SAIC Hosts Heated Exchange

The current conflict in Israel and Palestine has claimed over 2,260 Palestinian lives and over 750 Israeli lives. Although it is happening on the other side of the globe, the concerns regarding the conflict have surfaced on college campuses in the U.S. as well. Critics of the Israeli occupation charge that Israel is committing human rights abuses against Palestinians. Campuswatch.org, which considers itself a watchdog for anti-Israeli sentiment on campuses, has compiled a list of university professors it believes are extremist. Some supporters of Israel attribute criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism, further charging the discussion on campus.

To help the school community better understand the origins and implications of the conflict, the School of the Art Institute of Chicago recently hosted a debate, entitled "Questions Answered and Answers Questioned." Conceived by student Kathy Havens and organized by student groups Artist Emergency Response and Students for Peace in the Middle East, the featured speakers were Ali Abunimah and Yossi Olmert. Abunimah, a media analyst, is also a co-founder of ElectronicIntifada.net and a social researcher at the University of Chicago. Olmert is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post and Yediot Ahronot, and has served in past Israeli governments and has taught extensively on Israeli politics and on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both speakers discussed their respective opinions regarding the origin of the current conflict and answered questions posed by members of the audience.

Commenting on the origin of the conflict, Olmert stated, "The Jewish people are the only people who have retained their attachment and loyalty to the land of Israel for the last 3,000 years. They are the only people who have been around in their homeland for 3,000 years -- sometimes in small numbers, sometimes in large numbers. They are the only ones who have viewed this homeland as their only homeland." He added, "We are the indigenous population of Israel, all of the rest of the Arabs are occupiers. ... All of the rest of them are foreign occupiers."

Abunimah countered Olmert's argument, and said, "I think that the level of denial of history where you simply deny that the other exists and that everyone else in the land is a foreign occupier is really part of the problem and really why we have this conflict. There are people who believe that the Palestinians don't exist as we've just heard, [deny] occupation, [and believe] that only the Jews have the right to that land and any claim and this, I think, is really part of the problem and what we need to solve here."

Discussing the leaders of the Zionist movement in the beginning of the 1900s, Abunimah said, "They did not take into account -- they simply didn't care -- that there was an indigenous population there, and in the act of creating the state of Israel, three quarters of the population were forcibly displaced from their homes, more than 400 towns and villages destroyed and occupied."

Abunimah also commented on the Israeli government's efforts to build more settlements in Palestinian territories despite its violation of the Oslo Peace Accord, and said that "even the modest so-called road map, a plan essentially written by Israel and the United States, is not acceptable to this Israeli government." He added that this should not come as a surprise, considering that "this Israeli government has parties in it who ran in the last election openly on a platform of ethnic cleansing. ... Their solution to the conflict is the physical removal of all Palestinians from their homeland."

In his rebuttal, Olmert disagreed that the Israeli government was unreasonable, and said that "the Arabs control most of the land that was supposed to be divided between the Jews and the Arabs," and that Israel's land could fit into Saudi Arabia over 100 times. He added, "The Palestinian Liberation Organization says they are committed to the unity of all the Arabs as much as they are committed to the 'liberation' of Palestine. Because they consider Palestine [part of] the Arab world, how can they claim that they are getting this piece of the land and that the Jews are getting so much more? We get zero point something of the Middle East and then they claim we are the giants and the goliaths."

At one point in the debate, Olmert called upon Abunimah to condemn terrorism and the Palestinian leadership. "Anyone who reads what I've written will know that I've condemned repeatedly all acts of violence," Abunimah said. Olmert interrupted, but Abunimah added, "Last time we were on CNN together, Mr. Olmert called me a verbal terrorist because he couldn't answer my arguments. When he won't let me answer the questions he poses I'm left with few options. ... I condemn again now any acts of violence or incitement against Israeli civilians."

Olmert continued to accuse the Palestinian leadership, including Yasser Arafat, of being terrorists. "The leaders of the Palestinian authority ... they call upon the people specifically, intentionally, to go after Israeli women and children," he said, and he asserted that Palestinians consider Israeli civilians as legitimate targets of violence because all Israelis serve in the Army reserves.

When asked about Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's connection to the massacre of Palestinians in the Shatila refugee camp in Lebanon, Olmert said that this is just another example of Jews being blamed, when really the problem is Arabs killing other Arabs. He said, "This is a typical problem, what [is] called self-denial. Arabs can kill each other ... and they all blame the Jews at the end of the day. ... Why won't you once and for all mature and get beyond the propaganda and understand that ... they kill each other?"

Abunimah argued that such an idea is racist, and that when Olmert expounds upon terrorism, he ignores the social and political roots that cause such violence. Discussing Olmert, Abunimah said, "He called it in one of his articles, `a way of life. Some people are just terrorists. Ontologically born terrorists.'" An audience member shouted, "Maybe he's right," to which Abunimah replied, "He may be right." But Abunimah added that he hadn't found in any of Olmert's writings an explanation of why such logic applies to violence committed by Palestinians but not to violence perpetrated by the Israeli occupiers. He said, "And if it doesn't apply to them, then isn't this just a racist argument: They over there kill each other because they're not like us."

An audience member asked the speakers to state their opinion of the death of Rachel Corrie, an American activist with the International Solidarity Movement who was crushed and killed when she was run over by a Caterpillar bulldozer manned by an Israeli soldier. Both speakers expressed regret regarding her death, but Olmert cautioned that the situation "has to be examined and be explored." Abunimah, however, said that he was not confident that an investigation would be carried out considering that Israel has opened only 10 investigations into the over 2,200 Palestinian deaths since September 2000.

Lastly, the speakers were asked what actions by their respective communities were necessary to help reach a peaceful end to the conflict. Abunimah said that while he was "prepared to accept two states," it is necessary to reconcile the current imbalance of power between Israel and Palestine. He critiqued the question, saying, "to pose the question `what can your community do' falsely gives the impression that this is a conflict among equals and we all just need to get along." He added, "Fundamentally, we need to end the occupation," and concluded that Palestinians should work better with Israelis who want to end the occupation, and that they should strengthen the International Solidarity Movement "to bring peace once and for all to Israelis and Palestinians together."

Olmert responded to Abunimah's argument that there is a disparity of power between the Israelis and Palestinians by saying that there are 300 million Arabs and that "there is no comparison between the two." He added, "Israel is democratic, the Arabs are not." However, Olmert seemed optimistic about Israel's future, saying that Israel has existed for 3,000 years and will exist for "at least 3,000 years more." He said, "I wish Israel to continue to be a country which gives shelter to destitute Jews all over the world [who want] to come back to their historic homeland."

In Their Own Words

Abunimah:
It's About Human Rights
and Fairness

Olmert:
American Jews
Support Israel

At SAIC, and similar schools in the country, there isn't a huge population of Jews, Muslims, or Arabs. Yet, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be a contentious topic on campus and there are organizations like Campus Watch. Why do you think this is?

ABUNIMAH: I think ... the Palestinian issue has universal resonance because it's about fundamental human rights and fundamental fairness and the rights of indigenous people. Now, why do we see so much resistance to that message in things like Campus Watch? I think that pro-Israel groups, although they represent a very small number of people, have been very well-organized and have been very good at policing the debate about this issue and at making people feel reluctant and sometimes even too intimidated to discuss it openly. One of the primary tactics has been to equate criticism of Israel's policies with anti-Semitism and to press that charge in an ever-more shrill way.

When you refer to groups like Campus Watch, what is your definition of pro-Israel?

In this context, I'm talking about groups that support Israel's policies no matter what it's doing, who place all the blame for the conflict on the Palestinians, and refuse to see any of Israel's responsibility and groups that have often -- not universally -- but very often, used unethical tactics to try to silence criticism of Israel, and other groups in that context, and Campus Watch would certainly be one.

Do you make the distinction between pro-Israeli lobby groups and those who want to see a sustainable Israel?

Of course I do. Of course I make a distinction. I think that on one hand we're talking about organized groups that claim to ... speak for the Jewish community. And then you have individuals who have a whole range of views, and I think the vast majority of Jewish opinion is probably not represented by the most vocal groups that support Israel no matter what, and now are supporting it even as it's led by Ariel Sharon and a cabinet that contains parties that openly ran on a platform of ethnic cleansing. Take groups like the Anti-Defamation League that refused point blank to condemn the inclusion of these pro-ethnic cleansing parties in the Israeli cabinet. The same with AIPAC [The American Israel Public Affairs Committee] -- they refused to issue any statement expressing any concern at all that there are cabinet ministers in Israel who advocate what fits the legal definition of genocide. I think [since there are] groups like that [who] claim to speak for the Jewish community ... we're starting to see Jewish people, Jewish Americans, distancing themselves from that because it's so far from the mainstream values of the Jewish community in this country.

Do you think it's problematic when it's the vernacular to say that if you are interested in a sustainable Israel you are pro-Israel?

It's a complicated question because what is a sustainable Israel? There are those who believe that a sustainable Israel is one that has a Jewish majority at no matter what expense. And you know, you can't get away from calling that problematic in a context where half the population who live under Israeli rule are not Jewish. So, you know, it raises a debate. And I think that certainly we can be, all of us, interested in the well-being and the future of the security of all Israelis and all Palestinians while disagreeing on what the political models for that is.

What are the common attitudes towards the conflict that you find on campuses and what misconceptions do you often encounter?

The common attitude I find is one of people feeling that this is an issue that they hear a lot about, but they don't have a lot of clarity on because they hear so much bluster coming from the media. They're told so many contradictory things, and yet they just want to get a very basic understanding and to decide the issue for themselves. ... And what I've tried to do is demystify it and get people to see it's about fairness, it's about treating human beings the way you want to be treated. I find that that message goes very well. There are a lot of misconceptions, and I think that has a lot to do with the media, which focuses on violence, which misrepresents the violence, and gives the false impression that Israelis are the principal victims of violence when overwhelmingly, Palestinians have been the most numerous victims of violence in this conflict, and not just violence but are the ones being driven off the land. ...

Do you think a debate is the most effective way of approaching the conflict on campus? What are various ways that students can learn more about what's going on and get involved?

I think debates have a role but they tend not to be terribly informative because they don't allow people to really explore issues in depth. It tends to be sort of one person trying to rebut the other. They have a place, I've taken part in them, I'm sure I'll take part in others. But I think there are many other different, creative ways to get a window into an issue to allow time for reflection. Certainly, I think lectures and discussions, having speakers, is a good thing. Alternating them, having people with different viewpoints alternately so that they have the time to get across their views and students have the time to question them is, I think, more informative than having a debate. I think art and culture are incredibly important ... and those are ways that people can get into the issue, not necessarily from the political-historical lecture format that I tend to be more involved in.

What would you like to see in Israel-Palestine in the near future?

Well, I think the fundamental thing is, we have to recognize that the basic problem is that Israel is ruling millions of people by military force, depriving them of their most basic rights, and that situation has to end. So there has to be an end to military occupation, an end to military repression. Only then will we see violence diminish and will we see the prospect of Israelis and Palestinians living in peace. ... All of the arguments that supporters of Israel put forward are an effort to change the subject from the basic fact that almost half the population in Israel-Palestine are completely disenfranchised and Israel is the only party that refuses to let the Palestinians exercise their full human and political rights. No one else in the world is opposed to that.

I think that it's very important for people to realize the extent to which this country is involved in the conflict, and that the United States is a party to the conflict because it overwhelmingly supports one side, provided a military means for one side to carry out the occupation, and that therefore we all have a responsibility in this country to educate ourselves about the issue and demand a change in policy. It is our business and we must not be intimidated or silenced by those who would prefer that this issue remain mystified and remain one where people are too afraid to speak out.

OLMERT: I don't know how controversial it is in the community at large or even at the campus, but I know that there are groups that are interested and if they are interested they will put on these debates. I don't think that these groups represent too much of the student body. I'm sure that the big majority of the students would support Israel. But the vocal group of activists ... who put out this event ... are supportive of the Palestinian case. Usually when I go to campuses in America, and I do a lot of it, I encounter a great deal of support and friendship. But you always have some one not [supportive of Israel]. But the interest comes from particular groups that are especially concentrating on the Middle East. ... It is controversial [at SAIC] because in this particular school there is this group [Artists Emergency Response]. Artists cannot be people of hatred and therefore I doubt very much if they are really artists or just pretending to be because I understand that their show is full of hatred and ... is one-sided.

How do you define support of Israel? What does support of Israel mean to you?

Support of Israel means that people understand that this is a state that existed by a right; that we don't need to explain to people our right to exist; that people are opposed to terrorism, people understand that those who perpetrated the acts of September 11 understand [that] people are committing these horrifying acts of terrorism against us. [They understand] that when you are attacked you have to defend yourself and when you defend yourself you have to win the war and then move on towards a political solution. Nobody would say that Israel should not come to a political solution or make concessions as part of this political solution. But the support of Israel expresses itself through this support of the war against terrorism. That is understandable for many people.

What are the common attitudes towards the conflict that you find on your various speaking engagements at college campuses?

Usually very much support for Israel. I've been around, this is my 13th visit to the states since ... October 2000 ... and I spoke at well over 300 campuses so I can speak in terms of one that's experienced. Usually there is a great deal of support but there are places where not everybody's supportive, but that's okay, it's a democratic state.

A lot of leftist Jews in America think that it's supportive of Israel to be anti-occupation. Do you agree?

I don't think there are too many leftist Jews in America who are opposed to Israel or supportive of anti-occupation policies. There might be a small minority but they are vocal because they are big exceptions. They need to raise their voices and so forth. The big majority of American Jews support Israel without any reservation and they know why they support Israel, and I'm not terribly impressed with those people who are pretending to represent American Jews or American liberal Jews or whatever. Even among the leftist Jews, the big majority support Israel and they would define themselves as pro-Zionist and pro-Israel.

What are the common misconceptions that students have about the conflict?

There is an attempt on the part of the left to portray the conflict in the Middle East in ways that are similar to conflicts in other parts of the world in order [to make] the work of the anti-Israel camp very simple. Colonialists vs. indigenous population, occupation, violation of human rights, so on and so forth without any historical context, without any attempt to see the background to all this. ... When you say occupation, of course, it's a nasty word -- but what is this occupation? What preceded it? Why is it? So the misconception therefore is the oversimplification of all that and the attempt to portray it in a way that would sound similar to other conflicts in the world.

Do you think that a debate is the most effective method of approaching the conflict on campus?

Not necessarily, but I was asked to [take part] in the debate, so I did. If I was given the opportunity to speak by myself, I would have done it immediately. I never steer clear or shy away from a discussion, dialogue, or a debate, and this was the format that was offered to me and I said immediately yes, why not?

My idea is not to start a dialogue as much as it is to explain the position of Israel. If it can be done in a dialogue, why not? If it can be done in another way, why not, as well? What I know is, after [the debate], you will see that there will be a more active, dynamic, and vibrant group of supporters of Israel because they were given the opportunity to listen to a coherent presentation in support of Israel, and many of them approached me and said as much. So I believe that in that sense I feel vindicated.

When you say both sides of the picture, do you think that the conflict is pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian? Do you think there's an in-between?

I do not think that there can be an in-between. There can't be an in-between terroris[ts] and those who fight terrorism. There can't be an in-between those who question the other's right to exist and [those who] don't take it for granted. There's nothing in between these profound moral issues. These are moral issues -- they're not even political issues. There can't be an in-between when you say, okay, we are supporting the right of Israel and the right of the Palestinians, and now let's see what can be done about reconciling. There can't be any in-between those who condone terrorism and those who fight terrorism, as much as it can be in the case of those who perpetrated September 11 and those who are the victims of September 11. The same applies to Israel. ...

So when you say that you're either against terrorism or with terrorism, do you think that implies that all Palestinians are affiliated with terrorists?

No, never. And I said as much [during the debate]. I am against those who are terrorists. I don't think all the Palestinians are terrorists. Their leadership is terrorist -- not the people, necessarily. Human beings are good people altogether, but if they are run or controlled by dictators like you have in Iraq or among the Palestinians, they [bring out] the worst out of people, but not all the people. The leaders are terrorists, but not the people necessarily.

What would you like to see happen in the next few years in Israel?

[I would like to see] Israel continue to prosper and grow, to absorb many more Jews that are persecuted in other countries, or that just want to come and live in their homeland. [I would like to see Israel] try to make peace in a way that will enable us to continue to exist, not peace at all costs, but peace which is responsible, peace that will ensure the future. And I would like to see it all happening, and I'm very optimistic it will happen. ... We have made tremendous progress in our 54 years of independence and we shall make much more. And I'm very optimistic about it. There are sometimes setbacks, or ups and downs, but at the end of the day, those who are motivated by understanding the cost of history know that we should do better in the future.