WHITHER DIALOGUE?

TIME FOR ISRAEL’S CRITICS TO DO LESS TALKING. IS THAT DIALOGUE? MAYBE NOT. BUT LISTENING IS A START.

Not happening now.

Dialogue is always the right thing to do.

As something close to a free speech extremist, I’ve always believed that — you know, short of the puerile yelling-fire-in-a-theatre silliness — bad words are better heard than hidden. Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. The answer to hate speech is more speech.

Now I’m at a loss.

Wearing one of my other hats, I am engaged in a new project to equip people to lead one-on-one and small-group conversations on antisemitism. (I need to keep my hats slightly separate but if you want to know more, message me.)

Although this project is only beginning and we have not yet developed the processes, I was informally invited by a friend to facilitate a dialogue with several of her non-Jewish friends.

First, we had to discuss what our end-goal was. What are we wanting to achieve?

The discussion has been postponed because there was half an inch of snow in Vancouver the day we were supposed to meet and, in case you think Vancouver is part of Canada, let me assure you that more than 100 flakes of snow leads to pandemonium.

Now I am travelling and doing a great deal of reading. I have also had time again to ponder the question of why we want to have this conversation (and others like it).

Obviously, the alternative to dialogue is to stand alone in our silos, to remain in our echo chambers, to close our minds to alternative ideas.

But when it comes to Israel and Palestine right now, the world is not in much of a mood to talk. It’s all a little too screamy. The project I’m working on aims to move the conversation from screamy to constructive but it’s still a long way from done.

When it comes down to what we want to achieve with our dialogue, I’ve come to the conclusion that I want my friend’s non-Jewish friends to understand how the world’s anti-Israel hysteria is falling on Jewish ears.

Let’s be frank: Activists in Canada and other Western countries are doing precious little to advance the well-being of Palestinians (or Israelis, of course). Their social media posts, rallies, petitions, marches, boycotts and snarky comments may give them a feeling of moral superiority (if largely undeserved). They are, however, having cataclysmic effects on their Jewish neighbors and on the broader multicultural health of our own societies.

So what are we trying to prove or achieve by our little confab? Are we trying to turn these critically thinking, intelligent, questioning individuals into card-carrying Zionist activists? That’s not going to happen.

At least (unless it turned into an acrimonious spat, which I’m sure it wouldn’t) we would see one another as human beings with rational positions and natural feelings. Simply by being willing to show up, I think these friends have proven that already.

So what else is our desired outcome? Is the energy required worth that minimal return?

Then something struck me while reading Ben M. Freeman’s book Reclaiming Our Story: The Pursuit of Jewish Pride. I was reminded of a centuries-long history — before, during and after the Enlightenment — of “disputations,” the most famous being the Sanhedrin of Napoleon, in which Jews and Jewish ideas were effectively put on trial.

In some cases, these may have been relatively benign exercises while others, as you can imagine, were interrogations with life-and-death consequences. In any case, it was the Jews in the figurative or literal docket, facing various accusations, expected to defend their existence and their ideas.

In few, if any, of these scenarios were these level playing fields. Like a bullfight, I suppose, even if the bull “won,” it lost, no matter how much it gored the toreador.

This dark history set of a light bulb and answered a few of my questions. The world has changed a great deal since Napoleon’s Grand Sanhedrin and the centuries of inquisitions. But the uneven playing field hasn’t changed that much.

If the world today were a college debating club (and it sure as hell isn’t) the moderator would probably say something like …

“Be it Resolved: Israel, and by extension Jews, are the embodiment of evil, a bloodsucking, malevolent force on the planet that should be eradicated. Arguing in the affirmative, we have the United Nations, Amnesty International, millions of marching activists who embody all that is good in humankind and only want peace and coexistence, and most of the rest of the world. Arguing in the negative, we have the untrustworthy, intellectually hoodwinking, nitpicking, professional arguers and dual loyalty-carrying Jews. Please welcome our speakers for their opening statements and let’s get started!”

I’m being ridiculous, of course. But I don’t doubt that this is how it feels to a lot of my friends right now.

And, as I wrote before, you can say what you will about Israel. You can be an armchair general and declare that you know better than the heads of the Israel Defence Forces how that country should preserve the life and protect the security of its people.

But if you refuse to acknowledge that your often incendiary language sends the message to your Jewish friends, coworkers and neighbors that you do not value Jewish lives, well, you are kind of playing the part of the affirmative debaters in my silly scenario.

I come back to my earlier assertion of free speech and open dialogue. There’s been a lot of that lately, which is theoretically good. Theoretically, I say, because the obsession with Israel and Palestine pretty much eclipses every other topic on the planet — including actual genocides, which are ignored while zealots go on about a wholly fabricated “genocide” against Palestinians. So the free speech and open dialogue we are witnessing is almost all about one conflict while Sudanese, Uyghurs, Rohingyas and literally billions of other oppressed people are ignored.

Beyond that little detail, let’s acknowledge also that the world’s Jews make up about 0.2% of the world’s population. Then Jews have a few dependable allies, so maybe double that proportion or, generously, triple it.

Now observe not just the numbers of screeching howler monkeys of the “pro-Palestinian” movement who are taking over the streets with genocidal slogans, boycotting Jewish products and people, unfurling hate banners at sporting events and basically making their one-issue obsession ubiquitous everywhere you look. Then look at their emotions. These, for the most part, are not people driven by rational arguments. They are incandescent, apoplectic, unhinged, possessed, bug-eyed whackjobs. (I generalize.)

There are some reasonable people capable of rational discourse. But in my experience these reasonable people are mostly keeping their mouths shut because, really, who needs to provoke millions of incandescent, apoplectic, unhinged, possessed, bug-eyed whackjobs?

Is this really a time when Jews (and their allies) should be adhering to Robert’s Rules of Order and pretending they’re at the Oxford Union while half the world, it seems, is celebrating (or at least reserving judgment) about the evisceration, decapitation, live immolation, kidnapping, torture, mass rape and attempted genocide of Jews?

Not right now, no.

It is time to invert the uneven playing field. The world is forcing Jews into the sorts of disputations their ancestors endured. If Jews want to participate at all, perhaps they should insist that their interlocutors do the listening, instead of the talking, for once.

Is that fair? In a world where the “dialogue” on this subject is inherently and massively unfair, it may be a reasonable correction, a recalibration.

It’s time to stop screaming in Jewish faces and realize we were given one mouth but two ears. Listen to Jewish people about their experiences instead of telling them your opinion about them.

Oh — and save the faux victimhood about being “silenced.” We all know nothing is going to shut up the Israel-haters, so let’s skip the part where they play the muzzled martyrs.

Have you noticed that, when other groups ask to be listened to respectfully and have their lived experiences respected, no one accuses them of attempted “silencing”? Nope. It’s only Jews who we accuse of having the power to control what we are allowed to think and say. That’s part of a larger antisemitic context of Jewish “power” and “control.”

Again, the fact that these people treat Jews differently than they treat members of every other group is proof enough of a major problem.

I’m not talking to those people anyway. They’re not listening.

I’m speaking to decent people who genuinely care about how their Jewish friends are feeling. Or, to widen the circle a tad, people who aren’t total aholes.

You’ve talked enough already. Try listening.

Where does that leave the concept of “dialogue”? I’m not sure. But I know that it’s not happening now.

*

If you like my stuff and want more of it, your financial support let’s me do more of this. If you cant (or don’t want to) contribute financially …. the easiest way to support my work is to share it! If you don’t want to subscribe, but would be kind enough to make a one-time contribution, you can do so securely on PayPal by clicking here.