Editorial Misguided in Condemning Summers

To the editors:

Your editorial “Summers Stifles Israel Debate” (Editorial, Sept. 23) needlessly attacks University President Lawrence H. Summers for voicing his opinion. Summers’ speech was moderate and personal, and he precisely said that the petition is among the actions that are “anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.” The editorial suggests that divestment is no more an attack on the people of Israel “than opposition to the Bush’s administration’s policies is an attack on the American people”. However, it has not at any time been proposed to divest from the U.S. businesses as a way to challenge Bush, since it is clear that such an action would first and foremost harm the American people. On the contrary, this notion does not exist to the petition signers in relation to Israel. Moreover, the petition bluntly ignores the fact that divestment would bring further misery to the Palestinian people, given the strong dependency between their economy and Israel’s. Besides being thus shortsighted, the petition presumptuously claims that its signers know the answer to the problems in the Middle East. They put sole responsibility on Israel for resolving the conflict, entirely ignoring the efforts Israel has made in putting an end to violence, providing copious aid to the Palestinian people and the fact that its own people are under incessant attacks.

Given the number of important points not considered in the petition and the singular standard with which it treats Israel, it is not surprising that Summers sees it as being anti-Semitic in its effect, even if this effect arises from a lack of knowledge or willingness to apply it fairly. Therefore Summers’ statements were as mild as any he could have made, if he were to express his opinion at all. His comments touched an important issue on our campus, and did so with commendable sensitivity and moderation.

Tanya Zelevinsky

Sept. 23, 2002

The writer is a fourth year student in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.