To the Editor:
Richard Harvell's April 18 column, "A Time to Protest," enforced some ideas that I could not agree with more. He calls for the United States and the United Nations to pressure the Israelis and Palestinians into a settlement. He states that the purpose of the recent rally was for "harsh condemnation of humanitarian violations on both sides and time for all our governments to stick out their heads and develop a peace plan." But Mr. Harvell contradicts himself. Along with his call for an end to violence and humanitarian abuses on "both sides," he calls this rally one "for the human rights of the Palestinians." That is not the title of a two-sided, peace-driven rally. What that title does is turn the tables, and turn a pro-human rights and pro-peace rally into first a pro-Palestinian rally, and then slowly an anti-Israel rally.
Mr. Harvell also states that the reason Bush will not take a stand to propose a settlement -- one that would be enforced if not adhered to -- is due to "certain pro-Israel factions" that are "friends he doesn't want to lose." Mr. Harvell implies that the pro-Israel factions in this country, assumed to be the Jewish-American population, are inherently anti-Palestinian simply because they are pro-Israel. I would like to clear this up. I am a Jewish-American who supports Israel. I also support the Palestinian's claim to statehood and humane treatment. Thus, I might be portrayed as both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, if that is how these terms are so defined. I spoke at the rally from this point of view. I spoke with the intention of calling attention for the need to put pressure on our government to take risks in becoming involved to end violence and strongly push for peace. I hope that Mr. Harvell and Dartmouth students understand that there is more than one side to this conflict. We must not lose sight of the original purpose of the rally, which was an end to inhumane treatment and violence for all people.
