Letter to the editor
November 29th, 2006
Pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian viewpoints tend to isolate students
To the Daily:
I commend Christopher Zbrozek and his column, The worst debate on campus (11/28/2006). While the Daily effectively promotes students' freedoms to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, the continuous back-and-forth articles from students or groups like American Movement Israel and Students Allied for Freedom and Equality do not foster dialogue. These student groups often seem too eager to respond to any statement or implication in an article they find problematic, and then go on to attack the writer.
It is for this reason that I have never responded to viewpoints I find offensive. The forceful language used on both sides can instill a degree of fear in responding. On countless occasions in my four years here, I have disagreed with pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian columns, but I refrain from writing a response.
I am Jewish and I have strong ties to Israel, but I am not a Zionist and I will not support Israel and its occupation. Further, I will not defend acts of violence on the part of Palestinians. I am one of the "moderates" to whom Zbrozek refers, and he is correct in stating that my genuine belief in dialogue and understanding brings little progress. I do not want to write a viewpoint only to be attacked from Jewish groups for not being Jewish enough. Similarly, I do not want to see counter-responses from Palestinian supporters claiming I am a Zionist.
I applaud student participation in submitting viewpoints into the Daily and I fully support the Daily's commitment to freedom of speech, but I cannot continue reading defamatory and unproductive responses regarding the conflict. They only further isolate and confuse students who, like me, would like to better understand the political situation and believe that some form of resolution is possible.
Zbrozek said it perfectly when he wrote, "Here, the attacks . that typically characterize the debate mirror a similarly depressing cycle of violence in the Middle East." If Michigan students cannot dialogue civilly among one another, how can we even begin to think about a possible end to violence and the beginnings of peace in the Middle East?
Emma Levine
LSA senior
On Israel-Palestine dialogue, both sides must find starting point
To the Daily:
Christopher Zbrozek's column yesterday (The worst debate on campus, 11/28/2006) contained some salient criticisms about the current state of Israeli-Arab dialogue on campus. Unfortunately, discourse often breaks down into a blame game free of accountability on campus, which prevents intellectual and productive debate from ever becoming dominant. However, by using his status as the editorial page editor of an unbiased newspaper to vent his frustrations on a topic from which he himself is distant, he diluted and detracted from his message.
There is a tangible point at which intellectual campus debate on this question must begin. That point is the acceptance of an Israeli state with safe and secure borders alongside a Palestinian state with equally secure borders. Any solution or discussion on campus that does not share this goal counterproductive and illegitimate. While the intricacies of such an agreement are, and should be, up for debate, the general premise is not. The instant that Palestinian leaders demonstrate a serious commitment to peace and a two-state solution, it will happen.
Israel has its problems, as anyone in Israel will tell you. But over the past years, Israel has repeatedly voiced its desire for a Palestinian state. Just this past weekend, a landmark ceasefire was reached between the Israeli government and the Hamas government in Gaza in an effort to halt unnecessary deaths on all sides. Moreover, this past week Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert signaled his willingness to participate in a prisoner swap with the Palestinians.
The reality on the ground is very clear. In the Middle East, the continued conflict and death serves the interests of nobody, Palestinian or Israeli. On campus, finger pointing, radicalized dialogue and a lack of accountability detract from our ability to have an honest and positive dialogue. This, I believe, is where dialogue should begin. An intellectual and engaging conversation is not lost forever, but we must not try to start it from opposite corners of campus.
Aaron Willis
LSA sophomore
The letter writer is incoming chair of the American Movement for Israel.
Teenage girls need to procreate; keep Plan B out of their reach
To the Daily:
I'd like to applaud the FDA's decision to restrict the sale of Plan B, the morning-after contraceptive pill, to customers who are 18 years and older (Plan B at a pharmacy near you, 11/28/2006). My harem of teenage wives exists for one purpose and one purpose only: To provide me with heirs. If Plan B were to become available to my wives, the continued proliferation of my dynasty would be threatened.
Nathan Stiennon
LSA senior
Printed from www.michigandaily.com on Sat, 26 May 2012 19:06:20 -0400