Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Hamas

  • Democracy Café – October

    The debate covered what was worth knowing and arms sales to Israel

    October 2024

    Full house for the October meeting with two lively debates.  We were also pleased to welcome several new members.  The first debate which won the vote was What is worth knowing? which quickly changed into a debate about what was taught in schools.  The first suggestion was ‘all that they need to know after they leave school’.  Another thought knowing the names of things important especially as it related to the natural world. This was followed by the suggestion that children should be taught the (true) history of the monarchy and what scoundrels and ‘thugs’ many were.

    A deeper question centred around knowledge or wisdom.  This point was made by several in the course of the debate and concerned the distinction between facts and the capacity to think critically about them. 

    In a similar vein, the importance of relationships was stressed.  Indeed, there was a torrent of suggestions which included the importance of an appreciation of the arts and music; to develop a passion for something in young people; to teach young people to trust their own instincts; teaching how to look for information and the need to teach practical skills especially as so much was spent at the keyboard.

    Critical thinking was mentioned more than once.  It was felt by several that facts alone were not sufficient but there was a need to foster enquiry and scepticism.  In Dicken’s Hard Times, currently being serialised on Radio 4, the main character’s insistence on facts and only facts, that’s what’s wanted – should not be the sole the focus of education.  Was education just about learning stuff to get a job (which sometimes seems to be a government view)?  This brought us to the national curriculum which was seen as something of a straitjacket.  This arose in a discussion about citizenship which some thought had disappeared because of time pressures and the need to get through the national curriculum and pass exams.  It turned out from a quick google search that it’s still around but it is very narrow and focuses on local government and similar parochial matters. 

    One speaker said how disturbed they were to see in a school a chart on a wall with a grading of children on it.

    Faith schools were introduced into the debate.  There are many in the country and a sizeable number were unregulated.  Creationism was still being taught in a few for example. One said ‘faith in schools’ was important rather than faith schools per se.  Spiritual awareness was important.  On the other hand, we now live in a secular society, faith should be a family thing.  The morning assembly was mentioned – a requirement of the 1944 act – but has now been replaced by what is termed an ‘act of collective worship’.  One person said that it used to be the case that non CofE pupils (Jews for example) were excluded from morning assembly.  It seemed to be agreed that teaching pupils about religion was important in view of its significance in our history and culture.  You needed to know about it to evaluate it one said. 

    We were reminded of a pertinent fact namely: children are naturally curious.  Why is it that this seems to get lost?  We did not debate this but the tenor of our discussion was about didactics and what should be learnt.  Yet the system seemed one way or another to dampen this natural curiosity found in children. 

    The mania for exams and qualifications was mentioned in connection with the College. It ran a course called ‘philosophy of our time’.  However, when the government introduced the lifelong learning initiative, perversely it required a qualification at the end and the tutor decided to run it privately. 

    Of course arguments about what should be taught in schools are as old as the hills.  How we acquire knowledge is changing rapidly, one said that their previous role as a librarian has all but disappeared.  What children need for life is also changing rapidly.  There seemed to be a consensus around the problem of government-imposed restrictions.  This meant that time given to ‘life skills’ (however defined) was limited.  There was a real need to facilitate critical thinking and a questioning attitude. 

    The second session after a break, tackled the vexed question How do we stop selling arms to Israel?  The question inevitably morphed into should we still be selling arms? There were several interventions concerning the history of the area.  Historically, British and French interests focused on the Suez Canal’s importance. It was a crucial link to India. At the beginning of the last century, oil also became significant. They did not want Arab run states on both banks of the canal.  The UK’s role in setting up the state in 1948 and the violence which followed was mentioned.  Balfour also got a mention and by implication the Sykes – Picot Agreement which divided up spheres of interest in the region after the collapse of the Ottoman empire.

    It was noted that, however much we might disapprove of the weapons sales and the use to which they are put, Israel thinks it is fighting and existential war.  Hamas and Hezbollah – as proxies for Iran – are devoted to the destruction of the country and to drive all Jews into the sea.

    While some may have agreed with this, the worry was the disproportionate nature of the destruction.  The seemingly wanton destruction of entire blocks of flats allegedly because it contained a terrorist. The ‘human shield‘ justification was often quoted but seldom evidenced.

    A problem was the hard right and hawkish elements in Israel who were influential it was said.  Although diplomacy was mentioned several times, the present Israeli government is not in any mood to engage in it.  Aggression was ever present with a ‘you kill one of ours and we will kill a hundred of yours’ philosophy.  Both sides have to want peace for a solution eventually to be found.  Israel had to establish relationships with those in the region and – a point made more than once – they were all the same people and shared the same DNA.  Indeed, it was noted that historically in the Middle East, all sorts of communities: Christian, Jewish, Moslem and others lived and traded together in city after city.  It was not true to say there has been a perpetual state of animosity. 

    The role of the Jewish lobby in the US was discussed.  They are influential and powerful and able to get Senators and academics sacked it was claimed.  It was noted that the US supplies the bulk of military materiel: around two thirds of Israel’s needs.  What the UK supplies is small by comparison although we do make parts of the F35 which are not included in the embargo.  When questioned about this the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, said ‘it was part of a global contract’.  Make of that what you will.  It was also noted that an Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems has a plant in the UK near Bristol.  It is not just arms we supply but it was claimed the UK provides aircraft based in Cyprus to overfly Gaza for intelligence purposes.

    What will be the situation if Trump wins the presidential election next month someone asked?  It was Trump, when president, who ended the deal with Iran.

    It was suggested that a root issue is trauma and Thomas Hübl was mentioned.  The trauma was not just about the holocaust it was claimed. 

    We were reminded that this issue of arms supplies to Israel is not a new one.  Both Mrs Thatcher and Edward Heath imposed sanctions on the country in the past.  In fact, this link shows that six prime ministers have imposed sanctions and hence Labour’s decision is one of a long line of such decisions.

    Another point concerned war crimes and the International Court of Justice. If it is decided against Israel, then the UK will be obliged to end arms sales. 

    We were chided for not answering the question put namely how do we stop the arms sales?  Perhaps another day …

    Peter Curbishley

    In an article by Kenan Malik in the Observer (13 October) he reminds us that Netanyahu supported Hamas as a means to divide the PLO and prevent a Palestinian state.

    [amendment made 13/10: F15 should have been F35]

  • Democracy Café

    Report of the Democracy Café which took place on October 14th, 2023

    It was good to welcome several old friends back to the café and a new member as well. The meeting took place exactly a week after the incursion into Israel by Hamas terrorists with a huge death toll among Israelis civilians. Israel retaliated by bombing Gaza and troops are massing on the northern border ahead of an expected invasion. The use of the word ‘terrorist’ in the above sentence is itself a matter of dispute.

    The first topic we chose was: to what extent are our opinions about the conflict influenced by the media reporting of it? Everything we know about the recent actions is as a result of what we have seen on TV, read in the papers or seen on social media of one kind or another. The point was made that everything we see and hear is affected by the media which was often afflicted by mis- or disinformation. The main TV stations (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are governed by impartiality rules and make great efforts to reflect all sides of a conflict. It has to be noted that not everyone was impressed by this and were not convinced that there was adequate balance in the reporting. Social media on the other hand was not subject to the same rules and were often the source of various conspiracy theories or disinformation. Some thought the coverage by al Jazeera was superior. There was a problem with paywalls: to read what different papers said meant paying to see the content which made commercial sense but did cut people off from accessing a more diverse range of views.

    The BBC in particular had come in for criticism by some politicians (Grant Shapps MP was mentioned) and by GB News for declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe Hamas people who invaded Israel. Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation in the UK and the BBC has used the word particularly in reported speech. In similar fashion, the lack of condemnation was also mentioned as a criticism. The BBC say the word ‘terrorist’ is loaded and they are reluctant to use it. The point was made that people in Gaza might say that the bombing of their communities is an act of terror (because they have been terrorised). I think the point made by several is that the word is highly charged and it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line.

    The BBC was defended by some however and they said that great efforts have been made to be fair in a volatile and fast changing situation. Someone pointed to the interview by Clive Myrie of a Hamas spokesman they thought was was good.

    Several spoke of the history of the conflict going back to the League of Nations and the mandate given to the British to keep the peace in Palestine after the Great War and the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. One speaker had been there in the Army during this latter period so it was interesting to hear of his first hand experience of these historical events. It was suggested that the animosity between Arabs and Jews was centuries old, others pointed out that during the time of the Islamic conquest, Christians, Jews and others continued with their lives as long as they paid their taxes. There were no pogroms. On the other hand it was suggested that the Jews were treated badly in Yemen. One thing was clear however and that was the Palestinians had received a ‘rotten deal’ as they put it following the events of ’48, what they refer to as the naqba (disaster). It was the rapid increase in the number of Jewish settlers after the war which added to the problems.

    Some media commentators had compared Hamas to ISIS and although there were some similarities, they were not motivated by the same things. It was suggested that some think tanks were a better source of information and Chatham House was mentioned.

    It was accepted that there was a lot of history but the fact remains the modern day situation in Gaza was a pressing issue for the two million or so living there. It had been pointed out earlier that Evan Davies on the PM programme on Radio 4 was reluctant to accept the phrase ‘open prison’ to describe conditions there. It was not to excuse their terrible actions but what are they to do? The world had a responsibility to ensure it did not go on and on. It was shocking that in the 21st century, we are witnessing these terrible events.

    There was general agreement that the uncritical and unbalanced support by the US, UK and French governments was to be deplored and offering to provide military support particularly so.

    It was a good debate particularly so in view of the emotive nature of what has taken place in the past week. It was clear that people recognised the historical factors which led to the current conflict. It is probably fair to say that some thought there was bias in the reporting while others thought that the mainstream media had sought, as best they could, to be balanced.

    The second topic was a complete contrast and was a discussion based on what single thing would you change in respect of our government? The proposer noted the preponderance of public school boys (mostly) in our government and civil service. Although only 7% went to these schools, they occupied by some estimates, 40% of key government positions. Eton school had a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons. Another issue was the high level of investments such people had. What was lacking among them was much in the way of ‘ordinary’ experience whether of employment or life in general. Not allowing the product of private schools into government was not agreed as this would disenfranchise large numbers of people. However banning the paying for education was proposed as happens in several other countries.

    The role of the City of London was mentioned along with the need to bring it fully into the United Kingdom.

    House of Lords came in for some predictable criticism. While the need for a second chamber was recognised, the presence of hereditary peers and the huge numbers of peers was criticised. A better method was proposed involving selecting people based on a representational basis. We might have noted the manner of their appointment and ‘cash for honours’ is often highly questionable. The word ‘bloated’ was used to describe the second chamber.

    The issue of how MPs are selected was brought up. A small panel of local party members choose the candidate sometimes from an approved short-list provided by central office. These people, if elected and if their party formed the government, might find themselves a minister of some kind having never managed or run anything before. Was it any wonder we had government mismanagement on a vast scale? Added to which was the rapid turnover of ministers some of whom only lasted a year or so in post. This brought up the question how did you find ‘decent’ MPs (meaning capable and with appropriate experience) in the first place and more women? It was pointed out that the LibDems did not select their candidates this way and held public meetings to do so.

    It was also pointed out that once a MP became a minister it seemed to reduce his or her ability to act as a representative which is why they were elected in the first place. Writing to the Salisbury MP for example would often elicit the response that as he was a minister he was not at liberty to intervene (in another department). It was a kind of circular nonsense: you elect someone to represent the constituency but they become a minister and thus stop being able to.

    Strong views were expressed about MPs having second jobs: representing their constituents which is what they were elected and paid to do and that should be a full-time occupation, not spending time on a second job.

    There was discussion about the actual shape of the Commons with two sides facing each other rather than a semi-circular arrangement seen in many other chambers around the world – Scotland and Wales for example. It invited exchanges which were little more than shouting matches which put off many people. Someone said they could not bear to watch prime minister’s questions for this reason.

    The voting system itself came in for criticism. A constituency like Salisbury for example is never likely to be other than Conservative despite the presence of many who were not Conservative supporters: they were effectively and permanently disenfranchised. This was an issue supported by Make Votes Matter in Salisbury.

    Other points included do we need a written constitution?

    We did not come to a ‘single thing’ as the question asked perhaps representing the fact that the system was so broken at so many points that no single thing would be enough to fix it.

    The next meeting is on Saturday 11th November, starting at 10.00 in the Library.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Information Anxiety, (1989), Richard Saul Wurman

    Chums: How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK (2023), Simon Kuper

    Why we Get the Wrong Politicians (2019), Isabel Hardman

    Not mentioned but relevant: The Palestine-Israel Conflict (2015), Dan Cohen-Sherbok & Dawoud el-Alami. The Balfour Declaration: Empire, the Mandate and Resistance in Palestine (2018), Bernard Regan.