MIDDLE EAST PEACE
To the Editors of The Crimson:
My sense of justice was disturbed after reading the remarks of Professors Walzer and Krasner concerning the Middle East situation (Crimson, Feb. 10).
It will take more than Walzer's tremendous ability to manipulate thetoric to develop a convincing argument that the liberal position in the Middle East involves a U.S. presence there. The argument that peace in the Middle East is contingent upon the present of U.S. forces there reminds me all too well of the arguments used to support the United States involvement in Vietnam. Incidentally, in the case of Vietnam. Walzer's stance was one of opposition to U.S. involvement. He now argues that "both the United States and the Soviet Union must maintain military presence in the Middle East to preserve peace." Walzer's argument is logically bankrupt. To minimize the potential of the Middle East crisis from leading to World War III, it would be logical to argue for a minimized involvement of the super powers NOT the physical presence of both. The minimal participation of the super powers is achieved when they limit their roles to that of participants in the negotiation processes. To apply Walzer's argument universally is to argue that the Soviet Union and the United States should deploy troops everywhere in the world where conflicts arise. Yet, we know that his argument in favor of Soviet and U.S. military intervention as "peace makers" isn't meant to be applied throughout the world.
In Walzer's analysis of the Middle East situation, objectivity was conspicuously absent. He states that "only the United States can insist on and win concessions from the Arab states." Who will, I ask, insist on and win concessions from Israel? The Soviets? The simple fact is that for peace to come about, Israel will have to make concessions. I refer Walzer to the recent statement by Senator Charles percy (R-III)" After returning from a trip to the Middle East, percy stated that he saw no chance of a Middle East peace unless Israel draws back essentially to its frontiers that existed before the 1967 Middle East war" (Washington Post, Jan. 29, 1975, p. A13). A Harvard government professor should be able to differentiate between what he desires reality to be versus what the reality is. Our motto "Veritas" indicates that he should only be concerned with the latter.
Krasner's statement that "the U.S. government should attempt to limit the options open to Arab nations when investing interesting how some people are willing to change the rules of fair play in mid-stream when they deem it in their interest to do so. Since World War II, U.S. companies have invested money in nations throughout the world. Now that the Arabs have money to invest are we to keep them from investing here? Krasner, I must admit, has character, for when I approached him concerning his statement, he agreed that his position wasn't just. Obviously, in dealing with the Arabs, justice has no place. Jerry G. Watts, '75