Mubarak Awad's prominently displayed op-ed article {June 27}, anointing himself a Palestinian apostle of peace and totally exculpating himself from the insurrectionist acts of the rioters and arsonists at work for the last six months, is in total contradiction to his well-documented preachings calling for the eradication of Israel as a Jewish state.

In the interest of your readers having the facts, rather than the deceptions served up in Mr. Awad's article, it should be known that his own speeches and writings give the lie to his claim that he is merely "a believer in the need for Israel to co-exist in peace alongside a Palestinian state" and that "Israel finds me a threat because it is afraid to give peace a chance."

The facts are that in a 1984 article in The Journal of Palestine Studies, in taped speeches to Palestinian students and in an interview last January, Mr. Awad revealed his true agenda. In the JPS article he wrote: "For the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza the most effective strategy is nonviolence. This does not apply to the Palestinians living outside. Nor is it a rejection of the concept of armed struggle. This is nothing short of war."

In a taped speech in Jerusalem to Palestinian students on March 22, this year, he said: "The PLO wants the entire Palestine and I agree. Palestine for me is the Galilee, Akko, Ashdod, everything. This is Palestine for me."

And last January in an interview with David Bedein, head of Israel Resource, a media relations agency in Jerusalem, Mr. Awad revealed more of his agenda without the veils: "I feel that there would be no peace without us having a Palestinian state. In the beginning not all of Palestine, but in years to come there would be an agreement of Palestine/Israel. There would be one state. Arabs would call it Palestine and Israelis or Jews would call it Israel."

As a leader of the violent Palestinian Arab uprising, which, as noted above, Mr. Awad calls "war," he is clearly more than just an instigator of nonviolence. In peacetime, Israel, as a democracy, could and probably would permit Mr. Awad's incitements as an exercise of free speech. In fact, it did so for some time. At war, as Israel is with the followers of the "uprising" and still with 21 of the surrounding Arab countries, Mr. Awad's statements are clearly those of a hostile foreigner who has long overstayed his visa. Would the United States under similar conditions countenance such incitement by a foreigner?

We sent The Post and several columnists a transcription of the interview mentioned above. Mr. Awad's true positions have been on record for some time as well. We are at a loss, therefore, to understand how you could print his self-encomium without at least an editor's note as to his true position.

WIN MEISELMAN President, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America Washington