same day as the SAFE demonstration. Goldstein was quoted as saying that, “We do not want to react against the feelings of other student organizations, but rather unite the pro‐Israel community,” (Aber). This example serves to highlight the lack of cohesiveness between the different Israel groups, even when collaborating on the same project. It paints the picture of a very divided pro‐Israel community on campus. At the same time, a more belligerent and reactionary side of the pro‐Israel community is shown, adding more weight to the idea that radicals on both sides control the debate on campus.
In essence then, this series of Daily articles presents the relationship on
campus between these two parties as being a relatively antagonistic one: terribly impervious to the effects of diversity and dominated by divisiveness, even among those who occupy the same half of the conflict’s spectrum. In light of this view, it would be easy to conclude that diversity is having a minimal effect on these two parties’ inter‐group relations. However, as is often the case with newspapers, normally unimpressive news can be manipulated by reporters to seem as sensational, or as volatile, as possible. The truth behind the supposedly “tense” interactions displayed in these articles between the pro‐Palestinian and pro‐Israeli groups is that they are actually much less charged than they are made to appear. The main source of conflict presented in the articles had to do with the pro‐ Palestinian protestors who accosted passers‐bye with offensive comments and racial slurs. However, while the Daily presents these ne’er –do‐wells as student members of SAFE, it turns out that they were actually members from the
17
First-Year Writing 2010