As violence in Israel surges, tensions at the University and campuses across the country have risen to new levels, driven in large part by two vocal activist movements split along ideological lines. A burgeoning pro-Palestinian movement at the University, founded on organized demonstrations and informational campaigns, has arisen in order to counter the more established and numerically larger pro-Israel student groups. Such activism is important and necessary to fostering debate and dialogue on such an emotionally charged issue. However, this dialogue needs to be just that - dialogue.

The pro-Palestinian movement seems to garner support from other popular activist movements because of their compelling appeal to human rights. While this appeal is not without merit, attempting to make generalized connections to every progressive cause skews the progressive movement on campus and blurs the lines upon which rational debate can occur.

The pro-Palestinian movement has conceptualized the Palestinian struggle in terms of human rights and justice, attracting the support of other seemingly unrelated activist movements. This has created a situation in which informed students who may stand on one side of important issues are forced to take a stand on a complicated political issue that is fueled by emotion and misinformation from all involved parties. Linking social issues such as sweatshop labor with violent political and military struggles dangerously dilutes each cause and can serve to polarize students rather than foster real discussion.

Broadening the movement through attempts to rethink a complex issue drawn along religious and ethnic lines is an important and legitimate goal. However, groups should be wary of popularizing this complex issue by adopting language common to other politically charged issues in order to gain general support. Take for example, the April 8 national day of action, held at the University and at more than 30 schools nationwide. It called for universities to divest themselves of stock in corporations that do business with Israel - much like a successful movement in the 1980s to push for divestment of stock from businesses with ties to South Africa.

Both sides engage in a simplification of the issues in order to garner popular support. Attempts to link pro-Palestine supporters on campus with terrorists and pro-Israel supporters with Nazis does nothing to further the debate. In effect, equating the Palestinian struggle with terrorism and the pro-Israel movement with fascism makes an artificial connection in students' minds that makes intelligent debate impossible.

Widening support and increasing student awareness through activism is an important and valued enterprise, especially given the complex nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; it should continue if not increase at the University. Regardless of the sides they take, supporters should not begin or continue rhetorical campaigns that simplify complex issues or align themselves with populist movements simply in order to increase general support. Such action diminishes the importance of the many issues involved.