JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1995, Pages 39-43

Other People’s Mail

Some letters by or to other people are as informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves.

Israel's Tax-Free Bonds

To: Securities and Exchange Commission, Internal Revenue Service, 450 5th St. NW, Washington, DC 20549, Attn: Ms. Mary Shapiro, and Dept. of the Treasury, Rm. 3000, 1111 Constitution Ave., Washington, DC 20224, Attn: Ms. Marge Richardson, Nov. 11, 1994.

My congressman gave me your addresses to consider the following:

I responded to the enclosed ad in The New York Times and received the enclosed prospectus. (They describe 8 percent promissory notes representing loans "to the Government of Israel" and "guaranteed by the United States of America" which "will not be subject to federal income tax.")

Notice that these enclosures report that Israeli bonds being offered are federal tax-free. I contacted an IRS agent who looked up the specific tax laws on such bonds. He reported that his investigation revealed that these bonds were not tax-free. He recommended that I file a criminal complaint with the IRS. I filed that report to The Leo O'Brien Federal Building in Albany, NY. The IRS acknowledged the receipt of my letter but has not informed me of any action taken.

I believe that as a citizen, a veteran, and a taxpayer I deserve to be told how my complaint has been resolved. I do not see any way for government bonds issued for a foreign country to be tax-free, considering that American citizens have to pay taxes on U.S. government bonds.

I also believe that the offering violates SEC regulations by providing false advertising. I would appreciate any response you can offer. Thank you for your attention.

Dr. Robert J. Fritz, Schenectady, NY

cc: Congressman M. McNulty

cc: Editor, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Setting Mimi Straight

To the Jerusalem Times, Oct. 14, 1994 (as published).

Upon my return from Israel recently, my long-time New York friend, Mimi, asked me to stop by so she could "debrief" me (her term). The trip to Israel was sponsored by a Palestinian Arab group. Hence the need, in her eyes, to set me straight.

I wasn't about to argue with her, so I accepted all the anti-Arab rhetoric she had been hoarding. Really, a lot of opinionated columns and propaganda that generalized, stereotyped and defamed Arabs—describing how evil they were, how bloodthirsty, how untrustworthy and how all are terrorists, don't you know. I said I would look it over; she begged me to not write anything "anti-Israel."

What is "anti-Israel"? The fact that our group mailed home, beforehand, all notes and Palestinian literature because we were warned it might be confiscated at the airport? The same with rolls of film.

What about Israeli soldiers who stopped our van daily (the driver and tour guide were Arabs)? The soldiers, carrying rifles, would ask whom we liked best—the Arabs or the Israelis? Or which we liked better, the United States or Israel? Would that be "anti-Israel"?

How does one explain the outrage one feels upon seeing hundreds of thousands of Arabs living in abject poverty, with water shut off, with schools closed, with land taken? And what about the billions of U.S. dollars that Americans have generously squandered on the state of Israel—with little of it going to improve the lot of indigenous Arabs? Is that "anti-Israel"?

Most of the waiters in our East Jerusalem hotel had been jailed during the intifada. They not only see their land being "stolen," their lives meaningless, hopeless, they also see the grand "settlements" being built for new Jewish immigrants who become "citizens" upon arrival, knowing that obscene amounts of U.S. money have built such housing. How do they feel? After all, this is/was their homeland too, was it not?

This was my second trip. The first had been at the invitation of the Israeli government. Now, seeing both sides, I better understand the arrogance of many U.S. Jews. They often don't react objectively to queries about Israel's motives. Rather, they become the "victims." You are made to feel it is illegal and un-American to question a country that receives $10 million per day—$250 billion since 1949—from the United States.

It is painful to see a Palestinian, traveling with his family, having to get out of his car and show his ID to the military. To see terrified Arab kids cry in fear for their father's safety is unforgettable.

At the Tel Aviv airport, our group, six diverse Americans, was held for nearly an hour, surrounded and questioned by security "authorities" over our itinerary. When had we traveled to Jericho, Nablus, Gaza, the West Bank? Why? Who were our Arab hosts? Names, please. Mind you, the PLO and Israel supposedly made "peace" a year ago.

Why the Nazi-style, paranoid interrogation? Were we spies? What is free or democratic about such a policy?

Why does America frequently back totalitarian governments, always, seemingly, on the wrong side of morality? Where is the justification in supporting a regime that is exploiting and subjugating a minority in the name of religion? I never heard that debated.

"Anti-Israel"? What about being "anti-Arab" or "anti-Palestinian"? Where is the thirst for fairness, for justice, on the part of Israel? The truth is, it wants and is working for the complete elimination of all Arabs. That is why the occupiers have opted for apartheid.

So, dear Mimi, you had to "debrief" me. Only because I, and millions of other Americans have been lied to, have been "brainwashed" for years by an uncritical, gutless and self-serving media concerning the truth about the Middle East. A media that informs? No, a media that covers up and is the undisputed mouthpiece for the incredibly all-powerful Jewish lobby in America.

James Henderson, Milwaukee, WI

The State of Nuclear States

To the Albuquerque Tribune, Oct. 24, 1994 (as submitted).

The president's recent caving in to North Korea reflects the bitter truth that the U.S. long ago shot itself in the foot on nuclear proliferation matters.

As disarmament expert Dr. Werner Jahnke stated, "While promoting the...Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in every world forum, the U.S. undermined it by tacitly condoning, even aiding, Israel's aggressive acquisition of illegal armaments." The world easily sees that the emperor has no clothes so it balks at supporting U.S. efforts at collective action to rein in other would-be nuclear states.

To make matters worse in the case of North Korea, Clinton's extreme dependence on the political and financial support of pro-Israel interests subjects U.S. diplomacy to severe domestic pressures and Korean blackmail, i.e., risking exposure of Israel's role, through China, in North Korean weapons development.

So, chalk up another defeat of America's interests for the benefit of the careers of U.S. political leaders in the embrace of the powerful pro-Israel lobby.

George Luecker, Albuquerque, NM

Equal Opportunity Bigotry

To The Milwaukee Journal, Oct. 30, 1994 (as submitted).

In light of the controversy over the display of a banner declaring "Victory to Hamas" in the University of Wisconsin, Madison student union by opponents of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the Palestinian community and the appearance of Leonard Jeffries at UWM on Nov. 3, a word needs to be said about bigotry and hatred.

There is no doubt that the kind of Islamic state Hamas supports is an Islamic form of fascism. The bigotry and intolerance of that kind of regime has been on international display in Iran for some time. Moreover, there is no doubt among historians that Jeffries is an academic kook whose Afro-chauvinism has allowed him to spread a message of hatred respecting Jews.

Nevertheless, the Jewish community itself and the United States Congress has chosen to honor a Jewish bigot par excellence. That bigot was the late Lubavitcher rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Oct. 21 edition of The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle reported that the rebbe was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal unanimously by Congress, an honor accorded "fewer than 100 Americans."

According to Israel Shahak, emeritus professor of chemistry at Hebrew University, Bergen-Belsen survivor, Israeli civil rights activist and opponent of Zionism, the late Rabbi Schneerson was a bigot.

The rebbe, in the words of Shahak, was the "hereditary Fuehrer of Habbad," the branch of Hassidic Judaism for which, according to Hatanya, "the fundamental book of the Habbad movement...all non-Jews are totally satanic creatures 'in whom there is absolutely nothing good'" (Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Israel Shahak, p. 27).

Continuing his review of Habbad's beliefs, Shahak writes that again, according to Hatanya, "Even a non-Jewish embryo is qualitatively different from a Jewish one. The very existence of a non-Jew is 'inessential,' whereas all of creation was created solely for the sake of the Jews" (ibid., my emphasis).

While the UWM Jewish community rightly complained of the insensitivity to human suffering of the 23 Israeli civilians killed in the Tel Aviv bus attack on the part of UWM's Hamas supporters, it should be noted that the Lubavitcher rebbe encouraged Israeli doctors and nurses not to give medical aid to Gentiles during Israel's Lebanon adventures for the insane theological reasons just cited. Was the UWM Jewish community sensitive to the suffering caused Palestinians and Lebanese to the extent this inhuman admonition was followed by medical personnel in the Israeli Wehrmacht?

If the UWM Jewish community is sincerely concerned about bigotry and intolerance, it will urge Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold to introduce legislation in Congress to rescind the honor accorded to the rebbe. It will urge its local congressmen to do likewise unless, of course, they believe that the right to be bigots is an exclusive divine dispensation accorded only to Jews.

Robert E. Nordlander, Menasha, WI

My Representative Writes

To Rep. Scott Klug (D-WI), Washington, DC, Oct. 1, 1994

Your argument in your letter to me of Sept. 21 that you objected to the $20 million going to the International Fund for Ireland from the federal treasury will not wash in light of your support for America's $4 billion welfare check for Israel. You have a precise accounting of every penny that goes into the International Fund for Ireland, but you have no idea of how Israel spends the money it receives from the American taxpayer because Israel is under no legal obligation to account for it, and does not.

Why are you not demanding an accounting as to how Israel is spending the hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayer?

You say that Israel is a democracy. The last time I checked Ireland, too, was a democracy. As for Israeli "democracy" and the fact that its neighbors are hostile, I would like to quote the words of the late Jewish political writer I.F. Stone on the racist character of Israeli democracy:

"Israel is creating a kind of moral schizophrenia in world Jewry. In the outside world, the welfare of Jewry depends on the maintenance of secular, nonracial, pluralistic societies.

"In Israel, Jewry finds itself defending a society in which mixed marriages cannot be legalized, in which non-Jews have a lesser status than Jews, and in which the ideal is racial and exclusionist.

"Jews must fight everywhere for their very security and existence against principles and practices they find themselves defending in Israel" (The Zionist Connection II, A. M. Lilienthal, p. 136).

Israel is a democracy only in the sense that the former Republic of South Africa was a democracy when its governing principle was white supremacy. The only difference between the old South Africa and Israel is that the governing principle in Israel is Jewish supremacy.

If you are really serious about your intent to be a fiscally responsible bursar of the tax dollars of the American people, you ought to oppose at least as forthrightly the $4 billion going to Israel every year as well as the $20 million going to the International Fund for Ireland. Otherwise you stand exposed as a hypocrite.

William Gartland, Rio, WI

P.S. I am sending copies of this letter to Representatives Petri, Roth and Sensenbrenner. They are not hypocrites. They are true fiscal conservatives. They are principled opponents of all foreign aid.

Is Concern Moral or Monetary?

To the Tico Times, San Jose, Costa Rica, Aug. 12, 1994 (as published).

You report that U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski and Representatives Tom Lantos and Robert Torricelli are involving themselves, and presumably their government status, in demanding the expulsion of Mr. Koziy (a Ukrainian expelled from the U.S. for not revealing World War II activities, who is married to a Costa Rican) from Costa Rica (Tico Times, June 24). They may not have declared to the government of Costa Rica that they all have accepted money from pro-Israel political action committees to help win elections:

Mikulski: career total $148,840 to June 1994; Torricelli: career total $63,050 (note that this is from a 1990 tabulation; it does not include 1992). Lantos: career total $48,200 to June 1994.

A sad fact of the electoral process in the U.S. is that the two dominant parties are nearly professional organizations that raise money for the very expensive advertising that virtually determines who wins.

The Republican Party gets much of its money from business interests; the Democratic Party is funded by mostly labor union interests. The pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) direct money to the politicians who are on committees that influence how much money Israel gets or the distribution of other benefits in the Middle East. The pro-Israel PACs have unseated a number of senators and congresspeople who have not displayed suitable bias toward Israel.

I leave it to these folks to explain the proportion of their "concern" that is moral and the proportion that is monetary. I suggest that you print a review of the John Demjanjuk case. There is a division of the U.S. Justice Department endowed for the purpose of finding Nazi war criminals in the U.S. to expel them. The Court of Appeals in Cincinnati recently determined that the Justice Department wrongfully withheld evidence that supported the innocence of Mr. Demjanjuk.

This branch of the Justice Department, if not terminated, will be looking for Nazi war criminals in the year 2094.

Ronald C. Johnson, Pittsford, NY

Distrust Versus Peace

To The New York Times , Nov. 18, 1994 (as submitted).

Clyde Haberman reports that Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has stated "that he would now tie the [Palestinian] elections to PLO revocation of the Israel-negating clauses in its charter. Mr. Arafat promised to annul those clauses when he and Mr. Rabin exchanged letters recognizing each other on Sept. 9, 1993, four days before the White House ceremony, but the chairman has yet to follow through on his pledge."

Mr. Haberman may not have read the Sept. 9, 1993 letter, but Mr. Rabin must know what it actually says. The relevant portion states that "the PLO affirms that those Articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant."

While there are clear deadlines in the Declaration of Principles, which called for holding elections not later than this past July, there is no deadline for Mr. Arafat to submit Covenant changes to the Palestinian National Council and no commitment that the PNC will approve any changes. Amendments to the Covenant require a two-thirds majority, and, with Israel dragging its own feet in implementing the Declaration of Principles, more than one-third of the PNC's members are publicly on the record as opposing any changes. Does Mr. Rabin really believe that the best way to restore the faltering momentum toward peace is to insist on a PNC meeting which would reject changes in the Covenant which have already been declared "inoperative and no longer valid"?

The agreed aim of the Declaration of Principles is "a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338." Once such a settlement, which would necessarily entail Israel's withdrawal from the Palestinian lands occupied in 1967 and a mutually acceptable formula for sharing Jerusalem, has been achieved, there is no longer any logical reason for the PLO to exist, and the PLO might neutralize Israel's fixation on its Covenant by committing to dissolve itself once such a settlement has been reached. If no such settlement is reached, no words in a document could prevent an explosion of frustration and violence.

The Declaration of Principles states that negotiations on permanent status issues (Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and borders) "will begin as soon as possible." If, as Mr. Haberman rightly reports, "Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization are struggling to keep their peace talks alive against a backdrop of growing mistrust and acrimony," doesn't it make sense to start talking about peace "as soon as possible"?

John V. Whitbeck, Paris, France

Enc.: Letter of Sept. 9, 1993 from Chairman Yasser Arafat to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin [see below]

Arafat's 1993 Letter to Rabin on PLO Commitments to Peace

Mr. Prime Minister Rabin:

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Yasser Arafat, Chairman, The Palestine Liberation Organization

A Partisan Political Objective

To the Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 30, 1994 (as submitted).

Illinois House Bill 99, which requires companies to "recognize" Israel or be denied consideration by the state as candidates for purchasing contracts, is awaiting Governor Edgar's signature.

Noting the bill's narrow, partisan political objective, Governor Edgar should send it back to the General Assembly for major overhaul.

Illinoisans have a right to seek broad legislation that reflects the ethnic diversity of our state and truly advances the cause of U.S. business interests and peace in the Middle East.

House Bill 99 should be broadened to require companies to "recognize" all states in the Middle East—Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, Libya, the Sudan, Morocco and Algeria—to be considered as candidates for purchasing contracts by the State of Illinois.

Paul Thomas, Chicago, IL

Mideast Peace

To the Arab News, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 30, 1994 (as published).

While no one will claim that the kind of peace now being negotiated in the Middle East is what the Palestinians had hoped for, it must be recognized that it is the only one offered. It is the worst that one could have imagined. But it is also the best, because there is none other.

In view of this reality, it looks self-defeating on the part of some to raise rejectionist slogans against those who are battling to get the best possible deal in a very bad situation. If anyone has any practical suggestion that will get better terms, let them spell them out. Rhetoric has no value when you are sitting across from the enemy.

C. Abdul Karim, Madinah, Saudi Arabia

Israel Sacrificed Wachsman

To the Jerusalem Times, Jerusalem, Palestine, Oct. 28, 1994 (as published).

For three days, all of us were absorbed by the fate of Nahshon Wachsman. Initially, expectations for his chances of coming out alive were low. The Israeli public knew from past experience that the best to be hoped for was to get his body back.

But in the following days, things gradually started to look different. From the conversations overheard everywhere, it was clear that the people started to realize that something has, after all, changed. Israel is no more the totally isolated island surrounded by unified Arab enemies; we have built contacts; we have friends and allies who are willing and able to mediate at a time like this. Wachsman's mother appealed to the captors of her son, saying, "We share the same God," and these words were the reflection of a hope shared by more and more people. It was clear that Arafat did what he could; the letter of the Palestinian prisoners, the appeal of Muslim leaders in Israel, and the mediation of King Hussein were additional positive signs.

Friday morning, on the radio, the government ministers—including (even) Shimon Shetreet—all spoke in a spirit of hope. In the evening, Yossi Sarid mentioned on television the praiseworthy effort of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (Hamas' spiritual leader) undertaken from his prison cell, to save the life of the kidnapped Israeli soldier. Nearly all of us were misled into believing that on this historical day of the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize, our government felt strong enough to bend a little—that this time the worst would be avoided, and that Nahshon Wachsman would live.

It seems also that the Hamas members were misled; they announced the postponement of the ultimatum, which would have provided time for negotiations. How clever the government was! In the confusion (of interventions), and through go-betweens, they found the hideaway. The words of praise for Sheikh Yassin spoken on Israeli television by Yossi Sarid ("The Israeli government will not show itself ungrateful") turned out to be a trick, the smokescreen for an assault. Those responsible for our security decided, in their infinite wisdom, that in order to teach Hamas to never again trust gestures from the Israeli government, a few young soldiers' lives were not too high a price.

Beate Zilversmidt, Tel Aviv, Israel

"True Lies" Condemned as a Hatemongering Film

To the Orlando Sentinel, July 24, 1994 (as published).

The Arab-American Community Center in Central Florida strongly condemns the misleading, biased and hatemongering film now playing titled "True Lies."

The plot of this stupid film is so far-fetched and unreal. It talks about Arab terrorists (and not freedom fighters) who threaten to explode several nuclear bombs in major U.S. cities!

If any of the Arab countries really had any atomic bombs they would have stood up with dignity and strength against "atomic Israel" and not merely accepted the bits and pieces of whatever Israel throws to them in the peace talks and conferences.

Enough misinformation from the movie industry. Please allow us Arab Americans to live in peace and tranquility. A film like this makes some hearts (like mine) throb so hard that a person could really die of humiliation, injustice and blatant discrimination and racism.

Please, always remember—we're Americans too! And we have sensitive human feelings and sufferings, too.

Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL

The Arms Embargo on Bosnia Is Historical Amnesia and Repetition of a Failed Policy

To The New York Times , Sept. 17, 1994 (as published).

The Clinton administration's main rationale for not lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia is that doing so unilaterally would undermine adherence to sanctions against aggressors and dictators elsewhere. But Bosnia is the only case where punitive sanctions are being applied against the victim.

The embargo is not without precedent. In October 1935, the United States imposed an arms embargo against both Italy and Ethiopia (the well-armed aggressor and the under-armed victim). This presidential action, supported by Congress, was supposed to impede the spread of war. Instead, it encouraged aggression, first in Spain and then Germany. The arms embargo on Ethiopia, and related failed policies, led to the loss of half a million American lives within the decade.

The embargo on Bosnia is historical amnesia, a repetition of a failed policy.

Joshua S. Goldstein, Assoc. Prof., International Politics and Foreign Policy, American University, Washington, DC

The "Crumbling" Bully

To the Arab News , Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 30, 1994 (as published).

The way the "Serb army crumbled"—to borrow the words of Lt. Col. Tim Spencer of the peacekeeping forces—before a Bosnian assault near Bihac shows how different would have been the fortunes of war if the Muslim forces had weapons and equipment. The embargo had denied them that.

And had the embargo been enforced effectively, blocking the flow of weapons and supplies to the Serbs from Yugoslavia and the Adriatic, then too the fight would have gone differently

I don't believe that the major powers who slapped the embargo on both the warring parties were aiming to give the Serbs any advantage. But their evenhanded policy has resulted in the most uneven results.

Whatever the reasons, the Bosnian victory proves that the Serb is not so much a great fighter as a classical bully—all courage when confronting the weak and defenseless, but not so great when the other party is fighting back.

Javed Aslam, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

U.S. Policy Regresses

To The New York Times , Oct. 8, 1994 (as published).

We are disheartened by President Clinton's apparent retreat from what had been everywhere understood as a firm, clear-cut determination to proceed to the United Nations by Oct. 15 to demand multilateral approval of the lifting of the arms embargo against Bosnia.

Since the administration had been prodded by recent House and Senate votes in support of an end to the embargo, we had thought that at long last it had stiffened its resolve at least to the extent of proceeding forcefully to the United Nations.

Now, as evidenced by the president's failure to make any reference to the embargo in his address to the General Assembly and by our United Nations representative's remark that nothing is "set in stone," it appears that our Bosnia policy is regressing to a state of heartbreaking equivocation and delay.

We were encouraged to think that our country had finally adopted a principled stand against denying the victims of barbarism and mass murder the means to defend themselves, only to detect once again the tell-tale signs of weakness and indecision.

We hope we are wrong. We hope President Clinton and his administration will persevere in demanding that the United Nations accord Bosnian Muslims the minimal human right of self-defense against brutality and violence.

The congressional votes make it clear where the country stands. We cannot see any justification for what appears to be a feverish scrambling around for ways to undercut, delay and frustrate a decision that had been so widely welcomed by the people of this country.

Phil Baum, Executive Director, American Jewish Congress, New York, NY

Senatorial Concern for Bosnia

To the President, Washington, D.C., Oct. 8, 1994

We are writing to express our serious concern over recent reports that your administration may have decided to delay introducing and supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution to terminate the illegal and unjust embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not only would such a decision put in question the commitment you personally made to the Congress in August, it would also place the United States squarely on the side of those countries that have appeased the Serb aggressors. Therefore, we urge you to act on your commitment and lead the international community to support Bosnia and Herzegovina's fundamental and sovereign right to self-defense.

Last week the Bosnian government, in a good-faith effort, proposed a compromise that would seek a vote in the U.N. Security Council in October on a resolution that would immediately terminate the arms embargo in legal terms, but would delay implementation to a date certain six months from the time of the resolution's adoption. Some of our allies seem to be deliberately misinterpreting this compromise, describing it as a request to deter any action on the embargo for six months. It is clear that any resolution which is not passed promptly and which does not contain a date certain for the automatic lifting of the arms embargo would not meet the Bosnian government's criteria.

During Senate consideration of the FY 1995 defense appropriations bill, you wrote to Senator Sam Nunn reaffirming your administration's support for lifting the international arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina that has "penalized the victim in this conflict." Moreover, you stated that if by Oct. 15 the Bosnian Serbs have not agreed to the Contact Group proposal of July, it would be your intention to support a resolution in the U.N. Security Council to terminate the arms embargo. It was this personal commitment that also provided the basis for a compromise in the House-Senate conference on the FY 1995 defense authorization bill and forestalled—at the administration's request—a termination of the U.S. arms embargo at a future date.

As supporters of Bosnia's right to self-defense, we believe that any U.S.-sponsored resolution that falls short of the Bosnian government's compromise position—immediate action to lift, but implementation delayed for six months—would not meet your commitment to the Congress.

Mr. President, your administration has an historic opportunity to end the policies of appeasement that have characterized the international community's approach to the brutal war of aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina. Both the House and the Senate have voted to terminate the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina unilaterally if a multilateral termination is not forthcoming. We expect the administration to argue energetically for U.N. Security Council adoption of a new resolution lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. Should such a resolution fail or should a non-binding resolution be adopted, we will pursue further efforts to terminate the U.S. embargo upon our return next session.

We hope to hear from you soon on this critical issue.

Signed by Senators: Bennett, Biden, Bond, Bradley, Brown, Chafee, Cohen, Coverdell, Craig, D'Amato, DeConcini, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, Faircloth, Feingold, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Helms, Hutchison, Jeffords, Kempthorne, Kohl, Lautenberg, Levin, Lieberman, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McCain, McConnell, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, Riegle, Robb, Roth, Shelby, Simon, Simpson, Smith, Specter, Stevens, Thurmond, Wallop.

People's Mojahedin Responds

To The New York Times, Oct. 11, 1994 (as published).

Re "Report Won't Vindicate Iranian Faction" (letter Oct. 5) by David C. Litt, State Department director of Northern Gulf affairs. Mr. Litt's statement that the administration's report will draw "heavily" on the People's Mojahedin's "own stated views" is unconvincing. The department has acted to the contrary.

In a congressional hearing this week, Robert Pelletreau, assistant secretary for Near East affairs, asserted the Mojahedin had acknowledged responsibility for the deaths of American nationals and had taken part in the seizure of American diplomats as hostages in Tehran. Both statements are false. The Mojahedin have denied both allegations.

Mr. Litt's letter is full of baseless allegations that originate in the Irangate deals and were part of the demands of the Khomeini regime. These allegations have never been substantiated, and have already been answered by the Mojahedin.

These responses have been ignored by the State Department, whose declared positions over the last six months contradict the objective study needed to prepare the report. The compilers have made up their minds, violating impartiality.

The problem is not the Mojahedin but those in the State Department who advocate a policy of appeasing Tehran. They view discrediting Iran's democratic opposition as the only way to justify reconciliation with an international outlaw.

Congress and the public have made their will known: Don't appease the mullahs, don't prejudge, be objective, listen to all voices, particularly the subjects of the report. This the State Department refuses to do.

Massoud Banisadr, U.S. Representative, National Council of Resistance of Iran, Washington, DC

Arms Race

To the Arab News , Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 30, 1994 (as published).

Although the U.S. officially recognizes Kashmir as a disputed area, it has done nothing practically to prove the seriousness of its policy toward Kashmir.

India's reluctance to enter into any meaningful dialogue over Kashmir with Pakistan stems from the fact that the U.S. administration has often tried to keep on the good side of India by pressuring Pakistan with the Pressler Amendment and ignoring India's human rights violations in Kashmir. America sees India as an emerging economic market. The United States is the biggest investor there. The growing military and economic cooperation compels Washington to follow a policy of appeasement toward India. Also, America wants to use India as a leverage against China.

If the United States is genuinely willing to achieve disarmament in South Asia, it will have to reconcile its non-proliferation agenda with the realities of regional politics. At the heart of this lies the unresolved issue of Kashmir. Resolving this problem will lead to regional stability and a tremendous economic upsurge by ending the arms race in the subcontinent.

Tasnim A. Khan, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia