News

HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.

News

Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend

News

What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?

News

MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal

News

Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options

Another View

THE MAIL

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Charles Kurzman's article on the April 26 protest against PLO information chief Abdul-Rachmun should be commended for accurately reporting the venomous words of the speaker. The story, however, failed to present a balanced picture of the protest.

The 200 or so students who gathered outside Austin Hall to protest did so in order to inform the Harvard community that many oppose the tactics and ideology of the PLO. Attacks on civilian targets, a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Israel ("I will not consider this a relevant question," said Rachmun), and an avowed goal of liquidating the Jewish state are the subject of our protest. He, nor any other living PLO official will deny these aims. The heavy turnout of protestors clearly demonstrated students' disapproval.

The audience's heckling was not a planned part of the protest, but stemmed from the emotional pride of the anti-PLO students. The audience should have ideally exercised more self-control; Rachmun's speech was so filed with historical revision that it became self-in-criminating. Nonetheless, the highly charged situation inside Ames Courtroom, Rachmun's string of invidious remarks and the jeering and shouting of Rachmun's supporters fueled the disruptions. Under normal circumstances, to protest without listening to the other side is close-minded; but, to listen to inflammatory and blatantly false statements without an emotional response would require superhuman resilience. It would also border on dishonesty to one's conscience. The audience may have occasionally overstepped the bounds of common courtesy, but not without good reason.

Rachmun's premeditated distortion of history provoked the responses. Zionism is a Jewish national movement and is not founded on Palestinian Arab genocide. The equation of Zionism with Nazism not only ignores the facts but has become the blood libel of contemporary times. Jews no more use Christian blood for baking matza than Zionists have as their goal the systematic liquidation of Palestinians. Zionsim, moreover, did not introduce hatred into the region. Arab countries have historically considered Jews to be second class citizens in their hands, and violence by Arabs against Jews (not to needed against other Arabs) came long be fore the first modern Zionists, Rachman's comment on the most recent tragedy in Lebanon is also false. An anti-American, pro-Iranian terrorist organization, not Israel, blew up the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Finally, Israel does have a right to exist, Jews have rights to national independent and no one is to blame for the Arab rejection of the Jewish state save for the Arabs themselves.

Neither the protest nor the Harvard Jewish Law Students Association have held academic freedom in contempt as one of the Third World Coalition sponsors stated. The rally in no way intended to prevent Rachman from speaking. The HULSA made it abundantly clear in their information sheets and at the rally. Neither the noise made outside be inside abridged academic freedom. If anything, Rachman's speech was an affront to intellectual integrity.

Two more points need to be raised. During the protest outside the marchers held signs that said "Palestinians--Yes, PLO--No" and the only full round of applause that Rachmun received followed his remarks that the rights of all people in the region should be respected. We protested the PLO's maximalism and rejectionism, not the human rights of Palestinians. The two should not be confused. The Middle East problem it horribly complex and no simple solutions will solve it, and there is no room for an organization predicated on the destruction of Israel.

Finally, we must not allow an artificial division to develop between the groups who protested and those that sponsored the speech. Name calling and ad hominum attacks are only counterproductive. Misunderstandings grow all too easily in an environment of mutual ignorance. To avoid this we must be willing to talk and listen to each other as students and as peers. Let this be our priority now and in the future. Jeffrey R. Mendeinohn '84   Jordan Millstein '85   Bon Movans '85   Kathy Simon '85   Fern Reins '85   H-R Hillel Steering Committee

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags