On May 30, The Hamilton Spectator published an op-ed written by three McMaster University professors and members of “Faculty for Palestine McMaster” – Wael El-Dakhakhni, Yaser Haddara and Ameil Joseph, wherein the authors described the McMaster student encampment as “beautiful” and evidence of “a brighter world”. It would be hard to imagine a piece of writing that included more incorrect and offensive claims and accusations than what these three achieve, in so few words.
The piece opened with a passionate and flowery unpacking of the Arabic word qahr, saying they are “a group of McMaster professors experiencing qahr witnessing the genocide.” The term, they say, is ‘untranslatable’, and means “a deep burning anguish, a feeling of injustice resulting from a huge asymmetry of violence in power that is normalized and silenced, even while in plain sight.” And while this definition would very conveniently apply western social justice concepts to the ongoing Gaza conflict, it’s not only disingenuous, it’s also clearly deliberately crafted to tug on western liberal heartstrings, drawing readers to their apparently-just cause.
First, the statement that “qahr” is untranslatable is misleading. While the word carries specific cultural nuances, it can be translated into other languages with terms like “oppression,” “subjugation,” or “domination,” albeit with some loss of nuance. To suggest that Israel is ‘oppressing’ or ‘subjugating’ Palestinians is utter nonsense, since prior to October 7, Israel had no presence in Gaza for nearly 20 years. Since the war with Hamas began, the point became moot, since Israel is a state actor defending itself against a mass-casualty terror attack. Was Britain oppressing or subjugating Germany in WWII? Is Ukraine oppressing or subjugating Russia? The suggestion that self-defence is somehow ‘oppressive’ is absolute lunacy.
More problematic, however, is the fact that the statements “deep burning anguish” “normalized silence” and “huge asymmetry of violence” are opinions rather than direct translations. They have seemingly been deliberately added to make the word more applicable to the narrative they are attempting to spin about Israel. Moreover, the idea that an asymmetric power structure would in itself be the cause for “anguish” is not in keeping with the cultural reality of the Arab world. In nearly all of the Middle East, the idea that ‘might makes right’ is the normative mode of thinking.
Indeed, for the anti-Israel activists promoting campus encampments, there was no such qahr for the attacks of October 7, or for the Israeli civilians tortured, raped or burned alive. Indeed, there is only qahr in this instance because they started a war which they are now losing. Much like the so-called “Nakba”, the outrage stems not from the objective action, but from the fact that they were not victorious over the Jewish people, and that Jews refuse to die. The failure to commit genocide against the Jewish people is hardly a reasonable justification for feeling anguished.
But their inability to properly define “qahr” shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that they apparently also can’t define genocide (which they accuse Israel of committing), or colonialism (upon which they say Israel is founded). The complete inversion of historical reality necessary to cast Israel’s indigenous people as the colonizers on their own ancestral lands, while defending Arabs as the rightful (and oppressed!) owners is baffling. The most cursory analysis of the situation would tell you that the Arab expansion into the area happened by wiping out indigenous peoples across the middle east, all in the name of empire building – the very definition of colonialism. The fact that El-Dakhakhni, Haddara and Joseph invoke the name of Canada’s first people in defence of their point, and profess to stand in solidarity with the indigenous people of Canada, while at the same time upholding colonial rule over Jewish indigenous land, is unconscionable.
They claim to stand against “actual antisemitism”, while at the same time promoting the destruction of the Jewish people’s homeland, and denying the Jewish land-back movement that is Zionism. The authors should be ashamed of themselves, using the plight of Canada’s indigenous people to defend the hateful rhetoric seen in these encampments – something, incidentally, that many of Canada’s indigenous people have spoken out strongly against. Perhaps to the authors all indigenous people are the same – no more than pawns to be manoeuvred and manipulated to serve their unjust cause.
Take action now: Send a letter to the editor to the Hamilton Spectator. Send letters to: letters@thespec.com.
