I write this post in response to comments made during last evening’s Republican debate during which several participants were very negative in response to the discussions on the Israeli/Palestinian situation occurring on many college campuses. The tone advocated that university officials shut down students voicing their concerns that the military actions of the Israelis were indiscriminately killing a large number of Palestinians innocent of any aggression toward Palestinians and voicing recognition of the abuses the Israelis had visited upon those of other faiths in the West Bank and the region. Of specific concern in these vocalizations has been the complicity of leader Netanyahu in using the support of leaders of Israeli extremists in order to gain political power. I support this concern of the students and see little hope for the region unless the overreach of all extremists in the region are not eliminated.
I think students are idealistic and see the hypocrisy in the positions taken by many politicians. Whether these politicians see their position as pragmatic or not is not the issue for me. Pragmatism can easily become a way to ignore legitimate complexity that is acknowledged by others. You do not have to condone atrocities to understand that people placed in impossible life circumstances are easier to convince they have no choice other than to resort to violence. My point is that the students recognize that simplifying a complex situation to justify a given response is unlikely to have long-term success.
In reacting to the simplicity of the Republican candidates in reacting to the present world situation, I happened to read an NYTimes piece by opinion writer Thomas Friedman. Thomas Friedman is one of the few authors who generates content I find so valuable that I purchase any book he writes. This interest goes back many years. I have found his commentary on globalization, climate, and education very insightful. Before these topics were integrated in what I think of his “World is Flat” books, I read his books about what I have always called the Middle East and I believe this area of the world and his experiences covering issues related to this region established him during his early career. One can find posts on this blog going back many years based on my reading of one Friedman book or another.
Friedman’s argument seems to me to encapsulate the position of the students and reflects a more nuanced and I would suggest an informed analysis of the crisis. His position seems captured in his title – To Win the War, Defeat Hamas and Stop Settlements [I think this link should work whether or not you have a digital subscription to the NYTimes]. I think of this argument as suggesting that to solve a problem of this nature you need to assure all participants that you are willing to put yourself in the position of taking the moral high ground. The crisis will not go away until there is a legitimate two-state solution and the extremists in Israel recognize and eliminate their abuse and aggression toward others who have legitimate rights to exist in the region. This is not a matter of determining which side has committed the most egregious acts, this is a matter of suggesting that wrongs exist on both sides and conflict will continue and be defended by one side as long as this is the case.
