nouspique.com

This year’s sixth annual Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) was held from March 1st to 14th.  As usual, there was a fooferah.  Now that the event is over and the dust has settled, let’s see what the fooferah was all about.  From what I’ve read, the biggest problem was the name of the event:  Israeli Apartheid Week.  As they say on Sesame Street, one of these words is not like the others.  At first, I thought the offending word is “Week.”  It should be “Weeks” because the event extended over two weeks.  Plural.  However, it would appear that the offending word is “Apartheid.”  Critics complain that the word creates an obvious association with the South African racist regime which was dismantled in 1994.  However, because Israel’s policies towards Palestine could not possibly be construed as racist, the application of the word is inappropriate.  At least that’s what they say.  Some critics go further and suggest that use of the word itself is an act of racism because, as everybody knows, if you criticize Israeli policies, then you must hate Jews.  It’s as simple as that.

To show solidarity with the oppressed nation of Israel, a Conservative back-bencher tried to pass a motion condemning IAW, but was unsuccessful because a few scurrilous, scrofulous NDP MP’s opposed the motion.  Even so, Liberal Opposition Leader, Michael Ignatieff, supported the motion notwithstanding the fact that eight years ago he wrote in the Guardian:  “When I looked down at the West Bank, at the settlements like Crusader forts occupying the high ground, at the Israeli security cordon along the Jordan river closing off the Palestinian lands from Jordan, I knew I was not looking down at a state or the beginnings of one, but at a Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control.”

Oops.

The Ontario legislature was more successful with a similar motion, voting unanimously to condemn the event.  The motion was tabled by Progressive Conservative MPP Peter Shurman, who described the IAW’s position as “close to hate speech.”  Voting in support of the motion was Cheri DiNovo, NDP MPP for the Parkdale-High Park riding in Toronto.  She chose to ratchet up the debate in a facebook discussion by writing on March 13th:  “Is it possible to get white privileged men to be quiet? Show your faces…step up. I’ll take you on. Call my office…anytime, anywhere.”

What?  Give me a second while I rub my eyes in disbelief.

Things have suddenly grown confused here.  The way I read this, a radical feminist social democrat has become the voice of political correctness, demanding that we all fall in line with some of the most conservative voices in the country, including Stephen Harper, and the National Post.  Meanwhile, she criticizes that paradigm of conservatism, the white privileged man, for … for what? … for engaging in radical politics?  Holy crap.  Canada has become the land of topsy-turvy.

So who is Cheri DiNovo?  To be truthful, I admire her work.  She is a minister ordained in the United Church of Canada, a church which has been known to criticize Israel’s policies with respect to the treatment of Palestinians.  She interned at West Hill United Church, one of the UCC’s hotbeds of Progressive Christianity, then went on to serve at Emmanuel Howard Park United Church in Toronto with a ministry particularly strong in its service to those marginalized on the basis of sexuality.  Her award winning book, Qu(e)erying Evangelism, is an account of that ministry.  Given her commitment to social justice issues, it isn’t surprising that she has run for political office.  She now serves as a Member of the Provincial Legislature for the NDP where she has been an outspoken advocate for concerns like a livable minimum wage.  I heard her speak in the summer when she appeared in solidarity with the people of Iran during the Global Day of Action on July 25th, 2009.

It’s disconcerting then to find her speaking out in solidarity with power when that has never been her natural inclination.  What gives?

I don’t care to engage in an extended harangue on the substantive issues.  I’ve made my view known in earlier posts.  Since these kinds of debates never accomplish anything, I’d prefer to engage the prior question:  how can we have a civil conversation about this?

Here are some suggestions:

1.  Refrain from using passive-aggressive dialogue-stopping tactics.

A classic example of this is to presume that all criticism of policy and action undertaken by the state of Israel is ipso facto anti-Semitic.  Most people understand that this is a false presumption, but some people require constant reminding.

Similarly, to suggest that the word “apartheid” is “close to hate speech” when uttered in conversations about Israel is another example of a passive-aggressive dialogue-stopping tactic.  The word “apartheid” means “separateness” in Afrikaans and is cognate with the English word “apart.”  Given the existence of a wall and given the “separateness” of the Palestinians who are confined to Gaza, there is certainly an etymological presumption which favours the use of the word.  The question of an Israeli “apartheid” is a legitimate question.  To label the term hate speech demonstrates all the maturity of an eight-year-old who draws a line with chalk in the school yard and dares his classmates to cross it.

As for telling “white privileged men” to be quiet … I think it’s obvious how that operates to put an end to dialogue.

But who are these “white privileged men” who need to be quiet?  How about Leonard Asper?  He’s a good example of “white privileged men.”  He has all the traits of a man who needs to keep quiet because, after all, he’s wealthy, he has access, and until the troubles at CanWest, he controlled one of Canada’s largest media conglomerates which includes GlobalTV and the National Post.  (Recently he stepped down to avoid a conflict of interest and returned to the fold as a “consultant.”)  The only wrinkle in all of this is that Mr. Asper is Jewish and staunchly Zionist.  Presumably, Ms. DiNovo would exempt him from her “white privileged men” because he uses his media empire as a voice for her oppressed colleagues in the Knesset.

2.  Don’t throw people into the same pot.

If you throw all the members of a group into the same pot, then you deny yourself a more nuanced conversation.  Not all Jews think alike.  Not all “white privileged men” think alike.  Ontario’s legislature (composed primarily of “white privileged men”) believes that IAW is insulting to Jews.  The Canadian Human Rights Organization, Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), would disagree.  Certainly IJV is willing to use the term “apartheid” in the context of the Israel/Palestine issue.  However, IJV doesn’t have access to media outlets on the same scale as our friend, Leonard Asper, and so its voice probably goes unheard.

3.  Acknowledge that the notion of solidarity makes no sense except in the context of unequal power relationships.

The word “solidarity” has been thrown around a lot in this debate.  The Ontario legislature has condemned the IAW and has chosen to stand in “solidarity” with the state of Israel.  Meanwhile, Ms. DiNovo says that “white privileged men” need to keep quiet.  Presumably, the fact of privilege automatically denies the privileged any moral standing to participate in acts of solidarity.

Maybe we should revisit the notion of solidarity before its meaning becomes cheapened beyond all recognition.  While it is a multivalent word, one of the primary functions of solidarity is to give a voice to the voiceless.  The idea is rooted in liberation theology, so I have no doubt that Ms. DiNovo is familiar with its sources and lineage.  (It is emphatically NOT rooted in parliamentary stamps of approval on groups who have access to media empires and nuclear arsenals.)

Privilege is implicit in the idea of solidarity.  Those who give voice to the voiceless must themselves have some measure of privilege, otherwise they would be useless to the voiceless.  The difference is that the privileged voice has been conscientized.  It can be black.  It can be white.  It can be Jewish.  It can be Muslim.  Doesn’t matter.  Anyone can become conscientized.  Who knows how that happens?  Maybe a defining experience.  A major life event.  An influential mentor.  However it happens, it sparks a deep empathy with those who live in the margins or find themselves overwhelmed by power.  I know that Ms. DiNovo understands this.  But I think she has forgotten that conscientization is blind, and “white privileged men” are just as susceptible of conscientization as anyone else.

To suggest that a person might be denied standing on the basis of his skin colour … well, let’s not engage in dialogue-stopping epithets.

4.  Ask who controls the conversation.  Where is the locus of power?

Does it seem balanced that, in the midst of an extended public dialogue, federal and provincial governments should attempt to tip the scales in favour of their preferred outcome?  I had thought that an important role of democratic government was to facilitate civil debate, not to determine it.  All that power, all that privilege, and to what end?  How could it possibly serve Ontario’s interests for its government to silence debate on the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza?

It must serve somebody’s interests, or they wouldn’t do this.

With 70% of people in Gaza living in extreme poverty, and with Israel’s “operation cast lead” causing damages estimated at three times the size of Gaza’s economy, we know whose interests it doesn’t serve.

Forgive me, Ms. DiNovo, but on this issue you are dead wrong.  Is it possible for white privileged politicians to keep quiet?  Show your face…step up. I’ll take you on. Call my office…anytime, anywhere.

Just kidding.  I’d never be that confrontational.  Instead, I’d offer you a bite to eat or something to drink, then I’d invite you to share in some civil conversation.

Related posts:

1. This Week In Canada Eh
2. This Week In Canada