The Justice

I was going to submit the following as a Letter to the Editor, but the deadline has passed:

I am writing to express my dismay at the publication of Daniel Snyder?s op-ed "Israel-Gaza conflict isn't all black and white." It is in a twisted way ironic that the first half of the editorial laments the basal level of dialogue exchanged on Facebook regarding the Israel-Palestine Conflict, while the second half un-self-consciously revels in a near-perfect parody of the very dichotic level of rhetoric which the first half so roundly denounces. To write that the Conflict is "complex" and in the next breath casually lay blame for the Conflict squarely on the shoulders of Hamas is, irrespective of the merit of that conclusion, to betray the principle of dispassionate academic inquiry upon which this University is founded.

To furthermore write that Hamas would do well to construct "malls" or "fire hydrants"?presumably a euphemism for the development of the "private" and "public" sectors, respectively?is to impose upon a definitionally "non-Western" people a uniquely Western notion of global economic development. This imposition, again irrespective of its ultimate utility, blithely fails to consider whether the consequences of free-market economic development (perhaps including, e.g., the fluidity of international arms trafficking) are complicit in producing, if perhaps not the present politico-social context of the Conflict, then its presently violent inhumanity (consider, .e.g, the destruction of the UN headquarters in Gaza).

I ask of the Justice, I ask of Brandeis, I ask of whatever community we claim to have formed here: have we expended our energy on nothing more than the ability to efface (and then publish, with a straight face) the irony of denouncing, renouncing, and in the same breath, pronouncing, the blackness-and-whiteness which characterizes the ignorance and engenders the injustice against which it is Brandeis? stated mission to stand?

Mr. Snyder - I just read your editorial in print and I immediately came here to applaud you for it. Your thoughts are mine exactly. People have gotten very polarized about the current conflict and in "choosing a side" people often lose sight of the other side's validity.

Keith is telling you that your position is itself a "dichotic level of rhetoric". I guess he has a point - buried somewhere underneath the flamboyant language - but I get what you are trying to say and I agree with you.

It is one thing to blame Hamas for initiating the cycle of violence and another to unconditionally support Israel's response to it. It was indeed an extreme overcompensation... but that isn't saying it was unfair to respond! As humanitarians we can - must - mourn the losses on both sides. All these vigorous Zionists who rush to Defend Israel and Correct the Media Bias and Fight the Anti-Semites are really just anxious, insecure, and missing the point.

And though Keith seems to think you are a confused, ethnocentric, hypocritical moron for suggesting that Hamas "do something useful", I think you are quite right. It's not imposing Western values, it's supporting Economics. Economic development has been proven again and again to bring impoverished and unstable third-world countries out of strife.

If only everyone had the same grasp of the big picture... Israel's right to exist - "reality not religious mandate"... their success as a politically and economically secure nation... the palestinians getting screwed by Israel, the other Arab countries, and their own government... you're putting into all into perspective.

So basically I agree with you on just about every point you make, and I thank you for publishing a well-written, thoughtful, and persuasive article expressing our views. Good work.

Interesting and well written, Dan! I'm glad you wrote this piece.

I think what irritates me the most about this article, and indeed the entire nature of the conversation in this country, is how easy Israel PR claims are accepted as truth without much review. It would take very little research to find that Israel was the one that broke the ceasefire. As Israel itself admits, none of the rocket attacks post the ceasefire were launched by Hamas until after the fourth of November, when six Palestinians were killed by Israel. This, expectedly, prompted a barrage of rockets from Hamas into Israel, who then responded with the human rights disaster which Gaza has just endured. (I should note here that I do not support that targeting of civilians by either side).

Since no one has deemed this worth researching, these two links shall clarify the issue for everyone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEwzmJQD8eA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SILJxPTqjAM&feature=related

And before you say it, a tunnel would NOT be a violation of the ceasefire, and we have to take Israel's word for why it is that the tunnel was being built.

In this light, I ask you, how can you defend this concept that it was Hamas's fault, and that Israel's reaction was somehow a "force of nature" which cannot be helped or protested against? I think it's interesting that there were no Israeli deaths by rockets until they themselves broke the ceasefire; is it safe to say that the government in Israel has failed its own people, by provoking a group of hostile and desperate men in the only predictable way? To blame the actions of Israel on anyone other than Israel, just like blaming the actions of Hamas on anyone other than Hamas, is unacceptable.

And Mr. Hakimi, your painfully simplistic economic claims about third-world development are neither relevant to this question of human rights nor have any ground in reality. Every success story of development has been a production of foreign aid: Japan, South Korea, and even Israel itself. It is difficult to expect Palestine to "pull itself up by its own bootstraps" when it is under constant blockade and receives limited aid to build a working economy. Mind you, also, that the property damages in Gaza for these attacks is around $1.3 billion. It seems that, if it is in Israel interest to see a successful Palestinian state, there are better means to accomplish this than nearly indiscriminate bombing of highly populated city centers.

And thank you, Keith, for taking a very unpopular stand against a very lazy editorial in the interest of sparking an important dialog.

Of course it's not all black and white, that's why it hasn't been resolved!!