The Tribune

THOSE watching the hostilities between the Israelis and Palestinians unfold will surely be shocked by the violence that has erupted. It has been described by the UN as “utterly appalling”. The fighting, which has now entered a second week, is the most recent manifestation of a feud that continues to blight an historic landscape that has been torn apart by bloodshed for several centuries, and in recent decades it has intensified in what seems to have become a cyclical pattern.

To most observers, it is inevitable the conflict will continue until some sort of political settlement is reached to enable the two communities to live together in peace in Palestine, which was the name originally given to the geographic region between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan. After the Second World War and the Holocaust, the United Nations called in 1947 for Palestine to be partitioned, allowing for the formation of a Jewish state. But this was not accepted by the Palestinians and agreement to a two-state solution seems as far away as ever as the interests of the two sides have become irreconcilable.

The modern history of the Arab-Israeli dispute is seen generally as starting from the creation of Israel as an independent state in 1948. But the seeds of the conflict go back much further to the Ottoman Empire, Zionism – a movement at the end of the 19th century whose dream was to build an independent Jewish nation as a haven for those living in Europe and elsewhere – and to the recognition by the League of Nations in 1922 of the British Mandate over the territory that had been preceded by the Balfour Declaration of 1917. This formally promised Britain’s support for establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people”. Meanwhile, Jewish immigration was growing, Britain’s administration of Palestine ended and the issue was passed to the UN, whose two-state proposal was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Palestinians, and the state of Israel was founded.

A war between Israel and Arab countries followed, with the latter sending armies into Palestine with the aim of strangling the new nation at birth. The Israelis prevailed and large numbers of Palestinians fled to neighbouring countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Syria; but Jordan assumed administrative control of the West Bank and Egypt held Gaza. In the subsequent 1967 conflict (the six-day war), Israel reconquered these territories and also took control of the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. The Yom Kippur war, against a coalition of Arab states, followed in 1973 and Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 to attack the terrorist organisation Hezbollah. Then, between 1987 and 1993 there was a Palestinian uprising – the Intifada – as a protest against some twenty years of repression and confiscation of land by the Israelis. Meanwhile, the US was brokering peace deals; for example, the Camp David Accords in 1978 and the Oslo Accord of 1993 which provided for interim Palestinian self-government and a degree of autonomy in parts of the West Bank and Gaza without offering statehood. Later, in 2011, the Palestinians delivered a formal request to the UN for recognition of its statehood.

The latest clashes were preceded in recent years by repeated Israeli assaults in Gaza on Hamas that were severe enough to merit a UN war crimes investigation. Hamas was designated a militant terrorist group which, backed by Iran, was firing rockets indiscriminately on to Israeli territory.

After a period of relative quiet, it appears that the spark for the current clashes that have galvanised opinion amongst Israeli Arabs and set off long-simmering resentment – as well as triggering waves of more than an estimated three thousand rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel – was not only Palestinians being evicted from their homes in East Jerusalem and other places in the West Bank to make way for Israeli settlers. It was also the storming by heavy-handed police of the sacred Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem. Reportedly, this is the third holiest site in Islam after Mecca and Medina and is also revered by Jews for whom it is known as the Temple Mount. So this was said to be a major issue, and it helped to precipitate inter-communal confrontation, with Israeli citizens – Jews and Arabs – fighting one another on the streets in clashes that had not been seen for many years. The fate of Jerusalem, with its deep religious and national significance to both sides, lies at the heart of the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the current worsening situation, one aspect that seems to have received relatively little media attention is the Abraham Accords. Brokered by President Trump in 2020, these saw Arab states like Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates agreeing to normalise relations with Israel through unprecedented co-operation across a wide range of sectors, including security and intelligence. The latest clashes may have soured these new relations which will no doubt now be put on hold since the Arab states concerned will not wish to be seen as too close to a country which is killing Palestinians, whatever the provocation from Hamas.

As international outrage over the continuing bombardment of Gaza intensifies, there is now increasing pressure on the US and UN to help to negotiate a ceasefire and de-escalation of hostilities. Egypt and Qatar are also involved in the diplomacy. The Israelis will be pressed by all to stop their retaliatory air strikes, having succeeded in taking out Hamas’ military structure in Gaza and destroying part of its network of tunnels alongside the border. But this has been at a terrible cost of civilian casualties. The people of Gaza have already suffered from Israel’s direct external control over the territory, but it is also important to note that Hamas is a violent terror group which does not recognise Israel’s right to exist.

As to the future, the prospects of long-term successful political negotiations remain remote. Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital and it was boosted by the move of the US embassy there from Tel Aviv in 2018. But the Palestinians claim the eastern half of Jerusalem as the capital of a hoped-for state of their own. The US will surely continue to recognise Israel’s right to exist and defend itself against rocket attacks from Gaza. But it is said the Palestinians believe that violence can be justified because of what they claim is Israeli occupation of lands rightfully belonging to them. It is no exaggeration to say that the situation remains hideously complicated.

Academic freedom essential in higher education

In The Queen’s Speech at the reopening of the UK Parliament last week, when she set out the government’s priorities and legislative agenda for the year ahead, there was one item which has apparently escaped much media attention. This was the government’s plan to introduce new laws protecting free speech on university campuses.

It appears that new requirements and safeguards will be imposed on universities and students’ unions to ensure freedom of expression both for its members and for visiting speakers. The Ministry of Education says it is worried about the “chilling effect on campuses of unacceptable silencing and censoring” – and there is also the general perception that Left-wing attitudes tend to prevail in universities so that non-compliance with what is deemed to be the progressive view about, for example, equality and diversity is frowned on if not sanctioned in some way.

Legislation is the government’s response to this and, specifically, to a number of recent high profile cases of “no platforming” when outside speakers invited to address the students on a particular subject have been cancelled and banned from speaking on campus because a vocal minority of students claimed their ideas or views might have been offensive or distasteful and that they and other students should be protected from these.

The new requirements could provide for speakers who have been “no platformed” to sue for compensation and for a regulator to issue fines for breaching the legislation. In response, universities have urged the government to be “proportionate” since existing laws and regulations on freedom of expression are sufficient to protect academic freedom. They add that instances of “no platforming” have been few and that universities in Britain remain determined that their campuses should be places where students are exposed to a diversity of ideas and views.

Be that as it may, in the view of many people it is vital in a democracy for the government to defend freedom of thought and expression. Its plans for legislation have already stimulated debate on the issue, not least in the context of “wokeness” which is defined as an alertness to racial or social discrimination and injustice. Former Labour leader and Prime Minister Tony Blair has unleashed a stinging public attack on what he has termed the “woke left” which has mounted an aggressive assault on free speech that is sweeping the country. It is claimed that too many of those in authority either endorse “wokeness” or fail to stand up against it – for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury who, reportedly, is not actively supporting one of his priests who, in stating the Christian position, preached the importance of tolerance but was criticised for doing so and lost his job in the process.

Some argue that a fundamental tenet of academic freedom is that, since most claimed truths are contestable, nothing should be beyond question. So, such freedom is an essential part of higher education. The clash of competing views can produce new ideas and challenge old orthodoxies. Thus, such education should be all about the free exchange of ideas rather than shutting down debate. Freedom of expression protects the right of everybody to have different views and ideas which is the essence of democracy. The role of the academic, therefore, should be to prompt debate that pushes the boundaries of knowledge and to develop in their students an intellectual robustness and an ability to argue against ideas they disagree with -- or find unpleasant or objectionable -- rather than to shield them from such debate. The prevention of offence cannot be placed above the right to debate opposing ideas. So students should not be allowed to decide about by-passing debate in order to protect themselves from allegedly offensive or distasteful ideas and thus determine who can or cannot speak on campus. Against this background, many will hope that the government’s new legislation about free speech will fulfil its purpose.

 Interestingly, the issue of “cancel culture” is also growing in the US, not just in colleges but more broadly in the corporate world where people are penalised in different ways for views that do not accord with what is deemed to be acceptable “group think”. But that’s a wider subject for another time.

Centenary of Royal British Legion

Last weekend marked the 100th birthday of the Royal British Legion. Its annual Poppy Day appeal is often in the news, but there may be less public awareness of this wonderful organisation’s commitment to care for veterans and their families which sometimes can be life-saving. Its reassuring presence is a symbol of hope for the Armed Forces community as it honours and supports veterans for their service in protecting their country. In his message on the occasion of this important commemoration of its centenary, Prince Charles spoke in particular about the Legion holding a special place at the heart of society.

On 15 May, wreaths were laid at the Cenotaph in central London and in other parts of the country to mark the exact moment the Royal British Legion was formed in 1921 – and its Director General spoke of the organisation’s pledge to ensure that those who have given so much for their country will continue to receive the recognition, support and fair treatment they deserve.

This is surely a good moment as well to pay tribute to the extraordinarily effective contribution that Adina Munroe-Charlow, Chairman-Treasurer of the Royal British Legion – Bahamas Branch, has made over many years in running this important body and supporting numerous individual Bahamian veterans as well as organising so many Remembrance services and events. Her interest in the Nassau War Cemetery, which is owned and maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, has also been much appreciated. May she long continue her excellent work.