To The Editors of The Crimson:

Regarding John L. Larew's opinion piece, "Israel's Worst Best Friends," I am truly amazed that he could claim to understand the intellectual and psychological crises of the contemporary American Jewish community, based on introductory psychology. Though I am honored that he classified me in the same intellectual category as Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, I am left wondering who appointed him the arbiter of "Zealotry."

I do wish to explain my position more clearly so that perhaps Larew might think through his opinions more carefully in the future.

First of all, though I cannot speak for my fellow "Zealots," I, as a Jew, support Israel first and foremost because it is a Jewish state. I have never hidden that fact, nor do I ever intend to. I resent Larew's implication that this position is somehow embarassing or morally reprehensible or that it requires a justification that his non-zealotous position does not. Nobody has the right to claim that somehow I am less of a loyal American because of my commitment to Israel. Every American, regardless of other ethnic or national ties, is equally American. That said, I would fight to the ends of the earth to make sure Israeli democracy continues to thrive.

I also recognize, however, that "perfect democracy" is a contradiction in terms. Larew's statement that the occupation of the territories undermines "Israel's claim to democratic perfection," seems meaningless. Israel has never claimed democratic perfection; nor has the United States. To do so would undermine the very foundation of democracy, by implying that equality has finite limits.

Perhaps most disappointing, is that Larew supports his condescending and morally loaded premise with distortions of the truth. If he looks carefully at the poster to which he refers (I have a copy if he would like a second look) he will notice that the soldier in question still has the strap of his gun around his neck. If he actually attempted to beat the Palestinian woman with the butt of his rifle, he would have decapitated himself. Perhaps Larew found the inscription "Bullshit!" across the photo because it claimed to portray something that was not occuring in the picture. Though, I suppose it better suits his argument to chalk it up to Psych 1 "denial."

To clarify, I do not condone those rare, but undeniable cases of Israeli brutality in the territories, but neither can I sit by silently as these instances are exploited and blown out of proportion by those whose political purpose goes beyond that of Palestinian nationalism and human rights. It is interesting that Larew never thought to question why that same picture was used for two straight years, when allegedly, abuses were occuring daily, and a variety of photographs could presumably reveal additional incriminating "evidence."

Larew then goes on to attack Professer Dershowitz for intellectual inconsistancy. I'm not sure of the exact laws, but this highly respected "Zealot" might be able to sue Larew for libel. I have been following Dershowitz's articles and speeches since the start of the intifada, and I have never seen him defend the curtailment of civil liberties in Israel. In a recent speech to AIPAC, he stated the following:

"One does not judge a democracy by the way its soldiers immediately react, young men and women under tremendous provocation. One judges a democracy by the way its courts react, in the dispassionate cool of judicial chambers. And the Israeli Supreme Court and other courts--have reacted magnificently. For the first time in the Mid East history, there is an independent judiciary willing to listen to the grievances of Arabs--that judiciary is called the Israeli Supreme Court.

"I am not in favor of the occupation as a human rights activist, but I have to tell you--there has never been a freer press in any part of the Arab world than the all-too un-free press that today exists in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. For the first time in Arab history there has been a relatively independent press, too censored by my standards, too censored by your standards, and most importantly--too censored by Israeli standards. Israel does not always comply with its own high standards of human rights in the West Bank."

Maybe it's just me; but I do not see any indication in the above quotation of intellectual inconsistancy or of Dershowitz's defending Israeli tactics in the territories, or of any "apologetic" attitude towards Israeli human rights violations whatsoever. Unfortunately, recognition of the facts would have meant that Larew's Dershowitz as "rationalizer" argument couldn't hold much weight.

After ignoring certain "technicalities" in the photo and placing words into Dershowitz's mouth, Larew then proceeds to completely distort the reference to Dr. King, in my recent letter to The Crimson. In the context of arguing against equating Zionism with racism, I wrote, "Let us not forget the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., an ardent supporter of the State of Israel, who warned that anti-Zionism often acts as a shield for anti-Semitism." This is crucially different from Larew's "paraphrase" that "criticism of Israel is sometimes a disguise for anti-Semitism."

Criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism are two drastically distinct concepts. I am sure that Dr. King would never have so dangerously confused the issues, as Larew obviously has. He then goes on to state that I imply that "anyone who criticizes the Jewish state must be motivated by hatred of the Jews." Larew put words into my letter that I never wrote and never would write. He twists my statements to suit his purposes. I am absolutely appalled by this and I feel that a retraction is in order.

One final point; as a matter of basic knowledge, the U.S. does not support Israel solely because it is a democracy or a Jewish state. Israel is a stategic asset of unprecedented proportions. I can provide Larew with military and economic data that will prove this beyond a doubt. Egypt receives nearly the same amount of U.S. foreign aid as Israel, though it shows no signs of any sort of democracy. The administration is currently sending legislation through Congress that will permit the sale of M-1 tanks to Saudi Arabia. Remember, the U.S. granted Iran most-favored nation status under the Shah, when our stategic interests so dictated. Moreover, Larew's statement, that oil-producing gulf states are becoming more geopolitically important, is simply false. The days of the oil-weapon are fast declining, as illustrated by Japan's recent enlargement of trade with Israel, despite Arab protests. I wish Larew were correct in asserting that Israel's primary card in the U.S. will soon become political democracy because then we "Zealots" could be assured of continued U.S. support for Israel. Unfortunately, Israel's primary card will continue to be it strategic position, constantly subject to change, and "Israel's status as a democracy is an ancillary benefit" not only for us "Zealots," but also for the U.S. Department of State. Glen I.A. Schwaber '91