Occupation ends in victory
February 2, 2009 by Tom Swaine-Jameson
Some of the students celebrating their victory (Photo: Josh Jones)
Last Tuesday, on January 27th, the student occupation of the Arts A2 lecture theatre declared victory. The protest, which had been held to highlight the recent and continuing atrocities in Palestine, had been going on for over a week before both sides were willing to sign an agreement.
The University released a document acceding to most of the occupation’s demands and, after students’ continued presence had diffused management threats, the occupation consented to the resolution, making clear they could not be coerced and that the occupation was only the beginning of Sussex’s student-led campaign for peace in Gaza.
The feeling was one of euphoria and achievement in Arts A2 on Tuesday night. Josh Jones, a representative of the occupation to the management, said he was “deeply impressed with the way the students of the occupation came together”; whilst Syed Bokhari, Sussex delegate to many London occupations, said “we held together a brilliant occupation”. Further he said he believed “we proved that this tactic works”.
‘On Monday evening the University threatened to reverse their offer. Simon Englert, one of the occupiers, said “they told us if you don’t get out within 24 hours then everything is off the table and negotiations stop.”‘
As part of the settlement the University management released a statement giving unconditional support to the statement “the UK’s universities are resolutely committed to the right of education, enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Higher education, in particular, is a global activity and we value our academic links with universities all over the world.” The statement went on to condemn “attacks on civilians, any obstruction of provision of humanitarian aid and the targeting of public buildings and facilities like universities, hospitals and schools”.
The occupation however, withdrew their controversial demands for a campus-wide boycott of Israeli goods, and instead the University released a compromised statement committing to “work with USSU to ensure that produce sold on campus indicates clearly its source or provenance so members of the community can make an informed choice prior to purchase.
The campaign aimed for wide support within the University community, in total gaining over 1,200 signatures of student and staff in support of the occupation. A statement from the occupiers on the day of the resolution claimed “We are hugely grateful for all the support we have received from the wider university community”. The statement revealed the support from the wider population made the occupiers more determined and “showed to us the strength of common feeling over this matter.”
Students attending lectures in the past week may have been surprised by the presence of protesters, but in fact the occupation had been in planning for some time. Members of the Palestine Society, the Islamic Society and the Stop The War Coalition met at the start of the Spring term to discuss the possibility of student-led action in solidarity with Palestine.
The occupation, following on from talks from Azzam Tamimi, the Stop the War Coalition, and a delegate from LSE’s occupation, began on Tuesday 20th January. The idea gained mass support and 86 students stayed in the lecture theatre overnight, united in opposition to the actions of the state of Israel in Gaza, particularly the use of white phosphorus on civilians; attacks on UN aid centres, hospitals and schools; and the close range firing on women and children.
That night, through consensus-based decision-making aimed at retaining inclusiveness and democracy, students from disparate ideologies and views on the conflict drew up demands for the Vice Chancellor. Their statement demanded the university’s official condemnation of Israel’s actions in and around Gaza; the disinvestment from companies complicit in the conflict; a boycott of Israeli goods; scholarships to students from Gaza; the shipping of unused equipment to Gaza University; and the immunity of all students involved in the occupation.
“‘A statement from the occupiers on the day of the resolu-tion claimed “We are hugely grateful for all the support we have received from the wider university community”’
By morning, these demands had been sent and the occupation had a facebook group, a blog, elected representatives to the management, and had organised into working groups to publicise and support the occupation.
The 21st January saw university management abandon the previous night’s tactics of barricading the lecture hall, and attempt to open negotiations. A meeting took place that afternoon. The letter sent to the occupation on the 22nd was lengthily discussed by all members present at the general meeting who wrote, consented to, and sent back a reply conveying the almost universal discontent of the occupation. It was clear that whilst the university sought a swift resolution, the protesters, inspired by declared victories in LSE, Oxford, SOAS and Essex, would stick to the demands it had made.
Friday brought further negotiations with management and stress from them on the necessity of a speedy resolution, facing another coming week of silently occupied lectures. After a weekend of maintained student presence in A2, the university issued the document that would, after a further 24 hours of occupation, resolve the negotiations and bring an end to the occupation. On Monday evening the University threatened to reverse their offer. Simon Englert, one of the occupiers, said “they told us ‘if you don’t get out within 24 hours then everything is off the table and negotiations stop’”. The protesters were not defeated by the threats that the document would be retracted, and insisted that the document be voted on during a general meeting to incorporate usual attendance, and not within the time set by management. Englert said “we decided not to listen and to push further as there were still a little more to gain. Eventually we left in our own time.”
When the motion to end the occupation was passed on Tuesday the 27th, exactly one week after the occupation began, the document had with it the consent of all present.
‘Management committed themselves to a scholarship scheme for Palestinian students affected by the conflict’
The document reaffirmed the university’s commitment to universal education, and condemnation of the killing of civilians. Management conceded to disinvestment in involved companies; agreed to mark goods sold on campus that are from Gaza or the West Bank; committed themselves to a scholarship scheme for Palestinian students affected by the conflict; and to the scheme to send unused materials to Gaza university; and finally agreed that the peaceful and non-disruptive nature of the occupation be recognised and no action taken against protesters.
Amidst celebrations, a view of hope for student action in Sussex was expressed by Christakis Georgiou, another representative to management, who expressed the belief “that this symbolises the rebirth of the British student movement”, and a “continuation of the student-led struggles of the 1970s”. But Englert urged the campaign to keep going, warning “thinking that now it is done it is dangerous, we need to keep pushing on.”
Tagged: Arts A2, Campus, Gaza, News, palestine, Sussex Occupation, Tom Swaine-Jameson, University of Sussex
It’s refreshing to see an article on the Sussex Occupation in which the writer has taken the time to talk to the occupiers and ask them why they are there.
This protest has been met with some alarmingly mis-informed articles in the Badger, in particular some which seem to say that because the occupiers heard from Azzam Tamimi, who is pro-Hamas, everyone in the room must also be pro-Hamas and pro-terrorism.
As a pacifist and an anti-war campaigner who was apart of this protest, I am opposed to the terrorist tactics used by Hamas, but this doesn’t mean that I can’t protest Israel’s disproportionate use of force or the illegal use of white phosphorus. Nor does it mean that I am unwilling to hear form someone whose opinions differ from me – such as Tamimi himself. What bound the occupation together was not a shared love of terrorism – as some writers seem to be tragically misinformed – but a mutual frustration with the way in which Israeli state policy has deepend the crisis in the Middle East and caused death and suffering to thousands.
Firstly, I really have to air something that has been bugging me. Time and again I keep reading about the “non disruptive, completely peaceful” etc occupation. I disagree. Why? Because my first lecture during the occupation WAS disrupted, several times, over about half an hour, and it was VERY annoying. Every lecturer I had after that would come in, speak to students involved in the occupation, saying, “I’ve heard a lot about disruption to lectures, people coming in and out, do this and you simply can’t stay…” and so on. I feel that the students of Sussex want honesty and truth in their journalism, so if you’re writing the articles – get the facts right. Overall they may have been alright but it wasn’t perfect.
Now regarding this article I have mixed views. I am against war, violence, terrorism and was shocked when I first heard about the attacks in Gaza during the winter holidays. However, I did not support the occupation. It’s nothing personal, I simply did not feel that it represented the way that I felt and it is also not my chosen method of political involvement. I did not agree with a lot of the demands (and was not impressed when occupiers making defiant statements at the beginning of lectures couldn’t even remember the demands yet I could).
Nevertheless I find the “victory” shouts a little odd. I read the VC’s statement, and it doesn’t sound like a victory to me. He has been very diplomatic as he has to work in the interests of many people, but I don’t see any accession to demands. For example, the banning of Israeli products is responded to with “continuing to support local business and clearly labelling origin of products”. Not exactly an all-out boycott. This continues in his statement in addressing all of the demands.
Though I wasn’t for the occupation, I was still impressed by the passion and resolve of the students involved for standing up for something they are very passionate about to try and get the results they wanted. This is why I listened to speeches, picked up flyers and tracked the occupation’s progress because I wanted to know how it was all going, regardless of if I was in full support of it. There was one thing that stood out; I didn’t know that our union was linked to that of Gaza University. In the demands there were calls for scholarships and to send surplus equipment. However, I felt that – as we’re twinned with Gaza Uni – we could have maximised on that much more and pulled together for our ’sister’ university. The occupation seemed to me about people angry about the attacks on Gaza. I didn’t get any feeling of a stronger link to Gaza, which there is because of the twinned university. I would *definitely* have backed any outright efforts made to support Gaza Uni, to educate people more on what’s going on, to communicate with them during this time, to try and support them and so on. Unfortunately I have not seen any of this.
It may be that the things I have mentioned or criticised in this comment are actually the other way round; perhaps there are rallies every week for Gaza Uni and students are pulling together to send materials as I speak. Unfortunately though, I never see this (possible) side of the union and involved Gaza support groups. And nor do many other students. I think this is a huge problem as it gives a negative image of the union and related groups to those of us not directly involved. If you are doing this stuff, let us know! If not, START!