Let me begin by stating that I am aware my perspective is idealistic. Solutions are not black and white and are certainly not as simple as I may make them sound. As a Jewish student, I often feel as though I am expected to either be ardently pro-Israel and blindly defend all of their actions or be on the other end of the spectrum and condemn the country’s existence altogether. 

However, I fall in the middle, which has somehow made me feel even more isolated during this conflict. 

The actions of Oct. 7 were the result of Hamas, a defined terrorist organization. Hamas is the current government in the Gaza Strip and has been since 2007, making Gaza the target of many war actions. However, just as Israelis would not wish to be defined by the actions of oppressors, Palestinians should also not be generalized in supporting Hamas as a reason for Israeli occupation and further brutality. Israel’s establishment was meant to create a home for Jewish people who have escaped persecution and been victims of genocide themselves. However, a history of war should not be used as an excuse for further violence. 

I feel this level of hypocrisy exists from Palestinians as well. After being forced into lands where they feel controlled by the Israeli Defence Force and pushed out of a country they deemed as theirs, it is valid for Palestinians to be upset and want their home back. But the solution to being pushed out of their homes should not be to push Israelis out of theirs. It seems as though both sides have entered into a competition of victimization rather than finding commonality in their struggles and using this to promote peace and understanding. 

Much of the past month on campus has followed suit with heated back-and-forth actions by pro-Israel students and Students for Justice in Palestine where the administration has failed to adequately mediate the conversation between the two sides. Instead, I have found the Brandeis administration to exacerbate the debate on campus by blatantly taking sides and making decisions rooted in racism and bias.

When the vigil for Palestinian civilians by SJP was canceled  , it became obvious whose mourning was deemed acceptable by the administration — this was illustrated in their decision to decharter SJP — making healthy conversation on campus even more unlikely. 

A two-state solution is not a new idea and is a concept that has been attempted on multiple occasions. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, both Jews and Arabs laid claim to the land now known as Israel. When negotiations for divisions of this land were rejected by the Arab government, Israel was established in 1948. Later during the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel captured Gaza, the West Bank, and other Arab territories. 

Two decades later, the First Intifada took place when Palestinians began uprising in protest to living under Israeli rule, eventually leading to the Oslo Accords in 1993 between the newly established Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. Here, a compromise and division of land to the pre-1967 borders was agreed upon, but came to a halt when Hamas took the place of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. After this time, any proposals from either side relating to a division of land were rejected by either party. While there are many battles and negotiations left out in this brief history, this simplified timeline demonstrates the longstanding struggle for compromise. However, the lack of success in the past has not made this any less of an ideal goal in my opinion. 

When it comes to this current conflict, it is important to remember Hamas is a group whose goal is not to liberate Palestinians. They have purposely put weapons and operations bases under hospitals and schools, increasing the likelihood of civilian casualties. 

This does not mean Israel should act without care for these civilians either, but it makes war actions less black and white as I feel the media makes it seem. Too often, war is blamed on one side rather than acknowledging the wrongdoings on both ends. Israel should not be using terrorist actions as an excuse to oppress another marginalized community. They should take note from their own history to prioritize peace and the lives of civilians. Palestinians, too, should acknowledge how actions from Hamas have hurt their struggle for freedom and understand the actions of Israel are aimed at protecting their standing and land ownership. 

The aim of closing off the Gaza Strip is meant to weaken Hamas and protect Israel, but it does have the side effect of hurting civilians in Gaza. Hamas as a group aims to commit acts of genocide and has admitted that they aim for Jewish extinction. Hamas official Fathi Hamad has even stated “We must attack every Jew on planet Earth — we must slaughter and kill them, with Allah’s help.” However, the goal of many Palestinians is simply peace and safety, and these should not be conflated with one another. In fact, 62% of Palestinians in Gaza were against Hamas breaking the ceasefire with Israel, and 50% believed Hamas should accept a two-state solution based on the borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war . I believe Israel also has a goal for peace. There are without a doubt some Jewish people with racist motives, as there are in almost every community. However, the thoughts of the minority should not be focused on and generalized; this is a major reason preventing these groups from finding peace. 

It is true that a two-state solution may not be feasible, especially at this point in time. But if both sides could use their history of persecution as a building block for understanding, it could be the first step in finding peace. As far as conflict on the Brandeis campus is concerned, I hope students also begin to empathize with each other’s struggles and realize no side in this conflict has done everything appropriately. This is an extremely difficult situation with no clear answer, but rather than blaming each other, acknowledging the hurt on both sides may be the first step to promoting healthy conversation.