In Defence of DiNovo, or why I’ve been looking for a new Socialist home (Updated)

Having followed the cannibalistic feeding frenzy by a small segment of fundamentalist Leftists on one of the its strongest advocates in public life has been nothing short of incredulous. On the whole, this could be just another day on the Left and could be dismissed as a rather benign episode of “pajama people”* and /or rabblerousers responding with unhinged disproportion at a perceived betrayal of their pure, fundamentalist politics. Such derangement, however, has been possible only on the back of a totally disingenuous interpretation of DiNovo’s actions and words, and has led to an unusual escalation culminating allegedly in threats of violence directed at DiNovo herself.

So what has DiNovo done that is so awful? To begin with, in babblean fundamentalist circles her first mistake was to treat a fellow MPP as a fellow parliamentarian and to show him anything other than contempt and disdain. DiNovo may have even used parliamentary and conciliatory language in dealing with Shurman. Shame indeed! In the rarefied world of pure antagonism of these fundamentalists, there is no nuance, there is no reverence, respect for alterity, and there is no forgiveness (a hospitable openness gifted in advance). In fact, in such a pure world, the enemy of one’s enemy becomes one’s friend, the friend of one’s enemy becomes one’s enemy, and ends justify means, regardless of how insidious those means.

Nonetheless, in order to entirely conflate DiNovo’s remarks and position on the IAW resolution with that of Peter Shurman’s requires nothing less than malicious and wilful misreading (something I used to call “pullin’ a Cherniak”, but now for nuance sake in Leftists circles I call it “pullin’ a Unionist”), as well as a flagrant decontextualization of the two speakers.

To begin, DiNovo clearly speaks from a radically different place than Shurman. She speaks as a woman, a feminist, a theologian, queer rights activist, and social justice activist (her track record of standing up for oppressed groups -Muslims, Tibetans, Ukrainians who suffered Holodomor etc… is unmistakable)** Next, although in her remarks, DiNovo, I believe rightly, agrees with Shurman on the need to call into question the term “apartheid”, she does so out of a desire for peace rather than a desire to absolve the State of Israel. And yes, peace means justice, and justice for everyone. Taking her cue from many Muslims themselves she spoke with, many of whom are not vested in the term apartheid, DiNovo pushes the need to talk about ending the occupation, to talk about the wall and for a two state solution. She in essence reiterates NDP federal policy, which even the National Post saw as her digression from Shurman’s resolution and the conservative position. And the National Post’s ability to deal with nuance is about as impaired as fundamentalist Leftists.

Then, there’s the issue of whether speaking in agreement to one part of a motion constitutes agreement with the entire resolution, and whether in fact the ONDP did give its voiced support for the resolution in the legislature.

All to say, Leftist derangement that led to its pillorying of DiNovo hinges on the preposterous establishment of equivalences between Shurman and DiNovo. Since the rabid Left exhibits the nuance of a two year old (I think here of the psychoanalytic term “ambivalence” that characterizes among other things excessive narcissism and I think “fundamentalism”) this led to deranged claptrap, assaults on her character, and, in my view, ultimately erodes the legitimacy of IAW.

When DiNovo’s egregious actions weren’t being met with derangement, they were met with a soft, “kind” patronizing admonishment that was in my view even more insulting. I’m thinking here of a letter circulated, by “academics”, I believe, in which they gave DiNovo an out by patting her on the head and saying “dear dear, you just don’t know all the facts, and just how bad it is over there. It’s not your fault you didn’t know how wrong you are.”

Give me a f*cking break. Given DiNovo’s education, her multi-faith background and her links to the Muslim community, not to mention to the Leftist/activist community, my sense is that she’s not in need of any lessons about the suffering and human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territory, especially not when those lessons issue from overprivileged, overeducated white boys whose acquaintance with deprivation is running out of Chardonnay at the Conference reception. I only resort here to hyperbole, because predictably also heard around rabble were comments like DiNovo deserves to experience first hand the deprivation in Gaza and so what if she’s receiving death threats, her actions in the legislature help perpetuate bloodshed in Gaza.

And then, there were attempts to extract a retraction and an apology from DiNovo and demand that she throw herself at the mercy of good willed progressives. This coming from babble, the epicentre of derangement, and from “Unionist” no less!! Yes, the same “Unionist” who initiates a discussion to extort an apology from DiNovo, and subsequently in that thread writes “And by the way, Sineed, while it’s not my place to ask her to apologize (as I mentioned from the outset), I have every right to condemn the shameful words she pronounced in public.” Hello! If it’s not your place to ask her to apologize, why start of discussion topic on it? This also the same Unionist who in that same topic grudgingly acquiesces that sending DiNovo death threats might be a wee bit over the top, but not nearly as egregious as her not having called the police. I wonder if her being out of the country has something to do with it.

Now onto the other big issue: the assault on free speech. This incidentally was the tac taken by reasonable Leftists with legitimate disagreement, but also by Leftists and NDP’ers who wanted to attack DiNovo (i.e. appease the dozen rabid Leftists and the three intimidating Islamists who complained vociferously), but had the decency not to use “the friend of my enemy must be my enemy” argument outlined above. You see, since DiNovo did not actually deviate from NDP policy on the Middle East, she could not be condemned for that (I’ve never heard Jack Layton refer to “Israeli apartheid”, have you?) Nonetheless, it is claimed that in her denunciation of the term apartheid, she attacked free speech. My short reply is no! She exercised her right to free speech and denounced speech designed to foreclose free speech. She correctly, in my opinion, condemned needlessly inflammatory and incendiary language in order to keep speech open not to close it down.

I suspect critics who see this as an assault on academic freedom and/ or free speech see this as egregious owing to the fact that this was uttered from a place of power and privilege and “suasion”. I agree that the position from which discourse issues is highly relevant. I suspect too that these critics would not view a similar condemnation of the term apartheid issued, for instance in an email or on the radio, as other than an expression of disagreement. While I’m sympathetic to the need to be vigilantly protective of our right to speak freely and openly, and I am sympathetic to the slippery slope argument, I don’t believe the DiNovo’s condemnation was wrong, nor do I fear that it could lead to labelling the term “Israeli apartheid” as hate speech.

While the resolution passed in the Ontario legislature does emanate not from an ordinary place, but a place of power, we do need to be careful. However, the resolution has at best “moral” suasion, and has no legal and authoritative power. These resolutions are brought forward all the time (e.g. I don’t recall an outcry when parliament guided public opinion and resolved to commemorate Holodomor), so the issue obviously isn’t one of parliamentarians exercising moral suasion. It was a toothless motion and given the current levels of respect for our political leaders and representatives, I’m thinking this resolution has little moral suasion. To call this censorship and McCarthyism is virtually to water down these terms to meaning disagreement. And if you censor disagreement, how will you know when the “real” censorship arrives.

That IAW would proceed as planned was never in doubt. There was never a call to silence or shut down IAW, rather a calling into question the deployment of a term, which even if descriptively accurate, is itself designed to preempt fair and open dialogue, is needlessly incendiary, and ultimately not at all useful if the objective is peace and justice for all. I recall speaking with a woman who is with Students for a Free Tibet who was perplexed at the thought of achieving peace by first slapping your enemy in the face. Tibetans, she argued, wish to speak with the Chinese, not insult them. By the way, here already lies an early warning to Palestinians that IAW is not really about them. IAW is not about peace and justice for Palestinians and Israelis, it is about a larger revolutionary project of resisting American power and dominance.

Nonetheless, I do agree that we must be careful each step of the way. I have no doubt that political groups will attempt to use this resolution to promote their political agendas.

With respect to this particular case, my problem with the deployment of the term “apartheid” in IAW is only as it pertains to the attempt to pass off IAW as an unbiased, free and open dialogue going on across university campuses. For in my view, and I have attended IAW events in the past, it is precisely on university campuses that this kind of monologic debate needs not to be shut down but at least and always challenged and called into question. “Israeli apartheid”, assuming apartheid is even an appropriate descriptor, does little other than to circumscribe the discussion within very narrow and highly volatile limits, to preempt disagreement, and to promote hostility, all of which in my view are anathema to university discourse.

As a rallying cry, as propaganda, as rhetoric for a social movement I have no objection to the deployment of the term Israeli apartheid. At least not in terms of its usefulness. It serves for the extreme Left a way to sharply demarcate its enemies and its allies. It serves to cleanly demarcate oppressors from victims. It serves to moralize the troops and fill them with information, as well as, far too often with hatred. While I believe in speaking truth to power, I believe the truth must be spoken out of love and forgiveness, not from a place of hate. And if the goal of this social movement is to broaden its base, I believe it needs to begin from a place of ethics, love, and justice, not antagonism and hatred.

This leads to a real objection I have with the term apartheid. There is a reason why the Left has prioritized the Palestinian struggle against its Israeli oppressors above many other geopolitical conflicts and injustices, and that’s because the Left sees this as a crucial battle in the war against neoliberal capitalist expansion and American hegemony. Fair enough, a noble war indeed! However, to the extent that capitalism is reducible to pure desire, as desire always for more, irrespective of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality etc., I find it highly ironic then, that the Left would vest so much in a term which is so laden with ethnic/racial identification, when in fact it’s not all about the Palestinian people per se, its about the fact that they stand locked and opposed to Israel. I’m not saying that IAW is anti-semitic, I’m saying it is anti-Israel to the extent that Israel is strategically critical to US empire building.

At the same time, this also goes along way to understanding why the event can’t be called Palestinian Liberation Week or any such combination of terms which might glorify and empower Palestinians. I hope I’m wrong, and excuse me for being harsh, the way I see it, what is critical for the Left is not who the Palestinians are in themselves but their relational status to the State of Israel.

While I certainly agree that victims shouldn’t have to be perfect in order to earn our solidarity, I also don’t think victims should be exalted to a place of almost divine abjecthood, of sublime object cause of our ideology, and the Left has a strong track record of doing so, starting with that most glorious and morally untouchable object: the Proletariat. But here I get stuck, I don’t really know where to go next. Is it possible to simultaneously be in solidarity with and to call into question, a victim? I get economic forces of oppression, I get the need to resist blaming the victim, and I understand the need to adopt a culturally relative approach. But I’m still troubled by the often appalling treatment of women and the ghastly treatment of “queers”, not to mention our reluctance to speak up against those abuses because of a group’s victimhood. It seems the only way to justify not speaking up is either intimidation or by entirely blaming an oppressor and thereby denying agency. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

* a handful of overeducated, overprivileged mostly geeky white males who have nothing better to do than troll the web all day in their pajamas from their hovels in Parkdale, provided they’ve managed to move out of their parents’ basements.

** it would be interesting to compare the Palestinian struggle not only with South African liberation movement, but also with the Tibetan struggle to return home
______________
Update:

I did forget to mention that Warren Kinsella needs to be graced with a Cherniak Award for his hypocrisy over this. A Cherniak award is given to a Liberal who displays exceptional degree of
malicious misreading, of willful distortion, of wanton decontextualization, of utter disingenuousness, and/ or basic intellectual dishonesty. When Warren pounced all over DiNovo for “losing it”, I’m left to wonder why he found it so objectionable, understanding that for Kinsella flagrant hypocrisy doesn’t apply to people who have handed him his ass in an election.

Regardless what could have been so objectionable from Kinsella’s point of view?
1. That she was being labelled a Zionist (something Kinsella all too readily admits). 2. That she lashed out at someone insulting her online (Kinsella’s online behaviour has not exactly been exemplary; he not only retaliates, he’s been known to commission online “lynchings” and outings of people through his blog, he’s made numerous sexist and racist gaucherie in public)
I also would think that Kinsella might have shown a little more sensitivity for someone who’s been receiving violent threats, since I’m sure he’s not unfamiliar with that territory.

Needless to say, my comment was not approved, but other interesting comments were. And one, by the very same Cherniak for whom the award is named, who chimed in to pile on DiNovo only to be questioned why he would object to DiNovo’s “zionism”. After all, it doesn’t get more rabidly zionist than Cherniak. At the same time, it does seem that Kinsella has had a change of heart and that the State of Israel may not be beyond reproach after all, since he’s quite content to allow a comment arguing in favour of Israeli apartheid.
Advertisements

Posted on March 15, 2010, in Babble, Cheri DiNovo, Warren Kinsella. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Very extensive post.I will first write that Ms. DiNovo had her reasons for voting in favour of Mr. Shurman's motion. I didn't agree with the motion. However, it was her choice to vote in favour of it.I will mention that I don't think DiNovo or Shurman deserve any threats against them. If people do threaten them, they should be prosecuted criminally if there is a legal offense.The problem for the provincial NDP was the party did not have a clear view on the situation in the Middle East. That left Ms. DiNovo to represent the NDP at the legisature. It also left a vacuum for NDP supporters to express their own views about what the NDP position should be.Had DiNovo or any other NDP MPP voted against Shurman's motion, that person would have been cruxified as being anti-semitic by the active supporters of Israel. (Pardon the religious reference.)Do have have an issue with Israel being called "an apartheid state?" No, I don't. Israel does treat Jewish and non-Jewish Israeli citizens differently. Arab Israelis get less funding per capita for education and toward Arab communities west of the Green Line. Arab Israelis do not have the same right to own certain property that Jewish Israelis have. The Israelis treat the Palestinians in living in the West Bank and Gaza strip very poorly. The Palestinians do not have the right to free movement within the West Bank. They do not have the right to enter or leave the West Bank or Gaza without Israeli permission. Israel resembles an apartheid state in my opinion. Does my reference to Israel as being an apartheid state make me anti-semitic? I don't know. I do know that I can criticize the United States without being labelled "anti-Christian."You may have a point that verbal attacks against Israel by the left may have to do with the United States' presence in Israel. The United States is a capitalist country. It is also an empire building country. I don't mean the kind of empire that existed in the 19th century. The US does let its presence be know both economically and militarily in many different parts of the world. If one looks at Israel, could that country survive without the economic and military assistance that the US provides? Maybe or maybe not. Is Israel the real target of IAW? Or is it the United States? I don't know.I don't think Israel Apartheid Week will disappear or go under a new name for the next few years. IAW is a good brand-name. It has more power than say, "Palestine Occupation Week." IAW is not a friendly name; it does attract media attention. IF IAW is negative, this negative publicity attracts more attention than no publicity.

  2. Thanks for taking the time to provide a thoughtful response, with which I am mostly in agreement.First, it's at the very least debatable whether she voted for it, given DiNovo's comments and Horwath's comments today, it might be fairer to say the NDP didn't vote in favour of the resolution.I think DiNovo's problem was that she spoke ethically and from the heart. She took a nuanced position, and one that focused on peace not hostility, and the fundamentalist Left that thinks the NDP should be a puppet to its hard line imploded. A very telling comment on babble was something to the effect that doesn't DiNovo know whom she represents (i.e. progressives/ babblers). No, she represents her constituents, progressives and non-progressive alike. If babblers who are also her constituents are dissatisfied with her representation then don't vote for her next time. Surely, DiNovo doesn't need to check with the babble apparatchik every time she speaks.But yes, it was a divisive and complex quagmire, and I think DiNovo performed admirably, others think she got trapped.Yes, as propaganda IAW is fine, but if it attracts media attention it's generally for all the wrong reasons, like this one. Deranged response- have you seen some of the latest topics on babble around this?- does not help.Thanks for not being deranged…

  3. Thanks for the reply.I try to wash the derangement out of my hair everyday.

  4. Thank you for your comment on http://nouspique.com. I think we agree on far more than not. Though I have an interest in the substantive concerns, I always begin with the prior question of how to engage in civil debate (which I think you do well). So I wouldn't have given the provincial motion a passing thought were it not for DiNovo's facebook comment about "white privileged men" which struck me as a bit of a lapse on her part. I don't care to be identified with the pajama brigade or the fundamentalist leftists. I do care to be identified as someone who can approach issues with nuance, can live with ambivalence and is capable of changing his mind or even of owning his occasional moments of stupidity. So I looked at the comment and thought "surely we can do better than this."In light of the rabid dogs that have set upon her, maybe the call for white privileged men to keep quiet was warranted. The kind of baiting that has fallen from this strikes me as a sad brand of entertainment for people who like the reality TV format but are too squeamish to admit it, so find comparable ways to get their kicks.So here are some thoughts:As you say, IAW is not engaged in dialogue. I'm thinking maybe there is something objectionable after all in using the word "apartheid" in its name. As I view it, there is a legitimate question, but the use of the word in the event's name does not suggest a question; it suggests a conclusion and does nothing to promote dialogue. Couple that with intimidation on campuses and that compounds the matter.Even so, this is a private organization and while its name may demonstrate a case of bad manners, attempts to style it as hate speech end up engaging that organization in a way that perpetuates an unwillingness to promote dialogue. As a private organization, it has the right to engage in bad manners. Given DiNovo's experience with queer advocacy, I think she would understand that sometimes you have to say things in extreme ways to draw attention to an issue that deserves attention but risks getting lost in the ceaseless buzzing of the media. Perhaps she did a little of that herself with her "white privileged men" comment.While I get your point about "moral suasion" and I note your caution in its exercise, I worry that when all the elected leaders of a province and an overwhelming majority of those in the country exercise their "moral suasion", it introduces a chilling effect. Not sure. That's a question.I agree with your analysis that this isn't really a pro-Palestinian movement but is "a crucial battle in the war against neoliberal capitalist expansion and American hegemony." This makes the rhetoric of solidarity farcical because nobody really gives a shit about real Palestinians. To be honest, not too many people give a shit about real Israelis either because both groups are pawns in rather narcissistic debate about Western power.

  5. nouspique,Respect! (says spurs while snapping fingers).Yes, we do agree on far more than not, but most importantly, I respect that you took the time to read through this entire post and responding thoughtfully and with care. Peace…

  6. Spurs, A well thought out position. I have always wondered why resonably progressive people couldn't disagree with the term "aparthied" without dismissed as a reactionary. I appreciate that lefties can disagree and still be considered lefties. You lay that out well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: