Middle East Tensions Flare Up on Campus

Renewed violence in the Middle East has consumed the state of Israel in the last year, drowning the once-promising peace process in a hail of bullets and mortar attacks.

Current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit to Jerusalem's Temple Mount last September combined with general discontent about the peace process to bring Palestinians out into the streets in protest, leading to a flurry of deaths that virtually ended any chance for a long-awaited peace settlement.

And with the casualty total quickly reaching high numbers, the violence did not go unnoticed on campus, with student groups with different allegiances in the Middle East responding to the crisis with a series of vigils, rallies and attempted joint discussions.

But as events in the Middle East continue to unfold, Harvard seems to stand as a microcosm of the crisis in the region. Competing claims during a time of intensified crisis in Israel and the surrounding area have left campus groups visibly divided, despite the groups' common stated goal of peace.

Initial Reactions

The Harvard community immediately reacted to the escalating violence in the Middle East in October, as groups such as Harvard Hillel and the Society of Arab Students (SAS) held vigils mourning victims of violence and calling for peace in the region.

On Oct. 9--the date of Yom Kippur, one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar--hundreds of Jewish students and community members held a vigil on the steps of Widener Library to pray for peace for Israel.

"We mourn the loss of all life in the Middle East, and we hope and pray for a just and lasting peace in the region," Hillel said in a statement issued in response to the renewed violence.

On the next day, SAS held a separate vigil, as more than 150 gathered on the steps of Memorial Church to hold candles and listen to speakers describe the experiences of those affected by the renewed violence.

Representatives of Hillel and SAS said at the time that neither event was intended to be political in nature, and that the events were not co-sponsored so that the groups could mourn in their own ways.

"It is not because we do not stand together, but simply that different people need a different outlet to mourn," said former SAS President Rayd. K. Abu-Ayyash '01.

Members of Hillel's Interethnic Committee had sought a joint vigil, but some SAS members felt uncomfortable with mourning Israeli soldiers killed in the conflict at the same time as mourning Palestinians, who continue to experience greater numbers of casualties, mostly at the hands of Israeli soldiers.

"I cannot mourn for an Israeli defense soldier in the same vigil in which I mourn for a 12-year-old child hiding behind his father's back, or a friend of mine who got killed...." Abu-Ayyash said in October.

But both Hillel and SAS maintained that the separate vigils did not mean that there was any antagonism between the two groups.

"The fact that there were two vigils indicates that we might have different stakes in what is currently going on," Abu-Ayyash said. "But the overarching consensus exists that we both hope and pray for peace in the Middle East."

Competing Claims

But as violence in the Middle East continued to flair, tensions between Arab, Muslim and Jewish groups came to a head on Oct. 24 when two events were held simultaneously in Tercentenary Theater.

Harvard Students for Israel (HSI) held a "Rally in Solidarity with the State of Israel" on the steps of Memorial Church, while SAS, dressed in all black, silently stood on the steps of Widener Library at the same time, holding signs bearing the names of all victims of the recent violence.

HSI Vice President Myles Brody '01 says the HSI rally was intended to show support for the state of Israel in its handling of renewed violence.

"In general, we felt disappointment that Israel had made overtures for peace, and they had been utterly rejected," Brody says of the Camp David process last summer. "So we felt it was very important to have a really powerful and thoughtful rally to show our support for Israel in a public manner."

Both groups say the events were meant to mourn the loss of life during the conflict, but the separate events showed the clear political and ideological divisions between the different groups.

"What we have is competing narratives, competing views about what's happened in history, competing views on claims to land, and competing views on what methods are justified in achieving your goals," Brody says.

For example, SAS rejects the idea that Israel had made fair overtures for peace.

"Everyone wants peace, but an unjust peace is both unfair and impractical," said SAS rally organizer Darryl Li `01 in an editorial in The Crimson in October.

And while HSI members have said their rally clearly had the humanitarian message of mourning "all loss of life in the Middle East," SAS members point out that only the names of two Israeli soldiers killed by Palestinian mobs were mentioned by name.

Some SAS members also took offense to the "overtly political" nature of the HSI event, which featured speeches by Martin Peretz, a lecturer in Social Studies, as well as U.S. Representative Barney Frank '61, both of whom placed blame on the Palestinian population for the deaths of its citizens.

"It is wholly irresponsible to tell young people to destroy a nation--Israel--and then be surprised when their lives are taken," Frank said at one point during the rally.

But HSI President Jonathan M. Gribetz '01 says the nature of the conflict makes politics a part of any show of support.

"The conflict in the Middle East is not a 'natural disaster.' We cannot respond to it as we would respond to a terrible earthquake," Gribetz says. "It is rather a 'political disaster' that is being carried out by human beings and so it is senseless to criticize a rally about a political conflict for being 'too political.'"

SAS members' strong disagreement on fundamental issues such as who was the cause of the violence served as a main reason for their decision to have "a presence" during the HSI rally.

"We just felt that we couldn't agree with the principles on which they based their rally," says Rita Hamad `03, current president of SAS. "We wanted to show people that you can't mourn the deaths of all civilians and then support the organization that is causing the majority of those civilian deaths."

Despite the SAS claim, Gribetz says HSI's political support for Israel includes support for its army and its soldiers.

"One cannot determine which side is acting morally or justly simply by looking at the death tolls on each side," Gribetz says. "When a large mob attacks a few soldiers, more members of the mob are likely to be killed than soldiers, but that does not mean that the soldiers are to blame for the mob's attack."

"We felt that Israeli soldiers were just as worthy of being mourned as any other life," Brody adds.

And while the two groups did not directly interact during the simultaneous events, HSI members say they had been weary of the SAS event beforehand, which they felt was a "definitely a counter protest."

"We told the deans we thought it was a bad idea and that it might potentially increase tension on campus," Brody says. "We were committed at all times to not do something that would be inciting."

But Harvard Islamic Society (HIS) President Zayed M. Yasin `02 said the events did show the polarization that the conflict had caused on campus.

"There was definitely a lot of tension there," Yasin said.

The Politics of Division

The conflict on campus caused by the crisis half a world away was clear to outside observers.

"I was upset by the separate vigils," said Nathan Perl-Rosenthal `04, the current co-chair of Hillel's Interethnic committee. "I thought that was a hideous picture, and that it was unnecessarily and incredibly divisive."

In addition to the tensions between HSI and SAS, both organizations say they have also had to overcome disagreements within their groups.

HSI, for example, is affiliated with Hillel, an umbrella group for Jewish students--some of whom do not agree with the military methods used by Israel to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"It's definitely a difficult situation," Brody says. "In general, the Jewish population as a whole has come out in support of the state of Israel. But there were many individuals who either felt more ambivalent about Israel's role, or are against Israeli moves."

HSI members say they recognize the disagreement, and that they have tried to work to stay near the consensus opinions, while still showing active support for Israel.

"On one hand, we want to have a united front, but on the other hand, there are some real differences within the Jewish population," Brody says. ""We tried to make sure our statements reflected the opinion of the large majority."

Members of SAS and HIS say their greatest difficulty has not been within the groups, but has been in how it has presented itself to the rest of the student population.

Hamad and Yasin say bias by American media sources combined with the American government's alliance with Israel makes presenting their views more of a challenge.

"Ours is a small minority position," Yasin says. "The American public isn't exposed to all sides of the story, and that makes our starting point that much more difficult."

And Hamad says her groups' opinions are often clouded by the politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"It's hard to say your opinion honestly because there are so many people who are going to interpret it as a political agenda," Hamad says. "Anything anyone does in this situation can be interpreted as political."

Bridging The Divide?

But despite the inner and outer disagreements and difficulties, Hillel's Interethnic Committee continued working to bring the separate sides together for discussion.

HSI says it has always been willing to co-sponsor discussion events, but SAS has refused to hold events directly with HSI due to ideological differences.

"HSI and SAS weren't able to come to some sort of agreement to have a joint event, which I think would have been very powerful," Perl-Rosenthal says. "That's not a reflection of a lack of dialogue but a lack of visible demonstrations of that dialogue."

Instead, a private roundtable discussion was held between about 30 members of Hillel, HIS, HSI and SAS in Adams House to discuss the events of the previous month and how they had played out on campus.

The discussion attempted to avoid the political sticking points that remain in the Middle East and instead allow an airing of the different groups' feelings.

"It's not like we get together to try to debate a resolution to the conflict or anything, because that's clearly out of our league," Hamad says.

But those who participated in the discussion say the ongoing conflict made it difficult to reach any sort of consensus, despite the willingness of the sides to listen to each other. "There wasn't some blindingly clear light where we said, 'Oh, God, we've all been so wrong,'" Perl-Rosenthal says.

Participants say the discussion was often tense and passionate because of the strong positions and beliefs on both sides.

"Many people had basically gone into the room knowing what they know and believing what they believe, and nothing really changed," Yasin says.

But while the groups say they know that it is difficult to reach any breakthrough, they also acknowledge that dialogue should still continue.

"If people keep discussing how they feel about the issue, after one or two hours or four hours, or a whole week of discussion, people are still going to feel frustrated," Hamad says. "But I don't think that's any reason why the discussion should be stopped."

And Brody says the discussion helped make the competing claims more than just a distant, ideological battle.

"There were obviously some things said that made me upset, but I think it's important to put a face and heart behind the opinions with which you disagree with," Brody says.

And while HSI says they have always been in favor of open dialogue, some say that trust must first be formed in order for any sort of positive relationship to begin.

"A lot of it is mistrust," Perl-Rosenthal says. "I think once you've developed a level of trust, you can really be willing to take some risks, but right now there's not a lot of willingness to take risks and talk to the other side."

Trying to bring groups together only when there is a major crisis will not help build a stronger relationship between those on different sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Perl-Rosenthal adds.

"If you wait until there's a crisis, of course you're going to have lousy interactions, because that's when everyone's feelings are the strongest, and with good reason," he says.

And just as in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the groups at Harvard recognize that no solution will come automatically.

"This issue has been going on for the last 53 years, and it's not going to just stop now," Hamad says.

"I would love it if someone could wave a magic wand and we could have no problems, but the issues are very deeply rooted," Perl-Rosenthal says. "Everything that goes on here is a reflection of the conflict itself."