The accusations of anti-Semitism are getting more and more laughable with every passing day. Everyone who criticizes Israel is automatically an anti-Semite, from the simple letter-writer all the way to the president. The objective of the pro-Israeli lobby is clear: use the anti-Semitic smear to intimidate the critics of Israel and ultimately to silence them. Oftentimes, this tactic has worked, but not with those who know the stratagem.

This objective is achieved by cultivating a subtle and detestable confusion: When you criticize Israel you are criticizing the Jewish state. By criticizing the Jewish state you are criticizing the Jewish people and Judaism. Therefore, you are an anti-Semite. Rosenthal did it to Buchanan. James Davidson did it to McGrory in his October 9 letter. Rehavam Ze'evi, a minister without portfolio in the Israeli government, did it to the president of the United States. What is laughable about this accusation is that the Israelis themselves are using it against each other. Hasidic rabbis and their followers, in protesting a new road that runs alongside their neighborhoods in Jerusalem, were shouting at the police "Nazis!" and "Anti-Semites!"

It is rather distressing to see Israel and its supporters stoop that low. They cannot present their case based on its own merit. They have to resort to this disgusting smear. Remember the 1,200 lobbyists who literally invaded 226 House and 60 Senate offices on Capitol Hill to press their case against President Bush's call for a 120-day delay? "These were ordinary peoples exercising their political rights," said the New York Jewish Week. But when Bush exercised his political right as president of the United States in charge of foreign policy, he became an anti-Semite. "A delegate from a large Midwestern city," reported the paper, had this to say: "I don't want to call it anti-Semitism---but he certainly pushed some buttons that will reinforce the impression that there's an omnipotent Israeli lobby that's only interested in Israel." This delegate is absolutely right. This incident shows more clearly than ever the lobby in its true light: a pressure group that places the interest of a foreign country above that of the United States, and that plays politics at the lowest level imaginable to get what it wants.

November 20, 1991

Medhat Credi, my Arab cousin, has once again graced the pages of this paper (November 20 letter) [61] with his boundless hatred of Israel and her American supporters. Those of us who were on Capitol Hill lobbying for the humanitarian loan guarantees to absorb hundreds of thousands of refugees from Ethiopia, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere, were joined by many Christian supporters. We were exercising our democratic rights, as do any number of groups in this country. The fact that the Bush administration has chosen to use the needs of refugees as a political club against Israel's leadership does not discredit the crucial needs of housing, jobs, education and health care for people whom this President helped to free.

Since there is no democratic tradition of Arabs welcoming their brothers with social services, perhaps Medhat Credi does not understand the immediacy of this situation. Clearly, he does not wish Israel and Jews well. We Americans of all ethnic backgrounds have relatives and emotional roots in many parts of the world. Arab propaganda would have us believe that only the loyalty of Jews to this country should be questioned. This is anti-Semitism.

Actually, the building, banking and other American industries will see a boom when Israel begins to spend her co-signed loans. A plan good for both democracies!

Betty Berenson, Scarsdale

November 27, 1991

In his November 20 letter [61], "Israel lobby smearing opponents," Medhat Credi raises the issue of indiscriminate use of the charge of anti-Semitism. He links what I would define as an accurate usage of the charge (A.M. Rosenthal vs. Pat Buchanan) with an inaccurate one (Rehavam Ze'evi vs. President Bush). By doing so, he tries to discredit the legitimate by associating it with the illegitimate, i.e. guilt by association.

Credi says that (to the Israel lobby) "everyone who criticizes Israel is automatically and anti-Semite." He is wrong. If that were the case, about half the Jews in Israel and America would be anti-Semites, since they are frequently critical of the Shamir government on various issues.

What does happen however, is that anti-Semites come out in droves to support any and all anti-Israeli statements, especially statements of respected individuals. That does not mean that everyone who expresses or supports anti-Israel government positions is an anti-Semite.

A case in point are the remarks of President Bush at the press conference he called to gain support for his request for a 120-day delay in considering Israel's request for loan guarantees. During that conference, to generate public support for his position, he made a major effort to turn American opinion against Israel on this issue. This is, of course, documented fact.

One of the results of Mr. Bush's remarks was a flood of anti-Semitic hate mail to the White House in support of his position. Mr. Bush was so disturbed by the tone and substance of that mail that he wrote to the presidents of major Jewish organizations to express his shock and concern over that response. That is also fact.

Mr. Credi also charges me along with Rosenthal and Ze'evi with wrongful use of the charge of anti-Semitism. My October 9 letter did not charge Mary McGrory with anti-Semitism. I did compare the tone and substance of her column to the tone and substance of President Bush's remarks and expressed my concern that this kind of article would contribute to more anti-Semitic hate mail.

Just because one right-wing Israeli extremist called President Bush and anti-Semite does not make it so, nor does it make all charges of anti-Semitism invalid, as Mr. Credi would have us believe.

James S. Davidson, Briarcliff Manor

December 12, 1991

In her November 27 letter [62], Betty Berenson called Medhat Credi her "Arab cousin" which brings up an interesting point. Is she a Sephardic (Semitic) or Ashkenazi (East European) Jew? And are the European Jews really Semitic --like the Arabs, who are native to the Middle East? If a person is accused of anti-Semitism, doesn't this mean that the person is anti-Arab? This debate could turn into the semantics of Semitics.

On December 12, James Davidson [63], also answering Credi's letter of November 20 [61] (in which Credi complains of the charge of anti-Semitism being used so freely it has come to the point of being laughable), adds to the confusion with his asserting that he did not accuse Mary McGrory of anti-Semitism and then proceeds to report what he did say: "I did compare the tone and substance of President Bush's remarks and expressed my concern that this kind of article would contribute to more anti-Semitism hate mail," which still sounds as though he is accusing McGrory of anti-Semitism.

What is more confusion is Berenson's assurance that, with the U.S. government co-signing Israel's $10 billion loan guarantees, certain segments of the bankrupt U.S. "will see a boom when Israel begins to spend her co-signed loans." This should come as a relief to Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve, which up until now hasn't been able to jump- start the economy --a situation which has so worried middle-class taxpayers that they don't think any of this is a joke.

January 14, 1992

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 trivialize.

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 [78] 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) [78] 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 [78] 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