As a progressive Jew, I find myself compelled in part by Spencer Burger’s column in last week’s edition of the Maroon to point out the all-too-frequent polarization of debate about the Israeli-Arab conflict. What he and, by extension, the Chicago Friends of Israel (CFI), in addition to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), argue, sometimes tacitly, sometimes explicitly, is that the other organization always uses “propaganda” and “demagogues” to support their views and that one’s opinion on the conflict must fully align with one of the groups’ positions. This tone of discourse is pernicious and virulent and undermines any hope of respectful, constructive dialogue. I aim to express an alternate point of view shared by many others, one that does not so much stand in opposition to the CFI and SJP as it stands in favor of a pragmatic and peaceful approach to constructive dialogue about the issue.

What the CFI and SJP both fail to acknowledge is that like any contentious issue, constructing a false dichotomy in the conflict is both disingenuous and dangerous. Faced with the choices available on campus, a student might conclude that a “pro-Israel message” (part of the mission statement of CFI) and “justice in Palestine” are mutually exclusive. This conclusion is counterproductive and regrettable, to understate. In fact, there exists rampant extremism on all sides of the issue. For every Mads Gilbert or Hamas, there is an Alan Dershowitz who advocates the wholesale destruction of Palestinian villages or an Avigdor Lieberman who calls for Arab Israelis to sign forced loyalty oaths to Israel as a Jewish state (a plan The Economist called “unabashedly racist”). Criticism of rival organizations for their choices of panelists is therefore fundamentally flawed if it is not accompanied by denouncement of the extremism to which one might be more sympathetic.

Read More: UofC MAROON - Between bias and a hard place