To engage and educate students effectively, groups on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian debate need to come together in a forum to discuss and agree upon a scholarly narrative of the history of the state of Israel.
Like the many pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian events before it, this Palestine Awareness Week fails to effectively address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The week follows a tradition of disregard for the student population, shared by pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups, who both simply enjoy preaching to the choir rather than educating students in a meaningful way.
These groups love to use snarky political tactics in place of real discussions, such as when they bring speakers who share their opinions as well as the ethnicity or background of their opponents.
This was the case earlier this year, when Bruins for Israel and a slew of other groups brought Nonie Darwish, an Arab supporter of Israel, to speak on the threat of radical Islam to Israel and the world.
Similarly, Students for Justice in Palestine brought Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, a Palestinian supporter, who criticized the fences that now divide Israel from parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Both of these individuals effectively demonize the opposition, and really have no interest in compromise or discussion.
And what does all this do for the typical Bruin? Absolutely nothing.
With groups completely steeped in political posturing and with no intention of actually encouraging a scholarly approach to peace, students become desensitized more and more every day.
Some of the antagonism takes form in the language used by groups when addressing the issues, such as when one side equates the word “Palestinian” with “terrorist”, or “Zionism” with “apartheid.”
But more concerning is when groups espouse historical myths, such as the myth that Palestine was virtually uninhabited at the time of Jewish settlement, or that the Zionist forefather, Theodor Herzl, believed from the start of his campaign that Arabs living in Palestine should be expelled from the region.
Both sides should become scholarly collaborators, seeking to agree on truths about the conflict’s history and to educate students on its impact on today’s situation.
The first step is to bring members from all interested groups into a forum, to a sort of student-group peace talks.
These talks can be an opportunity for groups to openly discuss their concerns about the others’ viewpoints, but only on the basis of scholarship ““ not politics.
By taking this route, students involved can help each other understand that there are many aspects of the conflict’s history that are misunderstood on both sides. This collaboration can help to develop a stronger, truer narrative.
This can take the form of a sort of resolution, which will govern how student groups approach the debate when addressing students on campus.
It is important to realize that the facts are available, but the onus is on groups to engage them in an academic manner, instead of submitting to propaganda.
Allowing polemics to determine the trajectory of discussion at UCLA only serves to continue the trend of disengagement among students, as well as the continued antagonism between both sides of the conflict.
For the sake of students, groups need to sit down and agree on how to approach the history of the conflict, in order to understand how to affect its future.