I love political opponents. Being able to argue with people on the other side of the political spectrum is much more fun than just surrounding yourself with people who always agree with you. While we virtually never agree on anything, I respect people on the Left when they are open to rational discussion and free exchange of views. What I can’t stand, however, are the hypocrisy and the double standards of many Oxford left-wingers.

The government’s recent plan to introduce a new counter-terrorism bill has been subject to a lot of criticism from the radical Left in Oxford. It enables the government to shut down debates and mandates universities not to draw students to extremism. Practically speaking this means that they must avoid inviting radical speakers. Our university is based on free exchange of views and opinions and those nasty Tories, in particular their draconic Home Secretary Theresa May, want to shut down free debate.

And it seems that this is one of the rare occasions when I find myself in agreement with the student Left. The State should not tell us what views we are allowed to listen to. When a group of people tries to shield you from unsavoury views because they want to ‘keep you safe’, it stinks of paternalism and eventually of outright authoritarian rule. Though I understand why she did it – to appeal to the old fashioned right-wingers in the party – I think Theresa May got this one wrong.

It’s called double standards, and I suspect the reader already knows where I’m going with this.

This bill was drafted to fight the threat of militant Islamists coming from the Islamic State into the UK. For this reason, the whole debate has been centred around militant Islamists addressing students. While the Oxford Left believes that it is absolutely outrageous that the government prohibits radical Islamic speakers from campuses, it is absolutely fine to shut down a debate on abortion because it makes people feel unsafe. It is totally justified to try to stop Marine Le Pen from speaking to us, in the process putting us in physical danger. I’m not very keen on the particulars of this bill, but if you believe in ‘no platforming’, you should have a poster of Theresa May in your room.

Isn’t it just marvelous? The student Left mocks free speech by likening it to frozen fruit, by saying it’s not important to our society and that other considerations – like offence or emotional comfort – are more important. Yet when the government tries to stop militant Islamists from spreading their poison in the UK, they all of the sudden become staunch defenders of freedom of expression.

George Orwell nailed it when he realized the power of “holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them”. Some Oxford students, it would seem, have mastered the art of ‘doublethink’.

On Tuesday 17th March, Israel elected their parliament for the next four years. In essence this was a vote either for the continuation of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government or for change. The result? A disastrous vote for more of the same.

Polls indicated a close-run election, but at the final count Mr Netanyahu’s Likud party managed to seize the win. With Israel’s proportional representation voting system meaning that a majority for one party is near impossible, Netanyahu now has 28 days to form a coalition. It will most likely comprise the Jewish Home party, Kulanu and other ultra-orthodox groups.

The Jewish Home Party is unashamedly racist and advocates the illegal expansion of Israeli settlements and the use of military force against the Palestinians. Their leader Naftali Bennett insists “on continuing construction in the West bank and Jerusalem”. He has also said that “there will never be a peace plan with the Palestinians” and that he “will do everything in [his] power to make sure they never get a state”. The other major member of the likely coalition, Kulanu, is focussed primarily on domestic issues and will do little to alter the course of the government, a course that currently flies in the face of international law.

The alternative prospect that was presented to the Israeli electorate symbolised change and progress and came in the form of the Zionist Union led by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni. The Zionist Union is a coalition of left-leaning parties that promised to repair relations with both Palestine and the international community. Their defeat signifies the death of any hope for an improvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict any time soon. As Saeb Erekat a chief Palestinian negotiator in the failed peace talks of 2014 notes, “It is clear Israel has voted for burying the peace process, against the two state choice and for the continuation of occupation and settlement.”

So what does the future hold for Israel, given the prospect of another four years of Netanyahu? Saeb Erekat described the incumbent’s campaign as a “platform based on settlements, racism, apartheid and the denial of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people”. Mr Netanyahu’s rhetoric has indeed taken a turn for the worse over recent days as he has explicitly stated that he will not allow the creation of a Palestinian state and has vowed to build more settlements. A hint of racist undertones was evident when taking to Twitter he warned his supporters, “Arab voters are coming in droves to the ballot boxes. Left-wing NGOs bring them in buses.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11309%%[/mm-hide-text]

However, one only needs to look at the past four years to predict what the next four will entail. Under the guiding hand of Mr Netanyahu, the number of Jewish-only settlements existing on occupied Palestinian territory has grown by 23 percent since 2009. Israel has also carried out two large-scale military offensives in the Gaza strip over that time. Considering Mr Netanyahu’s clear stance, it is not difficult to envisage a future in which Palestine eventually becomes entirely consumed by an Israeli invasion to leave behind a single apartheid state in which Palestinians are treated as second class citizens.

The international community (including the UN, US and the EU) officially recognises a two state solution as the most desirable. This is by no means an easy or a quick solution, but it is the only one that is just. The barrier to achieving this and subsequent peace is purely political, and while it is undoubtedly a difficult stance to take, if an Israeli prime minister did support it, it would be entirely possible. The Zionist Union could have offered such a prime minister in Herzog.

Of course Israel do not deserve anywhere near the whole portion of blame for the continuation of this conflict. Hamas (internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation) have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in both Palestine and Israel. While this is clearly unacceptable, it is Israeli violations of international law that must be addressed before any change in Palestine can occur. So, it seems like the Israeli electorate have in effect voted to maintain Hamas and their devastating effects on both states.

There are three immediate short term steps that Israel must take to achieve peace. Firstly, they must stop building settlements on illegally occupied land. Then they must halt its military operations in Palestine. Finally, peace talks need to be reinstated.

In the long term, Israel must recognise the Palestinian state. From there it is then possible for a two state agreement to be reached whereby, with land swaps, Israel may keep the vast majority of its settlements. However, after Tuesday’s election we must now wait another four years before there is even the slightest possibility of the first of these steps being taken.

Workplace propriety has proven to be a minefield of potential wrongdoing. Even the best intentioned of employees may stumble into the inappropriate. I am horribly unqualified to make any judgments on such matters. My experience of workplaces is restricted to a couple of summer jobs and a Saturday job in sixth form.

But even I am confident enough to venture that it is always unacceptable to punch a colleague in the face. I feel secure in the belief that I would have the backing of my employer, and public sympathy, if I was ever punched in the face at work. So why have nearly a million people flooded online to sign a petition, protesting against Jeremy Clarkson’s suspension for indulging in such an act?

Those who have rushed to defend Clarkson haven’t done so to reflect on this particular incident. Their reasoning is far more instinctive. Clarkson has become a symbol of something far greater than an interest in motoring. Declaring yourself to be a fan or a detractor of Clarkson is a statement of an entire set of values. The strength of feeling in the responses to Clarkson’s recent suspension is a symptom of a deeper divide in society.

Those who stand by Clarkson do so because they believe he is a figurehead for the everyman. The popularity of his defence is really the popularity of the idea that the average Joe is being maligned by our society.

However, this idea is a dangerous one. It is one that encourages a naive mentality of ‘us’ and ‘them’, and promotes irrational behaviour like defending those who punch their colleagues in the face.

But there is some truth in this idea. A didactic and intolerant tone has become increasingly common in many liberal campaigns. Cuntry Living provided a recent example when someone started a thread suggesting “banning cis-men”. This is the kind of uninspired, unengaged thought that feminist movements should be acting against. No particular group is exclusively guilty of this. Anti-feminists can be equally aggressive and intolerant. The labelling of feminist concerns as “femi-nazism” is just one recent example.

Whatever the cause, be it feminism, immigration or the role of welfare, we need to avoid this irrational herd-mentality. Critical thought, and the debate that democracy depends on for its existence, will cease to function properly. As a result healthy societal tensions will descend into cultural warfare. As Clarkson’s fans have discovered, if you are uncritically and unthinkingly loyal, you defend the indefensible and end up looking like a bit of a moron.