Less is more

Why moderate campaigning is crucial in creating meaningful change

This summer we saw the biggest student mobilisation effort in a generation with the encampments in King’s College Circle and beyond. It was a testament to how invested students were that such a united protest came about, but now, a few months later, if I were a casual observer of the student protests, I would question what they achieved. Unlike the successful efforts to divest from South Africa in the 80s, students could not move UofT on its call to “disclose, divest” from Israel. We have found ourselves in a situation where we have this enduring and powerful symbol of Palestinian solidarity that will echo for years, but no meaningful change that benefits the Palestinian people. So, why have we gotten to this point where protests and effort fail to touch the wider student zeitgeist? I believe this comes down to the issue of alienation.

While much of the encampment was a peaceful affair, throughout the camp one could see controversial slogans such as “intifada,” “from the river to the sea,” and “one-state solution.” These slogans do more harm than good to the Palestinian cause. Calls like these have been thought to emphasise the destruction of Israel which in turn reject principles of democracy and human rights, in favour of violence as a form of protest and deeply anti-Semitic messaging. Thus, if someone wanted to get involved with the protests but also wanted to stand up for Jewish rights, they would feel alienated by this language that only deepens a divide between Israel and Palestine when unity is far more important. The Palestinian peace activist Hamza Howidy even went as far as saying that such encampments are “hurting the Palestinian cause” by using such hateful language. While I would not go as far as Howidy to say they are hurtful, it raises a lot of questions for us that someone committed to the rights of Palestinians feels alienated by these protests.

Thus, I believe that if student activists want to truly inspire a message of Palestinian liberation and reinvigorate the message of Palestine, they cannot be ‘preaching to the choir’ and demanding radical action, but rather they should focus on winning hearts and minds through more moderate action. This translates to an emphasis on removing calls for action that are violent, anti Semitic, and call for the destruction of the Jewish state. Instead, the movement needs to be centred on the freedom of Palestine. I believe the discussion should address both the Palestinian culture endangered by this war and the personal stories of those who are suffering. This will foster a greater understanding of the Palestinian people, especially for those who may feel alienated by more extreme rhetoric yet are eager to learn more.

With this comes what I believe is the need for a bipartisan approach to activism. Some may interpret this suggestion as ‘selling out’ or watering down calls to action to rally more support. In response, I would make clear that I am not trying to tell anyone to minimise their support for Palestine, only that one must see the other side of this issue if they want to win over hearts and minds. The principal role of any activist is to win over the opposition, and they can only do so by engaging in meaningful dialogue with them. An activist can only do so if they listen to their opposition and understand a difference in opinion. A perfect example of this is Jewish and Muslim leaders in London seeking to come together to strengthen relations, such as an Imam Sabah Ahmedi going to a Synagogue to open a fast. This is exactly the kind of dialogue we here at UofT should be fostering so that campaigning isn’t an us vs them fight but a united fight for peace.

I also believe that a degree of alienation will have come from the constant social media presence of many student activists. Social media can of course be a powerful voice for activism, especially for a marginalised group like Palestinians. However, it also has severe limits. For one, it limits the suffering of large groups of people to a brief story or post that can never truly encapsulate the issue at hand. It simplifies an issue down to its binary terms so that the focus falls on controversial phrases like “from the river to the sea,” which further deepen the ‘Us versus Them’ narrative we want to avoid. This means that when we are confronted with more complex issues, we ignore them and condemn them as misinformation. The term “slacktivism” refers to this very phenomenon of people promoting social media activism over genuine real life change.

I believe activists must seek to make two changes. Firstly, reduce the number of posts. This will make posts more engaging to audiences and prevent disillusionment amid a constant barrage of posts. Secondly, go outside and engage in civilised debate, following the example of the 1992 UK general election, in which John Major famously climbed onto a soapbox and began talking to people face-to-face as part of a campaign he would go onto win. This kind of old-fashioned politics still has its place today. Activists can win over far more people by engaging in face to-face debates on issues surrounding the liberation of Palestine, rather than relying solely on social media.

Radical activism, whether right or wrong, will not reach meaningful results. Peaceful and moderate rhetoric will convince while violent and divisive rhetoric will only cause confusion, unintentionally or otherwise. It is crucial for the future of the Palestinian and Israeli people that we choose right.