[Addendum May 10, 2012: In my original article I did not make it clear that, according to the British Mandate, Palestine was not its own nation as of 1948. While this is true the majority of residents in the region were Arab.]
As co-editor of the Opinions Section of the Concordiensis, as a woman with an ample opinion, and as a true believer in the First Amendment, I felt it absolutely necessary to make a few comments regarding the article published last week titled “Politics, Religion and Destructive Discourse.”
As obvious as it may sound, I must first stress that an opinion article, by its very nature, is one individual’s opinion. By extension, no opinion article is objective (and as a psychology major I would even argue that most news pieces even have unintentional hints of bias). Therefore, I must dispute Shayna Han’s assertion that, “Legitimate op-eds require accurate facts, intelligence and objectivity.” Yes, of course, an op-ed should contain accurate information; however, how the author interprets and qualifies those facts is completely unrestricted. Furthermore, GW Associates, a public interest media firm, stresses that “op-eds present a single, clear point of view, not objective discussion of both sides of an issue.” Carl Stock’s series of articles on Jerusalem was excellent journalism for what it was—his personal beliefs and accounts of his experiences.
Han first attacks Strock for his comments on religion, which she regards as “arrogant” and “insensitive.” I happen to agree with Strock’s claims that all religion contains elements of “malarkey.” However, my opinion aside, I must assert that expressing an opinion in a secular-public forum is not insensitive; it is admirable and honest.
Furthermore, Strock’s statement was anything but arrogant. By definition, arrogance is “Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.” Strock is merely documenting his experiences and feelings and recognizes the limitations of his reporting by stating that he is merely “observing what [he] can on the fly.” This seems like a pretty humble guy to me.
Han then goes on to state that Strock’s articles are “rife with mean-spirited, one-sided views and scant ‘fact.’” Let me address this sentence point-by-point. First of all, as discussed above, an op-ed is supposed to be one-sided. The assertion that Strock’s views are mean-spirited is irrelevant. Nowhere in the First Amendment does it specify that free speech must be politically correct.
Finally, and most importantly, I must reproach Han for putting quotes around the word “fact.” These misplaced quotations make it seem as though Strock made claims that were blatantly untrue. The only concern Han mentions regarding Strock’s facts is that he fails to mention the number of Israeli children killed by Palestinians. This is not a misuse of information as Han implied, but rather an omission.
I find it rather humorous that Han criticizes Strock’s omission of facts when she also failed to properly frame the conflict in her own piece. Let me do so now. Israel did not exist until 1948 when it was artificially created by the United Nations from Palestine, which at the time belonged to the British.
To say that Palestinians were not in favor of this separation is the understatement of the century and thus, since Israel’s founding, conflict has stricken the region. With extensive financial help from Jewish communities around the world, Israel quickly built up its military so that it is now the most powerful in the Middle East. And, with compulsory military service required of all Israeli citizens, Israel not only has a powerful military but a militarized national ethos. Palestine, on the other hand, is suffering from a huge military and financial disadvantage. There are not extensive pro-Palestine funds as there are Zionist funds nor is there much pro-Palestinian news coverage.
I am neither pro nor anti-Israeli. I am, however, in favor of fair reporting. The truth of the matter is that the incredibly powerful Israeli government launches attacks on Palestine, which result in countless civilian casualties— including children.
Hamas, a subsection of Palestinians who do not represent the nation as a whole, retaliate and also kill civilians. Both sides are responsible for brutal deaths, but is it fair to claim (as Han does) that Israel is not to be blamed for civilian deaths that it causes? Simply put more Palestinian children are killed than Israeli children because Israel’s weapons are far more powerful than those used by Hamas. Israel is a nation of over seven million people, has an active military of 187,000 and a reserve personnel of 565,000. Hamas is estimated to have a few thousand fighters at most.
It would be impossible for Hamas to attack Israel in a formal battle, because they would be annihilated immediately. Thus, from a logical standpoint, it makes sense that they use terrorist tactics to confront Isreal. After all, from their point of view Israel stole their beloved homeland. What would you do if Union kicked you out of your dorm room and let another kid move in? Even though Union technically owns the room (as Britain technically owned Palestine) it still feels like it should belong to you, doesn’t it? Would you care if that kid claimed he had a God-given right to your room or would you want him out of there? To be clear, I am not defending the morality of Hamas’ tactics—merely the rationality.
Han asks “Does Strock suggest that Israel does not have the right to protect its civilians? If a foreign country suddenly started bombing Schenectady, would he have the American government sit idly by and let Americans be killed?” Okay, there is a lot to unpack here. First of all, I think that Strock is definitely in favor of civilians being shielded from conflict. This is precisely why he wants to point out that Americans should criticize not only Hamas’ tactics (which certainly endanger civilians) but also Israel’s habit of blowing to bits Palestinian children. Strock wants us to stop civilian deaths on both sides of the border. In regards to Hans’ “Schenectady/America” argument—I can only say that this comparison is absurd. First of all in this analogy Hamas is the “foreign country” that is bombing Schenectady. Hamas is not a foreign country. Hamas is a relatively small group within Palestine. So, no, America would not have the right to attack a civilian population if one terrorist group attacked us.
Also, let’s not forget Israel did not exist until 1948. They are not defending themselves from invaders, they are the invaders. A more appropriate analogy would be this: imagine America is being held under siege and that Americans are being denied statehood and freedom. On top of this, America has no control over its rightful sea, as well as no control over its airspace. America is essentially an open prison camp unable to partake in the act of free market trade of goods and services. Wouldn’t America have the right to do whatever it could, no matter the cost, to regain its territory and re-establish the rights of its citizens? Of course, in this scenario America is Palestine.
I do not hate Isreal. I do not love Palestine. Personally, I am in favor of a two-state solution and I do believe that with civil discourse this is possible. But, we must remember, that civil discourse begins with the recognition that both sides have valid concerns, histories, and beliefs.
I love thoughtful political conversation and that is why I felt it necessary to address the issues Han touched upon last week. Strock’s experiences in Jerusalem are fascinating to read about and his opinions are witty. And, better yet, he bases his opinions of the Isreali-Palestinian conflict on his actual experiences in the region as well as fact. As Han points out, one trip is not enough to become an expert, but we must not discredit the fact that Strock has a lot more first-hand knowledge than most here in the United States, including both Han and I.
Do you have an opinion on Israel, Hamas, Palestine or anything else? Voice it! It is only through discourse and the challenging of others’ assertions that we can come to an understanding of our world. If you’re not part of the discussion, you’re part of the problem.
Loading ...
Brought to you by Peace@Union.
My issue with Strock is not based on the supposed “facts” posited in his writings, everyone has a right to their opinion, in fact there are a few opinions expressed that I actually agree with. My issue is the manner in which he expresses his views. In my opinion it is irresponsible for a journalist to “report” his or her opinions as facts. Secondly, there is no justification for the rude, and demeaning manner in which Strock’s opinions are stated. To refer to Jewish history as “imaginary” or to call Orthodox Jewish men as “S&M cultists” and “worthless” is disrespectful and patently offensive.
I started the “Boycott the Gazzette” group on Facebook to remind my friends that they need not tolerate this type of abuse and to encourage them to vote with their feet and wallets. Strock has a right to his opinion and to express it in any way he likes – We don’t have to pay anyone to be insulted by him.
Dave- I think you are misplacing your irritation. Strock’s column is published in the OPINIONS section of the newspaper- the gazette, like all newspapers (including the concordy), includes a disclaimer that basically states “these views are those of the author and do not represent those of the newspaper as a whole.”
Do you have an opinion? Write the gazette or the concordy- get an article published, express your views. But you should not be boycotting a newspaper for publishing an OPINION in an OPINION section.
As this young lady says the first amendment guarantees free speech- regardless of whether it is politically correct or not. Do not punish the gazette for doing it’s job.
Another point, in your facebook group you criticize Strock for stating that ” Now I have to offend Muslims, ladies and gentlemen, just to show how fair I am.” His point, I believe, is that he has doubt about all organized religion and to avoid attacks from the jewish community he wants to make it clear that he is not antisemetic or targeting jews. Surely, if Strock went to the Vatican he would have similar critiques.
The problem with religion is that it makes everyone so hostile and serious. Just because Strock has an opinion that is different from yours doesn’t make him wrong, just because he doubts your religion doesn’t make him wrong, just because he used harsh language doesn’t make it wrong.
Just because you end your article stating that you are pro 2 state solution and you encourage others to speak in no way makes what you wrote anymore shameful.
Your biggest criticism of Shayna is “fair reporting” however, your article lacks any substantial evidence and it is an embarrassment to the academic community as a whole. You preach about how “right” you are and act so just in your accusations but you have made up history in this op-ed. You have called Hamas a small terrorist group when I think you mean Hamas has a LARGE influence over a small area. They are not a small group.
I mean there is so much wrong with this article I cannot even begin to correct it.
I am going to take this as a work of satire because there is no way that you would have proudly published something like this.
^ Union Student – At least Han, Strock, van Leeuwen, and Howard put their names on their views. You just made a lot of accusations anonymously- how brave. If there are so many problems with it then enlighten the rest of the community.
Let me start by saying that I am Jewish, and I have spent months in Israel with NFTY, a Jewish youth organization. I love Israel, and the people that live there, but that doesn’t make everything they are doing right.
Israel is given a lot of political room to maneuver because the US supports them and seeing as we are a powerful international force we cover for a lot of their more embarrassing activities. Seeing as we have thrown our political weight behind them it is not surprising that most Americans are ignorant to the atrocities that the Israeli Government commits against the Palestinian community. I will keep this brief, but essentially, if you are Palestinian and you live in Israel, your life sucks. You are subject to random searches, your home, your car, even your person. Additionally, you cannot set up a business, or even build anything, namely because those require permits to do. To say the Israeli government is reluctant to hand out permits to Palestinians is a gross injustice. It can take up to a year to get a project approved, and by then the person’s funding has generally run out.
In closing, to everyone who is shouting down the people expressing their opinions, here is some food for thought; if you think that they are so wrong and are insulting Israel and her people, then you truly believe that they are not absolutely devastating the community around them, and you think Israel has done nothing wrong?? Before you get defensive, just think about that, Israel has done many things that are wrong, and so have the Palestinians, but before I or anyone else will take your claims seriously, you need to accept that there is wrongdoing on both sides.
Just to clarify a bit:
The land was not Palestine land, it was British.
Also, Palestine does not exist as a state. So Hamas is not operating within Palestine, they are operating within Israel.
These are merely points that help to clarify the conversation and be sure that people understand what is happening. Israel is the aggressor and there is no other way to look at it. If they can’t make peace amongst their residents and neighbors it is their fault. They have the military and diplomatic resources to either create or destroy. Israel’s tactics have been to destroy from the beginning. There cannot be peace unless Israel finishes its quest to destroy the Palestinians or starts a very serious diplomatic mission to change the consciousness of the people they have been oppressing for almost 70 years.
This is not to say that the Palestinians are innocent. They don’t have any power. If they feel slighted, their only recourse is to blow shit up. This is what they do.
Just as people in the United States should not be surprised that there are people in the world that hate us. People that would blow up our buildings because of our imperialism, we should not be surprised when Israeli children are blown to bits. The Palestinians have no other option. They have never had another option.
Give me liberty or give me death, right?
Thanks VERY MUCH TO Rhea for speaking out, and for encouraging others to do so. I am writing because of her inspiration.
“This is also absurd” acknowledges realities, but has misperceptions that should be clarified:
Misperception #1 “The land was not Palestine land, it was British”.
The area, which has been called “Palestine” for centuries, assigned to Britain via Mandate from the League of Nations to make transition to self-government. It was never “British land”. If you had a passport from the area prior to 1948, it would say “Palestine”.
Misperception #2: “Palestine does not exist as a state. So … they are operating within Israel. “
Every nation in the world, including the United States, abides by the decisions of the International Court and other international bodies, that the West Bank is NOT part of Israel. This includes UN Resolution 242, which calls it Occupied Territory, and the International Court of Justice, which declared in 1986 and in 2004 that Israel’s occupation and colonization of the West Bank is in violation of the Geneva conventions, and that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem is not recognized.
Misperception #3 “If they feel slighted, their only recourse is to blow … up. This is what they do. “
There is much documentation of attempts at peaceful actions taken by Palestinians. Two books that note this at length are Popular Resistance in Palestine by Mazin Qumsiyeh, and Refusing to be Enemies by Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta. There is an excellent documentary film, Budrus, available from Netflix, about a town that conducted peaceful demonstrations against the Wall taking their land. The peaceful demonstrations have often been met with violent reactions from the IDF, in which many Palestinians have been arrested without charge, mained for life or killed. The demonstrations have recently been more successful because Israeli peace activists and internationals have joined in, making it more difficult for the IDF to exercise careless violence.
There is currently a hunger strike being conducted by many Palestinian prisoners who have been held without charge for several months, and more. This has received embarrassingly little coverage in the U.S., but was covered on May 8 by NPR All Things Considered . You can go the NPR web site, look up “All Things Considered” under “Programs, and listen to it.
Your blatant antisemitism leaves me sad, Your ‘opinions’ show complete disregard for fact and and true history. They are reminiscent of so many times in history that the Jews were persecuted and destroyed, driven from their homes and in recent memory gassed by the millions by ignorant people like you who reacted to them holding any financial or political power. You should be ashamed. Hamas indeed. Grow up little sheltered girl from nowhere.
Maura Rutkin- you leave me sad. How dare you call her antisemitic. Antisemitism is the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people. Never in her article did Howard state that she dislikes the Jewish people, only Israeli policy. Furthermore she clarifies that she is not Anti-Israel or Anti-Zionist. And, even if she was Anti-Zionist that does NOT mean she is antisemitic. In fact, many orthodox Jews are anti-zionist (http://www.nkusa.org/) and you better believe they aren’t antisemitic! To compare a college student to a Nazi is beyond ridiculous. As a Jewish student I am ashamed of your inability to tolerate a difference of opinion.
Furthermore if you knew Rhea you would know that she’s been dating a jew for over a year and a half and occasionally attends Hillel and Chabad events. Your intense disregard for the content of her actual article makes us all look bad. Grow up.
I stand by what the article says. She calls Israelis ‘invaders’, she ignores the history behind the creation of Israel, she seems unaware that when the Palestinian Authority was offered almost everything they said that they wanted during the Clinton Administration, it was rejected out of hand and she calls the terrorism of the democratically elected government of Gaza ‘logical’. I read that as justifiable. I don’t care who she’s dating. Israel is very far from perfect, I am not a supporter of West Bank Settlement, there are no easy answers here. This however did not read as a reasoned critiscm by someone who had any idea about what they were talking about. It read as a diatribe against the Israelis (who are Jews by and large) and the perceived unfairness of their ‘invasion’. I suggest that you and Rhea take a look at some pictures of what those ‘invaders’ looked like in 1948, at their skeletal bodies and rags. Take the opportunity to visit the kibbutz in northern Israel and see where the Syrian guns were in the 6 day war.
I will call antisemitism what it is when I see it. Perhaps the young lady should be more careful what she writes.
Rhea’s “addendum” makes no sense. What does the majority of residents being Arab have ANYTHING to do with the British Mandate? Rhea, are you aware how many times the Palestinians have been offered their own state since 1947? I have to agree with Maura: anyone who writes such hateful and untrue things about Israel must have anti-semitism as a motivator. There’s no other reason to make up these lies.