The events surrounding the flag exhib­ition on the Arts Quad last week brings to light the ongoing debate over provocation and proportionate response. The 1,300 black flags lining the Arts Quad commemorated the Palestinians and Israelis who died in the December violence in Gaza. The administrators and student groups that sponsored the display sought to spread awareness of the humanitarian crisis and generate discussion amongst Cornell students. Though it was not meant to be an anti-Israeli protest, the vandalization that ensued questions the objective nature of the exhibition. Moreover, it was not the protest itself, but the way in which it was implemented that seems to have provoked students to resort to vandalism.

Ironically though, this fundamental question over provocation takes root in the Gaza conflict itself. Prior to the Israeli military invasion of Gaza, Hamas launched hundreds of rockets and mortar bombs into Southern Israel. To this extent, Israel was provoked. However, the scale and severity of its military response was excessive to say the least. While the rockets endangered many Israelis, only a small number of lives were lost. Though civilian deaths — despite the number — are inarguably reprehensible, the hundreds of Palestinian civilian deaths that resulted, many of which were children, signify a disproportionate response on Israel’s behalf. The same can be said for the guilty individuals who sabotaged the flag display.

Though Cornell Hillel and Cornell Israel Public Affairs Committee renounced the vandalization and rearrangement of the flags into a Star of David, insisting they did not take part in or support these acts, both groups were strongly offended by the nature of the original exhibit. Over the past year and a half, the Jewish/Muslim Dialogue Group composed of the executive boards of Hillel, CIPAC, Muslim Educational and Cultural Association (MECA) and the Islamic Alliance for Justice have attended biweekly meetings and numerous interfaith dinners to promote healthy discussion between the Muslim and Jewish communities on campus. Adam Fisher ’12, the Cornell Hillel Israel Awareness Chair, felt strongly when he told me that, “Because we have been working so closely with IAJ members, the fact that the exhibit blind-sided us damaged some of the trust we’ve worked hard to build. It’s going to take time to mend that relationship.”

Despite Hillel and CIPAC’s denunciation of the vandalism, many Jews have felt that the actions of a few individuals have cast a negative light on the entire Jewish community. A strong response is needed from members of the Jewish community in order to rectify its name on campus. Moreover, the extreme response to the exhibit illustrates the overwhelming need on campus for a forum for healthy discussion. While, yes, the flag display sparked debate as intended, the debate should have preempted the display, preventing such an emotional response from arising. For the majority of students who are not members of the Jewish/Muslim Dialogue Group, opportunities to engage intellectually with the war in Gaza have been slim to none. In President Skorton’s column on Feb. 2, he denounced politicizing his role as the University’s president, but called for the University to take action as facilitators of the Israeli-Palestinian debate. Skorton concludes his column by urging students to take initiative in discussion, and asks, “Will you join me?” The flags on the Arts Quad failed to serve as an adequate response. Rather, it added fuel to the fire and aggravated an already emotionally sticky situation.

Though the intent of the display was to expose the human element of the violence in Gaza, the degree of objectivity is questionable. It was not the black flags, but the signs detailing the death tolls that really struck a nerve with certain passersby. Many considered the exhibit to be one-sided, as the information on the signs failed to place the recent violence in Gaza in the context of the decades old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moreover, the numbers alone can be misleading, causing uninformed students to jump to conclusions. However, Wasif Syed, a graduate student associated with MECA, said to me, “At the end of the day, the facts are the facts. And though they may be a sour pill to swallow, the facts speak for themselves.”

I, however, feel that the main problem with the exhibition was the way in which it came about. If the exhibit was truly supposed to pay tribute to the humanitarian crisis, and not take sides in the greater Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the IAJ and other planners of the exhibit should have extended an invitation to CIPAC and Hillel to join in the efforts. At the very least, some sort of warning prior to installing the exhibit would have been a common courtesy. Perhaps a collaborative protest would have forestalled the retaliatory vandalism. Furthermore, the University’s involvement in the display was out of line. By sponsoring the exhibit, the University implicitly took sides in an extremely emotional debate, when it should be serving as a mediator, as Skorton suggested himself.

The University sponsored “Gaza in Crisis: Discussion Panel” will be held tomorrow as a platform for constructive engagement. The event is sponsored by a number of administrative offices and student groups, yet despite the organizers’ best efforts to create a balanced panel, both Hillel and CIPAC have declined to participate in the event. Jacob Shapiro ’10, president of Cornell Hillel, told me, “Hillel is committed to creating space for constructive, productive dialogue. Unfortunately the careful planning which I think is necessary for creating such a safe space did not work with their timeline.” Shapiro is not alone in his hesitation. Khullat Munir, outgoing president of the IAJ, was recently quoted on CornellWatch as saying, “The panel is planned to pit Muslims versus Jews. I don’t think the debate should be as simple as that.”

Though the Wednesday event may not be perfect, it is far better than the alternative — silence. Wasn’t it the lack of opportunities for discussion that contributed to the vandalism in the first place? While I understand that emotions are running high and extensive planning is needed to ensure an effective forum for debate, the longer we wait to address the Gaza conflict and the flag exhibition, the more intense the situation will become. There will never be a time when all parties involved are emotionally ready to address the issues. Thus, it is fundamental that we do not merely call for engagement and discussion, but take the initiative and act on it. Let’s start tomorrow by attending the “Gaza in Crisis: Discussion Panel.”