Henry Zavriyev – The Concordian

Reconciliation lies in the admittance of guilt

This past Monday, Concordia’s Graduate Student Association hosted a public forum entitled, BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions): Do we have a role in the Palestine-Israel conflict? One of the panelists, Mary-Jo Nadeau, accused Israeli forces of targeting civilian homes, schools, mosques, United Nations shelters, and educational institutions in its recent assaults on the West Bank. When Nadeau, a lecturer at the University of Toronto, asked students “why [they thought Israel would] bomb schools and universities,” no one responded, myself included. Although I wanted to stand up, throw my clothes off like the woman in Titianic, and yell, “yes, yes Ms. Nadeau, please explain to me why Israel purposely bombs public schools,” I could not. I failed to be myself, thus allowing for yet another, very quiet Monday afternoon.

Hypocritical and slanderous statements like the ones made in this forum are precisely the reason why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has yet to be resolved. Leaders on both sides seem keener on pointing out the flaws of their opposition rather than making the admissions of guilt necessary for peace. While the Palestinian Authority doesn’t miss a chance to condemn Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, Israelis lament the rocket fire coming out of Gaza. Instead of pointing fingers, why can’t both sides not only admit, but stress their own wrongdoings?

I am a Jew. I am a Zionist. I am an ardent supporter of the two-state solution. I admit without reservation that Israel’s handling of the Palestinian crisis in recent years has been grossly ignorant and irresponsible. However, in Monday’s forum, there was no such recognition of guilt.

Panelists spent their allotted time criticizing the actions of Israel and failed to mention any responsibility on the part of Palestinians. As a result, the forum proved to be more of a slanderous outcry for action than a productive dialogue.

The BDS campaign, the central topic of Monday’s forum, is a movement which is, in my opinion, in a direct opposition to peace. It demands an end to “occupation and colonization of all Arab lands” and for the complete dismantling of the security fence currently dividing Israel from the West Bank and Gaza. Such demands are not only one-sided, but are also prone to widespread misinterpretation.

Jeremy Ben Ami, founder of the pro-peace group J-Street, writes that “too many in and around the BDS movement refuse to acknowledge either the legitimacy of Israel or the right of the Jewish people as well as the Palestinian people to a state.”

In addition, singling out what could be called the only democratic state in the Middle East seems hypocritical. Why not boycott the likes of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iran, where human rights violations are rampant and corruption widespread?

Yves Engler, one of the panelists, fervently argued for the boycott of Israeli made goods, yet fell short of supporting this year’s government sanctions on Iranian oil.

The situation isn’t improved by the fact that some of Nadeau’s statements are a bit misleading. Israel does not, in fact, intentionally bomb public institutions. Rather, it makes a considerable effort to avoid civilian casualties. Yet when Hamas continues to fire rockets from densely populated areas, it becomes increasingly difficult for Israel to fight its enemies.

With such a polarized debate, it is easy to point fingers and perhaps that is precisely what I am doing here in these concluding remarks. However, it is only to highlight the shortcomings of the panel. Instead of vilifying one another, let us be more commodious in our arguments so that we may come one step closer to reconciliation.

Yet another Hollywood movie has been pumped out too soon and once again we are left scrambling for the truth. Kathryn Bigelow, who some of you may remember for her Academy Award winning film The Hurt Locker, has revived the old torture debate with her newest film, Zero Dark Thirty.

The film, which depicts the events leading up to Osama bin Laden’s capture, has attracted waves of criticism and protests from politicians and film critics alike. Yet, while Senators such as John McCain and Dianne Feinstein have noted that there is a clear “discrepancy between the facts [and] what is depicted in the film,” the majority of outside criticism has pointed to Bigelow’s apparent pro-torture stance in the movie.

In an op-ed for the Huffington Post, Jonathan Kim called the film’s gruesome torture scenes “unforgivable” and Dan Froomkin, also of the Huffington Post, called the movie “despicable.” According to critics, Zero Dark Thirty makes the bold conclusion that torture was essential in the manhunt for Osama bin Laden. Personally, I cannot criticize the movie as I have not yet seen it. However, in light of the recently revived debate, I would like to remind our readers why the international community condemned torture in the first place.

Firstly, torture is inherently unethical. Chemical arms and weapons of mass destruction are extremely effective in accomplishing military agendas, yet we do not employ them in warfare. Why? Because the world’s courts have deemed them unethical. Because such weapons are capable of inflicting unnecessary amounts of pain on our enemies. Because we are human beings and can only go so far in accomplishing our goals before becoming that which we are fighting to destroy. Thus, torture, too, should be viewed in a similar light.

Additionally, torture, according to international law, is illegal. Article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The United Nations Convention Against Torture outright bans the use of torture.

Some proponents of torture use the argument that such restrictions do not apply to terrorists, as they are stateless citizens. Yet this argument is vague and not rooted in reality. When it comes to torture, the UN is clear in its judgment. There is no ambiguity in its verdict. Torture is simply wrong.

Finally, people, especially when faced with time constraints and highly stressful situations, are prone to making mistakes. Over the last decade, the Pentagon has been responsible for countless false accusations and for wrongfully imprisoning misidentified individuals. In 2003, for example, Khaled El-Masri, a car salesman from Bavaria, was captured by United States officials and was repeatedly beaten, sodomized and waterboarded over the course of four months. When the CIA finally realized that they had abducted the wrong man, they released Khaled without any kind of payment or even the slightest apology. Ultimately, while torture can be useful in obtaining valuable information, the risks of hurting the wrong individual are too great and must be taken into account.

For now, at least, it seems as if we are headed in the right direction. Shortly after starting his first term in office, U.S. President Barack Obama issued an executive order to limit the use of torture as an interrogation technique, especially on “those who would intimidate, torture and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms.” He went on to say that “if we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction.” Good talk Obama. Good talk.