As I sit here and consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two-state solution appears to be the most realistic, the most just, and the most logical solution. “Two states for two peoples” is something I believe in and will work actively to promote. The Jewish people deserve a sovereign nation as do the Palestinians. Yet there is a growing movement among Israel’s detractors and campus pro-Palestinian movements for a “one-state solution” in the region. 

The proposed state would be a singular nation with rights for all citizens. There would be no religious identity and no distinguishing characteristic of the country. While this sounds fair and just in theory, and it would be ideal for all to have equal rights, this would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. And it seems that most pro-Palestinian movements are okay with this. But this new bi-national state would look no different than Belgium or Switzerland. Israel was created in the wake of the greatest tragedy of human history because there were only Belgiums and Switzerlands. The Jewish aspect of Israel is the fundamental component of what makes Israel a Jewish homeland. 

Unfortunately, the recognition of the other side’s sovereignty is unbalanced. I write as I serve as Vice President of Brown Students for Israel (often accused of being Brown University’s most right-wing pro-Israel group) and I can confidently say that Brown Students for Israel endorses and supports a two-state solution. Yet tonight, as part of Israel Apartheid Week, Students for Justice in Palestine brings Ali Abunimah, a scholar who is suggesting the creation of just one state in the region. The publications on his website “Electronic Intifada” (which conjures nasty memories of busses exploding and suicide bombers in Israel) all advocate for a state in which there is no religious identity. That means no Israel as a Jewish state. I do not quite understand why there is no reciprocity between Brown Students for Israel and Students for Justice in Palestine; BSI (and Bibi Netanyahu for that matter) have been vocal about Palestinian sovereignty, but we get no love in return.

Israel Apartheid Week is not about the security barrier nor is it about Israeli settlements. SJP’s protests are not about human rights violations nor are they about Israeli land grabbing. Fundamentally, as evidenced by the speaker coming to campus tonight, Brown Students for Justice in Palestine does not respect Jewish sovereignty. So much for self-determination and the universal rights the Palestinian leadership has claimed to uphold in the face of oppression.

I fundamentally respect the rights of others to have an opinion and I am glad SJP gets their week of fame. But please don’t mask your denial of the right to a Jewish state under the guise of “end the occupation.” That is simply deceptive.

If you want to complain about ethno-religious privilege in the Middle East as Diana Buttu does here in the Boston Globe, I suggest that you focus on Saudi Arabia where non-Muslims cannot enter Mecca or Egypt where Coptic Christians have been persecuted for decades. The only time that Jerusalem’s holy sites have been open to all religions has been under Jewish rule; until 1967 Jews did not have access to the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism, which was under Jordanian control.

The other day on the main green I had a student in SJP tell me that she feels that what has been done to the Palestinians greatly exceeds the pain caused to Israeli citizens. I wish she would tell that to the remainder of the Fogel family, who’s close relatives were murdered around one-year ago by two Palestinian militants in the Israeli town in Itamar. Yes, they lived in a settlement, but that is hardly justification for such brutal action. I dedicate this post to the Fogel family as we mourn for them one year later.

When people ask me why there is a security barrier separating the West Bank from Israel proper, I struggle to find the words to explain the answer effectively. But just a few moments ago when I went to Wikipedia (don’t worry, not using it for a research paper) I found my answer. Looking for the story surrounding the death of the Fogels I searched “Itamar attack” and it brought me to a page. I was struck by the words “not to be confused with ‘Itamar attack of 2002’”. In 2002, Palestinian militants murdered a mother and her three sons in Itamar. The fact that there exists two wikipedia pages entitled “Itamar attack” is why a security barrier stands today.

At Columbia University pro-Palestinian students constructed a fake bulldozer and pretended to bulldoze Palestinian homes. That’s fine, but if you are using the spectacle to hide your beliefs in removing Israel as a Jewish state, good luck. This weekend AIPAC will be holding a conference in which Obama, Panetta, McConnell, Pelosi, and Netanyahu will be speaking - I think Israel as a Jewish state is here to stay. 

Through all of my work and research regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I have come to few conclusions. The conflict is too complicated, too nuanced, and too intricate. But what really gets me is this whole argument - by both the Palestinians and a lot of Western media - that borders and settlements are the true obstacle to peace. The problem runs deeper into the thread of Palestinian society; any peace deal will not stand the test of time when pit against the anti-semitic rhetoric and Palestinian education for hate. 

Yes, I understand that there are Palestinians who deeply long for peace, but that does not excuse the huge amount of anti-semitic and anti-Israel propaganda put forth by television shows, speeches, newspapers.

One would expect such hatred from Hamas, a group which has no qualms about their dedication to Israel’s destruction. Thus, when most people say things like “two-state solution” they do not include Hamas and the Gaza strip. However, Israel’s most likely partner in peace, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, has been propagating similar strains of hatred and intolerance. On January 9, 2011 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammed Ahmed Hussein gave a speech at an event commemorating the 47th anniversary of Fatah (a political party in charge of the Palestinian authority and the party of former PLO chairman Yasser Arafat). In this speech, the Grand Mufti cited verses from Islamic texts including the following:

“The Hour will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jews will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

This blatantly anti-semitic verse does anything but encourage cooperation and coexistence. And let us remember that this is not some arbitrary cleric speaking. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is senior religious figure with major political pull. In fact, he was appointed by Mahmoud Abbas, the same man that is leading the Palestinian Authority. The Grand Mufti is speaking at a Fatah rally - is this really the partner for peace the world expects Israel to negotiate with? 

But don’t worry, the anti-semitic views of the Grand Mufti are not without precedent. The most infamous of all the Grand Muftis, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who served as Grand Mufti from 1921-1948, was a card-carrying Nazi. He aligned with Hitler to re-create the Holocaust in the Middle East, established an Arab Bureau in Berlin, and event sent a volunteer regiment of Palestinians to fight alongside Axis forces. It is truly unfortunate to see that not much has changed in 70 years. 

Some might argue that this was simply one speech, but I beg to differ. Palestine Media Watch, a media watchdog groups that identifies hateful television and speeches, has shed light on the entrenched hatred in Palestinian TV. The following video is a TV segment that glorifies the murderers of an Israeli family of 5 in Itamar on March 11, 2011. Two Palestinian men entered the town of Itamar, broke into the Fogel household, and murdered the mother, the father, an 11 year old son, a 4 year old son, and a 3 month old daughter. Upon their arrest, the two murderers proudly reenacted the attack and told authorities that had they noticed the 3 other Fogel children (who were sleeping at the time) they would have murdered them too.

The video below provides a forum for the glorification of these two murderers. It demonstrates to the Palestinian people that this kind of violence is an appropriate response to Israeli actions. Civil disobedience, youth movements, and protest are legitimate forms of non-violent resistance, but this is unacceptable. 

I understand that there must be incitement on the Israeli side as well but it is essential to point out that this segment was published on a channel regulated and sponsored by the Palestinian Authority. Imagine if C-SPAN aired a segment endorsing violence against illegal immigrants. 

I am all for a long-lasting peace agreement, but, as the Israeli official stated in the first video, this education for hatred signifies the inability of the current Palestinian leadership to be partners for peace. Then Senator Hillary Clinton stated in 2007, “Ever since we first raised this issue some years ago there still has not been an adequate repudiation of incitement by the Palestinian Authority. It is even more disturbing that the problem appears to have gotten worse.” She could not be more right.

Over the past week in my philosophy class, we’ve been discussing the first amendment and free speech implications of “hate-speech” and other nasty pejoratives. Thus arises a fairly substantial conflict: freedom of speech rights versus equality protections from hateful speech. In the same class, the discussion over pornography generated the same type of question: as a liberal society do we protect pornography under the grounds of free speech or do we regulate it because it is known to subjugate women?

I sit here writing from a campus that prides itself on liberal values and ideals. Brown University has a long history of left-leaning students who tout activist mentalities and I-can-change-the-world egos. I’m not saying this is inherently a bad thing, but it has shifted the discourse on campus so far one way that anything representing the right is dismissed and not given legitimate consideration. 

Let me preface my remarks by saying how happy I am at Brown thus far. I appreciate to the utmost extent that there is political discourse at all - I know how lucky I am to be surrounded by intelligent and engaged students who care as much about worldly issues as they do their academics. Needless to say, a campus can always be improved and a political arena should be welcoming of criticism and ways to improve.

It is unfair for Brown students to say that the nature of campus discourse is open-minded, tolerant, and balanced. Let’s take the recent debate over ROTC on campus, the military based scholarship program that allows students to go to college and then commit to service in the United States Military. Previous campus policy stated that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell conflicted with Brown’s values and therefore ROTC shouldn’t be allowed on campus. But after the revocation of DADT, one-sided dogma prevailed over free debate. Supporters of ROTC were labeled as right-wing and consideration of a benign program that affords students to perform two great services for their country (learning and joining the military) was dismissed. The conversation here on campus is run by outspoken liberals who immediately and unfairly categorize those with dissenting points of view.

This trend extends further into international issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I was told by one student that “Israel as an apartheid state” was a view considered mainstream by some. And if you take a more conservative view on the United States’ relationship with Israel, you apparently want to directly fund Israeli settlements and expel all Palestinians to Jordan. Groups that purport to promote equitable discourse without their own agenda invite former PLO spokespeople as an authority on an issue. And apparently bringing a liberal, Democratic senator to speak on the Middle East is promoting the idea that we should blindly support Israel. 

It seems to me that those who dominate the campus dialogue do not live up to the liberal mantra of free speech they swear by. The “market place of ideas” that Mill advocated for can’t exist when more conservative views are immediately disregarded. A job at an investment bank or consulting firm is shunned out loud (but coveted under the table) and there is a call for everyone to be a labor organizer or work for a group to curb police power. Well, after two months on campus, which I admit is an incredibly short time, I have come to the conclusion that there are a whopping amount of closet conservatives intimidated by those who dominate the discourse. And I urge those with differing opinions than those with loudspeakers to grab a microphone - not to advance my own political causes but rather to uphold the tolerant atmosphere that liberals have championed since day one.

Grassroots movements are great. They epitomize democracy; multitudes of people mobilize around a specific issue and lawmakers respond to the wishes of their constituents. And often times such movements can produce great results. With growing environmental consciousness among college students, there are incredible “green” policies here at Brown. Yea, it’s annoying that they don’t sell bottled water on campus, but If you think about it so much less plastic is used.

So now we come across Occupy Wall Street, something that has occupied the news for the past few weeks. I wouldn’t go far enough and say this is a movement (not yet at least) but there is something there. And with that something comes a lot of problems that undermine the success and goal of the protest.

Ideologically, no change can be affected without a single, coherent message. Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence,  and Martin Luther King Jr. was pretty clear about the equality he strived for. So far, Occupy has only shown anger as opposed to constructive responses to the financial situation. Instead of just chanting “down with corporate greed,” it would be in their best interest to go to their congressional representatives and push for higher taxes on the wealthy. Sitting in a park does nothing - the novelty will soon fade and everything will be in vain. I understand that these protesters are trying to channel the Berkeley “sit-in” spirit, but that only makes a statement it doesn’t affect change.

I personally think that these “occupiers” are misguided and clueless as to the situation. What do they want to do? Erase capitalism entirely? Or do they want to just get rid of bankers? I understand the frustration - the unequal distribution of wealth can be discouraging. But in an era where equality of opportunity is paramount, there are opportunities to move up and achieve success. So instead of camping out in NYC, some of the protesters could be using their time more constructively. 

We need to also discuss the “free speech” implementations of Occupy Wall Street. It’s clear that this is political speech that undeniably receives strong protection under the first amendment. But the protesters are currently on private property - the first amendment does nothing to restrict private entities from restricting some speech. The owners of Zuccotti park expressed interest in cleaning the park and were met with harsh opposition from the protesters. If this free speech exercise starts interfering with the public’s ability to carry out their daily lives, it wouldn’t be farfetched to see time, place, and manner restrictions on the occupiers. 

As a whole, it’s good to see grassroots protests (even those I don’t agree with). But without a cogent message and plan, Occupy Wall Street is destined to fail. 

Written by Jonathan Scherzer

Edited by Zach Ingber

The stock market is typically viewed as a barometer of how our economy is doing. Therefore, the astonishing volatility of the stock market over the past few weeks may lead some to panic and believe that our companies are failing. However, the incredible swings in stockowner confidence seem both impossible to predict, and without actual merit. In reality, nothing has changed within the large companies that brokers appear eager to sell their stakes in. The extreme increases and drops in the stock market seem unprecedented because the companies themselves have not changed at all. Yet, this great volatility in our markets is mystifying and disheartening for an average citizen, as he may believe that our economy is failing.
Reacting to a given situation in the correct way lead many brilliant, and usually lucky, investors to profit greatly from their decisions. So too, each American reacts to whatever is going on in the economy in a manner that he believes will earn him the most money and happiness. In a time when the government is trying to reduce the deficit, yet also create jobs for the increasing number of unemployed, it is unfortunate that consumers are holding onto their money; they are doing this because they are anticipating another economic collapse—another mini-recession—in the upcoming years.
This fear among consumers is directly contributing to the increase in unemployment. However, no one could reasonably blame America’s consumer for another potential economic debacle. Unfortunately, because of the recent success of hedge funds etc, America believes that the stock market is much more important then it actually is. A better barometer of how our economy is faring must be created to instill confidence in Americans.
Instead of panicking and saving up cash with great precision, Americans should realize that the debt and credit crises in America and Europe, for the most part, have small impact on the average citizen.
Rather then focusing on fixing the strangeness of the stock market, the Obama administration should focus on securing jobs for Americans. This will, in due time, reduce the spending deficit, as well as strengthen the companies that Wall Street seems to be confused about.
In order to improve the overall state of our economy, the first thing that needs to be done is to raise taxes on the super rich. As Warren Buffet wrote in his op-ed titled, “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich”, him and his “mega-rich friends” get incredible tax-breaks even as our leaders ask for the country to sacrifice together. Aside from raising the taxes on the super rich, the country needs to seriously evaluate the effectiveness of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These programs are costing Americans billions of dollars, and many are convinced that they are very unproductive and wasteful of taxpayer money.
These are two of the steps that need to be taken in order to shore up our economy. Simply relying on the stock market to forecast how we are doing is foolish and can lead many to panic and make bad decisions. For the time being, American companies are doing just fine, but what Obama and Congress need to focus on is calming our nation. Too many people genuinely believe that our country is in some sort of grave danger, and the people deserve to be told what will be done, and that all will be okay. In order to resume their ordinary lives, Americans need to be confident that the crisis is over, and they need to hear it from credible sources within DC and Wall Street.

Jonathan Scherzer is studying Economics and Applied Mathematics at Northwestern University.

Yesterday marked the deadliest day since Netanyahu has taken office as Israel’s Prime Minister nearly two and a half years ago. Three gunmen crossed over from the Israeli-Egyptian border and opened fire on a passenger bus, killing 8 and wounding 30. This attack was a blatant use of force against innocent Israeli citizens. And I think it is ironic that the Palestinians are motioning towards a U.N. vote on statehood because the Israelis are not doing enough to expedite the peace process…

Up until this point, Israel has been relatively isolated from the so called Arab Spring that has affected almost every single country in the region. While Arab nations have been experiencing unrest for quite some time now, the turmoil has not drastically affected the Israeli government. This is the first incident where we can see the lawlessness of the Arab states influencing events in Israel. These terrorists supposedly came from the Sinai, a region that as of late has been like the wild wild west. Israel has no choice but to tighten security measures around Gaza and protect the lives of its citizens - especially because it is clear that the Egyptian government is incapable of keeping radical Islam in check.

I also think this attack should highlight Obama’s myopic approach to Middle Eastern stability. Maybe he will realize that he shouldn’t have been so quick to usher Mubarak - a strong US ally and opponent of radical Islam - out of office. The president’s pressure and lack of foresight are now affecting Israel and its citizens. And just now the Obama administration is pressuring Assad in Syria to step down? So there are rallies in Egypt and Mubarak must step down but mass murders in Syria can go on for a few months. Makes sense…

This is an incredibly unfortunate attack that happened at an important time in the so called “peace process.” Nothing in particular provoked these gruesome murders; this act of terrorism signifies the notion that unless the Palestinian leadership invests in education for peace, there won’t be an agreement anytime soon. In addition, rockets were recently fired at a Yeshiva seriously injuring two. I thought the saying was “knowledge is power” not “knowledge is danger.” While Israeli’s might object to borders or settlements or other policies, some Palestinians don’t want Israel to exist at all. People like that are simply people that are impossible to negotiate with.  

Mahmoud Abbas has been talking about this unilateral motion for statehood for a few months now. And while Obama and his administration scramble to levy more requirements on Israel in order to “foster peace,” Israel and most of the logical diplomatic arena know that this supposed U.N. vote is just one big political bluff. And here’s why:

First, the Palestinians have no intention of coming to the negotiating table. None whatsoever. We know Hamas obviously doesn’t, but Abbas isn’t serious about talks either; if he was, he would be at Camp David right now with Bibi. The reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah highlights one simple fact: Fatah has given up the idea of a two-state solution and has adopted Hamas’s idea of a single state of Palestine. 

Secondly, this U.N. ploy is another excuse not to directly negotiate with the Israelis. And why don’t they want to sit down with Israeli diplomats? It’s simple. Abbas knows that if there were to be negotiations they would receive a generous offer from the Israelis that he would have to refuse. Abbas knows that he will get an offer of 100% of Gaza and 98% of the West Bank. But, because he will not get the right of return and there will still be a Jewish state, he has to reject the offer in order to not piss off his own people more than he already has. 

Third, Abbas doesn’t really want this vote to happen. Whether or not is passes is not really the problem for the PA. The issue is this: the vote will happen, and probably pass in the general assembly, but the next morning the Palestinian people will wake up and nothing will change. Does he really think that this motion will pass and Israel will remove its entire military presence from the West Bank? He’s smarter than that and he knows how bad/ineffective he will look to his own people if his “statehood motion” fails to produce a state. 

And fourth, Abbas knows that a lot of the world doesn’t buy into his idea. Italy just announced it will “absolutely not” support this motion and Germany is soon to follow suit. Most logical countries know that you can’t negotiate away from the table. Abbas and his advisors are already softening the ground for his fall and know that this UN motion was only a ploy to entice Israel into conceding more than it wants to. 

Abbas knows that Israel is calling his bluff. Now its time for Obama to stop giving the Palestinians excuses to avoid the negotiating table (a la 1967 borders speech). The window is closing so let’s do everything to keep the door open. 

The past few days, politically, started out poorly for me when I read Mahmoud Abbas’s piece in the New York Times which whined about how the international community has been continually snubbing the Palestinians out of statehood. But hey, I expected that out of a Palestinian leader who has just legitimized Hamas by signing a reconciliation pact just a few weeks ago. What I didn’t expect, however, was for our President to turn his back on America’s strongest ally and firmest believer in the same core values that run this country.

President Obama gave a speech today discussing the entire Middle East and the changes that have taken place. There was some good portions and a lot we have already heard. But his section about the Arab-Israeli conflict was chilling. While there were some well-intended thoughts about peace, expecting Israel to retreat back to the 1967 borders is simply unfair. Already Jews can’t access the temple mount, Abraham’s grave in Hebron (which UNESCO ruled an Islamic heritage site), and other religious sites in Judea and Samaria - a region is featured throughout Jewish texts.

What if we were to say to Muslims that they could not enter the western half of Mecca? Or they could only see the right side of the Ka’ba? I am obviously not in favor of doing this, but this is essentially what is happening in Israel. The temple mount, the location of Abraham’s binding of Isaac, is arguably the cornerstone of Judaism’s inception. But Jews can’t enter the site? 

This just goes to show how much sacred land Israel has given up in favor of peace - or even for hopes of peace. But now we have an administration in Washington that has designed Middle Eastern diplomacy around pressuring Israel instead of imploring the Palestinians. Settlements apparently must stop in order to achieve peace but not the Palestinian media broadcasts that show Mickey Mouse discussing martyrdom? Jewish settlers should leave their homes in the West Bank but Abbas does not need to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state? I know there are high expectations of the only democracy in the Middle East, but Obama needs to focus its attention on bringing the Palestinians to meet the Israelis, not vice versa. 

And on a geopolitical level, Israel has demonstrated its willingness to give land for peace. After the 6 Day War, Israel gave back the Sinai which was full of oil and access to key ports. And in return the Arabs gave Israel the famous “3 NO’s” of Khartoum: no recognition, no negotiations, and no peace. Lots of wiggle room for Israel, I know. 

Obama’s speech was very optimistic at points and I commend him for that. I know he dreams of peace as most do, but I caution him to be realistic and pragmatic. He needs to do a better job of defending Israel on the world stage and point out the United Nations’ unacceptable bias against israel. For example, from 2006 to 2010 the U.N. Human Rights Commission condemned Israel in 20 out of its 25 resolutions. Four reprimanded Myanmar and 1 North Korea. Where are you President Obama? And I hope Obama realizes that Israel’s security will always be numero uno to Netanyahu and the entire population, and the U.S. should jump on board. 

With AIPAC’s annual Policy Conference coming up - which I will be attending - things should be interesting, especially during Netanyahu’s remarks. He is usually one to send strong messages to the American Pro-Israel community and I expect no less this time around. If I were Netanyahu I would let Obama know one simple message. I would tell him to look around the Middle East, past Israel, and search for his true allies. Syria? Iran? Lebanon? Unstable Egypt? He’ll come up empty and hopefully he’ll realize how important Israel truly is to this country.

While much of the media focus has been on Bin Laden’s death and the patriotic surge our country is feeling, things in Israel have taken a drastic turn - I think for the worse. Long time Palestinian rivals Fatah and Hamas signed a reconciliation pact thus ending years of bitter fighting. This is much more of a problem than people are giving it credit for…

The Hamas and Fatah feud stems from the two different approaches and narratives each group takes. Fatah is a much more secular and nationalistic approach - an ideology more in line with Western ideals and a potential partner that would be responsive to some sort of peace agreement. Hamas, on the other hand, is a radical Islamic terrorist group (deemed this by the US and EU among others) that is as hard-lined as it is religious. They are not a potential partner for peace and are the ones who fire rockets from hospitals.

The fighting between the groups got bloody when Hamas won popular elections in Gaza in the 2006-2007 election season. Militia fighting ensued and Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah was driven back to the West Bank (his power base). But now, when Fatah - the group recognized as the voice for Palestinian statehood - has arguably the most moderate leadership ever, the window for peace is closing. And Israel is not to blame; radicals and moderates signing can only mean one thing: the moderates will give way to a more extreme way of thinking.

Salam Fayyad, the moderate Prime Minister of Fatah who has spent more time and money on infrastructure than on rockets, will be excluded from the new Hamas - Fatah partnership. Without a doubt, he was the Palestinian’s best hope for statehood. With a PhD from an American university and a passion for a free-market economy, he was the Western (esque) leader Israel was looking to deal with. And unfortunately the Hamas leaders will take more of a vocal role. A Hamas spokesperson said, “We need to achieve the common goal: a Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital, no settlers, and we will not give up the right of return.” So much for the moderate approach of Fatah…

Furthermore, Hamas television is now being broadcasted in the West Bank. Mind you this is the same television that has a Mickey Mouse character talking about blowing himself up in Jerusalem. So much for educating for peace…

The Palelstinian Liberation Organization (PLO) will be reorganized to include Hamas. As if this group wasn’t already bent on Israel’s destruction. Is this the partner the world expects Israel to work with? So much for a valid partner for peace…

And Ismail Haniyeh, the radical leader of Hamas, has called for Abbas and Fatah to denounce any sort of recognition of Israel. I want to leave you with one fundamental idea: how can you negotiate with a party that doesn’t recognize your fundamental right to exist?