No on Question Five

NO one would argue against peace in the Middle East, but voting for Question 5 does nothing to help reach a solution. Contrary to what its supporters claim, voting for Question 5 would set back efforts to achieve a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The wording of the referendum places all the blame on Israel, yet the conflict has involved violence on two sides. The referendum singles out Israel for human rights violations that are routinely ignored in other beneficiaries of U.S. aid dollars. The referendum paints a picture of Palestinians eager to negotiate a peace settlement; yet Palestinians have not even renounced terrorism to show that they are willing to come to the table.

The referendum would have our elected representatives censure Israel for its actions rather than using American influence to bring both sides of the conflict together in negotiations. Calling for a complete cut-off of American aid to Israel is a blackmail tactic not befitting of reasoned foreign policy. Referenda should be for constructive purposes, not for partisan manipulation. It would be more productive for us to call on Israel to change its methods and start pushing for peace, than to cut off all effective ties with it.

We cannot back Israel's human rights violations, but we will not support cutting off aid. Such a move would leave. Israel vulnerable, and because Israel is America's only loyal democratic ally in the Mideast, it would ultimately leave the U.S. vulnerable, as well.

Fortunately, the entire referendum is only a symbolic measure and cannot force our representatives to follow its strictures. But if we as voters are going to send a symbolic message, it becomes all the more important that we choose our words carefully. Let's work toward the result that we support--peace in the region. And let's send a message that truly reflects these feelings. We cannot see that Question 5 accomplishes this, and strongly urge you to vote "No."