'Jewish Voice' Isn't Monolithic

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Seth Tapper and Michael Cooper's letter to the editor, "Israeli Oppression Enslaves Jews" [October 16], contains a number of disturbing generalizations and conclusions that warrant a response.

The authors criticize one opinion piece's interpretation of the tragic events that occurred in Jerusalem's Old City. This is certainly as welcome as the piece itself. However, the focus of the letter, a condemnation of the Israeli occupation's deleterious effect on the moral state of Israeli and Diaspora Jewry, is presented in a fashion that is judgmental, dangerously generalizing, and devoid of any factual support or argumentation.

Statements such as "the occupation has produced a culture of violence, fear and racism in Israel and has forced American Jews to abandon the central values of reason and compassion" constitute a moral critique of whole diverse groups of people that is so general in nature that it could not be possibly true. This statement is so blatantly presumptuous that it is no wonder why the authors fail to give even one example of this moral failure or to describe exactly how they feel it has come about.

The claim that "most American Jews are always searching for something which justifies Israel's actions" is particularly insulting to the many Jews in America who agonize daily about all aspects of the occupation and who take the time to study and consider these aspects in their depth before coming to quick moral conclusions.

Finally, the authors' conclusion that an opinion piece in The Crimson written by a member of The Crimson's editorial staff reflects that "The Jewish voice on campus [is] being dominated by narrow-minded people" simply makes no sense. There is no single dominant Jewish voice on campus regarding the issue of the Israeli occupation.

In fact, there are no fewer than three different student groups all under the auspices of the Harvard Hillel that are involved in the campus debate concerning Israel and the occupation. These groups, which approach the issues from different perspectives, reflect the healthy state of sincere, open and constructive discussion at Harvard regarding this issue.

Perhaps the only two reactions to the Middle East conflict that the authors can imagine are a knee-jerk defense of Israeli policy and a bleeding-heart moralizing condemnation of Israel. However, a great many Israelis, American Jews and Harvard students have deemed the conflict and particularly the occupation important enough to consider it in its totality--its origins, its moral and social implications for allparties involved, as well as its alternatives. These people are not looking to justify or rationalize particular acts, but rather to offer constructive criticism based not on generalizations, but on understanding and knowledge.

It does not take much to remain in a safe moral highground, write an occasional letter to the editor lamenting the "loss of beautiful Jewish minds and souls," and offer prayers for the moral state of the Israeli, Diaspora and Harvard Jewish communities.

However, I sincerely recommend that these two authors (and all concerned individuals) refrain from unsubstantiated criticism and add their obviously deeply felt opinions and voices to the open, serious and at times painful debate that is raging in these three communities. If their true goal is to affect positive change, they can most certainly accomplish it better with well thought out opinions and actions than with sideline moral judgments, generalizations and prayers. Jack Levy '92