Tufts' chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has not yet reached a first−semester milestone of existence, and already, much controversy has been generated on campus directly or indirectly as a result of its activities. It seems that many students and faculty of all opinions on the issue of the Israeli−Palestinian conflict have taken notice of the increase in the heat of the dialogue on campus.
At least according to my personal experience, the increased intensity of the dialogue on campus tends to be coupled with a sense of apprehension regarding the question of whether or not the direction that campus discourse is taking is negative or positive. As a member of both SJP and the New Initiative for Middle East Peace (NIMEP), I firmly believe that there ought to not be too much uneasiness about the nature of the dialogue on campus. Rather, the increased intensity ought to be viewed as a positive reflection of the vitality of the issue on a campus where all sides' exhortations tend to be cautious in nature.
The discourse on the Israeli−Palestinian issue on most campuses around the United States is characterized by a mutual lack of respect and willingness to engage in honest discussion. In my experience, the pro−Israel camps on college campuses tend to isolate themselves from all discourse while continuously feeling compelled to move farther right on the political spectrum. The pro−Palestinian camps feel the need to demonstrate the plight of inhabitants of the occupied territories by raising "apartheid walls" and setting up checkpoints on campus which serve no purpose aside from interrupting students' daily routines while leaving them with a poor impression of one side of the debate. The common practices of both camps are neither constructive nor effective, but rather they are polarizing. It is far from the quality of discourse we at Tufts ought to aspire toward, and it should be avoided at all costs.
It is simultaneously important to note that Tufts currently does not play host to such an atmosphere nor does it hold sufficient potential for its propagation to occur. In my experience, whether it has been through SJP, NIMEP or in exchanges and conversations with members of Tufts Friends of Israel, Tufts Hillel, Chabad at Tufts, etc., I have found the vast majority of the participants in this debate to be rational people who allow their intellect to take precedence over their emotions. That is not to say that intellect and emotion must be divorced from each other completely, but simply that the actions and words of such organizations and individuals on campus tend to be guided by calculated measures as opposed to impulsive reactions.
There seems to exist an underlying culture of caution on campus on all sides of the Palestinian−Israeli issue, a clear indicator of the sound health of the discourse. Above all, I have noticed since my days as a prospective student on campus that, contrary to students who uphold a norm of a combative political atmosphere on many other campuses, Tufts students generally demonstrate a genuine interest in understanding a different point of view — the idea of taking part in an exchange as opposed to a duel. All of the aforementioned factors combine to provide for a campus atmosphere that disfavors the advent of a discourse on the Israeli−Palestinian issue that would resemble what can be seen on other campuses in the United States.
That said, there's still room for improvement. Though I believe at least a few of the exchanges in the Op−Ed section of the Daily are a sign of the vitality of the issue on campus, many others don't entirely share the same point of view — rather, they see it as an op−ed war. This zero−sum game mentality must stop. It is silly and childish. The fact that Itai Thaler and other such individuals feel compelled to write an opinion piece in response to any event or expression of pro−Palestinian sentiment on campus or in campus media is outright immature. I'm not questioning their right of expression; rather, I am calling into question their use — or rather abuse — of that right.
An unanswered op−ed should not be construed by those who disagree with its arguments as a defeat or injury to the legitimacy of their views. If you have some poignant or insightful view to share, by all means write an op−ed. If you're simply looking to contradict something you heard or read without offering the Tufts community any new knowledge or argument, spare the newspaper some column space and be proactive in decreasing any unnecessary tension on the issue.
There have been a number of occasions in which certain articles have prompted me to begin writing opinion pieces in opposition to the expressed views, but, in the end, I either decided to scrap the op−eds or not send them in. If the op−ed "war" has indeed caused an increase in the tension surrounding the discourse on Israel and Palestine on campus, changing it ought to begin at home. Self−censorship is of the utmost importance in further perpetuating the healthy and positive atmosphere of dialogue at Tufts.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in having a charged atmosphere on campus — as long as mutual respect and honor are maintained. Tufts is not necessarily heading down the wrong path in its discourse on Israel and Palestine, but there is a noticeably less comfortable and more apprehensive atmosphere on campus since the hosting of Nonie Darwish at Tufts on March 11.
Self−restraint on a personal and corporate level must be the most important guiding principle in tempering the conversation and keeping it from degenerating into what can be witnessed on campuses like Boston University's and many others: complete polarization that shuts down all room for discourse.
Though I have used phrases like "pro−Palestinian" and "pro−Israel" in this article, it's for simplicity's sake. From my experience, the Tufts student body is home to a diverse array of highly nuanced views that ought to continue to be the source of a conversation on the future of the Holy Land in which intellect presides over emotion.
--
Stephanos Karavas is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. He is on the executive board of the New Initiative for Middle East Peace and is a member of Tufts' chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.
