To the Editors of the Crimson:

After digging through the rhetoric, the posturing, the lists of atrocities, there shines one fundamental truth regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict--the Israelis have a state, the Palestinians do not. Common sense would dictate that if there is ever to be peaceful coexistence, the national aspirations of the Palestinian people must be achieved. Palestinians, like the Israelis, deserve a homeland.

However, for more than 20 years now, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have lived under Israeli occupation. They are denied the right to vote, yet must pay taxes to their occupiers. They are subject to beatings, torture and arrests without charge. Their property has been confiscated.

American taxpayers have unwittingly been funding the process all along. Since 1967 when Israel first occupied the Arab territories, the United States has given Israel more than $45 billion in aid. This year alone, Israel is receiving more than $3 billion, almost one-half of all U.S. foreign aid, at a rate of almost $8 million a day. Aid to Israel has always been supported under the assumption that it was a moral imperative: Israel needed our tax dollars to promote democracy and to defend itself from hostile neighbors.

Israel's violent response to the 10-month Palestinian uprising, however, has made it clear to Americans that our perceptions were somewhat skewed. Most everyone agrees that we should continue to support Israel, to defend its existence as well as its integrity. It does not necessarily follow however, that this support should include such massive funding of its brutal occupation and human rights violations. Most Americans now realize that Palestinians are the victims, not the oppressors; the occupied, not the occupiers.

Question 5, the Cambridge-Somerville referendum, is a product of this changing attitude in America. It calls for an end to Israel's human rights violations, stopping "all expenditure of U.S. taxpayers' money for Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza," and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with peace for all states in the region including Israel. Question 5 is a product of the realization that the national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians must be met before there is ever to be peace in the Middle East.

But more importantly, it expresses an understanding that American foreign policy must be readjusted to facilitate that goal. America must refuse to pay for an occupation which not only frustrates hopes of Palestinian nationalism, but also erodes Israeli democracy and encourages the growth of racism. For as long as Israel continues to deny fundamental rights to the non-Jewish population of the West Bank and Gaza, Americans cannot in good conscience claim that Israel is a democracy. Nor can we sit silently and continue to financially enable the human rights violations that America has so proudly attempted to eradicate the world over. This is the reasoning and the motivation behind Question 5.

The opposition, of course, has come up with its own rather peculiar interpretations. Occasionally, the sponsor of the referendum, the Coalition for Palestinian Rights (CPR), has come under attack as having "a hidden agenda." Despite the referendum's clear call for "peace for all states in the region, including Israel," many still assert that the CPR, which incidentally includes both Jewish and Arab Americans, is secretly seeking the total destruction of Israel. As further evidence of our alleged bias against Israel, the opposition points out that the referendum does not call on the U.S. government to apply pressure on the Palestinians. The referendum's attention to only Israeli atrocities, they claim, is proof of its one-sidedness.

Sadly, any perceived bias against Israel is a direct reflection of the need to change American policy which is currently biased in Israel's favor. Americans do not give Palestinians $3 billion in annual aid and therefore cannot cut it back. The Palestinians are not occupying another people's territory, and therefore cannot be encouraged to withdraw. Unfortunately, America has so firmly entrenched itself in the Israeli camp, that it has forfeited any political leverage with the Palestinians. The PLO is willing to negotiate with U.S. and Israeli representatives.

It is the U.S. and Israel who refuse to negotiate with the PLO. Question 5 urges a more balanced approach to the entire conflict, an approach which stresses that both Palestinians and Israelis have equal rights to statehood and there must come a day when our government treats both peoples equally. Until that day, however, any claim that Question 5 is "one-sided" or "biased" against Israel, ignores the fact that America's Mideast policy is itself "one-sided" and "biased" in favor of Israel. Question 5 seeks to balance the scales.

Those who oppose Question 5 occasionally argue that a foreign policy issue has no business being on the Cambridge ballot. Of course, it does. The residents of Cambridge are very much involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The tax dollars of Cambridge residents, too, are given away to Israel each year. As American citizens, we, the people of Cambridge, have not only the right to express our opinion about the misuse of our tax dollars--we also have that responsibility. It is true that Israel, as an independent country, cannot be forced to cease its human rights violations. However, let us not forget that America too is an independent country, and while we may not be able to put an end to Israel's brutality, we are certainly under no obligation to foot the bill.

The degree to which some have gone in attacking Question 5 is fascinating. There are those who object because there is no explicit security guarantee for Israel. There is none for Palestine either. There are those who object because the referendum does not condemn PLO atrocities. But the U.S. already condemns various actions of Palestinians; the referendum does not challenge this policy. It only seeks to hold Israel to the same human rights standards applied to South Africa, the Soviet Union, and Central America. The most frustrating excuse that opposition to Question 5 has invented is that the situation is far too complex to be addressed in a referendum. This is, of course, a not-so-subtle attempt at preserving the status quo.

The final responsibility falls on the Cambridge voters. It is our decision. In the words of Henry Bader, Holocaust survivor and two-state supporter, writing in a recent issue of The Jewish Advocate, voters "can either close their eyes to the suffering of the Palestinians and to the deterioration of Israeli society, or they can stand up and be counted." There is no denying that the overall spirit of the referendum is one which addresses the American obligation to the peaceful coexistence and security of both Israelis and Palestinians.. Those genuinely concerned with Israel's future as well as the rights of the Palestinians cannot afford to miss this opportunity. We, the undersigned, are Jews, Christians, and Muslims, Arabs and non-Arabs, united together in an effort to encourage the Cambridge community to vote yes on 5.