Middle East Debate Ignites Political Activism on College Campuses

Author: Wasim Rahman

The future of United States policy in the Middle East is playing itself out in the form of political activism on college campuses throughout our country. From the University of Michigan to Princeton to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and avant-garde Berkeley, students are demanding that the United States government end its blind allegiance to Israel and adopt a more evenhanded policy in the Middle East. Even here at apolitical Middlebury, students are beginning to pay attention to recent American involvement in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

I am proud to share that, after collecting signatures for only five hours, around 100 Middlebury students have expressed their dissatisfaction with what our lawmakers in Washington. They signed petitions to be sent to the Vermont Congressional delegation condemning the actions of the Israeli army in the West Bank in recent weeks, reaffirming the need for a Palestinian state and calling for an end to United States military aid to Israel.

These voices are in direct contrast to the actions of the United States Congress on May 2, when our representatives overwhelmingly supported the United States-Israel solidarity bill, which according to The Washington Post, essentially "endorsed the Israeli offensive" of the past few months. Last week, a New York Times editorial criticized the actions of Congress, stating that they had done no favor to bringing about peace with such a one-sided resolution. Amazingly, our lawmakers feel that our country can continue to serve as an objective mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while taking such a one-sided position.

Through its decision, Congress ignored the calls by President Bush over the past month, asking the Israeli government to pull back its tanks and bulldozers from Palestinian towns. What's more, Congress even chose to ignore the ongoing argument between the United Nations and Israel, which was then being prevented from investigating charges of war crimes in Jenin, a West Bank city. War crimes or not — our Congress was quick to endorse the Israeli actions.

Returning to campus, a quick survey of the names and hometowns on the petitions illustrates the diversity of those students who are calling for a new, more objective approach to the Middle East. Almost 25 states and 15 countries are represented. The signatories illustrate the economic, ethnic, religious, racial and geographic diversity on our campus.

This diversity is significant because this variety does not exist among the pro-Israeli students on campus. After nearly two years of dealing with this issue on campus, it is clear to me that those who vehemently defend Israel on our campus are almost always Jewish. They are quick to defend the policies of the Israeli government and stand with Israel, wherever they stand, as the bandwagon slogan goes. I believe this demonstrates their fundamental inability to understand the issue objectively and question the actions of their coreligionists.

During the past two weeks, I have beseeched those on our campus who unfailingly defend Israel and United States policy, including the Jewish students organization Hillel, to speak with reason on this issue. Why do they stand with Israel, wherever they stand? What reasonable policies result from their blind allegiances to the Israeli government? Why are some our colleagues unable to step outside themselves and grasp the situation objectively?

In response to our activism, the New Left and the Islamic Society have received a flurry of criticism from Jewish students. Aside from name-calling columnists, we have been contacted through various means. Last week, I received several threatening e-mails calling me names and even an anonymous prank phone call from someone who is very unhappy with my point of view. New Left and Islamic Society posters are systematically vandalized or torn down.

That said, for almost two weeks, I have openly placed some students on the defensive, demanding that they account for their beliefs. In the most articulate reply in last week's Campus, Amichai Kilchevski '04.5 cited three reasons for his steadfast support of the Jewish state. I will address only his first argument, as the other two have been addressed in previous columns.

By way of his first argument, Mr. Kilchevski has finally openly admitted to racism. He believes that we, as Americans, should support Israel because we come from the same "Judeo-Christian culture." This is an inherently racist notion. What about nations that do not share our supposed "Judeo-Christian" culture? Cultural or religious affinities should never determine decisions made by the United States government. By the same sordid logic, the United States should never have opposed the Germans and Italians in World War II. It is antithetical to our inclusive, color-blind way. Mr. Kilchevski is calling for racist policies, plain and simple.

At a personal level, the term "Judeo-Christian" is very troubling for me, as an American who is neither Jewish nor Christian, but one of seven to ten million Muslims living in the United States, according to the State Department. There are nearly as many Muslims in this country as Jews, if not more. I come from a city where there are more mosques than synagogues and where you are more likely to see women in headscarves at the mall then a single yarmulke. Nevertheless, I would never argue that we should be on warm relations with predominantly Christian-Muslim countries simply because we have a "Islamo-Christian" culture. Thus, the term "Judeo-Christian" is archaic and does not reflect the true diversity of the United States today.

To conclude, I have two requests of our college community: First, hold your lawmakers accountable. If you did not agree with the United States-Israel solidarity resolution, contact your representative immediately expressing your discontent. Second, hold your colleagues accountable. We cannot let those who act with blind allegiance to their own religious or ethnic group continue to misinform and misguide government policy.