Balancing act

Over the past few months, the Institute for Transregional Study of the Contemporary Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia has brought in a number of speakers who have discussed the current situation between Israelis and Palestinians. In a column I wrote a few weeks ago, I criticized the Institute specifically for the kinds of speakers it has brought in to address this issue, a position for which I myself have been criticized. But though the Transregional Institute, according to its website, seeks to "provide a forum for the exchange of ideas," almost all of its speakers have in fact communicated the same sentiments: the failure of the peace process, its negative effect on the Palestinians, the impact of Israeli occupation and the desire to humanize the Palestinians.

I have no problem with having individuals such as Robert Fisk and Ilan Pappe, noted for their criticism of Israel, share their views with the University community. But would someone without any background knowledge about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict truly take away a balanced view of the current situation from the lecture series? Is it academically honest or responsible for the Transregional Institute to allow this to happen?

I think not. For that reason, let me address a few points. Many of the speakers have accused the Oslo Accords — the framework of the peace process — of intentionally marginalizing the Palestinians. Would it have been possible to bring in someone involved in drafting the accords in order to understand why they wrote them as they did? Many of the speakers have also referred to Israel's excessive use of force in putting down Palestinian violence. Would it have been possible to bring in a military expert in order to authoritatively explain the rationale behind Israeli actions, instead of simply giving the floor to academic conjectures? None of the speakers to date clearly defined what "proportionate" or "non-excessive" use of force is, and it would have been helpful to understand the terms that they used. Finally, many of the speakers have alluded to Israeli violations of human rights. Why haven't Palestinian violations of human rights been mentioned? Why must 'humanization' be a zero-sum game?

It appears to me, then, that regardless of the religion or nationality of the speakers, the same position has been repeatedly espoused: an anti-Oslo, Israeli new historian, rejectionist stance. If the talks have been so balanced, why has the Princeton Emergency Committee on Palestine co-sponsored a number of the talks, but the Princeton Israel Public Affairs Committee not taken any part at all?

I think it would be beneficial for the Transregional Institute to bring in speakers who could offer different points of view. Edward Said bitterly criticized columnist Thomas Friedman, so why not bring him in to defend his views? Some other examples include Gerald Steinberg, the director of the Program on Conflict Resolution and Negotiation Political Studies at Bar Ilan University, who has written about the Palestinian Authority's conscious decision to send children to the front lines of battle. Another is Ze'ev Schiff, the defense editor of the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, who could perhaps shed light on Israeli military priorities and actions. Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, is my final suggestion. He has gone so far as to suggest the example of Germany after World War II as a model for Palestinians because Germany accepted its postwar position and used that as a foundation for success and growth.

In order to foster an academically honest forum for debate, the Transregional Institute needs to invite speakers, in addition to those that have come, who understand and support Israel's primary concern: security for its borders and its people. Instead of spoonfeeding audiences the same position again and again, why not offer some different perspectives and challenge listeners to decide for themselves? I am quite tired of an organization that seeks to provide a "forum for an exchange of ideas" giving a lot of ideas but very little exchange of different ones. It is simply unfair that these speakers have all repeated the same issues using the same lens. Another perspective would definitely help. I primarily charge the institute to broaden its horizons but also charge my critics with understanding why this is so important. Seth Wikas is a Near Eastern Studies major from Beachwood, OH. He can be reached at sawikas@princeton.edu.