Colorado Springs, Colo. — I can think of no better example of the self-defeating nature of flag-waving propaganda and sensationalism than the events of last month’s symposium here at Colorado College on “September 11: One Year Later.” [Editor’s note: See Sept. 27 Chronicle, “commentary” article by Daniel Pipes.]
The protesters who gathered outside of Armstrong Auditorium bearing signs reading “9/11: remember who died and who danced” and calling Palestinian activist and keynote speaker Hanan Ashrawi “an enemy of America” accomplished two things.
The first was to make themselves look both hateful and manipulative. The second was to suggest to audience members that they were about to meet the embodiment of pure evil; and the protesters thereby set the standards for Ashrawi’s speech as low as they could possibly be.
It was only because of the hateful rhetoric outside that Ashrawi could draw thunderous applause by merely condemning suicide bombings that target children. In my mind, that killing children is wrong should just be assumed.
Lost in all this was any attempt to communicate a coherent message about why people might have legitimate disagreements with Ashrawi.
After all the hype, Ashrawi delivered a moderate and eloquent, albeit somewhat vague, dissertation about the need for universal human rights, democratization and empowerment of weak oppressed peoples.
Essentially, her message was to equate the Palestinian cause with the universal struggle of oppressed people against tyrannical governments. This sent the message that those who were against her were “against peace.”
A larger balance
Although I support the decision to bring Ashrawi to CC, I think that it is important to assert that she is not just an academic, but also a spokesperson for the Palestinian cause, with a specific agenda; and there are some valid reasons why people do not support her approach to these issues.
The military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has unquestionably been brutal and oppressive. It is not — and never was, as many Israelis once tried to pretend — an “enlightened occupation,” nor an unavoidable and unfortunate circumstance.
It has been, as Ashrawi has said, a “deliberate and systematized” form of oppression, characterized by abuses of power and violence. Israelis and Jews around the world must come to terms with this.
However, I don’t believe her depiction of Israel as the typical enemy of freedom and democracy gives a comprehensive picture of the situation. Although, as Ashrawi put it, the “asymmetry of power” between the Israeli army and the Palestinians is clear, there is a larger balance that one must examine to understand the Israeli perspective.
Although Israel boasts one of the most advanced armed forces in the world, it is completely surrounded by often hostile Arab nations. In the last 50 years, it has fought three defensive wars on its own territory, in which defeat would have meant total annihilation.
It has also been the victim of countless terrorist attacks, perpetrated by vast networks whose stated intention has been Israel’s destruction. These terrorists enjoy the funding and support of the governments of Israel’s still hostile neighbors such as Syria, Iran and Iraq.
In many cases these terrorist organizations enjoy widespread support from the populace. Over the years, the terrorists have utilized religious and racist ideologies to rally public support. Furthermore, despite Israel’s military superiority over the Palestinians, it has proven incapable of protecting its population from terrorist infiltration.
None of this excuses the frequent abuses of power and illegal actions by the Israeli government. However, although elements of the Israeli public and government are motivated by ideology, the vast majority of Israelis allow their government to act irresponsibly because of a deep fear. Because of this fear, which is completely understandable, they will never see themselves as the sole oppressors and the Palestinians as the sole victims.
During the years of occupation, an incredibly desperate, bitter and despairing sentiment has arisen in Palestinian society. However, like the inhumane tactics of the Israeli occupation, the use of terrorist tactics is always a deliberate choice.
And, like it or not, both sides have shown enough tolerance for their own leaders’ unacceptable and inexcusable actions that both terrorism and oppression have been allowed to flourish.
The Oslo peace process of the 1990s was an historic opportunity to break the cycle. However, it was, as Ashrawi claimed, a deeply flawed process. It was not as simple as a completely generous offer “bluntly rejected” by the Palestinians as Gideon Doron, professor of political science at Tel Aviv University, tried to suggest in his address on Sept. 13.
But it is also unfair to write the negotiations off as an attempt by Israel to “unilaterally impose peace.” It was a genuine attempt at compromise that was unraveled by feelings of mistrust and misunderstanding, and tainted by the agendas of both Palestinian and Israeli extremists.
Many people on both sides invested effort and hope in finding a viable two-state solution. Because of the peace process, the 1990s, in general, were a time of unprecedented peace and optimism within the two nations.
However, as unfair as the Israeli proposal may have been in Palestinian eyes, I admit that I can’t help but see the reversion to violence and the termination of negotiations as a monumental Palestinian mistake.
The uprising has transformed the once powerful voice of liberal Jews and Israelis into a community of cynics. People once committed to ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, now feel compelled, out of fear, to rationalize the excesses of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a right-wing extremist, in his quest to find a military solution. Consequently, those excesses have strengthened support for extremist elements in the Palestinian resistance movement.
Now both sides, as demonstrated by the symposium, seem completely unwilling to recognize their own responsibility for the current conflict. A propaganda competition like the one we witnessed is not going to generate a solution.
What is needed is a dialogue in which both sides recognize their respective responsibilities and refrain from the temptation to simply plead their case; and, instead to send a message to their own leaders that perpetuation of violence and abuse will not be tolerated any longer.
Milwaukeean Elias M. Cohn is a sophomore at Colorado College in Colorado Springs and a veteran of the Young Judea Year Course in Israel. This article originally appeared in The Cipher student newspaper and is reprinted by permission.
Loading ...
