Israel wants peace, but not a just peace, according to Medhat Credi [39]. It would seem that justice is in the eye of the beholder.

You might say that Israel, having beaten back five or six wars launched by Arabs bent upon her extermination, would now be
well-served by a just peace. Such a just peace might include the return of the Sinai to Israel, the cession of Syria up to a point 30 miles from Damascus to Israel, and the yielding of all of Trans-Jordan to Israel. After all, throughout history, victors in wars have been rewarded with territory, and nations that have won defensive wars have never been asked to yield their gains.

However, Israel, under pressures that have never been exerted upon any other country, is willing to accept far less. Medhat Credi and the Palestinians he champions should get real. Do they want to deal with the possible and put an end to the Middle East Hundred Years War or do they want to go on carping and sniping --and killing?

Arnold S. Greenspan, Briarcliff Manor
June 21, 1991

What Arnold Greenspan has said in his letter of June 21, supposedly about the Palestinians, is pretty much what Israel's
supporters keep repeating like a broken record when they run out of arguments.

First, they ignore the Palestinians and shift their attention to the Arab states, like Shamir who is eager to talk to the Saudis but can't find a Palestinian to talk to in the occupied territories; second, they promote the law of the jungle that prevailed when there was no international law, no International Court of Justice or no United Nations. "After all," said Mr. Greenspan, "throughout history, victors have been rewarded with territory"; third, they falsify history. Mr. Greenspan wants us to believe that Israel won "defensive wars" as if it was the Palestinians who came from Eastern Europe and attacked the Ben-Gurions, the Begins, the Shamirs, etc., and not the other way around.

July 8, 1991

It is disheartening to read the insensitive letters hurled at Medhat Credi recently 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 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?

Richard E. Cross, Tarrytown
July 30, 1991

S E C O N D   C L U S T E R

Medhat Credi's June 18 letter [77] proves he has the stuff non-sequiturs are made of. He distorts a simple comparison that
"Jerusalem is to Jews what Rome is to Catholics" into a slight on non-Catholic Christians. Pretty lame syllogism.

He then moves to reason that Betty Berenson wants to monopolize Jerusalem the way Israel wants to monopolize the Holocaust for the Jews.

Six million Jews were killed simply because they were Jews. It may not constitute a monopoly, but it's too large a number for a bigot to triviliaze.

Lastly, regarding Jerusalem, Israel has shown by deed --not only word--- that it respects the holy places of all religions and the
rights to worship at those holy places by followers of all religion.

From 1948-1967, when Jordan controlled Jerusalem, Jews could not worship at all in Jerusalem. Nineteen years --I'd love to hear Credi's reasoning.

From 1967 to date, Jerusalem --under Israel--- is open to all: Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Anglicans, Baha'i --even Medhat Credi.

Mr. Credi thinks the way to clean up his act is to sling mud at others, but his kind of mud has no sticking power. Pick another topic, Mr. Credi, you've flunked Anti-Israel 101.

Ed Krauss, Ardsley
June 25, 1991

After flunking Hebrew 101 for not being able to read Yigal Laviv's article in Hadashot about the 20 Jewish billionaires who "flatly refused" to guarantee Israeli loans because they considered Israel "a risk case in respect to its repayment ability" (my letters of April 4 [74] and May 29 [76]), Ed Krauss redeemed himself by getting a perfect score in AIPAC 401 for being slanderous and personal instead of dealing objectively with facts, something that Israel's apologists cannot do after perfecting the art of twisting facts to shield their sacred cow, Israel. Ed Krauss in his June 25 letter accuses Medhat Credi of being a bigot. Well, he is in good company since the President of the United States was accused of anti-Semitism for committing the same sin: criticizing Israel and its powerful lobby, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

One more thing. All Christians are not Catholics and all Catholics are not Roman Catholics, which means that Rome represents
different things to different Catholics, but Jerusalem represents the same thing to all Catholics, let alone all Christians. If Ed Krauss does not understand this, and still maintains that it is "lame," he should register in Church History 101. Hope he won't flunk that, either.

July 3, 1992

Letters to the editor such as that of Ed Krauss (June 25) add little to rational discourse on the complicating 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. Krauss should understand that one need not be a "bigot" or "anti-Israel" 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 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, 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 highway, etc. Obviously, all is not balm in Gilead, Mr. Krauss.

Rather than heap insults and scorn on Mr. Credi, readers should welcome the intelligent, moderate and rational contributions of a Medhat Credi to a complex issue. In fairness, he deserves to be heard when he speaks out for those who in this country all too often have no voice.

Richard E. Cross, Tarrytown
July 3, 1992

Ed Krauss' depiction of Mr. Credi as a bigot whose "reasoning he would like to hear" is an unfair epithet, as Mr. Credi's
eloquent letters to this publication (all supported with factual data) reveal a man with a "voice of reason" and one who welcomes reasonable dialogue.

When Mr. Credi pleaded in one of his previous letters that Israel should recognize and address the injustice suffered by the
Palestinians, it was not bigotry and hatred which prompted it, but empathy and compassion for his ethnicity on the same scales of justice Jews feel for each other, and which no man should be denied.

I do not believe Mr. Credi intended to de-emphasize the maniacal atrocities Jews suffered in the Holocaust, nor could he even if he wished to. I feel he wished to honor the memory of all the innocent victims, including Americans whose deaths on the battlefield are tragic and sad and which their survivors will forever mourn --and whose sacrifices to end the war and Holocaust should never be allowed to die in mans memory of that horrible time in history.

Nothing will ever mitigate man's inhumanity to man and Israel, which wishes to absorb European Jewish refugees with American aid, should humanely recognize the Palestinian refugees in their midst, because the Jews are a compassionate and noble people. Is it possible the bigotry and the hatred Mr. Credi is accused of be re-examined and peace talks which we hope will bear fruit in the Mideast will emerge here and the Palestinian be granted the dignity denied to them when they became uprooted people?

One would expect loving God and your neighbor as yourself would be prevalent in the Holy Land, and I cannot understand how the acts of terrorism cruelty hostage-taking and murder committed by men who claim devotion to the Almighty still take place in this supposedly civilized world.

Constance Homolya
North Tarrytown, July 3, 1992
 

As I sat at my Passover seder, I could not get Medhat Credi's astringent letter [176] out of my head. His continued an ongoing
propaganda- distorting fact and promoting fiction- somehow was more distasteful this time than at any time in the past.

His theme of "euphemisms" and his "frank" calling a "spade a spade", conjured up the Goebbels approach to verbal warfare of the Nazi era. This faux lexicographer with a convoluted presentation of revisionist history equates Israel's self-defense against the armies of virtually the entire Arab world with ethnic cleansing. He puts the word democracy in quotes when applying it to Israel. How revealing of his blind hatred that he can't even acknowledge the undeniable: Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

I do agree "a lexicon is needed to translate the euphemisms." How "oxymoronic": Peace process applied to the PLO, a terrorist
organization committed to exterminate the Jews. How euphemistic: Palestine "Liberation" Organization, when applied to
warmongers demanding return of territory lost due to losing their war of aggression.

How sad, that even now, more than 50 years later, when the two sides are negotiating a settlement, his unadulterated hatred
continues unabated. Could it be a mirror of the real feelings of Arafatites? And if so, what chance does peace really have?

Ed Krauss
Scarsdale, April 26, 2000

On a scale from zero to 10, Ed Krauss' letter (April 26) would get a 9 on name-calling and zero on substance. While he has
accused Medhat Credi (April 19 letter)[176], of "blind hatred," "unadulterated hatred," of being a "warmonger," of using "verbal warfare," and even going so far as to bring up the "Nazi era" into the picture, he didn't go far enough and use the "anti-Semite"
label to merit a perfect score on name-calling.

The zero on substance is well deserved. Not only did he not challenge any of the facts in Mr. Credi's letter he didn't even deny
them. His reference to "Israel's self-defense against the armies of virtually the entire Arab world" does not explain why Israel had to expel the Palestinians from their homeland, which can only be interpreted as ethnic cleansing. Also unchallenged was Israel's use of torture, hostage taking and committing aggression.

At the end of his letter, Mr. Krauss wonders "what chance does peace really have?" None, if it is not based on justice. As long as Israel does not come to grips with the fact that there is another people with an equal right to live in its homeland enjoying full
sovereignty, whatever peace is achieved with the "Arafatites" will be a fake peace. Israel being the stronger party will bear the
responsibility for and the consequences of such a failure.

May 3, 2000

In his letter of Aug. 24 [184], Medhat Credi made an appalling statement about the author of an earlier letter to the editor.  He
wrote: "Unfortunately, like all Israel's supporters, she reverts to a typical ruse-- twisting the truth."

There (are) many supporters of Israel, as well as many critics of Israel, who "twist the truth."  Fortunately, there are also many
supporters and critics of Israel who, despite their differences, comment with integrity. If Mr. Credi does not know this, he is too ignorant to warrant notice.  If he does know this, he is too dishonest to warrant notice.

Sadly, by his own words, Mr. Credi discredits himself as a fair commentator on these important issues. I look forward to hearing from others, who share Mr. Credi's political views, but who are better qualified to engage in constructive and responsible dialogue.

August 26, 2000
Joel Negrin, Mamaroneck

Joel Negrin's personal attack on Medhat Credi (letter of Aug. 26) contributes little to rational discourse. No light is thrown
upon such a thorny subject as the Middle East by Mr. Negrin's ad hominem invective.Instead of addressing the issue raised by
Mr. Credi he resorts to quoting him out of context in an effort to discredit him.The context, in this instance, is the letters already
printed in this paper on this subject.

Labeling one's adversary "ignorant" or "dishonest" requires little imagination. Mr. Negrin would do well to emulate Mr. Credi  by giving sources and citing factual references (as Mr. Credi always does) rather than resort to vapid name-calling. Focus on the issue at hand, state an opinion, back it up with facts and authority, that's the difference between intellectual endeavor and mindless mud slinging.

Those who do not stick to the issues and follow the approach adopted by Mr. Negrin, most likely are not convinced of the
righteousness of their cause. They are either bothered by, or afraid of the truth. Their biggest fear is that the public will finally learn the truth.

September 6, 2000