A response to "Zionist speak"

Time and again the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has manifested itself on campus in a war of words, with the Spectator acting as the proverbial battlefield. And time and again, our camp is relegated to the defensive, left to dispel C-SJP’s un-evidenced and propagandist accusations against the state and people of Israel. Whether you are for, against, or simply ambivalent on the issues of this debate, you deserve better.

This past Monday, Spectator published a column that stereotyped and generalized the entire pro-Israel movement on campus. The author decontextualized quotes from unnamed individuals, replaced key words with ellipses, and manipulated the quotes’ meanings to support her narrow perspective. In mischaracterizing F.H. Kisch’s quote, for example, the author slandered Columbia’s pro-Israel movement, and instead falsely painted Zionism as a racist form of colonialism. In reality, Kisch articulated his classification of Zionism as a reconstitution of Jewish peoplehood in their homeland, writing, “The word [colonialism] is not appropriate from our point of view since one does not set up colonies in a homeland but abroad.” In claiming that “the Zionist project was, from its inception, a colonial one,” the author forgets or simply denies any Jewish connection to the land of Israel.

On this shaky foundation, the author went on to “support” her sweeping argument using no fewer than three unnamed students who represent nobody but themselves. A few alleged quotations taken out of context demonstrate nothing about an entire community’s voice, let alone its character. Surely members of the C-SJP would chafe at being quoted in such an unprofessional manner in these pages. The quoting game could easily work both ways, but engaging in such back-and-forth tactics would be an insult to this publication and its readers.

Put aside the unprofessional and academically disingenuous use of quotations by the author, and you are left with an emotionally driven tirade, baseless in its evidence, and dangerous in its implications. The author’s demeaning and deliberate use of “Zionism” therefore connotes a disturbingly hateful tone. Her argument ceases to attack policies and instead targets people. Deeming the voices of individuals as “Zionist-speak” is not only distasteful, but seems to be a covert attempt at dehumanizing a group of Columbia students that share a common history and religion.

Still, the fact remains that Spectator, on a professional level, permitted the publication of a loose collection of hearsay and incendiary accusations. As Sam Kerbel, editor-in-chief of The Current has written, “But for the Spectator, a newspaper dedicated first and foremost to issues pertaining to the Columbia and Morningside Heights communities, to publish extraneous pieces that rely on empty phrases and unfounded generalizations illustrates not merely poor judgment and editorial deficiency. It reveals a lack of intellectual discipline.”

History has shown that extremists exist on all sides of debates. Diatribes such as those written by Yasmeen Ar-Rayani, author of Monday’s column, only fuel the flames of mistrust and hatred that she herself claims to scorn. While we at Columbia strive to maintain an open and healthy dialogue on tough issues, it seems that the columnist simply wished to fill and close the minds of those around her. It is our goal to never take the easy road of false quotation and thinking, but rather to embrace the much harder, but ultimately more realistic, approach of considering the full context of information. It may not be black and white, but as the author stated herself, we want to see the “true colors” of the situation.

The author is a junior in the joint General Studies and Jewish Theological Seminary program. He is the vice president of LionPAC.