Gilad lives, Gilad is home.

                                                          Aimee Riese 

                                                       Society President
                                             This is a Cross-Post from The Beaver 
Israelis and Palestinians both taking to the street to celebrate at the same time is surely something worth commenting on. The voices of critics of Netanyahu celebrating the “most left-wing thing” he has ever done are equally note-worthy.

The “Shalit Deal” agreed last week took place in its first stages on Tuesday. It details the release of 1027 Palestinian security prisoners from Israeli jails in exchange for the release of one Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, held illegally captive in Gaza by Hamas.

In a country of national conscription, where the military plays such a prominent role in its society, it is difficult to underestimate the significance of the plight of Gilad Shalit upon the Israeli national consciousness. There is a poster with the hope “Gilad is still alive” on the corner of most streets in Israel and his parents set up a protest camp in Jerusalem as a focus point of solidarity. Moreover, international campaigns for his release and for access to the Red Cross have been running since his capture in 2006. Some Synagogues, including my own, incorporate prayers for missing soldiers as part of their services. The plight of Gilad Shalit has been etched onto both the Israeli and the international Jewish consciousness and has served as one of Hamas’ most powerful bargaining chips.


In a conflict which is all too often reduced to maps and buildings, this swap offers a rare glimpse into the human aspects of real people’s suffering on both sides. It further reveals the complexities and nuances of societies where simplifications, exaggerations and plain mistruths which are branded around as part of campus politics, fail to understand and engage with. The sheer contrast of numbers involved show an inspiring humanity in Israeli society.


I celebrate the release of Gilad, the release of any innocent Palestinian prisoners and the release of any guilty Palestinian prisoners who have been held longer than their crime necessitates. Optimistically, this swap is a cautious step towards both societies understanding that the liberation of one people cannot be at the expense of the other.


However I see a few key problems with this deal. Among the prisoners to be released are those responsible for major terror attacks such as the 2001 bombing of the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem, the lynching of two IDF soldiers in Ramallah in 2000, the 1989 attack on bus 405, the abduction of soldier Nachshon Wachsman, who was killed during a rescue attempt, and the abduction and murder of soldiers Avi Sasportas, Ilan Sa’adon and Shahar Simani. It is impossible for me to rejoice at the release of these terrorists and is frankly sickening to see the reactions of those celebrating this.


The swap places Israelis at an increased security risk. Yoram Cohen, the Security Chief of the Shin Bet, stated that based on previous experiences, 60% of prisoners released return to terror. It is certainly a courageous and risky decision the Israeli government has taken.


A major flaw in the swap is the weakening of the Palestinian non-violent resistance movement. It sends a message that may encourage future soldier abductions for bargaining purposes. A look at Hamas websites and support groups shows that this is certainly very much still on the agenda.


Last Friday’s “price tag” desecration of Rabin’s memorial exemplifies the extremist Israeli reactions to the deal and prediction that many Israeli analysts have of Israeli society shifting even further to the right. If indeed there is a resumption of terror attacks inside Israel, a society that is currently so precariously unbalanced, in what I can only describe as part of a national, post-traumatic stress syndrome, will suffer.


The ultimate failure of the deal however, is the lack of placing the prisoners into the larger context of peace negotiations. This deal does not come as part of a framework for peace, an agreement to address any of the issues made blatantly clear at the United Nations last month. An isolated moment of joy on both sides, which brings no long-term peace and increasing instability, is something to be celebrated only so far.

Red Hands for Hamas, Red Faces for the Left.

                                                                Jay Stoll

Almost 20 years ago, United Nations Resolution 4686 was passed. Now, usually, you wouldn't bother to trawl through the motions passed at the UN.. you would usually just pick out a couple of highlights for what the resolution would be remembered by, the crucial new guidelines, the headline takers. Yet this resolution can be seen underneath in its entirety:

"The general assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975."

What was resolution 3379 then? Well... it was the UN motion, that lasted for 16 years, declaring that Zionism was Racism. Arguably, its revocation on December 16th 1991 was undoubtedly the greatest Public Relations victory for Israel since the triumph of 1967.  The results can be seen, again, underneath, through little efforts to decipher how unanimous the calls for its passage were (the countries in green voted yes, those in red, no):

111 in Favour, 25 Against.

This week, the world has seen yet another hugely questionable source for the delegitimization of Israel shut down. Richard Goldstone, whose  UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza Conflict of December 08/January 09 was greeted by the 'Europeanall-knowingleftistunderallcircumstancesIsraeliswrong' with such biblical esteem, has been slammed as naive, mistaken and full of regret, by no other than the man who chaired proceedings himself, Richard Goldstone.  Here are some of the direct quotes from his article in the Washington Post:

• "The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion"
• civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy
• I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes
• We were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas.
• That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.
• In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.
• Our report has led to numerous “lessons learned” and policy changes, including the adoption of new Israel Defense Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare and limiting the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas.
• The laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies. Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict.

Ok.. so. Where do we go and what do we learn? 

First and foremost, a general point. None of the above goes any way to negating the fact that what happened in Gaza in 2008/9 was an absolute tragedy. Hundreds of women and children died, the circumstances surrounding their deaths remain as material and of equal importance as before Goldstone's revocation. This has to be said and has to be maintained, Israeli human rights abuses in the conflict, such as the use of White Phosphorous in civilian areas, cannot go unchallenged. Yet, somewhat thankfully, it seems from what Goldstone has said that Jerusalem has since co-operated, having internal investigations, similar to that of the Chilcott Inquiry into Iraq in the UK, and has gone some way to exploring new measures for warfare in such densely packed civilian areas. 

The UN needs to seriously look not only at revoking the Goldstone Report, but at a major shake-up of its Human Rights council, which up until this year had human-rights luminaries, such as Libya, determining the behaviour of countries such as Israel, deemed as free by human rights groups such as Freedom House. There is an appalling and obsessive bias against Israel. Earlier this term, I was lucky enough (sic) to join an audience with George Galloway. As i asked him whether he thought some of the claims made against Israel by the UNHRC were flawed due to its composition, he responded by telling me that "he did not know whether to laugh or cry at my suggestion". In retrospect, and especially with this U-turn by Goldstone, I see absolutely no reason but to laugh or cry at his pathetic response.

 The failure in the Goldstone report to provide an adequate assessment of what went on in Gaza is in part, borne out of the hugely incapable UN Human Rights Council, who this week chose to side-step the fact that Syrians were being mowed down in their streets and homes by their government by stating,  “Deeply concerned at the suffering of the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan due to the systematic and continuous violation of their fundamental and human rights by Israel since the Israeli military occupation of 1967.” 

Absurd doesn't begin to cover it.

For Israel, the lessons are clear. Goldstone still maintains that if Israel had co-operated fully at the time, then we could have reached fairer conclusions earlier.  Lesson to be drawn is it's better to fight Israel's cause during investigation rather than counter subsequent conclusions by the UN that have already been 

officially adopted. Israel must behave like a responsible democracy if it wants to be seen like one. By not co-operating immediately, it shot itself in the foot and allowed the pursuit of delegitimization to thrive. It surely cannot afford to do this again.

For the Palestinians, frustration and helplessness will inevitably greet this report by Goldstone. By revealing the report as flawed, there remains no substantial international investigation into the events of Cast Lead and in essence no justice truly served to the perpetuators. Commendably, Goldstone notes, Fatah launched several investigations into their treatment of Hamas members in the West Bank, yet nothing remotely similar has formulated on the other side of the country. The opinion polls emerging from the Strip are that the support for Hamas is at an all-time low. There has never been a greater time for elections and the facilitation of a cohesive Palestinian unit that could truly pursue self-determination and a state of their own.

The new statement has shown that Cast Lead and the seemingly eternal tribulations of the Middle East must be judged, not by one-tracked media reports, not by evocative personal accounts, not by a flawed UN 'Human Rights' Council, not by the apologists for Hamas (Galloway et al), but by truthful historical assessments and fair political committees that will strive hold those necessary by account, but more crucially provide the way for reconcilliation in the region. Goldstone has clearly recognized his mistakes, that is not where this saga should end.

Apartheid... Are you joking?

Denis M. MacEoin is a novelist and a former lecturer in Islamic studies. His academic specializations are Shi‘ism,Shaykhism, Bábism, and the Bahá'í Faith, on all of which he has written extensively. He continues to work on Islamic issues, particularly the development of radical Islam. He has written three reports for British think tanks, dealing with Islamic issues. 


Here, we have taken an excerpt of his speech to the Edinburgh University Student's Association, in which he fully condemns and rebukes their decision to boycott and thus label Israel as an Apartheid State, the latest in-vogue method of delegitimization that Israel faces from the European left.


"May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain's great Middle East experts in their day.I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field. I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote. I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves.

Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those member of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby. Beinganti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I'm not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel. I'm speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out.

Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a 'Nazi' state. In what sense is thistrue, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nüremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.

Likewise apartheid. For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled things in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is. That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education. The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country's 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha'is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world centre; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of allreligions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population). In Iran, the Baha'is (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren't your members boycotting Iran?

Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they

go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews - something no blacks could do in South Africa.  Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat  Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.

In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home. It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stonedto death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief. Intelligent students thinking it's better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?

the Annual Gay Pride march in Jerusalem

University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak. I do not object to well documented criticism of Israel. I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it's clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens.

Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world's freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Baha'is.... Need I go on? The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott.

Bahai World Centre, Haifa

I ask you to show some common sense. Get information from the Israeli embassy. As for some speakers. Listen to more than one side. Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties.You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument. They are not at university to be propagandized. And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state. If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930s (which, sadly, there was not), don't you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it? Of course he would, and he would not have stopped the. Your generation has a duty to ensure thatthe perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you.

Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me that this makes sense. I have given you some of the evidence. It's up to you to find out more.

Yours sincerely, 

Dr. Denis MacEoin"

Shalom Salaam Peace. A new reality on Campus.

                                                   

 Darren Wayne Cohen,  Co-Founder of Shalom Salaam Peace at King's College London, writes for the LSESU Israel Society blog on both the progress and future ambitions of the fledgling Israeli Palestinian Forum at KCL.

                                                                  

Shalom Salaam Peace, now part of the national Israeli Palestinian Forum is the vision of a group of students at King’s College London who want to see a different political reality on campus.  Our vision is of a reality where the polarisation as well as the misinformation and ignorance that cause it have no place in the academic arena. We want to transform debate of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from futile point scoring to an equal platform for dialogue. We are non-partisan; our only agenda is for mutual respect and dialogue. We are neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestine nor do we support a specific solution we exist simply to open up the conversation.We feel that any person on campus, regardless of their religion, race or nationality should not feel intimidated or ashamed to project their political identity and affiliations. 

 "no Jewish or Israeli student should have to hide the fact he or she is a Zionist and no Palestinian or Muslim student should feel intimated by the irrational charge of anti-Semitism every time they try and support their cause for justice for the Palestinian people". 

The actualization of this project, for now, has two main facets: Education and Dialogue. Education takes place in the form of either academic analysis of the conflict or through balanced panels that present the spectrum of opinion. This exposes students to both narratives. It is imperative that all students affected or interested in the conflict have a full understanding of the narratives of both the Palestinian and Jewish peoples. 

"This education is a paramount basis for respect, understanding and informed dialogue." 

Dialogue takes place in the form of either post-event discussion or on our Facebook forum where members from around the world can post articles and their feelings about them for a conversation to take place that respects all the people in it. This is particularly useful at times of high tension such as Itamar, the recent Jerusalem bombing, or bombardment in Gaza, which sadly killed innocent civilians.

We have so far had three events with varying degrees of success. Our first event was controversially entitled, “Does Israel have the Right to Exist?”  given by philosopher Rai Gaita from King’s. Our objective was to begin by providing a historical yet critical account of the Zionist narrative and Israel’s existential legitimacy. This will be balanced with an account of the Palestinian narrative. 

Our second event brought together an Israeli and a Palestinian to the same platform who both vociferously declared that despite the suffering both peoples have encountered their shared quest for peace and two self-determining and dignified peoples and states is eternal. 

Most recently, we had a topical panel debate entitled “The Unilateral Declaration of a Palestinian State: Consequences for Regional Peace.” The stage was shared by former PLO negotiator and King’s Professor Yezid Sayigh alongside Israeli Embassy Counsellor Ran Gidor, Human Rights Activist and founder of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign Peter Tatchell and KCL conflict expert Simon Waldman. The objective was to expose attendees to the notion of Palestinian unilateral statehood and the future for the region. There were over eighty attendees.

Our vision for the future is even greater dialogue and to delve more profoundly into the key issues of the conflict, eradicating ignorance on both sides. We would like to work with both Palestine societies who are playing a crucial role for the Palestinian people as well as Jewish and Israel societies who advocate for Israel. Nationally, the Israeli Palestinian Forum has ambitious visions for collaboration and a true revolution in the politics of UK campuses which has the potential to spread to the rest of the country and Europe.

We welcome all people from around the world to join the conversation and do our part for a just solution to a conflict which affects so many. 

Inaugural Address... Kick off.

                                                               Jay Stoll

As the inaugural post on this blog.... I guess that a vision, or an agenda would probably be the logical way to set up further contributions.. yet from what i personally have learnt this year within the School and beyond, there are countless opinions for each person engaged in the conflict, so whoever can be bothered to read... please take in that this  is only representative of my own views... and whoever we manage to get to contribute on here in the coming months and throughout the year ahead will do so upon their own platforms. Debate is crucial, the varying perspectives within such debate even more so.

My history teachers have and always will despise my persistence in using a football match as the foundations for an analogy on any past or present political situation. "Its distastefully childish, simplistic, unnecessary and quite idiotic"to quote one of them this year. Yet.. that is what this conflict has become. A point scoring phenomenon in which the two teams do precious else other than to pursue their own agendas, to win the match. Outside the formal politics, the star players in this growing trend.. an inability  to converse like civilized human beings.. with stunts, stalls and polarizing speakers, especially on campus, increasingly pushing the moderates back into a protective shell of disengagement, disenchantment and disinterest.

Within the formalities, progress is worryingly thin. Characterized by complete silence, each side is firmly holding to its own tactics. The internationally recognized Palestinian leadership presents its requirements for a two-state solution, but will not discuss the matter until Israel stops building settlements in the West Bank. The coalition in charge in Israel at the moment wont present any form of peace plan whatsoever... it insists there must be no preconditions, not even a partial building freeze.

Yossi Beilin, a key architect of the Oslo Agreement, in a recent Haaretz article, probably best summed the current gridlock up "Netanyahu's government is not ready to pay even the minimal price demanded by the pragmatic Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad. The Palestinian leadership is not able to coerce Hamas into accepting its authority and thus cannot include Gaza in any perceivable solution. Thus, even if the two sides were able to sign a permanent agreement, as I hope, it could only be implemented in the West Bank."

The Referee, the Obama administration, has yet to impose itself. Embarrassed upon Biden's arrival last year, with the announcement of new settlement blocks, there has been no tangible advance on returning to the  a negotiating table. Granted, the so-called "winds of change" across the Arab world and the continuing commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq has necessitated a greater focus elsewhere, yet with this in mind.. it is notable that the progress before Tunisia's uprising was hardly anything substantial. The Leader of the Free World promised us hope in 2008, if there was a time to prove that this wont be consigned to the list of wonderfullycatchyyetimpossibletotrulyactupon campaign pledges... the Middle East is crying out for it now.


Time then to get everybody back talking again.. with the 20 year anniversary of the Madrid Conference fast approaching, the time is now. The recent tragedies in Itamar, Jerusalem and Gaza, descended upon by the vultures who seek to capitalise politically on bloodshed,  should warn us all of the dangers of a stagnant peace process. The Guardian recently groaned that with the release of the Palestine Papers that any belief in progress remains consigned to the minds of the 'Panglossian Optimist'. Im not a fan of labels, but this isn't one to be avoided.

With this, fellow Panglossians.. Arise! Bridges, not boycotts. Substance, not propaganda. Dialogue, not distance. At the grassroots, recent history should tell us a unified voice eventually triumphs. In order to make push those at the top into talking again, a bit of self-assessment would go along way.

B'Shalom...