Israel talk fuels controversy

Students attempt to force their way into controversial talk on campus

By Virginia Newman

Students attempted to force entry into a controversial talk on campus called ‘Why you shouldn’t boycott Israel’.
    A member of the protest explained their actions: “We were protesting outside because we don’t believe that representatives of the Israeli Apartheid state should be allowed to speak on campus.

  “We are willing to debate  with individuals whom we disagree with politically but this is quite different to giving a platform to a government guilty of committing war crimes, ethnic cleansing and Apartheid.
    “We take heart from the fact that many members of the Israeli government cannot visit the UK for fear of arrest, but we believe more should be done to ensure that any representative of this government is denied a platform until Israel conforms with the norms of international law.
    The speaker, Ishmael Khaldi, is an ex Israeli defence force soldier and current deputy consul of the state of Israel.
    Protesters repeatedly banged on the doors of the lecture theatre and their chants were clearly audible from inside. At one point protesters broke into the room and were restrained by security.
    The talk, hosted by LUU’s Jewish Society (JSOC) and chaired by Union Speaker Mark Sewards, was cut short due to the Khaldi’s time commitments and security issues.
    There has been some dispute as to whether the name of the event was changed.
    One student wrote to Leeds Student to air her concerns: “I was really interested in the event on Tuesday. I think in an academic environment, events on both sides of the debate are really important for moderates like myself. We should be able to attend, to educate and inform ourselves without necessarily taking sides in what is a massively divisive and tense issue on our campus.
    “I was therefore disappointed to get into Uni on Tuesday to see the posters advertising the event as: ‘Why boycotting Israel is an absurd idea.’
    “We’re all educated, intelligent people and should not be ridiculed for our diverse views. None of us have the right to dismiss another’s views as absurd. By doing so, you are adding to the animosity felt on campus, and excluding people like myself from what I’m sure was an interesting talk.”
    James Wallis, president of JSOC and first year student Politics student, said: “There was no change of event, we used two titles in response to the preceding events on campus. We simply wanted to express an alternative side to the story.
    “I felt the event had a lot of potential, we invited a really interesting speaker who had been warmly received on many other campuses. Unfortunately the speaker was undoubtedly disrupted, which created a tense atmosphere. I feel that had he spoken in a more peaceful environment, the event would have run smoother and more importantly, he would have been able to convey his message.
    Protesters, however, disagreed:
“The situation in Gaza is now even worse. One year ago Palestinians faced a brutal Israeli assault during which hundreds of schools, hospitals and other buildings were destroyed and damaged and over 1,400 Palestinians murdered with many more injured.
    “All this is on top of Israel’s continuing siege which has denied Palestinians such basic foodstuffs as pasta, lentils and baby food as well as the basic building materials needed to repair the damage caused by Israel.
    “Given the severity of the situation we believe that pressure must be put on Israel to halt these actions. More broadly we believe in justice, equality and peace for the Palestinian people. Due to the failure of our government to pressure Israel, we are calling for a political, economic and cultural boycott in order to achieve this.”
    Students were advised to leave campus via a certain path to avoid any potential confrontations. University security were joined by Khaldi’s own security made up of Community Security Trust (CST), an organisation which works to protect Jewish communities.
    Wallis added: “It wasn’t our aim to create controversy despite it being such an extremely sensitive issue. We truly wanted to encourage open and frank debate from both sides of the argument. We hoped that it would encourage debate rather than protests.
    “In the future we plan on working with other societies in the hope that we can create harmonious relations with everyone on campus. I feel that such aspirations are achievable and we should be walking with each other rather than against each other.