Organizers hoped the night would see a discussion about whether the barrier that cuts through Israel and the West Bank was a human rights abuse or a necessary measure of protection.
Instead, the usually-dreaded left-wingers majoring in theories of power and punishment a la Foucault slipped out the door, while the right-wing Jews who customarily swoop into debate like Superman saving Lois Lane sulked into the hallway, and even the two generally wary Arab students filed out. Though the scene constitutes a dialogue facilitator’s worst nightmare, I hoped that even just one of those characters might stay.
As president of the Middle East Sustained Dialogue at NYU, I have overseen forums like this for some time now. Dialogue, as we fondly call it, began in 2000. It used to be a vibrant community of over 60 students interested in devoting two hours every other week to sensitive discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict. There to share their opinions and learn something new, it was an open space for conflict resolution through non-violent means, attracting activists and Middle East aficionados alike.
We drew left-leaning Jews who vie for a two-state solution and an Israel that governs according to internaional standards of human rights. We drew right-wingers who generally believed that Israel has a right to act preemptively against violence, and that the Palestinians do not present an adequate partner for peace. We drew Arab and Muslim students who attended to represent unspoken views, albeit with some trepidation, given the majority-Jewish crowd. Diverse, respectful and nuanced opinion was our hallmark.
Those days are like a fairytale to us now. Throughout this year, we managed to draw a crowd of 30 for a movie, but when it comes time to discuss, students steadily slip out the door, while the club leadership contends with the motley crew of adults who come for free food and a soapbox.
In the good old days, the conflict was constantly in the news. The daily reporting mixed with an activism-oriented student body made information accessible and contentious.
Now, though, debate appears muted. Students say they don’t feel knowledgeable enough to discuss Israeli and Palestinian politics, despite the class hours clocked studying conflict resolution and Middle Eastern History. In addition, as activists in the NYU community have moved on to other issues such as fair trade, the war in Iraq, and immigrant rights, dialogue events have lost their zeal. Add to that the natural graduation drain, and attendees have consistently become older gentlemen throwing often unprompted arguments our way. “But don’t you think it’s morally wrong to blow up innocent people?” is a perennial favorite.
The leadership of the dialogue attempted numerous tactics to sustain the group, including addressing more controversial topics, such as films like the documentary, Wall, by Simone Bitton. Little did we think such a little foray into controversy would result in emails saying things like, “I used to really enjoy coming to your dialogues, but I am extremely disappointed that you would show a movie titled Wall. I will not be attending anymore.”
In this new atmosphere, there is a constant worry about alienation. Whether the program be too progressive, not progressive enough, or just the same old stuff, the lack of students alone pose inherent threats to the notion of dialogue.
It is not possible to please everyone, but it would be nice to at least please someone without selling our souls to a political agenda.
To an extent, participants are correct to view some of our topic choices as extensions of our own political biases, but our programming is just as often a desperate attempt to fill a classroom with talking heads.
Meanwhile, I’m crossing my fingers and hoping for another news cycle, or maybe even peace. Until then, you’ll know where to find me.
