![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Solidarity
Feb. 2nd, 2009 12:31 pmThere 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.
