In the late 1920s, most of the "civilized" nations of the world joined together to sign several admirable treaties. The Kellogg-Briand Pact, which among these treaties has justly received the most fame over the years, solemnly declared that the nations that signed -- Britain, the United States, Germany and Japan among them -- would no longer use war as an instrument of foreign policy.
Today, history students look at this sort of treaty through the lens of WWII, the Cold War and all the other conflicts that followed, and see it as a misguided, nave, toothless treaty -- a symbol of those war-weary times. In eighty years, I hope that the page and a half that The Dartmouth devoted to the pro-Israel petition in yesterday's paper will not be viewed in the same light. Unfortunately, it seems to have no other future -- it is a useless sheet of paper that does nothing but proudly declare a thousand Dartmouth students willing to put their names on anything that sounds good.
Let's first examine the nature of this petition: it first and foremost affirms itself to be in support of Israel. Is this because Israel is one of the United States' strongest allies in this difficult part of the world? I have not seen any other petitions in support of Saudi Arabia or Turkey (perhaps the United States' most important ally in the Middle East).
Does this petition act as a stand against terrorism? Perhaps, but in this case it is difficult to understand its purpose. The United States government is firmly anti-terrorist -- some would argue to the point of xenophobia. And signing names to a document that affirms "Terrorism is bad" is hardly the most courageous stance ever taken -- or the most necessary. There are far worthier causes garnering far less attention.
The people who created this petition and affixed their names to it are intelligent -- I refuse to believe otherwise -- so neither of the reasons I have mentioned can be correct. Let me reduce the statement of the petition to what it boils down to: "We support the people of Israel against the people of Palestine." I cannot see any other possible interpretation for the petition. Yes, it mentions "security and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians," -- hardly revolutionary, for only the most extreme partisans (the suicide bombers, to name an inevitable and correct example) would choose any other. But let's not mince words: this petition blindly -- and I emphasize blindly -- supports Israel over any sort of Palestinian state.
So why does this make this petition utterly useless? By choosing Israel over Palestine completely, this ensures that the stated goal of the petition can never occur. That is, if the position taken by this paper were to be held by the United States, there could never be security and stability. It is fairly clear that Palestinians are willing to die to gain what they believe is a rightful share of their land and equally clear that the current Israeli government is unwilling to give as much as the Palestinians desire. Whether I or any non-Palestinian believe that Israel is offering a fair deal is irrelevant.
But, honestly, I could accept this petition were it simply useless. At least then nothing, good or bad, would result. It is much worse than useless, though. It exhibits a dangerous lack of comprehension in the affairs of the Middle East and can do nothing but infuriate Palestinians. It mentions Israel's "battle against terrorism" -- a clear reference to the atrocious suicide bombing attacks undertaken as a part of the Palestinian intifada. What it does not mention is any kind of support for Palestinian dreams of a country of their own. It offers no way of solving the current crisis. It says nothing. And The Dartmouth placed it on the entire third page of the paper (being sure to minutely label it "Advertising")the same day it ran an op-ed piece supporting the petition and did not air any conflicting views.
And let me reinforce: it is not a bad thing to support Israel. I'm sure more than 1,043 people on campus support the existence of Israel (I count myself as one of them). It is a bad thing to affix your name to something that supports a state (which incidentally has committed its own share of mistakes) blindly, offers no solutions and does nothing but anger a lot of Palestinians (and other people) who don't have any particular fondness for the United States anyway. If something this vague and pointless can get the attention of an entire campus, then let me be the first to announce my new petition: "Air Good. Water Good." You can sign it whenever you want.
