Rhodes University commemorated Human Rights Day by dedicating the entire week to Human Rights and a march to free Palestine. The Israel-Palestine conflict has become a contentious issue on campus in recent weeks.
Rhodes University commemorated Human Rights Day by dedicating the entire week to Human Rights and a march to free Palestine. The Israel-Palestine conflict has become a contentious issue on campus in recent weeks.
Rhodes joined 11 universities in South Africa in Israeli Apartheid Week (5-11 March). The event aimed to educate people about the Israeli conflict. However, some students and staff felt angry and ostracised by the event. In one corner, there are the pro-Palestinians who brought IAW to Grahamstown to highlight the plight of Palestine.
In the opposite corner, some pro-Israelis founded Balance the Debate (BTD) to put forward an argument and engage in conversation. The word ‘apartheid’ is a highly emotive term for many. It reminds us of the extensive violation of human rights. However, does it suit the context of Israel and Palestine? And has it been used to promote an agenda in Grahamstown and across the world?
Benjamin Katz, co-founder of the BTD, is opposed to this terminology. He feels the word apartheid is “emotive” and too easily dissuades people from engaging with both views. “It is extremely manipulative, because they are using it and these slight similarities to rile up South Africans and people around the world,” argued Katz.
BTD believes they have been attacked during the IAW campaign. Little was done to engage in a debate with members of the pro-Israeli stance, and no pro-Israeli academics were approached. BTD attempted to provide a pro-Israeli stance during IAW.
“We came up with a campaign that we wanted to run parallel to this [IAW] campaign… because people are only getting one side.” The introduction of BTD to run in conjunction with IAW resulted in some heated conversation on Facebook where a thread of comments racked up. Katz’s integrity as a journalist was also questioned, “How is it that someone can maintain their neutrality when working as the deputy editor of an important local newspaper and run a campaign against us?”
However, Katz remains confident he has never abused his position on The Oppidan Press in aid of his political views. Participants positioned BTD in complete opposition to any and all IAW events. BTD was described as “equal to white liberalism in our own Apartheid era” and unable of achieving anything.
Critics labeled BTD as an attempt to “hijack” the week’s events. Other criticisms include the short-time in which BTD was organised. Does this justify limiting their right to speak? Granted, the Israel-Palestine issue is not a conflict that can be solved through fence-sitting.
However, as a society we have evolved beyond silencing someone’s views because we simply don’t agree with their stance. Jean Jacque Rousseau once said, “I might not necessarily agree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
By not having a discussion with both arguments in the room is tantamount to silencing someone’s freedom of expression. To those who feel that a debate is a pointless task, one might be no better than the oppressors they are so desperate to overthrow.
Freedom of expression is a right granted to all, no matter what your opinion or stance is.
* Leigh Hermon writes this opinion piece in her personal capacity. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Grocott's Mail.
