Clearly there are a lot of strong feelings and reactions to the events of the SSMU fall semester GA this year. I am speaking as a person with some knowledge of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and who read the motion as it was proposed, as well as someone who was present at the GA and who has spent several hours reading through the various posts and comments about this series of events. I think the ideas that I am about to present could be beneficial both for the people who support either side of the issue and for the people who are neutral or who have not yet decided on a stance to consider. Read on, or not, it’s your choice, but for anyone who wants to move forward from last night’s events, rather than just sit and stew and endlessly discuss what happened, etc., etc., then I would recommend giving me a chance here. I would first like to say that despite what some people seem to think, there was indeed a debate about aspects of the conflict by way of the debate to postpone the motion or not, as most, if not all, of the people who got up to speak provided reasoning for their stance on whether or not to postpone. However, I do not think there was a full debate about the issue because the motion to postpone passed. In order to rectify this, which is something that I think many people want to see happen, I have several suggestions. I suggest that if a group wants to propose another motion in relation to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (and all that it entails), it should try to consider the issue from all angles possible, whether or not they agree with all of those angles, and include them in the motion. I think that many people have trouble doing this because they lack the quantity and quality of knowledge about all aspects of the conflict that they would need to make a properly informed choice. It is important to be well informed, especially about an issue like this. The nature of the conflict, as one that has existed for decades and also one that has damaged and destroyed many lives, means that many people are highly sensitive to it and have biases as a result of personal histories, family, friends, and experiences. As a result, they cannot approach the conflict and surrounding issues from a position of neutrality, and weigh the arguments before choosing a stance. It was also clearly stated several times that people did not feel that they were safe at McGill in expressing their thoughts on the issue. This is quite concerning indeed, as McGill is situated in a country with freedom of expression and speech laws, so long as they are not harming or infringing on another’s rights. I think a possible cause of this issue is that people can feel personally attacked when someone tries to engage in some sort of conversation or speech about it from a very specific viewpoint (for example, something like “down with Palestinians/Israelis!”), in a setting where they should not necessarily expect to be confronted with such messages on their way to, say, class on an average day (although is the Y intersection ever empty of some overexcited group or other?). It has been suggested that if not on university campuses, then where should discussion about issues take place, and that is a valid point, and I would advise you to read on in order to see it manifested. Lastly, it seems that what was desired on Wednesday at the GA was an in-depth discussion and debate about the issues surrounding the Israel/Palestine conflict, namely the treatment of Palestinians and human rights issues. However, many people felt that the motion was too one-sided and needed to be more inclusive of Palestinian groups/individuals who were responsible for human rights abuses of Israelis. I think many people thought the motion was too narrow in general as well, but it is indeed hard to include everything that needs to be included, and I’m not even going to attempt to summarize it here (thinking that would be fairly hypocritical). Although there were some arguments that a SSMU GA was indeed the correct setting for such a discussion/debate to take place, there was certainly no consensus on that idea and, in fact, many people were of the opinion that the conflict/issues that the motion regarded were too divisive in nature and inappropriate to be taken on by SSMU and at a GA. If you’re still reading at this point, I congratulate you and thank you, because I am now about to explain why I’ve written all of this and you’ve read it. If what is truly desired by many people who spoke last night is discussion and debate about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the resulting issues, then here is my grand (and last) suggestion: Instead of submitting a motion for SSMU to take a side, put your energy into organizing an event(s) for actual discussion/debate about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that is primarily educational in nature, with equal representation and information from supporters of both groups, as well as about the other actors involved. Talk about all of the issues that are related to this conflict. Make an event that is open (i.e. has enough seats) for all of the students at McGill to participate in. Make it about uniting McGill in the face of a conflict not by trying to convince others on which side to take, but by emphasizing that we are all human, and regardless of our personal or group identities, regardless of our faults and our virtues, at the end of the day, we are all the same. Ask what kind of life we want to live: one focused on differentiating and condemning, or one that recognizes that despite inheriting a world full of hate and strife, we can let our similarities outweigh our differences and start focusing on the good that we can bring to the world, instead of perpetuating the bad that others before us created. If we really believe that we can make a difference, we can try to work towards ending the conflict by uniting those who stand on opposite sides and by stopping the taking of sides all together. This might sound naïve to many people, but I do think that if many of your peers are telling you that a SSMU GA is not the place in which they’d like to have such a discussion/debate, and that this is an issue that they don’t think SSMU should take a stance on, as it would represent the entire undergraduate student body, then you should listen, and figure out another way to have your discussion. I have suggested organizing your own event. Many people did not say they didn’t want to have a debate, they said that this way of facilitating it wasn’t the appropriate way to do it. If you advertise and get people’s attention in a respectful way, and if you clearly explain your motives, so long as they are not just about picking sides and condemning whoever, I’m sure you will be able to have the kind of discussion and debate that you want. So, my question for you is this: do you truly want discussion and debate? If so, I hope that this has helped you in thinking about how to facilitate that. If not, I hope the next generation can learn from our mistakes. Food for thought. (And thank you for reading to the end.)
Posted on: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:30:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015