Panel shows differing views on Israel-Lebanon conflict

IU professor of Jewish studies and English Alvin Rosenfeld knows what Israel looks like during times of peace. Over the summer, Rosenfeld got to witness what he described as looking like a distant hope for the country.\n"I was in Israel three weeks this summer just before the war broke out," he said. "At the time, everything in Israel looked calm and prosperous and peaceful.\n"What looked to me ... a normal scene quickly became abnormal," he said. "The Middle East is a turmoil region ... no one knows when violence will break out."\nRosenfeld was one of many in Woodburn Hall Tuesday evening where a diverse group of people -- including students, faculty and Bloomington residents -- listened to a panel discussion regarding the present day conflict involving Lebanon and Israel, the peacekeeping efforts in the region and possible solutions to the dispute. Associate Dean of Faculties Michael Hamburger said the purpose of the discussion was to try to unravel the history to explore possible solutions that could lead to peace in the region. \nThe four panelists -- political science professor Iliya Harik, assistant professor of political science and Middle Eastern studies Abdulkader Sinno, religious studies associate professor Shaul Magid and history professor and Director of the Center for Eighteenth-Century Studies Dror Wahrman came together to offer historical insight and scholarly input on what they believe is happening in the two countries.\nHamburger asked audience members to be respectful of the different viewpoints presented and to realize strong emotions exist on all sides.\nEach panelist was given a 10-minute time frame to make his point. Sinno began by explaining he felt the war resulted from the miscalculations of both Hezbollah and Israeli leaders and their narrow domestic goals. He said Hezbollah hoped for an easy victory to raise its profile in Lebanese politics, while the Israeli government thought it could quickly defeat Hezbollah or force the Lebanese government to do it by devastating the country. Both were wrong, and the result was a brutal war that achieved little for either party and caused the destruction of the Lebanese economy and infrastructure, Sinno said.\nWahrman discussed the importance of Israel finally agreeing to an international force to provide its security.\n"This decision, as contingent and unthought-out as most of the current Israeli's government actions -- now opens the door for a new kind of international involvement also in Palestine, which may be key to a future resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Wahrman said.\nMagid's approach to the discussion reflected his feelings that all parties in the region seem to want, need or occupy the position of the victim.\n"Each side is right, and each side is very, very wrong," he said. "All parties here have been instigators of violence, and all have been victims of violence."\nFreshman Nathan Bower-Bir said he came to the discussion because he was genuinely interested in the topic and because he is considering a political science major and wanted to see what it was about. He said he also recognized how important the topic is for both Isreal and Lebanon. \nSenior Kimberly Ventresca said she came because she knew the professors and wanted to see the dual perspectives.\nWhen it comes to the present-day situation, Ventresca said the conflict only radicalizes both Israel and Lebanon.\n"The lack of mediation and positive progress is making the cultural and political views on either side digress to the point where they have to choose security or insecurity," she said. "The escalation in the last conflict, especially the Hezbollah, sent weapons deeper into Israel then ever before."\nHaving attended the discussion to listen to the four panelists give a 10-minute presentation, Rosenfeld said he felt the speakers showed different interpretations on the matter.\n"People understand the situation differently," he said. "Understanding the war differently is a great deal, and their speculation about possible solutions struck me as being at odds."\nRosenfeld said the most one can hope for in the Middle East at the moment is bringing a measure of calm to the overheated region.\n"I don't think peace is about to break out tomorrow or next year," he said. "Everybody would like peace, but no one knows how to achieve the peace"