Cambridge Union Takes on Israel-Palestine Conflict
Journalists, academics, lawyers and students engaged in heated debate over whether western countries should push Israel to trade land for peace.
By Jonathan Marrow
Entering the coronation weekend in which a former Cambridge Union member — King Charles III — was crowned at Westminster Abbey, the debating society turned its view internationally to debate the motion ‘This House Would Pressurise Israel To Exchange Land For Peace.’ With mediation in the Israeli-Palestine crisis as distant as ever, constantly rising levels of violence, and controversial members of the new Israeli cabinet, students questioned whether Western countries could and should exert more pressure on Israel to come to the negotiating table. With a surprise vote of 71 in favour, 80 abstentions, and 28 in opposition, the Union suggested that there was not a clear-cut diplomatic answer to the crisis.
Leading the proposition was Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, who began by calling Israeli an “apartheid state” and suggesting its occupation of Palestinian territories is the longest and most brutal occupation in modern history. Arguing that by legal standards, Israel is the only official racist state in the UN, he suggested that “occupation is profoundly incompatible with any notion of democracy” and that Israel cannot be simultaneously Jewish and democratic. Shlaim criticised the actions of the United States. He suggested the United States pretends to be an “honest broker” but, in fact, is consistently partial towards Israel and only extends an already one-sided power imbalance between Israelis and Palestinians. Ultimately, he argued for a one-state democratic solution for peace.
Natasha Hausdorff, barrister and international law commentator, spoke first for the opposition, aiming to “correct the misinformation” of anti-Zionist arguments. She suggested that this debate hinged on the “basic right for people to live as an indigenous people in their homeland,” Israel. Discussing centuries of violence against Jews by Arab countries, she suggests the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is underpinned by a racist refusal to acknowledge Jews’ indigenous right to land, as Palestinian leadership calls for ethnic cleansing of Jews. Arguing that the occupation of the West Bank does not violate international law according to legal standards, she emphasised that while Arabs can live in Jewish-Israeli communities, Jews cannot safely live in Palestinian territories. She closed by arguing that “a vote for this motion is a vote for further enclaves of terror”, and the opposition was standing against further bloodshed.
Speaking second for the proposition was Qinglan Du, a student at Christ’s College. She spoke to her experience growing up in Jerusalem, and related the experience of both Israeli and Palestinian friends, both of whom faced danger and discrimination in their daily lives, epitomising how both Israeli and Palestinians are pressured by fear to turn to violence. Emphasising the details of the crisis — and how the situation in Jerusalem requires different solutions than that in the West Bank — she suggested that the daily interactions between Jewish and Arab citizens provide a model for reconciliation. She closed by expressing optimism about the road to diplomacy, emphasising, “Peace is entirely possible — I saw it with my own eyes.”
Jonathan Neumann, author and commentator on Israeli politics, spoke for the opposition by suggesting that the motion was a “time warp” more suited to decades ago when exchanging land for peace was realistic. He argued that Israel is always willing to make peace when there is a willing partner to negotiate with — as peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE demonstrate — but between a terrorist Hamas and a kleptocratic, undemocratic Fatah, there is no such Palestinian partner. Discussing the history of Israel’s unilateral withdrawals in the past, like those in Gaza and Lebanon, Neumann argued they have only proven to lead to ever more violence. Emphasising the collapse of past negotiations, he suggested the only real sticking point of the Palestinians is to recognise the legitimacy of a Jewish state. While that is the case, motions like this are simply “perverse” and anti-history.
Closing the case for the proposition was Wadah Khanfar, non-profit leader and former director of Al Jazeera, who invoked the strikingness of debating this motion in Cambridge, the alma mater of Arthur Balfour, author of the Balfour Declaration, which did so much to spur the current Middle Eastern conflict. Drawing on his experience as a journalist in the West Bank, he argued that the international condemnation of Israel is due to its effective resemblance to apartheid in South Africa, and the same arguments used to argue against Palestinian resistance were used to argue against ending apartheid in the 20th century. Emphasising the lack of autonomy in the West Bank, and the ability of Israeli soldiers to go through Palestinian territory unquestioned, Khanfar suggested that the conflict is not even, but rather fundamentally imbalanced. He rejected claims of Palestinian desires for ethnic cleansing and spoke of how Arabs and Jews have long been able to live together in peace. Remarking that peace is necessary not only for Palestinians but also for Israelis to live with themselves without being the oppressor. He closed by suggesting the key was for all to reject seeing each other as less than human.
Christian Owen, PhD history student at Trinity College, concluded the debate for the opposition. He began by rejecting Khanfar’s suggestion that there is zero Palestinian interest in antisemitic ideas, noting, for instance, Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas’ history of antisemitic stands. Suggesting that “land for peace” is not realistic given the degree of Israeli settlements that have now long existed, he suggested that the international community should be flexible and not pressure further forced removals of people, which the Middle East doesn’t need. Emphasising that going back to 1967 borders is not a solution to the crisis, Owen argued that instead of “land for peace”, the two sides should pursue “peace for peace,” building on bilateral deals to promote trust and reach agreements in time.
Despite heated debate from the paper speakers and student speakers in the audience, the Union was unable to reach a clear decision on the motion, with abstentions leading the vote count, suggesting that a unanimous solution to the crisis remains fundamentally distant.
The next debate at the Cambridge Union will be “This House Believes that the Free Market is the Enemy of Freedom and Democracy” at 8:00 pm on Thursday, May 11.
Jonathan is an MPhil in American history student at Homerton College, University of Cambridge.
Edited by Neelkabir Varsha Kapil
