Not so long ago, Gary Weissman '02, a Jewish friend, voiced his concern to me regarding the camp mentality that tends to prevail in our respective communities when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Hearing him speak made me realize that he was voicing my own concerns. Our groups do have a tendency to put disproportionate emphasis on one set of issues -- the issues that have a more direct bearing on how we define our own identities and community values. This is natural. However, in the interest of building bridges, this tendency should be challenged. Mobilizing around labels such as pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, regardless of the noble ideals that are claimed to lie behind such labels, may polarize communities that need not be polarized and preclude forms of discussion that need not be precluded.
Given this, I am concerned with the impact of Hillel's recent decision to publicly announce: "Wherever we stand, we stand with Israel." People support noble principles. When I see that Hillel shows solidarity with Israel, I interpret it as showing solidarity with the right to have a Jewish homeland, and ultimately, with the right to assert the moral legitimacy of one's identity and social existence. This is noble. I support this aspiration, especially given the historical legacy of the Jewish people. However, I fear that the very vagueness of such a blanket endorsement has all the trappings of engendering camp mentalities that polarize opinion and preclude genuine discourse. This is not necessarily due to the endorsement itself, but the contextualization of the endorsement in a web of tense relationships.
Vagueness in such sensitive issues is counter-productive. On the other hand, transparency has a better chance of cultivating long-term trust. When people feel that they can come with conviction to the table with principles they wholeheartedly agree upon, this builds trust. We mourn the loss of innocent Palestinian Christian and Muslim lives. We mourn the deaths of innocent Israeli Jews and Arabs. Each community suffers. I understand that such pain and chaos can temporarily be alleviated through public identification with one's community and endorsement of its aspirations. However, I don't believe that blanket endorsements at such a time are astute. Their value is hard to appreciate outside one's group. They show an apparent lack of prudence for a situation that involves multiple communities with multiple pains and perspectives. In short, they may provide a short-term solution for one's own community, but fall far short of addressing one's responsibility towards the greater community.
What is the alternative approach? What kinds of symbols facilitate mutual discussion and help build bridges? As I mentioned earlier, people support noble principles. I believe that if people are to have an "agenda," they should have an agenda that an educated and diverse community can meaningfully identify with. We should be wary of overextending our commitment to a political reality and confusing it with principles everyone agrees upon. Specific implementation of such principles can be discussed at length, but at the very least, such symbols incline us towards unification rather than division. As such, I identify with anyone who proclaims with sincerity and passion that he or she stands for lasting peace, fundamental dignities and genuine security and freedom for all. In the words of a Muslim friend, I will struggle with all who are ready to struggle for a "just peace now."
