I like to think I’m a conscientious individual. I watch the news, I donate money to charity and occasionally I insist The Tab takes time out from publishing articles on reality TV and confessionals to cover something ‘serious.’ But this week had me doubting my ability to empathise: as much as I tried I couldn’t bring myself to care about the (now defunct) Israel-Palestine Awareness Week. Am I a heartless individual? At first I thought I was, but the truth is that I – like thousands of others – am not too selfish to get involved in discussions over the ‘Middle East peace process.’ There’s just no point.
Writing an article on Israel/Palestine is a time-consuming process. You spend hours fact-checking and interviewing only to discover that the issue – as ever – boils down to two irreconcilable points of view. Once you’ve written it, you feel obliged to send it for rubber stamping by the heads of various societies, as if they possess a magical way of measuring legitimacy. Then once you’ve published it, you spend hours answering the barrage of emails from people called Sam Steinzenberg and Zaman El-Fawaz who tell you that you 'have a Zionist agenda' or you 'are looking through the prism of anti-Semitism.' By the end you find yourself wondering why you bothered. The article has 38 comments but they’re all from people who now hate you, and no one else bothered to read it.
A Palestinian student recently sent an open letter to Cambridge’s student papers. In the letter he argues that 'anyone who opens there [sic] mouths against Israel is immediately targeted as ‘anti-Semitic.’' This point is immediately followed by a claim that 'Zionist-surveillance/security groups based in the UK' are able to pressure Cambridge’s University officials. The double standards in this letter are appalling. It is totally ridiculous to object to blind accusations and then commit the same crime. This is exactly the behaviour which turns off neutral observers from caring about the grievances (however legitimate) of either side.
Israel/Palestine might just be the most pressing political issue we face today. In a dispute where most people’s positions are determined by loyalties they never chose, there are going to be irreconcilable and entrenched points of view. But the debate has become so polarized that there is no room for reasonable comment. You can’t expect people living under the conditions of the crisis to express a detached, reasoned opinion. But, in Cambridge, where we are far-removed from the conflict, students should be able to – and want to – express an opinion. I can’t remember ever seeing a comment on the subject from someone who wasn’t Jewish or Muslim. No neutral dares to enter the debate because neither side can accept even the most minor criticism. Every progressive suggestion is met with a barrage of insults and threats, punctuated by meaningless claims about ‘agendas’ and ‘outside influence.’ There’s simply no room for discussion.
In a recent interview, Labour parliamentary candidate for Cambridge, Daniel Zeichner, was asked if he supported Israel. He answered that he didn’t think they were football teams. They might as well be, for all the wisdom on display in the debate. Politics is about making concessions to achieve the best-possible outcome. It’s funny when football fans can’t take criticism, but it’s tragic when people behave in the same way over a crisis as serious as the Middle East.
So here’s what I propose. People should be able to enter the debate and have their arguments challenged properly, not through meaningless slogans and conspiracy theories. Israel Soc and Palestine Soc should agree to hold debates where the speakers are chosen independently (the Union surely fits this purpose). And both sides should recognise that Cambridge student journalists do not write according to any pre-determined bias, but rather a fear that expressing an opinion will bring them unnecessary distress. Pro-Israelers and Pro-Palestiners have spent so long telling us that we’re either with them or against them they haven’t realized that we long since turned against them both.
Excellent article!
Thank you for the breath of fresh air in the supposed Isreali / Palistinian "debate"!!!!
Keep in mind, if you continue to demonstrate such pose and level-headedness, you will never be elected to public office.
Here here Mr Rivlin
The author seems to suggest that the conflict is between Muslims and Jews? Actually if the author had attended the talk by Dr Azzam Tamimi, he would have been educated on this front, that it was Christians that persecuted the Jews for centuries, not Muslims, who for centuries lived with them in peace. In fact religion has no causal role in this conflict whatsoever, its role only serving as a tool toward further polarising the two sides involved.
I do respect the fact that the author, and some of the commentors to this post, have identified with a 'neutral' position, and that they have been dissuaded from following the issue any longer due to what seems to be too much conflict and not enough moderate. I respect this, and hope both sides can reflect on this to make their appeal to a wider audience. The neutral's must ask themselves this question though: i) in Hitler's Germany, was it enough to remain neutral and indifferent? ii) in Apartheid South Africa was it enough to remain indifferent/neutral?
If you disagree with my last point, I please challenge you to tell me why Israel is not an apartheid state persecuting the indigenous populations of Palestinian muslims/christians?
A post by the Palsoc Chair whose shameful accusations were quoted in the article.
The Palsoc Chair who brought Azzam Tamimi to preach a revisionist view of the holocaust, who claims that 'Zionist surveilance groups' have a stronghold on the University. Possibly the worst Palsoc Chair in the society's history, as the chair who was so determined to demonise the state of Israel, that he made the entire university apathetic to his cause.
Seems to me like when The Tab can't do decent journalism and is accused of shoddy reporting that is indefensible, then cry wolf, feign some cosmic complexity as the reason for not grasping the issue and dress up their apathy as, well apathy!!!
"Neutrality does not exist in the face of murder. Doing nothing to stop it is, in fact, choosing. It is not being neutral. "
- No Man's Land ( a film on the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1993- for those whose apathy is exacerbated by ignorance)
Two more facts:
6% economic growth in Fatah's West Bank who are set for peace talks with Israel this week, IN A TIME OF GLOBAL RECESSION. Unfortunately this is not the same for Gaza. Why? run by a backward government who kill its own citizens for fear of conspiring with Israelis. A government who calls for the extermination of Jews worldwide and who vows that it can only achieve its cause with violence.
If the blame game is to be played, it is perfectly clear where the finger needs to be pointed
I think that's the point Dan. They don't want loads of uneccessary vitriol from both sides, when all they are trying to do is take a neutral line.
Trouble is they have been fighting in the middle east for thousands of years, just read the 'old testament' for details. The more food aid they get the more they fight.
i love how a article not about the debate ends in a debate
You all have a zionist agenda!