To the Editors of the Crimson:

Senator McGovern's support of Israel is consistent with his opposition to the Government's Southeast Asian policy, and with his general foreign policy perspective. His view that Arab votes in the General Assembly (and Russian and Chinese votes in the Security Council) prevent the United Nations from playing a constructive role in the Arab-Israeli conflict is consistent with his view that the General Assembly was correct when it recognized the People's Republic of China as the government of China. What Saris and White fail to realize is that different situations demand individual assessment.

Israel is not Vietnam. At stake in the Middle East is the national existence of a state--Israel--and a people--Jewish--who have been the victims of aggression. Israel does not want American men (it is the Russians who have troops and "advisors" in the region), but the ability to buy the weapons necessary for her self-defense. The United States has a commitment to Israel's existence, and support of Israel is in our national interest.

As to the U.N., it is true that a body prejudiced (by Arab votes) against one party is thereby prevented from playing a constructive role or achieving equitable results. It is equally true that inclusion in the U.N. of one of the world's three super-powers, China, strengthens that body. On the basis that talking is usually preferable to fighting, and China's presence makes talking easier, the U.N. action deserves support. Recognizing the People's Republic of China also accords with the wise policy, supported by Senator McGovern, of recognizing regimes in de facto control of a country. Recognition does not imply approval. On that basis, the simultaneous decision to exclude the Republic of China (Taiwan) demonstrates the limits of the U.N., already noted in regard to the Arab-Israel conflict.

There are grounds on which Senator McGovern may be faulted. They do not include his support of Israel and of the U.N. David A. Guberman '71, IL