I thought I could do it. I mean, I really had belief in my abilities. I guess I figured the more I read, the more I learned, the more I became educated, the more I would be able to put aside my emotions and learn from a more objective perspective.
But today, I finally cracked open the book I bought from the 9/11 Memorial Site in New York: "The 9/11 Commission Report." It is a detailed, 643 page book, that goes through the entire events of 9/11, the communication failures, the plans, the responses and then discusses the aftermath of 9/11: terrorism, counter-terrorism, wars and new policies.
I only arrived at page 14 before I had to close the book for a few minutes, close my eyes and will myself not to be angry. Because is it truly possible not to hate those who destroyed so many lives? Is it possible to read the details of that horrifying day, learning about how our security and state leaders failed us, without feeling any pain? Can I really promise myself that I won't discriminate against an entire religion based on the actions of these ten individuals?
And all these feelings are coming from a girl who does not personally know anyone hurt in these attacks.
I'm not sure if it is possible. But I do know I have to continue reading that book. The Chair of the Commission wrote that they are evaluating the past in order to understand the present and work towards a better future. That's all we can ever hope to do.
Thoughts about the everyday events going on today and what we can do to make a difference
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Talk about Discussing Anti-Semitism
My letter to the editor was published Dec 7 2009 in Ottawa's The Hill Times.
Re: "Israel and the new McCarthyism," (The Hill Times, Nov. 23, Murray Dobbin, p. 24).
Murray Dobbin's doubts of rising anti-Semitism and his refutes of growing anti-Israel criticism disguised as anti-Semitism could hardly be more invalid. Contrary to Dobbin's views, anti-Semitism increased 11.4 per cent from 2006 to 2007, according to B'nai Brith Canada. This number increased last year to include an additional thousand reported events of anti-Semitism in 2009. There is no strategy to label criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism; however, more often than not, this seems to be the case.
Anti-Semitism is an old phenomenon that is always being reinvented to suit new purposes. For example, while accusations of blood libels are still being made against the Jewish people, instead they are being directed against the state of Israel, so that anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for anti-Semitism. Criticism of Israel certainly does not make one an anti-Semite, yet we must ask ourselves if people unnecessarily target the Jewish state for its actions, while completely refusing to criticize any other state in the Middle East who commit the worst crimes known to mankind (martyrdom, abuse of human rights in Iran and Saudi Arabia, etc.), can those people truly claim they do not have some sort of bias against Israel, the Jewish state, and therefore against Jews?
In this new left-wing intellectual climate, belittling any race or religion per se is off limits. The new tactic is to disparage the allegedly colonial, imperialist, racist nature of their actions. Targeting Jews' right to live peacefully, under the mantra of social justice, although critics of Israel only care about the need for equality of Arabs in Israel, but not in the rest of the Middle East, is indeed a new manifestation of this old phenomenon. How else can we explain the over 100 resolutions condemning Israel and the lack of any resolution condemning states who actually are committing genocide, like the situation in Iran and Darfur?
I don't believe criticizing Israel makes one an anti-Semite, but I do have to think twice when I see that these so-called 'social activists' unnecessarily focus exclusively on Israel, refusing to condemn any other state for its actions.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Waiting on a Tuesday
On Tuesday it will all be over. On Tuesday, I will finally have written my final exam for my "Arab Israeli Conflict" course. Three hundred plus pages of reading later, I will finally be free. Done. Conflict solved.
Not.
On Tuesday, my academic study of the Arab Israeli conflict will be over (for now). On Tuesday, I will now be responsible for studying this conflict out of my own free will. No longer will I need to learn about the domestic determinants of the Israeli-Syrian peace process (or lack thereof) to achieve a good grade in the course. It will now be my own initiative. And I'm ready to take it. If this course has taught me anything, it's that I know nothing (and that's often the case - the more we learn, the more we realize we have so much more to learn). From every one hour of lecture, I've left with thirty questions that I want answers to. But I think the main thing I've learned is that I want to learn those answers by myself - I want to figure them out on my own. I want to open up history and start learning facts and I'm confident that I can do it.
I almost teared at our last class this past week, because it meant that the knowledge I gain about this conflict is now mine to discover - I cannot rely on others to teach me what I want to know. Of course, I love to study and discuss academia with other students, professors and colleagues. But in order to even discuss, or to form an opinion, I must first have a basic knowledge of what it is I am discussing. And that is what I'm off to discover.
Who knows, maybe in a week I will have already forgotten this thirst for knowledge. But maybe not. Because as I've continued down the path of my university education, I've learned that the thirst for knowledge can rarely be satiated.
Not.
On Tuesday, my academic study of the Arab Israeli conflict will be over (for now). On Tuesday, I will now be responsible for studying this conflict out of my own free will. No longer will I need to learn about the domestic determinants of the Israeli-Syrian peace process (or lack thereof) to achieve a good grade in the course. It will now be my own initiative. And I'm ready to take it. If this course has taught me anything, it's that I know nothing (and that's often the case - the more we learn, the more we realize we have so much more to learn). From every one hour of lecture, I've left with thirty questions that I want answers to. But I think the main thing I've learned is that I want to learn those answers by myself - I want to figure them out on my own. I want to open up history and start learning facts and I'm confident that I can do it.
I almost teared at our last class this past week, because it meant that the knowledge I gain about this conflict is now mine to discover - I cannot rely on others to teach me what I want to know. Of course, I love to study and discuss academia with other students, professors and colleagues. But in order to even discuss, or to form an opinion, I must first have a basic knowledge of what it is I am discussing. And that is what I'm off to discover.
Who knows, maybe in a week I will have already forgotten this thirst for knowledge. But maybe not. Because as I've continued down the path of my university education, I've learned that the thirst for knowledge can rarely be satiated.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
A Tale of Two Identities
I’ve never questioned my Jewish identity. I’ve gone to Jewish schools and summer camps. I have been to Israel and spent my whole life learning about the Holocaust. Observant or not, my life has been surrounded with Judaism. My Jewish identity, like an arm or a leg, was always present, never questioned.
There is another aspect of my identity – which could put my Jewish identity into question. My parents were born in Beirut, Lebanon. They too went to Jewish schools and camps, but in addition to learning about the Holocaust, they learned about Jewish refugees from Arab countries. That is, until they became ones.
In the mid-1950s, approximately 7,000 Jews lived in Beirut. My parents stayed until the 1975 Muslim-Christian civil war. Although the Jews were not directly involved, the tension from the war damaged relations between them and other Lebanese citizens. Much of the fighting occurred in the Jewish quarter in Beirut, damaging homes and synagogues. The street my parents lived on no longer exists. My father’s sister stayed in Lebanon, and he has not seen her or heard from her since.
Being raised in Toronto as a Lebanese Jew did not strike me as odd. Still, I spoke Hebrew, Arabic, and French and my friends only spoke English. Once when I was eight, I was at my friend’s house and she ordered pizza and when she asked what I wanted on my pizza, I replied “zeitoune,” not realizing that it was the Arabic word for olives, and not an English one.
During the Second Lebanon war with Israel in 2006, one of my Jewish friends jokingly asked me, whose side I was on. I was shocked by the question – I supported the Israeli army’s desire to eliminate their terrorist threat, even though it sadly meant that civilians were killed. But it forced me to delve into the question – did being Lebanese mean anything to me?
I cannot reject my Lebanese roots, nor do I want to: they’re an inherent part of who I am. Arabic is more frequently spoken in my house than Hebrew, and we cook Lebanese foods more often than Jewish dishes. But to me, being Lebanese is part of my cultural identity, not my religious one: I will always be Jewish.
These identities were never contradictory. As part of my Jewish upbringing, I was taught to show compassion toward other cultures; to avoid discriminating others just as I never would want to be discriminated against due to an aspect of my identity. I was raised to care, not just about Jews, but about everyone.
My high school taught me to always have a social conscience – we must always remain aware of the plight of others and work to fight it. Instead of the standard 40 hours of required community service, as public high schools demand, we completed 72 hours. Our educators spent countless hours teaching us about the persecution of Jews in the past and present. Through this, we learned to foster our own identities, to strengthen them so they can never be destroyed.
I was never taught to try and separate Zionism and Judaism because my school saw Israel as a their homeland, and a necessary part of the Jewish religion. Many of my teachers were Israelis – they lived in Israel, risking their lives to ensure that Jews around the world were safe and always had a home to go to. It does not bother me that these two identities are so linked, because my Judaism cannot exist without my Zionism.
I’ve always dreamed of going to Beirut one day. I want to see the graves of my great-grandparents. I want to see the store my father used to go to every day after school, where he says they sold the “best ice-cream in the world.” Unfortunately, it looks like this may never happen. Until Lebanon’s conflict with Israel is resolved, I will never be allowed to enter the country of my parents’ birth.
I wonder what it would be like to be Jewish and not Lebanese. It’s a world I cannot imagine, for both are dear to me. But I’ve begun to choose which one is more important to me, and I believe that’s okay – we all have different identities in our lives, and we must choose which ones construct the core of our identity.
There is another aspect of my identity – which could put my Jewish identity into question. My parents were born in Beirut, Lebanon. They too went to Jewish schools and camps, but in addition to learning about the Holocaust, they learned about Jewish refugees from Arab countries. That is, until they became ones.
In the mid-1950s, approximately 7,000 Jews lived in Beirut. My parents stayed until the 1975 Muslim-Christian civil war. Although the Jews were not directly involved, the tension from the war damaged relations between them and other Lebanese citizens. Much of the fighting occurred in the Jewish quarter in Beirut, damaging homes and synagogues. The street my parents lived on no longer exists. My father’s sister stayed in Lebanon, and he has not seen her or heard from her since.
Being raised in Toronto as a Lebanese Jew did not strike me as odd. Still, I spoke Hebrew, Arabic, and French and my friends only spoke English. Once when I was eight, I was at my friend’s house and she ordered pizza and when she asked what I wanted on my pizza, I replied “zeitoune,” not realizing that it was the Arabic word for olives, and not an English one.
During the Second Lebanon war with Israel in 2006, one of my Jewish friends jokingly asked me, whose side I was on. I was shocked by the question – I supported the Israeli army’s desire to eliminate their terrorist threat, even though it sadly meant that civilians were killed. But it forced me to delve into the question – did being Lebanese mean anything to me?
I cannot reject my Lebanese roots, nor do I want to: they’re an inherent part of who I am. Arabic is more frequently spoken in my house than Hebrew, and we cook Lebanese foods more often than Jewish dishes. But to me, being Lebanese is part of my cultural identity, not my religious one: I will always be Jewish.
These identities were never contradictory. As part of my Jewish upbringing, I was taught to show compassion toward other cultures; to avoid discriminating others just as I never would want to be discriminated against due to an aspect of my identity. I was raised to care, not just about Jews, but about everyone.
My high school taught me to always have a social conscience – we must always remain aware of the plight of others and work to fight it. Instead of the standard 40 hours of required community service, as public high schools demand, we completed 72 hours. Our educators spent countless hours teaching us about the persecution of Jews in the past and present. Through this, we learned to foster our own identities, to strengthen them so they can never be destroyed.
I was never taught to try and separate Zionism and Judaism because my school saw Israel as a their homeland, and a necessary part of the Jewish religion. Many of my teachers were Israelis – they lived in Israel, risking their lives to ensure that Jews around the world were safe and always had a home to go to. It does not bother me that these two identities are so linked, because my Judaism cannot exist without my Zionism.
I’ve always dreamed of going to Beirut one day. I want to see the graves of my great-grandparents. I want to see the store my father used to go to every day after school, where he says they sold the “best ice-cream in the world.” Unfortunately, it looks like this may never happen. Until Lebanon’s conflict with Israel is resolved, I will never be allowed to enter the country of my parents’ birth.
I wonder what it would be like to be Jewish and not Lebanese. It’s a world I cannot imagine, for both are dear to me. But I’ve begun to choose which one is more important to me, and I believe that’s okay – we all have different identities in our lives, and we must choose which ones construct the core of our identity.
Friday, November 13, 2009
How I Feng Shui-ed McGill
In my mind, university is one big IKEA showroom. When you walk in, you’re nervous you won’t be able to find a parking spot or that if you do, it will be a ten minute walk away. When you finally enter, you choose a bare cart that you will fill with meaningful objects. At the first glance, you feel like you’re steeping into someone else’s living room - should I be taking off my shoes? Can I sit on that couch? But if you walk around again, you realize you can use these objects to make yourself a home, a new home.
When I first walked onto my university campus, I was filled with nerves. I’m not really great at changes - I lasted three days at sleepover camp before I called my mom crying to pick me up and before you picture a little girl with pigtails, let me tell you that I was fourteen.
When I graduated high school two years ago, taking a year “on” was very much in. We were encouraging to take a year abroad before we embark on our next school experience. I got swept up in this phase and started yelling at my parents to let me “experience new things” and “become more independent” which no doubt my year abroad would provide me with. Wasn’t the price of knowledge worth the $20,000 tuition program?
Thankfully, I realized I could probably live without this year “on” and still survive (and this realization obviously had nothing to do with my summer love interest, of course). The only problem was that university was starting in just four weeks and I did not have a place at school. The teeny tiny problem was that although McGill had accepted me in April, it was now August and they didn’t really care about some 18 year old girl hysterically complaining she “had to get into McGill because she couldn’t leave her boyfriend.” After five emails to the McGill admissions department to which I was told “it was impossible to reinstate my offer,” and a few frantic phone calls, I got the email that I would always remember - “Should you be interested in the Faculty of Management for September 2007 you must e-mail Admissions within the next two days…” I promise this is a true story - I have copies of these emails!
When I entered my first year at McGill, I had no idea what I wanted to study. I took anything and everything that interested me. The anonymity here intrigued me - I could trip down the stairs and no one would even notice (probably - I haven’t yet tested this theory).
The thing is, professors do care (if you visit them during office hours). And those friends you meet? They’ll stay with you forever, no matter which end of the earth they’re from. It took awhile to get adjusted to the different schedules and intensive courses but now I look forward to every class I have (even Canadian Politics). I love learning from professors who have years of research in their fields.
McGill is a school with over 30,000 students and that can be pretty intimidating. But I’ve already made that first walk around the showroom and I like what I see. And with every step, it feels more and more like home (decorated with IKEA furniture of course).
When I first walked onto my university campus, I was filled with nerves. I’m not really great at changes - I lasted three days at sleepover camp before I called my mom crying to pick me up and before you picture a little girl with pigtails, let me tell you that I was fourteen.
When I graduated high school two years ago, taking a year “on” was very much in. We were encouraging to take a year abroad before we embark on our next school experience. I got swept up in this phase and started yelling at my parents to let me “experience new things” and “become more independent” which no doubt my year abroad would provide me with. Wasn’t the price of knowledge worth the $20,000 tuition program?
Thankfully, I realized I could probably live without this year “on” and still survive (and this realization obviously had nothing to do with my summer love interest, of course). The only problem was that university was starting in just four weeks and I did not have a place at school. The teeny tiny problem was that although McGill had accepted me in April, it was now August and they didn’t really care about some 18 year old girl hysterically complaining she “had to get into McGill because she couldn’t leave her boyfriend.” After five emails to the McGill admissions department to which I was told “it was impossible to reinstate my offer,” and a few frantic phone calls, I got the email that I would always remember - “Should you be interested in the Faculty of Management for September 2007 you must e-mail Admissions within the next two days…” I promise this is a true story - I have copies of these emails!
When I entered my first year at McGill, I had no idea what I wanted to study. I took anything and everything that interested me. The anonymity here intrigued me - I could trip down the stairs and no one would even notice (probably - I haven’t yet tested this theory).
The thing is, professors do care (if you visit them during office hours). And those friends you meet? They’ll stay with you forever, no matter which end of the earth they’re from. It took awhile to get adjusted to the different schedules and intensive courses but now I look forward to every class I have (even Canadian Politics). I love learning from professors who have years of research in their fields.
McGill is a school with over 30,000 students and that can be pretty intimidating. But I’ve already made that first walk around the showroom and I like what I see. And with every step, it feels more and more like home (decorated with IKEA furniture of course).
Friday, September 11, 2009
Removing all biases
Apparently, we are all biased.
I assumed I had biases, sure, but I was positive with the right education, I could overcome them. Four years at the best university in Canada would surely erase my pre-conceived notions and leave me with a blank slate, right?
One of the readings assigned to my "Arab-Israeli Conflict" course is called "Socio-psychological Foundations of Intractable Conflicts" and discuses how our social identities are constructed in such a way to prolong the current conflict. Our historians write history books with these self-focused views, enabling younger generations to maintain this conflicted identity (conflicted in two senses: a. unable to recognize other views of the conflict and b. adapting your past experiences to the version of the conflict you are supposed to believe in). It would be ignorant to claim that I have come without biases as I study this conflict - my education has ensured that I see the conflict in certain manners and my relationship to those involved in the conflict have altered my vision. But as a child, instead of dreaming of barbies and pet horses, I wanted to be an educated individual who would be able to separate her own feelings and emotions to study a conflict entirely based on feelings and emotions. Enrolling at McGill was an attempt to begin this process.
Unfortunately, according to "Bar Tal., et al..." it is nearly impossible to separate your identity from the one you have been taught to have. Our media, our history books, our modes of communication have ensured that we think a certain way, that we understand the conflict in terms of "us versus them" and these ideas are so deeply rooted in our societal nature that we cannot truly hope to separate ourselves from it. Well, there goes my childhood dream.
If my notions about the conflict were constructed because of my past, can I re-construct my identity because of my present? If I change my surroundings, my experiences, does that mean I am finally free to erase my own biases - or will I merely see what I wish to see?
I'm not sure if we can erase our notions of what this crisis is about - and I'm not sure we should. If I could give up my past in favor of a impartial future, would I trade in all my feelings for this knowledge? Perhaps that was my childhood dream, but as I enter new phases in my life, I would rather remember the lessons I have learned from childhood and adapt it to my future. Maybe "Bar Tal" couldn't imagine a world without these permanent identities, but I can. Erasing my beliefs and feelings would only make myself immune to the conflict, rather than enable me to understand it. These past experiences are what make us desire to end this conflict, to see a resolution. In fact, this goes for any historical lesson. We remember the Holocaust to help us recognize that the morality of the world is not a given and we remember 9/11 to make us realize that we have a duty to inflict morality upon the world. It may be the more difficult path, but it is the path that we cannot part from.
Because our social identities are tied to the conflict we cannot ever give up hope of solving it. After all, why would I fight for a conflict that is not, intrinsically, mine?
I assumed I had biases, sure, but I was positive with the right education, I could overcome them. Four years at the best university in Canada would surely erase my pre-conceived notions and leave me with a blank slate, right?
One of the readings assigned to my "Arab-Israeli Conflict" course is called "Socio-psychological Foundations of Intractable Conflicts" and discuses how our social identities are constructed in such a way to prolong the current conflict. Our historians write history books with these self-focused views, enabling younger generations to maintain this conflicted identity (conflicted in two senses: a. unable to recognize other views of the conflict and b. adapting your past experiences to the version of the conflict you are supposed to believe in). It would be ignorant to claim that I have come without biases as I study this conflict - my education has ensured that I see the conflict in certain manners and my relationship to those involved in the conflict have altered my vision. But as a child, instead of dreaming of barbies and pet horses, I wanted to be an educated individual who would be able to separate her own feelings and emotions to study a conflict entirely based on feelings and emotions. Enrolling at McGill was an attempt to begin this process.
Unfortunately, according to "Bar Tal., et al..." it is nearly impossible to separate your identity from the one you have been taught to have. Our media, our history books, our modes of communication have ensured that we think a certain way, that we understand the conflict in terms of "us versus them" and these ideas are so deeply rooted in our societal nature that we cannot truly hope to separate ourselves from it. Well, there goes my childhood dream.
If my notions about the conflict were constructed because of my past, can I re-construct my identity because of my present? If I change my surroundings, my experiences, does that mean I am finally free to erase my own biases - or will I merely see what I wish to see?
I'm not sure if we can erase our notions of what this crisis is about - and I'm not sure we should. If I could give up my past in favor of a impartial future, would I trade in all my feelings for this knowledge? Perhaps that was my childhood dream, but as I enter new phases in my life, I would rather remember the lessons I have learned from childhood and adapt it to my future. Maybe "Bar Tal" couldn't imagine a world without these permanent identities, but I can. Erasing my beliefs and feelings would only make myself immune to the conflict, rather than enable me to understand it. These past experiences are what make us desire to end this conflict, to see a resolution. In fact, this goes for any historical lesson. We remember the Holocaust to help us recognize that the morality of the world is not a given and we remember 9/11 to make us realize that we have a duty to inflict morality upon the world. It may be the more difficult path, but it is the path that we cannot part from.
Because our social identities are tied to the conflict we cannot ever give up hope of solving it. After all, why would I fight for a conflict that is not, intrinsically, mine?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Apartheid Label
Re: "A Boycott could save Israel," Neve Gordon, August 22 2009
Neve Gordon cleverly publicizes his Israeli and Jewish identity to lend credibility to his baseless opinions. Israel is a diverse and pluralistic society. 20% of Israel's citizens are Arab Christians and Muslims, and they have full rights, including voting, serving in the government, attending universities, freedom of speech and religion. While Israel, like America, is not a perfect society, Israeli Arabs have by far the most rights of any Arabs in the Middle East.
Anti-Israel activists claim that Israel is an apartheid state because Palestinian Arabs don't have the same rights as Israelis. They fail to distinguish between Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank and Gaza, who are citizens of the Palestinian Authority. They are not citizens of Israel and therefore they do not enjoy the same rights and privileges. This would seem to be an obvious point, but people like Neve Gordon often conveniently neglect this fact. Citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish. Israel cannot demand the Palestinian Authority grant its own citizens democratic rights and freedoms, just like Canada cannot control America’s actions.
Gordon’s use of the word “apartheid” is a cheap escape mechanism to label a highly complex conflict, and this label limits civil discourse by vilifying Israel. Why, out of all the countries in the world in which national, religious or ethnic minorities claim discrimination, is Israel selected for the "apartheid" label?
Benjamin Pogrund, a South African-born Jew who was active in the anti-apartheid movement and now lives in Israel, notes: "Apartheid" is used in this case and elsewhere because it comes easily to hand...It is also used because, if it can be made to stick, then Israel can be made to appear to be as vile as was apartheid South Africa and seeking its destruction can be presented to the world as an equally moral cause."
Gordon’s so-called “moral” solutions to this problem involve destroying the State of Israel through the creation of a bi-national state. At its most basic level, the one-state solution denies the right of Jews to self-determination in their historical homeland and calls into question the very legitimacy of Israel as a state. I hardly find it moral to destroy a democratic state and a haven for the Jewish people.
Gordon refuses to give examples of the ways in which Israel is practicing apartheid, only stating that Palestinians “are subject to totally different legal systems.” The differences between apartheid South Africa and modern day Israel should be obvious and the contrasts should not even have to be stated. For example, the South African state was extraordinarily repressive, regulating every detail of the lives of its subjects on the basis of their skin color. By contrast, Israel is a democracy which encourages vibrant debate, which has a flourishing free press and which shares with other liberal democracies a core value: the equality of all its citizens before the law. Unlike Blacks in apartheid South Africa, Arab citizens of Israel have full political rights. It is not "apartheid" that Arab and Jewish Israeli citizens are generally subject to a different set of laws than West Bank Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens. Israelis of all races, ethnicities and religions are governed by the same legal system.
Gordon’s attack on Israel is extremely one sided - he does not even mention the countless peace plans Israel has proposed that the Palestinians have rejected (1947, 1970, 1979, 1993 and 2005 are just some of the dates Israel offered land for peace and was rejected). The measures Israel undertakes for her own security are the ones Gordon calls “apartheid” like checkpoints and the security fence. These measures are the consequence of a campaign of terror by Palestinian groups such as Hamas and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, which, in deliberately targeting civilians, have claimed over 1,000 innocent Israeli lives. The Palestinians could have a state exactly like the one Gordon is advocating for, had they accepted Israel’s peace negotiations rather than retaliate with violence.
The importance of Israel’s security was noted by Nelson Mandela, the symbol of the struggle against apartheid, who remarked, in 1999, that he could not conceive of Israeli withdrawal "if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders."
Israel understandably believes that without a peace agreement, let alone negotiations, it would be irresponsible and even dangerous to withdraw from the West Bank. This lesson was all-too-painfully reinforced by the country’s experience after withdrawing from Gaza and Lebanon, when it was attacked from the very territories from which it unilaterally withdrew.
Gordon’s Op-Ed is not merely illogical. It delegitimizes Israel’s very existence by promoting the apartheid canard and calling for a boycott, with the purpose of forcing Israel to immediately concede to Palestinian demands without consideration of the safety of its own citizens.
Neve Gordon cleverly publicizes his Israeli and Jewish identity to lend credibility to his baseless opinions. Israel is a diverse and pluralistic society. 20% of Israel's citizens are Arab Christians and Muslims, and they have full rights, including voting, serving in the government, attending universities, freedom of speech and religion. While Israel, like America, is not a perfect society, Israeli Arabs have by far the most rights of any Arabs in the Middle East.
Anti-Israel activists claim that Israel is an apartheid state because Palestinian Arabs don't have the same rights as Israelis. They fail to distinguish between Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank and Gaza, who are citizens of the Palestinian Authority. They are not citizens of Israel and therefore they do not enjoy the same rights and privileges. This would seem to be an obvious point, but people like Neve Gordon often conveniently neglect this fact. Citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish. Israel cannot demand the Palestinian Authority grant its own citizens democratic rights and freedoms, just like Canada cannot control America’s actions.
Gordon’s use of the word “apartheid” is a cheap escape mechanism to label a highly complex conflict, and this label limits civil discourse by vilifying Israel. Why, out of all the countries in the world in which national, religious or ethnic minorities claim discrimination, is Israel selected for the "apartheid" label?
Benjamin Pogrund, a South African-born Jew who was active in the anti-apartheid movement and now lives in Israel, notes: "Apartheid" is used in this case and elsewhere because it comes easily to hand...It is also used because, if it can be made to stick, then Israel can be made to appear to be as vile as was apartheid South Africa and seeking its destruction can be presented to the world as an equally moral cause."
Gordon’s so-called “moral” solutions to this problem involve destroying the State of Israel through the creation of a bi-national state. At its most basic level, the one-state solution denies the right of Jews to self-determination in their historical homeland and calls into question the very legitimacy of Israel as a state. I hardly find it moral to destroy a democratic state and a haven for the Jewish people.
Gordon refuses to give examples of the ways in which Israel is practicing apartheid, only stating that Palestinians “are subject to totally different legal systems.” The differences between apartheid South Africa and modern day Israel should be obvious and the contrasts should not even have to be stated. For example, the South African state was extraordinarily repressive, regulating every detail of the lives of its subjects on the basis of their skin color. By contrast, Israel is a democracy which encourages vibrant debate, which has a flourishing free press and which shares with other liberal democracies a core value: the equality of all its citizens before the law. Unlike Blacks in apartheid South Africa, Arab citizens of Israel have full political rights. It is not "apartheid" that Arab and Jewish Israeli citizens are generally subject to a different set of laws than West Bank Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens. Israelis of all races, ethnicities and religions are governed by the same legal system.
Gordon’s attack on Israel is extremely one sided - he does not even mention the countless peace plans Israel has proposed that the Palestinians have rejected (1947, 1970, 1979, 1993 and 2005 are just some of the dates Israel offered land for peace and was rejected). The measures Israel undertakes for her own security are the ones Gordon calls “apartheid” like checkpoints and the security fence. These measures are the consequence of a campaign of terror by Palestinian groups such as Hamas and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, which, in deliberately targeting civilians, have claimed over 1,000 innocent Israeli lives. The Palestinians could have a state exactly like the one Gordon is advocating for, had they accepted Israel’s peace negotiations rather than retaliate with violence.
The importance of Israel’s security was noted by Nelson Mandela, the symbol of the struggle against apartheid, who remarked, in 1999, that he could not conceive of Israeli withdrawal "if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders."
Israel understandably believes that without a peace agreement, let alone negotiations, it would be irresponsible and even dangerous to withdraw from the West Bank. This lesson was all-too-painfully reinforced by the country’s experience after withdrawing from Gaza and Lebanon, when it was attacked from the very territories from which it unilaterally withdrew.
Gordon’s Op-Ed is not merely illogical. It delegitimizes Israel’s very existence by promoting the apartheid canard and calling for a boycott, with the purpose of forcing Israel to immediately concede to Palestinian demands without consideration of the safety of its own citizens.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Could Ahmadinijad be good for the West?
No, the title is not a typo. Yes, I'm an educated student and yes, I stand by the title of this post.
It's not difficult to name the horrors Ahmadinijad has done and the horrors he wants to commit (i.e. wipe Israel off the map). He runs an oppressive regime and opponents are frequently murdered, harassed or threatened. Many western leaders have recognized the threat Iran poses and many media outlets are not shy to announce the fear of Iran. But would removing Ahmadinijad make any difference?
Iran and the West have a long complicated history. Under the Shah, Iran had good ties with the West and even attempted to modernize the nation. But after the follow-out of American support in the mid 70s, Iran became more and more aggressive until the 1979 regime change which changed the Iranian regime's policies. Following the revolution came a new interpretation in Shiite jurisprudence. This new interpretation believed there was a prophet that will come to the aid of all Shiites worldwide and this form of Shiism dominated the Iranian belief system. This idea of the saviour was advocated by Khomeini who argued for the concept of "Wali al-Faqih" (supreme leader) - a person who would be in charge of Shiite affairs until this savior arrives. And of course, he claimed that he was the appropriate person to act as the supreme leader. This interpretation was imposed on the clerical elite in Iran and thus, society at large.
Another important change in the Iranian regime was the constitutional manipulation. After 1979, Iran was called "The Islamic Republic," which would supposedly introduce republican principles into the regime and but also put the political role of the Supreme Leader as the highest regime official of the regime. This was done to ensure that the final arbitrator in foreign policy affairs was a group of clerks loyal to Khomeini.
These changes are still in effect today - Iran can have elections after elections but as long as the supreme leader remains to be Ali Khamenei, the Iranian president will have no real effect on Iranian foreign policy. So even if Mousavi had won, it would not have made a difference.
So could Ahmadinijad be good for the West? He can decide to "wipe Israel off the map" but these decisions would only be put in effect by the Supreme Leader. And so, if we look at Mousavi's record, perhaps he is good for the West.
Mousavi was favored to win by the West because he presented a moderate voice in Iranian public. Many analysts praised his handling of the Iranian economy, his leadership during the Iran-Iraq war which killed over a million people on both sides and his efforts to end Iran's international isolation.
But as prime minister in the 1980s, Mousavi was a social conservative, and he backed the ideals of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Mir Hossein Mousavi's hard-line past and spotless revolutionary credentials appeal to conservatives. And just two months ago, he announced Iran would continue advancing her nuclear program. The advancement of this nuclear program would have severe implications in the Middle East. Iran funds Syrian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, an arrangement worth keeping for Syria, which is then able to maintain the Lebanese border as an active military front against Israel. The funding that Iran provides lands into the pockets of Hezbollah and Hamas and if Iran had a nuclear weapons program, perhaps those weapons would also be transferred to terrorists.
When Mousavi introduced his cabinet in 1985, he boasted that his interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashami, was a religious conservative who’d built his reputation while building Hezbollah, the "Party of God," in Lebanon. Mousavi’s parliamentary followers supported continuing terrorist operations in Lebanon. Mousavi neither liked nor trusted Americans. He led Iran’s boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics to protest U.S. foreign policy from Central American to the Middle East.
Mousavi's past has been overlooked during the previous elections. The west preferred him to win and his supporters called him a moderate choice. If Mousavi is considered moderate, it is only when compared to Ahmadinijad.
So could Ahmadinijad be good for the West? If Mousavi was in "power," perhaps the west would attempt to negotiate with Iran. As we have learned, negotiations with Iran are useless. Obama can extend the "olive branch" as much as he wants, but until he realizes Iran has no intention of ever cooperating with the US or even maintaining friendly relations with the US, his kind words will only do harm. As long as Ahmadinijad is in power, we can no longer pretend Iran is not a threat. It might even be a blessing in disguise - Ahmadinijad is up front about his cruel policies and strong actions against them need not be hidden. The west will receive less opposition when fighting a "Holocaust-denier" than if fighting a so-called moderate.
At the end of the day, Ahmadinijad and Mousavi both cannot change the fate of Iran - only the Supreme Leader can. And we have a unique opportunity to fight this threat - since it is so clearly right in front of us.
It's not difficult to name the horrors Ahmadinijad has done and the horrors he wants to commit (i.e. wipe Israel off the map). He runs an oppressive regime and opponents are frequently murdered, harassed or threatened. Many western leaders have recognized the threat Iran poses and many media outlets are not shy to announce the fear of Iran. But would removing Ahmadinijad make any difference?
Iran and the West have a long complicated history. Under the Shah, Iran had good ties with the West and even attempted to modernize the nation. But after the follow-out of American support in the mid 70s, Iran became more and more aggressive until the 1979 regime change which changed the Iranian regime's policies. Following the revolution came a new interpretation in Shiite jurisprudence. This new interpretation believed there was a prophet that will come to the aid of all Shiites worldwide and this form of Shiism dominated the Iranian belief system. This idea of the saviour was advocated by Khomeini who argued for the concept of "Wali al-Faqih" (supreme leader) - a person who would be in charge of Shiite affairs until this savior arrives. And of course, he claimed that he was the appropriate person to act as the supreme leader. This interpretation was imposed on the clerical elite in Iran and thus, society at large.
Another important change in the Iranian regime was the constitutional manipulation. After 1979, Iran was called "The Islamic Republic," which would supposedly introduce republican principles into the regime and but also put the political role of the Supreme Leader as the highest regime official of the regime. This was done to ensure that the final arbitrator in foreign policy affairs was a group of clerks loyal to Khomeini.
These changes are still in effect today - Iran can have elections after elections but as long as the supreme leader remains to be Ali Khamenei, the Iranian president will have no real effect on Iranian foreign policy. So even if Mousavi had won, it would not have made a difference.
So could Ahmadinijad be good for the West? He can decide to "wipe Israel off the map" but these decisions would only be put in effect by the Supreme Leader. And so, if we look at Mousavi's record, perhaps he is good for the West.
Mousavi was favored to win by the West because he presented a moderate voice in Iranian public. Many analysts praised his handling of the Iranian economy, his leadership during the Iran-Iraq war which killed over a million people on both sides and his efforts to end Iran's international isolation.
But as prime minister in the 1980s, Mousavi was a social conservative, and he backed the ideals of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Mir Hossein Mousavi's hard-line past and spotless revolutionary credentials appeal to conservatives. And just two months ago, he announced Iran would continue advancing her nuclear program. The advancement of this nuclear program would have severe implications in the Middle East. Iran funds Syrian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, an arrangement worth keeping for Syria, which is then able to maintain the Lebanese border as an active military front against Israel. The funding that Iran provides lands into the pockets of Hezbollah and Hamas and if Iran had a nuclear weapons program, perhaps those weapons would also be transferred to terrorists.
When Mousavi introduced his cabinet in 1985, he boasted that his interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashami, was a religious conservative who’d built his reputation while building Hezbollah, the "Party of God," in Lebanon. Mousavi’s parliamentary followers supported continuing terrorist operations in Lebanon. Mousavi neither liked nor trusted Americans. He led Iran’s boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics to protest U.S. foreign policy from Central American to the Middle East.
Mousavi's past has been overlooked during the previous elections. The west preferred him to win and his supporters called him a moderate choice. If Mousavi is considered moderate, it is only when compared to Ahmadinijad.
So could Ahmadinijad be good for the West? If Mousavi was in "power," perhaps the west would attempt to negotiate with Iran. As we have learned, negotiations with Iran are useless. Obama can extend the "olive branch" as much as he wants, but until he realizes Iran has no intention of ever cooperating with the US or even maintaining friendly relations with the US, his kind words will only do harm. As long as Ahmadinijad is in power, we can no longer pretend Iran is not a threat. It might even be a blessing in disguise - Ahmadinijad is up front about his cruel policies and strong actions against them need not be hidden. The west will receive less opposition when fighting a "Holocaust-denier" than if fighting a so-called moderate.
At the end of the day, Ahmadinijad and Mousavi both cannot change the fate of Iran - only the Supreme Leader can. And we have a unique opportunity to fight this threat - since it is so clearly right in front of us.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Finding my own place in the conflict
During the past few years, I have learned a lot (or tried to learn) about the Middle East Conflict/Arab-Israeli Conflict/ Israeli-Palestinian Conflict etc etc... I've learned that both sides make big, life changing mistakes. I've also learned that it is impossible to believe everything the media says. In an ideal world, the media would report simply to let us know the truth - but in our world, every media outlet has their own agenda and if spinning a story a certain way will allow them more access to future stories, then they will do it. And sometimes the ability to talk to terrorists is what the media wants - not always to justify their actions but to claim a coveted spot in the hierarchy of media outlets (the more evil the terrorist, the more coveted the interview, the more respected the media).
At the end of the day, I still have hesitations. I read the papers and I find flaws in their understandings and their insinuations. I find flaws in the history of the conflict - who started what? who is to blame? can we even place blame? And it just makes me want to learn more. Maybe I'm only searching for the answers I want to hear, the answers I've been taught from birth - or maybe I'll put aside my feelings and just search for some semblance of truth.
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
At the end of the day, I still have hesitations. I read the papers and I find flaws in their understandings and their insinuations. I find flaws in the history of the conflict - who started what? who is to blame? can we even place blame? And it just makes me want to learn more. Maybe I'm only searching for the answers I want to hear, the answers I've been taught from birth - or maybe I'll put aside my feelings and just search for some semblance of truth.
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
"A state is not a right - it's something you earn"
"I'm scared for the peace process to start again," Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh stated last week at a lecture to a group of interns as he discussed the current situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
Khaled Abu Toameh is an Israeli Arab (through his father) and a Palestinian (through his mother) living as a journalist in Jerusalem. After working for the PLO as a journalist, he started reporting for the Jerusalem Post during the 2nd Intifada, when it was too dangerous for Israeli journalists to be reporting on the streets. He willingly shares his unique views on the conflict and often lectures to various university campuses although he prefers to stay in Israel as often as he can - American campuses are so radicalized that "I feel more threatened on American campuses than on campuses in Ramallah," Toameh said.
"When the Oslo Accords were presented, we were hopeful, we thought we'd have what the Jews had." But in reality, the Oslo Accords deferred the peace process even further, causing the radicalization of Hamas. "The idea of Oslo was good - to end the occupation," Toameh said, but the way it was implemented was problematic. The international community believed that if they gave the PLO weapons, the PLO will build proper government institutions and will do Israel's dirty work and fight Hamas. But the money only went to the wrong things - Arafat's shopping sprees and, some argue, to the families of suicide bombers. The international community poured money into the PLO without any conditions. Arafat even used some of the money to develop a media center on which he said "kill the Jews, kill the infidels." Arafat did not care if the international community heard - if he kept the Palestinians hating the Jews and the Americans, they will continue to rely on Arafat to solve their problems and they will stop demanding democratic reforms.
"Arafat deprived the Palestinians of the fruits of peace and so he radicalized them," Toameh said. As the Palestinians realized the peace process had failed to change their poor living conditions, they began to turn to Hamas, who was advocating for change. The radicalization of the Palestinians can be attributed to two main causes:
As the international community promised a resolution to the centuries old conflict, the struggle was only worsening. Hamas was now so strong that they were able to "democratically" come to power in 2006. As the world focused on the war between the Israelis and the Palestinians, a new war was emerging - the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah, the struggle "between bad guys and bad guys, both fighting for money and power," Toameh said." Don't kid yourselves, "there's no such thing as a moderate Hamas," he argued. In the summer of 2007, Hamas kicked the PLO out of Gaza, accusing them of trying to bring down Hamas. Did Israel rejoice that at least one of their enemies had lost power? "Israel was the only country in the world who sent ships and helicopters to save Muslims from being killed by Muslims," said Toameh.
With Hamas ruling Gaza and the PLO maintaining their weak hold on the West Bank, a two-state solution would not even suffice, since the Palestinians now have two separate entities, each vying for their own state. Toameh even said "if it weren’t for Israel sitting in the middle, they'd be shooting at each other." The division amongst the Palestinians poses a problem to the new "peace plan" as outlined by Obama. We cannot move forward with a peace process when there is no partner on the Palestinian side. The only way to move forward is to tell the Palestinians to dismantle the terror groups and establish a government, a legitimate partner we can deal with. Easier said than done.
"When I see Obama telling Bibi to accept the two state solution, I laugh. If I were Bibi, I would stand up today and say yes, I accept, because he has nothing to be afraid of. The Palestinians are too divided to form a state," said Toameh. The pressure from Obama should be on the Palestinians, Toameh said, not on the Israelis. A state is not a right, he said - "a state is something you earn when you show the world you are capable of governing. The Arabs are not prepared for a state."
If the settlements were the real obstacle to peace, then there should have been peace already, he argued. Israel gave land for peace many times but the result has only been more war. "The international community is using 'settlements' as a cover up and the Obama administration is falling for it. If they focus on this, they can forget about Ahmadinijad and Osama bin Laden."
As the area falls into chaos (or perhaps, more chaos), what is the million-dollar solution here? According to Toameh, we have to acknowledge there is no real solution here. Realistically, there is not enough room on this tiny strip of land for another state. But, he said, "there is room for a new party other than Hamas and the PLO and there have been attempts started by academics but they have no credibility. In our society, it's more important to graduate from prison than from Harvard, because it's the people who graduate from prison that run the country."
Khaled Abu Toameh is an Israeli Arab (through his father) and a Palestinian (through his mother) living as a journalist in Jerusalem. After working for the PLO as a journalist, he started reporting for the Jerusalem Post during the 2nd Intifada, when it was too dangerous for Israeli journalists to be reporting on the streets. He willingly shares his unique views on the conflict and often lectures to various university campuses although he prefers to stay in Israel as often as he can - American campuses are so radicalized that "I feel more threatened on American campuses than on campuses in Ramallah," Toameh said.
"When the Oslo Accords were presented, we were hopeful, we thought we'd have what the Jews had." But in reality, the Oslo Accords deferred the peace process even further, causing the radicalization of Hamas. "The idea of Oslo was good - to end the occupation," Toameh said, but the way it was implemented was problematic. The international community believed that if they gave the PLO weapons, the PLO will build proper government institutions and will do Israel's dirty work and fight Hamas. But the money only went to the wrong things - Arafat's shopping sprees and, some argue, to the families of suicide bombers. The international community poured money into the PLO without any conditions. Arafat even used some of the money to develop a media center on which he said "kill the Jews, kill the infidels." Arafat did not care if the international community heard - if he kept the Palestinians hating the Jews and the Americans, they will continue to rely on Arafat to solve their problems and they will stop demanding democratic reforms.
"Arafat deprived the Palestinians of the fruits of peace and so he radicalized them," Toameh said. As the Palestinians realized the peace process had failed to change their poor living conditions, they began to turn to Hamas, who was advocating for change. The radicalization of the Palestinians can be attributed to two main causes:
- a) firstly, Arafat's strategy to ensure his people hate the Jews backfired - rather than this causing the Palestinians to keep Arafat in power, it radicalized them so that they wanted a new representative for the Palestinian people - not a "moderate" one like Arafat.
- b) secondly, Israel did help arm the PLO but now had a new fear to worry about - the threat of their newly armed neighbor. New security measures had to be in place, resulting in less free movement for the Palestinians. The "good, old days before the peace process" when Palestinians could easily pass from the West Bank into Israel "were over," Toameh said.
As the international community promised a resolution to the centuries old conflict, the struggle was only worsening. Hamas was now so strong that they were able to "democratically" come to power in 2006. As the world focused on the war between the Israelis and the Palestinians, a new war was emerging - the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah, the struggle "between bad guys and bad guys, both fighting for money and power," Toameh said." Don't kid yourselves, "there's no such thing as a moderate Hamas," he argued. In the summer of 2007, Hamas kicked the PLO out of Gaza, accusing them of trying to bring down Hamas. Did Israel rejoice that at least one of their enemies had lost power? "Israel was the only country in the world who sent ships and helicopters to save Muslims from being killed by Muslims," said Toameh.
With Hamas ruling Gaza and the PLO maintaining their weak hold on the West Bank, a two-state solution would not even suffice, since the Palestinians now have two separate entities, each vying for their own state. Toameh even said "if it weren’t for Israel sitting in the middle, they'd be shooting at each other." The division amongst the Palestinians poses a problem to the new "peace plan" as outlined by Obama. We cannot move forward with a peace process when there is no partner on the Palestinian side. The only way to move forward is to tell the Palestinians to dismantle the terror groups and establish a government, a legitimate partner we can deal with. Easier said than done.
"When I see Obama telling Bibi to accept the two state solution, I laugh. If I were Bibi, I would stand up today and say yes, I accept, because he has nothing to be afraid of. The Palestinians are too divided to form a state," said Toameh. The pressure from Obama should be on the Palestinians, Toameh said, not on the Israelis. A state is not a right, he said - "a state is something you earn when you show the world you are capable of governing. The Arabs are not prepared for a state."
If the settlements were the real obstacle to peace, then there should have been peace already, he argued. Israel gave land for peace many times but the result has only been more war. "The international community is using 'settlements' as a cover up and the Obama administration is falling for it. If they focus on this, they can forget about Ahmadinijad and Osama bin Laden."
As the area falls into chaos (or perhaps, more chaos), what is the million-dollar solution here? According to Toameh, we have to acknowledge there is no real solution here. Realistically, there is not enough room on this tiny strip of land for another state. But, he said, "there is room for a new party other than Hamas and the PLO and there have been attempts started by academics but they have no credibility. In our society, it's more important to graduate from prison than from Harvard, because it's the people who graduate from prison that run the country."
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Toronto Star, "No option but to engage the Iranian regime"
This article appeared in the Toronto Star on June 25 2009. My letter to the editor, copied below, was published in the Star on June 28 2009.
Siddiqui strongly underestimates the severe threat Iran poses. Currently, Iran is pushing for greater control in the Middle East through a variety of mechanisms. Iran retains its strong alliance with Syria, the only remaining state fighting Israel (other than Lebanon). Iran funds Syrian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, an arrangement worth keeping for Syria, who is then able to maintain the Lebanese border as an active military front against Israel and ensure her presence in the Middle East security complex.
Iran has maintained its ties with the Shiites in Iraq, when the Hussein secular ba’ath ideology posed a threat to the religious Shiites and Iran uses these relations to threaten the American motives in Iraq.
This Iranian regime has been brutal. When Hamas came to power in Gaza in 2005, Iran filled in the gaps of the international community, who refused to recognize Hamas, and provided Hamas with military supplies and medical assistance, which it continues to do today. This fosters great instability in the region as Iranian arms allow Hamas and Hezbollah to carry out their destructive activities.
Iran’s hardline leaders shape her foreign policy and these hard-liners will never end their hatred for American interests, evident by the burning of American and European flags yesterday in Iran. Let's not engage a regime that is responsible for the murder of innocent civilians.
Iran is heading towards a bomb and frankly, I’m scared for it to go off.
Siddiqui strongly underestimates the severe threat Iran poses. Currently, Iran is pushing for greater control in the Middle East through a variety of mechanisms. Iran retains its strong alliance with Syria, the only remaining state fighting Israel (other than Lebanon). Iran funds Syrian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, an arrangement worth keeping for Syria, who is then able to maintain the Lebanese border as an active military front against Israel and ensure her presence in the Middle East security complex.
Iran has maintained its ties with the Shiites in Iraq, when the Hussein secular ba’ath ideology posed a threat to the religious Shiites and Iran uses these relations to threaten the American motives in Iraq.
This Iranian regime has been brutal. When Hamas came to power in Gaza in 2005, Iran filled in the gaps of the international community, who refused to recognize Hamas, and provided Hamas with military supplies and medical assistance, which it continues to do today. This fosters great instability in the region as Iranian arms allow Hamas and Hezbollah to carry out their destructive activities.
Iran’s hardline leaders shape her foreign policy and these hard-liners will never end their hatred for American interests, evident by the burning of American and European flags yesterday in Iran. Let's not engage a regime that is responsible for the murder of innocent civilians.
Iran is heading towards a bomb and frankly, I’m scared for it to go off.
Embassy Magazine, "Time for a Sensible Policy Towards Hamas"
This article appeared in Embassy Magazine on June 24 2009. After reading it, I couldn't help but think how the author had gotten the story wrong.
Davis’ support for negotiations with Hamas are truly alarming. Western nations have generally refused to negotiate with this terrorist organization, not only because Hamas has openly praised the murder of Israeli citizens through suicide bombings but also because Hamas robs its own population of basic human rights, such as the right to good governance and humanitarian aid, which Hamas terrorists take for themselves, upon reception from Israel. Hamas’ charitable societies provide monetary assistance to the families of those who have been killed in perpetrating acts of terror against Israeli citizens, which Davis neglects to mention. By refusing to negotiate with terrorists, Canada is upholding her democratic beliefs rather than negating them, as Davis suggests.
This approach has not undermined peace efforts but rather ensured that the peace process begins on a stable path. Recognizing Hamas would only credit their terrorist activities which deters the peace process.
Of course, no one is suggesting we should blatantly ignore Hamas. However, to suggest that decades of palestinian suffering have created, as Davis calls it, a “volatile mood of anger,” light words for terrorism, disregards the countless peace propositions Israel has offered the Palestinians. The complaints for statehood could have been alleviated had the Palestinians accepted peace in 1937, when they rejected the Peel Commission, in 1947, when they rejected the Partition Plan, in 1979 at Camp David, in 1993 when they rejected the Oslo Accords or most recently in 2005 when Israel evacuated Gaza and provided the Palestinians starting ground to choose their own leadership and establish their own state. This track record proves that Hamas leaders do not truly want to accept any peace plan at all, unless it involves wiping Israel off the map.
Israel’s recent invasion of Gaza suggest Israel is willing to do what Hamas refuses to do - protects her citizens. . To suggest Israel’s defensive attacks can be compared to Hamas’ terrorist activities is absurd and I wonder if Davis would find it more acceptable if Israel randomly launched rockets at Palestinian civilians, rather than risking the lives of her own soldiers to minimize the casualties.
Let’s not reward their violence - that strategy has only deterred peace and strengthened this sad cycle of violence.
Davis’ support for negotiations with Hamas are truly alarming. Western nations have generally refused to negotiate with this terrorist organization, not only because Hamas has openly praised the murder of Israeli citizens through suicide bombings but also because Hamas robs its own population of basic human rights, such as the right to good governance and humanitarian aid, which Hamas terrorists take for themselves, upon reception from Israel. Hamas’ charitable societies provide monetary assistance to the families of those who have been killed in perpetrating acts of terror against Israeli citizens, which Davis neglects to mention. By refusing to negotiate with terrorists, Canada is upholding her democratic beliefs rather than negating them, as Davis suggests.
This approach has not undermined peace efforts but rather ensured that the peace process begins on a stable path. Recognizing Hamas would only credit their terrorist activities which deters the peace process.
Of course, no one is suggesting we should blatantly ignore Hamas. However, to suggest that decades of palestinian suffering have created, as Davis calls it, a “volatile mood of anger,” light words for terrorism, disregards the countless peace propositions Israel has offered the Palestinians. The complaints for statehood could have been alleviated had the Palestinians accepted peace in 1937, when they rejected the Peel Commission, in 1947, when they rejected the Partition Plan, in 1979 at Camp David, in 1993 when they rejected the Oslo Accords or most recently in 2005 when Israel evacuated Gaza and provided the Palestinians starting ground to choose their own leadership and establish their own state. This track record proves that Hamas leaders do not truly want to accept any peace plan at all, unless it involves wiping Israel off the map.
Israel’s recent invasion of Gaza suggest Israel is willing to do what Hamas refuses to do - protects her citizens. . To suggest Israel’s defensive attacks can be compared to Hamas’ terrorist activities is absurd and I wonder if Davis would find it more acceptable if Israel randomly launched rockets at Palestinian civilians, rather than risking the lives of her own soldiers to minimize the casualties.
Let’s not reward their violence - that strategy has only deterred peace and strengthened this sad cycle of violence.
Am I a Witness? Remembering the Genocides of our Past
Am I a witness? Remembering the genocides of our past
As four survivors of genocides that occurred in the 20th century stand before me, I find myself feeling uneasy. I seem to have let myself believe in the morality of my generation. Yet the Darfur survivor that speaks to me today demonstrates that this is a flawed assumption. So I sit here, ashamed. I believed I lived in a world where human rights are defended, where strict laws regarding crime and punishment are upheld, and where racism is slowly vanishing. But there is still a genocide occurring today – over 400,000 Darfurians have been murdered.
The conflict in Darfur is now approaching its sixth year; however, any substantial action to end the genocide has yet to be put into place. Conditions continue to deteriorate for civilians, and hundreds of thousands lack necessities and are being displaced or killed. International intervention in Darfur seems to be failing, largely due to the continued harassment by the Sudanese government and the fact that the government has ties to militia and criminals. New eyewitness accounts from Darfur report rapes, torture, and mutilation by government-backed militias. The U.N. Security Council has a responsibility to take urgent action to ensure that civilians are protected, and that the perpetrators are punished. Despite our claims to having made significant progress in dispelling hate, indifference, ignorance, and apathy, this atrocity is ongoing. Why is the centre of international affairs unable to combat this genocide?
These were the questions I asked myself at the “four Generations of Genocide” event two weeks ago. The keynote speaker, Honourable MP Irwin Cotler, stated that we need to understand the importance of devoir de memoire. In order to fight any war, specifically a war against hate, we must remember the consequences of forgetting the lessons we learned from the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and Rwanda. But the fact that Ahmadinijad can have a podium at the UN instead of being indicted proves that these lessons have been forgotten.
In the 2005 elections, not one prime minister candidate even mentioned the word Darfur, and, aside from Stéphane Dion, this was still the case in the recent 2008 elections. Why is this issue seemingly off of the Canadian radar? We know how to make the person political, Cotler stated, but we should strive to make the political personal – these issues should be personal and political issues, for “if you kill one life it is as if you have killed an entire universe,” Cotler quoted from the Talmud and the Koran.
Irwin Cotler stated that “if the 20th century has been known as the age of genocide, four generations of genocide, that it has also been known as the age of impunity.”
Despite Cotler’s discouraging remarks, recent developments suggest a change from impunity: there have been warrants against the president of Sudan, and a recent ceasefire. Is it foolish to still have hope?
I can’t deny that I’m sitting here passively, as I advocate our government to change. How can I blame our leaders without acting myself? But I think there is something redeeming in the fact that I am here, listening to these figures of courage and strength. And as I look around at the audience, I am somewhat comforted. No, maybe we cannot all create UN resolutions or single-handedly campaign for change, but we can do something – we can listen. It is the transmission of stories that creates empathy, which leads to resolve and action. If we could have truly heard the voices of the survivors of all the past genocides, perhaps there would be no genocide occurring today.
Published in the McGill Daily, Dec 1 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)