Letter to the Quest Editors
Dear Quest Editors,
I have been following the events of the last few weeks in the Levant with great sadness. The tragedy, the horrific loss of life, is difficult to overstate. It is my moral belief that preserving human life is of utmost importance. The discussion of the geopolitical situation, upon which I am about to embark, can never be allowed to eclipse the devastating realities for people on the ground.
As most people are probably aware, many on campus have publicly expressed their grief and frustration regarding the situation. As a person who has family members who have lived in this region and who knows people who have fought in this conflict, I have a personal connection to these issues. Up to this point, I have not publicly expressed my perspectives, but I am writing now to my fellow Reedies because, while I support many of the views that have been expressed, I have concerns about the way that some people have chosen to express these views. I see some of the rhetoric being expressed as dangerous, and in some cases hateful. In most cases, I believe this comes not from hatred but from a lack of contextualizing information. That said, some of these expressions can be dangerous all the same.
I understand that finding the language to use to discuss this conflict is difficult (I am struggling as I write this letter), but it is important to try to avoid harmful language and symbols in order to communicate clearly (both to avoid harm and hopefully to persuade others). One symbol I find particularly concerning is the map of Israel-Palestine used on many posters. This map, which I would describe as a map of “non-green-line-Israel,” necessarily invokes the suggestion of a one-state solution. Other phrases, such as “From the River to the Sea,” referencing the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (the East and West borders of Israel-Palestine), seem to invoke a similar view of the geopolitical aspect of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Advocating for a one-state solution, which some may be unintentionally doing, could be inflammatory because many believe that it would result in more violence in the region. This is a conclusion that was formally reached as far back as the 1930s, in the Peel report. Additionally, a one-state solution does not have popular support among Palestinians (36%) per the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. According to the Brookings Institution, Middle East Experts are divided on the current geopolitical situation, but only 1% say they believe that a one-state solution would result in equal rights for all.
Another example of Reedies trying to show compassion and sadness for the people who have died in this conflict is the shrine in the GCC hallway. I am concerned, however, by the language on one poster which displays the names of many victims of Israeli attacks, yet labels them as “martyrs”. A martyr is defined as a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion or a person who sacrifices for the sake of other principles. Innocent children did not voluntarily sacrifice themselves for a cause, they were killed and murdered, but using “martyr” seems to imply combatant status on these children. Not using the word “martyr,” but instead using another term would be less inflammatory and more accurate.
Racism, anti-semitism, and Islamophobia should have no place at Reed. I would ask my fellow Reedies to research the connotations around words and symbols they use to help avoid harm. If someone does do harm intentionally, I call on the administration to clarify where reporting this should be done — is a Bias Incident Report the correct method for a serious incident?
As I stated, I understand that finding the language to use to discuss this conflict is difficult. My hope is that all of us have the goal of strongly advocating for our views while promoting respectful and productive conversations.
S.G. ‘26