March 1993, Page 52

Other People's Mail

Frontline's "Journey"

To WETA-TV, Washington, DC, Jan.30, 1993

Thank you so much for presenting Boston-based producer-director Michael Ambrosino's "Journey to the Occupied Lands" on Jan. 26 on your "Frontline" program. This magnificent documentary was fair to both sides of the Arab-Israeli dispute, letting competent representatives state their diametrically opposed cases, and leaving it to the viewer to decide. While I was watching the 90-minute program, I kept thinking "I hope President Clinton is tuned in to this. " Let's hope you will show it again for those who may have missed it. It shows that "Frontline" and WETA have taken that brave journey to fairness. It's just what Americans should expect of a public broadcasting system that is not vulnerable to advertiser pressures. It makes me so proud to be a subscriber.

Jean Brough, Bethesda, MD

Germans, Israelis, Deportees

To the Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 18, 1993 The lesson that those who don't know history are bound to repeat it has never been more true than with the situation in Israel concerning the deportation of 400 Palestinians.

In 1939, the Nazi German government deported thousands of Jews to Poland without due process. The Poles refused to accept them, and they were stranded on the border with a harsh winter coming on. They were sick and without enough food or water. In frustration, the son of one of the families, Hershel Grynszpan, shot and killed a German diplomat in Paris. The result was the infamous Kristallnacht, when plainclothes Nazi thugs used the assassination as a pretext to loot and kill innocent Jews still in Germany. It marked a turning point that sealed the fate of the Jews of Western Europe.

The Israeli government has got to face up to the fact it is treating Palestinians as badly as the Nazis treated the Jews in the earliest stages of the Holocaust. I'm not suggesting that the Palestinians are going to be physically destroyed, but I believe that they will go to new extremes to retaliate when they are treated this way. Of all peoples, the Jews should know how wrong it is to strip people of their dignity and human rights.

Charles E. Stevens, La Grange, IL

To President Clinton, Feb. 3, 1993

I read with disgust about the compromise worked out by your administration with Israel over the deportation of over four hundred Palestinians. One article I read reported that the "United States will shield Israel" from United Nations sanctions.

Isn't this a major part of the problem? The United States has "shielded" Israel for decades and it has gotten away with numerous outrageous acts. Israeli leaders have not been held accountable, and they keep testing to see just how far they can go. We are blamed for what the Israelis do because our support enables them to do it.

I will know you and the members of Congress are serious about reducing the budget deficit when some American leaders with courage finally suggest stopping all aid to Israel.

This compromise is a disgrace. It can be viewed as setting another precedent, another acceptance of the unacceptable. Some fanatical Israelis might view this as an early step toward their goal of transferring all Arabs from their homes. Israel has no right to mistreat the Palestinians, and it should not be allowed to continue to occupy land that does not belong to it.

This latest agreement is not a compromise—it is a betrayal of Arabs and Americans.

Florence Richards, Whittier, CA

Palestinian Deportees

To The Washington Post, Feb. 3, 1993

The United States argues that, while deporting 415 Palestinians may be a flagrant violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention, deporting 300 is not a problem (indeed, a "breakthrough") and international law and U.N. Security Council Resolution 799 should now be ignored.

Such an argument devalues international law, debases the United Nations and dishonors the United States. The Clinton administration has declared moral, ethical and intellectual bankruptcy.

John V. Whitbeck, Paris, France

A Heartbroken Arkansan

To President William Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC 20500, Feb. 4, 1993

I am writing to you, as a concerned U.S. citizen, about the state of Israel, and its continuing, blatant disregard of international law. The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 799 on Dec. 18,1992. This resolution condemned Israel for the expulsion of more than 400 Palestinians from their occupied homeland on Dec. 17,1992, and ordered Israel to return them immediately to their homeland.

The expulsions were in violation of international law, namely Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits "individual or mass forcible transfers [or] deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of. . . any other country, occupied or not. " Israel has declined to follow the dictates of Resolution 799, just as it has refused to follow the dictates of any resolution that I am aware of since at least 1967. It is only reasonable, therefore, that we (the U.S. in concert with the U.N.) implement sanctions against Israel. To do otherwise would be tantamount to giving our stamp of approval to lawlessness on the part of Israel and every other country in the world.

It is my understanding that you have accepted a poor "compromise" on the part of the Israeli government in return for your promise that the U.S. will veto any sanctions the U.N. may decide to impose. Why? Millions of Americans voted you into office assuming you would take a stand on international lawlessness, and treat all peoples of all countries fairly, and with equal justice. If, indeed, it is your intent to not go along with the imposition of sanctions, then it is to your shame and discredit. I am certain you would not compromise the honor of the U.S. in this manner if a country other than Israel had violated international law.

Why? We have had to put up with American double standards in the international community since Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration ended.

Being an Arkansas transplant, and being not too much older than you, I truly believed you would display the courage of your conscience and morals, and be the evenhanded leader our great country so desperately needs. I am heartbroken, Mr. President.

David R. Willcox, College Park, MD

Israeli Peace Activists

To President Mordechai Bar-On, New Israel Fund, Box 91588, Washington, DC 20090, Feb. 2, 1993

The accompanying check reflects my family's response to your appeal for support for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. ACRI's midnight plea to the High Court to delay the Dec. 17 deportations, pending a chance for the Hamas suspects to have their case legally reviewed, was "tough patriotism" at its best. Had the court heeded the plea it would have avoided much of the subsequent erosion of Israel's global reputation. It would also have saved the U.S. from much unfavorable publicity over further allegations of unprincipled partisanship in Palestinian-Israeli affairs.

Danny Rubinstein, in his Ha'aretz coverage of the Nov. 10 dedication of the new High Court building in Jerusalem, noted the tangled depths of the problems ACRI is facing and trying to resolve. As translated by Al Fajr, he wrote: "An examination of the flood of addresses, lectures and celebratory articles let loose. . . reveals not a word about the fact that two million Arab residents of the [occupied] territories are living virtually without a judicial system. The military legislation in force in the West Bank and Gaza for more than a generation is best described as an arbitrary system under the control of soldiers, secret police agents and Israeli bureaucrats. . . "

As reported on Oct. 11-12, 1977, to the U.N. General Assembly's "Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories," there had been over 1,000 individuals and two Bedouin tribes deported without juridical review during the first decade of occupation (including Yitzhak Rabin's first prime ministry). Details and circumstances of each deportation and the vital statistics, residence and occupation of each deportee were included. No remedial action, however, was taken.

The Israeli permanent representative had subsequently implied to the General Assembly that those data were suspect because they came from sources he deemed unfriendly to Israel. But "friends don't let friends drive drunk," and governmental driving that disregards human rights expresses intoxication of an especially dangerous sort.

Blessed is that country which has organizations like ACRI, Peace Now, Israelis for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights and B'tselem, who want their government to drive soberly and reach desirable destinations.

Rev. L. Humphrey Walz, lanesville, WI

No Moral Credibility

To the Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle, Sept. 5, 1992

I support the religious community in Rochester in denouncing the programs in the Balkans of forcefully removing people from their land. We decry the practice of terrorism and murder to "cleanse" the land of people presumed dirty and undesirable.

If the United States wants to take a leadership role in opposing "ethnic cleansing," there would be a problem: We have no moral credibility because we have been the principal accomplice in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine since 1948.

Indeed, the Serbian leaders can say that they are guided by what they read in the newspapers of the U.S. position on terror and murder to create the "only democracy in the Middle East."

We are about to guarantee $10 billion to remove Jews from Russia to settle them on land cleared of Palestinians. That is ethnic cleansing on the come and ethnic cleansing on the go.

Ronald C. Johnson, Pittsford, NY

The Case Against the People's Mojahedin of Iran

To The Washington Post, Feb. 2, 1993

In their column of Jan. 18 ["Clinton's Focus on Iran"], Rowland Evans and Robert Novak provide what can only be described as thinly veiled promotional propaganda for the People's Mojahedin, a terrorist group that has been discredited among its own people. The column's many inaccuracies deserve a rebuttal.

First, let us get some facts straight:

The great majority of Iranians, whether living in Iran, Europe or America, are against the reactionary, despotic regime now ruling Iran. They also oppose all other types of authoritarian systems, and reject ideological and fringe groups promising freedom. Iranians long for a moderate national government, one that would respect their human rights, commit itself to the well-being of the people, work for progress and development, seek security and prosperity at home and do all in its power to achieve peace and stability abroad.

This is what the Iranian people want— in a nutshell. It is very different from what Evans and Novak seem to want for Iran. For whatever reason, they have become staunch advocates of the People's Mojahedin, a quasi-military group whose credentials include more than 20 years of terrorist activity directed primarily at the Iranian and American people.

The People's Mojahedin began by robing banks, graduated to the killing of Iranian military personnel, and went on to such ventures as murdering three high-ranking American military people and three American civilians and bombing the offices of El Al, British Airways and the Jewish Emigration Agency.

This is the group that today claims to hold democratic ideals and promises freedom for all Iranians, while at the same time espousing an ideology combining revolutionary Marxism and radical Islam. This is the group that fought against its own country and people on the side of Saddam Hussain. This is the group based in, supported and financed by Iraq.

The Reagan and Bush administrations had good reason to regard the People's Mojahedin as a terrorist organization and to refuse to support it. The Clinton administration would do well to hold to the same policy.

Evans and Novak report that Clinton wrote last month to the Mojahedin leader, Massoud Rajavi, "setting forth his commitment to financial and other help for establishing democracy" in Iran. If this is really Clinton's goal, he should spend that money educating Rajavi and others in the meaning of democracy as the term is understood in the Western world. For, as all of us are well aware, "democracy" is a word widely used by those who define it as the dictatorship of the proletariat or some other form of what most in the West would consider outright tyranny.

Real change and true democracy can only be achieved if the majority wants and accepts it. If the majority is ready for such a change, it will finance the movement and guide it to victory. Supporting the Mojahedin would only perpetuate Iran's clerics in power because the people are tired of change that takes them from bad to worse.

The Clinton-Gore administration should respect the wishes of the Iranian people in order to ensure the emergence of democracy in Iran. All the Iranian people ask is the moral support of the American people and the administration in accomplishing the seemingly impossible task of freeing themselves from the tentacles of the clerical regime. Giving them moral support in their struggle for freedom is the highest form of respect for human rights.

There are many legitimate and respected Iranian leaders—the most prominent is perhaps the moderate, democratic Assad Homayoun, who now lives in this country—willing to take up the cause, with the consent and backing of the Iranian people.

Arman Saify, Reston, VA

To The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Feb. 12, 1993

For the past decade, U.S. policymakers have been grappling with how to deal with Iran. These days a new administration and Iran's rapidly changing situation have renewed the policy debate, which has naturally included the democratic opposition movement of the Mojahedin.

Meanwhile, the ruling mullahs have become increasingly alarmed at the Mojahedin's growing popularity, reflected in the anti-government demonstrations throughout the country last year and in a declaration of support last summer by a House majority which endorsed the Iranian resistance and its leader, Massoud Rajavi.

Recently, the mullahs' regime initiated a disinformation campaign against the Mojahedin, disseminating baseless allegations through a front organization called Forum on American Iranian Relations (FAIR). Registered at the Justice Department as a foreign agent on the payroll of Iran's permanent mission to the United Nations, FAIR has concealed its true identity in its correspondence, including literature to congressional representatives and Iran experts, and letters penned to the media by Bijan Sepasy, the organization's director.

Interestingly, what's left of the defunct Pahlavi regime has joined hands with the mullahs. A recent article in 7he Washington Post (Feb. 2) made an attempt to exhume one remnant of the shah's dictatorship, promoting an ax-embassy minister named Assad Homayoun.

Both the bloody mullahs and their monarchist counterparts have nothing to offer vis-a-vis the Mojahedin's democratic and independent policies. They have, therefore, concentrated their efforts on distorting events dating back two decades.

To set the record straight, a few points are in order:

Despite their opposition to the shah, who enjoyed unconditional U.S. backing in the '70s, the Mojahedin were not responsible for the murder of any American nationals, or any of the other incidents cited.

In 1971, the shah's dreaded secret police, SAVAK, arrested the Mojahedin's entire leadership and most of its members, subsequently executing all of the leaders but Massoud Rajavi, the resistance's current leader. Mr. Rajavi, sentenced to life imprisonment, was freed in January 1979 just before the shah was overthrown.

The shah's clampdown allowed a group of self-serving individuals to murder the few members who had evaded SAVAK, thereby shattering the Mojahedin organization. Owing to the organization's popularity, however, these individuals continued to use the name "Mojahedin." Political prisoners at the time will recall that Mr. Rajavi immediately condemned these individuals' misuse of the Mojahedin's name, and drew decisive demarcations between them and the Mojahedin. It was only after Mr. Rajavi left prison in 1979 that the Mojahedin were again reorganized as a viable political force.

With the end of the Cold War, the charge of "Islamic-Marxist" is particularly ridiculous. The fundamental differences between Islam and Marxism notwithstanding, the Mojahedin's emphasis on democracy and the need to confront fundamentalism are the best testament to their ideology. These stances prompted some Marxist currents in Iran, such as the pro-Moscow Tudeh Party, to brand the Mojahedin "agents of imperialism" and to collaborate with the mullahs in their torture and execution.

For years, the U.S.'s Iran policy ignored the aspirations of the Iranian nation. It was on this policy that the shah and mullahs pinned their hopes. During the Cold War era some justified this approach, but the events of the past 14 years have disproved their arguments, and the policy has little support today.

The lack of an accurate assessment of the situation in Iran resulted in conflicting policies, which ultimately could not deal with the rapidly evolving circumstances. The most notable failure was the search in the mid-'80s for "moderates"—later known as Irangate. According to former U.S. President Bush, it was an experiment the whole country went through. The Tower Commission report notes that the scenario included the Khomeini regime's demand that the Mojahedin be branded "terrorist." Subsequently, a tailor-made circular was issued by the Department of State.

Although the assistant secretary of state later acknowledged during a congressional hearing that there were "gaps" in the department's information on the Mojahedin, the spirit of Irangate continues to haunt the Iran policy.

As a Muslim, nationalist and profoundly democratic movement, the Mojahedin have never believed in violence. On different occasions, Mr. Rajavi has stated that if a fraction of the freedoms in Europe existed in Iran, the people of Iran and the Mojahedin never would have engaged in armed struggle. In reality, the people of Iran are facing religious tyrants who have eliminated all avenues of peaceful dissent. Faced with a similar situation 40 years ago, the world had no choice but all-out resistance against Hitler's fascism.

Despots always brand those fighting for democracy as "terrorists" or "surrogates." The Mojahedin take pride in having raised the banner of peace in the devastating eight-year Iran-Iraq war, which left two million Iranians dead or wounded, and $1,000 billion in economic damages. The Mojahedin advocated a peace plan which guarantees Iran's national interests, bringing about a peace movement at home and international support abroad.

It is legitimate to assess whether a movement is truly democratic and independent before lending it support. This should not, however, translate into repeating what enemies of democracy utter. As far as the Mojahedin and Iranian resistance are concerned, we stand on our record.

In the course of their 28-year struggle against two dictatorships, the Mojahedin have matured into the principal resistance movement representing the hope of Iranians for change and democracy. Since 1981, they have been part of the National Council of Resistance, a 109-member coalition representing all of Iran's democratic political organizations and dignitaries.

The NCR's platform commits it to free elections, freedom of expression, the press, and political parties; and to social and political equality for all citizens, regardless of their gender, ethnic origin, or religion. The NCR favors a market economy, free competition, and private investment. It respects international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations Charter. It also advocates regional and international cooperation, peace in the region, and stability and tranquility in the Persian Gulf.

The world has gone through great changes within the past few years, and democracy clearly has emerged as the only path to progress and prosperity. In Iran, the options are narrow. When all is said and done, Iran's political landscape today consists only of the mullahs and the democratic movement that has had the courage and will to defy the theocratic dictatorship within Iran. It is time to look to the future, and to the democratic forces that will form that future.

Ali Safavi Deputy for International Relations, People's Mojahedin of Iran, Washington, DC