Opinion
To the Point: Awareness vs. Dialogue
February 16, 2009 - 12:00am“There’s not much dialogue on campus,” said Khullat Munir ’09, outgoing president of the Islamic Alliance for Justice and one of the organizers of the Arts Quad display. “We wanted to get out awareness.”
— “Protest Gone Wrong: Gaza Display Ruined,” News, The Sun, Feb. 9
I had originally intended this piece to be a point-by-point refutation of the “facts” displayed at the now-infamous “black flags” display. However, I concluded that there are larger issues at hand than Israel’s reputation.
To be sure, the display was patently egregious. The most striking aspects of the display that come to mind were the flags for the Hamas militants and the display of the refuted claim that Israel shelled a United Nations school. But again, my intent here is not to be a fact checker. I leave that job to angry letters to the editor. The issue here is how this display has and will change the tenor of our campus discourse.
The display was perturbing for its simplicity, for its favoring “awareness” over knowledge. A situation that is by no means devastatingly clear was reduced to pithy statements removed from any context; a nuanced debate was scrapped for sound bites.
Such a superficial representation of a complex reality is worse than misleading: it is the cheapest form of propaganda. That the University would provide funding for such a display raises serious questions about its commitment to real debate. One questions Dean of Students Kent Hubbell’s ’68 statement that the university expected “constructive results” from the display. The black flags strewn across the Arts Quad would tend to disagree.
Indeed, the destruction of the display — which I happened to view from the seventh floor of Olin — was a narrow-minded response to a narrow-minded campaign. From what I saw, the perpetrators had not thoroughly planned the “attack”; in fact, it appeared to be spontaneous, without any motive but pure steam-blowing. Is this what President Skorton had in mind when he called for more “open and active debate” on campus? Certainly we are not lacking for activity. But what do we mean by “debate”?
Debate, though often misconstrued as such, is not self-congratulation. It requires two parties willing to listen to and recognize opposing insights. If there is no such recognition, then the “debate” is nothing more than a parallel play of monologues. Real debate, indeed, real discussion, can come only from a place of mutual acknowledgement.
Such has been the modus operandi of a group of Muslim (including members of IAJ) and Jewish students, who have met for biweekly dinners for a “mutual, cultural, inter-faith exchange,” in the words of a participant as said to me. The amicable environment of these dinners was such that when the heads of both CIPAC and Hillel saw the display, they reacted with surprise and no small sense of betrayal. As the president of Hillel remarked, he would have appreciated at least a “heads up.”
In that light, we therefore must address the claim of IAJ President Khullat Munier that “there’s not much dialogue on campus.”
First and foremost, her statement completely disregards the existing efforts at real dialogue. Such an omission is strange, given that her group, along with the Muslim Educational and Cultural Association, actively participates in these dinners. Thus, her statement demeans not only the Jewish groups involved but hers as well.
Second, does she reasonably believe that this display will bring about “real” dialogue? From empirical observation thus far, we can confidently respond in the negative. The display has only engendered ill-will and has left a bad taste in the mouths of those who were willing to engage in dialogue. One can assume that the sense of betrayal felt by those student leaders involved will hinder them from engaging in the “dialogue” as whole-heartedly as they once did.
And who could blame them? The “mutual dialogue” in which they invested their time turned out to be a farce. Their notion of “progress” in bringing the two communities together was revealed as nothing more than a pipe dream. And no, we cannot evince “progress” from the rearrangement of the flags into a peace sign.
Indeed, the only usefulness of the display has been to clearly illustrate the distinction between “dialogue” and “awareness.” The former requires nuance and mutual respect; the latter exists in a vacuum, immune to the demand of the other.
An illustration: a friend who was involved in the biweekly dinners told me that when walking down Ho Plaza, he encountered a fellow dinner participant distributing quarter-cards about the Gaza operation. The distributor handed him no card, and made no eye contact. “He couldn’t bring himself to look at me,” my friend stated.
Tragic, indeed. Such, however, is the price of “awareness.”
Regardless of the figures
Regardless of the figures quoted on the sign or their veracity, the reality is that the civilized world sympathizes largely more with the Palestinian people than they do with the Israeli government as of now. Arguing over whether or not so and so was really a civilian, acting out and destroying these signs, and writing lukewarm apologetic "woe is me" editorials like this do nothing but make you and yours (like-minded Israeli sympathizers) look like cold, obtuse people. Israel no longer has the luxury of getting the benefit of the doubt on these things, so showing contempt and refusing to engage these facts or figures is, essentially shooting one's self in the foot. Contesting and disregarding the United Nations and various humanitarian aid organizations is not going to be en vogue any time soon, especially (well, hopefully) under the current administration.
The question is whether you and yours will continue to turn your nose up at the slightest stance-taking or digging in by Palestinian sympathizers, or whether you will finally realize that you have to truly engage those of us who see the gray...those of us who see the discrepancy between the US' take on these things, and that of the international community...those of us that understand this discrepancy...those of us who utter the word "settlement" in the debate...those of us who know the death counts...
civilized world?
I wonder what do you mean by the civilized world? Do you mean the demonstrations where Israeli and US flags were born? Or do you mean condemning statements backed by governments that give their citizens no civil rights and are using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an explanation for oppressing their own people? Because other governments recognized the complexity of the situation, including the absurd of tolerating a rain rockets on civilians for a few years, and instead of picking sides focused on pushing for a solution (which, surprise, surprise, involves both parties in the conflict).
Understanding the Gray
I find it highly amusing that someone so well informed - and clearly well spoken - can understand the situation so well and yet fail to grasp the sheer implausibility of their contention. Indeed, many Israel sympathizers are blinded by their wish to support the only Jewish state in the world. Many of them, as you imply, get their backs up against a wall at the merest hint of questionable assessment of IDF policy.
But not me. Not me, and not others like me who understand that it is apologizers like yourself that make it so difficult for moderate Israeli policy to become acceptable to the International community.
You say understand the 'gray' in this situation, and I presume that you mean the middle ground between the Shas party (recently claiming 11 seats in the Knesset and presumably part of the new coalition) rhetoric of reclaiming Judea and Samaria, and Hamas (freely elected terrorist organization) doctrine calling for the destruction of Israel. While I do not necessarily count myself as a supporter of over-the-top-force in response to minor infractions (if that is how we are classifying arbitrary rocket attacks on a civilian population), it amazes me how people like yourself cannot understand Israel's response.
I actually happen to agree with you on one simple point. I do think Israel should be engaging people like you, people who do understand that there is not a black and white in this situation if a long lasting solution is to be found. But it is a damn shame that the Palestinian people choose to elect representatives that will not and cannot understand that in place for people who clearly do not have their best interests at heart.
"Regardless of the
"Regardless of the figures":
It would do you well to actually read the article before you make comments. You assumed that it was a pro-Israel piece and responded to that, instead of actually addressing anything that was written. This action is so beautifully self-referential that it actually brings a smile to my face. Thank you.
I did read the article.
I did read the article. Perhaps you should read my response again.
Sympathizing with the Palestinians does not mean being an apologetic for Hamas, just as the converse is true in regards to the Israeli people and the Israeli government. What I can say is that complaining about the citation of statistics, and going so far as to destroy a display with their citations, is silly...especially given that there are only two sources for these statistics and that neither of them have a very strong claim to partiality when brought up in discussion (IDF and the Palestinian Center for Hum. Rights). There is an effective information stalemate that is brought about largely by the Israeli government's intransigence regarding allowing the press and other organizations into Gaza. Whether the stalemate created by this reality is intentional or not is up for debate, but no one can deny that such a stalemate exists. Excuse me and many others, though, in being highly suspicious of figures released by the military or government of a nation that is waging a campaign with its own specific strategic interests. For me to raise an eyebrow at the figures released by my own government, the US government, in relation to the civilian body count in Iraq, and then turn and nod at the IDF's figures would be intellectually inconsistent.
Fabulous article
This is a fabulous article by Judah. Why? Because instead of wasting time reiterating the plain facts of the situation and the bias presented in the demonstration, he chooses to concentrate on examining whether or not the purported 'purpose' of this event, to inspire educated debate, really occurred. I fully agree with Judah's point that the demonstration was misleading both in material and in purpose.
However, whether or not the display encouraged discussion and debate can be disputed. I think it has. But this is not attributable to the original display. The original display did not bring anybody together or raise any questions. It reaffirmed the stance held by pro-Palestinians, infuriated those on the other side, and gave misleading information to those ignorant on the subject. Being involved in a publication covering the event though, I witnessed first-hand the large number of people that began to ask questions about the Israel-Gaza conflict when the display began to be mistreated.
So did it eventually cause people to ask, "what's going on over there?"
I think so.
I would have to disagree
I would have to disagree with you. I think this is perhaps the most poorly written article on the crisis that has graced the pages of the sun thus far. Judah seems to be out on a personal vendetta, searching for meaning where there is none.
As someone who doesn’t fit neatly into the three categories you’ve outlined above, I would say I took the original demonstration with a grain of salt. I wouldn’t say that I’m pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli but I’m certainly not ignorant on the subject. I’ve followed the history of the conflict for some time now. I agree that that history informs the most recent crisis in Gaza and should probably have been included in the demonstration were it to be a truly two-sided account. However, I think the IAJ has just as much right to show their side of the conflict as does CIPAC and Cornell Hillel when they have their turn. Frankly, I feel that they have shown much more respect than either of the latter have ever shown towards the Palestinians.
I will agree with you on the point that the reactions to the display have stimulated more discussion than the original display. Last Monday before the initial vandalism of the display, I read it not as a protest but as a mourning of death—a general humanitarian statement as later affirmed by IAJ members. As I walked to my morning class, I took my own moment of silence for those who had died. In the afternoon after seeing the mindless destruction of one’s fellow students’ work, I was saddened by the enforced censorship and was intrigued by which signs caused such infuriation. Arguing over points about bombing the UN school and the use of white phosphorous bombs does little for the Israeli cause. There is proof that it happened. A reputable third party confirmed it. Denying such actions does little but admit guilt. Furthermore, the Star of David sends quite the horrific message. Using flags that each signify an Israeli or Palestinian death to create a holy symbol is basically saying “these people died for this religion.” I don’t think that is a message that most Israeli supporters foster, nor do I think they appreciate a small entitled few to take it upon themselves to speak for the rest. And back to Judah. This article does not bring any new points to the debate on campus. His refutations are based in opinion not fact, and his opinions are clearly too strong for him to see clearly.
All in all, the original protest has not disturbed me so much as the tactless responses made by vandals and juvenile editorial attempts.