It seems that even millions of miles away, we are not removed from any of it. As a cardinal rule of socializing, I try my best to avoid certain topics of conversation; money, pregnancy, and of course, politics, and specifically those of the middle-eastern variety.
Since moving to the big city, out of my cushy Jewish community, and into the real world, where children freely wash hotdogs down with 2% milk, I've mistakenly come to feel that certain things are better to be kept tacit. However, it is no secret that the querulous circumstances in Israel have intensified to a fearsome degree, and now even friends who are not at all politically minded have been voicing their thoughts on the headlines. I've done my best to hold my tongue, to shrug my shoulders and offer meaningless annotations followed by a subject change.
But, I woke up Sunday morning, and realised that I've been wrong to do so.
Saturday night, after dropping Ben off at his stop, my cab driver turned on a talk radio program where the Gaza crisis was being discussed. Dismayed, the man shook his head, and asked me if I had heard about it. It was late, and I was tired, so I offered a nod of acknowledgment. Apparently, he perceived this nod to mean that I needed an explanation. For the final six minutes of the ride, I was forced to digest all of the ways in which Jews, not just Israelis, are wholly comparable to Nazis – without any objection from the backseat.
I'm not sure why I kept quiet. Certainly not because I don't have an opinion. It was late, and I just wanted to get home. But the cost of another starting cab fare could not have outweighed the price that I paid in guilt all night, and into the morning. I was disgusted by my driver, but even more disappointed in myself.
Knee-deep in regret Sunday morning, I drank my coffee and read the paper. Haroon Siddiqui's column in the Star on Sunday didn't help my feelings at all. The piece was entitled 'Jewish Dissenters Speak Out Over Gaza' and detailed the events at the Israeli Consulate in Toronto last week. This article upset me, to say the least. And not for the most obvious reason.
I wouldn't consider myself a Zionist, I'm certainly not a war supporter, and I'm not nearly impractical enough to cling to pacifism. I'm a reform Jew, by definition, and I've traveled to Israel many times. I have family living there, and cousins who have fought in the IDF. I've entertained the idea of living there myself in the future, and my brother is set to move there this spring. Of course, there are many things about Israel that I don't like, and as a country they have made decisions in the past that I have not supported, or just not understood.
That said, Siddiqui wrongfully uses last week's demonstration to suggest that because a diminutive troupe of Jewish activists contested Olmert's military response, some sort of credibility can be given to the claim that even secular Jews disagree with the Israeli perspective. What the take-over last week should have communicated is that the Jewish community promotes free thought, free speech, and due activism, even when it counters the Jewish cause at large. It is on that freedom that Judaism is founded, and it is that same freedom on which Israel was built. Because of these liberties, there is truth in the statement that there are Jews affiliated with existing institutions that support Hamas' initiatives, but that does by no means indicate some form of a mass secular mutiny.
There are two sides to every story, like there are two sides of the coin in this debate. Unfortunately, neither heads nor tails can bring about a resolution. What the take-over at the Israeli Consulate didn't tell me is that all secular Jews no longer support Israel, much to Siddiqui's suggestion. What it did tell me, however, is that it's alright to speak up for something that you believe in – something I should have done in the cab that night. And for those who read the column and missed the latter message, I can assure you, and Mr. Siddiqui, that there are plenty of us yids about town who can support the concept of a Palestinian state, hope deeply for peace, and still wave their blue and whites proudly -- all at the very same time.
18 comments:
good insights. i don't exactly agree, but i value the msg.
i like this blog a lot!
Bloody brilliant. This is exactly what's needed in the midst of the uninformed morons and endless Facebook status wars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828884.stm
Carli you're over-rated - and Chris agrees with me.
Jamie Thomas
-1000 dead (a third of which are children)
-over 5000 injured
-nothing is off limits (even the UN)
this is not part of the greater jewish cause.
Jeremey Bowen highlighted the only silver lining:
"Israel has cited all kinds of logistical and safety reasons for not obeying its Supreme Court ruling ordering the entry of a small group of foreign journalists into Gaza. Obviously, the Israelis feel that they are better able to control the news agenda by restricting the right of reporters to report.
But the fact that there are good Palestinian journalists in Gaza means that accurate and trustworthy accounts of what is happening are getting out.
The lesson is that in the wired world it is harder than ever to hide the truth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831757.stm
Naturally, the first response to any sort of conflict is to begrudge the big guy. Somehow, just being bigger and stronger solidifies the charge against Israel as being the antagonist in this age-old horror story. Yes, a negotiation of the verbal caste would be far better suited to the conflict at hand - make love, and not war, and so on. But the dilemma here is that Hamas is not a country, nor is it a political party. They are terrorists who will not hear reason. They will not sit down to negotiate. They were firing qassam rockets into Sderot long before Dec. 27th. Just because the news is reporting on it only now doesn't mean that the Gaza boarder did not exist before the headlines. The history of outward terrorism and abuse from within Gaza goes back well before the Globe used it as a Sunday cover piece. Alan Dershowitz said, "Israel cannot afford to lose even a single war without exposing its population to genocide and its nationhood to politicide. Wars waged against Israel are wars of extermination that target its cities and population centers. Its enemies are seeking its total destruction." How, then, can one condemn a country for defending itself against a force that will not think logically? What else are they to do? Good post, by the way.
@danielchornick: you actually quoted plagiarist alan dershowitz? seriously? i guess this quote "They are terrorists who will not hear reason." is expected from someone who quotes dershowitz in the first place.
Are you really comparing those qassam rockets being fired onto israel to the phosphorous gas and f16's flying over the open air prison that is gaza? those rockets barely make a dent when they land, you want people to believe this is a big threat? who is israel defending itself against? so if i steal israel's wallet they blow up my house? how is this fair? please do yourself a favour and read someone with integrity: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-leaders-lie-civilians-die-and-lessons-of-history-are-ignored-1215045.html
Oy vey.
Maybe I should just stick to making sardonic observations about pop culture from now on.
Peace on earth?
yes.
or, at least read a book before you develop and "opinion".
develop "and" opinion. opinion is now a verb?
and if the research is done, you will find that it is extremly hard to make your argument for hamas.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20090119,00.html
mr. yes, your link does not work - but i have read the article. very informative. good link, kinda. haha
Hamas is a democratically elected party. In 2006 when they where elected that offered to begin talks and negotiations about the 1967 borders and Israel rejected the offer.
no one trying to make an argument for Hamas.
My personal concern is with the Israeli war crimes (as defined by international conventions)
"Maybe I should just stick to making sardonic observations about pop culture from now on."
Indeed you should. The occupation of the consulate is evidence of a tolerance of free speech? Utterly fatuous!
Hey Carli, I stumbled upon your blog through Tara's.
First I want to say I think you're an amazing writer and I think you should get your work published in the campus papers and abroad (I'm not sure if you do).
Second, I'm glad you came to realize that speaking your mind is essential to living life. As you know, I speak mine often and I can only imagine how bottled up I'd feel if I didn't.
The whole situation in Israel is complicated and sometimes really difficult for me to comprehend.
What those women did at the consulate however, reminded me of what I did last summer. With some other Iranians we drove to the Iranian consulate in Ottawa to protest the government for kidnapping two Iranian labour activists. I've never felt so connected to my heritage.
About two Fridays ago the RSU held a Palestine solidarity event and invited one of the women who occupied the Israel consulate to talk. She's young, and really funny. She said some amazing things like, "This isn't about Jew versus Muslim, this is about opressor versus opressed." In that moment I felt she really broke down a lot of ideas for me and just presented the situation in a simplistic manner.
In many countries around the world, currently, there is civil strife between two people, two groups, for whatever reason. They're all equally complicated, as is this world. And yes, I agree that there are two sides to every story and each one needs to be heard.
Anyways, I just wanted to share my thoughts and again, brilliant post.
See you on Tuesday.
f*cking nazi jew
"This isn't about Jew versus Muslim, this is about opressor versus opressed." In that moment I felt she really broke down a lot of ideas for me and just presented the situation in a simplistic manner"
That comment represents everything that's wrong with debate on this conflict. It is not a dichotomy and it cannot be broken down into bite-sized pieces.
She said some amazing things like, "This isn't about Jew versus Muslim, this is about opressor versus opressed." In that moment I felt she really broke down a lot of ideas for me and just presented the situation in a simplistic manner.
With the full force of a good Ryerson education, you have successfully added nothing to the debate. Thanks for trying, fuckwit.
Post a Comment