How ironic that the authors of a recent editorial wrote of Palestinian olive trees being uprooted by Israelis. It was, in fact, the Jewish community in Israel — the native Jewish residents along with European immigrants — who in the last century transformed the land from barren wasteland to a prosperous environment.
But this detail, like so many others when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is ignored. False claims are placed in its stead; facts are twisted. What is clear is that the situation in the Middle East is detrimental to all living there — Israelis and Palestinians alike — and a resolution to the conflict that takes both groups into account is necessary. No one should have to suffer any longer. But if peace is to be attained, the lies must stop, and reasonable leaders must represent the interests of their peoples.
Some would like us to believe that Arafat's legacy is being attacked unfairly. Yes, they say, he was responsible for the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes in Munich, and numerous other terror attacks. Yes, his organization was corrupt (he consistently took money from the United States and European Union intended for the Palestinian people for his own personal bank account). Yes, he turned Palestinians into a bargaining chip. But that's O.K., they say. It's not that bad. They excuse him for these errors, as if all he deserved was a slap on the wrist. But what kind of standard is that? Where else in the world would murderous actions and incitement of hatred be considered acceptable?
Because he was the head of a nationalist movement who did not live to see the nation, some would like to compare Arafat to Moses. But he was no Moses. This man encouraged terrorism. This man paid the families of suicide bombers. This man gave his permission for the 2001 Intifada. This man refused to work for the social and economic development of his own people and instead spent his time and power encouraging hate. In schools, children are given textbooks that do not recognize Israel's statehood; on television, they are told to take up guns and become martyrs. This is not the way to the Promised Land. Peace, and the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel require a Palestinian leader who is willing to discuss, to compromise and to coexist.
The Israeli people have elected leaders across the political spectrum over the years, hoping that someone would be able to change the terrible situation. And various approaches have been taken. None of these, however, was welcomed by Arafat. He walked away from Camp David in 2000, when Israel, under Prime Minister Ehud Barak's leadership, offered Gaza, over 90 percent of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem for the establishment of a Palestinian state. This outraged many Israelis, who felt Barak was giving up too much. Yet Arafat walked away from the Palestinian state; he did not then strive for it. He did not even propose any alternatives. He still clung to his violent vision, that of destroying Israel entirely.
Both Bush and Kerry, in the months leading up to the presidential election, stated that Arafat was not a real partner in the peace process. And it is not just American politicians who make this argument; Arabs do as well. King Abdallah of Jordan has said that Arafat should "have a long look in the mirror to be able to see whether his position is helping the Palestinian cause or not." Unhappy with his leadership and frustrated by his corruption, many Palestinians also wanted change. More than one of his prime ministers threatened resignation. Former PA official Mohammad Dahlan has even said that "Arafat is sitting on the corpses and destruction of the Palestinians."
Arafat pushed for death, not life. We all know that many Palestinians truly want the violence to end and peace to rule. Arafat, however, was not one of them. He was a destructive force in the Middle East. Now that he is gone, peace is much more of a possibility. Hopefully, new leadership will lead to a new era — the one that Arafat claimed to embody but actually worked against.
Read More
It’s time to step it up on diversity and inclusion
Christofer RoblesOver the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Over the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Class of 2029: Reject selective views of free speech
Charlie Yale and Siyeon Lee"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
For a more effective USG, train newly elected members on the bureaucracy
Luqmaan BambaFor student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
For student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.