This weekend, the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University will be hosting the One State Conference, a two-day forum on the viability of the one-state solution, which proposes an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by means of the foundation of a shared Jewish and Palestinian state.
This resolution in the region would spell the end of Jewish self-determination, since the new state would inevitably be home to a Palestinian majority of about five million immigrants, wiping the world's only Jewish state off the earth and replacing it with the world's 22nd Arab-majority state. This prospect was the openly stated goal of the one-state solution's early proponents, but most of its current advocates prefer to couch such rhetoric in favor of ending alleged human rights violations and promoting equality between Palestinians and Jews in the region, a noble goal that should be the top priority of the state of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and even Hamas.
The one-state solution, though, is unrealistic and its propagation is detrimental to the peace process. The majority of influential Palestinians and Israelis agree that the two-state solution, which proposes the foundation of an independent Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state of Israel using the rhetoric of "two states for two peoples," is the most legitimate and realistic opportunity for peace. The one-state solution is a fringe idea; it's appealing to Israeli radicals who don't believe in Palestinian self-determination and Palestinian radicals who believe Israel should not exist.
Enter the One State Conference. Its stated goal is to "educate ourselves and others about the possible contours of a one-state solution and the challenges that stand in the way of its realization." The conference's hosts, who are graduate students at the Kennedy School, aim to bring legitimacy to the one-state option and open a serious dialogue about it. Despite the one-state solution's impracticality in the peace process, the conference has an intellectually noble goal that deserves recognition.
Critics of the conference — who are widespread and vocal — complain that the conference is anti-Semitic, offensive and antagonistic. They point out that it is being funded by the Kennedy School and endorsed with the brand name Harvard logo. Moreover, they protest that the list of speakers and panels is definitively one-sided, and that it includes notoriously anti-Israel speakers who are prone to disseminating misinformation and lies, including former Palestinian Liberation Organization spokesperson Diana Buttu, who spoke at Tufts on Monday.
The critics are not entirely mistaken; several speakers will appear that have dedicated their lives' work to spreading anti-Israeli propaganda and halting the peace process. But to counterbalance these speakers, there will also be numerous highly regarded and respected scholars and professors from across the globe that have expertise in the conflict and genuine hopes for peace. A rabbi will even be speaking.
Harvard's role in planning the sold-out conference has been minimal. Just as Tufts, Harvard and most universities do for conferences they host through student groups, Harvard lent its name to help the conference's organizers in bringing high-profile speakers to campus. Harvard has tried to distance itself from the conference; the event's website displays a disclaimer that "Student-led conferences are the sole responsibility of the student organizers and do not represent the views of Harvard Kennedy School or Harvard University." The Kennedy School's dean, David Ellwood, has repeatedly made it clear that neither he nor his institution endorses the conference's policy agenda.
The One State Conference is undeniably offensive to many Harvard students and faculty, in addition to onlookers whose attention has been drawn to the conference by its extensive global media coverage. Despite this, it would be stifling and inexcusable to limit the marketplace of ideas by preventing the conference from taking place. Harvard officials faced a difficult decision when they were asked to host the conference, but they made the right one.
It is dangerous for an enlightened university community to shy away from conversations that offend some people; that practice is the embodiment of suppressing free speech. It is not Harvard's place to handpick and endorse one theory over another that they reject based on political correctness or personal biases. They didn't for this conference — and we hope they hold to the same standards in the inevitably controversial future.
