#804 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday November 27)
Good morning,
As we begin this new week after Thanksgiving, there is a glimmer of hope in Israel and Gaza, as some hostages have been exchanged for prisoners and a fragile ceasefire seems to be holding.
IS ANYONE HAPPY WITH ME?
Today, I’m musing about the idea that if people from all points of view have a bone to pick with me, I must be doing something right!
Seriously, I have received many comments from readers about my musings on the Gaza War. Some take me to task for being too easy on the Palestinians (or even Hamas). Others think I’m being too accepting of Israel’s attacks against Hamas and the ensuing collateral damage. I suspect both are right to some degree. It is difficult to cover all sides of a controversy in a short essay. The issues are highly complex, fraught, and informed by a long and troubled history. Most people are convinced of one narrative or another, with few people occupying the gray middle ground where compromise and coexistence ultimately must be found. And while there are those who will acknowledge the existence of that middle ground, the immediate reaction is to dissect each and every comment in the media and see it as a threat. I think much of the divergence in perspective is the result of a number of factors:
1. Reasonable people of good will and high moral character can disagree regarding the same set of facts.
2. The disagreements themselves are indicative of the difficulty addressing this war and the larger problems in the Middle East.
3. Many of us choose to interpret things they read through a single lens and do not maintain the flexibility of mind to see both sides and/or recognize nuance.
4. One’s view of causation is highly dependent upon the date upon which one begins to analyze the history. If one interprets events from the date of the Israeli retreat from Gaza, one has one perspective. But different perspectives emerge if one starts one’s narrative from the start of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, or the various of the terrorist attacks on Israelis, or the British mandate creating two states side-by-side, or the date of Israeli independence, or the Jewish expulsions from Arab lands, or the end of World War II. Or even biblical times!
5. I suspect that many people are getting most of their news from a consistent point of view. Those who get their news from social media are fed what they most want to hear based upon algorithms designed to keep them “hooked.” Even those who read more broadly are “self-curating” to publications and sites that confirm their already deeply held views. Confirmation bias is alive and well.
Whatever one chooses as one’s historic starting point, and whatever one thinks of the various claims of the parties, both sides could do with a little bit more empathy for the narratives of the other. The situation in the Middle East is complex, made more difficult by the reality that, in seeking peace, the parties will have to abandon certain positions they deem inviolate.
IRONY OF IRONIES
College campuses have become the training ground for the “truth police.” It is not surprising to hear many students, particularly those with strongly held political views (often motivated by ethnic and religious biases) who are unwilling to conscience another point of view. It is surprising to me that faculties often now are the strongest proponents both of limiting speech (e.g., certain people shouldn’t be allowed to speak and certain ideas are unwelcome) or organizing events that condone hate speech or fellow travelers that spew hate speech.
Harvard has experienced more than its share of antisemitism over the years and recently has seen a rise of antisemitism in the form of swastikas painted in public spaces, and antisemitic rants at rallies and in social media posts. Most recently, calls for intifada and glorifying the October 7th massacres have openly been made in public demonstrations on the school’s grounds. Many of these gatherings include Harvard professors.
A letter from alumni to Harvard President Gay decried a letter signed by a number of Harvard faculty, written in support of Hamas, and the antisemitic rants at several demonstrations on campus, including those applauding the October 7th massacres. The letter notes, "This deluded romanticization of violence has been matched by calls for more violence and the obliteration of the state of Israel ‘by any means necessary.’” We know, of course, that “by any means necessary” means exactly that. President Gay appropriately responded with actions designed to curb antisemitism on campus. This is not at all to suggest that the murdering rampage of October 7th justified a response deemed by many to be excessive. She was not “taking sides,” other than calling murder and antisemitism what they are.
In the height of ironies, over 100 professors at Harvard then wrote a letter to President Gay, responding to her response that committed the university to fight antisemitic speech. In doing so, they employed antisemitic tropes, maintaining that most of the Jews protesting the antisemitism on campus and urging President Gay to act against antisemitic speech on campus were wealthy donors who threatened pulling their financial support. After all, what else could it be but Jews wielding financial power?
On the one hand, these professors say that all speech must be protected. This apparently extends to some of the more antisemitic language they employ, calling for the end of the State of Israel. Then they decry a university committee to combat antisemitism (as it raises that concern over hate speech directed at others). Then they say that fairness includes establishment of an anti-Islamophobia committee as well, a perfectly reasonable thing for which to advocate but which seems in conflict with their claim that a committee to address antisemitism is a bridge too far.
It would seem to me that faculty would have the presence of mind and commitment to the free exchange of ideas to encourage diverse points of view, argued within the calm confines of classes and symposia. Yet many of these faculty members are the organizers of the student protests that contain incendiary and hateful speech, all while condoning the limitation of free speech on their campuses.
How about dialing down the rhetoric? How about the now quaint notion that academics should pursue “the truth” and help guide students to reach their own conclusions? How about not using their positions of a superior power dynamic to become political organizers? How about learning the definition of what it means to be “genocidal” and not using such inflammatory language with abandon? How about learning what the Hamas charter actually says about eliminating Jews from Palestine and glorifying the killing of Jews? And how about being the voices of reason in a complex environment of multiple competing narratives, each with its own truth?
WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE NEGOTIATIONS?
For an extraordinary podcast that explains the history of U.S. efforts of diplomacy in Israel/Palestine, this episode of the Ezra Klein Show, in the form of a discussion with Aaron David Miller, a diplomat involved in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations through the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush years, is the place. His perspective on generations of successes and failures from Kissinger through the failed Kerry diplomacy are, in my opinion, without peer. The discussion is thorough, sometimes provocative, and often discouraging. Regardless of your personal view, you will agree with some, disagree with some, but be better educated as a result of this: Ezra Klein Show Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations
Have a great day,
Glenn