---

BY DANTE FUOCO

In print | Published February 12, 2009 — Updated February 15, 2009 19:58

Correction Appended

When Students for a Free Palestine held a discussion last week about recent violence in Gaza, its members admitted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a historically complicated issue, riddled with emotion and politics.

But the group’s leaders said that that was not what they wanted to talk about.

Although SFP is a pro-Palestine activist group, its members wanted to have a dialogue open to all students to discuss the recent violence in Gaza as well as what many see as severe human rights violations resulting from this violence.

Under the title “Human Cost of Onslaught,” members of SPF wrote the number of people who have died, the number of buildings that have been destroyed and the number of people currently without electricity and running water, among other statistics. After showing clips from a video about what has happened in Gaza, Sarah Brajtbord ’11, co-founder of SFP, established that the discussion was meant to be a safe space, where people were expected to be respectful and to only use “I” statements.

By discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a humanitarian point of view, the group aimed to bring to light the Palestinian perspective on the war, and to draw together people with differing opinions for a calm, safe discussion about a polarizing issue.

“We really wanted pro-Israel students to come,” Brajtbord said. “You can get so wrapped up in politics … but if you break it down to bare-bones human rights, then it just makes the situation, for me, so much clearer and easier to understand. There’s so much wrong with politics on both sides … in the end, it’s about human life.”

Samia Abbass ’11, another co-founder of SFP, said that it is hard for many students to discuss “such a big, kind of scary topic.”

“I feel like people are kind of afraid to talk about it because they don’t know everything. And no one does,” Abbass said. “We wanted to just [set] up a space to come and talk. And learn, also.”
Co-founder of SFP Nidal Alayasa ’11 agreed, saying that SFP wanted the discussion to be a place to “express your fears and ideas without feeling that your voice is being … oppressed.”
The discussion was calm, and though there were differing views, people were respectful. Alayasa said that he was “proud of everyone” at the meeting. “[It was] very important for me to have other views there,” Alayasa said, because it “deepens” the understanding of the issue.

Max Bressman ’12, who attended the discussion, agreed. “I felt it was necessary to have not only pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian arguments, but neutral arguments as well,” said Bressman, who was vocal at the discussion about being Jewish and pro-Israel.

“I don’t think people should be without a home,” Bressman said. The next step in dealing with this issue is to not discuss whether Palestine should exist, Bressman said, but “how to make it happen.”

One way to achieve this is to continue open discussions in the future, he added.

“If our generation doesn’t step up, the next generation won’t have any incentive to step up, and the previous generation won’t see the need for change if their children don’t want change,” Bressman said after the discussion. “We’re young people. We can still change. This is Swarthmore — we embrace the opportunity for change.”

Others at the meeting concurred. Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a daunting issue to discuss, many of those present said that Swarthmore students could take small steps to work toward a solution, such as becoming more educated or contacting Congressmen about the issue. All three co-founders of SFP said that, with the success of their first discussion, they plan on having more discussions in the future.

“I haven’t given up hope and I hope other people haven’t given up hope,” Brajtbord said. She added that though “it can be pretty intimidating to go into dialogue,” wanting to talk about the issue and knowing how to talk about it are “huge steps” towards a solution.

In fact, after the discussion officially ended, people branched off with others and continued talking.
“That’s our primary goal,” Abbass said. “That’s what we want to see — people talking to their peers, educating each other and learning from each other.”

Aaron Brecher ’10, President of Swarthmore Organization for Israel, said in an e-mail that “no issue should be beyond discussion.”

“I believe that the open exchange of ideas from multiple perspectives can lead to something resembling comprehension,” he said. “In my opinion, the tragedy in Gaza only makes it more important for us, as members of a pluralistic community, to engage one another.”
SOFI has not put on any events this semester related to Gaza, Brecher said; though in March, when the group is hosting an event that will discuss how the Obama administration will deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he expects that Gaza will be addressed.

SFP and SOFI are not similarly structured groups, though. While SFP is a pro-Palestine activist group, SOFI is “more of an educational and a social organization than an advocacy group, and while some of the members do engage in activism, most are interested in learning more” about the complex history and politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict, said Brecher.

After students returned to campus, Jewish Student Adviser Jake Rubin held a closed-group discussion for Jewish students about Gaza. He said that the discussion was closed in order to provide a safe space for discussion and reflection for Jewish students, many of whom, as Rubin said, felt “conflicted about what had happened.”

“It was hard for them to think about it and process,” Rubin said, mentioning how many have ties to Israel and support Israel’s existence but “do not agree with all of Israel’s actions.” Rubin said that people who attended the meeting would not be willing to speak about the closed-group discussion. “It’s a highly emotionally-charged issue … [A lot of them] didn’t feel comfortable talking about it with just anybody.”

Though he organized the closed discussion, Rubin stressed the importance of open-group discussions and said that he has been in discussion with Deans’ Offices to hire a trained facilitator to host an open dialogue for the college community this semester. “There’s a lot of truth on both sides,” he said, adding that the issue is not at all cut-and-dried. Rubin added that he and Jewish students value an exchange of ideas, especially in a complex issue like this.

Brecher said that the organized pro-Israel communities at Swarthmore and across the world “are far from monolithic, especially regarding Israeli security policy.”

Being Jewish and pro-Israel, others said, aren’t synonymous. Although she is Jewish, Brajtbord said that she finds no contradiction in also being pro-Palestine.
Summer Miller-Walfish ’11, who is Jewish and supports Israel, said at the meeting that she was “embarrassed” by Israel’s recent actions.

“Judaism is so much about peace and loving your neighbor, and Israel is not exemplifying that right now,” she said after the discussion. “They’re not representing what Judaism is and they’re not representing what I, as a Jew, would like to see of the state.”

About 40 people attended SFP’s discussion last Wednesday night in a Kohlberg classroom.

Correction: Feb. 15, 2009

Correction: This article incorrectly quotes Jake Rubin as saying that many students who have ties to Israel found Israel’s actions “horrendous.” Rubin actually said that many who have ties to Israel “do not agree with all of Israel’s actions.”

---

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »