I was interested to hear what Yisrael Beiteinu party member and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Daniel Ayalon, had to say on the “The Situation in the Middle East: The View From Israel,” in Tuesday’s lecture. In order to effectively mount an argument for Palestinian statehood and critique the often crude and abusive policies of the Israeli government (both the current right wing and the previous more moderate government), I felt it necessary to understand the ideas and narrative of the Israeli government responsible for that policy creation. “What an opportunity,” I thought, “to see how one of the far right party’s views the Middle East situation; how better to de-arm them than to understand where they are coming from?”
An essential form of resistance is the right to protest; to make your voice heard; to create a forum for debate and dissent. Once the lecture started however, it was clear that certain students did not want to make room for debate and intelligently express their dissenting viewpoints and critiques. I was deeply disappointed that these students only wanted to understand their own injustices; their own marginalisation; their own voices. They did not want to take this opportunity to understand how current Israeli views and policies might affect the peace process or the current situation in Gaza and the West Bank. They did not want to hear what Mr. Ayalon had to say; they assumed they already knew.
Within minutes of his ascension to the podium, a student wearing a keffiyeh began to shout “Racist,” and other names at Mr. Ayalon. Perhaps these epithets were deserved, perhaps not; it’s impossible to know because we were never able to hear Mr. Ayalon’s views. If we rely on his party’s platform, then it is fair to assume that Mr. Ayalon does in fact harbour beliefs that might be labelled as racist, xenophobic or otherwise abhorrent. I do not seek to defend Mr. Ayalon against the deplorable nature of his alleged views; I only wish to defend his right, as an invited speaker, to make those views known so we might better understand them.
I am not Palestinian, nor do I know first-hand the oppression of those living in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. I have seen the Separation Wall only from the safe confines of Israel, and the checkpoints only from behind the bulletproof windows of a bus. However, this does not make me blind to the Human Rights abuses currently perpetrated unto Palestinians. Furthermore, it does not desensitise me to those abuses. As an MSc Human Rights student, in a choice between advocating for Israeli security or Palestinian statehood, I would instantly choose the latter.
Perhaps naïvely I do not believe this is a choice that must be made. I think there is a middle ground based on mutual respect and trust. I acknowledge that for the past sixty years Israel has enacted policy that makes respect and trust hard. Random incursions into Gaza; the demolition of homes in the West Bank; the continued construction on illegal settlements and the restricted rights of Arab Israelis does not foster this sense of trust and respect. On the other hand, a Palestinian culture that has either rightly or wrongly been characterised as being anti-Semitic and blaming all ills on Israel and America; as being the perpetrators of terrorist attacks solely aimed at civilians, and as being purveyors of nihilistic rhetoric, only perpetuates this mistrust.
Maybe my hope that we can learn to respect and trust one another is likewise naïve. Judging from the display on Tuesday it certainly is. If we are unable to give respect to one of the more repugnant faces of Israel (however certainly not the most repugnant) at the London School of Economics – a place where people come to share ideas, disagree, debate, and, most importantly, learn – then there is little hope for doing so in a broader, more complex and less educated world.
Even if Mr. Ayalon does not deserve our respect, we owe it to him. Furthermore, we owe it to ourselves to show him that his perceived opponent is not irrational, is not anti-Semitic, and is not so full of rage, hatred and vengeance that abusive elements of Israeli policy are justified. I fear he left with his views intact and unchallenged, and perhaps a little smug that his world view had been proved correct. If that was the intent when the protestors yelled, interrupted and demeaned our revered institution with this lack of decorum and respect, then mission accomplished. The LSE is a place where we challenge narratives and discourse, not deny it with shouting and screaming.
Related posts:
- Open dialogue is the panacea – 1
- Rejecting the nuclear energy 'panacea'
- Dialogue in doubt in Israel-Palestine antisemitism row
- All eyes are on Israel – Ayalon’s awkward inconsistencies
This entry was posted
on Monday, November 2nd, 2009 at 13:48 and is filed under Comment.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Open dialogue is the panacea – 2
by Stephanie Adickman on 2 Nov 2009 in Comment
I was interested to hear what Yisrael Beiteinu party member and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Daniel Ayalon, had to say on the “The Situation in the Middle East: The View From Israel,” in Tuesday’s lecture. In order to effectively mount an argument for Palestinian statehood and critique the often crude and abusive policies of the Israeli government (both the current right wing and the previous more moderate government), I felt it necessary to understand the ideas and narrative of the Israeli government responsible for that policy creation. “What an opportunity,” I thought, “to see how one of the far right party’s views the Middle East situation; how better to de-arm them than to understand where they are coming from?”
An essential form of resistance is the right to protest; to make your voice heard; to create a forum for debate and dissent. Once the lecture started however, it was clear that certain students did not want to make room for debate and intelligently express their dissenting viewpoints and critiques. I was deeply disappointed that these students only wanted to understand their own injustices; their own marginalisation; their own voices. They did not want to take this opportunity to understand how current Israeli views and policies might affect the peace process or the current situation in Gaza and the West Bank. They did not want to hear what Mr. Ayalon had to say; they assumed they already knew.
Within minutes of his ascension to the podium, a student wearing a keffiyeh began to shout “Racist,” and other names at Mr. Ayalon. Perhaps these epithets were deserved, perhaps not; it’s impossible to know because we were never able to hear Mr. Ayalon’s views. If we rely on his party’s platform, then it is fair to assume that Mr. Ayalon does in fact harbour beliefs that might be labelled as racist, xenophobic or otherwise abhorrent. I do not seek to defend Mr. Ayalon against the deplorable nature of his alleged views; I only wish to defend his right, as an invited speaker, to make those views known so we might better understand them.
I am not Palestinian, nor do I know first-hand the oppression of those living in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. I have seen the Separation Wall only from the safe confines of Israel, and the checkpoints only from behind the bulletproof windows of a bus. However, this does not make me blind to the Human Rights abuses currently perpetrated unto Palestinians. Furthermore, it does not desensitise me to those abuses. As an MSc Human Rights student, in a choice between advocating for Israeli security or Palestinian statehood, I would instantly choose the latter.
Perhaps naïvely I do not believe this is a choice that must be made. I think there is a middle ground based on mutual respect and trust. I acknowledge that for the past sixty years Israel has enacted policy that makes respect and trust hard. Random incursions into Gaza; the demolition of homes in the West Bank; the continued construction on illegal settlements and the restricted rights of Arab Israelis does not foster this sense of trust and respect. On the other hand, a Palestinian culture that has either rightly or wrongly been characterised as being anti-Semitic and blaming all ills on Israel and America; as being the perpetrators of terrorist attacks solely aimed at civilians, and as being purveyors of nihilistic rhetoric, only perpetuates this mistrust.
Maybe my hope that we can learn to respect and trust one another is likewise naïve. Judging from the display on Tuesday it certainly is. If we are unable to give respect to one of the more repugnant faces of Israel (however certainly not the most repugnant) at the London School of Economics – a place where people come to share ideas, disagree, debate, and, most importantly, learn – then there is little hope for doing so in a broader, more complex and less educated world.
Even if Mr. Ayalon does not deserve our respect, we owe it to him. Furthermore, we owe it to ourselves to show him that his perceived opponent is not irrational, is not anti-Semitic, and is not so full of rage, hatred and vengeance that abusive elements of Israeli policy are justified. I fear he left with his views intact and unchallenged, and perhaps a little smug that his world view had been proved correct. If that was the intent when the protestors yelled, interrupted and demeaned our revered institution with this lack of decorum and respect, then mission accomplished. The LSE is a place where we challenge narratives and discourse, not deny it with shouting and screaming.
Related posts:
This entry was posted on Monday, November 2nd, 2009 at 13:48 and is filed under Comment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.