BY GERRY CHIDIAC
Lessons in Learning
To understand people and their point of view, it is important to listen attentively. We may not like what we are hearing, but the perspective of the other will become clear. At times, this is more important than being heard; the way that our words and actions are distorted can be very revealing. This is often the first step to finding solutions.At the very least, it guides us in responding effectively to a difficult situation.
Much of the world is horrified by what we are seeing take place in Palestine, and we are frustrated by our inability to make it stop. It is not that people in the pro-Palestine movement have anything against Jewish people (in fact, many of the most ardent activists are themselves Jewish) or prefer Palestinians; it is that we do not like to see innocent people, especially children, starved, maimed and murdered, especially when our governments are directly or indirectly supporting these actions. We remain steadfast in our goal to end the violence, and supporters of Zionism remain steadfast in their efforts to demonize and silence us.
I have written a great deal on this issue over the last three years, and my motivation for doing so is constantly questioned. A recent article about the future of Israel and Palestine resulted in an email campaign directed at my editor and me, as well as a profanity-laden and racist phone call. The emails were virtually identical:
“Once again, you’ve fixated on Israel while in my view falsely portraying the Jewish State as the principal obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
Despite claiming expertise in ‘genocide studies,’ you gave scant attention to the openly genocidal ideology of Hamas and other Iran-backed Islamist terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction, the actual core of the conflict. Stop singling out Israel for exclusive condemnation while ignoring Hamas’ genocidal ideology.”
I’ve always condemned the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. I replied to a few of these messages, pointing out that I support international law to prosecute criminals and to ensure the safety of innocents, regardless of their religion, citizenship, or ethnicity. I always found it curious that after what many refer to as 10/7, the Israeli State did not call upon the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute the individuals who were responsible for the deaths of so many Israelis. Had they done so, Israel’s international reputation would have been preserved and scholars like the ones I quoted in my previous article (Ilan Pappé and Omar Bartov – both of whom are Israeli) likely would not be discussing the potential end of the Zionist state.
One reader got back to me. Their message was revealing:
“The concept of International Law is a complete farce, and you know it. How can nations all over the world, both sovereign and not, with different laws, judicial systems, varying infrastructure, and ideologies ever agree on what is ethical or morally wrong? It has so many flaws, making it a simple argument for intelligent, non-biased, and non-bigoted individuals of our sovereign nation to deem it a ridiculous waste of time. You have to hate Jews so much to stay fixated on your talking points. Israel has been fighting to protect itself and its people from organized terror and bigotry since the days of the bible, my friend. It’s a clear-cut choice – side with a sovereign nation that protects its people or side with a terrorist organization that uses its people as human shields.”
It is always a red flag when a person claims to know what we think, especially when we have stated something to the contrary. Nor is it a helpful way to engage in constructive dialogue. I support international law, even though it is imperfect. Despite their differences in culture and values, governments around the world, including the Canadian government, have signed the treaty that formed the ICC to hold individuals accountable. This provides an alternative to the violence we are currently experiencing.
As the Israeli and American militaries falter in the face of military opposition in West Asia today, and political support for the State of Israel drops among the American populace, it is my sincere hope that a robust system of international law will protect innocent Israelis as well as Palestinians. I fail to see how that can be construed as hateful, but the conclusion drawn reveals more about the writer of the comment than it does about me.
The reactions of my readers leave me with many more questions, and I would welcome their replies. How do they define the word terrorist? Why do they assume that people like me do not care deeply about not only Palestinians, but also Israelis? Why do they conclude that the call for an end to the current violence is motivated by hatred of Jews? This is especially puzzling because many Jews strongly oppose the current actions of the State of Israel.Moreover, Christian Zionists far outnumber Jews, let alone Jewish Zionists.
I appreciate supporters of Israel who respond to me respectfully. Such dialogue is the foundation of a healthy society. Hopefully they will understand why I find their responses so puzzling, and our conversations can continue.