Despite large protests, a controversial debate about the obstacles to peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict went ahead at the Durham Union Society earlier this month, with police providing extra protection.
Initially scheduled for June, the debate had been postponed after protestors “formed a human chain” around the building, blocking attendees from entering the Union Society’s chamber. According to reporting at the time, the University had refused to allow the police to intervene and clear the space for the event.
On Friday the 8th of November, the rescheduled event finally went ahead, this time with a significant presence of police officers and security guards. A statement from the University described a “strenuous effort” to ensure that the event could go ahead this time.
The Pemberton Buildings, home to the Durham Union Society, saw police officers standing alongside security guards at the main and side entrances in preparation for the event. An additional police van was also present close to the building. Despite these precautions, the protests eventually forced the Union Society to relocate the event to the Elvet Riverside Building.
Speaking to CAF, President of the Durham Union Jerry Li explained that the decision to change the venue was made by the Durham Police “upon observing the escalating tension of the protest outside and around the chamber”. The attendees, who were mainly students at Durham, were escorted by security staff to the new location. The speakers were reportedly “led through a tunnel” to avoid the demonstrators outside the building.
When the event finally began, the speakers debated the motion “This house believes Palestinian leadership is the biggest barrier to peace”. The proposition speakers included national security researcher Khaled Hassan and two student speakers. The opposition was represented by Abdullah Al-Andalusi, head of the Department for Occidentology at The Quran Institute, as well as a recent graduate and a current student.
One of the student speakers, Amaan Khan, told the Durham student newspaper Palatinate that the “framing of the motion was regrettable”, since it “placed the burden on the victims”. However, he explained that he “chose to participate because I felt the need to expose this inherent flaw in the motion as well as the injustice in the case of the opposition”.
Durham Students for Palestine, who organised the protest, took a less open-minded approach. In a statement on the group’s Instagram page, they rejected the possibility of any debate on the subject, saying that “regardless of framing, it is an insult to the thousands of Palestinians martyred to platform genocidal ideologies, especially at an [sic] prestigious educational institution like Durham”.
Another statement from the group criticised the University for allowing the event to go ahead, claiming that “they had the power to step in – and yet they fuelled this [debate]. They allowed for the debate to take place on university property (paid for by our tuition fees), paid extortionate amounts for the event security and refused to engage with anyone’s pleas to intervene.”
Shortly after the event concluded, Durham University issued its own statement, saying that they had “made a strenuous effort to ensure arrangements were in place for it [the debate] to happen, working with organisers, the Durham Union Society, an independent student debating society, and the police to ensure the safety and security of those attending.”
The statement went on to say that the University was “committed to upholding freedom of speech within the law and the right to lawful protest.” This is indeed a welcome change in attitude from this summer, when the University allowed protestors to disrupt the event.
A spokesperson from the Durham Union also praised the University for “providing support in ensuring that Friday’s debate could proceed smoothly, ensuring that robust security measures kept everybody safe”. The spokesperson added that Durham University “continues to set a strong example by embracing diverse perspectives and creating an environment where freedom of expression thrives despite adverse pressures”.
Indeed, this is not the first time the University has come to the Durham Union’s aid. Last month, the Union was barred from participation in the Freshers’ Fair by the Durham Student Union, over a failure to “improve” on matters of EDI. Then, the University stepped in and provided an alternative space for the Union to advertise its activities to new students.
This time, the University has helped organise a successful and very popular event, despite the increased security risk. A spokesperson from the Union said that security eventually advised them to “stop admitting members in case there was overcrowding at the venue”.
One student who spoke in the event told The Telegraph, that he had initially been “worried about taking part”, but now saw it as a “real win for freedom of speech on campus”, adding that “the university should be commended for ensuring the debate went ahead.”
Tommi Loke, one of the student speakers representing the opposition to the motion, likewise expressed gratitude to the University and the Union for doing “everything possible to create a platform where everyone felt free to speak their minds, which resulted in a clean and enjoyable debate”.
At the end of the debate, the attendees voted 92-59 in favour of the proposition. Protestors were still present outside the building when students left the event around 10:30pm, meeting exiting members with shouts of “shame” and “Durham Union you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide”.
We commend Durham University for its efforts to ensure that this debate could go ahead despite the increased security risk, and hope that other universities will follow its example in the future. The cost of hiring additional security, or of seeking assistance from the police, is worth paying to maintain free and open debates on university campuses.