An Age-Old Quest for a Homeland Both Sides Must Make Concessions if Peace in the Middle East is to be Achieved

Author: [no author name found]

Gabe Epperson

The story of the Israeli state and the Jewish people and their fight for a homeland, the story of Palestinians and their struggle for a homeland, these stories are only two in a larger struggle, part of thousands of years of oppression and violence. They are part of our history of state sponsored militarism and patriarchy. They are both fighting for the same thing and they will never achieve their goals because they are fighting and killing each other. They are acting as if they are different people, as if they are two elements that cannot mix: oil and water.

There is danger in this kind of thinking and that's just what it is — thinking and perception — simply a culturally constructed way of perceiving the world, of perceiving ourselves, categorizing one another. Where is the vision?

Violence is a kind of vision, and even a religion. Violence is the religion of Prime Minister Sharon and George W. Bush. Violence is the religion of terror. Patriarchy, oppression, domination, colonization — this is the heritage, in fact, the religion of our Nation.

I want to offer an analogy that will help us to understand and internalize the universal struggle of the oppressed.

This story takes place in a school — perhaps the school you went to as a child. In this school there is a clear divide: there are students who are privileged and there are students who are alienated from the rest. There is one group of students who are bullies. They are not necessarily bullies in the way that we commonly think of bullies. These aren't the lone bullies, who extort lunch money; these bullies are sophisticated. They use social standing and psychological domination.

Bullies exclude those who are different — bullies segregate and create hierarchies and power structures and place themselves on top. Bullies are also afraid, and that is why they create ways of intimidating others. Because they know that they are but a few in a vast sea of starved children who could turn on them at any minute.

How many times have we stopped and asked ourselves, do we really want to be there, on top, fighting and hating, back-stabbing and plotting to manipulate and control our fellow students.

"We are a beacon of freedom and democracy that shines for the whole world to see, and everyone wants to join us, except for them damn terrorists! Terrorists want to take our freedom from us!" This is the voice of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney; this is the voice of the small powerful minority that controls our country. I ask you! Who are the true terrorists?

To continue the story: One day, something happens at this school. One of the students decides that he has been tormented for long enough. He has come to resent and hate the bullies who have made him feel weak and worthless. Unfortunately, this student has no allies. The principal is in cahoots with the bullies' parents, the student government is made up of bullies, elected by bullies and the Parent Teacher Association is made up of all the bullies' parents. He also knows that not only are the police officers bullies themselves, but they are also paid by the bullies and their parents.

This student is a victim! We have not given him the tools or the forum through which he can address his grievances. He is a victim of a corrupt and evil system that ensures the perpetual rule of the privileged. This system is enforced by security!! Security means that the will and the way of the ruling class is secure and remains unchallenged.

The goal is conservatism; the goal is the repression of the voice of the people. What is "conservative" after all but a desperate attempt at conserving the old way, the male way, the military way; a language of domination and silencing the oppressed.

Now, I want to finish my first story. One day, this student, who has been alienated his entire life, excluded from our material-consumer-oriented society, brings a gun to school and goes on a shooting spree that ends with his own suicide, a shot to the head — or perhaps, even a bomb strapped to his body. In his mind, this is the only way he has been given to fight the system. This system does not allow for discourse and reason; nor does it allow for a vision of peace. This system defines the relationship between the powerful and the powerless. This interaction, this language is one of violence and repression. To fight the system, for many people, entails the only language that they have ever learned — terror. Of course this is not the solution, it only perpetuates the cycle, but the so-called terrorists are not the ones who have written the language — it is law books, and it is international trade agreements. It is the responsibility of those who are in power to bring justice to this world. Until they create hope, terror will dominate our world.

Our world system is blind; it claims to follow market forces, free trade and democratic values. But, in reality, the market needs cheap labor, it needs inequality, it needs hunger and despair, and most of all it needs security to secure the hierarchy. Do not be fooled by the threat of terror; do not be fooled by the false perception of the world under attack by terrorists. Because the truth is, the world has always been besieged by terror, but this terror has come from the top, and it has come from those in power and not the other way around!

Let us tear down walls, let us not be confined by our fear of our neighbors, let us not be bullies and seek to exclude others. My message is a simple one: the dialogue we utilize defines the response. Have a vision!

As a world thriving with religious passion, it is a surprise that we resort to the language of blindness and violence. Violence breeds more of the same.

Nina Robinson

Apparently the "propaganda" campaign instituted by Middlebury's Hillel was so effective that it has led a member of this campus to wage his own propaganda campaign.

As a member of the Middlebury College community, but more importantly as an American Jew, I have had conflicting feelings as to what a proper response to an article such as Wasim Rahman's "Propagandist Posters Provide Disturbing Implications" should entail. My first reaction has always been to ignore such blatant statements of untruth, hoping that other members of this campus would also be rational and realize the inherent flaws in such arguments.

But lately I have realized that letting one side monopolize the debate by remaining silent only furthers that side's initiative of perpetrating and perpetuating untrue statements about Middlebury's Hillel and Israel in general.

I do not intend to make any radical, untrue statements in this article. I only intend to respond to and clarify the arguments presented by Rahman from the perspective of a Jewish American and a member of Middlebury's Hillel (though I do not speak for all of Hillel), in hopes of giving students a more balanced view of what is happening on this campus and in Israel so they can make their own informed decisions, and not adopt the view of one group simply because that is the only view they know.

First and foremost, there has been contention over the poster displayed by Hillel that states, "Wherever we stand, we stand with Israel." While I can certainly see how this poster could be misinterpreted, the fact that we stand with Israel does not mean that we support all of Israel's policies or actions. It simply means that, for better or worse, we will always support the right for a Jewish state to exist in Palestine.

There are varying opinions within Hillel and within the global Jewish community regarding Israel's policies and actions, which is why it so difficult to wage an effective pro-Israel campaign. But making the definitive statement, "Wherever we stand, we stand with Israel," unifies the majority of world Jewry in supporting the
right for Israel to exist and flourish as a democratic nation, wherever they may stand on a wide spectrum of opinion.

In an article of the April 24 issue of The Campus, Rahman stated: "Conventional wisdom tells us that the first thing to disappear in propagandist culture is the ability to self-criticize." This is true, and can be seen in the absurd, unthoughtful comments Rahman made in last week's article. To sum up an argument Rahman made: why are Jews on campus so willing to pledge "blind faith" to a country they have no say in politically or otherwise? The fact is, American Jews are the people most critical of Israel because the policies and actions Israel makes are perceived to be in accord with the feeling of American Jewry, although this is hardly true.

Now I must ask another question: why are the pro-Palestinians on campus so willing to support the inception of a Palestinian state, regardless of the numerous atrocities Palestinian people have committed against innocent Israeli civilians, and especially now in light of evidence that has been uncovered linking Yasser Arafat with Palestinian terrorist organizations?

Which brings me to my next point. Rahman stated, "The Islamic Society and the New Left have pledged no support, let alone blind allegiance, to any foreign government." Maybe, in an attempt to give this statement validity, Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Liberation Organization aren't being considered a government because there is no true Palestinian state. But all one on this campus has to do is turn around and he will be bombarded with banners hanging from windows that say "Free Palestine," with stickers saying "Peace is Possible: End the Israeli Occupation," or with posters that contain extremely biased quotes towards Israel, all courtesy of the Islamic Society and the New Left. How does this not constitute support?

The final counter-argument I would like to offer is in response to Rahman's statement that supporting Israel precludes supporting a Palestinian state. I personally support the creation of a Palestinian state, and I'm sure if you asked any informed Jewish person, he too would realize that for peace to be achieved there must be the creation of a Palestinian state that can coexist peacefully with Israel. I fully understand Rahman's feeling that one cannot support Israel while at the same time supporting a Palestinian state due to the settlement problem. But it must be noted that many Jews realize the fact that for peace to exist the settlement issue must be resolved and Israel will eventually have to withdraw to an area closely resembling the pre-1967 borders. Thus, it is perfectly feasible for Jews to pledge support for Israel while still having a vision of a Palestinian state.

In a struggle such as the one being fought between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it is very difficult to decide which side is right and which side is wrong, because with a mentality like this neither side will ever prevail and the fighting and nonsensical killing on both sides will continue. It is important to remember that for peace to be achieved both sides must make concessions. And these concessions must first be made not by Israelis or Palestinians, but by people on this campus, for if we cannot get along and at least agree on certain pertinent issues, how can we ever expect the conflict in the Middle East to be resolved?