Our fixation with "two sides"

By: Sarah Sakha

I spent high school debating “both sides” of policy issues in Public Forum debate. I spent college listening to classmates - primarily privileged white men - play “Devil’s advocate” in discussion sections and argue “both sides” of debates around immigration and military policy. And I have spent more time than I expected receiving - and responding to - objections and expectations that we discuss “both sides” of policies and practices that systematically abuse, exploit, and disenfranchise people.

From conversations on police brutality in the U.S. to institutions responding to systemic racism to the Israeli military occupation of Palestine, we are repeatedly told to consider “both sides,” as Professor Fuchs does in her most recent op-ed. But injustice and impunity neither have nor should have two sides; these issues are not as “complicated” as asserted. When one side has historically been legitimized in the mainstream - and the other has been historically silenced - why are so many in the policy sphere adamantly tied to giving space and voice to “both sides”?

This op-ed is particularly disturbing because it fails to make any mention of the 72-plus-year Israeli occupation of Palestinians and Palestine. The only thing this op-ed succeeds in doing is merely continuing to prop up one dominant and dangerous narrative - one that conflates legitimate critiques of the Israeli government and military with “the demonization of the Jewish state” and hence anti-Semitism; one that falsely centers on “the disparagement of Israel” instead of on the occupation of Palestine; and one that denounces those critiques as “libel” because they stand contrary to what has been deemed acceptable and true.

This op-ed succeeds in doing precisely what pinkwashing aims to do: burrow the Israeli government’s human rights abuses behind an image of a country that unequivocally “supports policies that are politically and socially progressive.” Contrary to what Professor Fuchs alleges - without substantiation - pinkwashing is a well-documented practice, manifest not “merely [in] the misconduct of a few Israeli individuals,” but by systems and powerful entities at large.

To be clear, I am not advocating for one-sided, insular discourse; we should discuss our differing viewpoints. However, these discussions do not have to operate on the premise that there are two equally legitimate sides that we should consider and accept. We - our educational institutions - should be striving to create spaces where the stories and histories of the oppressed can be heard just as loudly as - if not louder than - those of the oppressor. And that is precisely what this conference and this particular event aimed to do. Professor Fuchs is correct to advocate for a “policy school that values the open exchange of points of view,” but her op-ed very clearly demonstrates discomfort with just that. If we were truly aiming to achieve an equal, open exchange, Professor Fuchs would not take issue with SIPA giving a platform to the voices and perspectives brought together by the Palestine Working Group’s panel on intersectionality.