“No greater friend in the world than Canada”

With the launching of Israel’s ground war in Gaza, the latest chapter in the ongoing tragedy of Israeli-Palestinian relations is headed in an increasingly deadly and destructive direction. Throughout this downward spiral, Canada’s diplomatic response has been consistent. The government has been unwavering in its support for Israel. This is not new. Under the current Conservative government, Canada has been steady and forthright in its unambiguous backing of Israel’s position. In a representative example of this enduring loyalty, the country’s foreign minister recently declared, without a hint of hyperbole, that “Israel has no greater friend in the world than Canada.”

The rhetorical foundation upon which the government bases its support for Israel is moral in nature. That is to say, the official justification for Canada’s position is premised, publicly and emphatically, on declarations of moral certainty. And there is little doubt that many Canadians support their government’s stance on Israeli-Palestinian affairs precisely because of its “moral clarity” and its rejection of “moral relativism.”

*          *          *

In the aftermath of 9/11, political leaders in the United States quickly came to understand the terrorist attacks through a moral-metaphysical framework.* Within this framework, the complex historical and political roots of that terrible act of violence were reduced to something akin to cartoon villainy. US President George W Bush spoke incessantly of “evil people” and “evil folks.” His rhetoric promised a “crusade,” and he pledged to “rid the world of the evil-doers.”

There was perhaps a brief window of opportunity when a more nuanced understanding of the roots of the 9/11 attacks might have found purchase. For a few days after September 11th, some Americans were earnestly asking the question, “Why do they hate us?” However, Bush’s simplistic explanation of 9/11 rendered serious reflection entirely impossible. Once the “good versus evil” frame was invoked, references to “root causes” were invariably met with scorn and accusations of insensitivity or disloyalty. As a consequence, the only answer that ultimately achieved traction in response to “Why do they hate us?” was the simplistic, nonsensical and self-serving canard, “They hate our freedoms.”

*          *          *

We should be suspicious of simple narratives about the world and about ourselves. Such stories are dangerous, especially when they come drenched in righteous indignation and pre-packaged with “common sense” claims of moral clarity. They are problematic for multiple reasons, but three stand out.

First, their lack of realism and complexity make it too easy for us to cast ourselves in the role of the hero. Consider, for example, Bush’s narrative about 9/11. In the epic quest to vanquish the evil-doers, it was obvious and unquestioned that the United States would play the role of the lawman, the caped crusader, the agent of civilization and metaphysical good. Seeing ourselves as the embodiment of all that is “good” and “right” robs us of the capacity for critical self-reflection.

Second, asserting a position of moral certainty makes it too easy to delegitimize or silence other perspectives. We see this dynamic playing out all the time. For example, Justin Trudeau found out speculating that the causes of terrorism are multiple and complex can be easily pilloried and dismissed as “committing sociology.” Worse, comments out of step with the narrative of moral certainty frequently invite accusations of moral relativism. Perhaps worst of all, when it comes to supporting the state of Israel, the high ground of moral absolutism is used to hurl specious charges of anti-Semitism down upon those asking questions or voicing dissent. While these kinds of attacks may be great for scoring partisan points, they create an environment that is obviously not suitable for debating and crafting Canada’s foreign policy.

Third, the self-righteous assurance of moral certainty makes it easy to dehumanize “the enemy.” And this has the tendency to enable some truly horrific kinds of government action. It was the moral certainty surrounding the evil-doers of 9/11 that led directly to a bloody war in Iraq, a global assault on personal privacy, the normalization of indefinite detention and torture, and an ongoing shadow war in which US military personnel are able to obliterate suspects without even getting out of their chairs.

*          *          *

Despite a surplus of attempts to impose moral clarity on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the situation in Gaza is anything but simple and straightforward. It may indeed be tempting to believe otherwise, but this drawn-out tragedy has neither “good guys” nor “bad guys” in the classic sense. Indeed, the very notion of seeing this intractable dilemma in terms of simple explanations or simple solutions is absurd.

And yet, Canada’s reaction to the current crisis in Gaza embraces precisely this perspective.

On July 13, the Prime Minister released a brief statement on the worsening crisis. This official statement of Canadian policy was entirely strident and unapologetic in its one-sided support for Israel. Indeed, it made no meaningful mention of the broader situation facing Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The most striking takeaway message from the statement was this sentence:

“Canada calls on its allies and partners to recognize that these terrorist acts are unacceptable and that solidarity with Israel is the best way of stopping the conflict.”

This passage may seem harmless enough, but it prompts a few simple questions: Why would the Prime Minister assert “solidarity with Israel” as the most effective way to stop the crisis? Why not call on both sides to refrain from violence? Why not call for negotiation?

Viewed through this government’s rigid worldview, Israel is unequivocally framed as the “good guy.” In Stephen Harper’s moral framework, headwear does not come in different shades of grey; there are only white hats and black hats. And he sees the current situation as an opportunity for Israel to finally get rid of the black hats. Essentially, the Canadian government wants Israel to have a free hand to crush Hamas, regardless of the costs this would inevitably visit upon regular Palestinians. So, its one-sided call for “solidarity with Israel” is about preempting other governments. Stephen Harper is effectively running interference for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, working to dissuade European governments from interfering or pressuring Israel to show restraint. Ultimately, the goal of the Canadian government is to insulate the hawks in Israel from international criticism and outrage as the Palestinian body count inevitably rises.

As I said above, moral certainty gives license to governments to do unconscionable things.

*          *          *

It is difficult to know how this ongoing crisis can be resolved. However, it will certainly require inspired and creative leadership to find a way forward, and in this sense it is clear that Stephen Harper can be of no assistance whatsoever. In this context, I think of Rachel Fraenkel, the mother of one of the three Israeli teenagers who were kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank. In the midst of her pain and sorrow, this grieving mother was able to find the compassion to denounce the revenge killing of a sixteen year old Palestinian boy:

“Even in the abyss of mourning for Gilad, Eyal and Naftali, it is difficult for me to describe how distressed we are by the outrage committed in Jerusalem — the shedding of innocent blood in defiance of all morality, of the Torah, of the foundation of the lives of our boys and of all of us in this country.”

This is a version of moral certainty that makes sense to me. Perhaps Stephen Harper should take some notes.

* Megoran, Nick. 2006. “God On Our Side: The Church of England and the Geopolitics of Mourning 9/11.” Geopolitics 11 (4): 561-579.

Advertisements

The perils of dissenting

This link will take you to a truly remarkable video (I tried to embed it, but had no luck). If you have the time (less than five minutes out of your life) and stomach for it, I would highly recommend it.

The clip shows a law student directing a question to a panel of “experts” on US national security. The panel members are discussing the Benghazi incident and sharing heated (some might say paranoid) accusations of US government inaction and cover-up. However, their discussion is clearly framed inside a broader critique of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Anyway, this student poses a question about the substance and direction of US foreign policy in the region, a question that (I think) is germane and of crucial importance to the topic:

“How can we fight an ideological war with weapons? How can we ever end this war? The jihadist ideology that you talk about – it’s an ideology. How can you ever win this thing if you don’t address it ideologically?”

The response from panelist Brigitte Gabriel (she’s a real gem) is very telling. Rather than actually engaging the question, she turns it around and launches a tirade against the student. She lambasts the student for having the temerity to ask a question that does not fit within the panel’s narrow, partisan and self-serving Benghazi narrative. She twists and disfigures the student’s question beyond recognition in order to give her own response more punch and simplistic, rhetorical appeal. She effectively questions the student’s loyalty and morality for posing a question that was not properly mournful of the death of four Americans at Benghazi. And, in the end, she indicts the entirety of Muslim America for not doing more to condemn radical Islam. Not a bad day’s work for just one response!

Again, to be clear, the student’s question is not out of bounds. Not in any way. She is making the relevant point that bombs and bullets are probably not the most effective way to address the threat of a radical ideology. In short, she thinks the US response to terrorism suffers from a lack of ideological considerations.

But here’s the thing: the premise of the student’s question is actually incorrect. While the United States is indeed fighting this war with military force (drones, anyone?), it is fighting it at an ideological level too. However, while the military component is most certainly aimed outward towards Muslim countries, the ideological effort is aimed inward towards US citizens. In other words, the ideological component of this war isn’t aimed at “radical Islam” or “the Islamists” or “the Jihadists” or “the terrorists” or (my favourite) “the Islamo-Fascists.” And it isn’t even aimed at moderate Muslims in the Middle East. It’s actually aimed at Americans.

In fact, in this clip, the ideological response is aimed directly at the student who asked the question.

The approach to national security revealed in Gabriel’s scathing jeremiad, and embodied by the panel itself, is designed to support and embolden an ideological worldview in which the US accumulation and exercise of overwhelming military force is not just made possible, but rendered the only logical course of action. This is the essence of the neo-conservative agenda. And the first step in enabling this political program is to effect ideological closure. This ideological component of the so-called “War on Terror” is designed to banish domestic dissent. It attempts to construct a single, coherent and entirely homogenized response. The end goal is to ensure that those who disagree or pose questions are shouted down, silenced or marginalized.

If you watched the video, you saw how Gabriel played the crowd, a crowd that erupted in nationalistic fervour part-way through the aggressive dismissal of the student’s question. That’s the precise response that Gabriel’s jingoistic tirade was seeking to achieve. But the intended audience isn’t just the one sitting in a single Heritage Foundation lecture hall (that would be low-hanging fruit, to say the least). The real intended audience is the one comprised of the entire spectrum of the US population.

That video has gone truly viral and sparked a social media sensation. When I last checked, the version that came across my Facebook news feed (which is presumably just one of many that are now circulating) had been shared over 440,000 times in under 6 days. That specific version, originated by a Facebook user named “John Adams,” carries the telling caption, “I’m guessing this woman wishes she had not asked the question.” This is the ideological component of the War on Terror hard at work.

(For any masochists out there who might be interested, here is the whole Heritage Foundation conference on Benghazi in its brain-numbing, 3.5 hour entirety.)