SAMPLE ESSAY 1:
Carnegie-Mellon, current affairs: Middle
East debate
A Greek philosopher once
said, “In argument, truth is born.”
Even though sometimes feelings and emotions
come into play that confuse the issue
at hand, usually an argument results
in a new insight on the subject. Even
if a person holds strong views that
are unshaken by anything his adversary
may say, he may nevertheless gain from
the debate. It forces him to organize
and analyze his views, leaving him with
a clearer understanding of the subject
than before. Further, his opponent’s
arguments help him better appreciate
his views and their differences. Finally,
the argument forces both to look inwards,
at their character and value system.
For these reasons, I enjoy
debating issues that are important to
me and about which I hold strong views.
One such issue receiving great national
attention is the Middle East peace process.
While the peace process has always been
important to the American community
as a whole, and more specifically to
the Jewish American community, the assassination
of Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
has focused the spotlight upon it, as
well as intensified the debate around
it. Since I attend a private Jewish
school, I often discuss this topic with
my peers, often finding myself in the
minority. Most of them support the peace
process, while I adhere to the views
of the Likud (opposition) party, which
opposes the peace process.
Complicating the issue
are several emotional stigmas that are
often attached to it, transforming the
discussion from an objective one to
one driven by passion. The foremost
of these stigmas is the accusation,
which is often hurled at the opponents
of the peace process, of promoting war
and violence. Often made by people who
know little about the issue, this view
fails to realize that opposition to
the peace process does not imply opposition
of peace. Rather, it implies disapproval
of certain tactics and specifics of
the peace process as it was carried
out by Rabin.
Another commonly advanced
accusation against American Jews who
disagree with the peace process centers
around the question of whether they
have the right to influence Israeli
policy. “You don’t have to send your
children to the Army,” it is said, “your
children don’t die in wars. What right
have you to oppose peace?!” The fallacy
of this argument is that it doesn’t
differentiate between belief and action.
While it is true, for precisely the
reasons above, that American Jews have
no right to try to influence Israeli
policy, that does not preclude them
from having ideas of what that policy
should be.
Finally, the assassination
of Yitzhak Rabin has introduced yet
another dimension into this debate.
In its aftermath, opposing the peace
process sometimes is identified with
condoning the assassination itself.
Such an identification of the man and
his beliefs involves grave dangers,
such as rashly implementing his ideas
in a flurry of compassion and commiseration.
What all of these stigmas
have in common is that they forsake
logical and objective debate, opting
rather for emotions, generalizations
and accusations. And the dangers of
that happening are the main lesson I
learned from my debates. While those
debates have shed new light on the issue
and have forced me to reconsider what
I think is moral and just, most importantly
they have demonstrated the necessity
of objectiveness and removal of emotions
from the discussion, especially when,
as in the case of the peace process,
thousands of lives are at stake. When
passions and hatred take over, we must
stop and think of what it all is really
about.
From
ESSAYS THAT WILL GET YOU INTO COLLEGE,
by Amy Burnham, Daniel Kaufman, and
Chris Dowhan.
Copyright 1998 by Dan Kaufman. Reprinted
by arrangement with Barron's Educational
Series, Inc.
Login
name 
Password
