Israel needs new campus debate

He wanted us to make Jewish babies. I saw Ariel Sharon speak in June of 2004, at an assembly of people participating in the birthright Israel program, which gives free tours of Israel to young Jews.

After a psychedelic drum show, we were surprised to see an enormous man walk onto the stage surrounded by four bodyguards.

At 5 feet 5 inches and somewhere around 300 pounds, Ariel Sharon was the fattest man I had ever seen.

He explained that he had just left a cabinet meeting where the Israeli government had voted -- in principle -- to remove Israeli settlers and troops from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank.

Sharon's speech was fairly bland; he has confessed in the past that he is a mediocre orator.

However, after restating his belief in the disengagement plan, Sharon suggested that we move to Israel and make Jewish babies.

The entire event was geared toward encouraging Jewish babymaking, but Sharon's tone resonated with many people who saw him speak.

"He reminded me of my grandfather," noted Cori Schattner, a junior at Colgate University who saw Sharon speak with me.

Like a whale-sized grandfather, Ariel Sharon was there at the birth of his country. After spending years as a political pariah, he led Israel through a difficult period that made him think more deeply about the future of his country.

Ultimately, his political views began to mimic his military strategies: Doing something is always better than doing nothing.

And what happens when Ariel Sharon decides to do something has always been immensely controversial.

Yet, we can all learn something from the prime minister:

It's time that people do something.

For starters, people at Penn need to talk.

During the last intifada, American campus debate regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict devolved into a cesspool of lies, slander and unconstructive hate-fests.

Instead of talking with each other, ideologically homogeneous groups held panels and events to talk to no one but themselves.

With the expiration of a truce between militant groups and Israel, uncertain elections in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the likely departure of Sharon from politics, it is likely that we'll be seeing a new wave of violence between Israelis and Palestinians.

Students -- Jewish students, especially -- have shied away from constructive discussion for too long.

Given the enormous number of smart and opinionated Jews gallivanting in Fort Hillel, Penn is the perfect place to start changing how we talk about this conflict.

If and when the Arab-Israeli conflict changes gears, pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups must be ready to meet with each other and encourage moderate dialogue and moderate speakers to come to campus.

Most importantly, it's time that a real class dedicated to this conflict be added to the curriculum.

Professors should not shy away from the issue of Israel and Palestine, nor should campus groups threaten to poison the environment of discussion.

There are a host of professors at Penn who are more than qualified to teach and lead discussions about the conflict.

If another round of violence begins this spring and campus discussions on the matter remain the same as during the last Intefada, I will personally write a letter asking Grandpa Sharon to come and make us do something, instead of nothing.

I hope that Sharon will be healthy enough to accept.

Eric Obenzinger is a junior history major from New York. Quaker Shaker appears on Wednesdays.

Comments (10)

NYC Alumn '02 -- I believe my prior response dealt with the proper name of homicide vs suicide bomber very clearly. One of the key issues I have referenced is victim. Merely because a murderer survives their act should not disparage the victim. When a person murders another and then (either directly or indirectly) kills themself, that person is still guilty of murder. We should not just say that the person committed suicide. Rather, that person committed murder. Anything less devalues the life of the victim. In NYC Alumn '02's post, they state "You can rage on about the ethical/moral semantics all you want, but it does nothing to dissuade the notion that your case is emotional, not logical." First, my position (as I have stated herein and in my prior posts) is simple. If someone commits murder they should be called a murderer. If someone commits murder, they should not be called someone who committed suicide. If that is illogical, I would appreciate a detailed explanation. Second, NYC Alumn '02 states that I am raging about ethical/moral "semantics". If someone should not be outraged over murder and the ethics and morals linked thereto, I must ask what should humanity be outraged about? What could be a more pressing issue than the taking of an innocent life? If we cannot call out evil and state clearly what it is, how can we be worthy of our civilization? Steven Ebert, C'96, Fels '98, L'00, Lawyer New York, NY steven.ebert@ejlaw.net

Still, my question remains unanswered. I understand your reasoning, but it does not mean you have arrived at a neutral, or more importantly even a descriptive term. Surely someone with your extensive degrees should understand the importance of writing to clarity. Are Eric Rudolph or Ramsey Usef not homicide bombers? What about a suicide bomber who does not achieve his objective and kills only himself? Is he an attempted-homicide bomber? Isn't he also an attempted-homicide bomber if his bomb fails to go off? Perhaps I chose poorly in using the word semantics, as you have every right to react to the outrage or suicide bombing emotionally. Nevertheless, your choice of language has no place in the world of journalism or academia. If you had written this in a paper or test, I would have corrected it, and possibly taken away credit depending on whether or not you had managed to provide clarity some other way. If I were your editor, it would not be tolerated at all. If you want to call suicide bombers murderers (and the successful ones certainly are) that is fine, but it adds nothing useful to the debate to not call them suicide bombers, and if anything creates some ambiguity. It definitely does NOT add credibility to your argument, which I believe is your point of posting in the first place. I also have a hard time buying the "victim" angle. Murder is murder. Calling a murderer a suicide bomber (or a gunman, or a hijacker) doesn't take away from the victim at all. All it does is offer a description that is based on fact, not emotion. In effect, I think you actually diminish other victims by doing this. Someone who places an improvised explosive device and flees is also committing homicide. His victims are every bit the victims of a homicide bomber. Just like a suicide bomber, they were taken by surprise and murdered in a callous act. Try this: Many innocent people have been murdered by suicide bombers. I fail to see how this diminishes the importance of the victim. NYC Alumn '02

Steven, you have predictably not answered my questions. How is a homicide bomber different than a suicide bomber? Is someone who places a roadside bomb or parks a truck in a building garage and then flees NOT a homicide bomber? You can rage on about the ethical/moral semantics all you want, but it does nothing to dissuade the notion that your case is emotional, not logical. I am not someone who looks kindly on suicide bombing by any stretch of the imagination, but it is illustrative of how difficult it is to debate the issue honestly. NYC Alumn '02

A few responsive comments to others that have posted. First, there is an important reason to call terrorists who engage in certain type of murder homicide instead of suicide bombers. The fact is that the bomber is murdering people. In my opinion, if the murderer lives or dies in an attempt to commit their act of murder, it is irrelevant. A murderer is a murderer. That person is not committing suicide (then they would merely be killing themselves). Calling such a person a suicide bomber instead of a homicide bomber does, metaphorically, murder the victim a second time. First, the victim is killed by the terrorist. Second, the memory of the victim is killed by the terrorist who committed "suicide" and not "homicide". In having any discussion it is important to put a realistic term to the matter. Second,"Sabra and Shatila inhabitant" has the historical record on Sharon incorrect. That reader stated "Sharon was by an Israeli court found responsible for the massacres of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and as such can not be trusted." Actually, what the Israeli (not an Arab court) found Sharon guilty of was not doing enough to prevent Lebanese Christian allies of Israel (the Phalangists) from independently engaging in the massacre. No Israeli troops took part in or otherwise ordered such behavior. Whatever your politics are, that is the clear historical record. If your facts are wrong, your conclusions will be wrong. Third, the official policy of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. Through its media outlets, daily gang style street demonstrations (filled with guns, military grade weapons and marching human bombs) Hamas makes this clear on a regular basis. Hamas continues to launch murderous attacks on innocent civilians. Sabra and Shatila inhabitant states "There is always two sides to a coin, and this particular side is usually forgotten in discussions of the issue on Penn's campus." If there are two sides two every coin, then please answer this question. In the wake of the Sharon government's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Hamas INCREASED the number of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. Sharon takes a painful measure for peace and Hamas responds with murder. What is the other side of this coin? Steven Ebert, C'96, Fels '98, L'00, Lawyer New York, NY steven.ebert@ejlaw.net

Eric's biggest problem is the translation of theory to reality. On the one hand, it is all well and good to have interactive discussions with academics from both sides. But the reality is that the overtures of Sharon and his Kadima party are being met by municipal electoral victories by the terrorist group Hamas. Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, is considering delaying the January 25th elections because it appears that Hamas will have a huge electoral success. Tell me, how do you have a conversation when the majority of the other side votes for an organization that blows up buses through homicide bombers and launch Katusha rocket attacks on civilians? Steven Ebert, C'96, Fels '98, L'00, Lawyer New York, NY steven.ebert@ejlaw.net

Fair enough Steven; you make a valid point. Still, there is certainly merit in promoting discussion, debate, and communication among people. After all, the alternative suggests inaction and acceptance of the present situation. And clearly what's happened (at least on campus) in the past hasn't been working. Maybe it is time for a change, as Eric suggests. interested, student philly

How is a homicide bomber different than a suicide bomber. Is someone who places a roadside bomb or parks a truck in a building garage and then flees NOT a homicide bomber? I think seeing this meme belies the bias of the person using it. I'm going to stay out of the substantive argument here, because I know it is a pretty dangerous topic, but suffice to say that honest debate is seriously hampered by zealotry on both sides. NYC Alumn '02

This column is one, maybe two paragraphs, with lots and lots of poorly constructed fluff. And those two paragraphs: "Instead of talking with each other, ideologically homogeneous groups held panels and events to talk to no one but themselves." and "Students -- Jewish students, especially -- have shied away from constructive discussion for too long." are rather unoriginal anyway. Instead of droning on about jewish babies without tying it to your main point, perhaps you should have spent more time ILLUSTRATING your point with examples of what wasnt productive in the past and what can be productive in the future more specifically. Franny, student

Students -- Jewish students, especially -- have shied away from constructive discussion for too long. I agree, Eric, that more open debate and discussion is necessary. But to place more blame on Jewish students (and Jewish student organizations) than on Muslim students (and Muslim student organizations) seems unfair. True, there are more Jewish students than Muslim students at Penn, but if you really want to encourage discussion, there is no need to place more blame on one side than on the other. Because, in a sense, that is the problem in the first place. Roye, student

I will personally write a letter asking Grandpa Sharon to come and make us do something, instead of nothing. Ask him to do what? Same thing that happened in Sabra and Shatila? Or actually, that is a perfect example when Grandpa Sharon chose to do nothing. Asking why Hamas should be trusted by the Israelis is like asking why Sharon should be trusted by the Palestinians. Hamas has committed horrible suicidal attacks and thus can not be trusted; Sharon was by an Israeli court found responsible for the massacres of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and as such can not be trusted. Steven, how do you have a conversation when the majority of the other side votes for someone who had part in a massacre? There is always two sides to a coin, and this particular side is usually forgotten in discussions of the issue on Penn's campus. Sabra and Shatila inhabitant

Comments are closed for this item.