Let’s talk about Palestine… or rather, as one especially astute Varsity letter writer pointed out, let’s not talk about Palestine, because to even use the name Palestine is to make a political assertion. According to some Israelis, Palestine is a country that hasn’t existed since 1948. Of course, according to many Palestinians Palestine is also the name of a country that, despite Israel’s best efforts, will never go away.
When this particular “Palestine” letter appeared in the paper, it was given the slightly foreboding title “Trouble by any other name.” This neatly summed up a squabble over nomenclature and further suggested what the place known as Palestine/Israel/whatever represented to most of the western world: a complex and puzzling political problem that might never go away. (Though if wishing it away would work, you can be damn sure we would try.)
Then on February 14—with all the love one bastion of independent student thought can harbour for another—Carleton University’s student paper, the Charlatan, published a story about the Varsity’s “anti-Israeli” bias. It was a story based upon U of T student Benjamin Matta’s decision to launch yet another campus paper named Counterpoint. (Everyone knows that this campus just needs more newspapers.)
A newspaper in counterpoint to—at least according to the Charlatan story—the rabidly anti-Israeli paper you are reading right now. Though in fairness to Mr. Matta, it should be mentioned that he actually claimed to take issue with other media sources and that his comments about the Varsity had been misconstrued. In fact, when a Varsity staff member contacted him regarding the alleged bias, Matta said, “The Varsity was hardly discussed in my interview with the Charlatan, and I mentioned that in fact the Varsity has been publishing letters from various perspectives (which is essential).”
Accusations of bias are, of course, alarming. Especially for media sources, because no matter how modest the media source, its viability is contingent upon its credibility. People trust newspapers (and other media) because newspapers work hard to earn their trust (…more balance, less bias etc.)
But what was truly alarming was the fact that there had been almost complete lack of bias, pro-Israeli or otherwise, up until that point (at least on this particular issue, the Varsity reserves the right to be biased with the best). And this was because there had been very little reference to Israel or Palestine at all.
This might have been expected in a newspaper that serves a relatively narrow community of students—rising tuition or a possible TA strike might seem more immediate or pressing issues to students (and a dearth of foreign correspondents would surely handicap the paper) …but the Varsity Opinions and Feature sections often comment on international affairs. And that was what was kind of odd.
Commentary on the topic had been almost entirely confined to letters to the editor, despite—and I think all would agree with the terminology here—a 17-month crisis in the region. Based on the fervour of the letter writers, it was clear the subject did not leave students unaffected. Yet there was so little said about it that if there were any conspiracy, one would have thought it was a conspiracy of silence.
One of the few news stories to overtly broach the topic of Israeli/Palestinian relations was a poorly attended debate organized by the International Socialists. Once again the story seemed to be no-story-at-all; where one would have expected debate there was none. Where one had hoped there would be debate there was none. Which brings me back to the example of the word “Palestine” mentioned earlier. There is a problem of language, there is a problem of forum and debate and without these things there can be no dialogue and no resolution.
Let me give an example: In the last month, I’ve confronted at least two students who said they would like to write a story on this subject but that it was too controversial. The number of stories on this subject published in the Opinions section this school year: one. And even then, the true subject of the story was actually a lack of debate. (It was about the alleged pro-Palestinian bias of left-wing activist groups and how stifling the author finds it).
What I would like to see is more debate, and I would like to see it right here in the pages of the Varsity Opinions section. And I don’t want to see it confined to mere 200-word salvos, as it is in the Letters section. I want to see full-on 500-plus words of well-considered opinion. Apologies to Mr. Matta, but this campus doesn’t need more newspapers (and editors who wear their bias on their sleeve). It needs open, balanced debate, in a forum where people with opposing views are actually going to hear what their opponent has to say. So, let’s talk about Palestine, or Israel… or whatever the hell you’re inclined to call it.
