June 1995, Pages 42-46

Other People's Mail

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

A Tribute to a Giant

To President William J. Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC, April 20, 1995

Dear President Clinton:

As I promised when we briefly shook hands at the National Cathedral reception following Senator Fulbright's funeral in February, I am sending you my tribute to your political mentor, "A Giant Passes."

That he was a "giant" we are both in agreement, but perhaps for different reasons. I am sure you are unfamiliar with the side of the Senator's political life that I outlined in my article in the April-May issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Your other idol, President John F. Kennedy, wrote me a most important letter (copy enclosed) in late September 1960, just a month before his election. His views dealing with Middle East policy, likewise I am certain, may come as a surprise to you.

I most sincerely hope in the forthcoming presidential campaign you will bear in mind the thinking of both President Kennedy and Senator Fulbright. This will avoid the customary blatant bidding for the Jewish vote which has, unfortunately, characterized all presidential campaigns since the 1948 creation of the Zionist state. Since you have this Jewish vote anyway, you can avoid following this noxious precedent without doing any political harm to yourself while in fact helping our country's position abroad.

Cordially yours,

Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal, Washington, DC

A Letter from John F. Kennedy

(An enclosure to the letter above.)

Mr. Alfred M. Lilienthal, 136 West 55th Street, New York, NY, Sept. 30, 1960

Dear Alfred:

I appreciated having the benefit of your comments upon my talk to the Liberal Party and to the Zionist Organization. I wholly agree that American partisanship in the Arab-Israel conflict is dangerous to both the United States and the Free World. My program merely calls for using the power of the President to bring the parties themselves to an agreement.

For too long a time, this dispute has been a bitter cause of friction between the Arab nations and Israel. I would hope that both would be friends of the United States.

Your sobering analysis of my speeches is provocation for additional thought.

With every good wish, I am sincerely,

John F. Kennedy, Headquarters, 1106 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington DC.

Economics of the Holy Land

To Worth Financial Intelligence magazine, April 1995 (as published).

Walter Mead mentions an American-born settler in the Israeli-occupied West Bank who showed him a map of greater Israel faxed to him by an American Christian fundamentalist. In this context, it might be pointed out that, according to a report by Grace Halsell published in the Jan./Feb. 1995 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, at least one TV evangelist* in this country has received gifts worth millions of dollars from the Israeli government in appreciation for telling his flock that God is on Israel's side.

David Mendenhall, Houghton, MI

*Washington Report editor's note: The electronic evangelist referred to is the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Lynchburg, VA.

"Inoperative" PLO Charter

To the Washington Post, March 9, 1995 (as published).

Israeli opposition leader Benyamin Netanyahu states that peace in the Middle East can only be considered realistic if Arabs are sincere and security arrangements to protect the state of Israel are a primary consideration [op-ed, Feb. 24].

He also states, however, that the only sincere Arab leader is Jordan's King Hussein and that PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, with whom the Israeli government has signed an agreement, is not to be trusted.

Citing what he calls a proof of Arab insincerity, Mr. Netanyahu claims that Mr. Arafat is only "carrying out the 1974 Palestinian National Council decision" to destroy Israel. Mr. Arafat never promised to change the charter of his organization, but he did write Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on Sept. 9, 1993, affirming "that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and provisions of the covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter, are now inoperative and no longer valid."

Mr. Netanyahu does not mention that Israel agreed to hold elections and withdraw its troops from the territories under Palestinian Authority rule and so has not fulfilled its promise in the Declaration of Principles.

While Israel does face considerable threats to its security, its situation is exacerbated by the fact that it continues to occupy Arab lands—southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights and the West Bank—and treats the Palestinian people and Arab Israelis with disrespect.

If Mr. Netanyahu is concerned that the recent agreements are bound "to crash against the rocks of Middle Eastern realities," maybe he should consider how the vast majority of the residents of the region perceive Israel. They want to know if the Jewish state's intentions are sincere and if Israel's attempts to protect its borders are exactly what make its security arrangements untenable.

Abderrazzak Kouar, Washington, DC

Challenging Common Cause

To Mr. Edward Cabot, Common Cause, 2030 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, April 14, 1995

My wife and I have been members of Common Cause for many years and obviously support your agenda of curbing the influence of PAC money on our politicians. Also, we enjoy reading Common Cause magazine, and realize that it is only through exposés such as you present in your magazine that the public will become knowledgeable as to the power of the PACs and will become annoyed enough to force our politicians to do something about the problem. That brings me to the reason that we are no longer contributing to your organization. We think that Common Cause, which is in the business of combatting PACs that through money and influence have basically "bought off" our politicians, has itself apparently been "bought off" by one of the most powerful, most influential PACs, the Israel lobby.

We find it very interesting that in the 16 years that we have been members, your magazine has never taken on the Israel lobby. When I wrote to you about this before, Vicki Kemper responded with reference to an article in the May/June 1990 issue which mentions the lobby in passing, but does not address the following issues:

(1) According to Richard H. Curtiss in his book Stealth PACs, most PACs established by corporations, trade associations, etc. identify their sponsors in their titles. Not so with pro-Israel PACs. Of the 116 pro-Israel PACs active since 1976, only six mentioned the Middle East, Israel, Judaism or Zionism in their titles. Of these, only two were active after 1984. Pro-Israel PACs are unique in that they have deliberately adopted non-descriptive titles to hide their purpose from the American public. Even the weekly Jewish media openly discuss their activities. In the June 25, 1993 issue of the Jewish Exponent, an article by Douglas Bloomfield entitled "PAC Attack: If Reform Targets These Groups, Will Jews Suffer?" states that "Today there are in the neighborhood of 100 pro-Israel PACs. According to sources, the Jewish community gave between $3.5 and $4 million through pro-Israel PACs in the two-year 1992 election cycle."

(2) Furthermore, none of these PACs register as foreign agents, yet their principal concern is to lobby Congress for two major purposes: (a) to maintain or increase U.S. government military and economic assistance to a foreign state, Israel, and (b) to control U.S. policy in the Middle East. A good indication of the lobby's clout is the fact that during the two-year 1988 election cycle, Israel received well over $6 billion in direct U.S. taxpayer grants.

(3) During this period of austerity, with daily headlines of government budget cutting of domestic programs, the U.S. government is not reducing the U.S. taxpayers' annual gift of approximately $1,000 to each Jewish citizen of Israel.

One would expect that your magazine would have produced some hard-hitting articles about some of the most powerful PACs in the country, the way they hide their identity, the fact that they don't register as foreign agents, and their power to maintain U.S. government funding at the expense of domestic programs benefiting our own citizens. Why does our country's pre-eminent PAC-busting organization almost totally ignore the Israel lobby? I put that question to one of your fund-raising people who happened to call us soliciting funds. His off-the-record personal opinion was that the Israel lobby was a "hot button issue" and the leadership of Common Cause would not criticize it for fear of losing money and members. Talk about hypocrisy! The by-line in Common Cause magazine called "No Sacred Cows" should be changed either to "Almost No Sacred Cows" or "One Sacred Cow."

Someone should suggest to the Common Cause leadership that by being honest and taking on all the PACs, the organization might actually attract more money and members. Some of us would reward the organization for its honesty and principle. I would hope that you, as chairman of the Board of Directors, might encourage the organization to "do the right thing." Until Common Cause realizes that principle is spelled with an "le," not an "al," it can remove me from its list of contributors.

Sincerely,

Peter Knerr, Kailua, HI

Don't Bomb the Bill of Rights

To the New York Times, April 26, 1995 (as published).

The devastated shell of the Alfred P. Murrah building, the horror of graphic video and the photographs of victims have shocked the world. In our just anger and outrage at the perpetrators of this vile act, may we not succumb to a rush to erode cherished constitutional guarantees that have molded this nation.

A few hours after this despicable crime, I presented a demonstration lesson for area teachers on the Palmer raids of the 1920s, named for President Wilson's attorney general, in which some 6,000 people suspected of being Communists were arrested. Student readings included excerpts from one of the proposed sedition bills that flooded Congress in 1919, contemporary periodicals and political cartoons that helped galvanize public opinion.

In the lesson I warned students to be careful in drawing analogies to current events. That evening as I heard interviews with experts on terrorist activities and the countless recommendations from talk radio, I could not help drawing analogies.

I applaud "Precautions After Oklahoma City" (editorial, April 21) and Anthony Lewis's column of the same date, "Faith in Reason." I fear, however, a public demand to enact the omnibus counterterrorism bill will lead our elected representatives to a response without careful consideration of its ramifications.

There is undoubtedly much to be gained by vigilance, by appropriate antiterrorist legislation; but let it come from reasoned debate by our representatives rather than from a political rampage to win public support.

David Vigilante, San Diego, CA

Arabs as Scapegoats

To the New York Times, April 26, 1995 (as published).

The moment the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City took place, the national news media pointed the finger at the Middle East, law enforcement agencies started to harass Arab Americans, and the Arabs as a group were condemned without a shred of evidence.

Now that the truth of this tragic case is being revealed and all indications point to native-bred, xenophobic white supremacists, Thomas L. Friedman perpetuates the false Middle East associations by titling his April 23 column "Beirut, Okla."

Nowhere does he mention that the bombing had nothing to do with Arabs. Why? Although he does not accuse anyone directly, his automatic correlation of terrorism and the Middle East, even when it is clearly irrelevant, reinforces the racism against Arabs in this nation's media and among the general population.

Marc Van De Mieroop, Assoc. Prof., Middle East Languages and Cultures, Columbia University, New York, NY

U.S. Money to Israel Adds Up

To the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 2, 1995 (as published).

Norman Levin's and Steven Hemmat's March 26 letters were prompted by Lisa Schnellinger's article "The Faces of Islam" (Focus, March 19).

Levin quotes Schnellinger's reference to "the $3 billion a year in military and economic aid that the U.S. sends to Israel." In fact, the annual military and economic aid provided to Israel by the American taxpayer is presently $4.321 billion, plus an additional $2 billion per year in loan guarantees. The total financial cost of Israel to the United States was disclosed by George Ball, undersecretary of state in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and former ambassador to the U.N., and his son, Dr. Douglas Ball, historian and economist, in their book The Passionate Attachment (1992). They revealed that as of 1991, monetary assistance given to Israel by the United States had reached $61.882 billion and indirect costs were at least an additional $107.356 billion.

Hemmat asks how Schnellinger can "explain the fact that several Arab nations have waged four wars of annihilation against Israel?" Hemmat is misrepresenting the truth. The documented historical record proves conclusively that every Arab/Israeli war since 1948 was caused by and preceded by Israeli military expansion and the dispossession of indigenous Arabs.

Gary D. Keenan, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Rabin's Paralysis

To the New York Times, April 16, 1995 (as published).

It took great courage for Amos Oz ("The Hamas-Likud Connection," Op-Ed, April 11) to speak the truth about the cynicism of the Likud, which by exploiting Israeli grief over the victims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorism seeks to undermine the Israel-PLO agreement.

It is therefore all the more ironic and sad that the man who overthrew 15 years of Likud rule by projecting strength and decisiveness has paralyzed the government he heads and the peace process he initiated through weakness and indecision.

Yitzhak Rabin, who had the wisdom and courage to seize and shape Israel's destiny by signing the historic Oslo accord with the PLO, wresting hope from violence and despair, now presides over the dissipation of that hope because of his inability to act on the clear implications of his own decisions.

Those implications are twofold. Palestinian autonomy must lead to Palestinian statehood in Gaza and in much of the West Bank. If this is not the logic of the Oslo agreement, then the present Palestinian autonomy is a futile and wasted exercise, for sooner or later it will yield nothing other than frustration and renewed violence. Surely that is not what Mr. Rabin had in mind. His reluctance to say so plays into the hands of rejectionists on both sides.

Second, given the inevitable outcome of Palestinian statehood, the continued location of largely isolated Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank makes no sense at all. Worse, they constitute an irresistible target for Islamic extremists with which to destroy the peace process and turn the Israeli public against its government, which they have in fact been doing with great success.

Terrorism against settlements is also intended to embarrass and undermine Yasser Arafat with the Palestinians, for when he condemns it, it places him in the awkward position of seeming to defend those settlements.

By failing to act to remove the Israeli settlements and to move more overtly toward Palestinian statehood, Prime Minister Rabin is the author of his own undoing and of the undoing of the peace process he launched with such great promise.

Henry Siegman, Visiting Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY

Another Way Out of Mideast Impasse

To the New York Times, April 27, 1995 (as published).

The opposite proposals of Eliahu Ben-Elissar and Henry Siegman to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (letters, April 16) are unrealistic. The Palestinians will not accept the autonomy self-rule the Likud is proposing, and the Israelis, at this stage, will not agree to Palestinian statehood. There should be a third way, which might, during an interim process, solve most unsolved questions.

Jordan, Palestinians and Israel should agree to form a loose confederation at the end of an adjusting period based on these principles:

*The participants of the new entity would be three national states: Jordan, Palestine, Israel.

*The part of Jerusalem between the walls would be recognized as a holy city of the three monotheistic religions and given a political status like the Vatican in Rome.

*A free choice would be given to Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria and to Arabs in Jerusalem between citizen or resident status.

*A binational Arab-Jewish police force would be established to keep order in the mixed-population areas.

*Some West Bank areas along the Jordan River should be leased by Israel for security reasons.

*A common-market economy should be established and subsidized for a certain period by Israel and the wealthy industrial countries.

*Israel's economy would be open to Arab labor on equal terms.

*Special relations would be established between the federation and the European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

These principles might sound utopian, but many utopias, including the Rabin-Arafat handshake, came true.

Yosef Gorny, New York, NY (The writer is a professor of modern Jewish history, Tel Aviv University.)

Jerusalem Excavation

To the Los Angeles Times, April 4, 1995 (as published).

The interesting feature story by Mary Curtius on Israel's archeological dig in Jerusalem ("'Bones and Stones' War Puts a City in Trenches," World Report, March 21) should have included, as important background, the city's status under the original U.N. 1947 partition of Palestine between Jews and Palestinians. That agreement, which Israel signed, treated Jerusalem as an international, open city and not under any exclusive sovereignty, as Israel has now made it.

Also not mentioned was the fact that Christian rights and property are also being violated, that Christianity is being driven out of Jerusalem, as well as Israel.

This dig, and Israel's heedlessness of adverse international reaction, could add to America's already heavy Israeli burden. It is political archeology that for us could be the hole to hell and a bottomless pit of grief and misery.

Patrick F. Flynn, Yorba Linda, CA

Don't Aid Arms Race

To the New York Times, Feb. 7, 1995 (as published).

I agree with much of "Foreign Aid, in Moderation" (editorial, Feb.2). Any aid that can reduce the causes of political instability, humanitarian disasters or war is money wisely spent. However, I must vigorously disagree with your view that the $3 billion in aid to Israel and the $2.1 billion in aid to Egypt each year "directly reduce risks to U.S. security" and are positive uses of the foreign aid budget.

Of the $3 billion given to Israel, $1.8 billion is for the purchase of American-made weapons. Of the $2.1 billion Egypt receives each year, $1.3 billion is exclusively for acquisition of American arms.

That the United States government lists this military support under the rubric of promoting the Middle East peace process is a euphemism that obfuscates the real nature of this aid.

It is unclear how giving these two countries a total of $3.1 billion in weapons each year helps promote United States security while adding to the Middle East arms race.

The same day your editorial ran, a news article noted that the State Department's annual human rights report listed Israel and Egypt among countries that violate human rights. Why is it in our interest to give these countries billions in weapons each year when they pursue internal security measures that we would not tolerate here?

Yes, the world is a dangerous place. But this level of military aid is a Cold War relic that should be shifted to tackle the problems that cause instability around the world. Congress should strip this military aid from Israel and Egypt and urge the administration to initiate regional negotiations to create an arms cap similar to the one imposed by the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty. That effort would truly promote the Middle East peace process.

Thomas A. Cardamone, Jr., Washington, DC (The writer directs the conventional arms transfer project of the Council for a Livable World Education Fund.)

All-Pervasive Anti-Semitism

To the Harvard Crimson, April 17, 1995 (as published).

After reading the report of spreading "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" ("Foxman Decries Anti-Semitism," news story, April 7, 1995), one wonders if the speaker was looking in the mirror and talking about himself.

In the brief report we learn that Louis Farrakhan, Madonna, Leonard Jeffries, David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Khalid Mohammed are all anti-Semitic. But others who 1) believe American Jews are too powerful, too successful or too influential, 2) deny the Holocaust occurred, or 3) accuse Jews of engaging in a disproportionate share of the Atlantic slave trade are also anti-Semitic. The report reminds me of a speech by Abba Eban in the 1950s, wherein he concluded his long list of anti-Semites by declaring that the whole world was anti-Semitic.

It is unfortunate that an educated man, trained in legal thought, equates criticism with anti-Semitism. Does attorney Foxman believe that his accusations of racism and anti-Semitism, hurled like character-assassin bombs, will help promote tolerance, understanding and harmony between races and religions? It is perplexing that Foxman, a great rhetorician, uses the tactics he decries.

Although I was raised a Jew, to discredit my criticism of Israel and the 40 years of Anti-Defamation League spying on Americans I was designated Italian and anti-Semitic. After 10 years, I am still vilified as a bigoted Italian, though neither of my parents came from that country. It shows the extent of deceptions employed by Foxman and his thought police. For a lengthy description of these and other tactics to discredit critics, see Prof. Noam Chomsky's Fateful Triangle.

Roy Bercaw, Cambridge, MA

Don't Forget Cairo

To the New York Times, April 25, 1995 (as published).

In "Have you Heard?" (column, April 12), Thomas L. Friedman discusses the tragic assassination of Malcolm Kerr when he was president of the American University of Beirut, as well as the necessity for the United States to continue supporting educational institutions overseas that encourage American ideals and interests.

While applauding these sentiments, I must note that the American University of Beirut is not "the only real liberal arts college in the Arab world."

The American University in Cairo, founded in 1919, is also a private liberal arts college. The college, on whose board of trustees I serve, has 4,000 students, 500 of them graduate students.

Robert W. Kasten, Jr., Washington, DC

What Drives the Turks?

To Time , April 24, 1995 (as published).

The people in Turkey are fed up with rapidly increasing terrorism in northern Iraq. I for one support the Turkish army's operation. As the Kurdistan Workers Party continues to kill innocent citizens, the time is right to finish off this terrorist group. Turkey has to achieve peace and democracy in northern Iraq. I hope that this operation will be the last one necessary and that Turkish troops will come back as soon as possible.

Mehmet Eren Yuksel, Ankara, Turkey

Turkey Moved on Iraq to Combat Terrorism

To the New York Times, March 30, 1995 (as published).

Your belated concern in "Turkey Crosses a Line" (editorial, March 23) over Iraq's territorial integrity, "violated" by the Turkish military operation, is disingenuous, to say the least. It is also misinformed and suggests a visceral opposition to the Turkish government.

The Turkish military was forced to move on a small area in Iraq precisely because the territorial integrity of Iraq in the north was ignored and abused by the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, one of the world's bloodiest terrorist organizations. The vacuum of authority in northern Iraq allowed the PKK to establish major bases from which it executed terrorist attacks on Turkish soil with impunity.

The decision to send forces into northern Iraq was not taken lightly. Turkey fulfilled its obligations to protect its innocent civilians from further attacks. Turkey is legally and morally justified in its actions, which is why the United States government supported the operation.

The editorial refers to the "legitimate American military purpose in northern Iraq to 'protect Kurdish civilians from Saddam Hussain's forces.'" I hope you would someday display a similar humanitarian compassion for protecting Turkish civilians from PKK terrorism as well.

No country in the region and in the world is more sensitive than Turkey about the preservation of Iraq's territorial integrity. The Turkish military operation is simply aimed at eliminating a terrorist menace.

Nuzhet Kandemir, Ambassador of Turkey, Washington, DC

Pakistan's Role in Afghanistan

To the Christian Science Monitor, April 26, 1995 (as published).

The article "Religious Zeal Drives Afghani Youth Army to Swift Dubious Win," March 29, was informative, but marred unnecessarily by an allegation that the Taliban (the Islamic youth army) "is said to have been receiving significant financial backing from Pakistani intelligence forces." Pakistan, beyond its well-known continuing humanitarian aid to more than 2 million Afghan refugees in Pakistani territory, has not interfered in the internal matters of Afghanistan.

Like all freedom-loving nations, Pakistan joined the United States and several other countries in support of the Afghan mujahideen in the fight for their nation's freedom. Since the defeat and retreat of the Soviet Red Army, Pakistan has counseled all factions in Afghanistan to settle their political differences through diplomacy. This remains Pakistan's policy to see that peace returns to Afghanistan. The author also alleges that the Pakistan Army adopted the "fledgling movement as a means of opening the road linking Pakistan with Central Asia." The Pakistan Army, a professional military force, has only one agenda: The defense of its national borders.

Syed Rifaat Hussain, Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, DC

Morocco Should Control Western Sahara

To the New York Times , March 9, 1995 (as published).

Re your March 5 news article on complaints of Moroccan interference in United Nations efforts to determine Western Saharan sovereignty:

The area in question, formerly called Spanish Sahara, was part of the vast empire seized in the 19th century by France and Spain. It is an area slightly smaller than France, virtually devoid of roads and vegetation, sparsely occupied by nomads.

The region has one small city, Laayoune, close to the old Moroccan border, and about a dozen villages. Its only port, Dakla, is used for the transshipment of minerals and is separated by a great distance from the rest of the population. It would be clearly impossible to form a viable nation given these conditions.

After decades of unsuccessful negotiations with the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, King Hassan urged the citizens of Morocco to defy the Spanish occupation. About 525,000 unarmed Moroccans walked, drove or rode camels into Spanish Sahara in a massive demonstration of passive resistance called the Green March. At that point, in 1976, the Spanish government withdrew, ceding most of the land to Morocco.

For political reasons the governments of Algeria and Libya instigated, financed and provided arms to a small group of Saharans opposed to Morocco. This group had no historical claim of any kind to substantiate its claim of sovereignty.

Algeria's motive was to pressure the Moroccan government to settle a longstanding border dispute. Libya's motive was to destabilize the Moroccan government, which is allied with the United States and was the site of the largest Strategic Air Command base in Africa.

Morocco has effectively won this war, whose spoils are the largest phosphate and uranium deposits in Africa. Successful exploitation of these minerals will immensely improve the quality of life for the people of Morocco. To say that Morocco is interfering in the affairs of the region is incorrect. Western Sahara is and should be part of Morocco.

Michael Greenwald, San Diego, CA (The writer worked for the World Health Organization in Morocco from 1973 to 1976.)

Caucasian Tempest

To the Kuwait Times, April 6, 1995 (as published).

The problems in Chechnya are a prelude to increased unrest in the Caucasus mountains. The situation in Ingushetia, a neighboring autonomous region, has become worse as Chechen refugees continue to pour in. The Ingush have similar complaints against the Russians as their Chechen cousins. Since 1992, when Russian-Ingush tension forced 35,000 Ingush to flee their homes, a state of emergency has existed in the region. In mid-February, the emergency was lifted in Ingushetia and the neighboring Ossetia and some people in the Russian government are hoping that increased violence in the region after the lifting of the emergency will swing Russian popular opinion to support the government's military activities in the Caucasus. According to the Russian daily Izvestia, the Republic of Dagestan is also bracing for a wider Caucasian war. Chechnya's rebels are already active in the region organizing armed detachments among several Muslim ethnic groups. Weapons and volunteers are also flowing into the region, with every indication that the Russian army may need to prepare for a second front. It is still not too late to negotiate a political solution to this political problem. The sooner Russian President Boris Yeltsin realizes this, the better it will be.

Shahid Nasir Qureshi, Buraimi, Sultanate of Oman

Flawed Interpretation

To the Washington Post, April 3, 1995 (as published).

James Schear, an adviser to the U.N. operation in Bosnia, has produced a near-perfect example of the naïveté and vacuous morality that has driven the international mission there ["No Alternative to the Peacekeepers," op-ed, March 21].

In all such articles I have read from officials associated with the U.N., there is no aggressor in this conflict, and all sides are victims, as if from a mysterious plague. Like Greek gods, U.N. officials float above the fray by following a "higher" morality, one in which all sides must share equal responsibility. This is a wonderfully convenient attitude, as it means no real action has to be taken.

Still, the near-complete failure of the U.N. mission has become too obvious for even its most ardent apologists to ignore. They complain that the mandate is too limited, their hands are tied, and besides, some aid has gotten through. Yet the U.N. has failed to live up to its mandate and has never pressed for an expansion.

Urgent NATO requests for airstrikes were rejected by U.N. headquarters, and the heavy-weapons exclusion zone around Sarajevo continues to be ignored by the Serbs. As for the "safe areas": How many Bosnians died last week from snipers and shells? UNPROFOR protects only its own. As for aid, only a trickle has gotten through to the trapped civilians, and the U.N. gives the Serbs a large part of the food supposed to go to civilians. It has become impossible to overestimate the degree to which the U.N. will abase itself before the Serbs.

Is everybody tired of Bosnia yet? Well, as long as the U.N. is left in charge, the attack on Bosnian democracy and tolerance by the Serb dictatorship will continue indefinitely.

Despite the lack of leadership in this country and in Europe, grass-roots organizations made up of ordinary people—for whom the phrase "never again" has some meaning—are working to end the U.S. involvement in the arms embargo that has kept Bosnia powerless. The West will not help Bosnians—so morality demands we let them help themselves.

Douglas B. Schwartz, Falls Church, VA (The writer is a member of the Bosnia Support Committee.)

Nonproliferation Inconsistancies

To the Washington Post, May 2, 1995 (as published).

The Post's article on U.S. hopes of renewing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ["A Hard Sell for Treaty Renewal," front page, April 14] missed an essential point. Nuclear "have-not" nations are concerned not only about having the nuclear "haves" reduce their arsenals, which is a distant prospect but the major theme of the article. There is a more urgent and significant issue involved. It centers on the basic sincerity of Washington's attitude toward proliferation.

The concern arises because of the longtime inconsistent U.S. policy on nonproliferation. For instance, the United States has failed during the 25-year course of the treaty to make any serious effort to rid Israel of its presumed nuclear arsenal. Nor has it publicly pressured Israel to sign the treaty that nearly every other nation has signed (175 of the United Nations' 185 members). Nor has the current administration added to U.S. credibility by appearing to want to sell arms to Pakistan while at the same time admitting it cannot certify that country is nuclear weapon-free. Like Israel, Pakistan has not signed the treaty.

There is a fundamental contradiction here, and signatory nations—such as Egypt and Syria—are asking for an explanation. Their contention, and that of other nations, is that the United States cannot on the one hand pose as the champion of nonproliferation and on the other tacitly condone selective proliferation. As the debate on extending NPT approaches a vote, Washington will be under mounting pressure to justify its position. If it fails to and the treaty dies, Washington will have no one to blame but its own inconsistent policies.

Donald Neff, Washington, DC