A Biased Forum

To the Editors of The Crimson:

A rather highly publicized event entitled "Common Ground" will be taking place this weekend. It is billed as offering "Perspectives on the Middle East." Yet it in fact offers an extremely limited view of the Middle East. "Common Ground" will be presenting, at best, a narrow slice.

I attended the first organizational meeting for the event and originally intended to be a member of the organizing committee, I soon, however, dropped this idea, for a number of reasons. First of all, three of the seven people present at the first meeting belonged to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and said they expected the event to be, in part, a platform for the views of their association (DSA supports a two-state solution). Second of all, when I suggested we might want to enlist the help of some people from Hillel, the Jewish center, or from HERZI, the Zionist alliance the idea was instantly rejected.

Furthermore, as the meeting dragged on, it became more and more apparent that the people present were not at all interested in a broad-based set of panelists or in presenting a real or full spectrum of opinions. Now, however much the composition of the organizing committee might have changed since then (and I understand it has changed some), the final product seems to be perfectly compatible with the framework set up then (or is perhaps even more radical) All of the speakers either support a two-state solution or do not support the existence of Israel at all. There is absolutely no one presenting what might be called a "moderate" point of view. The views of the speakers are so homogenous as to be almost indistinguishable from one another.

Who are the people who will be addressing the audience, Judith Tucker is one, Ms. Tucker, who is a professor at Simmons College, recently caused something of a stir at her school when she gave a presentation on Lebanon. Invited to give a brief talk on the Lebanese situation, she instead gave a half hour showing of war slides which she followed up with an address in which she described the PLO as "a humanitarian organization" working to better the lives of the Lebanese people.

Irene Genzier, another speaker, is one of the region's most outspoken critics of the state of Israel, and Leila Mean who left Palestine in 1947, have claimed that Israel is wholly and solely responsible for all the refugee problems of the Middle East. Mark Heller, who happens to come from Tel Aviv, is best known for espousing the somewhat exceptional view that the West Bank is irrelevant to Israel's security And Stanley Hoffman, who is a professor of French Civilization, has also been called in, perhaps to lend some prestige to the performance. The only common qualifying feature seems to be that all the speakers fall well in line with the views of the organizers.

One may argue that any political event is necessarily biased. This is in most cases true. But what I find particularly galling about this event is the following: that the speakers lined up do not merely represent a limited range, but represent virtually no range at all: that the slant of the program is in no way-made clear in she advertising: that many, though not all, of the speakers are not identified on the posters--no background is given. Finally, and most importantly, I object to the fact that the organizers have taken the opportunity to provide a great service--have seized the chance to create an informative and educational program--and have, rather than do a respectable job, produced what I feel is best described as a sham.

For those with some background and understanding of the Middle East, I hope you attend armed with a critical eat and a spate of good questions. For those planning to go in order to find controversy, I expect you may be disappointed, for all the speakers support the same solution. For those planning to go in order to further or expand or deepen you understanding of the Middle East, don't waste your time. Laura B. Wharton '83