By Brian FalerThursday, August 12, 2004RALPH NADER, THAT master of controversy, has a new bete noire: theAnti-Defamation League. The independent presidential candidate has becomeembroiled in an ugly exchange with the Jewish organization, after hesuggested that President Bush and Congress were "puppets" of the Israeligovernment."The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States andmeets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill,where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced," Nadersaid earlier this summer. That prompted an angry letter from the league,which complained that the "image of the Jewish state as a 'puppeteer,'controlling the powerful US Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypeswhich have no place in legitimate public discourse."Nader is not backing down. In a letter to the group that will be releasedtoday, he reiterated his arguments, challenged the league to cite a recentexample of when American leaders have pursued a policy opposed by theIsraeli government and pointed to Israeli peace groups that he said sharehis criticism of that country's leadership. "There is far more freedom inthe media, in town squares and among citizens, soldiers, electedrepresentatives and academicians in Israel to debate and discuss theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict than there is in the United States," Naderwrote.The longtime consumer advocate's willingness to criticize Israel may win himsome votes, since both Bush and Democratic nominee John F. Kerry stronglysupport Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. But not if Abraham H. Foxman,the national director of the league has anything to say about it. "What hesaid smacks of bigotry," Foxman said.==================================================August 5, 2004Abraham H. FoxmanNational DirectorAnti-Defamation League823 United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017Dear Mr. Foxman:How nice to hear your views. Years ago, fresh out of law school, I wasreading your clear writings against bigotry and discrimination. Your charterhas always been to advance civil liberties and free speech in our country byand for all ethnic and religious groups. These days all freedom-lovingpeople have much work to do.As you know there is far more freedom in the media, in town squares andamong citizens, soldiers, elected representatives and academicians in Israelto debate and discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than there is in theUnited States. Israelis of all backgrounds have made this point.Do you agree and if so, what is your explanation for such a difference?About half of the Israeli people over the years have disagreed with thepresent Israeli government's policies toward the Palestinian people.Included in this number is the broad and deep Israeli peace movement whichmobilized about 120,000 people in a Tel Aviv square recently.Do you agree with their policies and strategy for a peaceful settlementbetween Israelis and Palestinians? Or do you agree with the House Resolution460 in Congress signed by 407 members of the House to support the PrimeMinister's proposal? See attachment re the omission of any reference to aviable Palestinian state - generally considered by both Israelis andPalestinians, including those who have worked out accords together, to be asine qua non for a settlement of this resolvable conflict - a pointsupported by over two-thirds of Americans of the Jewish faith. Would such areasonable resolution ever pass the Congress? For more information on thegrowing pro-peace movements among the American Jewish Community see: EsterKaplan, "The Jewish Divide on Israel," The Nation, June 24, 2004.Enclosed is the "Courage to Refuse - Combatant's Letter" signed by hundredsof reserve combat officials and soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces. Itis posted on their web at: www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp . One highlightof their statement needs careful consideration: "We shall not continue tofight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve andhumiliate an entire people. We hereby declare that we shall continue servingin the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel's defense.The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose - andwe shall take no part in them" (Emphasis in original). Do you agree withthese patriotic, front line soldiers' observation that Israel is dominating,expelling, starving and humiliating an entire people - the Palestinianpeople - and that in their words "the Territories are not Israel?"What is your view of Rabbi Lerner's Tikkun's call for peace, along with theproposals of Jewish Voice for Peace, the Progressive Jewish Alliance andAmericans for Peace Now? As between the present Israeli government'sposition on this conflict and the position of these groups, which do youfavor and why?Do you share the views in the open letter signed by 400 rabbis, includingleaders of some of the largest congregations in our country, sent this Marchby Rabbis for Human Rights of North America to Ariel Sharon protestingIsrael's house-demolition policy?Have you ever disagreed with the Israeli government's treatment of thePalestinian people in any way, shape or manner in the occupied territories?Do you think that these Semitic peoples have ever suffered from bigotry anddevastation by their occupiers in the occupied West Bank, Gaza or insideIsrael? If you want a reference here, check the website of the great Israelihuman rights group B'T selem.Since you are a man of many opinions, with a specialty focused on theSemitic peoples, explain the United States' support over the decades ofauthoritarian or dictatorial regimes, in the greater Middle East, over theirown people which is fomenting resistance by fundamentalists.These questions have all occurred to you years ago, no doubt. So it would behelpful to receive your views.As for the metaphors - puppeteer and puppets - the Romans had a phrase forthe obvious - res ipsa loquitur. The Israelis have a joke for the obvious -that the United States is the second state of Israel.How often, if ever, has the United States - either the Congress or the WhiteHouse-pursued a course of action, since 1956, that contradicted the Israeligovernment's position? You do read Ha'aretz, don't you? You know of thegroup Rabbis for Justice.To end the hostilities which have taken so many precious lives of innocentchildren, women and men - with far more such losses on the Palestinian side- the occupying military power with a massive preponderance of force has aresponsibility to take the initiative. In a recent presentation in Chicago,former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made the point explicitly - Israelshould take the initiative itself unilaterally and start disengaging fromthe West Bank and Gaza and not keep looking for the right PalestinianAuthority. Amram Mitzna, the Labor Party's candidate for Prime Minister inthe 2003 election, went ever further in showing how peace can be pursuedthrough unilateral withdrawal. Do you concur with these positions?Citizen groups are in awe of AIPAC's ditto machine on Capitol Hill as aremany members of Congress who, against their private judgment, resignthemselves to sign on the dotted line. AIPAC is such an effectivedemonstration of civic action - which is their right - that Muslim Americansare studying it in order to learn how to advance a more balancedCongressional deliberation in the interests of the American people.Finally, treat yourself to a recent column on February 5, 2004 in The NewYork Times, by Thomas Friedman, an author on Middle East affairs, who hasbeen critical of both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. Mr. Friedmanwrites:"Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest inhis office in Ramallah, and he's had George Bush under house arrest in theOval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bushsurrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vicepresident, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, andby political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure onIsrael in an election year-all conspiring to make sure the president doesnothing."These are the words of a double Pulitzer Prize winner.Do you agree with Mr. Friedman's characterization? Sounds like apuppeteer-puppet relationship, doesn't it? Others who are close to thisphenomenon have made similar judgments in Israel and in the United States.Keep after bigotry and once in a while help out the Arab Semites when theyare struggling against bigotry, discrimination, profiling and race-basedhostility in their beloved adopted country - the U.S.A. This would be inaccord with your organization's inclusive title.Sincerely,Ralph Nader