Self-Defense No Excuse For Violence in Lebanon

To the editors:

"The Complex Lebanese Conflict" (Op-Ed, Feb. 15) does not really take a clear enough stand against all forms of aggression. It does not pass beyond the implicitly belligerent "us versus them", "Israel against the Arabs" dichotomy. Yet it is this binary lens which has allowed the perpetration of some of the most heinous crimes to go unchallenged in history.

The authors state that "in order to avoid Lebanese civilian casualties, Israel chose not to attack [civilian] targets" and then continues to call for us to "go beyond rhetoric." The sad fact is the Israelis did choose to bomb a power plant outside of Beirut which supplies energy to almost one million citizens. The article further paints far too benign a picture of the Israeli army's involvement in Lebanon which in the summer of 1982 alone resulted in 17,000 deaths. If we want to move beyond rhetoric we have no choice but to squarely look at the historical sins of all players, especially of those closest to us.

No Christian or Jew should ever have to condone the chauvinistic and extremely brutal Maronite regime and militia which seized power during the Lebanese Civil War thanks to Israeli sponsorship. Nor should they blindly accept the Israeli army's pretexts for their incursion into Southern Lebanon, however much it may have played into the hands of this or that "Christian" mercenary warlord or ostensibly defended northern Galilee. Likewise, no Muslim should succumb to Hizbollah's rallying cries of retaliation and nihilistic hatred. To be sure, in desperate reaction to the Israeli occupation of the South and the major invasions of 1982 and 1996, a number of Lebanese Christians are starting to view Hizbollah as a respectable "resistance" force despite the patently callow and self-serving character of this organization.

If any progress is to be made at all, Israelis, Arabs and outsiders must learn to summon the courage to critically examine their own governments' misdeeds before they rush to justify bloodshed in the name of self-defense. In the end it is the people of Lebanon, struggling as they are to reconstruct their country and lives, and the inhabitants of Israel, imprisoned as they are in a constant atmosphere of anxiety, whom we owe the greatest sympathy and concern. They deserve better--better than the vicious Israeli war-machine, better than despotic Syrian colonialism, better than the cheap slogans of myopic Muslim nationalism proclaimed by Hizbollah, and better than the arrogant and short-sighted Realpolitik of Pax Americana.

Mark Farha

Feb. 16, 2000

The author is a Ph.D. Candidate in History and Middle Eastern Studies and co-president of the Harvard-based World Council on Religion on Peace.

Give Back to Donors

To the editors:

In response to David A. Fahrenthold's "Harvard Won't Get My Change" (Column, Feb. 15), I ask my classmates to view senior gift as our gesture of thanks to those alumni donors who have made our education possible.

Sure, we had to work hard to get through Harvard, and many students have incurred sizable student loan debts. Even so, none of us pays the nearly $50,000 per year that it costs Harvard to educate each student.

We are a privileged group of people who have been living on the dole for four years. We should be humble instead of feeling entitled and ungrateful. Giving our "pocket change" demonstrates to alumni donors that we appreciate their investment in us.

Edward T. Freeman '00

The author is a volunteer for the Senior Gift.

Crimson Unqualified To Impeach Burton

To the editors:

The vicissitudes of The Crimson's "logical contradictions" with regards to the Burton affair are profoundly disturbing. Your editorial "The Students Should Decide" (Editorial, Feb. 7) states that "the students should decide whether or not" the alleged misconduct of Undergraduate Council Vice President John A. Burton '01 was "truly serious enough to warrant removal from what is a primarily bureaucratic office." Your editorial "Burton Should Step Down" (Editorial, Feb. 14) also claims that such "a decision should be left to the students" but refers to the alleged misconduct as "fact" and confidently claims that because "a majority of the Council has called for [Burton's] expulsion" it is in the students' interest that Burton resign. It claims that the "student body will" in fact "hold the current administration in distrust" until Burton resigns.

The editorial claims the council's "trial" of Burton was "ill equipped" and yet it has the audacity to convict Burton based on its own trial and on behalf of the student body it previously claimed should be the sole judge of whether Burton's actions merited removal from office. From what oracle does The Crimson derive its authority to speak on behalf of the student body? The Crimson is confident in its assumption that students mistrust the Undergraduate Council's current administration; I am as confident that the student body mistrusts The Crimson's presumption in these matters.

The one voice that has not been properly heard either in the noise of the council's "circus" or The Crimson's coverage of this farce is that of the student body which voted overwhelmingly for the Driskell/Burton ticket. Unlike The Crimson's editorial staff, I am sure that if presented with the "facts" and not The Crimson's "semantic manipulations" the student body would reiterate its support of Burton as vice president of the council.

Saadi Soudavar '99-'00

Feb. 14, 2000

The author is a council representative for Eliot House.