To the Editors of The Crimson:

George Bisharat ("Questioning Israel's Morality," March 5th) commits so many factual errors through omission and distortion that I will respond only to those which are most egregious.

His claim of a "very active complicity in the [Beirut] massacres" by the Israelis is directly countered by inquiry evidence which holds the Christian Phalangists solely responsible, and finds that no conspiracy or plot existed beween Israelis and Phalangists "with the aim of perpetrating atrocities in the camps." Where is Mr. Bisharat's condemnation of the Lebanese government's paralysis in conducting its own investigation in light of such damning evidence? Further, there was a reason to enter Sabra and Shatila. Contrary to Arafat's written guarantee, the PLO left about 2000 terrorists and large stocks of weapons in these West Beirut camps, facts confirmed by Oriana Fallacci in her September Kennedy School address.

Mr. Bisharat also neglects to mention that Israeli support for the Phalangists stemmed from continued Palestinian and Syrian atrocities committed against Lebanese Christians, such as the 1976 Damour massacre. While the world looked on with calculated indifference, it was Israeli support which guaranteed Christian survival during the Lebanese Civil War.

Mr. Bisharat also seems confused over interpretations of international law. If he is concerned about "the admissibility of intervention in another state," why not discuss the rape, torture, intimidation, theft, vigilante justice, and enforced conscription of children which the PLO had practiced during its seven year occupation of Lebanon, all of which rendered the Lebanese government impotent? Is that not a most blatant violation of sovereignty? He cannot bring himself to mention it, but this sordid history has been documented through interviews by David Shipler of the Times, among many others.

The "massive scale of death and destruction" is cited as evidence of the violation of the supposed "norm of proportionality" in the use of force. Yet it must be noted that many of the initial, unsubstantiated casualty figures have been discredited as being gross exaggerations of the actual total by the Palestinian Red Crescent, headed by Yasser Arafat's brother.

In addition, surely Mr. Bisharat knows that the PLO placed its weaponry in, on, or near civilian institutions like hospitals, schools, and churches. Why? To quote a senior PLO representative, "the more civilians killed [in Lebanon] the better, because of the tactical advantage it gives to the Palestinian cause" (Times, Aug. 6). A Voice of Lebanon broadcast from July 9 said, "Palestinian gunmen are trying by every means to keep the various roads cut off in order to keep civilians in [West] Beirut," even though the Israelis exhorted them to leave through the dropping of leaflets. Certainly, civilian casualties would have been far smaller had the PLO not held civilians hostage, nor placed their forces in non-military areas.

No government in the world would tolerate such a massive arms buildup as the PLO engaged in Southern Lebanon. That these weapons might never have been used against Israel is irrelevant. The mere threat they posed, along with repeated PLO rocket attacks and terrorist incursions, caused a massive depopulation of northern Israeli border towns. Farouk Kaddowni of the PLO called this psychological warfare, one way (albeit in stages) to "liberate Palestine."

The Israeli government, as any responsible government would, had a duty, indeed a right, to protect its citizens, under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The 1978 Litani operation failed to prevent subsequent PLO terrorism, so the government was entitled to use whatever means necessary to eradicate the northern threat once and for all. The massive PLO infrastructure necessarily required that the Israelis proceed further than their originally stated 25 mile limit.

Mr. Bisharat's accusations that Israel destroyed Palestinian homes, attempted to relocate the population, and conducted arbitrary arrests of Palestinian men are better directed at the Lebanese government which, subsequent to the PLO's evacuation, rounded up thousands of Palestinian civilians, bulldozed homes and refugee camps, and fought against Israeli attempts to construct pre-fabricated homes for the refugees. Would that Mr. Arafat or other Arab leaders have shown such concern for the refugees as the Israelis did.

The greatest difficulty for Mr. Bisharat lies with the Israeli commissions's finding and recommendations. Mr. Bisharat calls the recommendations "mild" in the face of "these crimes against humanity." Are the latter words meant to suggest that the only satisfactory remedy for him is, as Arafat wants, a Nuremburg-type tribunal to judge the complicity of Israel in "war crimes?" If so, and if an unbiased tribunal were to be convened, then surely he would agree that Arafat and his PLO colleagues would be, as Alan Dershowitz has said, the first defendants because of their systematic killings of civilians over more than a decade, and their continued mockery of all standards of international law and decency. However, Mr. Bisharat, in his great concern for these lofty principles, cannot seem to find the voice to condemn these men and their actions.

In a country where the military plays such a central role, and where it must continue to do so in the light of the Arabs' steadfast refusal, even after 35 years, to end their state of war and come to grips with the reality and legitimacy of Israel, the call for the resignation of Israel's top military leaders is unprecedented, there, or really, anywhere in the world.

Four thousand Israelis took to the streets to protest against their own government because Arabs had been killed, and forced it to undertake an inquiry, in stark contrast to the throngs of Arabs who cheered when Israeli athletes were murdered in Munich. These people, in this democracy, are the surest guarantees "of deterring individuals from future wrong."

The Israeli people and soldiers, "by affirming their humanity, also affirm the Palestinians'. They have risen in protest against the politics of terror that Israel itself has long had to endure. By their shame, they shame the killers of their own children. By their revulsion, they expose the hypocrisy of many of their critics." (Times Sept. 29). Mr. Bisharat, though his selective conscience, factual omissions, and distortions, is simply one more of those duplicitous assailants. William Marks '83