Reason One: It’s morally wrong to profit from wrecking the climate.

The logic is simple: if it is wrong to wreck the planet, then it is wrong to profit from that wreckage.

The problem with the business model of these companies is just as simple. Even a 2-degree increase in global temperature will cause mass displacement, widespread drought, countless extinctions, and devastating sea level rise. Yet fossil fuel companies collectively own five times more fossil fuels than can be burned while keeping global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. This means that 80% of the fossil fuel reserves that are already factored into their share prices must remain in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming.

It is both morally wrong and intellectually inconsistent for Harvard to profit from this destruction while educating students about global warming and conducting some of the world’s most important climate research.

Reason Two: We don’t have to invest in these companies.

Fossil fuel companies may be profitable, but we do not need to invest in them to run a highly successful endowment.

In a meeting with students on April 9, Harvard Corporation Fellow Robert Reischauer confirmed that divestment from direct holdings in the fossil fuel industry would have a “minimal impact” on our endowment’s returns. Other investment firms have also concluded that divestment would produce a “negligible” and “statistically irrelevant” impact on risk or profit.

Reason Three: Harvard has previously divested from morally reprehensible industries.

Lest you think this is a radical move, Harvard has a history of divesting from morally reprehensible business practices. The University divested entirely from tobacco in 1990 and partially from apartheid in 1986. Harvard was also the first University in the nation to divest from PetroChina, a firm linked to genocide in Darfur, in 2005.

Reason Four: Divestment is an important political tool.           

Global warming implicates huge problems and broken institutions. Divestment allows those of us who care about the future of our planet to bring the fight home, to conduct the debate on reasoned and scientific grounds, and to use working institutions to build momentum that will force broken institutions—like Congress and these companies—to act.

Because after Harvard divests, countless other universities will follow in its steps to divest their own endowments. Indeed, there is a quickly growing divestment movement, with smaller colleges and larger cities having already divested.

In this sense, divestment is about more than hurting the bottom line of fossil fuel companies. After all, these companies will play an important role in researching and producing alternative sources of energy.

However, fossil fuel companies will not change their business model until congress makes them account for the true social and environmental costs of fossil fuel production. Only then will the fossil fuel industry even begin to meaningfully transition toward new sources of energy.

Divestment is both a shot across the bow to these companies and a shot in the arm to Congress.

Reason Five: Your family deserves a future without catastrophic global warming.

Why should you vote to divest from fossil fuels? Because it’s wrong to profit from wrecking the climate. Because these companies need a wake up call. Because our normal political process is broken.

More than anything, you should vote to divest from fossil fuels because you, as a Harvard Law student, have the privilege and opportunity to use the world’s most influential legal institution to address the biggest humanitarian crisis we have ever faced.

Vote for divestment so, when your grandkids ask what you did as the world discovered how dangerous fossil fuels really are, you can tell them you stood up. You stood up for the planet, for the hundreds of millions at risk of drought and flooding and natural disasters, and you stood up for them—your grandkids. So they never have to know a world without coral reefs or island countries or ice caps.

Many of us came to HLS to provide a better life for our family and our kids. Here’s our chance.

Sean Hamidi is a 2L. Follow him on Twitter @SeanSHamidi.

The views in opinion editorials, columns, and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Record.

Five years later, acknowledging that ”[w]isdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people” were necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties, the People of the Commonwealth dedicated Chapter V of their Constitution to the “University at Cambridge.”

The events of this past week have reminded us once again that our liberty is forever fragile; and that while we are blessed to be able to march through the Yard with books, not bayonets, we remain, as citizens of this great Nation, defenders of its fundamental values.

To this day, Harvard remains rightly proud of its contribution to our Nation’s revolutionary past. As an alumnus and a Bay-Stater, I call on the President and Fellows of Harvard College to at last grant appropriate honor to that history by joining the rest of our sister institutions in Boston and making Patriots Day a University holiday in 2014 and beyond.

Andrew L. Kalloch ’09 is a former Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Record.

He lives and works in New York City and hails from Hamilton, Massachusetts.

We’ve all had that experience, though, of showing up to an event that looked mildly interesting only to find that its organizers were not even kind enough to spring for Felipe’s.  Or perhaps you’re one of those people who gets out of a morning class and immediately spends way too long checking every event on Calendar@Law to see where the Thai food is.  Maybe you blew your loan money on hornbooks and highlighters and you’re reduced to surviving on whatever cold pizza and Diet Coke you can glean at the end of the lunch hour.

If any of these describes you (or even if not), then we have a tool we think you’ll like.

Make free lunch freer.  Add http://www.hlrecord.org/hlslunches/ to your list of bookmarks, or click HLS Lunches above in the menu bar.

Thanks to Dave LeRay for his hard work on this project.

On his way home from OPIA, Fenno flipped through The First-Year’s Guide to the Law School’s “SPIF” entry:

A pretty good deal. The Law School would prefer to cultivate a public image as something other than a factory mass-producing cogs in the machines that support the powerful, and so in that weakness and desire to throw the public off its scent HLS rounds up enough dough to keep first-years in grocery money during the last two months of meaningful professional activity most of them will ever experience. From here, it’s all shuffling money from one corporate monolith to another, so grab that funding and spend a summer making an insignificant contribution to the greater good.

That’s all well and good, but the trick, as Fenno was quickly realizing, was figuring out what sort of job to use that sweet, sweet cash towards. Because, as it turns out, the first year of law school doesn’t exactly point the uninitiated in any particular direction. To wit:

—-
Scene: Civ Pro Professor’s Office; afternoon

Fenno: So, I think I actually like Civil Procedure. What does that mean? What do I do with that?

Professor: Well, maybe you should think about litigation.

Fenno: Alright. But that seems pretty broad; any tips on narrowing it down?

Professor: I’d recommend focusing on litigation that involves claims one party brings against someone else.

Fenno: I’ll show myself out.
—-

Flipping through job postings wasn’t much help; wholly unqualified for anything interesting, wholly uninterested in anything plausibly attainable. “Think networking,” one friend suggested. “I found a gig through my mom’s ex-husband’s accountant’s niece’s job with this nonprofit in DC—it’s that easy!”

Fenno’s “network” consisted primarily of people in their fifth year of “writing my dissertation—no, really, it’s finally coming together.” These avenues did not prove fruitful w/r/t the employment issue.

And so it was with typically ambivalent thoughts in the back of his head that Fenno, a bottle of something brown in tow, cornered Chevy for a bit of serious mentoring.

“I don’t think I’ve ever asked you what you did over your first summer. Ice?”

“Unsanitary. Just pour.”

Fenno poured.

“I was working for this clinic that tried to help dance crews manage their intellectual property. Cutting-edge stuff.”

“Ah, I think I’ve heard of those guys. Fixation With Representation?” Fenno served himself amply and slouched back on the couch.

“Nope, those are the guys working with sand-artists. So fleeting, their beauty. I was with Step Up 2 Suggestive (Or at Least Establish Secondary Meaning). Cumbersome acronym, I admit. But they do good work.”

“I didn’t know you were so IP-focused. Does your firm do any of that stuff?”

“Not a shred. But it gave me a couple stories to tell in interviews. Did you know Jabbawockeez almost called themselves “B@nderSn@tch,” but their t-shirt printer didn’t allow the use of symbols?”

“Good to know.” Fenno paused. “I guess what I’m getting at is this: how am I supposed to figure out what to apply for when I don’t have anything that could even charitably be called an ‘interest’ or a ‘goal?’”

“Hey man, that’s the best place to be. Just means you can apply for anything, and tell each of ‘em that they happen to work precisely on your greatest passion. Can I recommend something near a beach?”

Seems like as good a filter as any.

“Fenno” is a fictional serial written by an anonymous law student. The main character is always named Fenno and is always a law student, but his or her character changes every school year. This is the penultimate installment of the series for the 2012-13 school year, entitled “Fenno: Mostly Harmful.”

There were three speakers. Yanar Mohammed, President of the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), explained how Iraqis still suffer from the war’s consequences. Matt Howard, a former Marine and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), described the hardships that U.S. soldiers endured in Iraq and after returning home. Pamela Spees, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the legal representative of the Right to Heal initiative, detailed efforts to compensate victims and prosecute those responsible for human rights violations.

The audience, many of whom were middle-aged members of local anti-war organizations, responded to the speakers with enthusiastic applause and active questions. A few veterans were in attendance, and some wore t-shirts with anti-war quotations such as “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can.”

The event was a reminder of the human toll of a conflict that has become increasingly abstract for most Americans. In her opening remarks, event moderator Deborah Popowski, a lecturer and clinical instructor at the law school, said that it is “important that a discussion about U.S. policy and its consequences give prominence to people who are living the consequences of that policy.” Ms. Mohammed, who founded OWFI in 2003, echoed that sentiment: “When your neighbor has their son or daughter pass away…you feel sad for months, and yet half a million Iraqi lives don’t make much difference.”

She explained how environmental contamination from the war is creating new victims. In the town of Haweeja, OWFI received reports that chemicals from ammunition fired at a U.S. army base have polluted the water and air. Ms. Mohammed said this was the likely reason that over 800 local children suffer from birth defects and nerve paralysis, which leaves them unable to walk and, in some cases, even to speak. She described reports of environmental contamination from U.S. weapons causing birth defects in other parts of Iraq. For example, Fallujah, where the U.S. military used white phosphorous to kill insurgents, has seen increased rates of stillbirths and birth defects.

Apart from damaging the environment, the war has also given rise to civil disorder and religious extremism, leading to great victimization of women. Ms. Mohammend said that many women and girls were trafficked abroad during the war’s first years and that growing numbers are now being been sold to “entertainment houses” frequented by government officials in Iraq. A large portion of victims are orphans of the war, and 65 percent are 17 years old or younger, she said.

The “honor killing” of women suspected of “immoral” conduct has also increased. OWFI estimates that at least 1,000 Iraqi women die annually in the “honor killings,” which are often committed by family members. In 2010 an employee of the Baghdad morgue told OWFI that it receives 300 to 500 women each year whose bodies have the “signature” marks of an honor killing, “which could be like a hand chopped off.”

Section 409 of the criminal code, written after the U.S. invasion, sets a three-year sentencing cap for a man who “surprises his wife or one of his female dependents…in a state of adultery…and kills her.” According to Ms. Mohammed, the Iraqi government rarely enforces even this punishment. Iraq’s Constitution, finalized in 2005, has expanded the role of Sharia Law, which allows polygamy and arranged marriages for minors, among other things. Ms. Mohammend claimed that the previous legal system involved a “more humane” combination of secular and religious law, while Iraq’s new Constitution “feels like it was written in the Middle Ages.”

Ms. Mohammed argued that U.S. authorities are partly responsible, since they have supported religious zealots in order to lend an Islamic façade to neo-liberal economic reforms. “Policies against the working class, the new labor code that’s being written, the suppression that’s going on against the labor demonstrations…it all goes hand in hand, it’s not just the women.”

Religious extremists outside of government have persecuted gay teenagers, murdering dozens in Baghdad alone. According to Ms. Mohammed, U.S. authorities, in conjunction with the Iraqi government, have chosen to obscure the true nature of the problem by referring to gay killings as “emo killings.” The “emo” culture is generally associated with teen alienation, fashion and punk music. “You ask any Iraqi what’s the meaning of emo, nobody knows.”

Former Marine Matt Howard, who served two tours of duty in Iraq, described pervasive dehumanization of Iraqis within the U.S. military. Many soldiers mockingly called all Iraqis “Hajji,” which is an honorific title for Muslims. “That’s no different from terms that American soldiers used for Vietnamese, words like ‘gook,’” Mr. Howard said. He came to oppose the war gradually, rather than in “one crystallizing moment,” but described as “defining” his realization of Iraqis’ common humanity. While talking with local laborers on a U.S. army base, he learned that they wanted the same things everyone wants: water, electricity and safety.

Mr. Howard also turned against the war because he felt that U.S. soldiers, like Iraqis, were being “treated as equipment.” The military has leaned heavily on soldiers through repeated redeployments. According to Mr. Howard, anywhere from 20 to 50 percent suffer from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and up to 40 percent have suffered concussive trauma. He said that veterans receive inadequate care for these needs and that the military has expelled soldiers by labeling mental conditions “pre-existing,” when in fact they were caused by war. “The military would rather kick someone out and not have to pay for their trauma over an extended period of time than actually admit that it caused the trauma.”

According to Mr. Howard, one-third of female Iraq War veterans have reported experiences of sexual trauma, including a friend named Joyce who fought alongside him. It was only after coming home that Joyce felt able to tell friends she had been raped by a fellow solider. Eventually she worked up the courage to tell a representative of the Veterans Administration. Mr. Howard quoted from her account: “After sharing the most personal and painful details of my life, I heard nothing from the VA for over a year. It took over two years before I received a letter stating that my claim was denied because, amongst other things, I had invited my rapist into my tent.”

Mr. Howard said the media, like the military, had betrayed victims of the war by ignoring Iraqi civilian casualties and the ill-treatment of veterans. Although mainstream media outlets employ the “support the troops” slogan, they have largely disregarded the anti-war movement among U.S. veterans. In particular, Mr. Howard said, there had been a “virtual media blackout in terms of mainstream press coverage” of Winter Soldier, a 2008 event in which 200 veterans of the Iraq and Afgan wars described their experiences and the war crimes they witnessed. He also cited an article by Mark Lynch, a writer for Foreign Policy, which analyzed recent reporting on the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War. Out of 59 retrospective pieces published in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The New Republic and The New York Times, only one was written by an Iraqi.

Pamela Spees, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, expressed similar frustration with the apathy of the legal system as well as the media. Ms. Spees said that U.S. courts have abdicated their responsibilities, even as they have acknowledged that torture, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and even aspects of the war itself were illegal. “When you have exhausted all of your possible remedies in the legal system…what do you do?” Despite this lack of success with the U.S. legal system, she encouraged activists to keep faith. “There will never be accountability if nobody’s demanding it.”

On March 19, CCR filed a request for a “thematic hearing” on U.S. accountability for war crimes with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). A thematic hearing would give Iraqis and American soldiers the opportunity to testify about war crimes. IACHR is part of the Organization of American States (OAS), of which the U.S. is a member state, Ms. Spees described appeals to international law as part of a multi-pronged strategy, which IVAW and OWFI advance by lobbying the U.S. and Iraqi goverments. She also emphasized that political pressure can discourage unilateral action in the near future.

All the speakers called for criminal prosecutions of those who “started the war on false pretenses,” as well as of those who approved torture and crimes against Iraqi civilians. However, they agreed their first priority was to compensate victims. “Someone must pay,” Ms. Mohammed said. Mr. Howard added, “Solidarity is an important piece of what we do…we understand that the folks in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most impacted.” IVAW advocates reparations for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as full benefits for service members.

In discussing lessons learned after ten years of war, it was hard for participants not to look back on how it got started. During questioning, several audience members noted that they had participated in anti-war demonstrations in 2002 and 2003. Ms. Mohammed argued that the war had negatively affected the people of Iraq, even as it was supposed to liberate them: “Just imagine you’re in your house and you’re being bombed and all the killing happens against you. It’s not something to celebrate.” She also suggested that some version of the Arab Spring would likely have spread to Iraq without U.S. intervention: “We wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but not this way.” Mr. Howard, who became a Marine at age 17, said that September 11th had given him a reason to fight but that, in retrospect, his upbringing also predisposed him to war. “A culture that really holds militarism and violence and warmaking up on a pedestal…made my decision a whole lot easier.”

Even as they reflected on the past, the speakers remained focused on healing wounds and preventing another war. Ms. Mohammed sees the Right to Heal Initiative as “an opportunity for those of us in Iraq who did not want this war to happen and, more than that, wouldn’t want it to happen anywhere else in the world in the future.” In advocating compensation for victims, it intends to raise awareness of war’s inevitable human cost. As part of that effort, the HLS International Human Rights Clinic is working with the Civilian Soldier Alliance to combine the testimonies of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Many audience members asked about how people could support the campaign. Among other suggestions, the panelists asked attendants to sign a letter to the Inter-American Commission in support of a thematic hearing. They also said that anyone interested in learning more should visit the Right to Heal Initiative website.

At its core, the group seeks to transcend the divisions that have contributed to the Iraq and Afghan wars. “We know you are not the enemy,” Ms. Mohammed said, before adding that any law students interested in visiting Haweeja would have a home waiting for them there. “We put our hands in each other’s hands…to help the destiny of people around the world.”

Sage advice for complex times. But what might it be like to wear your identity like armor?

One might consider translating that into advice for three great institutions facing great challenges—one in business, one in religion, and one in politics.

In Silicon Valley, Apple Inc. struggles to compete with Samsung. As its stock has fallen over 30% in the last six months, Apple wonders whether to submit to growing shareholder demands that it reduce its huge cash pile and start paying out bigger dividends.

In the Vatican, the Catholic Church struggles with much of the Western world. Led by a new pope, the Church finds itself in sharp contradiction with popular secular positions on contraception, abortion, female clergy, and other issues.

Finally, in Washington, the Republican Party struggles to compete with a confident Democratic Party. As the GOP strives to recover from its 2012 defeats, it must decide whether to modify its political positions on limited government, social issues, and immigration.

Will these groups need to evolve over time? Inevitably, yes. Apple must launch new products, the Catholic Church must grow its flock, and the Republican Party must find a way to broaden its appeal to younger voters and minorities.

Yet, through it all, my sense is that there’s something to be said for sticking to one’s core principles through thick and thin.

What might that mean for these institutions?

In Apple’s case, it might mean adhering to the philosophy of the late Steve Jobs: to focus on building high-quality products that integrate services, software, and hardware to create a terrific user experience. Although there is something to be said for giving slight discounts on the MacBook Pro and the iPad, the average Apple fan believes that he (or she) is paying a premium price for a premium product. In a sense, Apple’s purpose isn’t merely to make lots of money, but also to offer people an alternative to what Samsung, Microsoft, or Google have to offer.

All things considered, it would be a sad day for Apple fans if CEO Tim Cook refocuses his company away from producing great Apple innovations and onto short-term accounting tricks to prop up Apple’s stock price—or worse still, to sacrifice the quality of Apple products in order to make them cheap. After all, if consumers want a $200 laptop with minimal functions, why not let them buy PCs instead of Macs?

Stock prices inevitably fluctuate with speculators’ whims. But building a great company might involve taking the view of the original founding genius.

What about the Catholic Church? In Pope Francis’s case, sticking to core principles would mean adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible. To some extent, it might be risky, because some of those teachings contradict popular secular positions. But although the Church might have to adapt its message to a modern world, there is is something to be said for the idea that the Catholic Church’s purpose isn’t merely to be popular, but also to offer people an alternative to what Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists might propose.

Why? Because people seek fulfillment, and they will inevitably test out different philosophies and religions. One of the purposes of the Catholic Church, as I see it, might be to offer an alternative conception of the Good Life, so that if people find other approaches wanting, they can consider an alternative path.

If your predecessors stuck to their principles at the cost of crucifixion, being fed to lions, or having their heads impaled on spikes, then the least the modern Church can do is uphold the principles that came at so bloody a cost. After all, if your stock is down, would it make more sense to follow the suggestions of speculators—or the original founder’s insights?

In the Republican Party’s case, sticking to core principles might mean adhering to the philosophy of Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge: to fight for limited government, traditional social policies, and a strong military. Although some political positions might have to be moderated, there is something to be said for the idea that the GOP’s purpose isn’t merely to win elections, but more importantly, to offer America an alternative political vision from what the Democrats or the Green Party offer.

Of course, this is risky, because the future is unpredictable: nobody really knows whether President Obama’s governing philosophy will work spectacularly or fail dismally. On one hand, the Dow has passed a 14,500 record, unemployment has inched down to 7.7 percent, and the housing market is healing. It is possible that the Obama economy of the 2010s might end up looking like the prosperous Clinton economy of the 1990s. But on the flip side, one might express concerns over potential risks posed by tax increases, our $16 trillion debt, and Obamacare’s remaking of one-sixth of the economy.

Is the progress real—or is our prosperity hollow? Only time will tell. But in the meantime, one might argue that the Republican Party would serve America best by offering an alternative agenda as a principled opposition party, just like the UMP in France, the New Democrats in Canada, or the Workers’ Party in Singapore. This might mean fighting for further budget cuts, lower taxes, a strong military, and pro-life positions, not on the grounds that GOP positions are necessarily infallible, but on the grounds that the incumbent government’s philosophy might be fallible and that Americans might someday consider an alternative.

Chris Seck is a 3L.

The views in opinion editorials, columns, and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Record.

Justice Roberts has already hired the tournament winner for a clerkship in 2016. “Winning the JOLT Mario Kart Tournament is a clear display of legal prowess. Anyone who wins this prestigious competition surely has the intellectual horsepower to succeed as a Supreme Court clerk. It takes an immense amount of skill to launch a single banana backwards to spin out your opponent, like the winner had done in the last round.”

The HLS faculty were also eagerly anticipating the tournament results. Dean Minow has said that going forward the Sears Prize will now be given to the top two first-year and second-year students who progressed furthest in the tournament, instead of the students who achieved the highest grade point averages.

Susie Gunner, who has obtained a grade of Dean’s Scholar in every class for her first two years at HLS, is extremely upset at the attention given to the Mario Kart Tournament. “I have worked so hard over the past few years, and just because I got blue-shelled during Round Two my Supreme Court hopes are dashed forever.” Justice Scalia responded to her complaint: “I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”

Professors have also complained about the missing ceilings. “I’ve had to teach classes outside for the past two weeks,” said Professor Smith. “It’s really hard to nail a 1L with a tough cold-call when you have bird shit dripping down your suit jacket.”

Students have overall been pleased with the change in campus atmosphere. “I’ve been stuck in Langdell studying for weeks,” said an anonymous 1L. “Now that the library ceiling is gone, it is basically impossible to get any studying done.”

The interviews took place at Lesley’s “Shops at Porter” over delicious Japanese food. “Over here at Lesley, we eat here for lunch every day. You eat…at the Hark, right?” “I don’t know how HLS students eat that shit.”

“And have you seen Gropius? We smoke pot in those stairways all the time and we can see how tiny the rooms are. We have it way better over in the Lesley dorms,” chipped in a freshman. “And anyway, I’ve met plenty of HLS students with over six figures of student loan debt. Most of us have zero. Can you say golden handcuffs?”

Another female student chipped in about the general attractiveness of HLS students. “Some nerdy douchebag tried to drop the h-bomb on me at Cambridge Common the other night. As if I would find his $200,000 in student loan debt and future career of indentured servitude attractive. I’ll stick to chill, athletic Lesley dudes, thank you very much.”

Most commentators are pessimistic: they believe that the Arab-Israeli conflict is unsolvable: The two-state solution is at an impasse. Israel refuses to dismantle its West Bank settlements. The Palestinians refuse to renounce the right of return. Hamas refuses to renounce violence. Syria continues to demand the return of the Golan Heights.

Yet, in the face of all this, I still think there is room for cautious optimism. Notwithstanding their mutual hostility, Arab-Israeli relations have largely improved over the years.

Consider where Israel stood four decades ago, and where it stands today.

In the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel was occupying five disputed territories: the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. In turn, no Arab nation recognized Israel, and no Arab nation dared to be the first.

Forty years later in 2013, Israel only occupies three disputed territories: the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. In turn, Israel is recognized by three Arab neighbors, including the PLO. Under the table, Israel also engages in commerce with other Arab states. Thus, the territorial problem has shrunk while diplomatic ties have grown.

Recall: In 1979, Egypt agreed to recognize Israel, in exchange for U.S. aid and the return of the Sinai. Similarly, in 1994, Jordan agreed to recognize Israel, in exchange for 120 square miles of territory, including the Island of Peace. The PLO has recognized Israel since the 1993 Oslo Accords. And Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Thus, Israel and the Palestinians today face a much smaller territorial dispute, mainly over East Jerusalem and perhaps five percent of the West Bank, to be resolved by mutually-agreed land swaps.

All this is remarkable progress, achieved despite decades of anti-Semitism, terrorist attacks, tragic wars, and settler activity. Given the depth of mutual distrust and hatred, enormous progress has been made towards peace.

None of this is to say that the peace process has been easy. On the contrary, it has involved painful problems and tough tradeoffs. For instance, Ariel Sharon’s decision to withdraw Israeli settlers from Gaza corresponded with concessions to expand Israeli settlements in the West Bank. While eliminating one problem (Gaza) from the territorial equation, Sharon made another problem (West Bank settlements) worse. But perhaps such tradeoffs are inevitable, especially since politics often involves horse-trading.

And undoubtedly, the Palestinians too have had to contend with their own internal factions. Mahmoud Abbas has navigated a tightrope to mediate between moderate and extremist PLO factions, slowly nudging Palestinians away from suicide bombings and towards nonviolent diplomacy, such as their historic 2012 attempt to become a non-member U.N. state. Such unilateral Palestinian actions, although disliked by the Israeli government, are nevertheless an improvement over the rampant bombings of decades past.

Will the two-state solution fully materialize within the next twelve months? Probably not. In a conflict as deeply-rooted as the Arab-Israeli conflict, mutual distrust and hatred will persist for a long time. This is a multi-generational conflict that may require the handing out of many more Nobel Peace Prizes before a workable solution takes effect. Peace will not break out in a spontaneous Kumbaya moment.

Nonetheless, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, one should ask Israelis and Palestinians: “Are you better off than you were forty years ago?”

And the answer, despite all the current problems, must surely be yes.

Chris Seck is a 3L.

The views in opinion editorials, columns, and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Record.