Justin Doran: Hey Othman.

Othman O’Malley: Oh Justin, what’s going on?

JD: I read your column last week on Israel. Yeah … then I read the responses on DailyIllini.com. I was pretty taken aback by all the animosity. You weren’t saying anything particularly controversial, as far as I could tell.

OO: Well, it’s tough to talk about an issue like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without there being a great deal of emotion.

JD: Yeah, definitely. It’s one of the more divisive topics we run into on campus. I’m not completely clear as to why they get so hot about it though.

OO: I would say that it’s a case of two competing narratives. Israelis and Palestinians both have strong, heartbreaking stories to tell. So it makes sense that they would adhere to them strongly.

JD: What do you mean by narratives?

OO: Take the case of the Palestinians. I would say that it generally follows these parameters: Arabs were living in the region. The Jews emigrated to the region and took over the land by kicking out the indigenous Arab inhabitants. Still today, the rightful inhabitants of the region continue to be denied their land and political rights.

JD: OK, but the Israelis are at the tail end of more than two millennia of oppression. I mean, after being the victims of the worst assault on human life in history, they were shut out by other nations. The Zionist movement was as much an effort in survival as it was in ultimate justice.

OO: So you see what I mean. Both narratives appeal to a common sense of justice. The Palestinian narrative appeals to political disenfranchisement and the Israeli narrative appeals to the long history of anti-Semitism. These narratives, if both are held to be true by either side, do not leave much space for the middle ground. These discourses make it hard for members of each community to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a civil way.

JD: It seems that this is as much about the communities as it is about their narratives. Oh, all right, I see what you mean. The narrative is about them, about their community. So in a sense, they’re not discussing narratives, they’re living them. Well then why did you get involved with that narrative by writing a column on Israel? Do you feel like you’re part of the Palestinian community?

OO: In the most literal sense I’m not. I’m not a Palestinian who has had to face the material consequences of being a Palestinian. But the Palestinian cause is not a matter that is exclusively for the Palestinian people. It has been taken up as a cause within the Arab community, the Muslim community, the Global South and so on. It is difficult for one to grow up in the environment I was brought up in and not be a supporter of the Palestinian cause.

JD: See, this narrative was just not on my radar growing up. The Irish story is about oppression as well, but we’re not too mad about it anymore. Well, you’re Irish, you know what I mean. We’re doing fine. I feel a stronger affinity to my identity as a college student; being part of our University. Again, you know what I mean.

OO: Absolutely. Perhaps that’s why you were so surprised by the responses to my column. The narratives were just narratives to you, not part of your culture. The real question is: Why can’t we seem to hold onto our shared community when talking about divisive issues? Why are we so quick to shove our common links aside and go after each other as if we are enemies? College students who are pro-life or pro-choice have much more in common with each other than they do with Justice Scalia or the board of Planned Parenthood. We draw lines between ourselves and then turn the discourse into a boxing match and hope our side comes out with the most points.

JD: That seems like just an outgrowth of any college community. We are all living the same college experience, but we’re also living in the communities we’ve always been a part of. There is a drastic difference between discourse within a community and with outsiders. We immediately recognize the need to understand and respect other members because we’re committed to the community. But when we’re discussing something with an outsider, we have no commitments to them. Eradication suddenly becomes an acceptable outcome. Eradication of their viewpoints, eradication of their concerns, eradication of the other community.

OO: Yes. For instance, I have written a couple of pieces on the hijab. A lot of the concerns I raise regarding it are ones that I have heard many times from within the Muslim community. The dynamics of the discourse are very different. They are not worried that the argument stems from some underlying anti-Muslim sentiments. When a non-Muslim argues that the hijab is, say, a manifestation of the patriarchy, the walls come up and motives are questioned.

JD: Hah. I know exactly what you mean. When I wrote about the hijab (OO: Oh that’s right, I remember that column.) I mostly got “correction” responses. My argument wasn’t being engaged with, it was being “corrected.” And, I think, if I had written something less modest the corrections would have had a more combative tone. It was confusing for me because I’m not used to being disagreed with at that level. A level where I’m understood as being intellectually incapable of seeing the rightness of their position.

OO: Well, what would you have preferred? Do you think that those people had an obligation to discuss the subject with you on equal footing?

JD: Maybe not. I’m really not part of their community. But, actually, yes. We’re all part of the Illinois community, we should be able to treat each other as equals.

OO: All right, so what exactly are the obligations of the various communities to each other? How does that relate to the wider campus community?

JD: It’s difficult. Right? Because we’re part of them simultaneously. It depends on what we’re discussing – the nature of what we’re trying to resolve. If it’s a campus issue we should obviously maintain respect and civility toward our opposition. Well, actually, that should be a rule in all of these discussions. We’re all part of the campus community, lets first identify as students and then these other things.

OO: It is also important to note that people identify with different communities in different degrees. So for us to just say, “We’re all part of the campus community, lets first identify as students and then these other things” sounds naive. It is hard for me to see fundamentalists of any stripe let their guard down when having a critical discussion concerning their own beliefs. It may be because there is a lack of trust in the motives of the opponent in the debate. Do you think that a lack of trust is one of the main obstacles to civil discourse on divisive issues?

JD: It’s interesting that you raise that question. I’m thinking about it in relation to that flurry of letters we got about the Intifada event and the Hillel lecture. If you read the responses on our Web site, they were horrendous. But when they sent us letters to be published, they took a completely different tone. They were speaking to the public, to the campus community as a whole. So, clearly they saw their opposition as the enemy and questioned their motives. And yet, when they pled their case to The Daily Illini, they framed it as a civil debate. So why can’t these two communities, when interacting with one another over this issue, just follow the rules of civil discussion? Obviously, they are already aware of the rules.

OO: Yes. We will never be able to agree on everything and indeed, this is not the goal. What should be advocated is an environment where free discourse is allowed to happen outside the confines of our various tribes. If we identify as students first, it may be possible to talk about divisive issues without the demagoguery.

JD: And, we can focus on common narratives instead of clinging to the ones specific to our community. No matter what separates us, we always have a greater community, a greater narrative we can look to.

OO: Oh, by the way, do you have any ideas for our point/counterpoint this week?

Othman and Justin are seniors and met for the first time only last week. Not really, but that would’ve been cool.