What are we hoping to achieve through CGS?

[beccy]

Why did you, as an individual, occupy the Law Faculty? What were you hoping to achieve? Why do that instead of just holding a fund-raising event to send aid to the people of Gaza? Why condemn violence against the innocent civilians of one side, and laud/remain silent on violence against the innocent civilians of the other? What can we really hope to achieve, beyond humanitarian aid, from Britain? Is anything that tries to address the wider political context of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza a distraction from our real purpose? If so, why address the political situation at all, and not just stick to charity?

Are you hoping to bring about the destruction of the state of Israel, over and above an end to all borders? Are there any other modern states that you view as stolen land? Is the nature of peace more important than bringing that peace about, or is peace only possible with an end to the state of Israel? Have you considered these questions, or were you just going with the trend?

Have you been unhappy at any stage with what CGS has been saying and doing? How would you like it to be different?

[beccy]

P.S. I personally am indifferent to whether or not Israel exists as a Jewish state: but what I'm not indifferent to is an end to the killing and a normalisation of relations between Israel and Palestine, and I don't think it's helpful at this stage to expect to go straight from the current situation, of religious fundamentalism, racism, violence and resentment on both sides, to a secular, binational, democratic one-state solution. I don't think that Zionism is inherently bad, or that it would be impossible for a Jewish state to co-exist with a Palestinian one as a major first step in the peace process. I resent the governments of both Israel and Palestine for failing to bring that about, and am acting in response to the overall devestation of the situation in Israel-Palestine, rather than a knee-jerk reaction to the most recent events. If the only way, at this stage, to bring about peace is through viable statehood for both sides, I would rather promote that idea and put pressure on both sides to accept it, than push Israel further and further to the right, and legitimise the targetting of innocent Israeli civilians by Hamas.

I think we can do far more than sending aid, although that is an important part of our work, and we shouldn't be doing anything without thinking through the situation as a whole very carefully, and working our what the most helpful way of responding is.

[eleftherios]

Beccy said:
"I think we can do far more than sending aid, although that is an important part of our work, and we shouldn't be doing anything without thinking through the situation as a whole very
carefully, and working our what the most helpful way of responding is. "

Hi Beccy, so what do you propose of doing? What is your idea? Be more specific please on what to do.

[beccy]

Engage with the situation overall and not just one side of it. Promote engagement and understanding between different groups and beliefs. Actively show our support for the innocent victims on both sides; call for an end to violence on both sides; and seek to, in some small way, contribute to the long and difficult process of bringing about long-term peace, rather than just immediate humanitarian relief. Care about the situation even when it hasn't boiled over into a humanitarian crisis.

Understand; engage; distinguish; support; seek balance; think through really carefully who and what we are opposing and why; be committed to peace first and foremost; avoid villifying any group or ideology.

[eleftherios]

I said be more specific but you are still being theoretic. Propose actions please. If you are still implying condemning Hamas I would like to remind you that this cannot happen now as it was voted in our general meeting and if you think that it is crucial for you bring it up again for voting.

[beccy]

It was not voted on in our general meeting: it has been repeatedly dismissed, initially during the occupation and then in discussions that followed. We did not vote on whether or not to condemn anything about Hamas, because we were told that we would talk about it later. A paragraph on the suffering of innocent Israeli civilians was then squeezed into the open letter we wrote in a rush, and it has since not really been talked about. I am not proposing that we condemn Hamas as an entity: I'm proposing that we state our support for people who are the victims of this conflict on both sides, and do not laud the targetting of the poorest citizens of non-contested territory as 'legitimate resistance'. I am proposing that we actually devote time to thinking about this and do actually take a vote, on whether or not to acknowledge that, whilst brutal and destructive, the Israeli attack on Gaza did not come from nowhere: it came from eight years of rocket attacks against people who haven't taken any land, haven't built any checkpoints, haven't done anything except happened to be born somewhere, and possibly even committed that cardinal sin of trusting their government.

Other than that, I mean that thinking through the real underlying situation, engaging with all perspectives, being balanced and fair-minded and hosting balanced and fair-minded educational events: these are all practical things we can do, on top of raising money and aid to rebuild Gaza. If we don't want this kind of thing to happen again in another few years, we need to keep being active even once we've had our big day of fundraising, and really make an effort to show ordinary Israeli citizens that we care as much about their suffering and losses as we do the other side's; and that there is another way. Maybe that way, next election, we can have contributed to a shift to the left rather than a shift to the right in Israeli politics.

And we need to distinguish between Zionists (as in the range of ordinary people who call themselves Zionists to describe a diverse range of beliefs) and the current or past governments of Israel or leaders of Zionism, who might have done things or believed things that we disagree with. We need to be strict about distinguishing between Jews and Israelis; between different perspectives in Israeli politics; between resistance of the heavy-handedness of the Israeli government and the targetting of innocent civilians; that sort of thing. We need to not try to shut people up or keep people out of our discussions.

[eleftherios]

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to find the minutes of this voting now as it was not publish in the mailing list. If anyone has them let me know. I want to remind you something Beccy. Because you said that you are a humanist, remember that a humanist puts first the human being rather his country. A humanist is a citizen of the world. I hope you are a true humanist and you are spending our time repeating your self for a good reason. Think of the following scenario: Some fanatic lunatics from country X attack country Y. They kill 20 innocent people from country Y. Country Y attacks country X and kills 20000 people most of them civilians and occupies the country as well. Think for example that X is UK and Y is Sierra Leone. Who do you support first? Y that lost 20? or X that lost 20000 and it is more difficult to survive at the moment?

Anyway this discussion is going for ever and ever it seems. If you have any further actions you want to add to our schedule please do so. If you want to see this situation with an open mind try to think that you originate from a different country. In that way you might stop feeling a victim and see the overall picture.

[beccy]

I DON'T FEEL LIKE A VICTIM. I personally have never been a victim of this conflict, thank goodness. If I had been, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to me which side I was on or how many the people on my side who were victims numbered.

Are you seriously saying that the only people who can look beyond death tolls to think about this situation as a bigger picture and with sympathy to both sides are people who originate from Israel? As a humanist, I DON'T CARE WHICH SIDE IS SUFFERING AND IN WHAT NUMBERS, I JUST CARE THAT PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING. As a humanist, I don't dismiss people, I believe that it is possible for all of us, together, to make the world a better place. That is not contingent on my background.

I don't think that what happened in Gaza was awful because of the numbers. I think that what happened in Gaza was awful because of every single individual who was affected by it, just as I think that what's happening in Israel is awful because of every single individual who is affected by it. I don't reduce things down to numbers. Sure, Israel over-reacted. I DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR. But you can't just pretend that the people of Tsderot don't exist, or don't matter because there are less of them: that's just absurd.

Is it so difficult to be pro-solution instead of pro or anti one or other side? Is this something that only people with direct ties to Israel are capable of???

[xylokarabes]

Woah Beccy, chill the fuck out.

Scholarships, aid, attention to the issue, personally. Concrete assistance. I didn't give a fuck about who condemned what, I just wanted less people to die and as much assistance to the people of Palestine as I could extract. Personally I was disappointed with the outcome, for that reason.

[digger1]

same
Gaza is not my thing or at least not my regular thing. I got involved for a fair few reasons including the one directly above. Cambridge University was an easy target and it has shitloads of cash. The uni could release more cash in one day than we could raise in a month and god knows how much the university could raise itself.
Direct action gets the goods, very little is acheived without it or the threat of it.
I wanted to stick it to the people of Israel who I hate with a passion.
( sorry partaking in a bit of beccy baiting here, Your angry replies are really good)

In the cirrent conflict one 100(/1000?) Palestinians died for every Israeli killed. As much as I support the slogan "no war but class war" I can happily side with the palestinians on this one. I act in solidarity with workers of all nations and it is the working class who suffer in wars. I sympathise with the people of Tsderot becasuse as you stated before, they are those too poor to flee. And i do not support terrorism or the targeting of the poor.
However, partisans killed germans, anarchists killed spanish fascists, Zapatistas killed Mexicans, Sandanistas killed nicuraguans IT DOESN'T MAKE BOTH SIDES EQUAL! Am
I supposed to condemn Algerians for fighting for their independence? Or Italian partisans for killing Fascists?

I stand against war but I will hapily condemn the side who kills in such outragous disproportion. "War is the terrorism of the rich on the poor, terrorism is the war of the poor on the rich." I do not support either war or terrorism and in this quote rich/poor can be exchanged for powerful/weak big/small and even increasingly White/black
The israeli state , along side the american state and the british state, Fits the U.S.A description of a terrorist state. Lets oppose isreali terrorism as well as palestinian "terrorism", I put in the quotes because regardless of what i think morally as an occupied people they have the legal right to resist.

If you're so fussed about people dieing and not about numbers why choose palestine and not the thousands of pensioners in britain who died this winter and the hundreds of builders who won't see next christmas. You do realise that WORK kills more people than famine or war. Humanist seems to me, and I hope i'm wrong in your case, to be a fussy liberal way of saying I oppose war and pverty but not the system that causes it and not the direct victims of that system as this would burst my little "suffering is caused by bad people" bubble.

[beccy]

Well, for me obviously the situation on the ground in Israel-Palestine is as pressing as the one on the ground here in England; hence why I'm more curious to know why other people take such an interest in it above their own internal affairs or wider world conflict and injustice. Not in an accusatory way: I just really want to get my head around why the Israel-Palestine conflict, or rather the plight of the Palestinian people, gets so much international attention.

Fortunately, I am as concerned about injustice here as I am anywhere else. I believe in getting as much done in the immediate future as possible, within the way things are now to help people in a material, immediate and concrete way, whilst also overall working towards a wider change in society and international relations. Hence, I promote fair trade whilst at the same time ultimately hoping to end the concept of trade; I act in solidarity with the people of Palestine, send them aid, think about how Israelis are feeling, try to promote dialogue and think about the most practical short-term solution, and hope that in the long-term, borders will end generally and there won't be the need for statehood for either party; I fight the job cuts at the university press, and make sure CUSU motions get passed about them; I'm pretty active on a lot of fronts, really, and don't apologise for the fact that, for me, it's not all-out revolution or nothing. It's baby steps, with the overall aim of all-out revolution. Whether we've got more chance of helping to bring about revolution in the Middle East, or a short-term solution to the conflict that is acceptable to both sides even if not ideal, would be a debate worth having, I feel. Unless all we're doing is trying to get aid to people who are suffering, in which case, as you say, we should probably be dividing our efforts up more.

P.S. I love how you invoke the Palestinian's legal right to defend themselves. Legally, Israel has the right to exist and 'defend itself'. I didn't realise we were so worried about upholding the law and using it to guide our moral judgements. I personally don't really see how firing rockets at innocent poor people really helps anyone, whether or not it's legal: in fact, it seems to me that it only strengthens the Israeli state's determination to oppress the Palestinians and suppress Israeli dissent. I wish Hamas would find less destructive ways of resisting. Obviously, there's the argument that when they resist peacefully, that doesn't really help them either, but the point is, if neither's achieving an awful lot, peaceful resistance will win a lot more Israelis round, and then they can all listen to Eleftherios' advice and start resisting their government. Right now, the Israeli state couldn't be better off: most people in Israel are united against Palestinian violence, and no one has any room left to notice any other problems...

[xylokarabes]

P.S. I love how you invoke the Palestinian's legal right to defend themselves. Legally, Israel has the right to exist and 'defend itself'.

All rights are a legal fiction. Rights claimed by fictional bodies (such as nations) are a fiction within a fiction.

[digger1]

I totally agree with xylokarabes. however We must understand their language. I was merely pointing out that by their own definitions Israel is "more of a terrorist" than palestinians.
I agree that israel has a right to exist and defnd itself but under the same law so does palestine therefore both nations are partaking in a similar action but one breaks the ceasefire and kills tens of thousands and one kills a few hundred in responce to a breach of the ceasefire.

[eddm]

This is an important thread, thanks for setting it up Beccy. Sorry to everyone that I didn't make the meeting the other day.

I think it was maybe necessary to play the humanitarian card strongly when we were in the Law Fac, for tactical reasons, but CGS was always a political group. Yes, there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but it's not the result of a tsunami or another natural disaster, its because of war. It's not unfortunate, it's entirely preventable. Because there are people politically responsible for starting the war, for initiating the horrific siege of the Strip and so on.

Therefore surely we should identify who these people responsible are, and oppose them? Otherwise we're just another charity group collecting for the unfortunates of the 'third world'.

Hell, recently even the mainstream charities acknowledged tat there needed to be a political solution to make any of their aid worthwhile in the long run, otherwise they're just throwing money away. No point rebuilding a school that'll be bombed in the next war in 2 years time.

The question of political responsibilty was always at the heart of our action. We condemned the Israeli government. We condemned the university for its silence and its arms investments. I think when condemning it's always necessary to do so in the name of a positive alternative, but I recognise that this is obviously where a great deal of disagreement occurs. So I haven't pushed my Socialist politics onto the group in a very strong way, nor do I think it's up to CGS to come up with a roadmap for Middle East peace!

But what we can do, as a solidarity rather than a charity group, is assist those who oppose the crimes being perpetrated in Palestine. What we can do as a predominantly student group is expose our university's complicity in all this shit. I'm worried that, with fundraising and convoys and so on, we're doing all the stuff we wanted the uni to do. Us being busy with that is great for the uni bureaucracy because we slacken our criticism of them. Remember they've raised £800m in their anniversary fundraising drive - how much of that is going to Gaza? 0p.

[cisneros]

What is our university's complicity in all this shit? Is any of it active complicity? it seems the system that grinds the university on is quite immune to us shutting ourselves in a building: more perception of public solidarity with gaza, the media stuff, wasn't related to the university. None of our relationships with the university now are challenging to it in any way, am i right?
they seem a lost cause, and it is questionable whether they ever weren't - the campaign to change this system needs to be broader and gradual and sustained and built up in groups all across the uni.