News
Gaza Panel Criticized
Hillel, CIPAC and IAJ decline to participate; protest event
February 19, 2009 - 12:00amAccording to the Campus Code of Conduct, those who dislike what an invited speaker has to say have the right, among other things, to ask pointed questions and express displeasure with evasive answers. The audience in a packed Lewis Auditorium was reminded of this yesterday before the Gaza in Crisis Discussion Panel, where members of the Cornell community discussed their position on the Gaza conflict.
The panel, which expressed largely pro-Palestinian viewpoints, came after recent events on campus highlighted the impact of the Gaza conflict on the Cornell community. Wasif Syed grad organized the event hoping to encourage discourse.
“I spearheaded this event in light of Skorton’s call for engagement and in light of the incidents that have occurred on campus … These were symptoms [showing] that the campus is yearning for a constructive platform for engagement to discuss the crisis in Gaza in a tangible fashion,” Syed said.
Audience members walked past police stationed at the entrance to the auditorium before taking their seats. The moderator of the event, Prof. Nic van de Walle, government and associate dean for international studies, then introduced the panelists, after acknowledging his own lack of expertise on the subject. He gave a brief history of the conflict, citing Wikipedia as his main source. From there, the floor was opened up to the four panelists for opening remarks.
Prof. Richard Miller, political philosophy, began the discussion by chastising Israel for its invasion of Gaza and the United States for its support of Israel. Syed Saad Ahsan ’10 then delivered an anti-war stance, urging individuals to take action against the Israeli attacks, which he criticized as largely disproportionate to the Gaza missile fire. Luis-Francois de Lencquesaing ’09, president of Cornell International Affairs Review, continued the discussion, focusing on the importance of politics in the conflict and suggesting his view that two separate states of Israel and Palestine are the only viable solution to the conflict. Lastly, Dr. Mossaad Abdel-Ghany, a recently retired Cornell professor of veterinary medicine, gave an explanation of the various stages of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Overall, the panelists largely expressed indignation for the crimes against humanity that they feel Israel committed against the Palestinians in Gaza.
After the panelists’ statements, David Jacobis, law, who studies the occupation of the West Bank, video-conferenced in from Tel Aviv to give his opinion on the subject. Jacobis spoke of Israel’s reaction to the democratic election of Hamas, Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as well as what he feels was a disproportionate Israeli response on Gaza.
The floor was then opened up for a question-and-answer session, which quickly sparked debate over the creation of Israel and Gaza’s missile fire. While the panel was not supportive of some of the actions of the Israeli state, Ahsan did at one point identify with the Israeli people.
Talking it out: Cornell hosts a Gaza discussion panel yesterday in Goldwin Smith Hall.“As a Muslim, I identify with the Jewish cause … I feel that if any people deserve peace, it is the Jews because they have been kicked around for thousand of years. But if Israel thinks it can establish peace with its neighbors by bombing them or forcing Israel upon them, that is against Jewish interest. It harms the very nature of what should be done,” Ahsan said.
Other questions ranged from the empathy of Israelis toward Palestinians, the minimal advanced warning that Israel gave to Gaza before bombing, the use of civilians as shields, humanitarian crimes, the United State’s support of Israel, possible resolutions and Hamas as a government.
Many of the responses and questions turned into heated debates laden with emotion.
“I’m emotionally exhausted. I was surprised by how emotional the discussion was … I was also surprised by how expressive [people were] and how much people were cutting others off. It was almost an argument,” said Erika Zambello ’12, a participant.
Some were also angered by the lack of expertise and one-sided arguments presented by members on the panel.
“I feel that the panel discussion was an egregious anti-Israel exercise. The panelists casually advanced misinformation and distortions. Quite frankly, I am appalled that the University sponsored this event and I call on it to answer for the misinformation and distortions being propagated amongst our community,” said Jesse Berkowsky ’09, executive president of Cornell Israel Public Affairs Committee.
However, some felt that the panel did foster discussion and present information.
“Most of the stuff that I heard tonight, I didn’t think it was so inaccurate. I thought a lot of it was informative and there was a lot of healthy debate,” said Zubair Azad ’10, vice president of Muslim Educational and Cultural Association.
“Views of Israel and the United States as forces of reason and self-defense in the Middle East, which dominate U.S. media coverage, were challenged and people had objections and questions. I don’t how many people were convinced, but this was a discussion that was open to information and dialogue that’s really closed from the media,” Miller said.
While CIPAC, Hillel and the Islamic Alliance for Justice were asked to join in today’s debate, the groups declined to do so. Jacob Shapiro, president of Cornell Hillel, did not feel comfortable with the terms of the event.
“I expressed constant and unwavering interest in working with Wasif and with others in creating an event that would encourage respectful, educational dialogue; but at the end of the day, his event did not reflect this goal,” Shapiro stated in an e-mail.
Similarly, Shai Akabas ’09, president of CIPAC, said that he was approached to join in the discussion. However, he said he was told how the panel would take place and was not asked to help construct the format.
“We feel that this forum is one that fosters radical opinions and not one that is a constructive dialogue to engage the community,” Akabas said.
However, Tara Malik ’09, IAJ president, said that IAJ chose not to participate in order to give other Muslim groups on campus a chance to voice their opinions.
“The IAJ refrained from participating in this panel because we feel that we have been the center of dialogue on this issue for the past month and know that there are several other diverse and interested groups and organizations who want to be part of a dialogue and participate in panel discussions about this topic,” Malik said.
The panel discussion was cosponsored by the MECA, Office of the Vice President for University Communications Tommy Bruce, Dept. of Government, Cornell Republicans, Cornell Democrats, Cornell International Affairs Review, Turkish Students’ Association, United for Peace and Justice in Palestine, International Leadership Forum and the International Soccer Club.
The article
I think the article should have addressed the fact that the pannel was a mishap. If professors were in fact quoting wikipedia, then we should raise questions about hypocrisy.
I'm sorry but that is an
I'm sorry but that is an outright lie. The panelists did not cite wikipedia. The moderator, who outright said he knew nothing about the conflict, talked about how he went on wikipedia to learn about the conflict. He was then corrected by the panelists numerous times for errors in his dates and other numerical data. Then one of the panelists mentioned how wikipedia is not a credible source.
Get your facts straight before you bash someone's university supported effort at dialogue which was endlessly called for.
You must be joking.
I'm sorry, did you refer to last night's discussion as a "dialogue"? I find it hard to call it a "dialogue". However, I'll humor you and look up the definition of "dialogue" and we can come to a consensus on what last night actually was.
Miriam Webster Dictionary defines dialogue as:
"a conversation between two or more persons b: an exchange of ideas and opinions c: a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution"
Well, in retrospect, I'm afraid after careful consideration I'm going to have to stick with my gut.
Last night was in no way an open and honest dialogue. It was a shabbily put together panel of either extremely biased or uniformed sources that turned into an Israel-bashing session. I saw no "dialogue" taking place; I saw an event that spat in the face of "dialogue." Last night took the concept of peace, threw it in the nearest garbage can, and lit it on fire. Where was the Israeli perspective on the events? Hell, where was a moderate perspective on the crisis? You have got to be kidding me.
Wait, let me guess your response! "We offered CIPAC/ Hillel a spot on the panel." Do you actually believe that it would be responsible or constructive to put one pro-israel representative against five staunchly anti-israel speakers? Or are you too naive to see the obvious injustice in that structure?
Mr. Syed, do YOU actually believe that you are fooling anyone when you claim to have created a "constructive platform for engagement to discuss the crisis in Gaza in a tangible fashion." C'mon, let's be honest, here. You and I both know what went on last night; it was a mockery of the situation that intensified the tensions and divided the campus even more. You have gone even further to embarrass the group of people from your end of the debate that truly do want a peaceful truce, both in Gaza and on campus. You should be ashamed of the work you did last night. Call it what you would like, a dialogue it was not.
If the Cornell student population would like to see a true dialogue, please come to the panel today that will represent both arguments in the situation in a fair, transparent manner. At 4:30, an event co-sponsered by both CIPAC/Hillel AND the IAJ will take place in Lewis auditorium. If you want to hear facts and honest discussion, this is the forum to attend.
Today's Panel
What is being done today is a joke.
It is a last minute action to save face in light of a very engaging event. It won't come close to being as good as yesterday's event.
Simply ask this question: Was there anyone who lived in Israel on the panel today? Was there anyone who lived in Palestine there today? The answer to both questions is a resounding no.
Yesterday's panel had someone linked directly from Israel to answer questions. Additionally, a audience member who had lived in West Bank for multiple years contributed to the discussion by offering her first hand perspective.
Are you implying that you
Are you implying that you can not be knowledgeable on a topic unless you actually live in the relevant area that it takes place? Is that even a somewhat serious argument?
Maybe you should start a protest on campus against all classes being taught that doesn't revolve around America; that will show 'em.
Just another example of the immature and unproductive rhetoric coming from radical perspectives who could support such a backwards, biased, and disgusting event....
Name calling is easy...
But it seems like reading and understading is hard for you.
Please read my post again. I did not say they cannnot be knowledgeable; my comments were meant to imply that they lack a very important perspective that anyone gains by living in an area.
I have absolutely no idea how you can use what I said to call me immature and radical. Like I said, labeling is easy, but introspection is heard. You calling me names and labeling the event as digusting reflects well on your personality and your perspective. Keep it up.
Student leaders?
"Hillel, CIPAC and IAJ decline to participate; protest event"
In reference to the title of this event I have to say the leaders of these organizations should be somewhat embarrassed by their inaction and hesitancy this far into the semester. We should have ahd an event put on by these groups back in January when the students returned from winter break, long before the arts quad display and long before the drama which has ensued. Whether the panel last night was one sided is slightly irrelevant. At least someone finally took some initiative to foster discussion and debate on the Gaza issue. If the leaders of CIPAC, Hillel, and IAJ did not agree with the content or chosen panelist well then I hope they see that this is what happens when you sit around passively holding exclusive meetings. I do not care that Jacob Shapiro and Tara Malik have been meeting regularly to open the channels of communication! Their personal dialogue has done nothing to enlighten or enliven the rest of the student body and as leaders I hope they are ashamed at what a poor job they've done of enhancing the discussion on campus.
Finally we address Israel's
Finally we address Israel's war crimes. AIPAC/CIPAC considers any mention of these crimes as taboo and incorrectly consider it an attack on their religion. It's not an attack on Judaism. It's a stand for human rights. Thanks to the organizers for having the courage to speak up for the victims of these disgusting attacks on civilians.
What a joke!
This event was simply brilliant. It brought to light rarely cited facts and perspectives, including a speaker connecting directly from Israel to discuss the issue of Gaza. The audience had ample time to ask questions and even further, they had an opportunity to comment on the panalists' responses.
Evidence is clear that the responsibility of the massacre perpetuated in Gaza lies with Israel. This is nothing new for Israel to do (find out what happened in Jenin, Sabra, etc). What is new is that Israel's crimes are no longer hidden as they used be. Blocking reporters from war zone as Israel went about its business was normal course of business for Israel, but this time, it wasn't enough. The cruelty came to light much more rapidly in this Internet age.
In the words of Saad, I urge the readers to form their opinion, but by listening simply to one-sided sources. Do your own research -- live a day in Southern Israel... then live a day in Gaza. Talk to someone from Israel, but also talk to someone who has lived in Gaza. You will know the truth.
Disgrace of a Panel
Yesterday's event was not an attempt at rational debate, but instead a sham of an event, featuring flagrantly biased panelists. However, although the bias was disheartening to see in a supposed atmosphere of intellectual discourse, what was even more disturbing was a lack of fundamental awareness over certain aspects of the conflict. For example, when I stood up and responded to Dr. Mossaad Abdel-Ghany's comment about Israel not agreeing to any sort of land for peace by citing Israel's offer of the entire Gaza Strip and over 95 percent of the West Bank in dealings between Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat in 2000, he was not even aware that this event occurred. I was completely shocked that a member of a discussion panel on such a nuanced and complicated conflict did not even have an awareness of a crucial part of it. It is also interesting to note that when Dr. Abdel-Chany seemed caught off guard and flustered, Professor Richard Miller had to step in and save him on that one. When a student tried to attribute some of the blame to Hamas, the audience responded with cackling laughter. So much for good spirited bipartisan intellectual discourse, God forbid we respond to another viewpoint with something other than laughter and jokes.
Another "fact" that we are all enlightened on is the stunning revelation that Hamas does not use human shields by Syed Saad Ahsan. This is especially interesting considering how one recent Cornell Daily Sun article referenced a blatant use of human shields by Hamas member Abu Bilal al-Jaber, in which in response to an Israeli call warning of an attack on his home, he called women and children in the area to it. So in effect, these innocent HUMANS were acting as SHIELDS for his home. That's funny, it's almost as if they were being used as "human shields."
In contrast, today's panel, which WAS sponsored by the IAJ, CIPAC, and Cornell Hillel, was very intellectually stimulating. Today's professors, who were actually knowledgeable on the conflict especially in the context of their respective fields of study, did not point the finger or state that they amazingly had all the answers to the conflict, but instead did something more productive: they asked questions. They asked questions and laid out hypotheses on why Israel and Hamas responded to each others actions the way they did. This is what we need on campus - we do not need more polarization, which is what yesterday's absolutely disgraceful panel fostered. One of today's professors said it best when to paraphrase, he mentioned how people look at this conflict and selectively take evidence from a large reservoir that supports merely their own side, ignoring other evidence. What we need to do is look at everything in context and ask why Israel and the Palestinians are doing what they are doing. Then perhaps we can get something done.
I was at the event. You
I was at the event. You were wearing a black shirt and it was obvious that you yourself had no more than superficial "knowledge" of what really occurred at Camp David. Glad to see you spouting off the same nonsense after the Cornell International Affairs Review panelist attempted to educate you.
The fact is, very, very, very little was contributed by the Israeli sympathizers in the room...the ones who chose to stay for more than 5 minutes. Maybe they just weren't the cream of the crop.
Among the points we heard regarding the situation in Gaza from the ISs:
-The Egyptians, Syrians, and Iraqis expelled Jews from their respective countries in 1951
*crickets*
-Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel (startling new development, I wonder what tiny Israel will do)
-The IDF sends text messages to people to get out of an area in the next 20 minutes...a contemptible measure, and treated as such by the panelists and the audience
-The 5th panelist's head movements are really annoying
-Gazans could just have peace if they protested non-violently (The brilliance of this strategy for a population essentially locked out economically was pointed out by the 2nd panelist)
I'm sure many hearts and minds were won.
My Point on Camp David
You missed my point. Bringing up Camp David again was not intended to put Israel on a high horse or to spout off the same "nonsense" again, but as I stated was to point out the professor's complete lack of knowledge on this crucial part of the conflict. What was he even doing there? It is despicable that someone without even a rudimentary awareness of such an event, yet with a selective bias towards the Arab Peace Initiative (the merits of which could also be debated), would be on the panel. It would have been completely fine and intellectually engaging if he would have responded to my point with something other than complete and utter ignorance. However, I was very intrigued by the Cornell International Affairs Review panelist's response and found him to be the single redeeming part of the panel, as I actually learned something from him that I did not know before and later went and did some research on the counterpoints that he brought up. He was well suited to being on the panel, and I commend him for that. However Dr. Abdel-Ghany's presence on the panel was disgraceful and counterproductive.
CIPAC and Hillel, not representative or good for Israel
I am David, the presenter from this panel who spoke from Tel Aviv. As someone who has lived in both the West Bank and Israel (where I currently live), studying the conflict from both the Palestinian and Israeli perspectives, I felt the need to share on this panel because of the dire state of conversation at Cornell.
It's time for people who love and care about Israel to stop BLINDLY supporting what they are told to support about Israel. It's not un-American to question Bush and denounce the War in Iraq, right? So why can't CIPAC and Hillel have the sense (or at least a lack of such overwhelmingly defensive insecurity) to question Israel's actions - it's not anti-Israel to do so. Why can't CIPAC and Hillel hold on to the values of liberalism and equality and translate them into the Israeli context? Instead, they all read from the same crypto-racist ethno-national right-wing script - thinking that this is all that Israel can possibly be, I guess. If a conversation isn't in their favor, it isn't "fair". #1 rule of Israeli "democracy", don't question Israel!
Instead of being honest, open, and engaging - the insanity continues. This is the same thing that happened after the 2nd Lebanon War, which I was in Israel to experience. I returned to Cornell and found that CIPAC wanted to hide as much as possible from the indefensible actions of Israel - hid from the call for an open debate - and hid from any real opportunity to develop themselves as people and supporters of Israel, instead reverting to personal attacks, lies, and defensiveness. What happened with our silence? Israel felt ok jumping into another unabashed massacre.
Blindly American Zionists pretend they know everything about the situation and work furiously to obfuscate the truth, label dissenters as anti-this or that, and fall under the leadership of extremists (or idiots) who incite vandalism and name calling. One such leader, Alex Kantrowitz, reverted to calling me "Ahmadinejad" in a public panel (it's on tape), though I was received warmly by Israelis afterward with thanks for the honesty of my words.
Here is the situation for you, if you haven't noticed. Israel's atrocities (which happen on the regular) are now once again out of the bag. This time, the images are likely to stick a little bit more than just a few weeks. The world community is shifting (did you also notice the US had an election?). What's happening is that the steady stream of lies and cover-ups, which I suspect many of you in CIPAC and Hillel have *actually* taken to believing, is being revealed for what it is - total crap. I understand this makes you nervous, because suddenly you have to account for a whole lot more and I'm sure the task is increasingly indefensible. This is perhaps why some of you decided to vandalize, publish ridiculous justifications for war crimes, and attempt to boycott real conversations (and pressure Muslims to do so too, while they are already under the thumb from an increased anti-Arab/Muslim sentiment in this country - shame on you!).
A rift has also developed in the international Jewish community. In droves, Jews are rejecting the pre-packaged pre-determined "here is what to tell the others" picture about Israel. Jews occupied the Montreal, Toronto, and Boston Israeli Consulate/Embassies in protest of Cast Lead! Jews were leaders in protests and campaigns to criticize Israel. Israeli-Jews will soon be calling on the world to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel (which shouldn't be tough given that a fascist - yes a racist fascist, read Hebrew press and you'll not be shocked to see these words - is about to take a high ministry post)
While Israelis and Jews worldwide are struggling about what will the future be, we have Americans like CIPAC blindly supporting Israel based on information from propagandic Birthright Taglit trips or any number of heavily financed information sources that you see on Cornell's campus. To many Israelis, these Americans are typical - total idiots that would buy anything nice and shiny that you labeled "authentically Jewish". Now for many Israelis, this is just fine because it keeps the $3 billion USD a year flowing to us and insures we get guns and bombs. However, I think that Cornell students who grew up caring about Israel have much more to contribute than being tools who are frustrated by the position their right-wing CIPAC leadership has put them in.
Human lives are not a team sport. Lying to ourselves about what's going on in Israel and pushing off our own responsibilities by blaming others is immature, to say the least. It's murderously immature when your own comfortable lives at an Ivy League school afford you the opportunity to criticize from the sidelines.
It's time for the Cornell students who care about Israel to open themselves up to the tough questions so that we can all work out the tough answers. Shame on CIPAC and Hillel.
I urge everyone to also read
I urge everyone to also read the Chronicle's Front page coverage of this event to understand its success:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb09/gaza.panel.html