How I Fell for An Israeli-Arab Muslim Woman for All the Right Reasons

Declaration of Independence

I’m on fire, the way one gets when things just light you up and keep burning. It started with a crush that lit the flame earlier last week but ended in a blaze Sunday morning at a Jewish-Arab school in Jerusalem and a synagogue in Tel Aviv. You might be wondering “Who”? Your next question “Why”? I’ll sigh and realize that its time for me to say the things Jews in the Diaspora aren’t supposed to say. My heart is in anguish as my beloved city burns. The country of my soul is struggling under the pain of hate and violence while it grasps at straws to preserve its identity. In all of this an Israeli-Arab woman’s call to action out of sheer frustration and anger was the siren we should be tuning in to for making a change rather than playing the same old songs of violence and victimhood.

But let’s start at the beginning. Early last week after the tragic events at a synagogue in Jerusalem’s Har Nof neighbourhood I was inspired to hear the words of Lucy Aharish the Israeli-Arab anchor of the Hebrew news channel I24. Speaking on the weekend primetime current affairs magazine “Yoman” (Journal) she described her outrage on the vicious attack against devout Jewish victims killed during morning prayers. Touted as brave in the face of “haters” from extremists from the Arab community and the Jewish Israeli Right – she spoke out against the violence with clarity and support for the families and decried the heinous acts of the perpetrators.

However she didn’t stop there - she directed us to a valuable personal view on root causes of terror, particularly within the Israeli-Arab minority of which much of the renewed violence and this summer’s war with Gaza has grown from smouldering anger to outright violence. She spoke of the impact on generations of how and what we teach our children in any community trying to navigate between coexistence and hate. She spoke about ignorance and opportunity. She told us that she’s sick of crying and being angry. She’s tired of holding on to a history of hatred for being conquered and swallowed up by Israeli society. She acknowledged that it’s not easy and even rare to step out of your circle of victimhood. That it’s even harder in the face of inequality to step forward and offer something different. She explained that children, even with the opportunities to be educated, to be enlightened and part of an open society, can’t step over hate when they have to walk through a security checkpoint every day to get there.

On national television Lucy Aharish cried “Enough!” I am here and want it to be different. I talk like you, I’m educated like you, I even work for you and yet and I will never be your equal. Because even as I sit here as an Israeli journalist among my peers, with my work standing behind me there are those at home who will say I should feel lucky that I have a job.I was instantly in love – why? Because the Jewish Left in Israel and abroad is war weary.  It’s been shouting and crying. It was eventually backed into a corner for trying to say “an end to violence and for a change towards something new”, or “a move towards a society of equal citizenship, not grudging acknowledgement of rights under the “burden” of democratic values”. And finally, finally Lucy said it loud and clear and maybe just maybe we started to listen. Here was Lucy stating that the reality for Israeli Arabs isn’t equality among equals no matter how hard she tries. I was almost giddy in seeing her honesty and resolve.

The backdrop of Lucy Aharish’s comments and her cry for equality is the hotly debated “Jewish Nation State Law” currently being drafted. The government of the day would like to pass a law that will in effect make Lucy’s reality a legally standing one. This past week the cabinet of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government approved the first draft of the bill which will recognize national and group rights of the Jewish people inside the State of Israel while recognizing only individual rights for members of other religious, national and ethnic minorities within the country. The bill is being put forward as one that would have constitutional status that will in effect make it even more difficult to strike down existing or created laws that are discriminatory against minorities. (meaning that it can only be defeated by a super majority and will have preference in judicial decision making).  By declaring Israel the Jewish Nation State first, democracy and equality will come in second when it relates to minorities.

The legal advocacy group for Arab Minority Rights in Israel - Adalah currently cites 50 or so laws within the state that are already discriminatory against minorities. But while some are saying this new bill could cause the government to fall as the country has reached its watershed point of maintaining a status quo of non-negotiation and escalating violence, others are brushing off its implications saying that the position of the bill is a long time coming of what already exists in the country.

As someone who has had their feet firmly planted in Israel and Canada for decades, I was raised and educated on the principles of the Multiculturalism Act of 1988. As someone who can and does exercise my democratic rights in both countries I can’t watch this anymore and not cry out for at least a discussion on the ramifications of where this law would take Israel. It will have an impact on its relationship to Jewish Diaspora communities who live and thrive as minorities under the policies of democratic equality in Canada, the US and in many other places in the world today. Will they chafe under this proposal while at the same time know they have a “home” to come home to? How is that we can lament and shake our heads on what is taking place in Ferguson, Missouri but not what is happening in a place that so many feel a spiritual if not cultural, social, religious and historical connection to?

Canada was one of the first countries in the world to embrace an official multiculturalism policy in the 1970s. It was the norm where I grew up. Multiculturalism guided and strengthened me in my identity when I chose to be part of the fabric and politics of Israeli society.

The Multiculturalism Act became law in 1988 and its principles have been tried and tested over and over. I am not here to say that the Canadian brand of Multiculturalism is perfect or that we have gotten it completely right by any means. There are many faults in the system of implementing the principles of the Act. But the Act itself ensures that there is always a benchmark of equality by which the debate can be guided and the principles of its establishment upheld to make improvements. The Act recognizes groups including Aboriginal peoples and the official languages of Canada French and English, however its key message is to:
“recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society as equal and able to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage.”

Underlying a promotion of these freedoms is the Citizenship Act that Canadians “whether by birth or by choice, enjoy equal status, are entitled to the same rights, powers and privileges and are subject to the same obligations, duties and liabilities;”

The law does not put one group ahead of another. There are exceptions and the historical quagmire of French-English, Catholic-Protestant relations still stymie provincial debates ranging from education and language laws that have and continue to influence elections here. Nevertheless all citizens are equal under the law. Israel could learn a lot from what we have to offer in lessons on how to begin to manage equality and tolerance. Learning how to establish mechanisms that strive for equality when the laws and good intentions are set into motion, even when they don’t always get it right.

To create new bedrock law that elevates one group over another in the eyes of the State goes against the foundations of coexistence that the State of Israel was established on as a Jewish and Democratic society for all of its citizens. Its own Declaration of Independence stated that it “will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

And after all that we hoped for and what my new love Lucy Aharish cried out for on national television last week what transpired was that Jewish extremists torched the Max Rayne Hand in Hand Jerusalem School Saturday night. A community of 600+ students and their families at the Jewish-Arab school were confronted with messages of extremism and hatred. A school where my friends and colleagues send their children to learn how it can be different. 


From burning Arab teenagers, to burning the schools where both Arab and Jewish children find an oasis of sanity, to murdering people at worship and driving down innocents waiting for the bus home – just when will it be enough? Laws like this will let the perpetrators feel they have been vindicated on both sides. With the fear of more to come can it be any different or will my new romance with hope burn up in the poison that seems to be taking over? Israeli Labour MK Eitan Cabel said that Lucy is the nightmare of racists and partners in hate on both sides of the conflict. I’m hoping that she’s my dream come true.

To learn more about the pending bill “Jewish Nation State Law”  click here

Postscript: 8 hours after the posting of this piece the government in Israel was dissolved and elections are pending. This issue was a key point in the collapse of the coalition.

Is #Ghomeshigate a #feminism fail or win in teaching our daughters to speak up?

While watching the news feeds on the downfall of former CBC golden boy Jian Ghomeshi, the same thought keeps coming back to my mind. How is it that in this age of modern thinking, of feminism, of women needing to “lean in” and break glass ceilings that we are still vulnerable and silenced into fear of shame and reprisal from a powerful male who deems it okay to take advantage of their public identity and cross personal boundaries physically and sexually? How does it happen that each of these women walked away feeling that the best case scenario would be to shake it off, walk away and try to go on with business as usual?

           Over the past few weeks fellow PR/Communications pundit Elissa Freeman and I have been waxing the ins and outs of the various “fails” regarding women’s issues whether it has been relying on “karma” for raises or freezing eggs for female Apple employees. We also talk often about work-life balance in trying to raise our daughters in an era where instant communication, instant gratification and very few boundaries seem to be in place.  We use communications in our work every day. We balance and comment on boundaries all the time, online, at work and even in our day-to-day relationships.

Well, as a mother #Ghomeshigate has highlighted that in this world of “openness”, and web based platforms for fluid communication we have done an “epic fail” when it comes to our daughters in helping them to speak out when boundaries are crossed. Why? Because even in all of this openness we haven’t given them the tools to be able to come forward and protect themselves and others out of fear of the onslaught of comments and public shaming that comes on in full stereo over social media pages when the heat turns up on the latest trending scandal.

Boundaries. Personal, safe, secure boundaries. Boundaries that garner self-respect and an environment where the truth can be shared without shame and without fear of reprisal. Boundaries that create networks of support not through “likes” or Twitter wars of criticism but rather real honest to goodness support when taking appropriate action and speaking out because it is simply the right thing to do.

Somewhere in this new world where what matters online is paramount we have lost this important message with our daughters. How did this happen? How did an entire era of empowering women put us back into this situation? How is it that we are speaking out about pay equity, body image and advancing careers while at the same time maintaining polite silences that go on for years regarding someone in a position of power who was by definition hurting women behind closed doors?

Each of the women who have begun to come forward have expressed the same concerns – shame, fear of not being taken seriously, distress of eviscerating “he said/she said” scenarios, dread of retaliations online and a barrage of negativity and criticism.

How ironic in a generation where we are bold and brave on social media – sometimes even brazen with photos and Twitter duels to draw hundreds if not thousands into your conversation to be “relevant”. A generation of “I post therefore I am”, yet we want to only post the good, the successful the bright and shiny. If it will hurt your image then put it away and move on. Something is seriously out of whack when we still stay silent out of fear how someone else’s gross violations and actions will reflect on us as individuals.

Our daughters play in the social media playground. They are young, excited, open and savvy. They are growing up in a generation where technology puts the world at their feet and connects them to everything and everyone they want. But while they and we do indeed put our lives “out there” on Facebook feeds, while we post our best images on Instagram, while we Twitter well-crafted comments and create a personal image out in the world that all is well, what we don’t do is learn the rules of engagement on the most personal of levels, one on one. And with that I’m not sure I haven’t failed as a parent for not making sure that my daughters’ can embrace and discern those relationships and know from the social norms they are taught how to act on them if they go terribly wrong.

But perhaps there are signs that this is indeed changing. It’s not the first time that we are asking ourselves these questions in recent months. #WhyIStayed and Janay Rice’s story exposed not only her victimization, but the network that supported it. (Q covered the story with great interest as a cultural phenomenon). Women are coming forward with regards to Bill Cosby “America’s Favorite Dad” and speaking out about a man they describe as a sexual predator who abused his powerful role in the entertainment industry for decades. It’s important to note that in each of these cases criminal charges have not been laid. 

Macleans’ this week estimated that 1 in 5 women will be assaulted on university campuses and that there is inconsistent and outdated policy in how to address the problem. Isn’t it time? Isn’t it your daughter about to go on campus? If we don’t start there why wouldn’t it continue in the workplace and in their personal lives?

Each of the women that have come forward against Jian Ghomeshi are setting an example of how we address this. Lucy DeCoutere and Reva Seth raised the bar by putting their names and their stories into the public domain. As a parent it’s a relief to see that we can pull back from the “epic fail” and start to talk about it rather than just scrubbing ourselves clean from the shame. From harassment policies to how we have the conversation, its time to examine how we teach our daughters to speak out but also make sure that when they do there are tools are in place to support them as they weather the boundaries of their integrity. In the meantime feminism is in fact going viral. The hashtags and the conversation on the web is getting louder with #AmINext #RapedNeverReported #IBelieve. If there is one thing we have learned from #Ghomeshigate is that while our daughters aren't yet coming forward to the authorities, they are certainly learning the power of #YouCantShutMeUp

Barriers of Safety or Barriers of Fear?

 

Years ago while living in Jerusalem a visit to Canada in 2003 during the second Gulf War coined the "war on terror" elicited questions around the dinner table - Is this necessary? There isn't any real threat for us here in Canada. The decision to sit this one “out” was loud and clear from Canadians.

With several wars and up close views of more terrorist attacks than one should ever bear witness to my answer then was simple - the Middle East is a rough neighbourhood. Rife with conflict for decades it's a cauldron of poverty, physical displacement, religious fervor and political extremism. This 'hood operates in a constant state of attempting disengagement that boils over every few years into full-scale conflict as a means for survival not resolution.  Sometimes it needs some help, sometimes it doesn’t. Living in Canada then (and now) is a luxury we often take for granted. The safety and security of a democracy with moderate values and a stable economy means freedom to move and go where I want with ease.

Going to the Eaton's Centre the next day the automatic readiness for my purse to be checked as I entered the subway reminded me I wasn't in my Kansas of conflict anymore. It was a sobering insight as to what one gets used to.

Well, this week that changed – it’s a matter of if it’s a little or the beginning of a lot.  

Instinct from years of bus bombings meant brief text messages to friends in Ottawa - RU OK?

I know this routine - I can do it in my sleep - check that everyone is okay and then follow the headlines for the rest. And as the day's events unfolded I was relieved to see that the Canadian way of addressing the heightened state of alert was not with pounding music news intros and breathless reporters. It was dignified, solemn, and for those reporting hats off it was accurate and -  more importantly - calm.

So to my Canadian friends and family as you begin to digest the events of the day and process what this means - understand that what you are about to explore is the possibility of living in a different kind of 'hood. In this one you may have your bag checked when you get into a subway station or enter a public building be it a government office or going to the movies. You'll want to travel lighter to go through security checks as a general part of your day. You might wait in line - at hockey games, and even at the mall to clear a metal detector. It might become routine and sometimes necessary. It won't be a debate anymore to figure out which security detail should check bags at the entrance to Parliament Hill and how many meters away the perimeter should be because, it will just get done.

I'll smile and give you a nod as you struggle with the notion of security at home. I understand that the thought of this is grating against the principles of openness, freedom and democracy that as Canadians we hold dear. I get it - the easy walk "going up the Hill" is something veteran Liberal MP John McKay said is a loss we should lament. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair worries about Frisbee players no longer hanging out on the lawn. However the question of the day is how did an armed gunman get onto Parliament Hill and into Centre Block? The answer is that in declaring to be resilient in the fight against those who wish to elicit terror, things do have to change in how we treat our public spaces. Not because the perpetrators dictate it, not because we live in fear, but because safety comes first. Not because we are afraid but because some things have changed in the 'hood whether we like it or not.

What won't change if we choose it - is how we treat each other as Canadians. While you might have to go through a few more security checks in the future it does not change the multicultural and open society that embraces all of its citizens who in turn also embrace those values. It does not change that we are a country with one of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the world, with individuals arriving from all over the globe. Only fear changes those views, not new security barricades.

Over in that democracy in the Middle East Israelis live in this reality all the time. But the fact is that they LIVE with the security measures, they are not ruled by them. As a democratic society with an open and often outdoor culture there are festivals, public beaches, and the simple pleasure of sitting at patio cafes even in January - Israelis enjoy life to the fullest (and in Tel Aviv around the clock).

They are also paying attention and recognize the need for cautious and at times even vigilant measures.  They go to the mall and to soccer games. They go easily to City Hall, the Knesset and the Supreme Court. Israelis are truly "out and about" in word and in action - equally outspoken on both civil liberties and on the need for security. I won't deny that years of conflict have given root to loud voices and actions that are extreme, racist and yes even violent and destructive. However even in the face of that adversity there are many Israelis from the political and social spheres who hold out the hand for fairness and justice. They come together in adversity and are open to try and embrace their 'hood and everyone who lives in it for something better for themselves and for their children.

Sometimes cynical and sometimes hopeful moderates over there do try to balance on the barriers and hope to find a way to bring them down. I’ll be honest; it’s still an elusive effort. This week while Jerusalemites gathered to hear Palestinian Mira Awad and Israeli David Broza perform and share their vision of coexistence, a lone driver drove into a crowd of pedestrians killing a 3-month old infant. It was the second vehicle attack in nearly as many months.  Nevertheless people are out on the street and getting back to life. Terrorism does not have to change who you are as an individual as a community or even as a nation.

Ottawa like Jerusalem is a government town. Laden with the symbols of democracy and power they are each as big in vision as they are small in how their residents come together.  Likened to a community, both are not so much cities – but rather neighbourhoods of sorts,  close knit and protective. As the nation’s capital Ottawa is the place we turn to for answers and stability.  How did this happen? Actually we're a nation that has faced security challenges like this before, even at Centre Block, but they are so few a far between we've forgotten them. The juxtaposition of this week’s and last week's actions is nerve rattling. The global neighborhood is changing and we undoubtedly need to look at that effect carefully at home, from lone wolves and acts of violence to the messages of hate and racism that rise out of extremism and glorifying conflict.

In all of this we must also remember that as Canadians we’re not passive - we've been part of fighting forces around the globe for over a century. We know when to keep the peace and when to step up to fight for the values we hold dear. We’ve created a national identity anchored in those beliefs. Then why now are we a nation questioning whether or not to set up better barriers to protect our soldiers, our children who visit the Hill and the politicians we elect to uphold our democratic values? A metal detector further from the entrance won't change that.

Jerusalem is a town that knows intimately what acts of terror look and feel like. Ottawa doesn’t. While we examine this week and what took place the question will be was this an act of terror or a criminal one? There is no question that the actions in Ottawa and Montreal instilled fear and caused chaos while resulting in the tragic loss of life.

It’s been nearly a decade since I was asked that question of what is really necessary in facing terrorism. Then the concern was abroad and not persuasive enough to fundamentally change daily public life, even post 9/11. But before we go down that rabbit hole called terrorism now, home grown or internationally influenced, let’s take a step back and look at the facts. Mental health and isolation were root causes of motivation here. In a world of global interconnectedness via the Web those who are lonely and vulnerable can connect to extremist values and communities in a new way that we are just beginning to consider the implications of. Instead of knee jerk reactions and fear of what legislative measures and potential charter violations we will or won’t tolerate, let’s examine models to see what we need and what we don’t. Yes better security will be needed just as a general practice. But the uncomfortable carrying out of intelligence gathering that bend privacy violations to the reprecussions racial profiling is something that will take a respectful and careful examination based on facts on the ground in our home ‘hood, not out of fear but out of practical measures to uphold the values we cherish.

So yes, this will change things, but not the way you think. 

If Orange is the New Black, Can Someone Tell Me Who is In the New Middle?

After a satisfying binge of watching "Orange is the New Black" it was time to take stock of my self-perception of a world that is much bigger than my own little GTA bubble. Leading lady Piper Chapman gets stripped mentally and emotionally (and let’s face it physically) to see that her “middle class white blonde” reality masks not only her own sense of who she could potentially be on the opposite side of the coin, but also the reality of women from very different lives who inevitably wind up in the same place as she did – prison.  On a level playing field everything is set into sharp focus becoming raw and brutally honest. For the viewer it is seat squirmingly fascinating as the confessions and revelations hit nerves, questioning our sense of identity in a Western society clearly cut by socioeconomic lines of class, gender and ethnicity.

My first question was as a white 40 something female in Canada’s largest urban center where do I fit into the Canadian social landscape? Clearly I’m not in prison, but the media platform of the series allows us to explore the deeper question of place and belonging.  As we head into multiple elections over the next 6 -18 months in Canada I feel I’m often lumped into a Canadian wilderness of political promises and aspirations to meet the needs of the middle class. Just who is that exactly?

What does middle class mean? According to StatsCan it meant that in 2010 a pre tax family income was $57,000. Okay…but with inflation adjustments that means that they are relatively the same level as they were in 1980 with an overall increase of $53. Of course if we add in home values that have risen to meteoric heights you can paint a rosier picture of middle class net asset values being $212,000 as of 2013. Oh but wait, let’s subtract the average family debt load in Canada at somewhere above the $27,000 mark that means Canadians are spending 1.64 to every dollar they make. Confused yet?

Numbers can paint any number of images of financial middles and averages but the trend is clear – income inequality is on the rise and the middle has shrunk leaving greater gaps and questions on who is struggling and thriving in the world of haves and have not’s. But the gaps have also brought into question what will I have or will my children have in the future? The picture is this – not much has happened in growth even five years after the supposed end of the recession. Instead there are greater disparities that aren’t being addressed on the key issues of what the middle needs.

If that is the case I asked, then what do middle class women worry about? What do they need?  If I was a marketing exec I would be positioning my product to middle class women – they are the primary purchasers of daily goods and services, the budgeters and generally key to swaying decision making in Canadian households. Who are they? Well, in many cases they are the primary or shared breadwinners to their households. They are burdened with income disparities in the face of finding a work-life balance and affordable childcare. They see employers and federal employee policies that don’t recognize that women HAVE to work today AND raise families. It is no longer a choice for many to stay at home, but a necessity to go into the workforce however employers are still reluctant to find that middle ground and government policies aren’t addressing that. They have aging parents and an aging healthcare system that is covering less and less each year. They see a shrinking job market of opportunities to make ends meet – for them and for their children.

According to recent statistics of demographics across Canada - chances are if you think you’re in the middle or trying to get there you are also addressing the challenges of not being white like Piper Chapman but faced with the realities of the immigrant experience (especially if you are in the GTA and its expanding diverse communities.) If that’s the new Canadian middle perhaps it makes sense that Olivia Chow would throw her hat in the ring here in Toronto? From her immigrant roots to national politics her story is one of rising to the middle and surpassing it.

Life isn’t a level playing field and neither is the economic, educational or employment opportunity disparities in a country like Canada. It’s a multicultural field here that is still struggling with questions of workplace equality for women, new immigrants and younger generations who are educated and coming into a world where the economy can’t kick start itself or them. Whether it is austerity measures masked as balancing budgets or cutbacks in the public service that limit what we historically did best in Canada for Canadians – promote growth of communities and societies through a stable basket of socialized care policies in education, health and culture –it's not really working. If we take stock of the issues and the desire to meet the needs of the middle, how do they fit into the political considerations and landscape of Canada’s upcoming elections - from municipal, provincial to federal?

From a party standpoint the middle means finding representatives of every gender, ethnic and religious leaning to make the middle a more rounded, multicultural “representative” of the fabric of modern Canadian life and to create a message that meets and greets the middle. They are trying from “Nominate Her” campaigns to open nominations among the newly created and established ridings that are changing existing political geographic lines across the country. But what does that look like in terms of meeting needs with policy for the middle?

Marketers would say that your target audience for buy in of your product is the middle. However we are still not sure what the parties are selling and aren’t really getting an indication that they know who the “middle” is in whose votes they are trying to sway. Kathleen Wynne was asked that question just last week of who the middle is – she told us to wait for the budget.

But the middle isn’t only a number. Just like Piper Chapman is thrown into a different reality of her self-defined middle class life into prison, many once self-defined middle class families find themselves on the edges of that social divide struggling under debt, a prolonged weak economy and rising costs of family life that show that the ends aren’t meeting in the middle. Yet politics still wants us all to belong there to relate to and be part of the middle where they can reach out with their policies and promises.

Why are we so uncomfortable to admit that Canadian families are increasingly not middle class, that they are beleaguered under increasing burdens? We can squirm and watch in fascination the raw dialogue of personas and their tragic life stories on Orange is the New Black but do we explore it enough in the dramatically shifting realities of average families in the long winter of economic slowdown, rising unemployment and poor family - work life balance? Do we look at a shrinking tax resource base that doesn’t include a balanced taxation system that leverages and brings the corporate sector in line to pay its share rather than hiding behind practices of recent years that have pandered to corporate revenue tax evasion? 

Orange is the New Black had me asking does everyone want to be in the middle? Is there social pressure "shame" of not belonging if you aren’t defining yourself as in the middle? Politicians want to cater to the middle - of course they do.  But the question is where are we right now and where do we want to be in the future? At some point we have to stop standing in the safety of an empty middle to walk along a path that really addresses what Canadians need to get us out of the red and back into the black.

For a fun poke at what the middle life looks like from an artist’s perspective check out  Suzanne Henitz Life Once Removed