mr. Bush is creating new Bin Laden clones and fresh terrorists every day to the point that by leading our nation into this Middle East train wreck he is assuring Americans that they will never be safe again either at home or abroad.

2. You speak of “one million gassed Iraqis.” This is totally unsubstantiated and an exaggerated figure.  I would like to see the source for your statistics. First of all, any gassing that was done was during the Iran-Iraq War during which both Iran and Iraq used poison gas against one another.  Because Saddam was our man at the time and our friend, as long as he was killing Iranians we said nothing about his use of poison gas.  Now as to the claim that he gassed his own people.  Once again we did nothing about the event at the time because Saddam was out friend.  The indignation comes a bit too late, don’t you think

Here are some facts for you to ponder:

Fact 1.  The North Koreans captured the “USS Pueblo” many years ago (perhaps before your time of recollection).  They killed our men on board, imprisoned and tortured others. This was an act of war. We did not go to war over it.

Fact 2   The Israelis strafed, bombed and attacked the “USS Liberty” in international waters for several hours- an American ship, clearly marked, killing many Americans while the survivors to this day have not had justice.  This was an act of war. We did not go to war with Israel. In fact the Johnson administration covered up the event and to this day the survivors of the Liberty have not seen justice.

Fact 3. Today North Korea not only has nuclear capability, but continues to threaten us daily basis. It has a huge standing army ready to go to war and is armed to the teeth. Bush says he will dialog with North Korea while he goes to war with Iraq- a humiliated and weakened nation with no air force, no navy, but plenty of oil.

Fact 4.  Iraq, on the other hand, has never attacked America, has never threatened America. All it has said is that, if attacked, it will defend the homeland. What nation would not do the same?

Fact 5.  The UN inspectors have already established the fact that today Iraq is NOT a nuclear threat and has no nuclear weapons. The chief nuclear inspector said that clearly last Friday before the Security Council. British intelligence has said this, and even Israeli intelligence as well.

Fact 9.  You cannot demonstrate that whatever kind of government the US imposes on Iraq post-Saddam will be "democratic" What it will be is a government that bends to our will as far as oil is concerned.  Will it be democratic like our “friends” the Saudi royal family?  Will be democratic like the dictator Mubarek in Egypt?  Will it be democratic like some of the other thugs we cultivated and pampered in the past: Trujillo, Marcos, Battista, Diem, Noriega, Somosa, the Shah of Iran, Sukarno, Pinochet, Duvalier, Mobutu, to name a few.

Fact 6. Both Bush administrations have been caught in several big lies (below) which I would like you to consider and discuss –

Thanks against for your letter, Joe.

Wishing you and the world the peace of Christ, I remain sincerely,

Richard E. Cross

Addenda: 

Four Administration lies exposed:

1. During the first Gulf War the "testimony" of Nayirah, so-called "volunteer nurse" in Kuwait who spoke before the Congressional Human Rights Committee on Oct. 10, 1990.  Her testimony was repeatedly rebroadcast in the American media: that she had witnessed Iraqi troops stealing incubators and throwing babies on the floor to die.

     After the war, Sixty Minutes did a follow-up study of this "event" only to learn that it was a total fabrication. "Nayirah" turned out be was the daughter of Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington. She had been in her family's palace and nowhere near a hospital during the Iraqi invasion.  She had been coached on how to lie by the Hill and Knowlton public relations firm hired by the State Department.

2. The so-called British government dossier that Powell cited in his speech before the UN turned out to be not  "intelligence material" at all but was directly lifted from published academic articles, some of them several years old.  According to The Guardian, 4 of the 19 pages were copied "from the internet version of an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi which appeared in the Middle East Review of International Affairs last September. 6 more pages relied heavily on articles that appeared in Jane's Intelligence Review in 1997 and last November." This was outright plagiarism, an embarrassment to Tony Blair and another blight on the reliability of this administration. The report didn't even bother to correct the spelling and grammatical mistakes in the plagiarized material. The British have since apologized for this sham but we have yet to hear a word from Powell or the Administration.

3. The New York Times (Feb. 8) reveals that the so-called "poison and explosive training center camp" located in northeastern Iraq that Mr. Powell "exposed" was also a fraud. The Associated Press states that "journalists who visited the site depicted in Powell's satellite photo found a half-built compound filled with heavily armed Kurdish men, video equipment and children but no obvious sign of chemical weapons manufacturing."  No running water, no toilets. More mythology.

4. The so-called claim that Saddam "gassed his own people" specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein. This myth was recently destroyed by Stephen C. Pelletierre, the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, who was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. He headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States. (cf. Mr. Pelletierre's  Op-Ed piece in the NY Times of January 31.) How many more lies have we been told since the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco?

*****************************
35. Letter to Jacques Chirac before the Iraq War began and his reply the following October.

Cher Monsieur le Président Chirac,

Je vous admire justement comme j'aime aussi la France. Je vous écris à ce moment de crise pour exprimer mes sentiments de gratitude pour vos efforts pour la paix en Iraq. Sachez que beaucoup d'Américains sont tout à fait en accord avec votre position contre la guerre. La sagesse que vous apportez à cette crise mondiale est beaucoup appréciée surtout en contraste avec la folie sanguinaire manifestée dans la politique de notre président.  Il faut vous ajouter que je suis de partie un Républicaine, né d'une famille Républicaine pour des générations. Malheureusement la partie de Lincoln n'est plus reconnaissable. C'est honteux. Lincoln se renverserait dans sa fosse, comme nous disons,  s’il savait ce que Monsieur Bush est en train de faire.

 Je n’accepte pas cette soif pour la guerre de  Monsieur Bush si belliciste. Heureusement les allemands, les français  et les  belges ont gardé leur raison dans cette crise mondiale.  Maintenant c'est la France, la plus ancienne amie d'Amérique, sur laquelle nous avons confiance dans ce drame.  Employez votre "VETO" à l'ONU si c'est nécessaire.  Vive la France.  Vive Jacques Chirac.  Homme d'État extraordinaire et homme de paix.

*******************

 A Response to my letter from the Présidence of Monsieur Jacques Chirac, President of France (received weeks later)

Monsieur Richard CROSS

24 Summit Street
TARRYTOWN, NY 10591
ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE 

Cher Monsieur,


Votre message est bien parvenu à Monsieur le Président de la République française.

Particulièrement sensible à votre soutien, Monsieur Jacques CHIRAC m'a confié le soin de vous en remercier chaleureusement.

Comme vous le savez, les insultes en disent souvent bien plus long sur ceux qui les profèrent que sur ceux qu'elles prétendent décrire.

 

Bien cordialement. 

Le Chef adjoint de Cabinet

Gérard MARCHAND

translation:

Your message has certainly reached the President of the French Republic.
 
Especially touched by your support, Mr. Jacques CHIRAC has given me the task of thanking you affectionately.
 
As you know, insults very often tell us more about those doing the insulting that than they do about those they presume to describe.
 

*****************************

36. Letter to The Journal News, February 5, 2003
 

 “Children may suffer most in war,” (The Journal News, January 27). This is no great  surprise. The real surprise is why someone who claims to have given his heart to Jesus is rushing us into such a war. Those who take the words of Jesus seriously (“Blessed are the peacemakers”) wonder which Gospel imperative drives our president to an unprovoked attack on an already downtrodden people?

Here at home over 40 million Americans lack health insurance; over 32 million Americans live in poverty; over nine million Americans are jobless with thousands more losing their jobs daily. Seniors are losing Medicare benefits and poor folks, unable to meet their heat bills, boil water on the stove for warmth while the president spends billions on his own “weapons of mass destruction.” “If war is forced upon us we will fight,” he says.  Is he serious?  Who’s forcing this war?

Mr. Bush can’t seem to wait to turn Iraq, the cradle of civilization, into a graveyard.  What did the people of Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Must Iraqis, “whose hospitality, kindness and wisdom date back to Iraq’s Garden of Eden,” pay for the sins of Saddam  Hussein?  Can our leaders excuse “collateral damage” - that obscene euphemism for civilian casualties? Must we destroy an entire people in order to eliminate a dictator?

“Softer than butter is his speech,” say the psalmist, “but war is in his heart.  His words are smoother than oil.  But they are drawn swords.”

Did somebody say “oil”?

Sources:

The Journal News, January 27, 2003
The Catholic Peace Voice, Jan/Feb 2003
Matthew V, 9.
Psalm 55

*************************

37. Letter to the Editor.  The Journal News, March  10, 2003
 

“Messages from U.S. embassies around the globe that many people in the world think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein” should serve as a wake-up call.  (The Journal News, February 24)

Who is poised in the Middle East with a huge armada for a preemptive and unjust war against a Third World country with no navy, no air force, and a population debilitated by years of war and sanctions?  Who has his finger on the trigger of a plethora of “weapons of mass destruction”?  Who bullies and denigrates the UN calling it “irrelevant” if that world body does not agree with him?  Who threatens to go it alone if he can’t have it his way?

“There may still be two superpowers on the planet:  The United States and world public opinion.” (Patrick Tyler, The New York Times, February17) It is not Jacques Chirac who is “tone deaf” but George Bush who has shut his ears to the cries of the world for patience, diplomacy, peace and non-violence.

Better to listen to old friends like Germany and France – yes, France, “America’s oldest ally” without whose help Mr. Bush and the rest of us might well be subjects of Queen Elizabeth today. Let Donald Rumsfeld deride “Old Europe.” While Mr. Bush and friends may know all about oil, Old Europe still knows something about war and human suffering.  We hear a lot about “gratitude.”  Well, true friends tell you when you’re wrong and don’t side with you simply out of “gratitude.”

*******************************

38.  Letter to the Editor.  The New York Times, March 12, 2003 (not published)

French Fries and More

True American patriots should not only consume voracious amounts of French fries, but brie, croissants, and burgundy as well. Let ersatz "patriot" nationalists in their illusion deprive themselves of these delights.  It is Jacques Chirac, and not our tone-deaf president, who best exemplifies the values America stands for with his efforts for a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis.  France is America's oldest ally.  Just as any true friend worth her salt would confront you when you stray from a righteous and moral path, France now justifiably chides a misguided Bush administration in its rush to war.  As France once came to our aid during the American Revolution she now comes to rescue her old friend from making a disastrous mistake.

**************************************

39. Letter to the Editor.  The Journal News, April 8, 2003

Lent in Iraq: When the Innocent Suffer

Christians approaching Holy Week around the world contemplate the suffering and death of their Lord. They might also recall that this is not just a memorial of a past event 2000 years ago.

As Pascal wrote: “Jesus will be in agony until the end of time.” How can this be?   The reason is that Jesus also said:  “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren you have done to me.” And who are the least of our brethren today if not the suffering people of Iraq?  Why then are we Christians today killing these least of our brethren - innocent  civilians, women and children who have done us no harm?

What has become of our Christianity?  We have a “born-again” warrior savior with a new gospel, a  misguided and arrogant crusader who is leading his people into Armageddon with an enterprise carefully wrapped in the flag and supercharged with ersatz patriotism.

So many of us, like our president, have turned a deaf ear to the voices of the world’s religious leaders - a wide spectrum from the pope to the leader of the president’s own church. We have embraced instead this new religion of violence, domination and vengeance.

The rest of the world trembles at our abuse of power, our “weapons of mass destruction,” while our president squanders all the good will that we earned after 9/11. Today we find ourselves no longer perceived as a glorious republic but as an ominous “evil empire.”

Empires tend not to survive.

************************ 

40. Letters to the Editor. The Journal News, May 8, 2003

Expanding the Pax Americana

History’s oldest lesson, “The empire imposes its law on the vanquished,” is still valid. Today we have our emperor’s proconsul, General Jay Garner, imposed on Iraq. Shades of imperial Britain’s imposition of Clive on India and Kitchener on South Africa

Having found no weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D) – the President’s mantra for months and supposed rationale for war – attention is now focused on Iran and Syria.  Why not look even further?  If we really want the Middle East to be a W.M.D-free zone, let’s send some UN inspectors into Israel and see what they find.

According to MSNBC inspectors might find something at the following sites:

The Rafael and Yodefat sites near Haifa - where high-tech weapons research and assembly of Israel’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles have been under way for years.

The Eilabun site near the Syrian border - a storage facility for Israeli nuclear artillery shells and land minds.

The Soreq Center near Yavne - where, according to a 1989 Pentagon study, “runs the full nuclear gamut of activities,”

Of significant interest is Nes Zionyaa near Tel Aviv - site of Israel’s chemical and biological warfare facilities.

Then there is Dimona near the Jordanian border - where  weapons grade plutonium and thermo-nuclear weapons are produced.

Would inspectors have to look as hard for W.M.D in Israel as they did in Iraq? Peace will never come to the Middle East without disarmament. But what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Let the inspections begin.

**********************************

 41. "Community View" (The Journal News, June 18. 2003)
 
French-bashing 101

Barbara Nachman’s light-hearted article “The French Reconnection” (6/7) is a welcome invitation to re-examine the fallout of French bashing still pervading our country. One struggles to get beyond the “freedom fries” silliness and ludicrous boycotts of all things French to comprehend the petty nastiness of such attitudes.

France and its people are accused of being ungrateful to their old friend for not supporting the preemptive war launched by this administration. Although “gratitude” (which happens to be a two-way street) is not the real issue here it deserves a comment.

Critics of France have very selective memories and forget the fact that France is “America’s oldest ally.”  As President Jacques Chirac reminded us recently, France’s friendship for America is “bicentennial.”

Historians tell us that, even before France formally signed the treaty of “amity and concord” with the Continental Congress in 1778 that brought the full weight of her forces to the American cause, many young idealistic Frenchmen, committed to the principles of freedom and justice, slipped out of France and came to America to support our efforts. The most famous, of course, was Lafayette. But there were many others such as the Baron de Montesquieu whose grandfather’s “Spirit of the Laws” became one of the inspirations and sources of our revolution. (Five of my own ancestors were engaged in this historic war for independence.)

As the war progressed the Continental Army suffered from chronic ill health, malnourishment and  exposure to the elements.  At this moment of crisis France formally entered the fray with her armies and fleet led by such legends as the Comte de Rochembeau and Admiral De Grasse to rescue us, as Patrick Henry stated, from the “dreadful precipice from which we have escaped by means of the generous French.” No country acts purely out of altruism, of course, and there are always national interests at play. But when France came to our aid at this low point in the war George Washington, one historian wrote, “near tears of relief and joy” celebrated this new alliance with a great parade praising “the Almighty Ruler of the Universe for raising up a powerful friend ….to establish our liberty and independence.”

Ignoring this, Francophobes bemoan France’s seeming “lack of gratitude” for our role in rescuing her in the two world wars. America also acts out of its own national interests.  But we did indeed help save France.  Anyone who has lived in France and speaks the language knows that France remembers and is grateful. I have traversed the battle fields of both wars from Chateau Thierry and Bellow Wood where my grandfather earned the Croix de Guerre to Normandy and can assert with certitude that the French both honor their own war veterans (perhaps better than we do our own) and continue to honor those Americans who died in France.  I can take you to a remote corner of Brittany where but a few years ago a monument was erected to the American mothers whose sons gave their lives for freedom.  I was in Paris for the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Paris, an event that was filled with pro-American spirit.

But “gratitude” is not really the issue here.  Just because I am grateful to my friend should I automatically support him in something that I consider illegal or immoral?  What kind of friendship is that?  Shouldn’t I instead admonish him and point out the error of his ways?  It may come as a surprise to French bashers to realize that France is a democracy too and, in the case of the war on Iraq, the overwhelming majority of the French population considered it wrong. Nor were they alone in this as we know from the strong condemnations of other Europeans, the pope and most world religious leaders who opposed the war as unprovoked, unnecessary and a violation of the UN Charter to which the United States was an original signatory. The position of the French president in supporting the UN Security Council reflected exactly the will of the French people. We may disagree; but this was democracy at work. Contrast this to the leaders of Italy and Spain who ignored the sentiments of their population by endorsing the war.

Given its long history Mr. Rumsfeld’s “Old Europe” is tired of war and fearful of imperial power.  France, imperialistic for centuries, is now a republic. America, founded as a republic, has now become an empire.  Alas.  Empires tend not to survive.

Source: 

Page Smith.  A New Age Now Begins, Vol. 1 and 2. McGraw-Hill

*****************************************

42.   The President’s “Road Map” for Peace      (The Journal News, July 29, 2003)

Does anyone remember Rachel Corrie, the Jewish peace activist from Olympia, Washington? She should have graduated from college this past June. Instead she was bulldozed to death by the Israeli Defense  Forces (IDF) while attempting to prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes in the Rafah refugee camp.

According to Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel and other human rights organizations 93 Israeli and 415 Palestinian children under the age of 18 have died from violence between September 2000 and February 2003.

Whether it be from state-sponsored terrorism or immoral suicide bombings the death of a child is one too many. This is why Americans should support the President’s belated but welcome “road map” for peace.

There are extremists on both sides of the conflict who are resisting these peace efforts. Here at home as well there are those who are trying to block the President’s initiatives:  hard-line Zionists such as those who have written this paper condemning the President’s efforts. There are also those influential Christian Zionists in the evangelical community like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Cal Thomas, and – ominously even in Congress - the likes of Tom Delay.

An unscholarly and distorted interpretation of Scripture, for example, led Robertson’s CBN network to declare that May’s damaging tornados were a repercussion of the President’s pressure on Israel: “When Israeli settlements are touched, there are also occurrences of hurricanes, tornados, and major problems in the American economy.”

Americans should resist such craziness and support the President’s road map for justice and peace.

Sources:

1.  “Christian Commitment to Peacemaking Distorted by Christian Zionists” in
Churches for Middle East Peace, June 2003.

2. “Remember These Children” A joint project of The American Educational Trust,
    Jews for Peace in Palestine, Americans for Middle East Understanding, Inc.,
    Black Voices for Peace. March 2003.

*****************************************

43. Letters to the Editor (The Journal News, August 29, 2003)

Since the president triumphantly declared last May 1 “an end to major combat operations – Mission Accomplished” the tally of 143 (and counting) brave Americans killed in Iraq has surpassed the 138 killed during the actual war.  One must hope that the masses of the deceived American public will re-evaluate and reject this wasteful misadventure that has led us deeper into such an inextricable quagmire.

This on-going unpopular occupation  (Where are those strewn flowers and beaming smiles?) costs the US taxpayer four billion dollars a month - great for our economy – and the loss of precious American lives. (Don’t Iraqi lives also matter?) The case for this war was built on countless deceptions.  That illusionary “coalition” aside, most of the world stood against this preemptive and illegal war - sometimes even in defiance of their leaders. Should we be surprised that no one in history ever loved an occupying power?

The president did not have the patience to allow the UN inspectors to finish their work. But now we are asked after months to give the administration more time to find the elusive (non-existent?) WMDs. Meanwhile the Taliban and war lords in Afghanistan continue to cause havoc and death.  Ben Laden, Saddam Hussein and their followers remain on the loose causing mayhem.

The 20th century saw the dissolution of the British, French, Portuguese, Dutch, German, Spanish and Soviet empires. What leads us to think that an American empire as envisioned by the cabal behind the present administration will fare any better?

***********************
44. Letter to the Editor (The Journal News, October 6, 2003)

History will eventually determine whether this war on Iraq was a just war - or just a war. The administration’s rationale for it now seems more to have been based on false intelligence and downright deception. What was the excuse for invading a country that is not waging war with you?

Given that Iraq never attacked us once during the past decade it is no wonder that “Churches for Middle East Peace” warned last March: “The suspicion of imperial objectives, the diversion of funds and attention away from domestic and other international issues will characterize, and perhaps, haunt the Bush administration.”

After all, Saddam was but one of a “terrible rogues gallery of criminals” who were supported over the years by those at the helm in the White House.

As for pre-emptive war, senior British Labor MP, Tom Dalyell, admonished Tony Blair,
“The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law.” We have set a precedent, writes Benjamin Barber: “Pakistan can argue for pre-emptive war against India, anticipating an Indian strike in Kashmir; North Korea can justify a strike against South Korea, anticipating an American action (based on American rhetoric) against North Korea.”

Faced with a fait accompli, however, the question now facing us is how do we get out of this terrible quagmire in Iraq? Will Seneca’s words prove prophetic: “Wherever the Roman conquers, he inhabits” or John Paul II’s: “War is an adventure with no return.”

***************

45. The Cost Beyond Dollars ("Community View" published in The Journal News,  December 3, 2003)

(N.B. The editor of the paper changed the title of this article (without asking me) to "Immoral for Leaders to serve up Americ'as Youth as cannon fodder') No complaints here.

The extensive coverage by The Journal News honoring our veterans was admirable.  Commendable as well were the stories illustrating how not all those who return from war zones are better off for their experience.  Aside from physical war wounds we read of suicides, domestic violence, and addiction. Many veterans languish for years forgotten in VA hospitals – scarred in mind and body.  In the glare of bright uniforms, waving flags and martial music one can easily forget the brutality and dehumanization that accompanies warfare.

One Green Beret was recently charged with “cowardly conduct as a result of fear,” later downgraded to dereliction of duty, because he had a panic attack upon seeing an Iraqi cut in half by a machine gun. While some soldiers were laughing as the corpse of the dead Iraqi was dragged past him, this man threw up and shook for hours with a pounding head and chest pains:  “From his waistline to his head everything was missing.”

I would suggest that his only crime was that of being all too human. Erasmus (1517) said it well:  “War is like a vast ocean of all the evils combined: under its influence sprouting buds wither, plants shrivel up, the frail collapse, the strong perish, and sweet things turn sour. It wipes out all traces of piety and religion. You cannot conceivably address a credible prayer to the father of all men when you have just driven a sword into your brother’s bowels.”

In war young men are called upon to kill other young men whom they don’t know.  They are ordered to do so by old men sitting in their war room who know, but do not fight, the old men on the opposing side. It brings to mind the photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein’s hand when he was our ally.  Erasmus put it succinctly:  “Nowadays princes declare war in perfect safety, and the generals get fat on it; but the heaviest burden falls on the peasants and poor artisans who stand to gain nothing from it and had nothing whatever to do with declaring it.”  The leaders are not the bleeders.

Today more and more of our youth, born weaponless and now in their early 20’s, trained to be soldiers and not policemen, are being served up as cannon fodder.  They perish every day. I submit that the moral guilt of those who sanctioned this senseless war is mounting. The powers behind this tragedy make sure we never see any body bags; nor the returning coffins; nor the funerals that the president never attends.    So our dead heroes are buried in obscurity and the general public is shielded from a wake-up call.

I do not know how many of these dead heroes were poor Southern white kids, Blacks and Hispanics.  But I suspect quite a number. I wonder how popular this wasteful war would be with Westchester residents if Charlie Rangel’s proposal to reinstate the draft became law. Perhaps the hawkish mood of some armchair warriors would quickly evaporate.

Sources:

Desiderius Erasmus, The Complaint of Peace, in “The Praise of Folly and Other Writings.”  W.W. Norton & Company.  New York, 1989.

For the story of Sgt. Pogany see The New York Times.   November 6, 2003

***************************

Version française:

L’étendue de votre reportage en honneur des anciens combattants de guerre furent louable.  Louable aussi furent  les histoires qui nous montrent à quel point ceux qui retournent des zones de guerre se trouvent dans un état pire qu’auparavant à cause de leurs expériences de guerre.  Les blessures physiques de guerre à part, nous apprenons des histoires de suicides, de violence domestique, et d’abandonnement aux drogues.  Beaucoup d’anciens combattants languissent pendant les années – oubliés dans les hôpitaux militaires – cicatrisés d’âme et de corps. Dans l’éclat d’uniformes brillantes, de drapeaux ondulants, et de la musique martiale on peut facilement oublier la brutalité et dé-humanisation qui accompagnent la guerre.

Un Green Beret fut accusé récemment de “conduite lâche à cause de peur » - accusation plus tard amoindrit à « la négligence de devoirs » à cause d’une peur de panique en  voyant un Irakien coupé en deux par une mitrailleuse. Pendant que quelques soldats riaient de voir le cadavre de l’Irakien traîné devant lui, ce soldat se mit à vomir et tremblait sans contrôle. Son supplice a duré pendant des heures et furent accompagnées de maux de tête et de poitrine.  Il balbutiait : « A partir de sa ceinture tout avait disparu. »

Je voudrais suggérer que son seule crime fut d’être trop humain. Erasme (1517) a bien dit :  « La guerre est comme un vaste océan où tous les maux sont combinés :  sous son influence les bourgeons se dessèchent, les plantes se ratatinent, ceux qui sont fragiles s’affaissent, les costauds périssent,  et les choses douces deviennent amères. La guerre efface toutes traces de piété et de religion.  Tu ne peux pas adresser une prière honorable au Père des hommes après avoir enfoncé une épée dans les entrailles de ton frère. »

Pendant la guerre les jeunes sont exhortés de tuer d’autres jeunes gens qu’ils ne connaissent pas.  Ils reçoivent leurs ordres de vieillards qui sont bien assis en sécurité dans des centres de commandement et qui connaissent  les vieillards de l’autre côté mais ne leur font pas la guerre.  On peut rappeler l’image de Donald Rumsfeld en train de serrer la main de Saddam Hussein quand il fut notre allié. Erasme dit succinctement : « Aujourd’hui les princes déclarent la guerre en toute sécurité et les généraux jouent à la guerre;  mais le fardeau  le plus lourd tombe sur les épaules des paysans ou des ouvriers pauvres qui n’en tirent aucun profit et qui n’avaient rien à faire avec la déclaration de cette guerre. »  Les chefs de guerre ne sont pas ceux qui saignent.

Aujourd’hui  plus en plus de nos  jeunes – nés nues et désarmés et qui maintenant viennent  d’avoir vingt ans à peine, s’entraînes comme soldats non gendarmes –sont exploités comme poudre à canon.  Ils périssent tous les jours. A mon avis la culpabilité morale de ceux qui ont sanctionné cette folle  guerre s’accumule.  Les puissants qui sont responsables de cette tragédie se rassurent que nous ne verrons jamais les sacs à cadavre, ni les cercueils qui retournent  chez nous, ni  les enterrements auxquels le Président n’assiste jamais.  Donc nos héros morts sont enterrés dans l’obscurité et la masse du public est empêchée  de voir la cruelle réalité de ce qui se passe.

Je ne sais pas combien de ces héros morts furent de pauvres blancs du sud de notre pays, combien de Noirs et de jeunes gens d’origine hispanique.  Mais je soupçonne qu’ils sont un grand nombre. Je me demande si cette guerre gaspilleuse  serait aussi populaire avec nos citoyens si la proposition du Congressman Rangel pour restaurer le service militaire obligatoire devenait la loi.  Peut-être l’attitude belliqueuse de nos guerriers de salon  disparaîtra  bien vite.


(traduction française grâce à l’aide de Robert Boisvert
 et Medhat Credi)

Sources:

Desiderius Erasmus, The Complaint of Peace, in “The Praise of Folly and Other Writings.”  W.W. Norton & Company.  New York, 1989.
For the story of Sgt. Pogany see The New York Times.   November 6, 2003

****************************

46.Religious Leaders Oppose Iraq War  (The Journal News, January 9, 2004)

It is dismaying how some Christians have tapped into the president’s pipeline to the Almighty, at the same time turning a deaf ear to the voices of their own religious leaders while embracing his vision of manifest destiny.

Only this month Pope John Paul II reiterated that the unilateral use of force can never be justified. He recalled Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to which America is a signatory, prohibiting the use of force except “in the context of the United Nations.”  He also quoted the adage: “ Pacta sunt servanda: accords freely signed must be honored.”  (How many other treaties have we abandoned?) “Universal principles are prior to and superior to the internal law of states.”

 Cardinal Renato Martino of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace said it is clear that “the pope believes the US-led invasion of Iraq was not a just war.”

On terrorism the pope stated:  “The fight against terrorism cannot be limited solely to repressive and punitive operations.”  There must also be a “lucid analysis of the reasons behind terrorist attacks … eliminating the underlying causes of situations of injustice which frequently drive people to more desperate and violent acts.” Few people in high places worry about this. “The absence of a specific international tool for dealing with terrorism does not justify one nation acting on its own and in violation of basic human rights. The end never justifies the means.”

Equating military power with human power is an error that leads a nation to self-destruction.

Sources:

1. John Paul II. "Message for the World Day of Peace 2004".
Vatican City
http://www.vatican.va

2. Catholic New York,  January 2004, page 17

*******************************

47. Israel's Weapons of Mass Destruction  (The Journal News,  February 12, 2004)
 
Recently the administration quietly pulled a 400-member team of weapons inspectors out of Iraq, implying perhaps that Saddam’s phantom weapons of mass destruction were either never there or have simply evaporated.  The once committed chief weapons inspector, David Kay, is now "embarrassed" by his earlier predictions.  He wonders, "Why could we all be so wrong?"   (The Journal News, Jan. 26)
 
Besides the absence of WMDs in Iraq there is also good news out of Libya.  Moammar Gadhafi has invited international weapons inspectors to visit his sites and offered to dismantle his WMDs. Similar news out of Iran is equally heartening.  The world yearns for a Middle East that is a nuclear-free zone – free also of chemical and biological weapons.
 
In this region only Israel remains dominant today with over 300 nuclear warheads and other WMDs. It has advanced nuclear facilities at Dimona, Rafael and Yodefat as well as chemical and biological war facilities at Nes Zionyaa and elsewhere.
 
Historically Israel, unlike the other nuclear powers, has never admitted to having such weapons nor signed any related treaties. It still remains in violation of U.N. Security Council resolution 487 (1981) that calls on Israel to turn its nuclear facilities over to the trusteeship of the IAEA.

The world will be watching and waiting to see if Israel will also invite international inspectors to visit its many WMD sites and would welcome such a good will gesture. Is this too much to ask in order to promote peace in such a troubled area?
  
Sources:
 
National Catholic Reporter, January 23, 2004
MSNBC website
U.N. Security Council Resolution 487 (1981)
    Paragraph 5:  “Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
The Journal News, January 26, 2004

*************************

48.  Letters to the Editor - America Magazine
 
In his efforts to assuage the sensitivities of  Mel Gibson's film critics Eugene Fischer (1/16) goes a bit overboard in his efforts to demonize and lay blame on Pilate.  "Ruthless" as he may have been in most instances,  Pilate was stopped dead in his tracks and deeply troubled in conscience during his confrontation with Christ. Mr. Fisher would do well to revisit the words of Peter in Acts III to those gathered in the Portico of Solomon:  "Men of Israel, ...   It is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, who has glorified his servant Jesus whom you handed over and then disowned in the presence of Pilate after he had given his verdict to release him." (Acts III, 12-14)   A bit closer to the scene than Mr. Fischer,  Peter appears to let Pilate off the hook far more than others.
 
 
******************************************

49. A Victory for Democracy   (The Journal News, March 2004)

Joseph Kohler’s attack on Spanish voters (The Journal News, 3/17) is ludicrous. The ouster of the Aznar government  was a triumph of democracy.  “One of Mr. Bush’s closest allies” (The Journal News, 3/16),  Aznar had ignored the will of 90% of the Spanish population (just as Berlusconi ignored the Italian people).  Instead Aznar joined the misguided and unilateralist Bush enterprise of preemptive war in Iraq: a failed and costly policy that for months had ignored Ben Laden’s Al Qaeda while plunging America into a bloody quagmire. This policy has not addressed the root causes of terrorism, has alienated valuable allies, and made the world less safe. Meanwhile those who hate us multiply faster than we can kill them. The Spanish people have paid a terrible price. One can only pray that the same fate does not befall other populations.

Instead of heeding the advice of wiser heads in “Old Europe” the Bush administration ridiculed and denigrated them. It defied the will of the international community and violated the United Nations Charter. Echoing earlier inane remarks of Donald Rumsfeld,  right-wing ideologues like Charles Krauthammer continue to attack old friends who do not agree with Bush’s imperial agenda.

We would do well to heed the admonitions of people like Senator Joseph Biden and stop acting as if we were the sole divinely inspired arbiter of international affairs and rejoin the community of nations at the UN in cooperation rather than defiance.

Mr. Aznar is gone. Can Berlusconi, Blair and Bush be far behind?

********************************

50. The Path to World War III ( The Journal News, April 20, 2004)


The president seems hell-bent on dragging America into World War III with the entire Islamic world. His mal-administration has already embroiled us in an asymmetric war in Iraq, a type of conflict at which our military has not excelled.  Local Iraqis have found vulnerabilities in our occupying forces and are learning to exploit them.

To make matters worse the president has allowed himself to be manipulated by the bully Ariel Sharon into an action that will only create more hatred of America in the Islamic world.  Bush has been flattened by “The Bulldozer,” as Sharon is known. The Right of Return has long been invoked by Jews around the world. Yet now, according to the Sharon-Bush doctrine, that same right is denied to the Palestinians.  This is not only a violation of UN General Resolution 194 but also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The so-called “disengagement” from Gaza consists only in the removal of settlers. Control of borders, natural resources and air space remain under Israeli control.

The Palestinians are abandoned to their ghetto; passions are inflamed; another target is handed to Hamas.   Terrorism is but a symptom of an underlyi