RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceA New Narrative of Peace
A terrible tragedy is unfolding in Israel and in Gaza. As the Palestinian and Israeli people suffer from dangerous threats to their safety and security, many of us find our emotions running high as the ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
J Street is a terrible organization and you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting their self-hate.
While I disagree with voice of reason, and consider the above post unhelpful and silly, I think it is irresponsible for JStreetU to condescendingly call for dialogue as if TFI and the pro-Israel community have reacted to this conflict in the same way that the PCP and the pro-Palestinian community have.
During this conflict, it is true that both sides have put up fairly one-sided flyers all over campus and have published op-eds in the Prince.
Moving past that, the PCP has distributed one-sided and, at times, completely non-factual fact sheets (all of which fail to mention any of Hamas' rocket attacks on Israel and refer to groups that target Israeli civilians with the intention of causing maximum damage to civilians as "resistance groups" and not, as the rest of the world refers to them, as "terrorists"). The PCP has staged aggressive and offensive protests outside of Frist that have had slogans such as "no state has a right to exist if it is based on genocide" (despite the fact that Israel has, as UN reports have said, the utmost possible to protect civilians in a war zone and that no respected international body has ever accused Israel of genocide), and these protests have not even made any pretense at being interested in dialogue. Furthermore, they have been manned by graduate students and even community members who have been allowed to further polarize the PCP's rhetoric. This is not to mention that the list of names of Palestinian casualties the PCP has posted during its protests has included Palestinian civilians, which everyone can agree is a terrible tragedy, but also the names of more than 40 Hamas militants who were killed while firing missiles at Israeli civilians.
TFI has had a meeting for its members to discuss feelings on the conflict and has had a letter writing campaign to console Israeli children who have been displaced by Hamas' rockets and to show support for the Israeli soldiers who have been defending Israel's civilians.
TFI is not a perfect organization by anyone's standards, but it has clearly done as much as possible to minimize the escalation of rhetoric on campus, while the PCP has recklessly spread it. In an effort to appear politically correct by drawing an equivalency between their actions, JStreetU has delegitimized its position.
I completely agree with the really long comment
When people are suffering it becomes a human issue rather than a political issue. By not assigning blame or slandering the other side, the writer is refraining from adding to the divisions on campus and is instead helping to unite the community with a common compassion for those affected. It is a worthwhile and honorable stance to take on such a heated issue.
I agree that it becomes a human issue, but it is not a human issue completely devoid of politics, and trying to remove the political context is not conducive to any kind of meaningful discussion of the issue.
I completely disagree with the first anonymous but understand that this is not the forum to have a constructive discussion and will disengage.
I applaud the Aryeh for writing what seems to be one of the first genuinely non-partisan pieces on what is an inherently divided and polarizing issue. This is particularly integral when human life is routinely taken to accomplish military and political goals.
So many want peace! This editorial is so shallow! Typical J street folly!
"Return to 67 borders and peace will reign forever in Israel and the Middle East"
"2 State solution will enable Israel to remain Jewish and democratic"
The last thing I would wish for Israel or the Palestinians is a PA state on the west bank!
Israel can't make peace with people who teach and preach hatefulness, intolerance and want to kill you no matter what you do! Israel went back to the international border in Sinai, lebanon and Gaza and recived all out terror and death. Israel held onto land at the Jordanian border and the Golan heights and got some level of stability!
You need three components to sign a peacetrety with an enemy state. 1) Stability - The PA, Syria, Egypt by definition are dictatorships an cannot be stable. 2) The other country must respect "Tolerance" - Tolerance is non existent term for many Arab leaders! They refuse to recognize that Jews have ny connection with Jerusalem, Hebron, The temple mount or Israel. 0oth sides must be willing To "compromise" - In none of the above mentioned peace deals did the Arab leaders make concrete compromises! If one values "peace" they are willing to pay aprice for it. Israel has proven so many times that it is willing to pay for peace but the Arabs were never willing to make any concrete land compromizes for Peace ! Forget the 2 state solution The best solution in the WB for both sides is the status quo - The Palestinians have a government, a flag, a police force, personal security, human rights, The best health Education and welfare system and the highest standard of living of all arabs in the middle East. the last thing the arabs need is a PA state in the whole WB . That state will fall into the Hamas' hans like the Gaza strip in 1 week and the hamas will send the WB back 500 years!
Impossible. And you know that.
I think Aryeh is completely on-point. The politics of the situation can seem intractable but what I find even more exasperating are the aphoristic party-lines that fail to capture any larger truth and, moreover, disaffirm the narratives and experiences of others. At the end of the day, it does not matter who's to blame: rockets crashing upon someone's home in Gaza are just as real and damaging, psychologically or fatally, as they are for someone living in S'derot. When we refuse to admit the tragedy of this situation, when we privilege the lives of one group as nobler, more righteous, or valuable than the other, we lose a piece of our humanity.
On a related note, saying that "Israel can't make piece with people who teach and preach hatefulness, intolerance, and want to kill you no matter what you do" is reductive and a rhetorical ploy to absolve Israel of agency or responsibility. It's an attempt on behalf of rational, empathic people to justify war and violence with which they would otherwise be uncomfortable. We will never be able to find a sustainable, peaceful solution to this conflict until we stop broadcasting these self-vindicating mantras. They anesthetize us from feeling the real pain and concerns of others and feed an endless cycle of blame and conflict.
Aryeh offers an alternative to this cycle in his call to change the conversation: "We must shift from a politics of blame, where we try and convince others the other side is at fault, to a politics of responsibility, where we ask what we can do to reframe the conversation to move toward peace." A workable, peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is miles away from the ivory tower of the American university, but these institutions are designed to teach us how to have more informed, nuanced, and self-reflective conversations, an undertaking that requires as much as it fosters empathy and intellectual honesty. This integrity and rigor, in turn, should inform how we approach issues in the larger world, whether we're amateur commentators on political affairs or policy makers, elected officials, and organizers working to make a difference on the ground.
Thank you for reminding us of this responsibility, Aryeh.