Imagine a conversation in which one party starts by saying, “Sure, let’s talk. Just do me a favor: Agree with my positions in advance so that we can go ahead and start.”
Obviously, this makes no sense. One who expects to be heard must also be willing to listen. It’s basic quid pro quo. Gaining some mutual understanding is the only way to work through conflict while valuing the dignity of another.
Yet, this week, Bruin Plaza is occupied by a group which desperately wants your attention but has expressly stated an unwillingness to listen to divergent opinions. Their constitution states: “We (Students for Justice in Palestine) will not participate in collaborative or dialogue projects unless they are ‘based on unambiguous recognition of Palestinian rights and framed within the explicit context of opposition to occupation.’”
To be fair, members of Students for Justice in Palestine and their constitution argue that they believe that dialogue “normalizes” a situation which they feel should never be normalized. However, it’s speaking with others, in fact, that is understood to be normal human behavior.
We believe that college is the opportunity of a lifetime to grow personally, to learn and to tolerate – all while continuing to disagree. Surrounded by more than 40,000 students from more than 100 countries, this is the first opportunity most students have to personally engage individuals from nearly every category of diversity imaginable.
Engaging in conversation and cultivating genuine curiosity, as opposed to insisting upon dogmatic decree or debating, are essential to truly learning about our differences. Realizing that others have information and experiences different from one’s own is fundamental to creating a realistic portrait of our community and fostering a healthy campus climate.
It is true that Students for Justice in Palestine has called for debate. However, debate misses the point. Debate is characterized by contention, controversy and representational argument. It’s a forum for two sides with predetermined conclusions to make their best case, possibly educating the undecided in the process. But debate is not a mutual learning opportunity; only dialogue and listening can fill that purpose.
Conversely, a refusal to talk is a recipe for prejudice and a broken world. Furthermore, mocking dialogue, staging walkouts, delegitimizing causes and people themselves, and hissing or booing a speaker who has the floor are anathema to the university spirit, even when they are effective short-term political tactics.
We use “short-term” because, ultimately, in a society which values truth, these methods will never prevail. Those who believe that they have a monopoly on truth may be believed initially, but very few educated people take them seriously as the more complicated or nuanced “truth” comes to light.
Ironically, right now, Israeli and Palestinian representatives are speaking with each other daily in the pursuit of peace. Thus, we find ourselves confused by another line in SJP’s constitution, which states: “We as students in solidarity with Palestinians” refuse to engage in dialogue.
How can SJP be “in solidarity” with Palestinians, whose Palestinian Authority representatives are deliberately talking with Israelis, by not talking themselves? This begs a larger question for students on both sides of the conflict: Is it really possible to be in solidarity with two highly heterogeneous populations? Perhaps, in reality, none of us can actually represent much more than our own opinion.
It was the spirit of compromise, dialogue and mutual learning that led to an Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, shaking hands with Yasser Arafat, then-leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which launched the peace process more than 20 years ago.
Rabin considered Arafat to be a “terrorist and a murderer.” But to quote Rabin: “You don’t make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies.” The challenge of life isn’t getting along with friends – it’s learning to value and respect those with whom you disagree.
In the midst of writing this article, two leaders from SJP met with Rabbi Chaim Seidler Feller, an ardent promoter of peace at Hillel at UCLA, for more than two hours. It is our hope that this meeting represents a new openness not yet reflected in SJP’s constitution.
As joint signatories to this piece and individuals who are members of the staff and student leadership of Hillel at UCLA, Bruins for Israel and J Street U, we warmly welcome the opportunity to expand our knowledge by engaging in conversation and programming with all students on campus. And we welcome SJP’s call for an “honest pursuit of knowledge.” We simply challenge that an “honest pursuit” requires precisely the kind of dialogue and listening we have outlined above.
If you are part of the vast majority of curious or even passionate students on campus willing to have a dignified, transparent and accountable conversation – let’s get started!
Rabbi Aaron Lerner is the Senior Jewish Educator for Hillel at UCLA. Miriam Eshaghian is a fourth-year psychobiology student and president of Bruins for Israel. Gil Bar-Or is a first-year electrical engineering student and the co-chair of J Street U at UCLA. Dor Carpel is a fourth-year business economics student and co-chair of J Street U at UCLA. Tammy Rubin is a third-year, human biology and society student and a member of the Hillel Executive Board. Elyssa Schlossberg is a third-year psychobiology student and a member of the Hillel Executive Board. Brian Hertz is a second-year human biology and society student and a member of the Hillel Executive Board. Yael Glouberman is a second-year communication studies student and a member of the Hillel Executive Board.
From Question 6 on our FAQ page:
(http://www.sjpbruins.com/faq.html)
Q6. What is our position on dialogue?
We think there are two types of dialogue: one type that can easily become oppressive and tokenizing, and one that can be liberating and empowering.
Dialogue with no ground rules or set of values, that tokenizes people, and that fails to acknowledge power differences between groups is oppressive.
We prefer dialogue that is centered on values and goals (in our case, opposing occupation, supporting equality and human rights), that recognizes power and privilege differences between occupier and occupied, and that sets ground rules against racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, and other bigoted speech.
Rahim: Let’s grab coffee after PAW to discuss further. I think it would be helpful for SJP to further clarify its position on dialogue and ensure its consistency across all platforms (Constitution, FAQs, and DB articles.) In addition to the quotes in the article above, you wrote an article in the DB in which you said: “…we are not interested in dialoguing with those [pro-Israel] students.” Thus, the combined position about dialogue SJP has taken in various forums is murky at best. I’m happy to talk about ground rules, values, preconditions, etc. if we can get the chance to get together in person – and actually more interested to hear about you and your personal narrative. – Rabbi Aaron Lerner, Hillel at UCLA
Dear Rabbi Lerner,
There is no inconsistency in our position. As you can imagine, our primary goal is educating the entire campus, not in having closed-door dialogues with pro-Israel students. This is simply rational behavior on our part. However, if student groups wish to dialogue with us, we need to make sure that that dialogue is not oppressive, as it has been so many times in the past. That’s why we’ve come up with the ground rules listed everywhere on our site. This is exactly what we said in our private meeting with Rabbi Chaim, and he understood our rationale. I am disappointed that you would use the fact of that meeting to attempt to paint SJP as divided or contradicting itself, when in fact you were not part of that conversation. I will reply to your other facebook messages to me shortly.
– Rahim
Rahim,
Could you clarify what you mean by “oppressive dialogue”? The “debate” that SJP is calling for is intrinsically oppressive–its ground rules and preconditions diminish the voice of some would-be participants in the conversation before it even begins. I don’t see how this option is better than a more open dialogue in which all opinions can be freely shared and discussed (as they should be in an academic setting such as ours).
As for SJP’s position on dialogue, I’d say it’s safe to say that based on information available on the various pages of the website, as well as from statements made by SJP members at a recent USAC meeting, the stance is inconsistent. It would be great to have a definitive idea of what SJP’s position is so everyone can be on the same page.
To be clear, we’re certainly not advocating “having closed-door dialogues” – and would never ask anyone to put themselves into a position which would be “oppressive” – a term which certainly requires further clarification. I’m happy to work together on ground rules that respect the dignity and safety of all parties. However, having to agree to certain political positions in advance doesn’t do that, and is an impossible starting point. Let’s talk more in person.
Question for you Rahim: must both sides accept the “right of return” in order for SJP to agree to dialogue? Because if so, you’re saying that you and your organization will only talk to Jews if they agree to forfeit their right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Palestinian rights should be recognized, but they should not negate Jewish rights or be privileged over Jewish rights. I hope that’s not what SJP is trying to do.
Well it is “ancestral homeland” to the Palestinians too. The Jews were there before Christ, and a little after that (in both cases, a VERY long time ago).
Jews have been there continuously for over 3,000 years, and those who were forced to live in exile maintained their unique identity and connection to Israel for millenia. What exactly is your goal in trying to minimize the Jewish connection to Israel?
As I said, Palestinians deserve recognition of their rights, but those rights do not negate Jewish rights. As far as I’m concerned, the only way forward is a compromise that safeguards the rights of both peoples. I would hope SJP feels the same way, but based on past experiences I have my doubts.
honest question: why does the Israeli government (and development contractors) demolish Palestinian homes? I don’t see Hong Kong complaining to China about it’s limited plot of land..
You’re actually asking a loaded question, also called a complex question fallacy. This will be like me asking you in public “Have you stopped beating your wife?” No matter if you answer yes or no, people in the audience will assume that you have a wife and that you have beaten her at some time in the past.
Outsider, has the SJP at UCLA stopped getting money from the terrorist organization Hamas? Don’t answer, we already know the answer. As you can see, it is counterproductive for a dialogue and conflict resolution.
Sad,
That was an amazing rebuttal. Thank you.
Similarities between Hamas and the US government: labels civilians “targets” and kills them in the name of what their leaders perceive is right.
The question remains: what is the motive and justification for Palestinian home demolition?
It came to our attention that you haven’t got the memo from Omar Barghouti. He has stopped using this question. Check with the home office. You should ask about the U.S. State Department report.
The topic of this op-ed is dialogue and conflict resolution. There are a thousand questions we could discuss, but in respect of our fellow students’ concern of this turning into an “oppressive” dialogue, we should stay focused.