Daniel’s Visit. The Arab-Israeli conflict is probably the most controversial problem in modern age. Daniel Kurtzer is visiting The American University in Cairo soon for a talk. Since Daniel was a former ambassador to Israel, the announcement had received a huge backlash by students. A petition for cancellation was raised, claiming he’s standing with colonalization against Palestenians. See this instagram post for a shorter-version.
Daniel’s Palestenian Support. Upon searching and reading about Daniel, I found he publicly stated:
32 percent of the land in all the Israeli settlements in the West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.
See the full report here, published on Middle Eastern’s Institute website. I showed the report to students backlashing, in hope to communicate Daniel’s actual stance, instead of spreading biased information, and intentionally hiding his supportive words to Palestenians.
Students Response. AUC students blamed me for citing Daniel’s support for Palestenians.
They claimed Daniel does not support Palestenians, because he did accept a US ambassador to Israel position, alongside other citations.
They interpreted Daniel’s word as normalization with Zionism, which does not serve Palestenians in any way.
They claimed his statement about Israel violating international law does not change the fact he supports Zionism.
I agree with (3) but not (1) or (2).
Students Conclusion. No single student or faculty member, decided to call for Daniel’s talk cancellation, based on illustrating his complete stances. Their rationale is: if Daniel supports Zionism, then we shouldn’t mention his support for Palestenians, and just condemn him by citing his support to Zionism.
My Conclusion. If AUC students are cancelling Daniel’s talk, then their argument should be based on complete facts. Critizing a Zionist through a wrong argument is bad for the Palestenian cause.
Discussion.
In general, what do you think of refusing announcing facts, when they serve unacceptable intentions. How should we raise rationality in such case?
In general, how could we speak Arab’s narrative to Jews, without implicitly denying Jews historical roots to the land? How could we speak Jews’ narrative to Arabs, without implicitly denying Arab’s ownership to their lands, which were lost due to dynamics of conflicts and wars?
In particular, if you were wearing AUC’s administration shoes, how would you respond to students backlash?
This post is not about Daniel’s opinions, whether they are right or wrong. It is about communication.
Zionism supporter, Daniel Kurtzer, is visiting The American University in Cairo
Hello,
Daniel’s Visit. The Arab-Israeli conflict is probably the most controversial problem in modern age. Daniel Kurtzer is visiting The American University in Cairo soon for a talk. Since Daniel was a former ambassador to Israel, the announcement had received a huge backlash by students. A petition for cancellation was raised, claiming he’s standing with colonalization against Palestenians. See this instagram post for a shorter-version.
Daniel’s Palestenian Support. Upon searching and reading about Daniel, I found he publicly stated:
See the full report here, published on Middle Eastern’s Institute website. I showed the report to students backlashing, in hope to communicate Daniel’s actual stance, instead of spreading biased information, and intentionally hiding his supportive words to Palestenians.
Students Response. AUC students blamed me for citing Daniel’s support for Palestenians.
They claimed Daniel does not support Palestenians, because he did accept a US ambassador to Israel position, alongside other citations.
They interpreted Daniel’s word as normalization with Zionism, which does not serve Palestenians in any way.
They claimed his statement about Israel violating international law does not change the fact he supports Zionism.
I agree with (3) but not (1) or (2).
Students Conclusion. No single student or faculty member, decided to call for Daniel’s talk cancellation, based on illustrating his complete stances. Their rationale is: if Daniel supports Zionism, then we shouldn’t mention his support for Palestenians, and just condemn him by citing his support to Zionism.
My Conclusion. If AUC students are cancelling Daniel’s talk, then their argument should be based on complete facts. Critizing a Zionist through a wrong argument is bad for the Palestenian cause.
Discussion.
In general, what do you think of refusing announcing facts, when they serve unacceptable intentions. How should we raise rationality in such case?
In general, how could we speak Arab’s narrative to Jews, without implicitly denying Jews historical roots to the land? How could we speak Jews’ narrative to Arabs, without implicitly denying Arab’s ownership to their lands, which were lost due to dynamics of conflicts and wars?
In particular, if you were wearing AUC’s administration shoes, how would you respond to students backlash?
This post is not about Daniel’s opinions, whether they are right or wrong. It is about communication.