Accusations, aggression don’t further Mideast peace process

Bernstein is a political science student and former president of
Bruins for Israel.

By Julie Bernstein

On Tuesday I submitted a Viewpoint piece to the Daily Bruin
commending the United Arab Society for their thoughtful
presentation of the situation in the Middle East, a staging that I
felt was conducive to future dialogue between pro-Israel and
pro-Palestinian students on campus (“UAS takes right steps,
humanizes conflict,” Viewpoint, May 15).

I similarly sought to emphasize the need for self-criticism
among members of both parties in terms of approach and content.
Upon repeated contacts with over half a dozen members of the UAS,
my challenge to encourage a mind-set of self-reflection was
entirely disregarded.

Moreover, I am disappointed by my own expectations. When I
stepped onto campus Tuesday morning, I saw a peace tent, a white
dove and artistic renderings of non-violent solutions to this
altogether tragic and repressive war. On Thursday evening, however,
I walked off campus through a crowd of pro-Palestinian students
chanting nationalist slogans. I saw a poster equating the Zionist
vision of the Palestinian state with “swiss cheese.”
And, most disheartening, I saw hundreds of UAS T-shirts which
colored the entire state of Israel (and the Palestinian
territories) in the Palestinian color of green, with their
“feather of peace” stabbing Tel Aviv, the heart of the
Israeli state. These are unmistakably aggressive images which
undermine the very notion of a two-state solution.

I will be the first to say that I am not an unconditional
supporter of Israeli policy. I am not a Sharon supporter, and I
believe that there are always alternatives to violence. But I
recognize that the responsibility for the failures of the peace
process and for the destitute condition of Palestinian refugee
camps is shared among many parties. The countries of the Middle
East have refused to resettle Palestinian refugees while they
provide negligible economic aid. In the meantime, they reward the
martyrdom of suicide-bombers.

The international community has inconsistently and
insufficiently provided funds for the growth of the Palestinian
economy. The funds that exist are squandered by corrupt Palestinian
Authority officials ““ leaders who continue to repress the
Palestinian people and say “yes” to violence, and
“no” to political negotiations.

I have a vision for the region. I hope for a two-state solution:
a Jewish Israel and a Palestinian state existing side-by-side. I
hope that in my lifetime I will see an economically independent
Palestine composed of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip,
accompanied by a voluntary exchange of settlement land for
strategic resources. I hope for a shared Jerusalem. I hope that the
resolution of this conflict will lead a trend of greater
cooperation and democratization in the Middle East.

When I walked off of campus on Thursday afternoon, however, I
did not feel that I was walking through a crowd of visionaries. The
atmosphere of the crowd was largely accusatory and
rejectionist.

I was thrilled to write my last submission, a piece I
desperately hoped to write before my graduation. But I have
retrospectively come to the conclusion that my commendation of the
UAS was largely premature. I would like to restate my challenge to
the members of the UAS and future leaders of all groups on campus
who take a side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ““
including Bruins for Israel.

Foremost, let’s look at where our two sides have failed;
let’s learn to point our fingers at policies that seek to
subjugate and create intolerable dependencies; let’s
criticize corruption and inefficient governmental infrastructure,
inadequate international intervention, and economic
exploitation.

Let’s do what our leaders can’t do: work toward a
common understanding through intra-group dialogue and exchange. In
future years, perhaps we can sit at the same table on Bruin Walk
and present our shared vision for sovereign Israeli and Palestinian
peoples.