To the Editors of the Crimson:

About one month after Jonathan Moses' column "A Solution for Israel" (January 20) appeared in the Crimson, a copy of it reached me in Jerusalem. Even this long after its publication I feel compelled to respond--because its fallacies are common and persistent, and because neither Moses nor most readers of the Crimson have enough information to describe, much less analyze what is occurring both in the territories and within Israel.

You see beatings by Israeli soldiers of Palestinians whose protesting does not justify such treatment. Since you hear about this every day, you conclude that it is the norm and that Israelis in general are behaving immorally. I see more. I see Israeli TV reporters appoaching on-duty soldiers, who say that the army should not be in the West Bank and Gaza at all; I see passionate outrage by soldiers and civilians in response to reports of brutality; I see the growth in recent weeks of both secular and religious peace movements. And I see a growing weariness among many Israelis who just want to be rid of the problem of occupation. Do not let your own moral outrage paint you a picture of an Israel halfway down the ethical chute.

You begin with Israel's "quandary of state-threatening proportions" as though that were the only factor in the current situation. So the deduction is easy: occupation threatens Israel's soul, so Israel should leave the West Bank and Gaza. That is easy enough to accept--but what happens once Israel has left? Ah, there is something else to think about in addition to Israel's internal dilemma: the refusal of a single Palestinian leader to renounce the desire for Israel's destruction. Arafat dances around: "Who will I negotiate with, ghosts? If I say now I recognize Israel, what will I have to bargain with?"

When I heard David Kuttab, an East Jerusalem Palestinian journalist, speak to an already sympathetic Jewish audience here. he hinted that Palestinians would like to negotiate not from the pre-1967 borders of Israel but from the map of the 1947 U N partition resolution. which leaves a much smaller Israel. Never mind that Palestinian notables rejected the U N plan in '47. preferring to let the Arab states attempt to wipe Israel out by war: never mind that precisely those Palestinian figures who recognize Israel in the first place are those the P.L.O rejects.

Moses waffles on the security issue by offering the U N control of a bordering strip between Israel and the Palestinian state. Has he ever seen the area under discussion? There is no room!

Others suggest demilitarizing the Palestinian state. There is no question that that would have to be a first step, but from the viewpoint of Palestinians, demilitarization is a difficult demand to swallow. Independence without an army is still degrading, all the more so for a people so committed in the past to "armed struggle." So, sooner or later, Israel would face a Palestinian army. Until the P.L.O. renounces Israel's destruction as an aim, it seems unreasonable to ask Israel to hand the P.L.O. a state and a base overlooking Tel Aviv (Moses' capital) and Jerusalem (Israel's capital).

Where does this leave us?

Mainly we have to realize that a solution to the problem of Israel and its occupation of Palestinians requires two wills: an Israeli will to face up to the fact that continued occupation is at best a diversion of important energy and at worst a worm in the apple of the Israeli soul; and a Palestinian will to see Israel not as a temporary phenomenon but a permanent and tolerable presence. One will does not do the trick (and don't delude yourselves into thinking the Palestinians have done their part already.)

In any complicated situation, political or personal, blame is the easiest response. Finding and pointing out contemptible behavior in the past is simple--but do not mistake this for constructive analysis of a situation toward its solution. Sometimes one has to forego criticism, even legitimate criticism, when its goal is not to repair but to hurt, to attack, to "have been right so now I can punish you." Outrage at the behavior of many Israeli soldiers does not by itself translate into a political program. And it is not responsible for a journalist or even a movie director to assuage his or her conscience in the disguise of constructive analysis.

Let me conclude by telling you that precisely because I am a Zionist and a traditional Jew I find Israel's occupation and some of its behavior intolerable. So I attend meetings and demonstrations. and I argue my point fiercely in discussions and articles. More than Jonathan Moses I worry about Israel's soul and character--not just because it strengthens Jews with a national identity, but because Israel is quite simply a remarkable and inspiring place for a Jew to be. Still, even "peaceniks" must recognize how far away the Palestinians are from making us able to given them their state. In the meantime. we grapple and grope for transitions and arrangements. And that's what we will have to do to succeed. Jonathan Savett '89-'90   currently studying for a year in Jerusalem