Solidarity
Feb. 2nd, 2009 12:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lavendersparkleThere was an occupation of the Cambridge Law faculty last week in 'solidarity' with Gaza. I've realised that I'm actually a lot more angry about this than I thought I was. The reason isn't what you might think. It's not the issue that they chose but the method.
Yes, I am fed up already of all the stuff about Gaza. I am really tired of randomers turning up to J-soc events and eating our food because the email about the event mentioned judging the value of human life so they assumed the talk about the medical ethics of triage must be about military action. The only thing they think about when they think about Jews is Gaza so that must be what all J-soc events are about. I'm fed up with ending up in conversation with Catholics who try to subtly compare Israel to Nazi Germany whilst displaying that they have very little knowledge of the demographics or politics of the country. Usually this sort of stuff is a general baseline which I can mostly ignore but it doesn't seem to have quite gone away despite the cease fire and the heating up of other conflicts around the world. Despite all this, it's not actually the cause they chose which annoyed me but the way they went about it.
All credit to them, they weren't antisemitic. This might sound like faint praise, but actually any protest about Gaza which doesn't degenerate into offensive inaccurate holocaust analogies or antisemitic stereotypes is an achievement. They even went as far as to consciously think about how to make it clear that they weren't trying to target or harass Jewish students. Of course, at least some Jewish students were still going to be upset by the protest because, let's face it at the end of the day, Gaza wouldn't have been the cause of the biggest direct action in Cambridge in living memory, if British people liked Jews a bit more. That's not to say that any of the people in the Cambridge occupation are antisemitic, just that the fact that this particular conflict became the big cause for all leftie students to care about has it's roots in a big mire of racism, colonialism and antisemitism. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't protest about it, but it does mean that there's no way that that protest isn't going to cause hurt. Another factor is that very few people who turn out to a protest about something in another country, know much about that country other than the issue they're protesting. It's upsetting and frustrating for people from that country, or who have links to that country to know that the only thing anyone knows about that country is this issue.
I've been thinking for the last month what the best thing English people could do for Gazans. I think it would be sending humanitarian aid through NGOs. I'm not convinced that even if the British government condemned Israel's actions it would have much effect, never mind if random British institutions condemned them. I don't know. On the one hand Israel is a liberal democracy which cares about it's reputation, on the other hand, widespread protests and ridiculous double standards in condemnation may just convince Israelis that the rest of the word hates them so they better elect a hawkish government. I know that the last month made me more glad that Israel exists and more likely to want to live there at some point. Either way, I don't think that the occupation was ever likely to do any Gazans any good.
And that's the thing which made me most angry about the occupation. I was never going to do any good. That just left such a bad taste in my mouth. People, real people, not just imaginary people who exist simply to give you a cause to feel radical about, die and are maimed and face terrible hardship and your response is to have protest themed sleep over! It indicates to me that the organisers of the occupation clearly prioritise their own chance to reenact the 1960s over any Gazan's welfare and that's just sick. The world's oppressed are not there to give undergraduates a fun hobby.
Even if they did have a snowballs chance in Hell of getting the university to agree to their demands I still find their methods objectionable. I think direct action has it's place. I've engaged in direct action. I think it has a place when you want an undemocratic entity to do something different because it will have a direct effect on the wrong you want to right, for instance when ACT-UP protested about Cosmo publishing false information about the risk of contracting HIV. There's direct action where you want to bring attention to a cause to help to bring around public opinion to your cause so that the issue can be dealt with democratically. Then there's direct action where you don't think the thing you're protesting against will change it's ways, but it's important to the people being wronged to feel that they have stood up to it, like Reclaim the Streets. The Law Faculty occupation wasn't any of these. It was trying to force an institution which had no direct involvement in the issue to issue a statement which did not represent the view of the majority of the members of that institution. I don't think that that's at all reasonable.
If they actually card about what happens to other people, why didn't they put their effort into fund raising? Why didn't they put their effort into their studies so that one day they'd have there skills to actually help, like a friend of mine whose currently acting as a human rights lawyer in Malawi? If they don't care enough to put the thought into what action will give the most benefit to those they claim to care about, I wish they'd just stayed home and engaged in mutual masturbation where the rest of us didn't have to watch.
Yes, I am fed up already of all the stuff about Gaza. I am really tired of randomers turning up to J-soc events and eating our food because the email about the event mentioned judging the value of human life so they assumed the talk about the medical ethics of triage must be about military action. The only thing they think about when they think about Jews is Gaza so that must be what all J-soc events are about. I'm fed up with ending up in conversation with Catholics who try to subtly compare Israel to Nazi Germany whilst displaying that they have very little knowledge of the demographics or politics of the country. Usually this sort of stuff is a general baseline which I can mostly ignore but it doesn't seem to have quite gone away despite the cease fire and the heating up of other conflicts around the world. Despite all this, it's not actually the cause they chose which annoyed me but the way they went about it.
All credit to them, they weren't antisemitic. This might sound like faint praise, but actually any protest about Gaza which doesn't degenerate into offensive inaccurate holocaust analogies or antisemitic stereotypes is an achievement. They even went as far as to consciously think about how to make it clear that they weren't trying to target or harass Jewish students. Of course, at least some Jewish students were still going to be upset by the protest because, let's face it at the end of the day, Gaza wouldn't have been the cause of the biggest direct action in Cambridge in living memory, if British people liked Jews a bit more. That's not to say that any of the people in the Cambridge occupation are antisemitic, just that the fact that this particular conflict became the big cause for all leftie students to care about has it's roots in a big mire of racism, colonialism and antisemitism. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't protest about it, but it does mean that there's no way that that protest isn't going to cause hurt. Another factor is that very few people who turn out to a protest about something in another country, know much about that country other than the issue they're protesting. It's upsetting and frustrating for people from that country, or who have links to that country to know that the only thing anyone knows about that country is this issue.
I've been thinking for the last month what the best thing English people could do for Gazans. I think it would be sending humanitarian aid through NGOs. I'm not convinced that even if the British government condemned Israel's actions it would have much effect, never mind if random British institutions condemned them. I don't know. On the one hand Israel is a liberal democracy which cares about it's reputation, on the other hand, widespread protests and ridiculous double standards in condemnation may just convince Israelis that the rest of the word hates them so they better elect a hawkish government. I know that the last month made me more glad that Israel exists and more likely to want to live there at some point. Either way, I don't think that the occupation was ever likely to do any Gazans any good.
And that's the thing which made me most angry about the occupation. I was never going to do any good. That just left such a bad taste in my mouth. People, real people, not just imaginary people who exist simply to give you a cause to feel radical about, die and are maimed and face terrible hardship and your response is to have protest themed sleep over! It indicates to me that the organisers of the occupation clearly prioritise their own chance to reenact the 1960s over any Gazan's welfare and that's just sick. The world's oppressed are not there to give undergraduates a fun hobby.
Even if they did have a snowballs chance in Hell of getting the university to agree to their demands I still find their methods objectionable. I think direct action has it's place. I've engaged in direct action. I think it has a place when you want an undemocratic entity to do something different because it will have a direct effect on the wrong you want to right, for instance when ACT-UP protested about Cosmo publishing false information about the risk of contracting HIV. There's direct action where you want to bring attention to a cause to help to bring around public opinion to your cause so that the issue can be dealt with democratically. Then there's direct action where you don't think the thing you're protesting against will change it's ways, but it's important to the people being wronged to feel that they have stood up to it, like Reclaim the Streets. The Law Faculty occupation wasn't any of these. It was trying to force an institution which had no direct involvement in the issue to issue a statement which did not represent the view of the majority of the members of that institution. I don't think that that's at all reasonable.
If they actually card about what happens to other people, why didn't they put their effort into fund raising? Why didn't they put their effort into their studies so that one day they'd have there skills to actually help, like a friend of mine whose currently acting as a human rights lawyer in Malawi? If they don't care enough to put the thought into what action will give the most benefit to those they claim to care about, I wish they'd just stayed home and engaged in mutual masturbation where the rest of us didn't have to watch.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-02 03:02 pm (UTC)the biggest direct action in Cambridge in living memory
I doubt it; these sorts of sit-ins happen every couple of years, for one reason or another.
Another factor is that very few people who turn out to a protest about something in another country, know much about that country other than the issue they're protesting.
Well, that depends on the people. When I was involved, a decent portion of the cupal &c had family in Palestine, or had spent time there as part of the ISM, etc, or otherwise knew a decent amount about the issues.
[and there are plenty of other people, like me, who find what Israel has been doing in Gaza pretty outrageous, but keep quiet in recognition of our own ignorance, and because increased shouting from foreigners isn't going to resolve anything]
why didn't they put their effort into fund raising? Why didn't they put their effort into their studies so that one day they'd have there skills to actually help
Again, I don't know much about this particular event, but my experience is that being involved in protests positively correlates with volunteering for/donating to charities, training to do things that help others, etc, etc.
I know that the last month made me more glad that Israel exists and more likely to want to live there at some point
Huh? Really? You mean because you approve of the Gaza campaign? Or because it has made you more aware of antisemitism in the UK?
randomers turning up to J-soc events and eating our food
Heh. I remember when I was running an email list for political events, carefully trying to keep a balance between cupal events (which the organizers were hyperactive in emailing me about) and jsoc events (which jsoc rarely emailed me about, but did complain when I missed one). I guess even that pendulum can swing too far in either direction.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-02 03:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-02 05:15 pm (UTC)That's why I don't usually comment on the actual situation other than to point out when what someone is saying is glaringly inaccurate or misleading. I've commented a lot on how the ways in which people in Britain have reacted to the conflict because that's something I do know about and affects me and feel that I can do something about.
I think part of my not having much of a view on the conflict is a rebellion against all the times randomers expect me to have a view because I'm Jewish and the way that a lot of the time Jews who are asked about our views on the conflict are stuck in a catch 22 where our acceptability to the questioner is dependent upon our condemnation of Israel and if we do criticise Israel it will be used to 'prove' that no-one who criticises Israel is ever antisemitic. I'm beyond bored of playing that game.
I don't think that you're doing that. I'm just explaining how and why I appear to comment so much on protests about the conflict in Gaza but don't express much of a view on the conflict itself.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-02 05:04 pm (UTC)Huh? Really? You mean because you approve of the Gaza campaign? Or because it has made you more aware of antisemitism in the UK?
I felt less comfortable, welcome and safe in England. I got fed up with the constant grind of people being antisemitic and other apparently reasonable people telling me that I'm just imagining the antisemitism and anyway surely [insert progressive cause here] is more important so let's not even bother thinking about antisemitism. It made me want to live in a country where at least the Jew haters were across a disputed border. Actually it's made me a lot more determined to spend a year in Israel. I've wanted to go to study at yeshivah for ages but now I also want to go so that I can have the experience living there.
Another odd side of it is that I'd feel a lot more comfortable and more able to do something about Israel's policies from within it. Partly that's just obvious. Israel is a liberal democracy, it's own citizen's have more influence than random foreigners. I think it's also because it's easier to find a peace movement in Israel which I'd agree with. In England I'd have to carefully made through antisemitism and the people who don't want Israel to exist at all. In Israel it would be a lot easier to find a movement which wanted Israel to exist as a viable Jewish state but also wanted it to kill fewer people, whilst acknowledging that it is not the actually the evillest country in the world. Another factor is that it's too easy to criticise people whose experience you have never had. I can't imagine what it is like to live under threat of rockets and to fear for the continued existence of the country I live in. I feel judging the actions of people in that situation is difficult if you haven't lived it.
The event I was thinking of wasn't political. It was a talk by a medical ethicist about the halachic principles involved in deciding in a real case in a South African hospital whether it was permissable to not attach non-savagable trauma victims to a particular respirator because it would mean that the machine could not be used when a savable patient came in. It was called "Is our blood redder than mine? Priorities in saving lives". Before the talk started a boy I'd never seen at J-soc before asked whether the talk was about Gaza. I presume he got that idea from the title but it felt a bit like he was assuming that as the only thing he thought about when he thought of Jews was Gaza, our priorities must be the same. It may well have been a good thing that he came because the talk was very entertaining and informative and a great example of how halacha gets applied to modern dilemmas. Hopefully he'll have a more well rounded view of Judaism now.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-02 03:14 pm (UTC)I've been thinking for the last month what the best thing English people could do for Gazans. I think it would be sending humanitarian aid through NGOs.
I'm not sure that works. I treat the questions of how best to spend the money I've set aside for charity and the question of how to spend my time quite separately from one another. I want to spend my charity budget doing the maximum amount of good for the maximum amount of people - I don't care whether that turns out to be donating NGOs that work in Gaza or not.
How I spend my time, and how I choose to express my political opinions are entirely different questions for me, and much more complicated ones. I don't think it's a problem that I sometimes spend time on charities I wouldn't give money to.
People, real people, not just imaginary people who exist simply to give you a cause to feel radical about, die and are maimed and face terrible hardship and your response is to have protest themed sleep over!
The trouble is, I know that some Gazans are glad and grateful when people in the West organise protests in solidarity with them. I would rather listen to their opinions than those of other White Liberals Like Me theorising about whether it's offensive.
I think that if I were dying or maimed or facing terrible hardship, I would prefer to think that lots of people knew about it and were outraged on my behalf than that they weren't.
(Of course, it is very probably also the case that some Gazans are offended by Western protests, and others don't really care either way. I don't think there's any way of accurately judging what the majority think.)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-02 05:27 pm (UTC)I think I'd find the Law Faculty occupation less objectionable if it were initiated by the wishes of Gazans. I'd still object to the idea it reasonable to try to get the university to make statements which don't reflect the view of the majority of it's members through that sort of direct action but my main objection wouldn't hold. My post went a bit off course because I had meant to talk about the difference between solidarity and paternalism and how solidarity has to be about whose voice is heard and who has leadership within a movement rather than just a socialist sounding word you tag onto your campaign.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-02 07:16 pm (UTC)Yes, but then again, it's pretty clear the answer isn't "spend all my time agonising about how to spend my time", so you just have to decide on something and take the plunge.
I don't think I'd be able to get a highly paid soulless job, or keep it if I did manage to get one, so I feel I'm quite safe there!
I'm not sure if it's entirely reasonable to separate time and money because time spent volunteering could possibly be spent earning money.
With money, it seems to me that if you're not going to give everything you have to feed the poor, the best thing to do is to separate off a proportion of what you earn, and then try to maximise the good it does.
With time, it feels much more sensible to consider "what will I enjoy doing", "what am I good at", "what will help me become a better, more educated, more interesting person" and "are there social issues I've got a particular duty to do something about" at the same time as "what does the most good".
In both cases you have to balance altruism and selfishness, but with time, you can get this sort of positive feedback going - I enjoy things that increase my understanding, I'm good at things I enjoy, and I'm best able to maximise the good I do if my talents are being fruitfully employed. Whereas with money, the best way to balance them is simply by deciding that X% is for primarily selfish stuff and Y% is for purely altruistic stuff. (Of course, the X% is also likely to contain some altruistic stuff - presents, charity shop shopping etc.)
Does that make any sense? I'm sure I *have* a point, but it's very hard to explain.
My post went a bit off course because I had meant to talk about the difference between solidarity and paternalism and how solidarity has to be about whose voice is heard and who has leadership within a movement rather than just a socialist sounding word you tag onto your campaign.
This is true, and as I say I don't know much about the particular protest you're talking about. The people I know who are heavily involved in that kind of protest have mostly been to Palestine as ISM volunteers, or are Palestinian themselves.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-02 09:53 pm (UTC)But I'm wondering, when you write: "I am really tired of randomers turning up to J-soc events" - are you sure these people are there because they think the talk will be about Gaza, etc? I used to hover around Jewish events and be scared to approach people before I discovered I could convert because I wanted to be around Jewish people but was afraid of rejection since I had no obvious 'good reason' to be there. Maybe some of these people could be going through something like that? Just a thought...