Escalation in Violence in Southern Israel/Gaza

The escalation of violence between Israel and Gaza is of great concern to the LSESU Israel Society. The citizens of southern Israel have been subject to a barrage of rocket fire from militants within the Gaza strip. Over 200,000 school children have spent their last few days in bomb shelters instead of attending school. The strategy of indiscriminate rocket fire puts over 1,000,000 of Israel's citizens at risk, whom Israel has a right to defend.  The Israeli Air Force has carried out airstrikes in Gaza, killing 25 Palestinians, some of whom were responsible for these attacks, but invariably there is a grave risk that an increasing number will be civilian casualties. The false claim that only civilians have died in Gaza, and that Israel’s security is not really threatened is a worrying and harmful claim perpetuated by some members of the LSESU community. This is especially true in the knowledge that 15 of those killed were militants in the advanced stage of actualising further rocket launches. The LSESU Israel Society mourns the effect that the escalation in conflict has on ALL civilians involved. This escalation in violence again highlights the high price that people on both sides pay for the absence of diplomatic resolution to the conflict in the region. Israeli and Palestinian leaders, along with international counterparts should do everything in their power implement a meaningful diplomatic process to bring a lasting peace.

Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, Dr.Ahmad Tibi, Speaks at LSE

                                                                                             Jay Stoll

The Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, MK Dr Ahmad Tibi, spoke at an LSESU Palestine Society event this evening In Clement House, to an LSE students only event. He was accompanied by the Palestinian Ambassador to the UK.

Dr Tibi is an Arab-Israeli politician and leader of Ta'al, an Arab party in Israel.  He describes himself as Arab-Palestinian in nationality, and Israeli in citizenship. His main focus of his talk was advertised to be on how the Arab Spring had affected discourse and the realities inside of Israel, yet he instead focussed on the political status and discrimination against Arabs living in the country.

The framework of his speech was to describe the Palestinian people as a triangular structure. The base of the triangle are the occupied, the second level is the diaspora and the third is the 48 arabs inside the Green Line. He stated that without the latter, the Palestinian people would cease to be nothing like a political movement. It makes sense, considering his personal experience, that he chose to divulge on this demographic.

First he spoke of their character, stating that "In the personality of every Arab in israel there are two main components - national (part of the Arab nation) and civic component (citizens of Israel). Struggling to strengthen both elements by pushing forwards identity and character to be equal citizens."

Tibi then talked rather more empirically, citing the legislative realities behind his rhetoric on his own citizenship. "At any feat we are not equal - Apart from voting, there is a huge gap between Jewish citizens and Arab citizens"  Mentioning specifically the remits of education, infrastructure, health and agriculture as examples of "pure discrimination",  he noted that despite accounting for 20% of population, Arab-Israelis equate to only 7.5% employees in public sector. 

The next element of Dr. Tibi's speech revolved around the contradictions of the notion of a "Jewish State", a view of which he firmly believed relegated Arab citizens of Israel to a third-class status, "According to basic law, Israel is defined as Jewish and Democratic. Saying there is a pure contradiction between two values. If you are democratic you believe equal rights for all without consideration for ethnicity. But if you are defining state as ethnically jewish, you are directly saying Jews are superior. I cannot accept that. They are demanding us to accept 3rd degree citizenship."

The focus for his anger for the propagation of the 'Jewish State' undoubtedly lay with the "fascists" currently governing the most "racist Knesset of all time". Tibi emphasised the hypocrisy of those guiding citizenship legislation having only lived in the region for 30/40 years. A particular individual focus was placed upon the "chutzpah" of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. "He's talking about Arab citizens to recognise a 'Jewish Israel' to be deemed as loyal. We are indigenous. We did not immigrate. We were born there.He is the immigrant, talking about population transfer.. this is Israeli chutzpah."

The remainder of his talk focussed on Israel as what he perceived to be a democracy by name, but little else. He stated that the "weekly flash of racist laws against Arab minorities" meant that Israel is abiding by three kinds of rules. 

The first rule its preferential democracy for its Jewish population, which works to target Arab citizens through discriminatory laws on land purchase, amongst other things, Tibi labelled it as "an ethnocracy, Judocracy". The second 'rule': Racial Discrimination policy against the 20% Arab population contained in the same policies.The third 'rule'  he described as 'occupation and apartheid since 1967'.

He subsequently shifted his scrutiny to the international community who focus on the only the first 'rule', ergo its treatment of the 80%. The problems with this, he states, is the ignorance of a "massive violation of human rights" that should be punished. However, with a subsequent resignation, he cited the low cost, high profit nature of the Occupation as the reason for "nobody saying nothing". The control of the Jordan Valley, he said, provides almost $1bn in revenue for the Israeli government. 

On closing his address, Tibi focussed on two particular laws that he believed expressed a degree of lunacy in the oppression. One law was "against family unification - an Arab citizen of Israel who is willing to marry a Palestinian woman from the WB is totally forbidden from having her inside his house unless he is willing to leave the country." 

He stated in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker, there had been consecutive appeals against the law to no avail. "The law is being renewed year after year. Only Israel is dealing with love as a conspiracy. This kind of marriage is a real intimidation to security and threat of Israel (sic)" His next example was the 'banning of Palestinian communities from commemorating Nakba'

He then finished on a defiant, personal note. "To say they can stop us commemorating our history - we will not agree. You can bring me to court, law can not change narrative."

Dr Tibi, in full flow, in the Knesset.

We are Students, Not Governments.

                                                  Aimee Riese, LSESU Israel Society President

                                                         This is a cross-post from The Beaver

To be clear from the outset, events seen on campus on Monday were horrific. The Palestine Society protest

was disgusting. So were the water balloons thrown as a result. So was the violence towards those throwing

them. None of this should have happened. None of it should be acceptable on our campus.

It is a sad state of affairs when relations on our campus have deteriorated to this point.

It is for this reason, again, that I now openly and publicly call for members of the Palestine and Israel 

societies to dialogue.Dialogue allows activists for peace on both sides to engage and educate themselves

and others. In doing so, they become more effective in working towards their goals of peace. 

Dialogue creates understanding and it facilitates change. We are students, not governments. 

We have no restrictions on talking to one another. In fact, we have a unique opportunity 

in an academic environment to engage.

It is not unrealistic to expect graduates of the LSE to be facilitating change on an international level in the

future.Wouldn’t it be great if students had met before, not representing any government, but as students,

learning from each other?This is not the first time that dialogue has been offered.  

During Michaelmas Term, I offered to co-host an event between the Israel and Palestine Societies 

with both a Palestinian and an Israeli mother who lost their sons in the conflict. Those who were there 

witnessed the voices behind headlines, the reality of the suffering and the need for reconciliation. Those 

who were there will have also witnessed the Palestinian mother cry out, “Where are my representatives?“

I have appealed to our current Community and Welfare Officer to facilitate some sort of dialogue for our 

societies. I have met with the President of the Palestine Society and another member of their committee

to suggest ANY sort of dialogue, in ANY format, that we could jointly arrange. The Palestine Committee

again refused but suggested that a few individuals would like to participate, not under the banner of the

society. The Palestine Society has not replied to any of my messages to get in contact with those individuals.

The refusal of the Palestine Society to engage so far at any level is thoroughly depressing. 

Instead, they built a “wall” and a mock check-point, playing dress-up as Israeli soldiers.If your intention

is to raise people’s awareness of the Palestinian cause and be activists for peace, this alienated most 

students and offended many others who may otherwise join you.

I have no reason to justify engagement by presenting my own politics. As I explained, I believe

 engagement is valuable in itself. However, I feel that by revealing a little more about my own views, this 

may challenge the assumptions of members of the Palestine Society and the general reader. 

I have interned for Peace Now, the largest Israeli peace movement, continually critical of the 

government, and also for B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation

monitoring Israeli human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories.

I want to emphasise again that it is not because of my views that you should talk to me (indeed, many in the

Israel Society would not support the work of these organisations) but I hope this challenges the perceptions

that may (or may not) have been formed by not talking. It is precisely because of our differing views, 

both between the Israel and 

Palestine Societies and within them, that will challenge and educate all of us involved.

Moreover, this has moved beyond solely education. It has now entered the realms of good 

campus relations. It is worth emphasizing again how offensive the protest on Monday was. It presented

 the conflict in black and white, right and wrong. At a basic level, the depiction of a “wall” for the sole 

purpose of separation fails to recognise the reality.The purpose of this security structure is to directly 

prevent terrorism in Israel and the statistical evidence shows it has done so. Terror has affected members

of the Israel Society. 

It is hard to express how offensive the laughter and attitudes of the protestors in carrying out their 

protest was to these members. 

The Israel Society still believes that dialogue is the best way forward. It is the only way to handle 

tensions on campus. These tensions are real and grounded in experiences. I am sincerely appealing to 

members of the Palestine Society, both as supporters of the Palestinian cause and as students of the LSE, 

to talk to members of the Israel Society.