To the Editors of the Crimson:

It is unfortunate that a fellow Jew, Joshua M. Sharfstein in his opinion piece "A Higher Standard," not only relies, but proudly admits to relying upon the same detructive double standard which Israel's enemies utilize, in their attempts to render illegitimate the existence of the Jewish state.

He writes that "Israel was never supposed to be just another nation," but rather a "light unto nations." The United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism illustrates the dangers of this false premise, by treating Jewish nationalism as inherently unequal to other national movements worldwide. Had Israel's founders believed that the new state's legitimacy rested on its higher "Jewish morals," or on some concept of perfection, they would have sealed their own destruction by implying that an imperfect Israel has no right to exist. Fortunately, they acted somewhat more carefully than Sharfstein. Israel's "Declaration of Independence" explicitly states that the creation of the new state would destroy age-old double standards by "lifting the Jewish people to equality in the family of nations." As Normon Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary magazine writes, "the purpose of Israel was to normalize the Jewish people, not to perfect them. The Jewish state was to create not a utopia but a refuge from persecution."

In accordance with his misguided understanding of Israel's legitimacy, Sharfstein misinterprets the widespread response to the "who is a Jew" issue. The American Jewish community did not unify in the name of a "higher standard" but rather for an equal standard. The supporters of the new law hope to hold Jews all over the world to a "higher" orthodox standard. In doing so, they wish to judge Judaism in the same way that Sharfstein judges Israel. For this they are condemned.

The realization that even in the face of 40 years of Arab aggression, Israel has not only remained free and democratic, but also fully modernized, industrial, learned, cultured and proud, should not cause observers such as Sharfstein to hold Israel to "A Higher Standard." In proving that external threats do not justify internal repression, Israel has indeed been a "light unto nations." Yet it must never be judged as such. Criticism of Israel is a healthy sign of democracy; few people criticize Israel more than the Israelis. Yet such criticism should not be waged indiscriminately, as Sharfstein suggest. Jews and non-Jews must judge Israel according to the same standard applied to the United States and to every other sovereign nation in the world.

Sharfstein's conclusion that "Jews have an obligation to insist on Israel's adherence to higher principles," while perhaps an idealistic dream, can only prove self-destructive for a state under seige. His presumptious knowledge of what is "morally right for Israel" seems at best, equally disturbing. Glen I. A. Schwaber '91