To the Editor:

Re: “Gaza Panel Criticized,” News, Feb. 19

60 years of a complex conflict require humility in our approach and nuance in our judgments. The Sun, by choosing the title: “Gaza Panel Criticized: Hillel, CIPAC and IAJ decline to participate; protest event” to the article reporting the Feb. 18 panel, seems to have forgotten this.

The Sun focused on the critics of the panel, and talks about it as an emotive exercise. The quotes mention this panel as providing misinformation and distortions. This is not a fair portrayal of this event.

My remarks as a panelist did not incorporate emotion. They were pragmatic and reflect the official positions of most European countries and of President Clinton.

The philosophy professor gave a philosophical analysis. The reasoning was laid out clearly. It was not emotive.

The remarks of Saad Ahsan ’10 and of Dr. Mossaad Abdel-Ghany were emotive. But it is important to hear their “controversial” opinions on campus. They broadly illustrate the consensus from Morocco to Pakistan and the narrative of one billion Muslims, and should be expressed. Are they right or wrong? This is not the main issue here. If some students are uncomfortable hearing them, it is positive: Their core beliefs are confronted with the beliefs of stakeholders from the Muslim world. It is crucial to be confronted with opposing visions that are rarely heard here. It is by hearing — and not agreeing with — the perspectives of the “other side” that one can evolve towards a nuanced vision. If not, you are in a bubble.

This panel has been opposed to Thursday’s event hosted by The Sun. They were two distinct and complementary exercises. One was to express the opinions of students and stakeholders and illustrate what people are thinking. The other one was an interesting but “sterilized” academic presentation. Both formats are necessary. Opposing them is a mistake.

Luis-François de Lencquesaing ’09

Panelist for “Gaza in Crisis”