Last week, Jason Ginsberg ’16 wrote an article on what he believes to be the misleading nature of the Middle East Studies Initiative’s programming (“Brown’s Middle East misnomer,” Sept. 11). To begin with, the central premise of his argument needs to be clarified, as the author himself seems a bit bewildered. Ginsberg writes that his pro-Israel leanings are left unrepresented by MES, yet at another point, he insists that any mention of Israel at all is “left out of the mix.” It is unclear whether he believes the program leaves out Israel altogether, or, more likely, the narrative on Israel that he favors.
Seeing as Ginsberg himself refers to two of the program’s events, the luncheon seminar on the Second Intifada and the “Why Gaza Matters” panel, he seems to be well aware that MES speaks on Israel, though he selectively hears what characterizations of Israel he would like to hear. Ginsberg’s article on the whole is riddled with gross instances of cognitive dissonance, as it insists on the presentation of his singular viewpoint — favoring the Zionist narrative — while at the same time expressing a desire for a wide range of diverse perspectives.
One method that the author is fully cognizant of is his characterization of MES as a so-called “Islamic” program, complete with innuendos that accompany a reference to Islam in a post-9/11, War-on-Terror world — all of which contribute to a subtle current of Islamophobia. Further, Ginsberg posits some link between the alleged Islamic nature of the program and a dearth of discourse around Israel, and even completes the association with a bold reference to ISIS’ recent violent rise in the Middle East.
This is a common paradigm of diametrically opposing West vs. East, the Judeo-Christian tradition versus the Islamic one, and moreover, associating the Islamic tradition with violence. When put into focus alongside the comments regarding “modern Israeli advances,” the analogy descends into an Orientalist trope of civilization versus barbarism.
But this dichotomy does not remain in the abstract, and Ginsberg does not seem to notice the gravity of his words, nor their irony. Various American and Israeli academics and organizations have attempted to implicate Middle East studies programs in condoning acts of terror for years, especially since 9/11.
Middle East Studies programs are time and time again the targets of surveillance, criticism and attempts to silence debate. Ginsberg joins a long legacy of neo-McCarthyist watchdogs in higher education who seek to perpetuate fear about “Arabs” and educators who defend them, just as they once ranted about “Communists.”
The MES program at Brown devotes an enormous effort to critically discussing Israel and Palestine through literature, film, lecture and debate — a claim which can be confirmed by a brief glance at the program’s semester schedule and suggested course list. And as it becomes exceedingly clear that the initiative executes due diligence in addressing pressing, relevant topics concerning Israel, one question remains: Does it have to? That is, even if MES were to hold its tongue and remain silent on the issue, does it not have that right?
More importantly, why does a colonizing, occupying power need its voice heard above and beyond the American media’s overt support of Israel and the litany of Israeli ambassadors, spokespeople, generals and so-called “analysts,” who flood the cable news networks again and again? Power speaks for itself, and the Israeli voice was clearly heard in Gaza this summer, as in years past, and as it is heard each and every day in the West Bank.
Ginsberg flips the premise of objectivity on its head by asserting that pro-Israel views are underrepresented, despite the fact that we observe the contrary in the media, the U.S. government’s official view and widespread American political sentiment. Thus, if MES were to insist on objectivity, it would come in the form of speaking for the underrepresented — unheard populations like the Palestinians.
The often-heard claim regarding the “objectivity argument” is that unless two sides are clearly delineated and represented, any subsequent panels, events and lectures are somehow biased. The objectivity argument is a red herring, with quite upsetting implications, especially when one considers the method in which it attempts to use the cry of suppressed speech to suppress speech in turn.
Objectivity is breached when facts are twisted, fabricated or grossly misinterpreted. The absence of a panelist who will support Israel’s right to kill does not breach objectivity. Understanding 1948 as a violent rupture in Palestinian history, rather than as the founding of Israel, does not breach objectivity. Positing different understandings and underrepresented views is not only evidence of an apt University program, but actually satisfies Ginsberg’s criteria, when he writes: “Departments … should strive for this exposure, challenging students of all views and backgrounds.”
Readers of his article could question how much the author hopes to be exposed or challenged when he repeatedly references the “comfort” he desires to experience while participating in such discussions. Certainly it would be a mark of a lackluster, unmeritorious university if its students completed four years in ideological comfort. The essence of vigorous inquiry that is at the heart of any institute of higher education lies in challenging one’s preconceived notions — especially those held nearest and dearest. Surely our time at Brown is to be spent aspiring for higher knowledge beyond the comfort which hearing our cherished views repeated might provide.
The university is one of the few havens of undeniably safe expression. I urge the author to spend a week in the West Bank or an hour in Gaza in order to fully experience the gravity of the phrase “my usual sense of comfort and freedom has been constricted.”
Peter Makhlouf ’16 can be reached at peter_makhlouf@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
