Talking past each other

Is "moral consistency" too much to ask from people who are emotionally involved?

I’m all for “life-long learning,” but these past four weeks haven’t been my fav on that front.

It’s been a long time since I took UWO’s International Politics 243 course, but I have a clear recollection of some very prickly exchanges between our Professor, Dr. Salim Mansur, and a couple of Jewish students sitting a few rows ahead of me in the classroom. Dr. Mansur was covering the 1947 United Nations resolutions regarding the “partition” and the creation of Israel, and I didn’t have enough historical background at the time to hold a view as to whether his instruction was fair, or not, to the many stakeholders involved (Britain, France, Israel, people of Jewish decent, the Palestinians, neighbouring “Arab” countries, etc.).

Others in the class most certainly did, whether their insights came from discussions at the family dining room table or via objective academic texts; that said, I always felt that I benefited from coming to class to discuss this fractious topic without a pre-existing bias. The thing about growing up in the west end of Toronto is that the international issues you heard about at Swansea Public or Humberside Collegiate involved Europe (Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Croatia, the USSR…) — not the Middle East. What I learned about the Balfour Declaration, the 1948 War of Independence, and so forth came from the recommended texts, class debates, and researching/writing the papers. For a Poli Sci Major, it was as engaging a body of material as we’d tackle during my four year degree window.

I was reminded of those tense classroom moments recently, courtesy of Twitter.

It all started when someone shared photos of the projection of “Glory to our Martyrs” and “Free Palestine from the River to the Sea” onto a campus building at George Washington University, and I posted the following comment: “If you want to glorify the #HamasMassacre in Washington, D.C., how could you possibly be comfortable calling ‘The Great Satan’ your home?” This seemed appropriate, given that’s how Iran — a key ally of Hamas — sees the USA (and my focus on consistency, see prior post “Be either consistent, or silent -- there can be no middle ground” Oct 19-23). A Twitter follower by the name of Mohammed Ghalayini responded to my post with the following: “‘Martyrs’ refers to all those who were killed by Israel bombs including the more than 2000 children. That’s how they’re referred to in Arabic.”

Mr. Ghalavini was certain that the Hamas terrorists weren’t on the list of “martyrs” being lionized on the brick walls of GW: “they’re excluded,” he said. “Been to many protests and that’s not what’s on people’s minds.”

I replied that I was dubious that he could know what these Washington-based folks were truly thinking, but the exchange served as a great example of how two tech guys living in Toronto can see the exact same situation quite differently — but we weren’t yet talking past each other. This initial exchange spawned a week of mostly respectful dialogue. When probed, he hadn’t seen reports of the Hamas flags flying at “Pro Palestinian” rallies in Toronto, nor the placards with photos of Saddam Hussein, a known murderer — and he doubted my sources (which included Toronto newspapers). Mr. Ghalavini was aware of the initial “Pro Palestinian” demonstration calling for a boycott of a Jewish-owned restaurant on Toronto’s Bloor Street, which he described as “vile” — progress, I thought.

After awhile, he advised that his father was from Gaza, and his mother was raised in the West Bank; his wife was born in the West Bank, as well. As the Board Chair of Maple Leaf Angels, it was a bonus that he knew his way around the Canadian innovation community — the perfect type of person for me to learn from. Sadly, other than some book suggestions written by anti-Zionist Jewish authors, I never really got beyond the mantra that “Israel is an occupying force” and committing “genocide against babies.”

After a few days of back and forth, it was obvious he felt that I didn’t appreciate the perspective of Palestinians, and accused me of cherry-picking outlier situations (ed. note, the daily fare of: Hamas flags at Nathan Phillips Square and elsewhere, Taliban flags on Ontario-plated pick-up trucks, anti-Jewish protests at Cafe Landwer and Aroma Cafe, rallies in Milton calling for the “destruction of the Zionists,” etc.) in a manner that mirrored Israeli talking points.

The acid test for him was whether or not I thought that Israel was an “occupying” force.

As I understand it, Israel voluntarily left Gaza in 2005, but I suppose the subsequent Naval embargo and security perimeter (designed to keep munitions away from Hamas; clearly necessary, in hindsight) might certainly — in his mind — mean the occupation never truly ended. As for the West Bank, I wish the late Yasser Arafat was around to remind us why there’s still no Two-State solution.

I did ask my new Twitter friend: “When these folks chant ‘Palestine will be free, from the river to sea,’ are they advocating for a reversal of @UN Resolution 181? The one that created Israel? Is it that simple? And where would Israel go? Like, just away?”

His response was that UN Resolution 194 and UNSC Resolution 242 should also be followed; which was deft stick-handling of my attempt to better understand what these protesters were thinking, from someone who said he understood “what’s on people’s minds.” Resolution #194 refers to “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.” Given that 20% of Israel’s residents are Arab, it seems to me that successive Israeli governments have tried to abide by that well-intentioned U.N. motion. Determining who intends to “return home and live at peace with their neighbours” must be tough, however, given the occasional suicide bombs directed at Tel Aviv grocery stores, bus stops, etc. Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia also seem to have strong views as to the century that’s used to determine which “home” the Palestinians can and should “return to.”

Depending on how you see the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, honouring part (i) of the 1967 UNSC Resolution 242 seems only achievable if Palestinian leaders would agree to the “Two-State Solution.” Complying with (ii) is even tougher, as several of the relevant actors seem Hell-bent on never acknowledging Israel’s right to exist (despite UN Resolution 181):

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict (1967 Six-Day War);

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

As you can see, my tutor Mr. Ghalayini would like Israel to take steps that others in the regions, including sovereign nations as well as Hamas, say they’ll never take. As for Mr. Ghalayini’s vocal support for post-1948 UN Resolutions related to the region, one of my 1985/86 Poli Sci texts (The Analysis of International Relations, by Karl W. Deutsch) offers this perspective:

The platform of the United Nations and its affiliated organizations has been turned increasingly often into an instrument of political and psychological warfare. The Arab states have found the support of the newly active majorities of Third-World countries, aided by the Soviet bloc, for passing one-sided resolutions condemning Israel in the continuing conflicts stemming from the wars of 1967 and 1973. The result has been a vicious spiral: Israel’s reluctance to return the Arab territories, conquered in 1967, is enhanced by the added fear for its existence which these resolutions generate.

It’s just one academic’s view, but very recent Oct. 26, 2023 UN General Assembly Gaza resolution “calling for immediate and sustained ‘humanitarian truce’” is in the same vein. When France’s UN Ambassador Nicolas de Rivière voted in favour, he explained that: “nothing justifies the killing of civilians” — a statement I agree with, even if it’s a reminder of the luxury that G7 nations enjoy in these difficult times.

One can’t help but think of Charles de Gaulle in 1940, prior to US Air Force & Royal Air Force dropping “nearly two million tons of bombs on Germany, destroying 60 cities & killing more than half a million German citizens”:

“‘Nothing is lost for France.’ The French people could look to their empire and to the backing of Great Britain. ‘For France is not alone! She is not alone!’”

It’s hard to imagine a scenario where France would be a free nation today had the USAF and RAF not undertaken their three-year campaign. Whether or not you believe that the “killing of civilians” via carpet bombing was intentional in WWII, it involved a lot less care than what the IDF appears to be doing as it attempts to eradicate Hamas Terrorists from Israel’s doorstep. France deserves applause, just the same, for quickly banning any protest that might be perceived as anti-Semitic. President Emmanuel Macron’s early plea urging his citizens “not to allow the war in the Mideast [to] erupt into tensions at home” is also needed from our PM here in Canada:

Let us not bring ideological adventures here (to France) by imitation or by projection. Let us not add national fractures ... to international fractures. Let us stay united. President Macron

For those who believe that peace negotiations are the only path forward in Gaza, history suggests otherwise. Mr. Ghalayini misunderstands my use of this 1945 example (I’m not “working overtime to justify killing children”): I believe it’s worth reminding ourselves that Japan didn’t capitulate following the U.S. detonation of an atomic bomb over Hiroshima. Despite the death of between 90,000-146,000 civilians, Japan refused to capitulate. It was only after the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, three days following Hiroshima, that Japan declared its intention to surrender. Coming off their greatest “victory” since the group was founded, it’s certainly naive to think that the Hamas of today is somehow less committed to its cause than Japan was in early August 1945. The sane among us must acknowledge that Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields — with no remorse whatsoever.

For those who believe that Israel is in the wrong to continue pursuing the eradication of Hamas from Gaza — or that the Land once known as Palestine belongs only to the Palestinians, no matter what UN Resolution 181 might say — I can’t help but try a Canadian parallel, merely for argument’s sake. It starts with a simple question: Do you believe that our generation of Canadians are living on “colonized lands,” either illegally or immorally?

There are many in this country and elsewhere who believe that Mr. Ghalayini and I are undoubtedly living on what’s “stolen land,” or, in the alternative, if it wasn't stolen, it was “purloined” from Aboriginal Leaders of the day. And if it wasn't purloined, our ownership came to pass via use of force, making our “colonization” immoral even if it might be legal under accepted international practice.

Naturally, others don't share that opinion. Considering what has transpired over the last 2,000+ years in and around what's now known as Jerusalem, and the range of deeply-held views that invariably flow as a result, I hope this local touchstone might assist our in collective critical thinking.

Here's the theoretical, based on some real life events known as the Oka Crisis: Had the Mohawks taken >220 hostages from the Town of in Oka in 1990, including grandmothers, teen girls, and children. Had they fired hundreds of mortar shells at the town. Had they killed >1,000 of those French “Settlers,” would the Mohawks have been justified (thinking of the Pro-Palestinian protestors sporting “By Any Means Necessary” signs) to have done so due to what they might truly believe were historical — and continuing — injustices against their people? With clear breaches of an Agreement dating to 1760?

Would the Government of Quebec have committed a “war crime” if it directed the 5th Brigade of the Canadian Forces (via the National Defence Act “Aid to Civil Power” provision as it was drafted at the time) to return fire at Mohawk encampments, due to the presence of non-combatant children? What if Quebec’s Attorney General warned those non-combatants of the coming volleys, and the Mohawk “Militants” prevented those kids from fleeing the combat zone?

The answer can only be yes or no. Then-Premier Bourassa wouldn't have had the luxury of dodging the decision, as the mortar shells kept on coming towards the Town of Oka in this theoretical — yet grounded in an actual crisis — scenario. (Ed note: while acknowledging the death of SQ Corporal Marcel Lemay, Canadians are in the debt of the Mohawk Nation for the approach they took in allowing the 1990 Crisis to defuse, over time.)

When I put this Oka question to Mr. Ghalayini, he naturally demurred. But for every Canadian citizen and Permanent Resident who is out in force in support of a “Free Palestine,” I’m interested in your answer: which would have been the correct choice for then-Premier Bourassa?

An earlier blog headline read “Be either consistent, or silent -- there can be no middle ground.” We either support the right of nations to defend themselves or we don’t, whether it be from Nazi Germany, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, an armed and murderous militant group inside our own borders, or Hamas. The loss of civilian life in Gaza is painful to see, just as it is in Yemen and Syria, where up to 500,000 Muslims have perished in recent years. Or in China, where a million Muslim Uyghurs have been detained or worse since 2014.

Instead of talking past (shouting?) the rest of us, those who are marching in our streets to protest Jewish-owned businesses, or at an Israeli Consulate, need to help we non-aligned Canadians understand why Israel is being held a different standard than, say, Saudi Arabia vis-a-vis Yemen? Why are you not demanding that CPPIB divest from China, for example, concurrent with the UofT Grad Students’ Union’s formal request that their school’s endowment exit all Israeli investments? Why are you not also calling for a “cease-fire” in front of 1151 West Georgia Street in Vancouver, home of the Honorary Consulate for Syria, when an estimated 18 Syrian children die each day?

While the charitable among us might simply say that people “forgot with the passage of time,” these clear double standards may well be anti-Semitism at play (“Corporate Canada must do more to combat anti-Semitism” Oct 31-23). If not, please help we fair-minded Canadians better understand where you’re coming from — why these are all just unfortunate coincidences.

If I were you, I’d do it soon, before these local images and incendiary speeches are irreversibly ingrained for all-time in the minds of Canadian-born kids. It won’t help your cause if they’re left to unilaterally process these inexplicable dichotomies. Share you passion, perspective, choices and context with them.

Please help them understand why “Free Palestine from the Jordan River to the Sea” isn’t a call to eradicate Israel. And how “By Any Means Necessary” isn’t support for the raping of Jewish girls or the fire-bombing of Israeli families. Why Israel should “decolonize” Palestine, just as you protest on lands in Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver that were, according to many, “colonized.”

Or don’t bother. But please recognize that a lot of us are watching (“My Canada does not include the Hamas flag” Oct 15-23), and we are deeply troubled by what we see.

MRM

(this post, like all blogs, is an Opinion Piece)

(photo: Umpire (A), New York, 1951, by Irving Penn - © Conde Naste)