After reading yet another riveting viewpoint on the conflict in the Middle East this week (Campaign for divestment is not anti-Semitic, 9/24/02), we decided that it is time to go back to square one and understand the terminology of the debate that is being thrown around carelessly and irresponsibly.

First, let's take a look at the anti-Semitism versus Zionism arguments. Within the context of the debate on the Middle East, there have been accusations from the advocates of the Palestinian side that they cannot argue effectively for Palestine and be anti-Zionist without having to hear the accusation of anti-Semitism being thrown back in their faces. To address that, we will use Webster's Dictionary to define both anti-Semitism and Zionism. Anti-Semitism: Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or discrimination against Jews. Zionism: A policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine. Anti-Zionism therefore is hostility to the right of the Jews to self-determination.

The main argument of the Palestine advocates is that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination. At the same time, they are adamantly opposed to the right of the Jews to being in Israel. Not only that, they also call for the policy of divestment and ending U.S. aid to Israel; that is by effectively destroying Israel's economy and ability to defend herself, calling for an end to Israel at all. Authoritarianism and despotism reign in the region and yet it is the democratic state of Israel that gets attacked, whose right to be there is denied on a daily basis. To summarize the argument: Palestinians deserve a national homeland and Jews don't. This is in fact, a clear discrimination against the Jewish people. This then is a clear form of anti-Semitism.

To add further instances of unfair treatment, the Palestine advocates, in their zeal to make the world a better place, forget to ask U.S. to divest from autocratic, oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria. Jews are not allowed to even enter Syrian territory, women have no right to vote in most places across the Middle East, and religious intolerance is outrageous. But of course, whatever goes on in the world outside of Israel is not important. Let's just attack Israel and not hold anybody else accountable.

This is prejudice and bigotry in the most irresponsible form. As a sidenote, just to be clear, we are not opposed to criticizing some of Israel's policies; what we do oppose is singling her out and attacking her right to exist, while advocating that for other nations.

Let's also take a look at the frequently abused term "apartheid" in the dialogue on the Middle East conflict. This term specifically applies to groups of citizens within a certain state. The population and territories addressed in reference to apartheid, are actually not a part of the Israeli state. This factor, in itself, makes the claims of Israeli apartheid invalid. Looking within Israel, even at the Israeli-Arab population, which is allowed to vote and be represented in the state governing institutions, there are no evidences of official apartheid policies. In fact, the reason why Israel is so "polarized and politically charged," as Savabieasfahani noted in his viewpoint, is because the Israeli-Arabs in Israel, as well as the Jews, are allowed to freely criticize the acts of the government (with restrictions on violence, of course) and act against them through state institutions. Nothing like that happens anywhere else in the Middle East, where minorities are constantly in fear for their lives and dissenters are in prisons. Israel allows all of its citizens to exercise their civil right and enjoy their civil liberties. Israel is not an apartheid state.

So after looking at the language of the debate, we also need to address the issue of how to make this debate more constructive, where to look for a solution to the neverending arguments. The debate mostly focuses on human rights, so let's address the humanitarian effort. Let's stop trying to cut the ties with a tiny, struggling democratic state, but instead promote its humanitarian efforts. Let's stop accusing and focus more on providing humanitarian blame. Israel's humanitarian record is outstanding.

From accepting Vietnamese refugees, helping Ethiopian Jews escape persecutions, to forming the Magen David Adom, Israel's equivalent of the Red Cross, whether it's an earthquake in India, famine in Ethiopia or explosion of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, Israel always reaches out a hand of support. So let's invest in Israel's humanitarian effort: Let's support MDA, women's rights groups, gay rights groups. Let's stop laying pointless and unwarranted accusations.

The debate is about human rights and civil liberties. So let's try and invest ourselves in those ideals. Israel provides humanitarian efforts and protects civil liberties.