Jonathan Kay

Sharing views on Israel

More than 100 people were at the Museum of Vancouver on Sept. 9 for a New Israel Fund of Canada-hosted panel discussion, The Backstory: Behind What You Know About Israel. Moderated by Temple Sholom’s Rabbi Dan Moskovitz, the evening featured Ronit Heyd, executive director of Shatil, an Israeli nonprofit supported by NIF, and Canadian journalist and editor Jonathan Kay of The Walrus.

The night before their Vancouver talk, Kay and Heyd spoke to a large crowd in Toronto, where they were joined by Haaretz editor-in-chief and journalist Aluf Benn. In Vancouver, the two were introduced by NIFC board president Joan Garson and executive director Orit Sarfaty. They covered a range of issues, including the rise of women in the Knesset, how North Americans talk about Israel, the problem of racism in Israeli society, the lasting impacts of 2011’s social justice protests and the influence of feminism and the Women of the Wall.

photo - Ronit Heyd — Ronit Heyd *(photo from New Israel Fund of Canada)*

Starting with a bit of good news, Moskovitz asked Heyd to talk about the fact that, at 31 members, the current Israeli Knesset has more women MKs than any prior government. “It’s not just in the Knesset,” said Heyd, “more women than ever ran in the last municipal elections.” Women are also trying to participate more equally in local religious councils, a task not for the faint-hearted, she said, due to the “very strong political power in the Knesset [and the Israeli establishment] that is still being held by the ultra-Orthodox parties. The ultra-Orthodox do not have – I want to add, yet – do not have women in the parties.”

The impact of the rise of women in politics extends beyond the makeup of parliament, Heyd said. “It is important to note that when a woman enters a very masculine environment, it changes” in several ways, including shifting the agenda. It is changed by raising, for example, the notion of transparency, “of the need to have a more just distribution of resources, of having a more open governance … and we see that especially with the religious councils.”

Though the pace of change is slow, she said, “This is not happening just out of the blue; they needed training. One of the things that Shatil does is work with a group of women who want to be elected to the religious councils – they want to have their voice heard. They need support, they need to know how to build alliances, how to read a budget.”

Kay added that, while there are certain parallels, the situation in Canada is very different, and bringing women into Israeli politics is a “much more urgent project.” Unlike in Israel, he said, “in Canada, there is no significant mainstream constituency that believes that women cannot occupy the public sphere. It’s a fringe, not mainstream, view. In Israel, you have these people who ideologically don’t believe that women should have a role in public life.”

However, though women in Israel are participating at unprecedented levels in government, their voices are still not equally heard in the male-dominated policy landscape. Of the main issues in the Knesset, Heyd said, “The first one is security. The second one is security. The third one is also security. And women are not brought into that conversation.” The impact of women will be more fully realized, she said, once they have influence in policies around pay equality, security and the economy.

Moskovitz asked each panelist to comment on the polarization of the conversation about Israel and how the divisiveness impacts the Canadian and Israeli Jewish communities.

photo - Jonathan Kay — Jonathan Kay *(photo from New Israel Fund of Canada)*

Part of what creates the tense atmosphere is that “Zionism itself in its most potent form has become a form of religion,” Kay said. “What do religions provide? They provide a theory of evil, they provide a theory of good, they provide a tribal identity, they provide a liturgy … many of the fundamental elements of a religion are provided by the most militant aspects of Zionism as they are projected in the Diaspora.

“By the way,” he continued, “I consider myself a Zionist. I’ve written columns in support of Israel, I’ve raised the flag in time of war. However, I know when I see people’s opinions on geopolitics become so strong that they take on the character of religious beliefs. And you see this with the Iran nuclear deal. It is not only, ‘I don’t like Clause 7, but I do like Clause 8.’ The dialogue is, ‘It’s 1938, are you with Churchill or are you with Chamberlain?’ … the imagery of Hitler, the imagery of black, white, good, evil. And, again, I know there’s this well-intentioned idea among many liberal Jews, ‘Well, if only we had the right press release, or the right argument and we could frame things in the right way.’… To a certain extent, that’s not happening because the people on the other side of the debate have chosen another faith.”

The speakers agreed that the polarization of the debate in the Diaspora impacts Israeli society; it matters. “There is a direct line that goes from the conversation that is being held here in North America and what’s happening in Israel,” said Heyd.

Can Jews in North America find a way to talk about Israel, asked Moskovitz?

“Email is the destruction of dialogue,” Kay said. “Stop sending each other articles! Take 30 seconds and actually put your own thoughts in your own words. You don’t have to send it to 50 people…. Don’t call me an imperialist if you think I’m right wing. Don’t call me a useful idiot if you think I’m left wing…. Don’t fall back on those tropes…. In the ’90s, you actually had to find someone to argue with! Now, you can actually do it from your desk, and I think that has raised the temperature because it has created tribalism. It’s one thing to lose an argument with one person, it’s another thing to lose an argument with 50 people on a reply-all email chain. It sounds silly, but the medium is the message.”

Another issue that has made news is the problem of racism. While there are few parallels between the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States and the protests of Ethiopian Israelis earlier this year, both countries still need to find a way to better integrate and respect racial diversity. The issue is especially acute when it comes to integrating Arab-Israelis into Israeli society.

Kay said he believes that Canada has done an excellent job of assimilating various groups, with some exceptions, but it helps that many immigrants come to Canada from urban centres, and are well educated. “Regardless of their skin color, they’re capitalists…. That’s the main thing,” he said.

On the question of what changes Israel has undergone since the 2011 summer economic protests, Heyd said there is still no economic relief for average Israelis, who are increasingly burdened by the cost of living, but Israelis have received more coverage for childcare, and the centralization of the market is back on the political agenda.

Overall, whether it’s the ways in which Israel is meeting its challenges or struggling to balance security with social justice, what is apparent, Heyd said, is that there is “a mini flourishing of civil society … people in the periphery are becoming involved, not just Tel Aviv, the big cities,” and that is cause of cautious optimism.

NIFC hosts Anat Hoffman, executive director of the Israel Religious Action Centre, on Nov. 17 at Temple Sholom.

Basya Laye is a former editor of the Jewish Independent.

All ears on Netanyahu talk

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addresses AIPAC. (photo by Amos Ben Gershom IGPO via Ashernet)

Washington, D.C.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the AIPAC Policy Conference Monday, presaging his address to the U.S. Congress Tuesday. “Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given,” he joked, referencing the controversy around his visit.

Netanyahu said the speech was not intended to show disrespect to U.S. President Barack Obama. “I deeply appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel: security cooperation, intelligence sharing, support at the UN, and much more, some things that I, as prime minister of Israel, cannot even divulge to you because it remains in the realm of the confidences that are kept between an American president and an Israeli prime minister,” he said. “I am deeply grateful for this support, and so should you be.”

He said his purpose in coming was to “speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel.”

As prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu said, he has a moral obligation to speak up. “For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless. We were utterly powerless against our enemies who swore to destroy us. We suffered relentless persecution and horrific attacks. We could never speak on our own behalf, and we could not defend ourselves.

“Well, no more, no more,” he said. “The days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over.”

Of the controversy that surrounds his visit, and the apparent rift it illuminates, Netanyahu took the opportunity to itemize a long list of historical disagreements between the two allies.

“In 1948, Secretary of State [George] Marshall opposed David Ben-Gurion’s intention to declare statehood. That’s an understatement. He vehemently opposed it. But Ben-Gurion, understanding what was at stake, went ahead and declared Israel’s independence,” said Netanyahu.

“In 1967, as an Arab noose was tightening around Israel’s neck, the United States warned prime minister Levi Eshkol that if Israel acted alone, it would be alone. But Israel did act – acted alone to defend itself.”

He noted, “In 1981, under the leadership of Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor at Osirak: the United States criticized Israel and suspended arms transfers for three months. And, in 2002, after the worst wave of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel’s history, Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon launched Operation Defensive Shield. The United States demanded that Israel withdraw its troops immediately, but Sharon continued until the operation was completed.”

The reason he mentioned all this history, he said, was to make a point. “Despite occasional disagreements, the friendship between America and Israel grew stronger and stronger, decade after decade. And our friendship will weather the current disagreement, as well, to grow even stronger in the future. And I’ll tell you why. Because we share the same dreams. Because we pray and hope and aspire for that same better world. Because the values that unite us are much stronger than the differences that divide us. Values like liberty, equality, justice, tolerance, compassion.”

On Tuesday, Netanyahu addressed Congress, thanking Obama and the United States for support. “This Capitol dome helped build our Iron Dome,” he said.

The day before Purim, he made a parallel between Haman and Ayatollah Khamenei and outlined a litany of Iran’s sins. He warned that the agreement being negotiated “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

If all else fails, the prime minister warned, Israel will do what it needs to do. “For the first time in 100 generations, we the Jewish people can defend ourselves,” he said. “Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.” However, he added that he knows Israel does not stand alone because it has the support of the United States, an assertion that received an ovation from the combined senators and congresspeople.

Top of agenda

Fears that the controversy over Netanyahu’s speech to Congress could fragment the historic support for Israel across Democratic and Republican members of Congress pushed bipartisanship up the agenda of the 16,000-delegate AIPAC conference, which ran Sunday to Tuesday.

Former CNN anchor Frank Sesno interviewed Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on stage at the conference, primarily about Iran’s nuclear program. Both politicians were emphatic that the pro-Israel consensus would withstand the tempest.

Cardin insisted that a final agreement must be transparent and allow inspectors on the ground throughout Iran. He favors increased sanctions on Iran if no deal is reached by the March 24 deadline. He said the only reason Iran is negotiating in the first place is because of sanctions and the economic isolation they have put on the country. “We’ve got to keep the heat on,” he said.

“Diplomacy would be the right answer, rather than war,” Graham said, adding that Congress should have the right to vote on the deal. “A bad deal is a nightmare for us, Israel and the world.” He warned that if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon it would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with the Sunni countries seeking the same weaponry.

On the reactions to Netanyahu’s visit, the men were unanimous.

“Don’t lose focus,” Cardin said. “The bad guy is Iran.” He urged AIPAC delegates to put pressure on their members of Congress to support proposed legislation that would make it difficult or impossible for countries that boycott Israel to do business with the United States.

Graham, who is chair of the Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, received an ovation when he threatened to cut off money to the UN if vilification of Israel in the General Assembly continues.

The bipartisanship flag was waved again later in the day when Representative Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives, and Representative Kevin McCarthy, the Republican majority leader in the house, spoke.

Lawfare not fair

The 1975 UN General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism is that body’s most notorious attack on Israel, said Brett Schaefer, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, but there have been 20 condemnatory resolutions against Israel just in this session of the GA alone, compared with three condemnatory resolutions for every other nation.

Likewise, the UN Human Rights Council, he said, has a disproportionate focus on Israel, while ignoring serious human rights abuses elsewhere. The council’s standing agenda has one permanent item on Israel and another item covering every other country on earth.

These institutional attacks on Israel began before the latest round of “lawfare,” Palestinian leaders’ attempts to gain international recognition without negotiating directly with Israel. Schaefer outlined a long list of successful and unsuccessful attempts by the Palestinians to gain legitimacy through the UN and its agencies. Yet such efforts are in direct violation of peace negotiations, which are premised on mutual recognition and negotiation, he said.

While Palestine has been recognized by UNESCO, the UN body on culture, education and science, Schaefer said Palestine is highly unlikely to be recognized as a full member of the GA because membership must be recommended by the Security Council to the assembly and the United States would likely veto such a move.

“What this is about is Palestinians getting what they want without compromise,” he said, noting that the Palestinian leadership has prepared their people to expect nothing less than complete victory and to view compromise as betrayal. However, Schaefer added, “They’ve been pretty successful so far.” The international community is “enabling Palestinians” in avoiding peace negotiations, he said. This includes the Obama administration, according to Schaefer, which puts pressure on Israel to compromise, but not on the Palestinians. “The Palestinians see no downside to what they’re doing right now,” he said, adding that there does not appear to be any reason to change course.

Gil Troy, a professor of history at McGill University, said the UN was founded as a great healing, redeeming instrument promoting the universality of human rights, but it is now a “Third World Dictators’ Debating Society.” A coalition of Soviet-led developing countries hijacked the UN from the democracies decades ago, he said.

With 193 member-states now, Troy said, the UN represents 193 forms of nationalism, but there is only one form of nationalism that is delegitimized by the GA – the Jewish nationalism called Zionism.

A conundrum for Israel in all of this is that the UN is widely respected worldwide. “The United Nations is the greatest social services agency the world has ever seen,” Troy said. For the overwhelming majority of the world, it is a great organization helping their daily lives, therefore, if the UN hates Israel, Israel must be evil.

Schaefer said Palestinian leaders have benefited from their position as something between a government and a figurehead. “Palestinians have achieved some aspects of self-government but they don’t have any of the responsibilities of government,” he said. UNRWA and other international agencies use foreign aid to run the health, education and civil infrastructure in Palestine, so the Palestinian leaders do not have to take responsibility for their people. He said the world should force the leaders to govern their people.

Schaefer suggested that the United States begin using its own power at the UN. “The United States needs to elevate awareness among other countries that their votes at the General Assembly matter,” he said. There used to be a rule about aid to countries that do not vote with the Americans consistently, but that has been rescinded, he said.

Canada, eh?

An AIPAC session on relations between Ottawa and Jerusalem drew a respectable audience – mostly Canadians but a significant number of Americans as well – and this itself is a sign of Canada’s changed roles in the world, said Jonathan Kay. “No one would have cared what Canada thought 10 years ago,” he said.

Kay, editor of The Walrus and former editor of the National Post’s comments section, was joined on a panel by B.C. author Terry Glavin.

While Prime Minister Stephen Harper is widely credited (or condemned) for shifting Canada’s position to be more pro-Israel, Kay noted it was former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin who changed Canada’s voting patterns at the UN. Kay said he sees this shift as one of the most abrupt changes in foreign policy he’s ever seen. Canadian voting policy had been in line with European nations, he said, which meant generally anti-Israel, but it is now the most “doctrinaire pro-Israel country in the world.”

Glavin said the shift did not come from the top down. Changes in the views of the Canadian general public have been seismic, he said. Canadians had clung to the idea that their country is one of “peacemakers, not warmongers,” an “honest broker” and “not those vulgar Americans.”

As well, the presence in the Liberal and New Democratic parties of a small group of vocal anti-Israel members went largely unchecked until after the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, when there was a significant shift in what Canadians were willing to accept in terms of radical foreign-policy views, Glavin said. “Most Canadians had enough by about 2006, 2007,” he added.

The Conservative party that Harper leads is technically less than 20 years old. When the Conservatives won a majority in 2011, Glavin said, some Canadians were waiting for the creation of a “Pentecostalist Taliban State.” Instead, he said, the country has accepted thousands of gay refugees, increased aid to Palestinians and focused on maternal health in the developing world.

Kay put it more succinctly, calling the Conservatives socially liberal on gay rights and abortion in a way that has no analogue in the United States. He characterized Canada for his American audience as “like one big Vermont,” and said the Conservative government accepts gay marriage as a given and, “cats aren’t marrying dogs or whatever.”

On the Israel front, Glavin said Harper has made clear that the struggle is between “free people and tyrants,” not between Israelis and Palestinians. The engagement in Afghanistan has also changed Canadians’ views of foreign affairs, he added.

Kay believes that the 1956 Canadian “invention” of peacekeeping was a stale dogma that Canadians cherished but were eventually prepared to abandon as the country became more confident. As the threats in the world, particularly radical Islam, increased, Canadians took a different view of their own role.

Will things change if this year’s election is won by Justin Trudeau, whom Glavin said some Canadians view as a “foppish drama teacher snowboarder”?

Kay predicts Trudeau would essentially ignore the Middle East. “To the extent that he knows about stuff, it’s domestic stuff,” Kay said.

Kay credits the CBC for moderating what was once a reliably anti-Israel bias, but Glavin raised a recent incident in which CBC television host Evan Solomon asked then foreign minister John Baird if he thought it was OK to appoint a Jewish person, Vivian Bercovici, as ambassador to Israel. Glavin said that the prime minister recently appointed Kevin Vickers, the heroic sergeant-at-arms who killed the terrorist on Parliament Hill last year, ambassador to Ireland and nobody questioned the fact that an Irish Catholic was being appointed to Canada’s highest office in Dublin.

Baird reflects

Recently resigned foreign affairs minister Baird rejected the idea that strong support for Israel has damaged Canadian relations with other countries, saying that Canada has better relations with the Arab world now than it has had in years.

As foreign affairs minister, he said, his job was to promote Canadian values and interests. Supporting Israel, he said, is where those two intersect.

On Iran, Baird said, history should provide an object lesson. Hitler published Mein Kampf years before he began the “Final Solution.” The world was warned. Now Iran is promising to wipe Israel off the map.

“We’ve got to take that incredibly seriously,” he said.

Pat Johnson is a Vancouver writer and principal in PRsuasiveMedia.com.

Bipartisan support of Israel

The controversy around Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress this week was so fraught with partisan rancor – or at least with punditry alleging partisan rancor – that the theme at the AIPAC conference in Washington, which immediately preceded the prime minister’s address, was “all bipartisanship all the time.”

Democratic U.S. Senator Ben Cardin and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham opened the event Sunday morning with emphatic assertions that American support for Israel overrides all partisan politics. The message was repeated later in the day by top Democratic and Republican officials from the House of Representatives. Messages of cross-partisan rah-rah for Israel were featured in many of the conference speakers’ messages and on the massive 360-degree screens encircling the U.S. capital’s cavernous convention centre. The American ambassador to the United Nations made the same case.

As the country’s greatest ally in the raucous Middle East, Israel is somewhat akin in the American political culture to the U.S. military – one can criticize policies and politicians, but it is de rigueur to restate philosophical support for Israel as a great ally and for the right of Israel to defend its citizens.

This sort of bipartisanship has not always been the case in Canada, which has a very different perspective on foreign affairs and, sometimes, on Israel. But that has changed, according to a panel of Canadians who addressed the conference.

Shimon Fogel, chief executive officer of Canada’s Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, moderated a session featuring Jonathan Kay, editor of The Walrus magazine and former comment page editor of the National Post, and Terry Glavin, a Victoria-based commentator and author.

“Israel has won the battle of ideas in Canada,” Kay said.

While many credit Prime Minister Stephen Harper with leading the change, both men see a deeper shift in public opinion. Glavin called it “tectonic.”

The change is due to a few things, the two commentators agreed.

Anti-Zionism comes in a grab bag with anti-Americanism, Kay said, and Canadian anti-Americanism is in freefall since Barack Obama became U.S. president and Stephen Harper became Canadian prime minister. (It’s hard to condemn Americans over, say, environmental issues when Obama vetoes the pipeline Harper backs.)

The rise of social media has also played a back-door role. The CBC was routinely criticized for being anti-Israel a few years back, but the social media backlash every time biased reporting occurred – aided by groups like Honest Reporting – has led to fairer coverage.

“I actually find the CBC’s coverage of Israel pretty good,” said Kay.

The 9/11 terror attacks also provided a major impetus for changing Canadian views of friends and enemies. But the Canadian military engagement in Afghanistan perhaps drove the major shift of opinion, said Glavin. Two generations of Canadians had not seen active wartime mobilization. The fight against radical Islam, in the form of the Taliban, changed perceptions of global issues, including Israel’s struggle against nominally different but ideologically parallel enemies.

Where anti-Zionism was most successful – on university campuses – most students now roll their eyes at the “trite and ritualized” debate on both sides, said Kay. In terms of professors supporting the BDS movement, he added, it is the “least consequential” academic organizations making the case. And gay rights groups opposing Israel are “underemployed” activists who have won most of what they were demanding.

Significantly, he continued, at the national level, the elements of the Liberal and New Democratic parties that once condemned Israel for every imaginable crime have been reined in by their parties. Notoriously anti-Israel NDP MP Svend Robinson is gone from the scene. His ideological successor in anti-Zionism, Libby Davies, has announced she will not seek re-election in Vancouver East, although Kay said she has already been “defanged” by party leader Thomas Mulcair, who Kay said makes no apologies for his support for Israel.

Glavin noted that the Arab Spring, which represented the rising of 300 million more or less enslaved people, made it “difficult to make the case that Israel is the big problem in the Middle East.”

Both men noted that the shift began with Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, under whose leadership Canada changed its voting patterns at the United Nations. The pro-Israel position accelerated under Harper, particularly after the 2011 election when the Conservatives won a majority and John Baird was appointed foreign affairs minister. Baird, who left politics this year, was greeted with a hero’s welcome at the AIPAC conference.

While Canadians are proud to be different than Americans on many fronts, the consensus on Israel that has reigned in the United States is now dominant in Canada, as well.

Ignorant conspiracies

After the murders in Paris this month, it did not take long for the forces of conspiracy to switch into high gear.

Among those in the anti-Israel movement were people who suggested that the murders had been perpetrated by Israeli agents and that it was a frame up to besmirch Muslims. Greta Berlin, a leader in the Free Gaza movement and one of the most prominent anti-Israel campaigners, posted a statement on her Facebook page shortly after the murders at the French satirical magazine: “Mossad just hit the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo in a clumsy false flag designed to damage the accord between Palestine and France…. Here’s hoping the French police will be able to tell a well-executed hit by a well-trained Israeli intelligence service and not assume the Muslims would be likely to attack France when France is their friend. Israel did tell France there would be grave consequences if they voted with Palestine. A four-year-old could see who is responsible for this terrible attack.”

Such comments should exclude people like this from legitimate dialogue on the issues, yet the world continues to grant them impunity to spread their theories. And, as perverse and disturbing as the conspiracies from such anti-Israel activists are, there are more absurd and apparently common views expressed on the street in the Paris suburbs where large populations of immigrants from Muslim countries live in economic stagnation. It took an American reporter no time at all to find more fantastical theories; for example, that the attacks were carried out by magical, shape-shifting Jews who morphed themselves into figures resembling Arab terrorists and perpetrated the evil acts.

As extraordinarily outlandish as the latter allegation is, it is no more removed from reality than the former. And both represent a somewhat alarming reality in contemporary discourse. There are conspiracy theories with some traction that say “the Jews” invented ISIS, perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and are in cahoots with the Freemasons to control the media and levers of power. Moowahahaha.

We should be cognizant that these ideas exist and pay attention to the impact they may play in the global dialogue about Israel (and anything else involving Jews). And, we should be vigilant and thankful for the organizations that monitor and condemn these notions. At the same time, we need to maintain perspective. While these ideas may seem widespread, they are generally (though not always) held by the ignorant, the ill-informed and the undereducated. Notably, these ideas seem most prominent in places where democracy has not been permitted to flourish, and autocrats will – and do – exploit these sorts of things for their purposes. Most of the people who carry these poisonous thoughts, however, cannot even exert their influence at the ballot box.

We return to comments by Jonathan Kay when he visited here more than a year ago now. Kay, then the editorial page editor of the National Post and now editor of The Walrus magazine, insisted that these voices have been marginalized. In the halls of power – or even of country clubs and polite society – where antisemitism once held sway – these ideas are dismissed along with the people who espouse them. To subscribe to them is to relegate oneself to the D-list of civil dialogue.

It is important to acknowledge, on the one hand, guttersnipe who purvey ludicrous, hateful ideas and, on the other, the progress that has been made against bigotry among the people who determine policy in our country and among our democratic allies. Outside these circles are all sorts of ideas that are beyond the realm, but in the places where bizarre anti-Jewish conspiracies still hold sway, antisemitism is merely one among a disturbing host of societal ailments.

There is a quote that seems appropriate here, and it is doubly attributed – to the American presidential confidant Bernard Baruch and children’s writer Dr. Seuss. Whichever man originated it, the sentiment applies: “Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.”