On Moral Injury

A moral injury is a severe stress reaction following the experience of an event or a recurrence of situations that contradict an individual’s moral beliefs. Moral injury is characterized by enduring feelings of guilt, shame, disgust, anger, contempt, and hopelessness. In severe cases, this may lead to suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. Moral injury appears to impact one’s capacity for trust and elevate despair.

I have been thinking a great deal lately about the genocide going on in Gaza. Almost daily, we are presented with images of starvation, mutilation and death. Especially difficult to watch are the images of innocent children being made to pay a price no one should have to pay for the madness of others. It is often too much even for a stalwart soul like me.

Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett writes feelingly on this topic, wondering about its effect on the human soul.

I have seen images on my phone screen these past months that will haunt me as long as I live. Dead, injured, starving children and babies. Children crying in pain and in fear for their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. A small boy shaking in terror from the trauma of an airstrike. Scenes of unspeakable horror and violence that have left me feeling sick.

As we watch, horrified, we feel a pervasive helplessness and hopelessness; any action we might take, whether it be letter-writing, protests, donations to relief groups, seems to have at best a miniscule effect on the carnage, and little balm for the soul.

This overarching sense of impotence when confronted with unimaginable horror is creating a mass sense of moral injury – a form of profound psychological distress that can happen to people when they are forced to act, or indeed not act, in ways that are in direct opposition to their values or moral code.  

But that feeling of powerlessness and, as an extension, complicity: what does it do to those around the world who feel what is happening is wrong? What is the impact of witnessing so much profound suffering – even through a screen – and feeling unable to act or to force others to act?

We in the West live cosseted lives; no matter how bad one's personal situation may be, it is nothing compared to what the people of Gaza experience daily. Our own sense of guilt and shame here is especially acute if we have children or grandchildren. As a grandparent, I know all to well the ardent hope I harbour for a good and fulfilling life for my grandchildren, but the knowledge that I would do anything to protect them hardly assuages what the writer calls moral injury.

There is something about being in the daily company of a little person – their innocence, their vulnerability, their silliness, their loving nature – that makes the pain of any other child feel like a profound affront. But I know you don’t have to be a parent to feel horror at what is being inflicted on Gaza’s children in the most visceral way. I believe – or at least I used to – that it is ingrained in us, as humans, to feel a collective responsibility towards children, and that this collective responsibility can extend beyond borders.

 Feeling powerless in the face of such egregious injustice can result in a loss of trust or faith, not just in governments and institutions but also in the moral order of the world, and its ability to protect children. I wonder what the impact of this will be: will it, as certain politicians no doubt hope, result in a numbness that presents as indifference? Traumatic events can result in a lack of affect – millions more people should be marching and raising their voice – but they can also be channelled into righteous anger.

I certainly feel a profound loss of faith. Something I felt to be true about humanity – that people are fundamentally good, that we owe it to children to protect them – has shifted because of this conflict. I walk around with a feeling of heaviness that I cannot seem to shake. Thousands of miles from Gaza, I am changed by the past 18 months. I have learned that, for some people, compassion for children has political limits. What does one do with that terrible knowledge once it sits inside you like a leaden stone? I don’t seem be able to find an answer. 

We have all borne witness to the darkness our species is capable of.  And none of us emerges unscathed after tasting of that bitter fruit.

Finally, A Modicum Of Integrity

The images of the carnage in Gaza are hard to look at. Innocent men, women and children maimed and dead are scenes only the deeply depraved could welcome. And the destruction continues apace, with The Guardian reporting this morning that 14,000 babies could die in the next 24 hours of starvation.

In the midst of this darkness has come a small ray of light. Canada, the UK and France are saying enough is enough. The three countries

threatened action against Israel if it does not stop a renewed military offensive in Gaza and lift aid restrictions, piling further pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israeli military announced the start of a new operation on Friday, and Mr. Netanyahu said earlier on Monday that Israel would take control of the whole of Gaza. International experts have already warned of looming famine.

“The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law,” said a joint statement released by Prime Minister Mark Carney, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron.

“We oppose any attempt to expand settlements in the West Bank,” the statement said, adding later: “We will not hesitate to take further action, including targeted sanctions.”

They have every reason to act. 

Earlier that day, Israel’s military declared an entire city a combat zone, airstrikes killed more than 60 people, and the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, said Israel’s army would “wipe out” what remains of Palestinian Gaza.

Has there ever been a more bald statement of genocidal intent? 

Bowing a little to international pressure, Netanyahu is allowing a trickle of aid:

.... the UN said nine trucks of aid had been cleared to enter. This is less than 2% of daily shipments before the war, when Palestinians in Gaza were well fed and the strip had its own agricultural sector, and will make no meaningful difference to the crisis now gripping most of its 2.3 million population.

Even that miniscule amount was too much for some. 

Netanyahu’s decision to allow even a trickle of food in to Gaza had been attacked by far-right critics including members of his own cabinet. On Monday he shared a video on social media explaining his hand had been forced by close allies.

Back here at home, 

Fen Hampson, chancellor‘s professor and professor of international affairs at Carleton University, said Monday’s trilateral statement still represents a “shot across the bow” of Israel from three nations driven by profound humanitarian concern for those in Gaza. It also underscores Mr. Carney’s desire to rebuild transatlantic ties in a meaningful way at a time when Canada is facing challenges from its closest ally, the U.S.

Whether any of this will make a difference, given that Israel seems only concerned about U.S. support, remains to be seen. The trilateral statement, however, is a welcome voice of sanity and morality puncturing what has been, up to now, the West's deafening silence amidst the genocidal war Israel has been waging since October 7, 2023.

 

 

A Brave Young Man

I sometimes wonder, had social media existed in its present form when I was teaching, would I have posted as I do today? Would I have been willing to risk my career in order to address issues of importance and controversy? While it's true I used to be a prolific letter-to-the-editor devotee and had many articles published, receiving the imprimatur of a newspaper, with its specific guidelines and restrictions, is far different from publishing one's thoughts in a blog or any other social media forum.

Would you jeopardize your career and your future to stay true to your principles? One young man, Logan Rozos, has made that brave, principled and dangerous choice. Please watch the following video of his valedictory address at his NYU graduation ceremony. Listen carefully to his words. I will discuss the immediate consequences afterward.

We live in a time when any criticism of Israel is conflated with raging anti-semitism. We live in an age when groupthink demands that the carnage, the eradication of innocent Palestinian lives, be interpreted simply as acts of self-defence. However, to deviate from the official narrative, to address the monstrously malignant actions of Israel today, can only be seen by fair-minded people as a singular act of courage.

But there are consequences for rectitude. The backlash from the university was almost immediate.

New York University said it is withholding the diploma of a student who used his commencement speech to condemn Israel’s war in Gaza and what he referred to as the United States’ “complicity in this genocide.”

 Pro-Israeli groups demanded that NYU take action after footage of the speech was shared online. The university issued an apology the same day and announced it would withhold the student’s diploma while it pursues disciplinary action against him.

NYU spokesman John Beckman said in a Wednesday statement that the student “lied about the speech he was going to deliver” and misused his role “to express his personal and one-sided political views.”

“NYU is deeply sorry that the audience was subjected to these remarks and that this moment was stolen by someone who abused a privilege that was conferred upon him,” Beckman said. 

Perhaps that craven response is to be expected. After all, universities are under assault from the Trump regime, and many seem willing to abandon their traditional positions as bastions of free thought and expression.

When it comes to facts that portray the truth about Israel's genocide in Gaza, it would seem that American First Amendment rights protecting free speech are quickly jettisoned.

The New York and New Jersey branch of the Anti Defamation League wrote on X that it was “appalled” by the speech, adding: “We are thankful to the NYU administration for their strong condemnation and their pursuit of disciplinary action.”

Another group, #EndJewHatred, suggested the speech would violate the university’s student-conduct guidelines, which were updated last year in response to a lawsuit over three Jewish students’ allegations of antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.

Criticism now must be very qualified and limited.

In April, the former head of medical aid group Doctors Without Borders (MSF) alleged that there was a “climate of fear” among major universities after NYU canceled a lecture she was due to give. Officials at the NYU’s medical center told her references to the Trump administration’s cuts to foreign aid in her planned presentation could be seen as “anti-government” and “antisemitic,” she said.

I don't want to end this post leaving you with the impression that Rozos has no support.

In a statement Thursday, Afaf Nasher, the executive director of the New York branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations praised the student “for using this opportunity to demand an end to the bloodshed in Gaza” and demanded NYU end its disciplinary process against him.

In closing, there is a line from King Lear that I have been thinking a lot about in recent weeks.  Albany rebukes his wicked wife Goneril for her terrible mistreatment of her father, the king:

Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile. 

That's all I have to say.

Addressing The Horrors

The horrors in Gaza - none of us can claim to be unaware of them.  Even harder, despite the efforts of Israel's apologists, is to adhere, with any conviction, to the official line that the carnage and destruction inflicted by the Jewish state is justified in its 'war' on Hamas. As I have said before on this blog, there is only one word to describe the atrocities: genocide.

In an article that will no doubt elicit outrage from those who justify Israel's depredations, Beisan Zubi places the carnage in the context of the Canadian election. 

As a Palestinian Canadian, Gaza feels like the best test I can use to gauge a politician’s actual commitment to human rights. The core principle behind human rights is that they are universal (apply to everyone) and inalienable (cannot be taken away). Over the past 18 months, I have watched Israel violate just about every human right that I learned about in school, while so many Canadian politicians stayed silent. 

 I would argue a politician’s stance on Gaza says volumes about their commitment to a range of domestic issues, and not just Canada’s responsibility to uphold international law.

Zubi draws a compelling test to measure our politicians, asserting if they are for certain things. they have to be for them universally. 

How can I trust a politician will defend women’s rights in Canada if they haven’t said anything about the fact that there are an estimated 48,000 pregnant women in Gaza facing famine? Israel’s ongoing blockade of essential medical supplies means that unmedicated C-sections are no longer the plot of horror movies, miscarriage rates in Gaza are up an estimated 300 per cent...

How can I trust a politician will protect Canada’s health care system if they aren’t outraged that Israel has decimated a health care system serving over two million people, by conducting a reported 136 strikes on at least 27 hospitals, destroying the main IVF clinic in Gaza along with an estimated 4,000 embryos, and killing over a thousand Palestinian health care workers...

How can I trust a politician will fight for disability justice in Canada if they haven’t condemned the mass disabling event still underway in Gaza, where the disabled, elderly, and injured are bombed in tents, forced to flee hospitals under attack in wheelchairs or carried by siblings, the cruel killing of a young man with Down syndrome by an Israeli military dog, that 15,000 deaf Gazans can’t hear evacuation warnings before bombs drop around them, or even that Gaza now has the largest per capita population of child amputees in the world, many of whom are also orphaned.

How can I trust a politician will treat infrastructure and adequate housing as a human right when they haven’t said a thing about the UN reporting that 92 per cent of all homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, or that vital infrastructure like water desalination plants and waste management sites have been forced to shutter, leading to infectious diseases spreading and a looming environmental catastrophe?

Speaking of the environment, how can I believe a politician actually cares about this planet if they don’t speak out about ecocide in Gaza? A Yale School of the Environment report published in February warned us that more than two thirds of Gaza’s farmland has been destroyed, 80 per cent of the tree cover in Gaza is gone, up to 3.5 million cubic feet of raw sewage are leaking into groundwater and the Mediterranean Sea every day...

And of course, how can we believe a politician actually cares about Canada’s territorial integrity amidst threats from Donald Trump to annex our country if they haven’t spoken out about Israel’s ongoing dispossession and theft of Palestinian land in Gaza and the West Bank?

These are all questions that demand real answers. Unfortunately, given that any criticism of Israel is the third rail of politics, I expect none will be forthcoming.

Say It By Its Proper Name: Genocide

Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people. Raphael Lemkin, who first coined the term, defined genocide as "the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" by means such as "the disintegration of [its] political and social institutions, of [its] culture, language, national feelings, religion, and [its] economic existence".

Wikepedia

I wasn't planning to write a blog entry today, but I came across a story that so egregiously outrageous that for the sake of my own health, I had to put it down in words.

If you have read some of my recent posts, you will see I am always quick to hold to account the atmosphere of fear and censorship that is becoming increasingly common in the U.S., especially with regard to students demonstrating support for Palestinians. Today's post, however, hits closer to home. To understand the obscene nature of what has happened, here is a bit of context about Tareq Hadhad. a Syrian refugee who settled in Nova Scotia and became a Canadian success story as well as a Canadian citizen in 2020.

Hadhad’s family had made chocolates in Syria for more than 20 years, but their factory was destroyed in a bombing that forced them to leave the country in 2012.

Peace by Chocolate opened for business in 2016 and now ships its confections around the world. The company employs locals in Antigonish and newcomers to Canada.

Hadhad said Canadians are respected around the world for “values that stand for peace, for love, for kindness, for inclusion, for welcome, for friendliness, for social justice.

In addition to employing a significant number of people, Hadhad donates a percentage of the profits to peace initiatives.

Upon becoming a citizen, he said,

“I feel that I’m Canadian. I feel that I’m free. I feel that I belong. And I feel that I am so proud to be part of this big family of 37 million Canadians from coast to coast to coast.”

Hadhad may have to revisit that assessment, given the contempt a Canadian legal association has shown him.

The Advocates’ Society informed its members in an email last week that it would be uninviting Tareq Hadhad, a Syrian refugee turned Canadian entrepreneur, as the keynote speaker at the prominent legal group’s annual “End of Term Dinner,” at the Metro Convention Centre in June.

The decision comes after some members expressed concern about Hadhad’s public social media posts touching on the Middle East, the email explained. “While it was never our intention for Mr. Hadhad to speak about the conflict, with regret, we concluded that this is not the right time or event for Mr. Hadhad to address our members,” it read, adding: “We also recognize that many of our members will be harmed and feel unwelcome because of our decision not to proceed with Mr. Hadhad.”

Exactly what was the 'offence' that prompted this anti-Arab racism? Well, it seems that certain members of the society poured through Hadhad's social media posts, and, spoiler alert, Toronto lawyer Jonathan Lisus found nothing.

He said he saw an absence of commentary on the [October 7 2023] kidnappings, murder and other atrocities committed [against Israelis] by Hamas; nor, he said, could he find Hadhad calling on Hamas to release hostages or renounce its call for the destruction of Israel.

Also, Lisus found that Hadhad had used the G word: 

In May 2024, Hadhad wrote: “Just looking at this and thinking of all the children that we failed everywhere and continue to fail in Rafah and all of Gaza. This genocide must be stopped. Children should wake up to the sounds of birds not the sounds of bombs.”

“Sadly, Mr. Hadhad’s record of public statements makes a strong case that while expressing understandable concern for civilian deaths in Gaza he is unsympathetic, and certainly indifferent, to the harm and suffering of Jewish people and the Jewish state,” Lisus wrote in his email to the Advocates’ Society.

Compounding this cowardly injustice, Hadhad made it clear that his was to be a non-political address:

“My intended remarks focused solely on the values that unite,” the statement said. “There is a lot of division already in our world — I don’t want to contribute to it further. My role is to bring people together, not further divide them, and I remain proud of my story and the message I share across Canada and internationally.”

Night after night the news shows us the dire injury, death and devastation Israel is inflicting on Gaza. Yet somehow our sympathies are supposed to be reside solely with the Jewish state. Somewhere, George Orwell must be nodding ruefully and knowingly. 

 

We Are All Complicit

There are still many who both turn a blind eye to the ongoing genocide in Gaza and justify israel's atrocities as mere self-defence. If you believe that fiction, all I can say is your critical-thinking skills are grossly deficient. 

But even if we are rightfully appalled by those atrocities, most of us, in our own ways, are complicit in them. We do not openly protest the carnage; we do not write letters decrying it; we continue to elect people who will only worsen the genocide; we do not demand that Canada stop being an echo chamber for American Middle East policies that only enable and embolden the destruction of countless lives.

The following is very, very difficult to watch. If you choose to view it and are subsequently still staunch advocates of Israel's actions, I don't know what to say to you.

Today is the start of a new year. I wish it were a new start for humanity as well, but I suspect that is not in the cards.

UPDATED: See No Evil

I have lived long enough to think I have seen the worst things that humanity has to offer. I shan't enumerate examples here, since they are legion. But not all evil deeds are acts of commission. Many deep moral stains originate in omissions, failures to act. The West's complicity in the Israeli-led Gaza genocide falls under both rubrics, of course.

In its passion to avoid any accusation of anti-semitism (anti-semitism and criticism of Israel having been susscessfully conflated), the West is clearly complicit in the genocide. Indeed, even a modest support for Palestinians provokes rebuke and condemnation. In Ontario, for example, Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama was censured for wearing the keffiyeh, rendering her persona non grata in the legislature and resulting in her ouster from the provincial NDP.

But such reprovals are not limited to the provinces. Indeed, Heather McPherson, an Alberta NDP MP, is now being singled out for rebuke.

A New Democrat MP was warned Monday that her decision to don a watermelon pin — a symbol of the Palestinian cause — could be construed as a political “prop” that has no place in the House of Commons. 

During question period, Edmonton-Strathcona MP Heather McPherson took to the floor of the lower chamber to castigate Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government for its response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

“Entire families have been decimated. Children are starving to death. When will the Liberals live up to their obligations?” McPherson said, calling for sanctions on the Israeli government and the implementation of an “actual arms embargo.”

That attempt to stir the conscience of the government was met with a stern warning from House Speaker Greg Fergus., suggesting her pin was a prop, supposedly forbidden in the House.

In a heated exchange over what is and is not permitted to be worn in the Commons, McPherson rose on a point of order to question Fergus’s suggestion.

“I have to tell you that I stand here proudly wearing the pin that stands in solidarity to Palestinian people, but people within this place are wearing pins for a various number of reasons,” McPherson said.

She referred to a moose hide pin that a number of MPs wear in the Commons, which was born from an Indigenous-led movement to end violence toward women and children. 

Then, for some sensitive' souls in the House, she went too far:

The NDP MP’s reference to poppies also being worn in the chamber for Remembrance Day, however, was met with outrage from the opposition benches, with Conservative MPs expressing disbelief on social media over the comparison. 

She also reminded members that she, along with others, wear a number of other pins, including a Ukrainian one, to mark a thousand days since Putin invaded Ukraine.

Funny thing about freedom of expression, isn't it? It is apparently only permitted when the state declares who is an acceptable target for denunciation. In the corrupted currents of this world, it would seem that Israel gets a free pass, no matter what crimes against humanity it perpetrates.

UPDATE: Predictably, the U.S. vetoed a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza:

The United States on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in the war in Gaza because it is not linked to an immediate release of hostages taken captive by Hamas in Israel in October 2023.

The U.N. Security Council voted 14-1 in favor of the resolution sponsored by the 10 elected members on the 15-member council, but it was not adopted because of the U.S. veto.

The resolution that was put to a vote “demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent cease-fire to be respected by all parties, and further reiterates its demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.”

Hmm. Sounds to me that the resolution did call for the immediate release of the hostages, but I guess Israel's perennial, unconditional friend just can't bring itself to do anything other than perpetuate the carnage in Gaza.