"Gerald Batit expresses frustration that none of the pro-Palestinian encampment protestors at McGill would engage in conversation with him. While his argument appears to champion free speech, his stance misses the forest for the trees. In calling for a fair and open debate while sitting on a bench with an Israeli flag, he is ignoring the serious concerns faced by pro-Palestine demonstrators if they engage."
June 17, 2024
Re: I protested in the '60s; what I see today is different
Gerald Batit expresses frustration that none of the pro-Palestinian encampment protestors at McGill would engage in conversation with him. While his argument appears to champion free speech, his stance misses the forest for the trees. In calling for a fair and open debate while sitting on a bench with an Israeli flag, he is ignoring the serious concerns faced by pro-Palestine demonstrators if they engage.
Student’s hesitation to debate is not rooted in an aversion to free speech but a legitimate concern for their safety. Pro-Israel advocacy organizations like B’nai Brith often conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, making students hesitant to engage in these debates out of a well-founded fear of being unfairly branded as antisemitic. Platforms like Canary Mission exacerbate this problem by doxing individuals who speak critically of Israel, publishing their personal information online on a “black list” to intimidate and silence pro-Palestine supporters. This kind of targeted harassment can lead to personal and professional consequences, such as finding difficulty in employment.
Batit’s supposed invitation to debate, therefore, rings hollow. He fails to acknowledge the risks involved and the fact that the oppressor and oppressed rarely, if ever, sit at the same table to negotiate their rights and freedoms on equal footing.
Lynn Naji,
Junior Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East