This week, 1,300 black flags — each one memorializing the death of an Israeli or a Palestinian in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East — grace the Arts Quad. On Monday, the first day they were displayed, the accompanying signs were ripped up and destroyed. While this action was both illegal and morally reprehensible, the display itself did little to foster dialogue, serving instead to further polarize each side of the debate. If peace — both on campus and in the Middle East — is to be achieved, actions must go beyond battles fought on the Arts Quad.

The Islamic Alliance for Justice, which organized and set up the protest, had every right to set up the flags and signs. In fact, it was even co-sponsored by several administrators and faculty members. Their protest was well intentioned and well organized, and the IAJ could not have anticipated the reaction that it spurred.

The display impassioned students to the point that they destroyed and vandalized it.

The protest itself was not a negative thing, though the reaction to it was. What the vandals did was wrong, no matter which angle of approach is taken.

It is true that the display may have been set up to raise consciousness among students unaware of the issue’s many dimensions. The protest may have also been well intentioned. However, many who opposed the display would argue that it did not offer a full view of the issue or present the facts with enough context or clarity. Whether or not the facts were clear enough, the display undoubtedly served to spark a debate — one that only further polarized each side. If true progress is to be made and a general agreement, if not consensus, is to be reached, a positive and balanced dialogue must be fostered. Demonstrations set up by one group foster polarizing debate, rather than inclusive dialogue. The IAJ could have set up a less polarizing event by hosting a speaker or a forum, staging a sit-in or screening a film. Any of these options would have served as less divisive ways to raise awareness without breeding such a violent reaction.

If progress is ever to be made, both sides must respect each other’s messages. Students from both sides have been meeting for dinner since early fall. Why, then, have groups not worked together to stage a multilateral protest, one promoting the ideals of both sides and thus fostering a more moderate, even-handed debate across campus? Defaming and destroying a display that is pro-Gaza in no way constructively promotes pro-Israel viewpoints. Similarly, presenting facts that are disputed by people who sympathize with Israel in this case does not adequately raise awareness about the issue at hand.

Cornell students have a right to protest for causes that they deem worthy, and we encourage students to stage intelligent and meaningful protests. However, we hope that in the future, such protests can serve to promote constructive and multilateral messages, rather than sparking a turf-war over the Arts Quad. This is particularly salient in the case of such a polarizing and tense debate as that between Israel and Palestine.

We must learn from the results of this protest, and stage events in the future with this in mind — hopefully fostering a more constructive and equitable dialogue where both viewpoints can be sufficiently voiced.