To the Editors of The Crimson:

Was it in the name of objectivity? This may be what The Crimson will claim, but the fact is that the reporting of the talk of Hassan Abdul-Rahman, the PLO representative, was grossly biased by a pro-Israeli stance. I think that The Crimson either succumbed to its editors' preoccupations or to a fear of strong reaction from the biased pro-Israeli part of its readership. As a result, the coverage of the event ignored the main point of it: that a PLO representative came to campus to present his organization's and his people's views on the Mid-East conflict. Instead, more prominence was given to the efforts of Jewish students to disrupt the atmosphere.

The only picture of the "event" shown is that of demonstrating pro-Israeli students, even before the event started. In addition, the boos and jeers of the disruptive section of the audience are exaggerated, whereas the article gives the impression that the rest of the audience was passive or indifferent. I am sorry to say that the quality of the coverage clarifies the editors' sympathies in the Mid-East.

Another comment I would like to make refers to the pro-Israeli members of the audience Tuesday night.

Coming from a country which has historically had its own bitter share of regional conflict. I would expect people, who have their sympathies with one side in such a conflict, who nevertheless have only an essentially ideological interest in it and who get "passionately" involved in it from the, so to speak, affluent complacency of their Ivy League education. I would expect from such people to be in the forefront of reconciliation and of the search for a way to peace. If this is too much to hope for, as I bitterly realized last night. I would expect them to be reserved in their applause of persons of no more moral picture and of no less self-righteousness than Menachem Begin, whose policies a substantial portion of the public opinion of Israel itself criticizes. Nikes Nicopoulos '83