Creative Commons licensed photograph courtesy of Flickr user michaelramallah.

The recent sit-in at the Cambridge University Law Faculty excited a range of emotions: passion and devotion to their cause on the behalf of the protestors, leading to an exhausted fatigue as the conflict reached its climax, to the evident curiosity and frustration of many of us who walked on by, pondering the reasons which had driven those inside to resort to such action. In many ways, the protest evoked the mythology of the sixties. Banners proclaiming ‘Free Palestine’ decked the walls, left-wing publications abounded. We could all sign a petition calling on the University to meet the protestors’ demands.

So does this renewed manifestation of student activism signal a re-birth of widespread Student direct action? Probably not. Undoubtedly, Cambridge was not alone. Similar protests took place in Universities across the country accompanied by wider demonstrations throughout Europe. That said, despite interest in the recent conflict in the Gaza strip resting at a healthily high level, it is evident that the protest was the concern of a relatively small number of students which, although attracting some vocal support, failed to win over a dedicated following broader than its initial agitators. Like the student demonstrations of the sixties, largely, in America at least, in protest against the war in Vietnam, leadership was confused, interests extraneous to the desire for peace and humanitarian aid penetrated the manifesto and the image presented was too combative for comfort. Protests such as these alienate people. Indeed, during the war in Vietnam, animosity to the extreme student protests was one of the factors which maintained the support of the people behind the government. Even when the tide of opinion turned after 1968, few Americans could move themselves to sympathise with the demonstrations; they were the preserve of the hippies of the far left.

Direct action can be admirable. Talking to a number of those who participated in the sit-in, it was clear that their convictions were sincerely held. They made their case, endured pressure from University authorities and have come out of the Law Faculty with a sense of pride and honour. Nevertheless, to speak beyond the confines of the recent protest, the legitimate means of securing redress of grievance which exist in a modern representative democracy must always be the route through which we pursue our cause. They are there because they are fair, balanced and open to all. Those who indulge in direct action run the risk of expelling themselves from the realm of reasonable debate and place themselves outside the corridors of power where policy is made. Dramatic protest can be self-defeating.

But what of the events which motivated this demonstration, the important issues at hand? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which seems to enter phases of hope for a resolution, failed hope and then fresh fighting, should weigh on our minds and on the minds of every government which seeks stability and peace. In many ways, it is the epicentre of the turbulence which we take as synonymous with the term ‘Middle East’. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and incursions into Gaza are often alleged to be the sparks lighting the fires of Islamic extremism, raise the consistent possibility of a regional war with world-wide repercussions and will, for as long as it lasts, lead to friction between the West and the Islamic Arab world. The history of the conflict is constantly debated and open to manipulation on both sides, and in the Holy Land, history is never far from peoples’ imagination.

The recent war in Gaza is yet another entry into the annals of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israeli citizens were attacked by Hamas, their government, like any government, had a duty to protect them and to neutralise the threat of the increasingly well equipped and well funded enemy army on their frontiers. Israel had to act. On the other hand, the continued occupation of the West Bank and steady growth of the Jewish settlements represents one of the main road-blocks to peace and to the eventual foundation of a Palestinian state. Israel must further recognise that her cause is never helped by the use of ultimate conventional force against predominantly civilian areas of Gaza, as much as those in Europe liable to sympathise with the Palestinians must recognise the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organisation with links to Iran, elected though it may be, and shares responsibility for civilian deaths owing to the cynical use of civilian facilities by its militants during the recent fighting. We should not take sides in a conflict not our own, but seek to resolve it in the interests of humanity and to protect the innocents caught up in the maelstrom of war.

What can be done? Injustice has been perpetrated by both sides; enmities run deep. History, however, can not be reversed or altered. As it is, the only way to resolve this conflict is to look to the future, recognise the realities on the ground, keep in mind the past and its lessons, but build a future settlement based on the possibilities of the present day, not the possibilities of 1947, 1967 or 1973. Israel can not remove well established settlements in the West Bank, only stop further expansion and cooperate fully with the Palestinian authority in the task of sharing and broadening the West Bank’s infrastructure which must be open to both Israeli and Palestinian. If Hamas wants legitimacy and desires peace, it must lay down its arms, pledge itself to the recognition of Israel and cut its ties to Tehran. Foreign statesmen must show patience, consideration and a determination to be tough with both sides if necessary.

The curtain has been drawn on the drama of the Law Faculty Occupation. The troubles of the Middle East remain. If both sides demonstrate the maturity, pragmatism and perseverance for a fair settlement which direct action so often lacks, there may yet be peace.

Filed under: arabisraeliconflict, democracy on January 30th, 2009