A-Level Memorial Raises Questions on Mid-East Conflict

Solemn Rememberance: This banner hanging in A-level has raised awareness and further debate. (photo by Pauline Shapiro)

White butcher paper hangs in Mudd A-level, listing over 275 names of people who died in the most recent and arguably the most violent, episode in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that began on Sept. 2.

The memorial, sponsored by the Oberlin Peace Activist League, was created by seniors Juliana Keen and Laurel Paget-Seekins in order to encourage dialogue on campus in a non-biased fashion.

"We put up the memorial with the intentions of not having any bias. The people on the list aren't necessarily from one group. The exhibit is working off the idea that life is valuable. It's there to make people think, to open a place for people to say what they're feeling," Keen said.

Paget-Seekins said, "We wanted to spark dialogue on campus about the issue because it's being ignored. And a lot of people on campus have strong feelings and it's not being talked about."

Keen also had personal motivations after spending last semester traveling around and staying with families in Jerusalem, Ramallah and Jordan, "I felt the need to do something. Friends from the West Bank were writing to me. Their homes are being demolished, their neighborhoods are being indiscriminately bombed, they can't get to work or school because the roads are blocked off. They are living in a big prison."

The comment sheet accompanying the list consists of passing thoughts. Hebrew song lyrics advocating peace, as well as calls for a free Palestine are included.

One comment says, "Congratulations: you've made a list. How about putting thought into politics next time? This is what happens when indignant underdogs refuse compromise."

Another reads, "What are all these kids doing with stones? Why are they not in school?"

And in response, "They're not in school because they are OCCUPIED and school is not happening because of the occupation - life is not functioning as usual right now."

Paget-Seekins said, "Judging from comments up there, people didn't understand the exhibit or engage in constructive dialogue. The one comment that especially strikes me is the comment: 'This is biased.' It's not biased. It has names from both sides of the conflict."

Keen thought the comments were uninformed. "Many of the comments show that people are not educated about the issue. Saying Palestinians are sending their children out to die completely dehumanizes Palestinians," she said. "I think a notable comment [on the memorial] is the question, 'Why do Oberlin students support certain struggles but not others?'" Keen said.

The two creators gave reasons for why they thought there is so little discussion on campus. "I think it's ignored because there's a high population of Jewish students on campus. This directly affects them more than other wars the United States supports. We're happy to talk about Colombia or Kosovo. But Oberlin College is not talking about it as much because it's so close to people," Paget-Seekins said.

"The support is not here for an open dialogue," Keen said. "I tried to talk to different groups including MESA and Hillel and SFP, but people, both Arab and Jewish students have felt attacked, previously, when expressing their opinions. And students who are passionate about the issue are not open to other views. Earlier, I tried to promote discussion. Only eight people, all from the same community, showed up. One idea was to have a collaborative program where different organizations would bring speakers or students might speak on their own experiences -something educational and cultural. But when I brought suggestions to students in the important groups, they each felt that the other groups would be hostile to them."

Assistant professor of romance languages Ali Yedides felt that compared to other schools in which he has taught, Oberlin is much less hostile. "When I came [to Oberlin], people were so open and I was so pleased. They're willing to adopt you as their own. I was in other places that were not welcoming. They'd say, 'We don't want Arabs,' to a colleague in a meeting. How are you to react when these are people I'm in constant contact with? Why look at a person and their religion? That's their business," said Yedides, who also pointed out that although he was Muslim he was not an Arab.

But Muslim Student Association chair Kyla Pasha said that demographics should be taken into account. "The attitude in Oberlin, and the way it is in the rest of America, is biased, very strongly pro-Israel because there're so many Israelis and Zionists. I won't go into a religious discussion of whether Jews should be in Israel. I'm not qualified to say that. But the way it happened historically is wrong. It is definitely an occupation of Palestine. Some years back, the Students for Free Palestine was created, but now a lot of those students have graduated. In general, I doubt there are any Palestinians on campus."

Assistant Professor of Jewish studies Brian Ankraut suggested alternate reasons for the lack of dialogue. "It might stem from the large Jewish student body, but that doesn't seem logical to me. With other campuses I've been to with big Jewish populations and large numbers of activists, like Columbia [University], it's never prevented dialogue.

"Part of it is that no one's really sure which side to come down on. The truth of the origin of this particular conflict is unknown. Before people come out and speak their mind, they want to be sure. And also because people can see justifiable claims on both sides," Ankraut said.

Other people think dialogue is apparent on campus. Senior Morris Levin, a Kosher Co-op member, said, "There's been a lot of dialogue on it in Kosher Co-op. The Co-op has been hosting Ramadan. There was a recent service with the Muslim Students Association to pray for peace in Palestine and Israel, for everyone there, and Friday dinner has a series of blessings as well as a Koran reading."

Assistant Professor of women's studies Francis Hasso noted that perhaps there simply wasn't a space for dialogue. "My general sense is that there are a lot of different opinions among Jewish students on campus and among non-Jewish students on campus, but also that there hasn't been a space to actually discuss it."

Hasso also attempted to incorporate the conflict into her Global Feminisms course. "We talked about it in my class, but I couldn't give [my students] a summary in a nutshell because it's too complicated. I did give them primers and websites. It inspired me to set something up."

She intends to organize some sort of program including a panel-discussion and a keynote speaker for spring semester.

"Students have said they want to work on it. And they said they'd set up student-run panels to discuss further. So there is interest. If there was a class this term, it might've provided a forum for dialogue," Hasso said.

Some students have also questioned the level of curricular support relating to the situation. "There aren't enough classes on the Middle East. There're also no Arabic language classes here which is ridiculous. There's only one person here who's regularly teaching classes on Islam," Pasha said.

"Something should be said about the fact that there's only one class examining the Middle East whereas there's an entire Jewish studies program," Keen said.

Junior Manfred Elfstrom added more than just thoughts to the list of names; he taped pictures of buildings in rubble next to the comments. "[The pictures] were to counter pictures put up earlier of armed Palestinian kids and to contextualize those pictures. I thought the media put too much responsibility on the Palestinians for the violence," Elfstrom said.

Some also thought that the United States' media coverage was biased.

"The United States is blatantly supporting Israel but they're trying to negotiate a peace agreement. But that's not going to work. I think the people in the State Department know that which makes me wonder what their real motivations are - maybe to have some political control in the Middle East," Paget-Seekins said.

Levin said, "Folks who are sympathetic to the Palestinian side think it's too pro-Israel. Folks who are sympathetic to the Israeli side think it's too pro-Palestinian."

Ankraut spoke of the 2000 presidential campaigns' treatments of the conflict. "Both candidates said they'd back Israel, seemingly no matter what. If politics are involved, then what they said reflects what the American public expects."

He gave an explanation for why there might be more U.S. support for Israel. "It seemed like it was so close to a peace agreement happening. And it looked like Israel gave more. So the U.S. will support Israel. The deal that almost came through, whether good or bad, would've been better than anything they offered previously."