Wherever it occurs, strife in the Middle East is bound to arouse strong emotions. As it should. Many students across the country have felt a need to raise money for humanitarian aid and find out more about the conflict since the recent crisis in Gaza.
Our Union, too, has policy on the issue. Passed by referendum in 2004 and 2007, it states that the Union ‘condemns acts of terrorism and aggression on all sides’ and will ‘inform our members of the background to the situation in the Middle East’.
Whatever your opinion on the conflict, this policy has been passed by a vote of all students, though nearly as many voted against, or abstained, as voted for it in 2007. However, the Union must be sure to stick stringently to what its members have allowed them to do, and not be tempted to interpret such policy more widely. They have failed to do this.
When the crisis in the Gaza Strip ignited recently, the Union put up an extensive statement on their website, which has subsequently been edited.
This original statement failed to condemn the rocket attacks by Hamas; indeed, it did not even mention the name of the terrorist organisation. No distinction was made between civilian and military casualties on the Palestinian side.
Clearly, this did not meet the requirement that the Union condemns aggression on all sides, nor does the omission of basic facts inform us of the full situation.
In addition, the extensive statement declared that the media ‘have given biased accounts of Israel’s attack.’ Maybe they have, but we never voted to allow the Union to take a position on this.
Yet the statement encourages us to ‘monitor the media’ and make complaints about their coverage. The last time I checked, the Union didn’t exist to analyse the coverage of the mass media on an international issue. It should let students decide for themselves whether the media is giving a fair account of the conflict.
Although this may seem like nitpicking, considering we have no real choice over whether we are members of the Union – and it has the authority to represent us all – we should question whether it should be allowed to be quite so flexible with the policy we have sanctioned them to campaign on.
The Middle East conflict is an incredibly divisive and complex issue, and one that must be approached with caution. We cannot, and must not, run the risk of such divisions spilling into the diverse student community in our city.
The Union should be concentrating on informing students on the background to the conflict. To do otherwise could run a risk of alienating some of their membership.
This has not been helped by the noisy and unavoidable ‘die-in’ demonstration that took place outside the Union, attended by a Sabbatical Officer (note the singular).
The sight of gravestones detailing Israeli atrocities and of students lying down on a Palestinian flag was certainly noticed by all those who passed in front of the Union. If those taking part wished to draw attention to themselves and their cause, then for that one day they no doubt succeeded.
However, although very detailed leaflets were also handed out, I can’t help but feel that the highly visual protest will be what those who passed the Union that day will have taken away with them.
It’s unclear as to what end the graphic demonstration served. Did students walk away with a better idea of the conflict and its historical and religious complexities, or with one-sided accusations shouted from a megaphone ringing in their ears?
Two Sabbatical Officers in fact made their opposition to the protest clear online. It’s obvious there are divisions within the team (perhaps one of the reasons for the subsequent edit to the Union’s statement).
When we see suffering around the world we should feel a need to act. Be it raising money for charity, finding out more about the conflict, or raising public awareness through open debate, there are plenty of ways to constructively make a difference. Neither the Union’s original statement nor the recent demonstration effectively contributed to this.