To the Editors of The Crimson:

On November 8, the citizens of Cambridge will be asked to vote on an issue of vital importance. Question 5 addresses the situation between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, purporting to advance a method of achieving peace. We at Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel believe that the referendum is misleading and would in fact impede the peace process in the Middle East.

The referendum begins by "demanding that Israel end its violations of Palestinian human rights." This assertion of unilateral violations is neither helpful nor accurate. While we acknowledge that some Israeli soldiers have behaved improperly in certain situations, the framers of the referendum do not recognize misconduct on the part of the Palestinians.

The road to peace leads through a renunciations of violency by both sides, whether that violence be shooting rubber bullets or throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails. Looking beyond villages in the West Bank, nowhere in the referendum is there a call for the Palestine Liberation Organization to renounce its unceasing terrorist activities against Israel, activities which have resulted in the deaths of countless civilians from Israel, the Arab nations, and the United States. We are not attempting to justify Israel's actions; however, any viable solution to the situation must address Palestinian actions as well.

The next call in the referendum is for "stopping all expenditure of U.S. taxpayers's money for Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza." When considering this issue one must realize that the United States does not specify how aid to foreign countries should be spent; therefore, despite the attractive wording, the question effectively asks for a complete cessation of aid to Israel. This demand ignores the fact that Israel is a friend of the United States: Israeli intelligence information is routinely made available to the United States; Israel, in its four wars with its hostile neighbors, tested American weaponry against equipment provided to the Arabs by the Soviet Union; and Israeli ports, bases and hospitals are put at the disposal of the United States Navy and Marine Corps in both routine and emergency situations. Implementing this policy would be tanatamount to abandoning America's only stable ally in the Middle East.

The referendum continues by "favoring the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza." The creation of such a state may in fact be part of a comprehensive, peaceful resolution of the crisis. However, it is not the place of the United States to legislate a solution to an international situation, especially one with as many complex historical and political facets as this. Peace in the region cannot be accomplished in a vacuum; it must be the result of direct negotiations between the parties involved. The United States should concentrate its efforts on facilitating these talks. Any attempt to circumvent the negotiation process or to impose a settlement is doomed to failure.

Finally, the referendum implies that the actions outlined above will lead to "peace for all states in the region including Israel." Certainly this sentiment is a worthy and noble goal, but the connection between it and the rest of the referendum is tenuous at best. It is unclear how the referendum's policies would accelerate peace in the region; in fact, they would appear to impede the process. They call for unilateral concessions by Israel, when we should be calling for negotiations by both sides. In addition to criticizing Israeli violations of Palestinian rights, we should denounce the use of violence by the Palestinians and terrorism by the PLO, including the renunciation of the section of the PLO charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. A cessation of aid to Israel, without any comparable censure of the Palestinians, forces Israel to the bargaining table in an untenably weak position. Instead of blindly legislating the creation of a Palestinian state, we must ensure that any agreement guarantees Israel's security. Without compromise on both sides, peace will not truly be attained.

While we all agree that peace in the Middle East is our goal, we at Harvard Radcliffe Hillel do not feel that this referendum would accomplish that end. We urge the Harvard and Cambridge communities to vote no on Question 5. The Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel Undergraduate Coordinating Council