Peace panel misrepresented conflict

In her Oct. 15 letter, “Peace panel presented both sides,” Joan Drake missed the point of my comment and the point of discourse in general. I was the “one member of the audience” who noted that while the panel claimed to be balanced because it had a Palestinian and an Israeli speaker, in reality it only presented one viewpoint. This was that the entire conflict is a result of Israeli occupation and that any Israeli grievances, such as with terrorism, are baseless.

This panel was a disservice to the Duke community because it deprived us from an understanding of the complexity of the situation. Two people presenting the same opinion does not give you any greater understanding of an issue—even if they are from different places. It is the interaction of different ideas and opinions that makes discourse interesting, informative and productive. The panel’s model only stood in the way of the truth. For example, the Palestinian speaker said the Palestinian Liberation Organization was formed in 1967 and started carrying out terrorist attacks, such as hijackings, because no one would listen them. In fact, the PLO was formed in 1964, and the terrorist attacks started before any Israeli occupation. But there was no one on the panel from the other side to challenge her, and the audience would have lost this piece of knowledge if not for my questions.  

More significantly, the panel stood in the way of peace. I know that Palestinians have suffered a lot, but so have Israelis. Israel has faced terrorism from Palestinian groups since its inception, and continues to today. Fundamentalist terrorist groups like Hamas are a major impediment to peace, but the panel never mentioned that. It would seem that if this panel truly wanted peace, they would acknowledge the very real hurt and concerns on both sides as valid, and seek to find reconciliation. Instead, they chose to tear down one side instead of building everybody up.  

Jeremy Siegel

Trinity ’12