A Greek philosopher once said,
“In argument, truth is born.” Even though sometimes feelings and emotions
come into play that confuse the issue at hand, usually an argument results in a
new insight on the subject. Even if a person holds strong views that are
unshaken by anything his adversary may say, he may nevertheless gain from the
debate. It forces him to organize and analyze his views, leaving him with a
clearer understanding of the subject than before. Further, his opponent’s
arguments help him better appreciate his views and their differences. Finally,
the argument forces both to look inwards, at their character and value system.
For these reasons, I enjoy debating
issues that are important to me and about which I hold strong views. One such
issue receiving great national attention is the Middle East peace process. While
the peace process has always been important to the American community as a
whole, and more specifically to the Jewish American community, the assassination
of Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has focused the spotlight upon it, as
well as intensified the debate around it. Since I attend a private Jewish
school, I often discuss this topic with my peers, often finding myself in the
minority. Most of them support the peace process, while I adhere to the views of
the Likud (opposition) party, which opposes the peace process.
Complicating the issue are several
emotional stigmas that are often attached to it, transforming the discussion
from an objective one to one driven by passion. The foremost of these stigmas is
the accusation, which is often hurled at the opponents of the peace process, of
promoting war and violence. Often made by people who know little about the
issue, this view fails to realize that opposition to the peace process does not
imply opposition of peace. Rather, it implies disapproval of certain tactics and
specifics of the peace process as it was carried out by Rabin.
Another commonly advanced
accusation against American Jews who disagree with the peace process centers
around the question of whether they have the right to influence Israeli policy.
“You don’t have to send your children to the Army,” it is said, “your
children don’t die in wars. What right have you to oppose peace?!” The
fallacy of this argument is that it doesn’t differentiate between belief and
action. While it is true, for precisely the reasons above, that American Jews
have no right to try to influence Israeli policy, that does not preclude them
from having ideas of what that policy should be.
Finally, the assassination of
Yitzhak Rabin has introduced yet another dimension into this debate. In its
aftermath, opposing the peace process sometimes is identified with condoning the
assassination itself. Such an identification of the man and his beliefs involves
grave dangers, such as rashly implementing his ideas in a flurry of compassion
and commiseration.
What all of these stigmas have in
common is that they forsake logical and objective debate, opting rather for
emotions, generalizations and accusations. And the dangers of that happening are
the main lesson I learned from my debates. While those debates have shed new
light on the issue and have forced me to reconsider what I think is moral and
just, most importantly they have demonstrated the necessity of objectiveness and
removal of emotions from the discussion, especially when, as in the case of the
peace process, thousands of lives are at stake. When passions and hatred take
over, we must stop and think of what it all is really about.
COMMENTS:
The social concerns or ethics essay
is notoriously difficult to write. This essayist tackles it well with solid
arguments, clear thinking, and good structure. The main suggestion for
improvement came from one officer who felt that the statements made in the first
paragraph were too broad and lofty for a college essay.
Very clear headed.
This student put time and
energy into this essay and it shows in the writing style, the flow of
discourse and the conclusions that the writer comes to in the end. It is a
well thought out essay with depth and focus.
This essay is well written, and
brings out an interesting point of view, one of which I had not been aware
until now. This author grasps the subtleties of a difficult political
position. I think he would be an interesting person to know, and would
certainly make people think, both in class and in discussions outside of
academics.
The argument in the essay is
logical and substantiated with solid examples, making it an effective
representation of the student’s thought and writing style while revealing
the student’s personal opinions on the Middle East peace process.
CampusNut Notes:
This essay was borrowed from EssayEdge.com.
Well, we call it borrowing. They might call it stealing. You say
potato, I say potato. You say tomato, I say tomato. EssayEdge.com
employs a bunch of Harvard students to help you make your lackluster essay into
one that will actually improve your chances. Nope, they aren't free.
But college ain't free, either. If you need the extra help, use
EssayEdge.com. If you want no help whatsoever, use CampusNut.com.
