Alan Tsarovsky is a 2001 UCLA alumnus.
By Alan Tsarovsky
As I sit and watch the 25-hours per day news coverage of the
Middle East, I often find myself stunned. The current operating
principle in journalism apparently is “if I say it enough
times, it becomes true.” The importance of ratings and the
desire to ensure that “each side is heard” are so great
that news television has become a stage for propaganda rather than
honest discussion. This type of reporting is demeaning to the
intelligence of the audience and offensive to the true victims of
this situation.
Not surprisingly, the exact same substitution of propaganda for
understanding occurs on college campuses. Rather than struggling to
understand and respect the complex nature of the battle for life in
the Arab/Israeli conflict, what happens on campuses throughout the
world are phony one-sided presentations that oversimplify and
underestimate every factor in the war.
The reality is that this tragedy is so deep and bloody that
there is sadness on all sides.
I have seen the worst of it. I was in Jerusalem several blocks
away from the bombing of Sbarro, the pizza restaurant, last August.
The suffering in the region is universal and blind to nationality
or religion. So, rather than present my side, I have decided to
compose a series of questions that I think should be answered in a
serious fashion by anyone who chooses to publicly discuss Middle
East violence. I hope this request will lead to more honest
analysis that pushes aside quick slogans, sloppy analogies and
knee-jerk reactions.
We have repeatedly been informed by representatives and
sympathizers of the Palestinian plight that we must examine the
occupation of Palestinian lands before we judge suicide bombers. If
by occupation, they only mean the West Bank and Gaza, then they
imply that the root of evil in the Middle East is Israel’s
military presence in those lands. If the West Bank is the core of
the current Middle East crisis, why did the Arabs initiate wars
against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973? At that time, those exact
lands were exclusively and entirely under Arab control. And if the
suicide attacks are due to Israel’s occupation of those
lands, then why didn’t the attacks decrease when Former Prime
Minister Ehud Barak made an offer to leave the territories during
Clinton’s mediation attempts?
Nineteen months ago, yet another attempt at political compromise
by Israel was rejected. Israel’s far-reaching offer, which
handed over the same territories disputed today, was deemed
inadequate by the Palestinian Authority. Following this rejection,
the PA did not present any counter-offer. Instead, the response was
the violent Intifada that persists today, which must make us
question what the true objectives of the Palestinian Authority
really are.
While the violent response of the Palestinians has manifested
itself in various armed actions, including shootings at weddings,
Bar Mitzvahs and cars that pass by certain roads, the most horrific
response is the suicide bomb.
We must examine the global implications of living in a world
community that can justify suicide bombings against civilians as a
means of achieving political ends. Is this how the political
grievances of tomorrow will be addressed?
The hardest part to accept in this situation is that the war is
destroying dreams of peace for children. Both education and the
media are conditioning children in the Mideast to continue the
fight. What is being done to prevent acts of violence against any
children? What is being done to prevent children from playing a
role in violent acts themselves? Why have the last several suicide
bombers been decreasing in age?
Lastly, we must direct our moral inquiries at the international
community. Many political leaders want to convince us that the
chief source of tension in the Middle East is the close
relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But if that is part of
the problem, is it not equally problematic that many nations,
including the United States, fund and politically support the
maintenance of the Palestinian Authority? Why is there no public
focus on international support of the Intifada that runs from
Europe throughout the world?
And on what grounds does the moral condemnation of Israel stand?
The countries that offer condemnation; France, Britain, Belgium,
Russia, and the Arab and Muslim worlds, are the countries that
stood silent when Israel was attacked from all sides in three
separate wars. On so many other issues these same nations reserve
judgment, such as the atrocity of slavery rampant in Northern
Africa, robbing millions of their humanity.
How can we trust and accept moral condemnations that tend to
follow only those positions that are the most politically
convenient?
I refuse to accept the idea that this conflict can be simplified
to slogans and catch-phrases. We must stop assuming our conclusions
and start looking toward more sophisticated conversations if we
ever hope to find a solution.