Reclaiming Zionism

"Fighting Racism, Return to Zionism

Last night, on the eve of the 15th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s murder, more than 1000 people gathered at Kikar Zion, in the heart of Jerusalem. The rally wasn’t a Rabin memorial but its date is significant and even metaphorical. While Rabin’s legacy looms larger than any of his actions- the moral from it is also clear: democracy and the quest for peace. It is over these principles that the rally was convened. Called, ”נאבקים בגזענות חוזרים לציונות”- Fighting the Racism and Returning to Zionism, the rally was sparked by the controversial loyalty oath, yet this wasn’t the main topic, rather the question was: how did we get here? What has our Zionism become?

Yes, the loyalty oath is serious, (as serious as Gideon Levy’s suggestion that we will become The Jewish Republic of Israel… I don’t know about that) but serious enough because it reflects the path we are taking and what our Jewish state represents. There was a time where many believed that Zionism was beautiful; Jews were returning to their ancient homeland to create a democratic state. Today all I hear is that Zionism=racism. To me, Zionism is just as beautiful as it was when Herzl first came out with “The Jewish State”- the problem is rather that my conception of Zionism is being hijacked. The Zionism presented to me today is reflected by ofracist policy and politicians, the neglection of peace, and lack of equality for all its citizens despite race or religion.

My Zionism wasn’t born out of exclusiveness, but in defense of being excluded. It was created in order to provide the threatened Jews of Europe opportunity to reach their potential, away from antisemitism in an effort to create a beacon of modern civilization in the Jewish ancient homeland. In many ways we have lived up to this, and become this beacon. We have provided to the world medical, scientific, agricultural and technological breakthroughs. We have a an amazing and unique culture. And we are the only democracy in the Middle East; and while we have our mistakes, we are still learning and growing.

While it is true that our country was born in a moment of war and therefore survival meant defense, we have never stopped letting ourselves be the victim and on the defense. (Not just militarily) We are the oppressors in occupied land, we claim we want to provide for peace, yet we keep onto this land for 43 years. We claim to be a democracy but we continue to worry about the rights of our majority, and neglect the rights of our minorities- these very same minorities that we have a duty to protect. (Rule of majority means defense of minority). After years of foreign rules, the persecuted Jewish nation is given their own land… and wouldn’t you think that the moment they received a non-Jewish minority, they would say to the world, “this is how you treat your minority”… yet we fail to live up to this. (The treat your neighbor the way you’d like to be treated principle) Instead we have chosen to alienate them, instead of bringing them closer.

So what is my Zionism? My Zionism is a Jewish state in the land of Israel. My Zionism is justice for Palestinians and Jews. My Zionism is democracy, equality and freedom within the state. My Zionism is peace. But most of all, my Zionism is the belief that we can make all this reality. When 1000 people gathered last night they weren’t just complaining about Lieberman’s bill, they were asserting the need to reclaim our Zionism. We need to step forward and preserve it… not by defending it, but by showing what it can be through our actions.

Dangerous Areas

View from Hebrew University of East Jerusalem and the West Bank (including the wall)

When I first moved to Israel I lived in the student dorms in Mount Scopus, at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. For those unfamiliar with the area, the Mount Scopus campus of Hebrew U is located in north-east Jerusalem. Therefore there are many Arab neighborhoods around the University.

The location never much mattered. However, soon many people began to think otherwise. The news was first announced to the overseas Undergraduates on a trip up north. They were told minimal news; only that 2 boys had been beaten up by Arabs near campus right near campus and student dorms. Rumors spread quickly. The next day there was a security meeting: I was sent e-mails about the emergency meeting and my roommate was even sent a text from the administration. Everyone was concerned.

So what happened? Two boys were walking to a nearby synogogue on Friday night. They looked Jewish- wore kippas. They were walking through the parking lot of a gas station when a group of young Arabs approached them. They were far outnumbered. In English they warned the boys that they could not pass, this wasn’t their place, and then they jumped on them, while they were talking. They hit one of the Jewish kids on the back of the head, and the other boy ran in the opposite direction. A large number of the Arab boys followed him, and the rest went after the other. The Jewish boy pulled out a pocket knife and the Arab boys ran away, he continued to run until he got to the security at the front of the student dorms. The other boy ran into the road, in front of a car and plead for help. They helped him, and the remaining boys ran off. However damage had been done, the one hit on the head was injured and spent some days in the hospital. All this happened only a few minute walk away from the front gates of the student dorms.

It was no wonder an emergency security meeting was adjourned. The University warned all the students (students from oversees who are Jewish, and non-Jewish) to be aware and careful walking through Arab neighborhoods- they were dangerous- as was obviously shown.

Sheikh Jarrah, an Arab (dangerous?) neighborhood near Hebrew University

But what does it mean to say that this or that any area is dangerous? Are we saying that Arab areas are inherently dangerous because they are Arabs? Why is there no mention of Jewish areas? After the meeting they issued a warning to not walk through east Jerusalem- especially during Ramadan, when religious fervor is high.

Speaking with my fellow students from the Univesrity, I asked them how they felt: did they perceive Arab areas as dangerous? Did they feel the same about Jewish areas- like Haradi neighborhoods such as Mea Shearim? There was a clear consensus: as long as they followed the Jewish rules; dressing modestly or keeping the laws of Shabbat on Shabbat, they felt safe walking through Jewish areas. However, the same line of thought did not follow from Arab neighborhoods. My friend said she walked through East Jerusalem to get to the old city, and although dressed modestly, she still felt uncomfortable: receiving cat-calls and looks the entire walk.

So what am I supposed to take from all of this? Jews are good. Arabs are bad. Have we all become racists? We can all so easily brand areas? Or is there truth here? Talking about the situations to one of the boys who fell victim to the Arab boys, I asked him if he felt like a racist after the situation. He said he didn’t hate Arabs, although he hated those that beat him up. He, like everyone else I spoke to, agreed that Arab neighborhoods were dangerous, and he had no problem admitting it, despite my question of racism… he after all had found out the hard way of what it means for an area to be dangerous.

This kind of branding is common all over the world. Like Harlem in New York, or Jane in Finch in Toronto. Yet we don’t attribute fault to the residents, but the conditions of the residents: because they are poor, or immigrants with low education. But the tone in Israel is different. The areas are dangerous because they are Arabs, not because the Arab neighborhoods are poorer than the Jewish ones, or that they are treated differently in a Jewish state.

Just last week, me and my Israeli cousin were driving home from a hiking trip up north. On the drive home a car irrationally and incredibly fast tried to pass by a car lineup and cut through traffic. My cousin said that he must be an Arab. I asked why, and he said because the car was shitty and he was driving too fast and dangerously: only an Arab would do that. I asked him if he thought this characterization was a little racist. He responded no, and that after all he was only telling the truth.

The Debate on the Jewish State

There has been a lot of ruckus lately in the Israeli media about the idea of Jewish state. Well, not the idea of a Jewish state per se, but the debate over whether the PLO, specifically Abas, must recognize that in a two state solution, one state is comprised of a Jewish nation. Netanyahu said that in order for peace to be achieved, the Palestinian nation must recognize Israel as a Jewish state made of a Jewish nation. But… why is this pretext so incredibly important to Bibi, and is it so important?

I have been reading Netanyahu’s book “a Durable Peace”- revised and re-edited in 2000 (originally written in 1993 and called “A place among the nations”) and written for an English and American audience. In the book, Netanyahu firmly defends his conception of Zionism and the importance of a Jewish state for a Jewish nation. He writes about ancient Jewish attachment to the land of Israel, which prevailed through years and years of exile. The perpetual Jewish longing for Zion, is one of the basis for the justification that the Jewish nation lacks its state but meets the criteria for a nation that needs a state. Therefore, he explains the world leaders understood this idea when they met in Versailles to cut up the world into nation-states. The Jewish people were a nation, like any other nation, but lacked their own state. This was acknowledged in the writing of the Balfour declaration, which promised the Jewish people, who at this time, drunk with Zionist ideology were sewing the land of Palestine: their ancient land. Coupled with later history: the Holocaust and the exile of thousands of Arab Jews from Arab lands, the Jewish state become an even more important idea to Netanyahu. Therefore to see Israel in any other way (other than a Jewish state) would oppose its very legitimacy, according to Bibi.

In fact for so long Bibi even denied the legitimacy of the nation of Palestine. He claimed that any nationalism felt by Palestinians did not deserve a state- because that state was clearly already created- and called Jordan. If Jordan was carved out of the original Palestine by Britain (the same Palestine that was promised to the Jews in the Balfour declaration) than the area of the land, now Jordan (East of the Jordan river) should have the same significance to all Arabs as the land which is not the State of Israel (West of the Jordan river)
However, Netanyahu neglects to write about the effect of history on a people. Perhaps the peoples who lived in “greater Palestine” (Transjordan and Israel) 200 years ago felt nationalism towards all of this land (if even there was such a thing as nationalism in Arab lands 200 years ago…) but those Arabs who grew up under the creation of the Jewish state, and then occupation by the Jewish state- would feel different than those Arabs growing up in Jordan, and absorbed into their society. In short- Israel helped create their identity- and national longing for self-determination. (Whether that is expressed in radical, violent measures or moderate peaceful measures)

But what of it all in terms of a Jewish nation? To Netanyahu, being a nation legitimizes why Jews need/have a state. A nation has again and again been persecuted and lived under foreign rule is justified a state- and this sentiment has been recognized twice over by the world- once at Versailles (and Balfour declaration) and the second through the UN Vote in November 1947, partitioning the land, and granting the Jews a state, alone justifies Israel.

Abbas is obviously and justifiable so, hesitant to throw around this definition, “Jewish state” because, it denies national rights to the Arab population within Israel. It also denies them the feeling of complete statehood- as if this state can never be completely theirs. But in terms of negotiations, for Abbas to recognize the Jewish state, rejects the Palestinian concept of right of return to Israel- any number of return. It assumes that this right is illegitimate, because they are not Jews partaking in a Jewish state, despite any claim they might believe they have to the land.

But is it really important for us? If there is peace and if the land is split it signifies that both sides want to create peace with one another. It means that in some way that Abbas recognizes that we are some kind of people: shouldn’t this be enough? Are we so unsure of our own identity that we have to have our neighbors confirm it as well? We can’t just be happy as Israel, but must also be validated as Jewish Israel? How integral is this concept?

I’m beginning to see this idea as integral to Israel and its future survival. I know that I have and always will believe in Israel as a Jewish state for the Jewish nation, this to me is obvious. Yet if we don’t have the confirmation from outside, it delegitimizes the policies that Israel will enact in the future. Israel can never be as democratic as it wants to be as a Jewish state; in less it becomes a nation of all its peoples there will always be problems with its religious minorities. But those policies that it does enact to preserve and encourage its Jewish character will seem as racist and exclusive without understanding the beginnings and motivations of Zionism and the Jewish state. Israel can’t act alone in the world as if it is isolated within a bubble- it needs to act as though it is in a theater of other nations. It shouldn’t have to ask permission for every policy it enacts from the rest of the world, but something as significant as its definition as a state is something that the rest of the world- especially its partner in peace- needs to understand. However, at the same time, peace is something that is so important for the preservation of the Jewish state, that perhaps the recognition of the Jewish nation as a pretext to peace negotiations is not necessarily important. If peace is achieved, than this idea can eventually be pursued.

Reflections on the eve of renewed peace talks...

I woke up this morning to the news that four people had been gunned down and found dead in their car.

The details explain that this was a terrorist attack, carried out by Hamas, against four Jewish settlers in the West Bank. After years of relative calm, this disguising murder was perpetrated.

As Israelis across the country weep for the lives of four people, Hamas supporters in Gaza and the West Bank celebrate over the deaths. There are pictures of children in Gaza, waving green Islamic flags – they believe that Hamas is successfully fighting for their “freedom” against the evil occupiers. Those evil occupiers: all Israelis, not simply the settlers.

This attack comes at a critical time: the day before direct peace talks in Washington, between Abbas and Netanyahu.

It is no coincidence. Its consequences are reverberating all over this country, and beyond. The settlers came out with a statement today claiming that this murder justifies them to break the settlement freeze- of which they plan to do at 6:00pm today. The Palestinian Authority is trying to make good to America, and in one of their biggest group arrests, has arrested over 300 Hamas supporters. People are claiming that Hamas is trying to spoil the peace talks- in an attempt to scare Netanyahu away. However, Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad both condemned the attack and vowed to prevent any further terrorist attacks.
Yet, no matter the reaction, the murder has created a dark cloud over the entire peace talks. Israelis are reminded, yet again, of their security issues, and the horrible means of which Hamas will take to pursue their goals. And as settlers rear to continue building in the West Bank, Palestinians are reminded, yet again, of on what land will their state be created.
George Mitchell has said that the attack only shows how critical peace is and that Obama is putting the peace talks at top priority. He hopes that within the year there will be an agreement. Shimon Peres has made a statement saying that we should put our faith in the peace process- don’t let terrorism win. Obama has said that only peace in the region can bring about a different path.

But… is anyone convinced? Today’s attack only proves how difficult the situation really is.

In Annapolis, in 2007, Ehud Olmert, Mahmoud Abbas and George Bush convened, and together they spoke and decided that in one year there will be peace, following the two state solution. There was even a countdown in Tel Aviv. But 3 years later, are we any better off? What hope have we to put in these peace agreements? What’s better now? A right government coalition, instead of Olmert’s center left? Already it doesn’t look like Bibi has any intention of renewing the settlement freeze , and if he doesn’t Abbas has threatened to pull out of talks immediately. But does that even matter when settlers are going to build either way, and terrorists are going to kill either way?

I’ve always tried to be hopeful when it comes to this peace process. I was brimming with excitement when the leaders met in Annapolis. But it failed… it fell in line with all the other attempts at peace. Are we doomed to live in this status quo forever?

I’ve always believed that terrorism has been a symptom rather than a disease. We have to treat the real problem- the occupation. If a real two state solution was created, self-determination and self rule would help to empower Palestinians to believe in Fatah rather than Hamas. To believe in peace rather than violence. To pursue education and careers instead of martyrdom. Younger generations are growing up learning violent radicalism because they have no hope. After all- what has Fatah offered to them?

Israelis are growing embittered and fed up with the situation- there is no trust. There is a growing right winged Zionist nationalist movement in support of settlers and the status quo. The thought is that despite a peace- there will still be terrorism, because Palestinians are growing up radical- it’s not simply a land issue it’s religious one.

I know that I still believe in the ideas of peace, but how much can I believe in its reality? The issues are so sticky and run so deep that every possible solution has a counter argument. I can remember myself in November 2007, I was incredibly hopeful, but then incredibly let down. So what can I think now, on the eve of renewed peace talks? I can only pray to be surprised, I can only pray that this time it does work, and I can only pray that there will be peace.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010 a

Becoming Israeli

As my El Al plane touched the ground in Israel and the usual clapping commenced, I realized… I have no ticket home, I’m not here as a tourist, I’m not part of any program or group, I am just here- here to live… forever (so to speak). And then I thought… so that’s it… I finally did it: I made aliyah. There was no more struggling with the prospect of it, what would it mean? What would I do? How could I leave my friends and family? It was a done deal, I was an Israel. I am about to walk off this plane, and receive my Teudat Olah (Immigration card) I remember shaking a bit. I was all alone but I wished I could dance in the aisles of the plane singing old Israeli songs and Jewish songs. I wanted everyone on the plane to look at me and say MAZAL TOV! I wanted to walk off the plane and see people waving welcome signs, and Israeli flags, and handshake Shimon Peres. But alas, none of this happened. As the plane came to a stop, I collected by things from the overhead, like everyone else. I got in line to exit the plane, like everyone else, and upon my debarkation for the plane, only one man with a small sign with my name was there to greet me. No one knew I was making Aliyah, so instead I was alone. The experience was almost anti-climatic. As me and the representative from AACI walked towards the immigration office in the airport, I saw my cousin- she had come to the gate (she works for the airport) and ran up to hug me and wish me Mazal Tov. You’re here! You made it it! ! I You’re Israeli now! And it was if all my loneliness and fears quickly dissipated. I’m here! I made it! I’m Israeli! My arrival isn’t anti-climatic, rather my arrival is simply my beginning.

3 weeks later, and things are only getting better. Yes, while it is true that I’ve also been struggling through the Israeli beaurocracy, I’m still so incredibly thankful that I’m here, and sure I made the right decision. I think that the decision to become Israel, rather than be born Israeli is something very special. I know I’ll never feel authentic, like a sabra of the land, but I’ve created the room and the opportunity to grow a connection to the land in a way a native born does not. I chose Israel, it did not choose me. My process of becoming Israeli is something I’m incredibly excited for. The prospect of talking about politics and religion in a setting where I know have an actual stake in, is so meaningful to me. I no longer have to hear and simply discuss what is happening in Israel, this is now my land too, in a more tangible way that it was before. Especially because last year I lived in Israel, but I felt as though something was missing. So even though the actual getting off the plane didn’t seem like the most excited event in the world, my move here and my days that have passed, have proved that from my beginning, things will only go up!

IDF- The best (and most moral?) time of your life

Recently, Eden Abergil, an Israeli and former IDF soldier (discharged last year) posted some “controversial” photos of herself and Palestinians on her facebook page. In an album labeled, “IDF- the most beautiful time of my life,” Abergil, in IDF uniform, is posing with Palestinian prisoners while they are blindfolded and handcuffed. The comment under the picture, posted by a friend, reads, “That looks really sexy for you”, while Abergil jokes back that she should find the prisoner on Facebook and tag him. (This is one of the topics in Tuesday’s Reading List)

I am questioning whether these photos are controversial because Abergil herself denies that there’s any controversy in them. In an interview with Army Radio last Thursday, Abergil claims she still doesn’t understand what’s wrong with the pictures because they were taken in good will–only to depict her military experience.

The first time I saw the photos, I was flabbergasted and shocked. It’s disguising the way that these Palestinians, prisoners or not, are being used as mere objects. A soldier’s duty in taking prisoners should be one of the more difficult tasks of being in the army. Having to handcuff and blindfold another human being shouldn’t be categorized as the “best time of your life.” And so it shocks and abhors me even more that Abergil never saw anything wrong with these photos, posted them on facebook and joked about them. This kind of attitude, point of view and behavior have obviously become normalized within Israel. I have been told that the IDF is the most moral army in the world; yet, I can’t cover up this action as something that fits my idea of morality.

To Israeli teens, the army is their life come age 18. While American teenagers pack off for college for the “time of their life,” Israelis are handed guns and uniforms for “the time of their life.” There are great things that the army does for Israelis: it adds years of maturity, exposes them to experiences and understanding of the other, offers them camaraderie and friendship unlike anything outside the army, and it allows them to do service for their country– todefend, stand up for and love Israel. But at the same time, it’s still the army. At the end of the day the fact that Israel still needs a standing army isn’t a good thing. I pray that by the time I have children, there won’t be compulsory service: peace is the song of all our hearts. Yes, there are advantages to needing an army, but we all know that war is bad, and soldiers are used for war. But when did this kind of conduct become normalized in Israeli society? Today it was Abergil that posted the pictures, but her friends commented jokingly and I’m sure she is not the only person doing such things. Her denial of guilt that her actions are justified rather than seeing them as “base and crude”, as an IDF spokesman was quoted saying, really do reveal a societal normalization, which frankly scares me.

Before she posted the picture, did she ask herself who this man was who was handcuffed beside her? We know he was a Gazan attempting to escape into Israel. We don’t know who he is- sure, he could be a bloodthirsty terrorist, but he could also be a man attempting to escape the bad conditions of life in Gaza in search of something (or someone, a family member) in Israel. In the picture he’s a prisoner; an object, not a man. His humiliation in the photograph of a girl depicting the “best time of her life” is rude, stupid and immoral. Not the reflection of the most “moral army in the world;” yet this only reveals how much of those morals filter down to the 18, 19 and 20 year olds who are actually in the army- and what has become normalized in their lives.

A Political Parade

I last blogged about the controversy surrounding Pride Toronto’s decision to ban the group “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid” from marching in this year’s pride parade. Since then, the controversy has done anything but slow down. After the decision, QuAIA accused the city of censoring their freedom of speech and organized resistance in an attempt to overthrow the decision. Their efforts prompted widespread condemnation from within the LGBT community. (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community) On June 23rd, under pressure from the LGBT community, Pride Toronto decided to remove the ban against QuAIA. The group celebrated success for overthrowing the ban on their free speech, and promised to be the “loudest and largest part of Pride this year”.

In my last blog I confided in my joy that QuAIA was banned from the parade. I believed that QuAIA was spreading hate and ignorance towards Israel and I worried about the bystanders who would be unfairly swayed. My statements were criticized: my fear, that allowed me to support censorship, was accused of being unfounded because the media and public are not as “susceptible and defenseless” as I believed they were. Instead I should trust that the media and my fellow citizens have the ability to think critically. Sure enough, my worries were unfounded. What followed from QuAIA’s ban, and then removal of that ban was an attack from the media against QuAIA, rather than support towards them. Mainstream media (Toronto’s most popular newspapers, The Toronto Star and the National Post) did not sympathize with QuAIA, but attempted to expose their hypocrisy. Journalists questioned the morality of QuAIA singling out Israel in their campaign for human rights. They pointed out the horrible conditions homosexuals have in all the middle eastern countries surrounding Israel, and also the supposed apartheid in Lebanon. The conclusion became that because QuAIA singles out Israel, “an oasis for homosexuality”, they clearly have some anti-Jewish state issues, rather than regular, healthy criticism of Israel’s government and politics. It is this perceived negative attitude that had everyone worried. Justine Apple who is the executive director of Kulanu Toronto, a Jewish LGBT social and educational group, said that QuAIA’s participation in the parade will create a “toxic and fearful environment”.

Within the Jewish community, the attitude towards QuAIA is negative: many are up in arms and on the defensive. Their strategy has been to flatter Israel by promoting it’s democracy and support for homosexuality. QuAIA is portrayed as an antisemitic group out to unfairly demonize Israel.

With this thick air of controversy surrounding the parade, I decided to go and check it out for myself. Notwithstanding QuAIA, I was very excited for the parade, this is after all a celebration of Toronto’s LGBT community! When I arrived at the parade, I wanted to talk to members of both QuAIA and Kulanu. Upon finding Kulanu, I was immediately taken aback.

Their group looked more like a rally in support of Israel than a Jewish LGBT group. Speaking with Len Rudner of Kulanu, he expressed to me that despite what it looked like, Kulanu was marching in support and in celebration of Toronto’s Jewish LGBT community. When questioned about the staggering amount of Israel flags and signs promoting Israel’s support for it’s LGBT community, he said that the group is also speaking up for Israel’s LGBT community. They are walking with a positive voice of inclusiveness. However, I think that Kulanu’s mission was hijacked by Jews acting in defense of Israel reacting to QuAIA’s participation in the parade. The presence of the controversial group, Jewish Defense League, who marched with the group, gave me this hunch.

Elle Flanders of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, points to this action by Kulanu (allowing the JDL to march with them) as an action of divisiveness. She claims that Kulanu is not provoking conversation but rather, defending Israel at all costs. She believes they are simply calling wolf on antisemitism, instead of creating debate and conversation on the issues. To Flanders, it is so important for QuAIA to march in the parade because to her, to be queer is to be a human rights activist. She argues that the struggle against oppression is a political struggle that the Pride Parade has been dealing with ever since it began, 30 years ago. Just because the LGBT community in Toronto has been afforded rights, doesn’t mean they are going to stop fighting for basic human rights for people, everywhere in the world, wherever that may be. Yael, a Jewish Israeli now living in Toronto, who marched with QuAIA, insists that there is no democracy in occupation and therefore no democracy for the Palestinians. This issue is therefore correlated to gay issues because as the LGBT community had to fight for their democratic rights in the past, now privileged with these rights, they must fight for those without them. Just as the Jews fought in the civil rights movements in America, one formerly oppressed group has a sort of obligation to fight for all those oppressed.

Is QuAIA a hate group? Are they discriminatory, as they have been again and again accused? Flanders argues vehemently against this statement. QuAIA are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, fighting for their rights as humans. She claims the group does not hate Jews (many members are Jews and Israelis). Yet, for me there is still something incredibly uncomfortable in their name; when I asked Flanders why the negative name, she responded that sometimes you can’t just be in solidarity with something, you have to take a stand, make a statement, stir controversy. Sex sells- right?!

However, to me the name doesn’t stand for a criticism of Israel’s government and politics, it criticizes Israel right down to it’s core- right to it’s legitimacy. An Apartheid state suggests illegitimacy and therefore to be anti-Israeli apartheid suggests an attack against the state itself; not Israeli policies. While I’m the first to say that criticism against Israel’s government is not only warranted but essential for it’s own survival and upkeep of it’s democratic values, I think that QuAIA takes it one step too far by fumbling over the line of criticism into the realm of state permissibility. An apartheid state needs to be dismantled but Israel needs to end it’s occupation of the West Bank.

As the march began, the crowd was impressed by QuAIA, with it’s cute and catchy slogans like, “hey hey! ho ho! Israeli apartheid’s got to go!” and how it walked beside the reactionary group “free speech”. (Free speech was a group created in May as a reaction against Pride’s original ban against QuAIA: the group does not necessarily politically agree or disagree with QuAIA but supports their right to free speech) While Kulanu got the occasional cheer, the Israeli music that was played did not connect to most of the non-Jewish, non-Israeli crowd. Their group looked more like a poster for Israel than an expression of pride for Toronto’s Jewish LGBT community.

At the end of the day, the controversy that had been following the parade for months now did not signify the end of the world. The crowd did not turn into bloodthirsty antisemitic Israel hating people poisoned with QuAIA rhetoric. So by the time both groups had proudly marched by me, I just began to feel fed up. QuAIA does have some legitimate points, but they take it too far for me… yet at the same time so did Kulanu. The issue may have been pushed to the front pages of Toronto’s newspapers, but all that was said was a bunch of nothing. No intellectual conversation was forged, no debates began and no understandings were made, and the issue of the parade, gay pride.. was pushed to the side.