Binyamin Netanyahu may not have expected the international reaction he received when he accused opponents of Jewish settlements in the West Bank of supporting the ethnic cleansing of Jews. While he went too far, there is some truth to be learned from the fallout.
The Israeli prime minister made the comments in a video, where he noted that nobody suggests that two million Arab citizens of Israel are an obstacle to peace. Yet the presence of Jews in the areas most people assume will eventually be Palestine under a two-state solution, he said, is repeatedly held up as proof that Israel is not acting in good faith toward a two-state objective.
Netanyahu was pointing out one of the glaring hypocrisies in the discussion of an eventual peace agreement and a two-state solution. He was intentionally inflammatory but, in the process, he set off a reaction that is illuminating and worth consideration.
First, we need to understand this basic fact: nobody expects Jews living outside the Green Line to voluntarily become citizens of a future Palestinian state. The entire discussion is an exercise in rhetoric. But this fact, too, raises other issues. Not many believe that Jews in an independent Palestine could live as citizens the way Arab citizens of Israel do under law (however imperfect this ideal might be in practice), partly because it’s probable that nobody would be free in an independent Palestine. If history is any measure, an independent Palestine might be a theocracy run by Hamas, a kleptocracy run by Fatah or some hybrid thereof. Regardless, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, among others, has insisted that no Jews will be permitted to live in an independent Palestine. The world ignores these racist statements, or excuses them as the legitimate reaction of a people long oppressed by the Jewish state.
Since most Jews would flee of their own volition if they found their homes outside the new borders of Israel, Netanyahu’s claims of ethnic cleansing can be seen as inflammatory and false, since it is not the Palestinians who would evacuate the Jews from the West Bank, but the West Bank Jews themselves, knowing the place held no future for them. But, while Netanyahu should be criticized for exploiting the term ethnic cleansing, perhaps to deflect criticism from the settlements, he has also drawn attention to the uncomfortable truth that the dream of Palestinian “freedom” for which so many in the world (including, for instance, most delegates to the recent Green Party of Canada convention) have devoted so much of their energies, is in fact a cause that may instead create a country that is nobody’s dream of a free and independent homeland.
Netanyahu is guilty of poking a hornet’s nest. However, his critics, too, should look at their own assumptions and motivations. The prime minister went too far in summoning imagery of mass deportations, but others have not gone far enough in addressing the reality that the movement for Palestinian independence in infused with unhealthy ideologies, of which excluding Jews from citizenship is just one.
With Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger’s private members’ bill seeking to change the lyrics of O Canada having advanced to its second reading, I am thinking about another anthem close to many readers’ hearts: Hatikvah. With Yom Ha’atzmaut having recently passed, the content of Hatikvah deserves some reconsideration.
Bélanger’s amendment would make the Canadian national anthem more gender-inclusive, changing “in all thy sons command” to “in all of us command.”
As reported by CBC News, Bélanger said, “As Canadians, we continually test our assumptions and, indeed, our symbols, for their suitability.” He continued: “Our anthem can reflect our roots and our growth.”
It’s a statement that is rife for comparing with the Israeli experience. Israel’s Jewish state-building origins have long been challenged by the country’s democratic requirements.
When it comes to inclusiveness, Bélanger knows of what he speaks. Over the last several months, Bélanger has been an especially unifying figure in the corridors of Canadian power, having been recently diagnosed with ALS. Not long ago, my own synagogue in Ottawa honored him in a highly moving ceremony that easily transcended whatever residue of partisan divisions may have remained after what was an unusually divisive Canadian election.
Despite being written in the highly gendered language of Hebrew, Hatikvah doesn’t suffer from gender exclusion (its gender inflections are mostly in the neutral “we” form). But there is a different gap in its inclusiveness: the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Arabs. Reports about swearing-in ceremonies of Knesset members or Israeli judges from time to time include a mention of an Arab or Palestinian honoree walking out or simply refusing to sing.
Writing in the Forward in 2012, Philologos (a pseudonym for Hillel Halkin) proposed changing Hatikvah’s lyrics to make them more inclusive. “It’s unacceptable to have an anthem that can’t be sung by 20% of a population,” he wrote. “Permitting [the minority] to stand mutely while others sing is no solution.”
Philologos’ fix is simple. Change Yehudi (Jewish) to Yisraeli (Israeli), and le’Tzion (to Zion) to l’artzeinu (to our land). Close the song with “in the city in which David … encamped.”
It’s an idea that is top of mind for Israel’s Arab MKs, such as Yousef Jabareen, who told me in a 2015 interview that he believes Hatikvah should be adapted “to accommodate both national groups.” He added, “The Arab minority are not just another minority. They are a native minority. They were there before the establishment of the state of Israel.”
When thinking about any type of policy change, it’s important to consider who stands to gain and who stands to lose. Given that a recent Pew poll found that 79% of Israeli Jews feel they “deserve preferential treatment,” it’s clear that Jewish Israelis are comfortable with their position of privilege – whether legislative or symbolic – in Israel. It stands to reason that any erosion in perceived privilege might be seen as a threat.
Israeli Jews may not embrace these sorts of changes. Neither, when it comes to changing O Canada, do some Conservative MPs, citing no need to bend to “political correctness,” as Larry Maguire said. Another MP, Kelly Block, said she does “not believe the anthem is sexist,” according to CBC News.
However, there is something powerful about allowing for expanded boundaries of inclusion. Further enfranchising those who feel excluded can help buttress the institutions that constitute the state, and the costs would be relatively low.
By their design, national anthems are meant to express the will of the polity. Those who wield power might want to think about the effects of the content of national symbols on those who don’t feel represented by them. When it comes to nation-building, casting a net that extends to the edges of the polity bears fruit for democratic functioning and civic identity.
Mira Sucharovis an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She is a columnist for Canadian Jewish News and contributes to Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward, among other publications. This article was originally published in the CJN.
Gina Faigen, daughter of the late Dr. Morris H. Faigen, who founded the annual Faigen Family Lecture Series, with this year’s speaker Daniel Pipes. (photo by Jocelyne Hallé)
Israel should stop trying to find a negotiated solution that provides a mutually agreeable resolution to the conflict with Palestinians, says Daniel Pipes, and instead declare victory and force the Palestinians into the realization that they have been defeated.
Pipes, a commentator and historian who is president of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, made the comments in Vancouver May 9 at the fifth annual Faigen Family Lecture.
The idea of land for peace, in which Israel gives up concrete real estate for the “ephemeral idea” of peace, has failed, he said.
“We can all agree that the Israelis do not have more peace for giving up Gaza and parts of the West Bank,” said Pipes. “It’s not working.” Instead, he said, Palestinians view Israeli concessions as a sign of weakness and this has led not to increased peace, but to increased hostility.
“Rather than mediation and compromise and painful concessions, such has been the case, how about something different?” Pipes asked. “How about Israel wins and the Palestinians lose? How about Israeli victory?
“Victory is not a term you hear much,” he continued. “People talk about a peace process, negotiations, but this is a conflict, this is a war. It’s been a war for a century. And an end comes to a war when one side acknowledges that it’s lost, that the gig is up, that it cannot win.”
Germany lost the First World War, Pipes said, but they didn’t feel defeated. They wanted another round and they got it in 1939. After 1945, the Allies realized they had to demilitarize Germany and Japan, to demonstrate that they had been conclusively defeated.
“Defeat is sanitary,” said Pipes. “Defeat allows you to move on.… I think that’s what the Palestinians need. Not only for Israel’s sake – obviously for Israel’s sake – but also for the Palestinians’ sake. Only by being defeated can the Palestinians stop obsessing over harming Israel and instead start building their own polity, culture, society. It’s good for everyone, Palestinians as well.”
Pipes clarified: “I’m not calling for killing Palestinians.” The idea is to impose on Palestinians the sense that they have lost.
“There’s no point in getting into the details,” he added.
He would like to see Western governments adopt policies that would urge the Israelis to win the conflict.
“We don’t go to the negotiating table. It doesn’t work. We need to win,” he said. “Let’s give up on this failed, decades-old effort to have the Israelis give more and the Palestinians take more and give nothing in return.”
Questioned by an audience member on what victory would look like, Pipes said: “You’ll know that Israel has won when the Jews of Hebron have no more need for security than the Arabs of Nazareth … when an irate Palestinian writes a strongly worded letter to the editor.”
Pressed on how such a victory would be achieved, Pipes at first demurred.
“I did not talk about how to get there because I would encourage you to see things this way,” he said, before giving some examples.
“The other day there was shooting out of Gaza. The Israelis replied with shooting back into Gaza,” he said. “Wouldn’t it be more effective to cut off the water and electricity for a day? The next time two days? Wouldn’t that send a signal? Why don’t the Israelis do that? Because they don’t have a plan for victory.”
Until 1993, Pipes said, Israel strove for victory.
With the Oslo process that began in 1993, and after, Pipes said, Israel adopted a policy of appeasement. When that failed in about 2000, they adopted a policy of unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza.
“And, since about 2006, there’s been no policy at all,” he said. “I think we should return – it’s not my idea – return to the old ways.”
Palestinians need to realize that their strategy isn’t working, he said.
“They’re engaging in suicide stabbings and other atrocities because they think this will help the Palestinians win,” he said. “If you can convince them there’s no chance of this working, why would a sane individual – and these are, they’re perfectly normal – why would they give up their lives? They believe that they are on a path to victory. Convince them that they are not on the path to victory and I think they will be less likely to engage in this kind of violence.”
Pipes acknowledged that people say the Palestinians will never accept defeat.
“But I say, the Germans did, the Japanese did,” said Pipes. An audience member noted that the Palestinians have an international support network that the Germans and Japanese did not.
“They do,” Pipes responded. “All those professors of English.… In the end, what really counts is, for example, water and electricity.”
While Israelis and Americans are trying to find creative ideas to hasten peace, “Palestinians aren’t playing around with creative ideas,” he said. “They’re killing.”
If the Palestinians can be convinced to give up the fight against Israel, Pipes believes that the rest of the Arab and Muslim world will similarly give up. He called Palestinians “the tip of the spear,” saying it’s hard to be more anti-Zionist than the Palestinians.
Though Pipes believes Arab and Muslim states may be tiring of losing to Israel, “I don’t see any fatigue at all” among leftists who are rallying against the Jewish state.
About the United States, Pipes said President Barack Obama seems to think that U.S. foreign policy before him has been a force for ill rather than for good in the world. Obama is making overtures to the traditional enemies of the United States, including Cuba and Iran, and paying less attention to allies, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, said Pipes.
Were Donald Trump to find himself president of the United States, Pipes worries that the “consummate dealmaker” would, like all his predecessors, fail at facilitating an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
“He would call them in, he would give them his instructions, they would reject him and he would blame guess who?” Pipes speculated. “I suspect he would turn against Israel.”
The Faigen Family Lecture Series – which is held in partnership with Vancouver Hebrew Academy – was founded by the late Dr. Morris H. Faigen, who passed away in 2012. The evening was introduced by his daughter, Gina, who said her father wanted a forum for conservative perspectives on Israel but also one where people with a more liberal perspective, like her, could engage.
Kids4Peace youth present religious items to friends at an interfaith session. (photo from Kids4Peace)
Kids4Peace (K4P) started in 2002 as a two-week summer retreat/camp in the United States for 12 kids: four Muslim, four Christian and four Jewish. It is now a global movement that works year-round to “break down stereotypes and foster supportive, mature friendships rooted in spiritual values of equality and respect.”
K4P was the brainchild of a Vermont Christian, Dr. Henry R. Carse, who, at 18, left the United States, not wanting to be drafted into the Vietnam War. He moved to Israel and became a citizen. Having done his mandatory service in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), he served in the IDF during the First Intifada (1987-1993). By the time of the Second Intifada (2000), he had been in Israel for about 30 years, was married and had four children. He wanted things to change so, with the help of some American friends, he created K4P, and the first camp took place in the States though Carse lived in Israel.
In 2004, Yakir Englander joined the organization as a volunteer. He did so for a few reasons.
A student at the time, Englander had grown up in Israel’s Bnei Brak area in a modern, Chassidic family. However, he left the Orthodox community at the age of 22.
“I decided to leave my community with a lot of love … some criticism, but mostly with love, and a huge desire to find more ways to be connected to spirituality and the divine,” he said.
When he left orthodoxy, he was drafted into the IDF, serving in an educational capacity, later spending most of his reserve time in a unit that had to identify dead bodies.
In his first month of studies at Hebrew University, in Jerusalem, in 2002, a bomb exploded and he found himself carrying the bodies of students, some of whom were American. He said that he felt lost, as did “many other Israelis,” feeling that the way toward change was through meeting with Palestinians.
“I went to a few meetings with different organizations,” he told the Independent, “but what I felt was that there’s this huge criticism of Israel in words and language that blames me. Yet, I didn’t have an opinion…. I didn’t know. It wasn’t just because I was Orthodox in the past. At the end of the day, there are many things we don’t know and also life is much more complicated.
“Another thing is that religion is always blamed as the reason for the conflict. For me, my religion was a source of love, a source that gave me energy, a source that gave me courage to go meet with Palestinians.”
When Englander heard about K4P, he joined as a Jewish advisor, and then later as a director until 2012.
Englander found it intriguing that two-thirds of K4P participants are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian. “The fact that they are the majority in K4P, in a way, gives them the first opportunity to be in the majority,” said Englander. “This created new sets of power of dynamics, which are very interesting.”
About K4P’s goal, he said, “I think, today, when we hear the word ‘Islam,’ some people hear ‘ISIS.’ When some hear the word ‘Judaism,’ some people think ‘settlements.’ We want to change that.”
The transition is difficult, however, said Englander. He said some of the kids lose their bearings after the experience. “They no longer knew what to do or how to act, as they no longer hated Israelis or Palestinians,” he said.
Kids4Peace youth speak at annual Kids4Peace winter event. (photo from Kids4Peace)
In 2006, K4P changed to a year-round model. Throughout his time there, Englander continued his studies, culminating with a PhD in gender studies, sexuality and Jewish theology. His schooling led him to Northwestern University. He became a Fulbright scholar, and spent a year as a visiting professor at Harvard Divinity School.
“During these years, I served as a vice-president for K4P International, working a lot on creating connections with many moms, rabbis, priests, government people, and doing a lot of lectures all over North America, including Canada,” said Englander.
Last year, Englander, together with the board, decided to end his term as vice-president to instead lead K4P graduates. Englander created a new program for 18-to-25-year-olds, working with them to shift from a dialogue-only model to a dialogue-to-action one.
“The idea with the kids and teenagers is we do a lot of dialogue and volunteering and other things in between, but we can’t put them at risk,” said Englander. “But, if you really want to create change, you must take some risk. So, dialogue-to-action is an answer for these needs.”
Children join K4P in Grade 6 for a six-year program with summer camps along the way. “It’s amazing to have two weeks together, but they work all through the year for six years, so it’s a very long process,” said Englander. “Because of this, it lets us dig deeper with them, step by step, in the conflict.”
For now, the program in Israel only operates in Jerusalem, due to financial constraints.
“Last year, the U.S. Institute for Peace gave us a very nice amount of money, so we have enough now for all the families who join K4P,” said Englander. “When the kids have a meeting, the parents, too, must come.
“We now have chapters in eight or nine cities around the world, with some [others] in the process of establishing chapters. Each one has two therapists, Israeli and Palestinian, who do the full journey with the parents and kids. So far, Toronto is the only Canadian chapter, but we also have [groups] in Houston, Seattle, New Hampshire, Vermont, Atlanta and a new one in Lyon, France.”
The Israeli chapter currently has about 150 kids, with the capacity to add another 65 new kids and their families this year.
“Hopefully, by next year, we’ll grow by 80 new families,” said Englander. “But, we also need to take into account that we are building a new program for 18-to-25-year-olds, with 15 amazing, serious young people. Some of them are graduates from K4P and some have parents who would never [have] consider[ed] sending them for K4P – settlers who grow up in settlements – [but] something very deep broke in them last year.
“It’s important for us that people will see Palestinians and Israelis together, hand in hand, helping in hospitals. But now, with the young adults, we want to take it further.”
Englander said that, in today’s situation, Israelis and Palestinians do not generally mix in public places. But, on Feb. 29, he said, K4P challenged that reality, having these young adults meet in a public space in Jerusalem.
“So, this group of people with a lot of courage decided they [were] going to do it,” said Englander. “Half of the meetings are going to happen in public spaces … that we choose very carefully … spaces where normal people from east Jerusalem and west Jerusalem are going to see them in their public space – Palestinians and Israelis together, body next to body, and dealing with the crucial, most important questions.
“We are planning to record and share these meetings,” he continued. “It’s very important to bring the voices and pictures to the world, to see how Muslims are opening themselves, how Jews are opening themselves – so they can see that it’s not just shalom/salaam, they care about their Jewish identities, their Muslim identities, their Christian identities … though they struggle with that, they still decide to work for peace.
“It’s a huge responsibility,” he said, “And, I will be honest and say that we feel a failure sometimes, thinking why didn’t we reach out to all the kids of Jerusalem and offer them this opportunity.”
The continuing terrorist attacks in Israel against Jewish Israelis are becoming more frequent and more deadly. Palestinian political leaders, religious officials and media have applauded the attackers as “martyrs,” spread anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and called for more attacks against Jews. In response, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) has launched a campaign to mobilize community members to take action.
The objective of the campaign is to raise awareness among Canadians about the ongoing threat of Palestinian terrorism and the incitement that fuels it. CIJA is asking the community to take a number of actions, including sharing content in social media, signing a petition that will be presented to Canada’s leaders when Parliament returns and writing Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion asking him to speak out against Palestinian terrorism.
“Like many around the world, we are extremely concerned about the rising tide of violence against Jews in Israel, perpetrated by terrorists who are incited to violence by the Palestinian leadership,” said Shimon Koffler Fogel, CIJA chief executive officer. “We want to provide our community with a meaningful way to stand up for our extended Jewish family in Israel who are living under constant threat.
“The Take Action campaign is designed to raise awareness about the violence and what drives it,” continued Fogel. “Questions we are asking Canadians to consider include ‘What would we do if this were happening in Canada?’ and ‘What would we expect our allies to do if Canadians were being run down, stabbed and shot in the streets?”
Campaign components include the video at youtube.com/watch?v=cMYS1qSKQTs called What Would We Do? The video is a series of news clips that take real events that have happened in Israel, such as stabbings and car bombs, and put them into a Canadian context, as having happened in Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg.
At takeactionisrael.ca, there is the petition to sign, which condemns Palestinian terrorism and incitement. As well, there is a link to a template email that can be personalized and sent to Dion that reflects the person’s concerns and asks Dion to speak out against Palestinian terrorism.
As well, people can donate to help spread the word: 100% of donations will be used to educate Canadians about the reality of the situation in Israel, the dangers posed by Palestinian terrorism and incitement, and the real obstacles to peace.
The fourth component of the campaign is a request that people forward the call to action to a friend, share it on Facebook, Twitter or other social media, and encourage friends and family to visit the website takeactionisrael.ca, as well as to learn more about the situation in Israel at learnmoreisrael.ca.
The campaign will run as long as the current wave of terror continues.
As hot as things have become in Israel and the West Bank over the last many weeks with escalating violence, here in North America a chill is palpable. It comes in the form of silencing within and across communities – in private homes, on university campuses and in community institutions. It’s coming from both sides: those who call themselves “pro-Palestinian” and those who call themselves “pro-Israel.” While the Palestinian solidarity side uses boycott and silencing, the Jewish community has its own internal conversation watchdogs.
Recently, a speaker at the University of Minnesota was shouted down, his talk delayed by 30 minutes. The invited scholar was Moshe Halbertal, a philosopher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a professor of law at New York University. It was a scholarly talk: the Dewey Lecture in the Philosophy of Law, sponsored by the university’s law school. Halbertal is also a noted military ethicist who helped draft a code of ethics for the Israel Defence Forces. The Minnesota Anti-War Committee took credit for the stunt; Students for Justice in Palestine endorsed it.
If you’re concerned by the extent to which civilians have born the brunt of violence and destruction in the Israeli-Palestinian context, Habertal is someone you’d want to speak with, especially in an academic context, where the point is the free exchange of ideas. But it’s hard to pose tough questions if you’re trying to silence the person.
This blocking of Halbertal’s speech is a trend that gets its fire from the academic and cultural boycott of Israel organized by the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, along with the more general push against what many Palestine solidarity activists call “normalization,” meaning ordinary engagement with Jews and Israelis and their ideas. Activists argue that the target is institutions, not individuals. But the effects on individuals and open speech, as they were at the University of Minnesota, are clear.
Continuing in this vein, producers of Dégradé, a film about Gaza told from the perspective of clients at a hair salon, pulled it from the Other Israel Film Festival sponsored by the JCC Manhattan because it’s a “Jewish” festival. While it seems that the producers’ decision was their own, it suggests a dangerous precedent: fortifying the silos between acceptable audiences and unacceptable ones in the world of art, ideas and culture.
Meanwhile, while the Jewish community doesn’t talk in terms of boycott and anti-normalization, it has its own troubling rules of engagement.
There are the narrow speaker guidelines for those with whom campus Jewish groups allow their members to publicly engage in dialogue. The guidelines for Hillel International, the world’s largest Jewish student organization, exclude anyone who “delegitimize[s], demonize[s] or appl[ies] a double standard to Israel, or supports the boycott, divestment and sanction movement.” While it’s natural that Israel supporters would bristle at those things, the rules effectively preclude Hillel students from inviting for debate and dialogue any Palestinian solidarity activists, almost all of whom, unfortunately, have jumped on the BDS bandwagon.
When my seven-year-long columnist post was cut from my local Jewish community paper last summer, I was told that it was to “make room for new voices.” Since then, it’s become clear that the publisher wanted only one angle on Israel. The columnist who focuses almost exclusively on the failings of Israel’s adversaries remained in place, while my replacement is steering clear of Israel altogether.
And then there are the corners of quiet shunning. I recently organized a Jewish community youth project involving rotating hosts. One of the participants pulled out, citing the fact that her husband “didn’t want me in his home.” He was appalled by my last Globe and Mail piece. When it comes to “support for Israel,” they said, “there is only one side.”
But some – young Jews in particular – are pushing back against this narrowing of discourse. First there was Open Hillel, a grassroots organization devoted to opposing the speaker guidelines mentioned above. (Disclosure: I am on the group’s academic advisory council.) And now there’s the Jewish People’s Assembly, which has launched in Washington. The group is demanding that Jewish federations – the main funding body of local Jewish communities – “not condition support for Jewish institutions and organizations on these institutions’ adherence to red lines around Israel.”
One might fantasize about casting all the silencers into a room where they can sit in silence with each other to their heart’s content. Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to try to talk, to write and to publicly grapple with the dilemmas of the day, trying to search for bits of common ground wherever they might be.
Mira Sucharov is an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She blogs at Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward. A version of this article was originally published by the Globe and Mail.
הממשלה הליברלית החדשה בראשות ראש הממשלה, ג’סטין טרודו, תפעל לחזק את הקשרים בין קנדה למדינות ערב. זאת לעומת תקופת שלוש הממשלות של ראש הממשלה לשעבר, סטיבן הרפר, בהם הקשרים בין קנדה למדינות ערב הלכו ונחלשו, בזמן שהקשרים עם ישראל הלכו והתחזקו. מנהיגי מדינות ערב והפלסטינים האשימו את ממשלות הרפר בכך שהן נוטות בברור לטובת ישראל, וקנדה אינה יכולה לשמש מתווכת מאוזנת בין הצדדים. אך כאמור ממשלת הליברלים עומדת להנהיג מדיניות חדשה בכל התחומים, כולל יחסי החוץ ולהתקרב מחדש למדינות ערב. מדיניות חדשה זו צפויה לפגום ביחסים עם ישראל או לפחות להקטין מכוחם.
שר החוץ הקנדי החדש, סטפן דיון, אמר בסוף שבוע שעבר כי קנדה מבקשת לחזור לתפקידה המסורתי (לפני עידן הרפר), ולהיות מתווך הוגן בין הצדדים במזרח התיכון, תוך חיזוק הקשרים עם מדינות ערב. לפי הערכת פרשנים קנדה של טרודו לא תתמוך יותר אוטומטית בישראל בכל עניין ועניין כפי שעשה שלטונו של הרפר, וכל מקרה יבחן לגופו. הממשלה החדשה צפויה להשמיע גם ביקורת קשה יותר על ההתנחלויות של ישראל.
דיון מציין כי “ישראל היא ידידה, בת ברית, אבל כדי שנהיה בני ברית אפקטיביים, אנו צריכים לחזק את היחסים עם שותפים לגיטימיים אחרים במזרח התיכון”. דיון מתח ביקורת על הדרך שבה הרפר ניהל את המדיניות כלפי ישראל, כיוון שהוא הפך את הנושא לעניין כחלק מקפיין הבחירות שלו, ופגע בעוצמת היחסים של קנדה וישראל.
לפי מחקר רפואי חדש ומפתיע לא מומלץ בכלל לבדוק את לחץ הדם אצל הרופא המשפחתי, או במרפאה מקומית. אלה לבחור במקום שקט ורגוע יותר כמו בבית או בבית המרקחת. ההנחיות החדשות שעולות מהמחקר התפרסמו לאחרונה בקנדה וארה”ב. וזאת כדי לגרום לשיפור משמעותי באיכות בדיקות לחץ דם וכן להביא לתוצאות נכונות יותר של הבדיקות.
ההנחיות מתבססות על ניסיון מצטבר בקרב הרופאים המשפחתיים ועל-פיהן, רבים מבין הפציינטים שמתבקשים לבדוק את לחץ הדם במרפאותיהם, נמצאים ליד הרופאים דווקא במצב של לחץ רב וחוסר שקט נפשי. או כפי שהתופעה נקראת בקרב הרופאים בהגה המקצועית שלהם, כי בעצם הפציינטים לוקים “בתסמונת החלוק הלבן”, דבר שבדרך כלל מהשפיע לרעה על תוצאות הבדיקה ויכול לתת תמונה שגויה על מצבם הבריאותי האמיתי. לפי הערכה מקצועית כשליש מהפציינטים בקנדה לוקים “בתסמונת החלוק הלבן”, ותוצאות שגויות של בדיקות לחץ הדם שלהם יכולה לגרום לשימוש בתרופות שלא לצורך.
על פי ההנחיות של המחקר החדש מומלץ עוד לבדוק את לחץ הדם במשך עשרים וארבע שעות ברציפות באמצעות שרוול מיוחד, שמולבש על ידו של הפציינט. בעזרת אותו שרוול לחץ הדם של הפציינט נבדק כל עשרים עד שלושים דקות. קיימת אופציה נוספת והיא לבדוק את לחץ הדם באמצעות התחברות למכשיר אוטומטי בפעם ביום במשך שבוע שלם. עלות המכשיר האוטומטי בקנדה נאמדת בסביבות שישים דולר.
אין זה חדש מחקרים רפואיים רבים מראים כי לחץ דם גבוה הוא גורם סיכון בריאותי משמעותי ביותר, ויש לו קשר ישיר להתקפות לב וכן לשבץ מוחי. כיום לאחד מתוך חמישה תושבי קנדה יש לחץ דם גבוה. בפועל מדובר על כך שכתשעה עשר אחוז מהאולוסיה המקומית לוקה בלחץ דם גבוה. חומר למחשבה.
It is an alarming phenomenon, to say the least. Seemingly ordinary Palestinian civilians, acting not on behalf of an organized terrorist organization but apparently on their own, taking everyday household instruments and stabbing Israelis with them on the streets.
Violence, in fact, has been a top-down factor in the Palestinian body politic. As recently as last month, the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was glorifying the murder of Jews, responding to the riots and killings in Jerusalem with this:
“Every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem is pure, every shahid [martyr] will reach paradise, and every injured person will be rewarded by God.”
An imam in Gaza last Friday waved a dagger as he gave his sermon – a sermon broadcast weekly over the internet – urging followers to stab and kill Jews.
These incitements to murder are omnipresent in Palestinian society, from the “radical” Hamas to the “moderate” Fatah. So, the spate of stabbings is the natural fruit of seeds of hatred planted by decades of political and religious leaders, relentless media propaganda and the glorification of “martyrs” gone before.
It is often said that the Israeli-Arab conflict is an intractable one with complexities and nuances that make it drag on. That’s true. There are complexities, but some things are simple – when you inculcate violence, you get violence.
Our hearts go to those killed and wounded, their families and all who are suffering.
חוסר הצדק והיעדר חינוך יצרו את המלחמות והפליטים הרבים
אם לתושבים במזרח התיכון היו מוענקים צדק, חופש וחינוך לא היו מלחמות, לא היו כובשים זרים ולא היה את דאעש. ממשלות המערב השקיעו כספים ומשאבים אדירים לאור הפחד מאל קאעידה או מדאעש, כדי שפעולות הטרור לא יגיעו אל המערב. אם הן היו משקיעות את המשאבים בחינוך והייתה מתקיימת חברה יציבה ועובדת, התושבים המקומיים היו יודעים שהמדינות שייכות להם, ולא לדיקטטורים, קבוצות דתיות או שלטון זר, אז לא היו תופעות כמו של שמונה מאות אלף פליטים ולא דאעש.
מי זה ארגון דאעש וכיצד הוא פועל?
הבעייה עם דאעש היא שאיננו מכירים בעצם את הארגון ולא יכולים לסקר מה קורה באזוריו, כי אם נגיע לשם חבריו יוציאו אותנו להורג. בשנה האחרונה אני מנסה ללמוד את דאעש, הקשבתי שפתם וכיצד הם מתבטאים, ולצערי נאלצתי לצפות בכל הקלטות הנוראיות שלהם. מדובר בדבר חדש במזרח התיכון שלא היה קיים עד כה. בפרוש לא מדובר בדת אלה בפולחן דתי. מדובר באנשים אכזריים, קרים, חסרי רגישות, רגשות ותשוקות, למעט דרישתם להקמת המדינה האיסלאמית. הם מפחידים וזו כוונתם המוצהרת, ופועלים כמו טילים או מכונות במלחמה. ביקרתי עם כוחות הצבא הסורי בכנסייה לאחר שאנשי דאעש היו במקום, ונדהמתי לראות כיצד הם גרמו להרס. הם חתכו תמונות שמן עתיקות באופן מחושב במכונה לחיתוך, ולא בצורה אמוציונלית עם כעס ושנאה תוך שימוש בסכינים. כאמור מדובר בתופעה חדשה במזרח התיכון ואין לי מושג מי עומד מאחורי הנשק הזה שנקרא דאעש, אם כי אי אפשר לשלול את הקשר האפשרי בין דאעש לערב הסעודית.
מה על קנדה לעשות כיום במשבר הנוכחי במזרח התיכון?
קנדה בשום פנים ואופן ללא צריכה להתערב במלחמה עם דאעש וזה לא מתפקידה. הקנדים צריכים לעשות חשיבה מחדש ולעזור לאו”ם בשליחת משקיפים לאזור ולפקח על מה שקורה בשטח. וכן לעזור לאלה שסובלים וכידוע יש רבים מאוד שסובלים.
כיצד מתנהלת המלחמה של המערב בדאעש?
אני לא שחושב כלל שהמלחמה מול דאעש מתנהלת כמו שאנו חושבים. לא נראה לי שמדינות המערב ממש נלחמות מול דאעש, אלה שהן מקיימות בסך הכל תרגילים צבאיים. אם ארה”ב, רוסיה ואיראן היו רוצות לפעול ביחד, הן היו פותרות את הבעייה בסוריה ביום אחד. אך עובדה שזה לא קורה. להערכתי ארה”ב פוזלת יותר ויותר לכיוון של איראן השיעית, ופחות ופחות לכיוון ערב הסעודית הסונית. וכנראה שבשיחות הגרעין הארוכות עם איראן, בחצי מהזמן האמריקנים דנו עימם במשבר בסוריה, ועל הפיכתה של איראן לשוטר של המזרח התיכון. אני מעריך עוד שתתרחש הפיכה גם בערב הסעודית אך היא לא תבוא מכיוון האוכלוסייה, אלא מתוך בית המלוכה על ידי חלק מהנסיכים שיבצעו אותה.
מה קורה עם הסכסוך הישראלי-פלסטיני?
לגבי הסכסוך הממושך בין ישראל לפלסטינים, יש לזכור שגם לשני צדדים אלה הובטחו הבטחות שווא שיקבלו מדינות גדולות. אני יכול לקבוע בצער כי מדינה פלסטינית לא תקום, כיוון שממשלות ישראל השונות בנו ובונות בשטחים הכבושים בצורה כזו, שלא יהיה רצף טריטוריאלי לפלסטינים וזו עובדה מוגמרת. כל עוד תתקיים תמיכה אמריקנית בישראל שום דבר לא ישתנה ואני צופה שזה יביא לאסון באזור.
When it comes to Israel, many Diaspora Jews harbor a double standard. They want their own countries to embrace pluralism and multiculturalism, owing to the kind of fluid immigration that allowed their own grandparents and great-grandparents to build a better life in America and Canada and many other places across the West. But, when it comes to Israel, they are comfortable articulating their desire to maintain a Jewish majority. Israelis – even those on the left – have a term for this need: they openly refer to Palestinians (whether in the West Bank, whether refugees living abroad or whether Palestinian citizens of Israel itself) as a “demographic threat.”
Palestinian citizens of Israel are pouncing on this usage more than ever. Ayman Oudeh, head of the Joint List, has called it offensive. He wants Israeli citizens to view their Palestinian citizen brethren as partners in nation-building. Still, he is not looking for a melting-pot version of Israeli identity: he demands that Israel grant the Palestinian citizens “collective rights.” Since they already have their own school system, presumably, by collective rights he means at the very least equal funding for schools and towns, including removing the unequal bureaucratic barriers to gaining building permits, something I’ve written about at the Globe and Mail.
Yousef Munayyer is also distressed by the term “demographic threat,” and concludes that it is intrinsic to Zionism. Instead of having a demographic problem, Israel has a Zionism problem, he argued last March in The Nation. This, as Bibi was whipping up fear against the Arab minority on election day, claiming they were coming to the polls “in droves.”
The scope of the issue is more complex than these critiques – as important as they are – allow. There are at least three aspects at play.
First, strategy. There are reasons why a peace activist may choose to use the term “demographic threat” to sell the idea of withdrawal from the West Bank, for example. This kind of reasoning may appeal to those on the centre or even the right who, unfortunately, aren’t moved by human rights imperatives. When it comes to language and lobbying, we must not forget the game of persuasion.
This connects to the second aspect: emotions. Here, the question is this: without undermining democracy, can a majority population privately desire to maintain its majority status? And, in the event that these private desires are shared publicly – through art or literature, say – should the users be chastised as being anti-democratic?
Here, we need to recall what may be motivating these feelings. It may not be anti-democratic tendencies or racism or even a sense of national superiority. As a national liberation movement, Zionism was acutely concerned with Jewish self-determination, more than it was with undermining any other national group in its midst. And, along with the material gains of statehood has come the desire to sustain a modern Jewish national culture, most markedly in the form of Hebrew. To contemplate becoming a minority in one’s country is to consider the attrition of one’s national language, at the very least, if not the possibility of collective safety and self-determination. Even if the fears are unfounded, even, if, somehow, a post-Zionist Israel can engage in a project of radical multiculturalism such that Hebrew culture maintains its treasured place alongside Palestinian culture and Arabic language, the impulse is still understandable.
Finally, there are the public policies themselves. On this, there is clearly much room for improvement. Oudeh’s call for a high-profile “civics conference” in the tradition of other annual conferences in Israel on issues – including security, social issues and economics – is a good one. As is the urgent need to close the funding gap to Arab schools and towns, and to educate against casual racism, including some landlords not renting to Arabs and “social suitability” committees determining who can live where, the kind of practices outlined by Amjad Iraqi in +972 Magazine. These attitudes and the practices that stem from them are corrosive to democracy.
All this is to say that the creation and maintenance of national identity, particularly in a state as young as Israel, is an enormous project. Using the term “demographic threat” as a way of describing the actual collective emotions and preferences of some citizens is as useful as any analytic phrase. To censor it completely, therefore, would be anti-intellectual and anti-democratic. But, when it comes to policy advocacy, thoughtful Israelis should consider thinking twice about using these words. As citizens of democracies, we should at least strive to hear things as our fellow citizens hear them.
Mira Sucharovis an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She blogs at Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward. A version of this article was originally published on haartez.com.
