Abu Qatada and the Two Minutes Hate

By Alex Shattock.

Open a newspaper, and what do you see? Yob villain beats up frail old man. House set on fire by welfare villain. Villainous dictator tries to obtain nuclear weapons.

The concept of the Villain, the incurably evil antagonist, is endemic in today’s political discourse. The right-wing press and the Tory-led government are obsessed with explaining the bad things in the world in terms of evil personalities rather than wider issues or events. Why do they do this? And what effect does it have on us, as the consumers of this discourse?

Talking about villains all the time has its benefits. For a start, everybody loves a villain. We like to read about personalities more than we do abstract issues, so a story is more likely to hold our attention if there are heroes fighting the good fight and villains trying to destroy the world. The idea of pantomime-ish heroes and villains also makes it easier for the majority of us who aren’t doctoral students in political history, anthropology or sociology to understand important events. It is far harder to get our heads around the internal mechanics of the National Socialist Party bureaucracy and power structure in Germany in 1939 than it is to say “One day Hitler (the villain) decided to invade Poland, and so he did.” The latter is, of course, what we learn in school. The concept of a “villain” is therefore a useful tool, both to keep us informed and to keep our attention.

But there are dangers with seeing the world only in terms of heroes and villains. One such danger is that the rhetoric of heroes and villains inevitably simplifies what really happens in the real world.

Simplistic explanations of the world can also be exploited to push a political agenda, and this is the greatest danger the concept of the Villain poses. The Villain is such a powerful figure that he poisons everyone and everything associated with him. So Mick Philpott, villain, the embodiment of over-breeding scrounger evil, can be gleefully described as a “VILE PRODUCT OF WELFARE UK” (Daily Mail). The Mail ran this headline to attack the welfare state, using the associated Villain as its tool. George Osborne was complicit in this shameless exploitation of a tragedy. Likewise, Len McClusky, villain (according to the right-wing press and the government), the embodiment of militant trade unionism, has been gleefully used to attack Ed Miliband with, because of Ed’s association with the Villain.

I want to talk about one particular villain, Abu Qatada, an anti-Western extremist who is currently being used by anti-human rights extremists in the Conservative party to attack the European Convention on Human Rights.

Abu Qatada is a suspected associate of terrorists. There is no evidence for this that can be relied on in court, and so he has never been charged or tried. And yet, he has been a prisoner in a government “safe-house” for over ten years, because the government of Jordan want him to be deported to their country to stand trial for terrorist charges there. The UK government has been prevented from doing this because the Jordanians regularly torture their suspects or convict them using evidence obtained by torture. Sending him to Jordan would therefore breach a number of Qatada’s human rights under the European Convention, and so the government, quite rightly, cannot do it.

You wouldn’t have guessed that this was the issue in question from watching the Parliamentary debate on Abu Qatada (for there was a parliamentary debate on the issue of deporting this one individual). The debate was like that harrowing scene in Orwell’s ’1984′, the ‘Two Minutes Hate’, in which the public are encouraged to focus all their anger and loathing against the image of one individual in order to distract them from totalitarian state they lived in. In the Abu Qatada debate, there was a cross-party consensus of indignation that this individual is being allowed to stay in the UK. The Conservatives and their media allies have poisoned public understanding of the issue so successfully, through simplification and outright fabrication, that Labour are helpless to say “actually, we shouldn’t deport this man, because we don’t believe in torture or imprisoning someone with evidence obtained by torture. We believe in human rights”.

And so the Tories and the right-wing press can use the Villain to attack with impunity the human rights Convention they hate so much. But importantly, they can only do so because of the pre-existing consensus that Abu Qatada is a monster, that he is ‘The Villain’.

I’m not suggesting Abu Qatada is an innocent man, or even that we shouldn’t be imprisoning him without trial. But we definitely shouldn’t treat him as a pantomime villain, we definitely shouldn’t hate him, and we definitely shouldn’t be eager to send him to Jordan where he will be tortured or convicted with evidence obtained using torture. The suffering inflicted on terror suspects by Jack Baeur’s special brand of crypto-fascism cannot be replicated in real life, because in real life you are dealing with people, not pantomime villains, and people have rights. If human rights weren’t universal, they wouldn’t be human rights at all.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote in ‘Slaughterhouse Five’ (a novel about the firebombing of Dresden by the RAF) that in the real world, there are no villains. I think it’s important to remember that. The concept of the Villain is ultimately a simplification, a half-truth and a smokescreen. Qatada will probably come to the end of his life like most ‘villains’ do in the real world: as just another frail old man.

Alex Shattock is a Young Fabians Member.

It’s time to speak up for the male victims of rape

By James Hallwood.

Reports from Syria of routine rape against men and women is a reminder of the unspoken prevalence of the rape of men and boys in areas of conflict. Yet for the harrowing nature of this, and despite how widespread it is, awareness and support are truly minimal. Often categorised as ‘torture’ rather than ‘rape’, so many men around the world are silent victims of unbelievable acts of sexual cruelty.

Given that rape against males is a regular component of wars across all continents, it is surprising that there has been so little research into this. Dr Lara Stemple of UCLA School of Law has been at the forefront of raising awareness at the prevalence of the sexual abuse of males in war zones and has done much to ask why international institutions are seeing rape as a crime that only affects women.

76% of male political prisoners in 1980’s El Salvador attested to sexual torture, 80% of men in a concentration camp in Sarajevo reported being raped, 21% of men seeking help at a London centre for Sri Lankan torture victims spoke of sexual abuse, 22% of men in Eastern Congo had suffered from sexual violence. A clinic dealing with refugees in Uganda gave the shocking figure that 8 out of 10 women had been raped and 10 out of 10 men had suffered the same crime. Men are routinely raped in Iranian prisons while the disgusting actions by Lynndie England in Abu Ghraib show abuse against men can just as easily be committed by women and the West, no-one has a good record on this.

It is clear that these figures are only the tip of the iceberg. Societal stigma is enough to silence many of these men. Just like many female victims of rape, the men who survive these ordeals are often deserted by their spouses. An aid worker helping men recover from rape reported how wives of victims responded:

“They ask me: ‘So now how am I going to live with him? As what? Is this still a husband? Is it a wife?’ They ask, ‘If he can be raped, who is protecting me?’ There’s one family I have been working closely with in which the husband has been raped twice. When his wife discovered this, she went home, packed her belongings, picked up their child and left. Of course that brought down this man’s heart.”

The strong gender roles enforced in many societies make being a male victim of rape all the more taboo: Men fear no longer being perceived as ‘men’.

Abandoned by family and society, many of the male victims of rape are unable to ask for help, not just in dealing with the psychological scars but with the very literal injuries sustained from repeated sexual abuse. Many men are subjected to constant gang rape, penetrated with blunt objects and forced to give oral sex to soldiers. Survivors are often limited to a restricted diet, bleed incessantly and, worse still, fear asking for help in case they are arrested for homosexual behaviour. At this very moment, men are suffering and dying from these horrific injuries in silence.

International institutions should be able to step in where national governments fail, but they have so far seemed reluctant to do so. Dr Stemple applauded United Nations’ Resolution 1325 call to support women and girls in conflict zones but pointed out that much of its work neglects to look at sexual violence against men and boys. Failing to have a gender neutral definition of rape meant that male victims were operationally invisible. After much campaigning this definition was changed, but there is much still to do to change the culture of organisations that deal with rape.

Dr Stemple cites a literature review of 4000+ organisations that deal with rape in war zones: only 3% mention male victims in their informational material, and few are equipped to deal with the particular needs of men who come to them for help.

Across the globe men and women, boys and girls, are victims of the most disgusting sexual crimes imaginable. Few of the victims report this, many face stigma and shame, and the help any of them are offered is usually minimal at best.

It’s time that governments, international bodies, charities and people openly accept– in war zones sexual abuse rarely distinguishes between men and women, our response should likewise be to help all victims of these heinous crimes.

There remains a blanket of silence when it comes to the taboo of male victims of rape. More awareness, more research and more support is needed.

The perpetrators rely on the shame and particular stigma of being a man forcibly subjected to other men, we must break the silence: It’s time to speak up for the men who are raped in war zones.

James Hallwood is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

The Left has to raise its voice on the Falklands

By James Hallwood.

Almost 30 years after the invasion of the Falkland Islands it is simply laughable that Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, has accused the UK of ‘militarisation’ of the South Atlantic.

Argentina must realise that the right to self-determination of those that live on the Falklands (many for nine generations) is the overriding principle in deciding their future.

It also continues to disappoint me that, for the most part, this important factor is neglected by some on the left.

Defending the islanders’ freedom from interference and invasion should not be seen as right wing  it was the same important principles that underpinned opposition to the Iraq War.

It is clear that Argentina’s claim to the Falklands is tenuous at best. The Falklands were discovered and rediscovered by Portugal, the Netherlands, France, Great Britain and Spain at various points and it was only from 1833 that continuous occupation of the originally uninhabited islands began by the British.

Having never fully inhabited the islands the Argentine claim is based almost solely on its own colonial history –much of it on the basis of Spain’s ostensible imperial ownership.

Our own colonial history is hardly glowing, but Argentina is in no position to lecture us on imperialism, particularly given their continued suppression of indigenous rights at the very time they invaded the Falklands.

Their own 100 peso bill commemorates the ‘Conquest of the Desert’ – a bloody campaign that seized Patagonia from the native population, a milestone in their history of repression of the indigenous population.

With 86 per cent of Argentines being of colonialist European origin it seems odd that they are so keen to play the ‘coloniser’ card against us. The closest thing the originally empty Falkland Islands has to a native population is the current inhabitants, a people whose rights Argentina is happy to ignore.

While international and historical lawyers can legalistically nitpick on the competing claims, surely the most important issue, and the one that the left should identify with the most, is the right to self-determination.

The United Nations was founded on the principle of self-determination and should rightly throw Argentina’s claim to the wayside.

An article in the Guardian recently highlighted the huge cultural gulf between Argentina and the Falkland Islands and this is compounded by the fact that consistently the islanders have voiced their desire to remain British.

Pre-war negotiations failed because the inhabitants had no desire for joint-sovereignty. Nonetheless in 1971 an airlink was set up and Argentina’s YPF was granted a monopoly over the energy needs of the Falklands.

A peaceful and mutually beneficial outcome was scuppered by a dictatorial junta’s invasion of free islands while it waged its own ‘dirty war’ of repression at home.

Like Michael Foot, I too am grateful for the sacrifice of our forces in securing the liberty of the Falklands. Thatcher revelled in the militarism despite the fact her own defence incompetence had lain the islands open to invasion.

Her association with the war and its tactics go a long way to explaining why many see a pro-Falklands position as right wing but one cannot brush over the rights of a people simply out of dislike for Thatcher. The regrettable sinking of the Belgrano cannot justify ignoring the obvious need to let the Falklands decide their own fate.

Given that, to this day, the Islanders overwhelmingly desire to remain British, how can anyone (particularly those on the left) overrule this most basic right in favour of Argentina’s dodgy historical claims and history of militarism?

The idea that their distance from the UK makes the island more Argentine than British is an infantile one and is easily refuted by meeting anyone from the Falklands or comparing Stanley to Buenos Aires.

Just as the left can stand up for Kosovo and the Kurds so too must we be consistent in affirming the right of the Falkland Islands to remain British.

As we approach the war’s 30th anniversary and with the memory of the illegal invasion refreshed, I implore all on the left to stand with the Falkland Islanders. How can Argentina ignore their voices and claim that we are the imperialists?

The Falkland Islanders desire only peace and the right to remain British. Who is Argentina to deny this, and how can we?

James Hallwood is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

Originally published on Left Foot Forward on 12 February 2012: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/02/the-left-has-to-raise-its-voice-on-the-falklands/

Young Fabian eye witness account from Jerusalem

By Rob Pinfold.

The last ten days have been abnormal for those of us living in Jerusalem. I was born and raised in Britain, not the Middle-East. In Twickenham, I became accustomed to the regular stresses and dilemmas of this leafy London suburb: primarily the occasional rugby matches or the off-license being closed when I ran out of milk.

By contrast, my two months in Jerusalem have now twice seen me running for the bomb shelter, following the blaring of the air raid siren, whose ominous tones I’d heard only in war films.

The problem was not the rocket attacks themselves: both times, the missiles fell in unpopulated open areas, whilst the siren helpfully provides a ninety second respite to decamp to cover. Instead, the psychological pressure was most keenly felt undertaking mundane, everyday tasks when the sirens were silent. Imagine not being able to use your headphones, for the fear that you’d miss the siren’s wail, or awaking bolt upright in the night at the most insignificant of sounds, fearing it was an
alert.

This may seem like a big deal to those of you reading in the United Kingdom, and it certainly did for me, as I sat cowering in reinforced storage rooms and interrupting my daily commute by constantly scanning my surroundings for a convenient place to hide if the warning sounded.

I have always found the constant so-called ‘pro-Israel’ discourse of ‘what would you do if rockets were falling on London?’ that pullulated my Twitterfeed somewhat trite and clichéd. Today I feel the same; no amount of rationalising can truly communicate the wretched psychological effect of living in fear of your very existence. Asking how you would feel if London was attacked is pointless and moot, because no-one can invoke the survival instinct that kicks in upon hearing the prolonged drone of a siren, if your biggest daily impediment are severe delays on the Northern Line.

Don’t try and empathise with me; feel sorry for the people of southern Israel, for whom two rockets in a day would be a miracle. Whilst over 1500 rockets flew into Israel during the conflict, prior to the launch of Israel’s ‘Operation Pillar
of Defence’, 787 missiles and mortars had already landed in Israel throughout 2012.

Save your sympathy for the Palestinians of Gaza who live in grinding poverty and isolation, ruled by Hamas, a far-right clerical organisation that seized power through a deeply undemocratic coup in 2007. I say this because I know that, having experienced two rocket attacks, I still can’t fathom or understand what these people go through. Listening to the siren hasn’t brought me closer to comprehending it, but has instead demonstrated to me how impossible it is to put oneself in the
shoes of others.

Following the negotiated cease-fire, Jerusalem life has returned to normal: buses were once again the chosen method of transport and bars and cafes thronged with life. However, 70% of Israelis opposed the cessation of hostilities, a percentage that far outnumbers the electorate of right-wing parties.

Israelis are not unhappy with Netanyahu because they are bloodthirsty warmongers. Over the past week, Israelis of all creed, colour and political leaning have seen their daily routines disrupted by rockets. Unlike me, Israelis are resolute both physically and mentally, having sat through decades of suicide bombings and endless conflict.

The difference this time is that no tangible gains are in sight, for either the people of Israel or Gaza. Israel’s military blockade continues whilst Hamas’ rule appears at best unchallenged and at worst strengthened by the conflict. The vast majority of the Israelis and Palestinians I have met share an overriding demand for a normal life. This underlying desire propelled Israel’s government into launching a war, to secure ‘quiet’ for beleaguered southern cities. Time will tell if this latest round of conflict achieved its lofty goals, or whether it will be confined to the overloaded historical dustbin of pointless, Middle-Eastern conflicts that brought nothing but an increased body-count.

Rob Pinfold is a Young Fabians Member currently enrolled on the Israel Research Fellowship Program in Jerusalem, Israel.

British double standards and the Arab Spring

Freelance journalist Daniel Wickham examines British duplicity following the revolutions in the Middle East.

With reports of Russian made cluster bombs being used by the Assad regime, the Kremlin has found its reputation here in the west increasingly in tatters.

But is it really any great surprise that a government with a human rights record as dubious as Russia’s might have unsavoury friends? Much more surprising, however, is the long list of dictatorships and repressive regimes which Britain, an otherwise exemplary liberal democracy, allies itself to.

Only recently, the Home Office declared Saudi Arabia to be a close friend and ally of the British government, despite the Kingdom ranking as the seventh least democratic country in the 2011 Democracy Index. Our support is far more than just verbal- Saudi Arabia is the British arms trade’s number one customer, with British ‘controlled goods’ exports to the regime valued at £4,069,920,068 by the ‘Campaign Against the Arms Trade.’

This fact alone is enough to put into serious doubt the widely accepted claim that the British government is a supporter of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. But such doubts are never found in the mainstream media. Despite knowledge of our support for undemocratic regimes even during the Arab Spring, the media faithfully follows the government line- Britain is devoted to promoting democracy in the Arab world.

If properly scrutinised, however, our record of ‘promoting’ democracy and human rights speaks for itself. A list of Britain’s allies in the region reads like a who’s who of dictators and human rights abusers. From President Khalifa of the UAE to the Sultan of Oman and the King of Bahrain, Britain’s allies in the Middle East have all presided over a sharp increase in human rights violations during the Arab Spring. Crackdowns on demonstrations, torture and even massacres have been reported, but still British arms pour in.

In Bahrain, Amnesty international believe as many as 60 people have been killed. And yet, when 28 countries joined to condemn the violations in the UN Human Rights Council, the British government refused. Fortunately for them, the media remained silent.

Understandably, they have been much more vocal about the atrocities of the Assad regime- the crimes of the Sultan of Oman or President Khalifa of the UAE hardly even bear comparison to Assad’s bloody rule of terror. With thousands dead, and no end in sight, the situation in Syria is desperate.  But talk of intervention seems hypocritical. How can Britain justify intervening against one despot in the name of democracy, and yet continue to support dictators elsewhere?

The British role in the Arab Spring has been riddled with double standards- overthrowing Qaddafi on one hand, supporting Ben Ali and Mubarak on the other. And yet the government still presents itself as a staunch supporter of democracy, championing freedom for all Arab people. The onus for questioning this claim is on the mainstream media, who have a responsibility to do more to hold the government to account for their unsavory alliances.

So before we even consider intervention against a brutal despot in Syria, Britain must look in the mirror and address our own record of support for dictators in the Arab world. Only when the government can proudly say Britain supports democracy for all people, and mean it, can the notion of intervention even be considered.

Daniel Wickham is a gap year student, youth worker and freelance journalist going on to read history and politics at university

Middle East Delegation Travellog – Leaving with hope

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Marie-Noelle Loewe reflects on the experience as the trip draws to a close.

It’s been one week exactly since the Young Fabians Delegation left for our trip to Israel and Palestine, and coincidentally, we return from our trip on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. At Ben Gurion Airport, security is tense, but this time no one from our delegation has been asked for further questioning.

It is hard to say what the outcomes of our trip will be. Every delegate came from a different background and with different expectations. Although all had approached the trip with an open mind, they had brought certain preconceptions about life in the conflict with them. The one thing that has become clear is that these have been challenged and often dispelled.

Nothing about the Middle Eastern conflict is black and white. After an intensive week of meetings, field visits and socialising, we have barely scratched the surface of the conflict.

The one thing that seems to have become clear to me is that time is running out. Palestinian statehood is crucial on order to support the moderate forces within Palestine. Before this trip, I was under the impression that only a small and extreme minority was still questioning Israel’s right to exist. I was shocked to find out that this view is far wider spread that I had expected.  The current Palestinian leadership is committed to a peaceful and stable two state solution, but they need a success soon to placate extreme forces within their ranks.

The outbreaks of violence and the resulting ascent of Hamas after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 make its reluctance to unilateral withdrawal from further settlements partly understandable. However, Israel’s continued presence in Hebron, which does not seem to be supported by a majority within Israel, continues to not only violate Palestinian human rights, but is a symbol of resistance around which anti-Israeli forces can rally.  Israel has to find a way to compensate the settlers and recognize the sacrifices which they will have to make, but Benjamin Netanyahu needs to find the political courage to withdraw from H2 soon.

Palestine’s bid at the UN seems to be based rather on despair than on actual hope of success.  A negotiated solution is certainly preferable, but Israel should use the General Assembly meeting as a chance to engage with the Palestinian leadership rather than categorically oppose their proposal.

A week in the holy land has provided unlimited amounts of food for thought, but the ‘holy grail’ remains elusive.  The obvious strategy is to strengthen moderate forces and condemn violence.

The situation seems often bleak and stalled, but despite this, I leave with a feeling of hope.

Marie-Noelle Loewe is International Officer for the Young Fabians and the organiser of the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

• Find out more about our Middle East programme by clicking here. You can view photos from the delegation on the Young Fabian Flickr channel.

Middle East Delegation Travellog – Wasted days

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Tasmin James ponders a meeting with Gilead Sher..

I’m still trying to get my thoughts together after all our meetings and visits. So much information in such a short amount of time is hard to process. But two things struck me from our meeting with Gilead Sher, who previously negotiated at Camp David for the Israeli Government.

First, that he thought the Arab Spring was a cause for optimism for Israel; that it should be used as an opportunity, not a threat. He saw the need for a regional consensus towards peace, and that this was a chance to develop it. Sadly, I didn’t get the opportunity to ask him more about this, but his viewpoint struck me as so different to the strong sense of a threat from the changes in the Middle East region that come from many of the other Israelis I had met. Even as they welcomed the chance for others to achieve reform, they saw their own allies disappearing. And the lesson taken from Syria, was that the international community might not intervene, whatever happened.

In discussions I had with Israelis, their focus on their own vulnerability was exceptionally strong, something I had not appreciated enough before this visit. And yesterday, progressive Israeli’s I met, who wanted to agree with Gilead Sher’s words, were reeling from the news of the attack on their embassy in Egypt. ‘It is best to be optimistic’ they said, ‘but the world is not an optimistic place.’

But the second thing that stuck with me from talking to Gilead Sher was his strong sense that time was running out to reach a peace agreement; that the opportunity to reach a negotiated final settlement was limited. This seemed pessimistic compared to his previous statements but our final meeting with Gadi Baltiansky from the Geneva Institute helped clarify the position for me. He agreed with Gilad, pointing out that demographic changes would become problematic to Israel as time passed and that settlements would become more entrenched. He made the point that Israel also could not rely on the internal and external situation remaining sympathetic.

And, as he summed it up ‘Every day that we don’t reach an agreement is a wasted day’.

Tasmin James is a member of the Young Fabians and a delegate on the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

• You can follow updates from our Middle East delegation via Twitter by searching for #yfmep. And find out more about our Middle East programme by clicking here.
• You can view photos from the delegation on the Young Fabian Flickr channel.

Middle East Delegation Travellog – Do the answers lie with the youth?

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Young Fabian Chair Adrian Prandle examines the role of young people in the region.

As the Young Fabian Middle East Delegation approaches its final couple of meetings, it is worth reflecting on the role and experience of young people in the region. Over the last five days, the delegation has met with youth representatives from Fateh in Palestine and the Labour Party in Israel, learnt about the (extensive) work of HaNoar HaOved, and interacted with residents of Jaffa at the Arab-Jewish Community Centre to the south of Tel Aviv. It is important to consider their perspective of domestic issues alongside conflict politics.

It’s a relief to report that for the most part there was huge optimism in young activists and amongst those we met. BICOM told us that the recent social protests in Israel have had students at their heart, whilst Nidal Foqahar of the Palestinian Peace Coalition insisted that young people made a difference in the struggle to end the conflict – “taking the lead in developing new realities on the ground.” Social media has been utilised in both countries and apparently Gaza has the highest number of Facebook users per capita in the world. Whilst in Israel the squeezed youth are part of the squeezed middle, often university educated and in employment yet still finding it hard to close the month, in Palestine long-term economic decline has reversed. But youth unemployment remains high and the Office of the Quartet Representative continue their capacity-building work to counter enormous dropout rates and the 1000 classroom shortage in the Palestinian education system.

Having opportunity to talk with users of the Arab-Jewish Community Centre was a welcome opportunity during the trip to try and understand ‘real’ people as well as the activists and high-level meetings that we were fortunate to have through most of the schedule. Living side-by-side in the 5,000 year-old city, the centre helps Muslims, Jews and Christians mix and “understand each other’s narratives”. Despite the commonality of those of Arab descent having to work three jobs to get by (as the financial, social and occupational benefits from serving in the Israeli military were not accessible to them) we encountered just a little frustration and a lot more optimism and pride in working hard and achieving a decent standard of living.

It would be unfair to characterise Fateh Youth by the one voice that dominated our meeting and which others delegates have already posted on – but whilst the radicalism and ideology characteristic of youth politics outside of the UK, may not have been surprising, the unwillingness to empathise with the Israeli situation was disappointing and remains one of the lows of the trip. Not all Fatah Youth colleagues were so dramatic and the ‘older’ politicians we met from their party countered these views with realism, understanding and a desire to find a way through. In contrast, the members of Young Labour in Israel who we went to dinner with last night offered a firm belief in a two state solution on the basis of Israeli compromise. But despite a sense (contrasted elsewhere) that the country is moving to the left, the Labour Party has been waning. We’ll watch the outcome of Monday’s leadership election with interest as to whether rebuilding the party can help rebuild sustainably the two nations’ relations.

A quick word too on HaNoar HaOved – the General Federation of Students and Young Workers in Israel, a fascinating organisation who, like the Fabians, are separate from the Labour Party but historically rooted in the same politics. They are part membership organisation, part think-tank, as well as being the trade union for all young workers in Israel. The latter isn’t that common, and may be something worth exploring in the UK. (I’ve recently written on unions and young people for a Unions 21 publication to be launch at Trade Union Congress this week.) Membership is not just limited to Israeli Jews, HaNoar build relationships in other countries – e.g. Egypt – and educate people of all ages. They see the latter as the solution for both peace and a good society and were keen to emphasise their belief that you can’t really separate socio-economic issues and the conflict.

I look forward to understanding more about what they do and maintaining contact with them post-delegation – it is organisations like this which can make a difference to people’s lives, make a difference to public policy, and thus potentially make a difference to regional conflict and the quest for peace.

‘The people demand social justice’ has been the chant for the recent Israeli protests. If both Israelis and Palestinians can achieve their own social justice as well as understand each other’s domestic pressures, there may just be another critical step towards peace.

Adrian Prandle is a Chair of the Young Fabians and a delegate on the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

• You can follow updates from our Middle East delegation via Twitter by searching for #yfmep. And find out more about our Middle East programme by clicking here.
• You can view photos from the delegation on the Young Fabian Flickr channel.

Middle East Delegation Travellog – Israeli divisions

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Natalie Breslaw reflects on the contrasts within Israel.

Travelling from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv it is difficult not to register the cultural differences between these two cities; so far as that you could presume that these two cities are already in two entirely different countries.

Spending the evening talking to members of Israeli Young Labour, I learnt about the Israeli electoral system and the dreadful effects of proportional representation. Here it has given the extreme left and right a disproportionate influence in government policy-making.

The extreme right advocate the whole of Palestine and Israel as the state of Israel, proposing all Palestinians leave and move to surrounding countries such as Jordan, while the extreme left want a one state solution with Israelis and Palestinians living together.

To further the political differences, religion divides Israel throughout. Ultra orthodox Jews refuse to accept the state of Israel and are anti-Zionist, whilst the orthodox want separation of women and men on buses and trains. Walking around Tel Aviv is the polar opposite. With strip clubs, nightclubs and restaurants selling ham and prawns, it is the clearest example of a secular town in a so-called Jewish state.

Natalie Breslaw is a member of the Young Fabians and a delegate on the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

• You can follow updates from our Middle East delegation via Twitter by searching for #yfmep. And find out more about our Middle East programme by clicking here.
• You can view photos from the delegation on the Young Fabian Flickr channel.

Middle East Delegation Travellog – Meeting Fateh Youth

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Siobhan Randell reflects on the group’s meeting with Fateh Youth.

Our meeting with Fateh Youth on Wednesday morning proved really great to see young people with similar interests (even if we differed in some opinions). It was good to see Palestinian young men and women engaged in political activity in a peaceful and organised means, which can only be positive to the nation-building of Palestine.

However, a member of Fateh argued that their problem was not with the State of Israel, but with Israel as a Jewish state. They believed religion should be removed from that title and that it should be a state for all religions with equal rights. After visiting Yad Vashem – the living memorial to the Holocaust – later in the day I better understood the need for a Jewish State that as a homeland for Jewish people. One that provides security for a population that has had its people and culture attacked for hundreds of years.

Of course a Jewish state must treat all races and religions with equal rights as is expected of all states, especially of a democracy. However, Israeli Arabs that we spoke to at the Arab-Jewish Community Centre in Jaffa feel that they do not have equal rights and are marginalised in society – for example, because they do not do military service, they cannot receive housing discounts and thus are priced out of the city.

We return regularly to the Palestinian’s quest for statehood via the UN. The reasons why the UN bid is a necessity for Palestine that should be supported by the international community was explained really well by the policy advisors and senior members of the Fateh party to us on Wednesday. I was especially impressed by the compromise Fateh said they were willing to make – demilitarising the country and accepting NATO or UN soldiers to act as security between Israel and Palestine.

However, I can also understand the Israeli worry that as soon as they pull out of the West Bank we may see a repeat of what happened in Gaza where an extremist group took charge and attacks against Israel greatly increased.

I have come to the conclusion that what is really slowing the peace process down are the worry that the Israeli government will use the security wall as a de facto border for negotiations and the issue of settlements, which personally I believe should have been solved a long time ago. The situation in Hebron and the fact that building has continued in Palestinian territories blight Israel’s reputation as a progressive democracy.

Siobhan Randell is a member of the Young Fabians and a delegate on the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

• You can follow updates from our Middle East delegation via Twitter by searching for #yfmep. And find out more about our Middle East programme by clicking here.
• You can view photos from the delegation on the Young Fabian Flickr channel.