Well, I’m surprised. In a One View, a former Oak Park educator and high school board member characterizes a proposed ceasefire resolution for Palestine as “divisive and wrongheaded.” [No to a resolution, yes to civil discourse, Viewpoints, May 8]
One would expect an educator to know, and teach, that America’s politics, culture and economy are divisive by design. A clash of ideas, beliefs and interests is built into our Constitution (e.g., tripartite power sharing, frequent elections and freedom of expression), protected in commercial law (anti-trust provisions and other safeguards for competition) and celebrated in public discourse (the “disruptive technologies” that challenge our protocols). I was taught that persuasion and argument ultimately strengthen us, and whether or not that proposition is correct, our culture has always marinated in persuasion and argument.
Besides, our village is already divided on Palestine, as demonstrated by the very advocacy of the supporters of the ceasefire resolution and its opponents before the village board, and as demonstrated by public protests, signage and incessant letters to the Journal. The ceasefire resolution didn’t cause disagreement among Israel’s critics and supporters; it emerged from it. Experienced Oak Park educators would presumably acknowledge this — unless their actual intention is to avert the symbolic impact of yet another community deploring Israeli vengeance.
Which brings us to “wrongheaded.” The educator’s principal objection is that the Oak Park board has “no expertise in foreign policy” and shouldn’t pass resolutions “on issues that have nothing to do with its governance responsibilities.”
First, a couple of formalisms. A “resolution” is not an enforceable municipal law. It’s an expression of the community’s stance. Also, the federal government, to which the educator says Oak Park must defer, has no “governance responsibilities” over a ceasefire involving another sovereign nation. The U.S. can stop arming and supporting Israel, but it cannot make Israel stop shooting.
But formalisms aside, the educator commits another fundamental error about our culture and politics. Our citizens aren’t required to have the foreign policy acumen of, say, a Lauren Boebert, Jim Jordan or MTG in order to have and convey policy opinions to and through their elected representatives. Our public policies are inherently expected to express the will of the people themselves (informed by, but also skeptical toward, policy specialists).
Such is the purpose of the ceasefire resolution. The resolution’s opponents know this, and that’s what they hope to stifle.
Finally, the ceasefire resolution concerns a genocide — or, to avoid definitional quibbling, a slaughter, a massacre, a mass killing, primarily of non-combatants, including thousands of kids. Each reader can decide whether they have sufficient “expertise” to address this.
I suspect even readers without a background in “military strategy” would prefer an alternative approach.
David Gilbert is a resident of Oak Park.