11/03/2024
Should a law firm take a position on world issues like the conflict in the Middle East? If it focuses on a particular conflict to the exclusion of others (e.g., in Haiti, the Congo, Ukraine, etc.), is that evidence of its preoccupation with those headlines that have most effectively captured the news cycle? And, if it makes a statement or takes a position, who will listen, what impact will it have, and what difference could it even make? And what of its bottom line? Is it bad for business to potentially alienate those with different views?
Those questions swirled around in my head as I considered whether or not to write this article and post it on Franklin Law’s social media. In the end, I felt compelled to share my thoughts. Whatever may come of sharing, silence was never truly an option.
In the last year, I have heard panelists featured on major Western news media outlets weigh in on the conflict between Palestine, Israel, and surrounding nations on a near daily basis. With few exceptions, the refrain most frequently heard is that the West – US, Canada, and much of Europe for example – “stands” with Israel. That refrain suggests that the West’s solidarity with Israel is absolute and unconditional. Subsequent pleas for a cease fire or a two-state solution – in the absence of more concrete intervention such as divestment or discontinuance of military aid – do nothing to suggest otherwise.
I can’t help but to draw parallels and notice differences between the discourse that gets traction in major Western news media about the situation in the Middle East, and the discourse that our team at Franklin Law has with workers on a daily basis as we “stand” in solidarity with them and the Unions and other organizations that support them.
For me, “standing” with workers takes many forms. When I consult with a worker, some of the most valuable things that I can do is listen to them, provide them with my honest opinion about the merits of their case, advise them about their legal and non-legal options, and convey that information in a supportive manner with a view to preserving their sense of dignity and agency. In practice, I know that some workers will feel empowered after consulting with me, while others will leave the consultation feeling frustrated, angry, hopeless, and disappointed – not just with their employer but often with me, my firm, and the legal system because of the difficult and sobering feedback that I have provided. For me, “standing” with workers also encompasses my belief that an accountable Union movement is a stronger Union movement. I praise Unions for the tremendous strides they have made, and continue to make, in empowering Unionized and non-Unionized workers, and frequently try to act as an intermediary in restoring broken relationships between Unions and disenfranchised members. I also know that Unions are creatures of our society and continue to operate in an environment in which threats of corruption, cooption, greed, power, and discrimination are ever present and loom large. Because of that reality, “standing” with workers also means holding Unions accountable, especially in situations where their actions are inconsistent with their duty to represent their members fairly and broader goals of advancing human rights and workers’ rights. For me, “standing” with workers requires a spectrum of discourse and responses. At one end, I engage in supportive, affirming, and joy-filled discussions with workers that leave them and me feeling inspired, renewed, and part of a broader movement for positive social change. At the other end, I engage in extremely difficult, and potentially relationship ending, discussions, where I provide opinions and advice that are in conflict with the immediate goals and hopes of the workers that I care about most deeply and, in rare situations, positions an employer as the party who has acted reasonably.
“Standing” with Israel as that phrase is understood and used by panelists featured by major Western news media outlets seems to bear no resemblance to Franklin Law’s experiences “standing” with workers. Palestinians’ need for independence, autonomy, self-governance, and self-determination is frequently reduced to the actions of, and dismissed as the goals of, one or more organizations that use terrorist tactics. Absent is any effort to discuss the current conflict through the lens of Palestinians’ historic right and plight to defend themselves. Absent is any discussion of Palestinians’ right to resist displacement and claims of apartheid. Absent is any discussion of Palestinians’ right to advance their interests in being treated like human beings. Absent is any push back or objective critique of the actions or conduct of Israel’s government or the notion that Israel’s “right” to exist is not greater than, and cannot be to the exclusion of, the “right” of a Palestinian state to exist.
While panelists featured on major Western media outlets frequently, and appropriately in my view, discuss the horrors of the indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023 and the heart-wrenching situation of the hostages and families who continue to suffer in the wake of those terrorist attacks, the indiscriminate use of, for example, exploding cell phones in public spaces is lauded by panelists as awe-inspiring strategic and militaristic achievements, with only passing reference to the Palestinian civilians who died or were injured and the unspeakable tolls taken on their families. Indeed, discourse centering around the West “standing” with Israel continues to dominate the news cycle even as recognition grows of the manner in which Israel’s government continues to flout international and human rights law.
In my view, this notion of the West “standing” with Israel, which in turn is rooted in the notion of Israel and the West sharing some sort of moral high ground amongst stakeholders in the Middle Eastern conflict, is acritical, ahistorical, lacks balance, lacks objectivity, and is counterproductive. It helps no one except those with power within Israel and elsewhere who might directly benefit from the inhumane and profit-driven exercise of that power. And I promise you, the discourse that is enabled, encouraged, and centered by major Western news media outlets – framed as it is in terms of the West’s unequivocal “friendship” and support for Israel’s government – does not, and will not, work for the people who seek to live freely, independently, and safely, as Palestinians or Israelis. At best, it maintains the status quo. At worst, it sows and creates fertile space for further escalation, bloodshed, and misery.
If we’re lucky, as workers’ rights lawyers and advocates at Franklin Law, we’ll be able to positively impact the lived experiences of hundreds, maybe thousands, of workers throughout our careers. Even with such limited and narrow reach and influence, we recognize that we have the power to effect positive social change and have a responsibility not to be dogmatic in our understanding of, and approach to, what it means to “stand” with workers, especially given the complicated and nuanced nature of the employment and human rights issues and experiences that workers present with. We are unapologetically partisan, but we also understand that “standing” with workers necessarily involves creating space for employees to understand employers’ points of view and sometimes requires difficult discussions with workers about their shortcomings, what they did wrong, and what they can do to rectify the harm that they have caused. Sometimes we risk being alienated from the very workers whom we seek to support.
Major Western news media outlets not only have far greater potential than Franklin Law does to provide individuals with, or deprive individuals of, balanced information that is necessary for them to engage in critical thinking, but, as self-proclaimed “neutrals”, they also have far greater responsibility not to be dogmatic about the discourse that they centre or the viewpoints that they privilege, especially given the complex and hotly debated history surrounding the relationship between Palestinians, Israelis, and the lands that they both lay claim to.
Many of you may say that I am naïve and that I have missed the point in so far as media outlets have no intention of being neutral, are partisan, and always have an agenda. I understand that response and wholeheartedly agree with many aspects of it. But perhaps rather than being naïve, I simply remain hopeful. I believe that nuanced discourse can exist amongst the most partisan of actors and it is in that vein that I still believe that major Western news media outlets can and must do better, and those of us who have a voice should continue to push them to do so.
Finally, I think it’s important for me to say that had I been able to access, or be exposed to, non-Western media outlets with ease, I may have had similar critiques of them. If anyone knows of media outlets that cover the situation in the Middle East and in other areas of conflict in the world in a more balanced way, please share them with me and other readers.
