June 1995, Pages 3, 108-111

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor are selected, edited and abridged on the basis of relevance, accuracy, taste and available space. The editors do not have facilities to respond to individual letters, or to clear in advance published letters, as edited, with the writers.

More About Senator Fulbright

I was very pleased with your two articles on former Sen. J. William Fulbright in your April/May issue. He was a great man. He put forward an evenhanded policy on the Arab/Israel problem, and it was quite clear that he understood the Arabs. Not many in the U.S. government do.

I had the good fortune to spend a day with Sen. Fulbright when he was visiting Arabia in 1976. It was on a Friday (the Muslim sabbath) and, as he relaxed at our villa in Riyadh, he said while his name was Fulbright, most of his close friends called him "Half-Bright." Later, when I saw him again at a conference in Washington, he remembered me!

Too bad we don't have more men like him today. Again, thanks for your articles.

Douglas D. McConnell, Jr., Aptos, CA

Don't Overlook His Flaws

I recently read your tribute to the late J. William Fulbright. While I admire him for standing up to the Israeli lobbyists and their disastrous pro-foreign aid stance, I must take exception on a couple of matters. You state that Fulbright was misled when he introduced the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. He claims that he didn't support the bombing of North Vietnam and America's "arrogance of power." However your magazine forgets that in March 1966, after increased ground commitment and U.S. air warfare, Fulbright voted against repealing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Since he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Fulbright had a lot of pull in getting the repeal defeated. The description by different magazines and newspapers in which Fulbright was called "Congress's chief crusader against the Vietnam war," is hard to swallow! Fulbright actually went against President Johnson and the Vietnam intervention because of the president's Dominican Republic stance. Colonel Harry Summers, who is now a syndicated columnist, has written that "Johnson had failed to consult with him and gain his approval before intervening in the Dominican Republic in 1965. He spent the next 10 years getting even for that slight, with total disregard for the effect his actions had on the men..."

You also write that Fulbright was a great crusader against McCarthy and his anticommunist committee. This goes back to a 1954 vote on appropriations for the permanent subcommittee on investigations. This panel was started before McCarthy's chairmanship and it succeeded his chairmanship. Fulbright was the only senator to oppose funding for it.

David Hampstead, Cartersville, GA

A perhaps better reason for "getting even" would have been the manner in which the administration of President John F. Kennedy first indicated that Senator Fulbright would be secretary of state and then, after a very intensive campaign by Zionist figures within the Democratic Party, passed him over and instead selected Dean Rusk, an otherwise honorable man who was putty in the hands of the Lobby. When Fulbright's former Senate colleague, Lyndon Johnson, succeeded to the presidency, and once again passed him over for the same reason, Fulbright would have had good reason to be bitter—though it's not at all clear to us that personal bitterness motivated his later stand on Vietnam—a stand with which even former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara now seems to agree.

The "Lofton Letter"

Thought you might like to consider reprinting the enclosed article from my February "Lofton Letter." God bless you all and thanks.

John Lofton, 313 Montgomery Street, Laurel, MD 20707, phone (301) 490-7266, fax (301) 953-3423

We found your article, refuting Christian Zionism from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, intensely interesting but outside our venue. We limit ourselves to examining political solutions to what we see as the political problem created by late- 19th century political Zionism. However, since some of our readers might wish to read the article or examine the extremely conservative Lofton Letter, a monthly publication with a subscription price of $100 per year, we'll let them contact you directly, at the address above. Meanwhile we've helped ourselves to Mrs. James Baker's thoughts on "the serious injustices that have been experienced by the Palestinian people," noted in your article, and included them in our "People in the News" column on page 37 of this issue.

Anti-Terrorism Bill is Shocking

Enclosed is a summary of Senate Bill 390 which carries the misleading title "To improve the ability of the United States to respond to the international terrorist threat." The short title is "The Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995."

Even though it is full of high-sounding "international" this and "international" that rhetoric, one can quickly see that the bill is aimed at American citizens and the implication that it is directed against foreign terrorists is to deceive Americans who chance to read it.

It was introduced on Feb. 10, 1995 by Senator Biden (for himself and Senators Specter, Kerrey, and D'Amato) and was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

This bill will allow the president of the United States to declare any individual, group of individuals, organization, church, club, company, business or any other entity involving one or more people as "terrorist" simply by so stating. This bill must be defeated, and the men responsible for it must be removed from office at the earliest election.

Willie Martin, Paducah, TX

It seems to us that laws already on the books are sufficient to defend the country, particularly if the FBI modifies its own guidelines for investigations of groups with the potential to commit crimes. To us the most shocking aspect of the proposed bill is the provision that actions can be taken against individuals based upon charges that they are not allowed to see and whose source they are not allowed to know. Such unconstitutional laws would immensely strengthen such hate groups as B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League and also AIPAC, which already collect and surreptitiously disseminate unverified derogatory information in order to enlist sympathizers or opportunists in the media and public life to serve their private agenda.

"Jihad in America" Reaction

Much as I regret the delay, due to illness, in writing to you, I would still like to express my deep appreciation for Congressman Paul Findley's article on "Jihad in America" in your March issue. Reading Mr. Findley's incisive piece in defense of fairness and truth helped me to shake off much of the gloom I had felt after watching the program on national television. Steven Emerson's portrayal of what Islam and Muslims might be up to in America, with all its subtle and not-so-subtle overtones of fear and hate, had a distinctly Dr. Goebbelsian flavor about it and, in its memorable juxtaposition of fact and fiction, was reminiscent of Nazi diatribes on Judaism and Jews! Regrettably, it did not make any allowance for the millions of American Muslims who are not terroristically inclined, patiently endure the routine beat-up they and their religion get from the mainstream media, and are loyal to and love this country. By being a party to such wholesale vilification of an entire group of Americans and their religious beliefs, National Public Television has tarnished its own image as a respecter of American diversity.

M. Habib Quader, York, PA

Report from Kuneitra

Enclosed is a copy from Kuneitra of H.D.S. Greenway's Editorial Notebook in the Boston Globe of April 9 that your readers may appreciate. It is encouraging to see that the press can present the Arab viewpoint when reporters talk with people in Damascus instead of relying on second-hand information filtered through Tel Aviv.

Charles A. Kennedy, Professor of Religion, emeritus, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Newbury, NH

Thanks for the report, which we will reprint in "Other Voices" when and if space permits.

Inspired By Grace Halsell

Enclosed is a letter of mine on the status of Christians in Jerusalem that quite unexpectedly appeared in the Los Angeles Times, long after it was written and after a flurry of other letters on the same subject. It was inspired by Grace Halsell's articles, and those of your other contributors, on the sad state of Christianity in Jerusalem and Israel. As a Roman Catholic, I am surprised that the American hierarchy does not give this situation their attention. The silence leads me to surmise that Capitol Hill may not be the only "Israeli-occupied territory" in our land.

Patrick F. Flynn, Yorba Linda, CA

However, see the text of the Jerusalem letter by eight Christian leaders on page 115 of this issue and the reaction to it on pages 77 and 114.

Take Patrick Buchanan Seriously

I am amazed that in her article on Republican presidential hopefuls ("Election Watch") in the Washington Report of April/May 1995, Lucille Barnes omits any mention of Patrick J. Buchanan. Equally astonishing is your silence concerning Buchanan on the "Publishers' Page," where you discuss the prospects of assorted presidential candidates.

Pat Buchanan is easily the most objective and tough-minded presidential candidate from either party on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular and the Arab and Muslim world in general. Among other things, Pat has stated publicly that "Congress is Israeli-occupied territory." And he has not recanted, despite enormous pressure to do so and predictable charges of anti-Semitism from the elite media.

Moreover, Pat is a subscriber to the Washington Report. Of how many other presidential candidates can that be said?

Good heavens. What gives?

Dr. Antony T. Sullivan, Ann Arbor, MI

Actually, it can be said of several of the candidates. The difference is that Pat Buchanan has thanked us publicly when we have said nice things about him and for that we are grateful. Nevertheless, we think his campaign is more of an ego trip than a serious effort, for reasons stated below. If we're wrong, our correspondents certainly will give him another look in future "Election Watch" reports.

More Amazement About Buchanan

I was amazed that "Election Watch" by Lucille Barnes completely ignored Pat Buchanan as a candidate for the Republican nomination. Anyone covering Washington politics certainly is aware of Mr. Buchanan and even his detractors sense the momentum building in his support.

Some of us believe that if Pat Buchanan is not on the Republican ticket, a third party will be formed. Unfortunately, this would greatly enhance President Clinton's chances for a second term.

It further surprises me that the Washington Report is not encouraging Pat Buchanan's candidacy. He is the only one advocating the "phasing out" of foreign aid—including Israel—and other views that probably coincide with yours. Of course, he has been accused of anti-Semitism. This should not come as a surprise to you. Please reply.

Your faithful subscriber, Frank Mattern, Riviera Beach, FL

We certainly agree that charges of "anti-Semitism" against Pat Buchanan are groundless. That said, we find him a divisive candidate whose performance in challenging George Bush in the Republican primaries in the spring of 1992 planted some seeds that were exploited very successfully by the Democrats in defeating the Bush bid for re-election in the fall. When Buchanan was, in effect, given one evening of prime television time at the Republican convention in the summer in an attempt to heal the rift in the Republican Party that he had helped to open, we think he misused it to widen the gap with an exclusionist, nativist message that repelled many potential Republican voters, contributing almost as much to the Republican defeat as did Ross Perot subsequently. Because Buchanan represents an extreme right-wing view, we don't give him much chance for the presidential nomination. His main impact, in 1996 as in 1992, will be to diminish support for Republicans among the middle-of-the-road silent majority of American voters whose support is essential for the victory of either party.

Democrats are Hopeless

Those interested in Palestinian freedom would do well to consider voting Republican in 1996, whatever their prior party preference or affiliation.

The record of the Democrats, and of the Clinton administration in particular, shows that they are anti-Arab, and may even be anti-Muslim. If Clinton is re-elected he might well decide to oversee the gutting of Palestinian hopes, carried out, of course, by his Israeli cohorts.

This is not surprising, seeing that over 50 percent of Bill Clinton appointees are Zionists, mostly Jews. There are, however, no greater Zionists than the president himself and his vice president, Al Gore.

Clinton's policy toward Middle East countries is formulated exclusively to protect Israeli interests. The architects of his policy are Martin Indyk, Madeleine Albright and Dennis Ross—Warren Christopher being a mere front man for the Zionists. It is doubtful that he has the freedom to dissent even if he wants to.

Consider, for a moment, Clinton's policy toward various countries. He is adamant that Iraq be under U.N. sanctions for the indefinite future, whatever the sufferings of its people. He is relentless in seeking the extension of sanctions against Libya. He will not even allow American oil companies to carry out their contractual obligations to Iran. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states serve the purpose of absorbing most American arms sales. Iran and Iraq are to be perpetual "bogey men" to justify the stationing of American troops in the Gulf area, which the host countries, of course, pay for.

The entire thrust of this policy is to emasculate Israel's potential enemies. Clinton's nuclear non-proliferation gambit is so transparent as to be laughable. Simply put, it says: "Only Israel shall possess weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. All other nations are rogue nations and shall be disarmed."

The only consolation is that however much Clinton and the Democrats arm Israel and funnel American taxpayer funds into its coffers, Israel's position is untenable in the long haul.

Zionism is basically the idea that the Judaized Khazars of Europe own Palestine and that the indigenous people there have no rights. Preposterous as this may sound, it is the core principle of imperialism and was taken as axiomatic until World War II. Since then, many empires have toppled: the British, French, Portuguese and Russian. The American attempt to resuscitate the idea in Vietnam came to grief. In a recent tearful TV interview, Robert McNamara said the Vietnam war was unwinnable from the start.

Zionism will also collapse, but if the Democrats, and particularly Clinton, have anything to say, this will not be before they have visited horrific devastation and misery on the indigenous peoples of the Middle East.

There is no guarantee, of course, that the Republicans would not be equally mean to the Palestinians as they could be bought off by the enormously wealthy pro-Israel PACs. While this is true, the tradition of the Democratic Party ever since the time of Woodrow Wilson has been Zionist. The Balfour Declaration was the result of pressure from American Jews and the price demanded of the British for American participation in World War I. The Zionists increased their hold on the Democratic Party under Roosevelt and Truman, the latter being directly responsible for the creation of Israel, an event which destabilized the entire Mideast for the remainder of the century. Lyndon Johnson was staunchly Zionist (remember the Liberty?). Clinton is so abject before Zionist groups that he is almost pathetic.

There is some hope that the Republicans will see things in a different light because they do not carry this historical burden. There is no hope whatever with the Democrats.

Thein Wah, Ph.D, San Antonio, TX

We would offer only some quibbles. We think the Balfour Declaration originally was proposed to Britain by Zionists as bait to enlist Jewish support in the U.S. for intervention on the side of the Allied powers in World War I. Nevertheless, by the time it was signed, the U.S. already was in. Second, there have been fair-minded Democrats on this issue, such as Jimmy Carter and George Ball. However, no potential Democratic presidential candidates for 1996 qualify. Third, it probably is fair to say that 50 percent of Bill Clinton's political appointments to foreign policy positions concerned with the Middle East are Zionists, but we doubt that anyone can keep score on overall appointments. Fourth, as you point out, some Republicans (probably including Pete Wilson, Jack Kemp and Phil Gramm) would be no improvement over Clinton regarding indebtedness to the Israel lobby. That means that for people as concerned as you, the authors of the two previous letters (and we) are with genuine Palestinian self-determination, the battle is going to be fought in the early Republican primaries, which will largely have established by the end of March 1996 who will be the presidential nominee. For anyone hoping to support candidates who would adopt an evenhanded U.S. Middle East policy, the time to act is right now. We present a guide to regulations on donations to candidates on page 29 of this issue.

U.S. Duplicity and Perfidy

The media are once again ignoring U.S. perfidy and duplicity, and I think this is an issue that the Washington Report might wish to pursue.

As you know, the two Americans who accidentally violated the Iraqi border have become a cause celébre. Although their sentences may have been excessive, the Iraqis do seem to be within their rights.

Also this spring an American and four French humanitarian workers were seized by the Bosnian Serbs outside Sarajevo. As of this writing, the five still were being held without charge at Lukavica Barracks outside Sarajevo. They were supposed to be given safe passage through the war zone by virtue of being UNHCR-accredited humanitarian workers.

Recently the name of the American, I believe Knapp, was revealed by his family in Portland, OR. According to a friend of mine in Portland, the family had been asked to remain silent while the Department of State worked for his release. It is apparent that the Bosnian Serbs are using these five as hostages or "human shields," to use a hackneyed term.

Had Mr. Knapp been arrested by the Bosnian government, i.e., Muslims, there would have been an outcry for his release as there is for the release of the two in Iraq. I hope that your publication might lead the charge on the issue of Mr. Knapp.

I have been a subscriber to the WRMEA for nearly 10 years. I served in Desert Shield/Storm and I worked in Sarajevo as a relief worker in 1993-94. I can make many comments on the war in Bosnia, but I will limit myself to saying that I came face to face with evil when I met with Bosnian Serb officials in the Grbavica section of Sarajevo.

Kent Morris, Los Angeles, CA

Having been intimately involved in a previous position in negotiations for the release of kidnapped Americans, our executive editor does not try to second guess the Department of State on such issues. This has caused us some problems in the past with understandably agitated families and their supporters. But these are life-and-death matters and, unlike the nation's self-described "terrorism experts," we don't pretend to have the answers. Regarding your condemnation of the mainstream media's double standards on so-called "Muslim" versus other brands of terrorism, we agree completely. We wish you would share your experiences in Bosnia with our readers. Very few Americans have had such first-hand experiences and we believe those who can do so have the duty to speak out while there still is time to amend our government's almost criminal complicity (by inaction) in British and French-backed Serbian genocide in Bosnia.

About the Mixed Review

Jeffrey Blankfort's letter to Z magazine (reprinted in "Other People's Mail," page 88, March 1995) regarding my mixed review of Paul Findley's book Deliberate Deceptions may have left readers with the impression that I was critical of the book, unsympathetic to the Palestinian cause, or an apologist for the Israeli government. Those who actually read the review (Z, July/August 1994) or are familiar with my work in general know this could not be further from the truth.

I have found Findley's book an invaluable resource, filled with useful factual information. I did take issue with some of his analysis, however. Like Noam Chomsky, Alex Cockburn and other leftist critics of U.S. Middle East policy, I argue that U.S. support for successive Israeli governments is more a result of a consensus of national security elites than the power of the pro-Israel lobby. The lobby certainly has a lot of influence in Congress, which has effectively neutralized popular opposition to administration policy. Yet Congress does not actually make foreign policy; as in most countries, foreign policy is generally the prerogative of the executive branch.

I also argue that Israel has been used by the U.S. to support American interests in the region. While Israel is certainly not a U.S. puppet, I concur with many Israeli peace activists who believe that successive American administrations have encouraged hard-liners in Israeli politics to the ultimate detriment of Israel. As a result, I argue that Israel is therefore a victim of U.S. foreign policy, though certainly not to the degree of the Palestinians, Lebanese, and other victims of Israeli aggression.

In recent years Jeffrey Blankfort has developed a reputation for putting almost as much energy into attacking other supporters of peace and justice in the Middle East as he does in challenging those who are perpetuating militarism and oppression in the region. I'm sorry he is doing it on these pages as well.

For readers who are interested in a detailed analysis of my perspectives on U.S. policy in the region—where I elaborate on my comments above—see my article in the March issue of Z .

Stephen Zunes, Bainbridge Island, WA

We think you are overlooking the fact that the Israeli government and its U.S. lobby have just as much influence on some U.S. presidents as they do on Congress and, in the case of the current Israeli government and the Clinton administration, more so—if that's possible. In our opinion the idea that U.S. aid to Israel is somehow reciprocated by Israeli services to those "national security elites" is cranked up by left-wing U.S. Israel-firsters to rationalize the unspeakable amount of U.S. taxpayer support for their cause. In our opinion it's just as absurd as the rationale by right-wing U.S. friends of Israel that Israel is somehow a "U.S. strategic asset" in the Middle East, whereas any objective observer of the area can explain why it's America's principal, perhaps only, "strategic liability" there. However, there is one thing we can agree upon with you and with the decent Israelis who just want to "normalize" their country. That is that with American "friends of Israel" like AIPAC, B'nai B'rith's ADL, and more than 40 other national Jewish organizations and 116 pro-Israel PACs, all vying with each other to extract for Israel the maximum in U.S. economic and military aid instead of encouraging Israelis to rationalize their economy and make land-for-peace settlements with their neighbors, Israel's most dangerous enemies are right here in the U.S., not in the Middle East.

Your Spread Was Biased

Let me start by thanking you tremendously for this magazine that you publish. Any compliment will fall short of expressing my true feelings. A few months ago, I had wanted to bring to your attention a small matter that surprised me, but I had to leave on a business trip to the Arab Gulf states, and I just came back last week.

In your September/October 1994 issue, you dedicated an inside color photo spread to some opponents of the Iranian government. While you are usually fair and objective, that particular spread was pretty biased—even to publish it in the first place, since you have not accorded similar (or anywhere close) coverage to opponents of other governments in the area. So why this group? Here are my comments in that regard:

1. The title reads "Opponents of Iran Regime...," then the caption to the photos says: "their opposition to the Khomeini regime currently in power..." Why do you refer to the Iranian government as "regime" and not as the Iranian government, keeping in mind that you do not refer to any other government in the area as "regime"? Moreover, what on earth is a "Khomeini regime"? That man, Khomeini, died many years ago, and he never claimed (even when still alive) any doctrine of his own, much less a "regime." Is it that distasteful for you to call it an Islamic regime?

2. This opposition group does have some supporters, for sure, and I have met a few of them here in the U.S. and on my business trips to the Gulf states and Iran. But they are vastly outnumbered by the percentage of ordinary Iranians who support their government or, in your words, their "regime"; a percentage much, much higher than can be found in most countries in the world—and most surely those in the Middle East which is the focus of your publication. However, in your enviable enlightenment, you have failed to see this fact, but insist on tugging the official line about Iran's "regime" being repressive, backward and unpopular.

I just wonder WHY? At the end, my best regards to y'all.

Alex Boulos, Houston, TX

The photo spread on page 57 of the issue to which you refer was of an anti-Iranian government demonstration in Washington, DC to which four members of Congress lent their support, meaning, in our opinion, that it was news. However, the "why" of our coverage of the Iranian political opposition is that we do consider Iran's regime, in your words, as "repressive, backward and unpopular." Iran's government has been criticized by the State Department, Amnesty International, etc. for the extraordinarily high number of monthly executions, given the size of Iran's population. Executions may be up in many Middle Eastern countries as part of the life-and-death battle going on now throughout the region against drug traffickers. The difference between Iran's current government and, say, Saudi Arabia's, which is executing drug smugglers this year at about twice last year's rate, is that when Iran arrests political critics, it almost invariably accuses such prisoners of conscience of narcotics violations, and then uses the false accusation as cover for killing political prisoners. As for why we call it an "Islamist" or "radical Islamic" rather than "Islamic regime," we do so because we believe the vast majority of our Muslim readers would be deeply offended if we did otherwise. It's the same reason we or our writers no longer refer to Israel as "the Jewish state," a common usage in the mainstream press. When we do, we hear quickly from Rabbi Elmer Berger and other Jewish readers to whose judgment we defer on the matter that the governments of Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Shimon Peres or Yitzhak Rabin (although democratically elected, unlike those of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini or of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who have restricted who can or cannot run for election) have nothing to do with Judaism. Aside from a visceral dislike of governments which hold innocent people hostage for political purposes (a criticism that applies equally to Iraq's Saddam Hussain), we have no special axe to grind regarding the Iranian government or the opposition groups it represses.

We Grieve for Our Country

We cannot help but be frustrated over the lack of progress in the Middle East, inasmuch as our entire Congress, with the exception of perhaps a dozen people, are in the hip pocket of AIPAC. They do not have the foggiest idea of who is really responsible for this debacle. We have not fought this battle for justice as long as you have, and, perhaps, we were more optimistic than we should have been over the prospects for peace. Here again, we are newcomers in this battle for America's soul. We pray our citizens can be enlightened before it is too late.

We have, indeed, lost our moral authority because of our one-sided Middle East policies, and it is impossible for us to defend American policy to our Muslim friends. Congress does not want to know about the abuses by their friend and benefactor, Israel.

We are so grateful to those of you who have led the way to correct a terrible wrong. We thank you for your courage and dedication in bringing factual information to the American people. We have always believed that if the American people really began to understand what has happened, they would demand justice for the Palestinians. They would also put an end to the greed and arrogance of Israel so far as extorting money from American taxpayers. Please accept the enclosed check for $1,000 to further your work.

Very truly yours, Vincent T. and Louise F. Larsen, Billings, MT

About the Assyrians

I have enclosed some clippings for your selection on what others say about the contribution of ancient and modern Assyrians. The 1.7 million Assyrians in northern Iraq are Christians from ancient times and should not be classified as "Kurdish Christians."

Francis Hoyen, Jr., Worcester, MA

If that charge is aimed at us, we plead "not guilty." We have known Kurdish Christians, but they spoke Kurdish, an Indo-European language, and not the Semitic language of the Assyrians.

Assyrians in the Mideast Today

You noted in your April/May issue, in reply to a Turkish reader's comments, that you lack sources/reporters on non-Arabs in the Middle East. If you desire, I will happily supply you with information/photos/books on the Assyrians in the Middle East today, in particular in Iraq.

Mr. Ramin Darmu, a writer for Nabu Quarterly magazine (an Assyrian magazine published in Chicago—which I edit), has sent you some photographs and a note about Assyrians in the liberated zone in north Iraq. Please take time to look at these. The Assyrian case deserves your attention, and your readers will have a better grasp on the complexities of the Middle East region.

Robert DeKelaita, Chicago, IL

A Glimpse of the Minorities

The enclosed photographs contain a glimpse of the life of one of the oldest and most persecuted minorities in the Middle East: the Assyrian Christians (including "Nestorians," "Chaldeans" and "Jacobites"). The Assyrians are the Aramaic-speaking descendants of the ancient Assyrians who lived primarily in north Iraq, in the cities and villages surrounding present-day Mosul.

Iraq is home to one to two million (no accurate census) Assyrians, over 150,000 of whom reside in the "liberated zone" in north Iraq. These are represented by the Assyrian Democratic Movement, which stands for a democratic Iraq that recognizes the Assyrians as a national minority within Iraq.

It is hoped that you will give some space to acknowledge this ancient people in need of recognition and support.

Ramin Darmu, Chicago, IL

P.S. Those who want to be informed about the Assyrians may subscribe to Nabu Quarterly Magazine, P.O. Box 59422, Chicago, IL 60659 ($20 per year).

In fact, thanks to years spent in Iraq and Lebanon, we've known many Assyrians and would be happy, when space permits, to do a photo spread on these little-known people, their rugged mountain homelands and their current situation. We're printing one of the photos you sent of Assyrians outside one of their political offices in Irbil in the U.S.-protected zone of northern Iraq, and encourage you or other readers to send us some more. Also, to save Chaldeans from correcting the record, we'll do it for them by noting that they are Arabic-speaking Christians who consider themselves separate from Assyrians and who may by now have a larger population in and around Detroit than in and around Mosul and Tel Kaif.