Two years ago campus all but went up in flames over allegations of intimidation and abuse in the Middle East and Asian languages and cultures department. While it is no surprise that sparks still fly among those who have close ties to the region-last week's intifada rally certainly indicated as much-the extent to which the MEALAC debacle still seems to affect the student body is disturbing. Many students are hesitant to express their views on the shaky situation in the Middle East, especially regarding Israel, for fear that they will appear uninformed, misinformed, or prejudiced. The best remedy for the polarized Columbia community would be to create as many open, respectful opportunities for discussion as possible.

There is no simple resolution to the situation in the Middle East, and dialogue-especially meaningful targeted dialogue-will almost always lead to some individuals or groups feeling offended. The intifada rally is a perfect example of a focused, constructive forum that broke down into harsh words and physical confrontation. But fear of ugly confrontation does not mean that students ought to shy away from debate altogether. Increased dialogue between groups on campus could help resolve many common misconceptions.

Campus groups could start by publicly clearing up definitions of their terminology. The term, "pro-Israel," for example, is used by Students for Justice in the Middle East-the organizer of last week's intifada commemoration-to indicate anyone who supports the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. On the other hand, LionPAC, which defines itself as a "pro-Israel, pro-peace public affairs group," uses the term to imply support for the existence of the state of Israel, leaving the occupation question and other Israeli policies out of its definition. Because of these differing interpretations, the two groups believe themselves to be fundamentally opposed to one another, despite the fact that they both call for peace. To a student interested in Middle Eastern politics but not necessarily well versed in the intricacies of the terminology, it is easier to stay out of the debate entirely rather than misuse a term and accidentally cause offense.

Many do not feel comfortable discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because of the prominent presence of students with religious and geographic interests in the region. But the ramifications of the conflict extend far beyond the area or those connected to it. The same can be said about the war in Iraq, and students all over campus feel comfortable engaging in meaningful discussion about it, regardless of background. It is a shame that students do not feel the same way about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The lesson to take away from the MEALAC controversy should not be to remain silent in fear of intimidation and confrontation, nor should it be to sugarcoat an important, complex situation. Instead, campus groups would do well to engage in difficult, constructive debates-in a way that makes students who may not be experts feel free to add a voice that is currently missing.