I attended the October 29 lecture presented by Norman Finkelstein, which was advertised as having prospects for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.

As a Jew, I was very excited to see something like this brought over to our campus.

I thought it wonderful that Loyola would open dialogue to this heated topic in what I imagined would be a civil debate.

I expected to hear possible resolutions from both viewpoints.

Rather, I was lectured on the oppression of the Palestinians and heard hardly anything of the Israelis.

One can imagine how dismayed I was to discover that this was the content of his lecture.

This disappointment was only equal to the manner in which much of question and answer session that followed was carried out.

Audience members stood up and voiced brash opinions to Finkelstein as well as snipping at fellow attendees.

Truly, this was neither courteous nor respectful behavior.

But who could expect something different when it is accepted to put emotions before logic?

Then Francis Boyle came to our campus. He delivered a message from the pro-Palestinian standpoint, just as his predecessor had.

From reading the article in the previous edition of The Maroon, I can only imagine that the same behavior surfaced.

I can only imagine what should have been civil discourse quickly morphed into gross spectacle.

There are two problems I see here.

One being quite obvious: where is the pro-Israeli debate or lecture? Or even a lecture or debate that fairly presents both sides? The only lecture of this nature that I’ve heard of took place on Tulane’s campus.

If we are to consider ourselves fair, why are we not providing discussion from both sides of the fence? I presume this would be a logical step.

Whatever one’s feelings on the Israel-Palestine situation are, I find it baffling that a debate has not been held which presents both sides.

And it isn’t as if we haven’t held discussion that presented both sides ever.

Fair and balanced debate has been the norm. We have held equally presented lectures on sweatshop issues, abortion, the war with Iraq and so forth.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is quite the anomaly, two times over

at least.

Why is this? Is it because the Israel-Palestine situation is too controversial?

Is it the topic or just Boyle? If the topic is “too controversial,” all the more reason for us to discuss it.

This leads me to the second problem: the belligerent behavior that has ensued following each lecture.

To come up with any sort of answer, any sort of resolution, civil discourse is imperative, no matter how heated the argument might be or how passionate one might feel.

Respectful behavior was present for the abortion debate, an equally intense topic.

If we are able to speak this decently concerning the action that takes place inside a woman’s uterus, surely we can do the same thing concerning the lives of our fellow humans across the ocean.

I will gladly work with any person or group that wishes to bring a fair and balanced debate to our campus.

If we pride ourselves on being intelligent people, capable of logically solving problems, we must start acting like it and present a balanced argument for everyone to draw their own conclusions, rather than offering one side of the coin.