My co-workers and I have been joking this past week that while our tans look like they've been acquired at some exotic locale, their origin is unfortunately much more pedestrian. Our bronzed color results from our hours spent sweating it out on the New York City pavement attending the various protests and rallies that have sprung up in the wake of the recent turmoil in the Middle East.
As a fellow at a major non-partisan Jewish organization, attending these events has, quite literally, become part of my job. And as a novice protest-goer (rural New Hampshire does not offer much of an opportunity to rally), the three recent protests I attended, two as a participant and one as an observer, showed me both the best and worst of the groups involved on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the passion and commitment of those attending is clear, the tendency for dialogue and rhetoric to veer towards the extreme leaves those with balanced and temperate positions out of the discussion.
I recognize that the role of a rally is exactly that: to gather the faithful and show those in charge that a particular group has a vocal base. But preaching to the amen choir by calling Israel a terrorist state or urging for war with Iran does little but demonstrate that many of these groups are on the fringe and can thus be ignored. Furthermore, hateful rhetoric devalues the legitimate policy points that may be lost amid all the fervent chanting. It also discourages potential supporters from becoming involved with what is perceived as a radical element, and creates discomfort among those who have come to listen and learn, if not enthusiastically join in.
This trend towards extremism was present in all of the protests I attended, although to different degrees. The "Free Gilad" demonstration held on July 10 before the second kidnapping of soldiers was the least inflammatory because of the message's focused nature. However, there were still statements made that disappointed those who would have preferred to hear more tempered points of view. The "Stop the Terror" rally that followed the escalation of hostilities drew thousands of people and many notable politicians and activists to 42nd street on July 17. With speakers such as Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Noble Laureate Elie Wiesel, it was much less of a forum for extremism because of its size and mainstream organizers. However, the more radical elements were still present, and the rhetoric of destruction was still used.
The Palestinian Solidarity rally sponsored by United for Justice and Peace on July 18, which I went to as an observer, was the smallest of the demonstrations, and the most controversial. In particular, slogans chanted by the gathering such as "Ohlmert Ohlmert, what do you say, how many kids did you kill today?" and "Hey Hey Ho Ho, Israeli Apartheid has got to go" were offensive both on a personal level and a political one. The banding about of terms such as "apartheid" and the use of children's' deaths for political leverage do little to help a cause and much to hurt it. The smaller number of speakers also meant that these slogans and the equally radical flyers and pamphlets handed out were the main takeaways from the event.
When a number of groups agree on one issue but may come from different perspectives, it is easy for the lowest denominator of debate to prevail. However, when this results, all we have is a continual reliance on extremist messages and no place for moderate viewpoints. This does a disservice to all involved in a particular discussion. The rallies I attended this past month in New York City demonstrated this admirably. Because the extremist sides overwhelmed the policy-oriented middle, all I really got out of my attendance was a sense of dissatisfaction with this type of event and many of the involved groups. And of course, thanks to the weather, a decent tan.
