Tory approach to Jewish voters angers Grits

[newuser2k9]

Palestinians are an ethnic group while the LTTE is a terrorist organization that while claiming to represent Sri Lankan Tamils often victimizes them just as much as their political enemies. A more direct comparison would be between Palestinians and Sri Lankan Tamils, or between the LTTE and Hamas. In both cases, it is important to draw a distinction between the civilians on the ground and the groups claiming to represent them - not all of the people support these organizations, and I would wager most of them do so only as a last resort. Once the harsher forms of repression are eliminated and dialogue is opened up, I would imagine many of those who today support or have in the past supported Hamas, the LTTE, etc. will turn to disapprove of their violent methods. Witness, for example, the major decline in support for the IRA, the ETA, etc. once conditions improved for Irish Catholics and Basques in Spain respectively. Remember, just decades ago the situation in Northern Ireland seemed like it would go on for much longer than the conflict in Israel/Palestine.

Was Hamas not democratically elected by the Palestinians, taking over Gaza after the Israeli pullout? Had any Tamils who opposed the LTTE left the northeast or the country as a whole? You bet.

The lines between these organizations and governments is obscured at best. What the Palestinians in Gaza have and the Tigers had are pseudo-states, lacking only formal recognition, and, in the Gazans' case, control of borders and civil airspace. In any event, the point I was trying to make was that the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict has been turned into a much more contentious issue than any other conflict in recent history, with a lot of support going to the Palestinian cause, whereas the similar Sri Lankan civil war did not see the same outpouring of support for the Tamils in the region. The similarities are astounding; you'd think the UN would issue more directives against Sri Lanka by now.

 

[toraerach]

Was Hamas not democratically elected by the Palestinians, taking over Gaza after the Israeli pullout? Had any Tamils who opposed the LTTE left the northeast or the country as a whole? You bet.

The lines between these organizations and governments is obscured at best. What the Palestinians in Gaza have and the Tigers had are pseudo-states, lacking only formal recognition, and, in the Gazans' case, control of borders and civil airspace. In any event, the point I was trying to make was that the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict has been turned into a much more contentious issue than any other conflict in recent history, with a lot of support going to the Palestinian cause, whereas the similar Sri Lankan civil war did not see the same outpouring of support for the Tamils in the region. The similarities are astounding; you'd think the UN would issue more directives against Sri Lanka by now.

While there are similarities, there are also important differences. Firstly, and probably most importantly, the international community has, as far as I know, never recognized Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza - the Sri Lankan government's claim to the entire island dates back to independence and is (again, as far as I know) universally acknowledged (not to say there isn't any support for the self-determination of Sri Lankan Tamils). When it comes to international law, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal, whereas the Sri Lankan government's occupation of Tamil-dominated areas of the island is completely legal (though the ways in which the government enforces this occupation might not always be). The international community must treat civil wars differently from illegal occupations lest they violate a state's territorial integrity (although given what happened in Kosovo, it wouldn't be unprecedented for the international community to get involved). Secondly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes place on land the three largest religions in the West (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) consider holy - Hindus and Buddhists killing each other in some island nation off the coast of India just doesn't have the same immediacy to Western culture. Westerners may have emotional attachments to the "Holy Land" based on religious beliefs - Jerusalem, Jericho, Bethlehem, etc., we know the names of these cities already and they carry thousands of years of baggage. How many people in Canada, the US, Europe, etc. have ever heard of Jaffna?

Finally, the international community has been involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since before Israel even existed. It has always been there trying to divide lands between the two parties, though the dividing lines have shifted many many times. Israel's expansion into Palestinian territories (and even further into Sinai and the Golan Heights) has always occurred during conflicts with neighbouring nations. Though Israel rarely started these conflicts, it is not legal under international law to annex territories occupied during wartime. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been an international conflict since day one. The Sri Lankan civil war has been, comparatively, much more isolated. While Britain's role in laying the groundwork for this conflict during the colonial era might be an interesting area for further research, and while the conflict certainly has spilt over into neighbouring countries (especially India), it is still widely viewed as being a domestic matter. The international community can only do so much to intervene in the Sri Lankan conflict while the government controls who gets into and out of the country and where they can go, and there is no internationally recognized government for Sri Lankan Tamils to lobby on their behalf (no counterpart to the Palestinian Authority).

Intervening in the Sri Lankan conflict would be difficult to justify as governments would have to completely blind themselves to international law (though, again, NATO and the UN's involvment in Kosovo undermines this argument). It's not that I think we should take a laissez-faire approach to the situation there, but there are reasons why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has such great sway over our politics here in a way that the Sri Lankan Civil War (or, for that matter, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the conflict in Western Sahara, etc.) simply cannot at this point in time. In general, it's just a lack of knowledge on the parts of your everyday citizens in countries like ours (how many people here were actually aware of the Sri Lankan conflict before the Tamil protests last year?).

And, of course, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the debate surrounding it is charged with words like "anti-semitism," "islamophobia," and "apartheid" - words we all understand.

 

[newuser2k9]

You bring up some interesting points, and I feel a little bad not having the time to type up a full response:

Beliefs definitely play a part, but if that was the main pillar, interest should be waning with Western regions.

Sovereignty over both Palestinian lands is more complex than a simple military occupation, because, although certain bodies think otherwise, neither has been claimed by a nation for more than two decades and peace treaties were formed between all involved belligerents (Jordan was offered the West Bank multiple times). It's a total legal grey area, although international law hardly holds much weight nowadays. It's true that Israel's war has spread far beyond its borders into states like Syria and Lebanon, but on the same hand lots of nations do violate borders to fight terrorist groups, such as the US in Pakistan, because organisations don't have to conform to borders. Not only did the Tigers get entangled with the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, but long before were they running large logistical and training operations in Tamil Nadu. That's one of the reasons why I bring up Sri Lanka, because one can see both conflicts equally as the pains of reneging Empire lands; Israel is certainly not the longest and definitely not the oldest.

The other reason I bring up the Sri Lankan Civil War is the local influence. Both the Jewish community and the Sri Lankan Tamil communities very large and distinct within the city and metro area, yet even still your average Torontonian is not as polarized about the Tamils. While the Jewish community might be older, the Tamils have done a good job establishing firm roots. So why do Torontonians care about one conflict more and empathise so much more with an almost inexistent minority (Palestinian) within the city?

 

[urbandreamer]

^Again, it goes back to religion. How many Torontonians have roots in the Hindu/Buddhist faith vs the Judeo-Christian one? I've been to many dozens of different xtian faiths and they all eventually tackle the Jewish topic. Also, I think the Toronto Jewish community is better integrated with the majority than the Tamils. The tamils are relatively new immigrants to the GTA, and have yet to infiltrate mainstream media, universities, politics, etc. Let's give them another century for that to happen.

Do I care about either Israelis or Tamils? No. But I'd rather date Israeli girls. (With that in mind, possibly the sexiest girl I've ever known was Palestinian Muslim. A pity she was already married....)

 

[toraerach]

The other reason I bring up the Sri Lankan Civil War is the local influence. Both the Jewish community and the Sri Lankan Tamil communities very large and distinct within the city and metro area, yet even still your average Torontonian is not as polarized about the Tamils. While the Jewish community might be older, the Tamils have done a good job establishing firm roots. So why do Torontonians care about one conflict more and empathise so much more with an almost inexistent minority (Palestinian) within the city?

I think it does have to do with the Jewish community's history in not only Canada, but also in Europe and the US. I mean, so much of the cultural material we consume here is from Europe or the US, and much of that cultural material does have to deal with Jews (everything from the Canterbury Tales to the Nanny, from the Merchant of Venice to Schindler's List, etc.). Due to this, Jews and Judaism are just much more familiar to your average Torontonian than anything Tamil - and that's not even getting into the religious stuff. Sri Lankan Tamils just don't have the same pervasiveness in our culture (the only example I can think of being M.I.A.). That's not to say they haven't done a great job in getting their issues out. A few years ago I doubt many Torontonians knew about the Sri Lankan conflict (or even what a Tamil was), but thanks to the protests last year they've entered our local cultural memory.

At the same time, I think people here might feel more complicit in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Canada wasn't free of the anti-semitism that justified the creation of Israel (check out King's policies towards Jewish refugees during the Holocaust), and some of it was played out in the streets of Toronto (check out the history of Christie Pits). Canada and Canadians have and continue to support Israel both financially and politically. We've been involved in this conflict since its begining. It's a different story when it comes to Sri Lanka. Historically, we are linked to Sri Lanka through our shared history in the British Empire and continued links through the Commonwealth, but I doubt that relationship was ever very intimate. We supported the decolonization and independence of Sri Lanka, sure, but how deeply were we involved in the rise of Singhalese nationalism and the actions of the Sri Lankan government when it came to its Tamil population? Probably not very (and if we were, knowledge of that involvement isn't widespread at all).

Then there's the US's unwavering support of Israel. George W. Bush probably did more to increase support for the Palestinian cause in the West than anyone with how pro-Israel he was. Israel's oppression of the Palestians became one aspect of this vast system of American global power. Those opposed to American hegemony through Bush's presidency found common cause with the Palestinians and those who supported them. Meanwhile, from what I understand, the US has never really gotten involved in the Sri Lankan conflict (aside from designating the LTTE a terrorist group). Certainly, we do not see grand statements from the White House (or Ottawa for that matter) on how anyone pro-Tamil is anti-Singhalese (and even if they did, that term is not nearly as charged as the word "anti-semitism"), or on how the Sri Lankan government is justified in its actions on the grounds of national security. On the other hand, they really can't come out and support the LTTE as it is a designated terrorist group (for good reason) and has no real legitimacy to speak for the Sri Lankan Tamil population (but if not them, who does?).

What it really comes down to though is that the world over people are talking about Israel and Palestine, whereas I'd imagine the Sri Lankan conflict probably gets much more attention in Toronto than most other places in the world. Turn on CNN or the BBC and compare how often they mention Israel to how often they mention Sri Lanka (if they do at all).

 

[urbandreamer]

And of course, to be totally cynical: how often do you hear Tamil Tiger's buying hotels downtown? "Tamil Canadian buys King Eddie?" Tamils don't matter as long as they have no financial power.