In the face of overwhelming injustice, taking the ‘middle’ ground could result in the de facto condoning of unjust acts. Progress requires action.
Joseph Brown
Normally I would consider it rather cool that my surname was being bandied around as if I were the Prime Minister. Likewise, being compared to a leader of the world’s most powerful nation in the same article can’t be a wholly bad thing, even if it is Bush. However, seeing that every other conclusion Douglas Oliver drew in his op-ed of November 13 was mistaken, un-academic or just plain naïve, perhaps I shouldn’t have been so flattered.
Doug kindly informed me that I had a “polarising agenda.” This is a charge I wholly deny – if only because, should I had taken this route, there would be precious little for me to do. As in every debate, there are four poles: those for, those against, those who want to compromise and those who simply don’t care. The difficulty with the Israel-Palestine debate is that those who don’t care or seek to compromise are actually sustaining the status-quo of violence and terror just as much as those who are for the occupation. This may sound like a radical, untenable Bush-ism to some, but allow me to explain.
Firstly, on the twinning of the LSE SU to An-Najah University in support of the universal right to education campaign, which both Doug and I agree is “unquestionably a worthy cause”. However, he goes on to suggest that the motion was “self-contradictory” in as much as that it made “exceptions” to the universal right to education because the motion did not seek links to Israeli institutions. He then made the unfathomable leap to imply that the motion suggested Israelis were non-human. Cutting his flight of fancy short, I would remind him that the motion was not about reinforcing the universal right to education just anywhere. It is concerned with a place where that right is systematically denied; in the case of Palestine, by a brutal military occupation and colonisation programme.
Furthermore, while Doug might seem to be fighting the corner of balance and reconciliation, I wonder which beacon of educational freedom in Israel he would seek links with. Perhaps Ariel University, established in the illegal settlement of the same name, which only accepts Jewish international students. What about Bar Ilan University? Also built against international law; all students there must complete some form of Jewish studies. Maybe Haifa? Here disciplinary charges were brought against Arab students for their protest against a racist lecture entitled ‘The Demographic Problem’ (‘problem’ referring to the growing number of Arabs living within Israel). What about Hebrew University, who require a “certificate of integrity” for Arab visitors to the campus? Or Tel-Aviv, who are looking to confiscate even more of the once-Arab town Sheik Muwannis, somewhat ironically in order to build an archaeology department? The list goes on and on, and hence to seek links with Israeli universities would not only undermine the Palestinian cause in principle, but would most probably contribute to their ongoing subordination.
Secondly, Doug brushed off the infamous ‘letter’ sent to freshers as it was allegedly one-sided and opposed to the idea of peace through “discussion and mutual understanding”. The letter was as one-sided as the current situation dictates. It highlighted the actuality on the ground. To run away from this fact, and others conveyed by the letter is not to represent a productive moral high ground as he claims, but to hide from the very understanding of Palestinian grievances, serving simply to sustain them and allow the conflict’s continuation. Only once we can stomach the nature of the occupation can we discuss it in a constructive manner.
Perhaps even more mind-blowing than his reading of the Twinning Motion and ‘the letter’ is the way in which he seemed totally uninformed regarding the demonstrations at the School Council on October 30. He called it “irresponsible”, “reactionary” and “politically unsophisticated”. I would be inclined to agree had it all happened in a political vacuum. However, the Palestine Society had previously sent two correspondences to the Director formally requesting a meeting to discuss his statements regarding the UCU motion to debate an academic boycott of Israeli institutions. Both letters were signed by over one hundred students and academics. Both letters were politely brushed aside. Taking our lead from decades of righteous activism we looked to the next prudent step – direct action – and it worked. Moreover, our letters (to Howard Davies – not including ‘the letter’), protests and subsequent meeting did not call for the School to support the boycott as Doug suggests. Rather, we were looking for recognition of Palestinian right to education in order to balance his defence of Israeli universities.
More concerning than Doug’s clear misunderstanding of current student politics is the fact that political issues more generally seem to have passed him by. He seems to be under the impression that there is a great mass of fair pro-Palestinian academics in Israel who would be inadvertently silenced by an academic boycott, or indeed turned against the Palestinian plight. Unfortunately, this is not the case. One only need look at Ilan Pappe, who was effectively exiled from Israeli academia for his strong views to see that freedom of expression is not high on the agenda in such institutions. Likewise, the case of Teddy Katz who had his MA in History (originally awarded at 97%) retracted by Haifa University because of its description of attacks carried out by Jewish forces in the 1948-9 war against Arab civilians. As a true supporter of reconciliation between Israel and its neighbours, I would be the first to highlight the vibrant and critical debate within wider Israeli society regarding its treatment of Arab citizens within its borders and under its occupation. However, it is a tragedy that the debate is prevented from taking place within the foremost arenas we expect.
It is important for people to understand that taking a side is not always pigheaded or immature and, likewise, trying to stand on the middle ground is sometimes the same as being part of a movement that sustains or even advances injustice, whether we want to or not.