Let’s Not Play the Fool
Tamara Himani is in proposition of the motion, ‘This House Would Pressurise Israel to Exchange Land for Peace’, arguing that the problem is a familiar one.
By Tamara Himani
In its usual sequence, Thursday’s debate sounded the familiar Greek tragic chorus: Israel is an apartheid state. Hamas are Iran-backed terrorists. And, of course, inevitably, “We should all get along and be friends”. All statements contain truth, yet there was little effort to carve a solution out of them. We know that Israel is an apartheid state. We know that Palestinians are suffering, but if Palestinian suffering held any political weight, this motion would not be up for debate. So the question then becomes: what is the current cause of violence, and how do we end it?
This is really quite simple and not rooted, shockingly, in any maniacal Arab-Islamist proclivity to violence (despite the entertainment these accounts never fail to provide). It is this: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When authority is provided with political impunity, the lines between security necessity and predatory opportunism very quickly blur. The ensuing political misconduct naturally fosters resentment among the mistreated. This is not because there is a fundamentalist behind every fig tree; illegitimate governance, primarily external or discriminatory occupations, breeds resistance (take the Irish Republican Army in Ireland; Basque Homeland and Freedom in Spain; or a rich global history of anti-colonial resistance). The continued repression of such resistance only begets greater militancy; in other words, grief radicalises. If I must wake up at three in the morning every day to pass several checkpoints to get to work; if my daughter goes up to the roof to play with the neighbourhood cat and returns in a body bag; if I am told I am fortunate to receive her body back at all, and would I kindly grieve between the hours of three and four PM while her killers stand guard; these nagging indignities should, with time, eat at my patience. They should make me want to retaliate. For non-state actors, “terrorism” is logistically the most straightforward tool with which to register these grievances. It might be worth noting that the African National Congress, South Africa’s current ruling party, was likewise considered a terrorist organisation beneath the apartheid regime. The state imposing the apartheid, unsurprisingly, was not; it was a US beneficiary.
Of course, terrorism encourages greater repression, and the cycle continues until the Jewish-democratic state looks neither particularly Jewish nor democratic. The Jewish right has been increasingly preoccupied with the ‘demographic threat’ posed by a growing Palestinian population. Such fears have sent all illusions of democracy packing: successive laws have sought to strengthen the military, weaken the judiciary, repress NGOs and other civil society activity, create a state paramilitary wing, smoothen the leap from convicted criminal to a cabinet minister, and increase minority parties’ control over the legislature. Israel’s Western security partners can only blush with embarrassment while they watch their credibility in the region sink below sea level. A ‘rules-based international order’ is a less lauded principle than a laughable punchline.
So this repression-radicalisation cycle can continue. Or, with our encouragement, Israel can cut itself a deal. This would not simply ‘exchange land for peace’ but provide the autonomy that ought to accompany such land; this is unfortunately not presently the case in Gaza, charmingly referred to as “the world’s largest open-air prison”. Nor is it the case in the West Bank, where Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, hardly able to keep his eyes open for business — let alone the 593 military checkpoints by which he is surrounded — finds $400 million in funding frozen if attempting to do something even so ineffectual as take Israel to the ICC. As with most indigenous authorities institutionalised during colonial rule, he is not a resistance leader but a neutralised threat. Hamas’ victory in the 2006 elections, following the fruitless Oslo Accords, two crushed intifadas, and almost 60 years of dispossession, persecution and occupation, reflects a hapless recognition of this impotence.
Western history in the Middle East is one of impunity, repression, resistance and collapse. British-French colonial rule fell. As did the conservative monarchies they installed in their place. As did US interventions during the War on Terror. As did the repressive regimes during the Arab Spring. Israel is not the exception to this rule, but its magnifying glass: the Palestinian population is getting younger and more disillusioned with formal authority; the international community is increasingly disapproving. As always, the best advice is the simplest: stop striking the match if you want to put out the fire.
Tamara Himani is a second year BA in History and Politics student at St. Catharine’s College, University of Cambridge
The opinions expressed in this piece are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Cambridge Union Society.
On May 4, Cambridge Union Society debated the motion, “This House Would Pressurise Israel to Exchange Land for Peace”. The house abstained on the motion with a vote of 71 in favour, 80 abstentions, and 28 in opposition.
