Michael Ignatieff: Intellectual hypocrisy

December 31, 2011

An interesting article on Al Jazeera English by Canadian writer Derrick O’Keefe looking at former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s public charges against Israeli Apartheid Week.

Michael Ignatieff: Intellectual hypocrisy
As Canada’s Liberal leader, the intellectual- turned-politician became an uncritical supporter of Israeli aggression

By Derrick O’Keefe

Under Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, Canada has developed a reputation as the most pro-Israel government in the western world.

Three years ago, Canada refused to utter a word of criticism about Israeli war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead against Gaza. Before that, back in 2006, the first year of the Harper government, Canada insisted that Israel’s attacks on Lebanon were “a measured response” – even after a Canadian family and a Canadian UN peacekeeper were among the victims killed by the intensive Israeli bombing.

So it was no surprise that when, in November, a Canadian boat with the Freedom Waves Flotilla to Gaza was hijacked in international waters by Israel’s navy, there was not a word of concern uttered by the Harper government for the Canadians detained in an Israeli jail. That same month, Defence Minister Peter MacKay met with his counterpart Ehud Barak to announce new military co-operation between Israel and Canada. The Harper government also obliged with some saber rattling and the announcement of new, strengthened sanctions against Iran.

Although Canada never deserved its reputation as a “fair broker” in the Middle East, there has been a marked shift in recent years culminating in loud, explicit support for Israel’s wars of aggression and its occupation. But Canada’s ignominious status as enabler of Israeli occupation on the world stage has also been facilitated by rampant political cowardice among opposition politicians. In many cases they know better, but remain silent for fear of bearing the brunt of an organised and well-funded lobby that defends Israeli policies. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | Canada, Commentary/Analysis, Israeli Apartheid Week | Permalink
Posted by psnedmonton

CPCCA: Follow the Money

July 29, 2011

An excellent article in Macleans magazine on the secretive funding behind the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism.

Follow the money
An MP inquiry into anti-Semitism vowed to be open and independent. Its shadowy funding says otherwise.

When a group of Conservative, Liberal and NDP MPs formed the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism in 2009, they decided to work outside of the normal structures of Parliament and raise their own money to hold a conference and conduct an inquiry. But transparency would be crucial, they said, pledging on their website to “voluntarily disclose all sources of funding” and remain independent of the Conservative government, advocacy groups and “Jewish community organizations.” By the time they released their report this month, however—warning that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Canada—that vow of full disclosure seemed to be forgotten, and the coalition appeared closely tied to the government.

Conservative MP Scott Reid, chairman of the coalition’s inquiry steering committee, said the CPCCA promised anonymity to private donors, who contributed a total of $127,078. As for their relationship with the government, the coalition accepted $451,280 from the department of Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who sat on the CPCCA’s inquiry steering committee as an ex officio member. The coalition’s key conclusion that a “new anti-Semitism” tends to focus on criticism of Israel echoes Kenney’s long-standing position.

Perhaps surprisingly, the MPs’ ethics code appears not to oblige them to reveal the names of their backers. The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner didn’t comment specifically on the CPCCA, but told Maclean’s the “Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons” requires only that individual MPs disclose money they receive—not MPs acting as a group. “There is no mechanism within the code for a group of MPs to disclose a collective gift,” the commissioner’s office said. The coalition knows the rules. “The ethics commissioner doesn’t cover [the CPCCA] because the donations went to an entity, not to an MP,” said Mike Firth, Reid’s executive assistant.

If the CPCCA’s private backers remain unnamed, the government’s support is a matter of record. Still, the arrangement between Kenney’s department and the coalition isn’t straightforward. The grant was paid to a third party, a non-governmental organization called the Parliamentary Centre, a not-for-profit group that helps legislatures around the world, mainly in developing countries, to build their capacity. The centre took on a narrowly limited role for the CPCCA, acting as the recipient of both the Citizenship and Immigration grant and private contributions. As a registered charity, it was able to issue tax receipts to those anonymous donors.

Citizenship and Immigration refused to release its full agreement with the centre. A summary description says the grant was provided to the centre to “host the Ottawa Conference for Combating Anti-Semitism.” That three-day conference was put on last fall by the CPCCA; the centre played, at most, a supporting role. “There was government funding that was earmarked for this particular conference, and we were approached because we had NGO status, and charitable status, and had the systems in place to manage donor funding,” said centre spokeswoman Petra Andersson-Charest. “We were not involved in designing or managing the subject matter that was discussed,” added Ivo Balinov, senior expert in parliamentary development at the centre.

Firth said most of the grant money went to pay expenses of conference participants, including visiting parliamentarians and experts. The coalition also held 10 days of hearings in 2009 and 2010 on Parliament Hill, gathering testimony from dozens of witnesses concerned about anti-Semitism. The CPCCA did not invite outspoken critics of Israel’s stance toward the Palestinians to testify. Its final conclusions were faulted by some for blurring the distinction between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy.

If the coalition’s findings were controversial, its funding mostly escaped attention. But it’s far from typical. MPs normally work within their own office budgets, or through official House committees, which are of course paid for by Parliament. The CPCCA’s broad membership largely insulated it from partisan scrutiny. Along with well-known Conservatives like Reid and Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner, the MPs who joined included prominent Liberals such as interim party leader Bob Rae, and veteran New Democrats like Peter Stoffer and Pat Martin. That opposition support, and close compatibility with Kenney, made it unlikely the coalition’s financing, however unusual, would be criticized from within political circles. It seems any questions about this shadowy new model for MPs to tackle a policy issue will have to come from outside.

Leave a Comment » | Canada, Commentary/Analysis, Corporate Media, Freedom of Speech | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by psnedmonton

Canada Clamps Down on Criticism of Israel

July 22, 2011

A great article by Jerusalem-based journalist Jillian Kestler-DAmours on the CPCCA final report and other Canadian support for Israel, which appears on Al Jazeera.

Canada clamps down on criticism of Israel
In an affront to free speech, government committee declares that criticism of Israel should be considered anti-Semitic.
Jillian Kestler-DAmours

Nearly two years after the first hearings were held in Ottawa, the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) released a detailed report on July 7 that found that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Canada, especially on university campuses.

While the CPCCA’s final report does contain some cases of real anti-Semitism, the committee has provided little evidence that anti-Semitism has actually increased in Canada in recent years. Instead, it has focused a disproportionate amount of effort and resources on what it calls a so-called “new anti-Semitism”: criticism of Israel.

Indeed, the real purpose of the CPCCA committee seems to be to stifle critiques of Israeli policy and disrupt pro-Palestinian solidarity organizing in Canada, including, most notably, Israeli Apartheid Week events. Many of the CPCCA’s findings, therefore, must be rejected as both an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of protest, and as recklessly undermining the fight against real instances of anti-Semitism.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | BDS, Canada, Commentary/Analysis, Freedom of Speech | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by psnedmonton

Response to CPCCA Report by F4P Members

July 21, 2011

An opinion piece by members of Faculty for Palestine responding to the final report of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA) appears in today’s National Post Full Comment.

Report on anti-Semitism seeks only to protect Israel
By Sue Ferguson, Mary-Jo Nadeau, Eric Shragge, Abby Lippman, Gary Kinsman and Reuben Roth

This month, a serious attack was made against free speech in Canada. A pseudo-parliamentary committee calling itself the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) issued a report calling on the federal government to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism that would criminalize criticism of the state of Israel. The report claims to support free speech and open debate around the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but its recommendations aim to silence pro-Palestinian voices, especially on campuses. The CPCCA’s biased processes and dubious conclusions contradict its own argument for balanced debate, and make a mockery of the notion of disinterested parliamentary inquiry.

The CPCCA was founded in 2009. While it included MPs from all parliamentary parties, the CPCCA is not an official parliamentary committee. It nonetheless draws upon the resources and authority of Parliament, while refusing to hold open debate in keeping with due process.

The CPCCA’s mandate was to define, analyze and address anti-Semitism. However, the coalition formed its core conclusions before beginning its inquiry. Its founding documents emphasized the so-called “new anti-Semitism,” associating it with the global movement for Palestinian human rights.

CPCCA materials published prior to the hearings cited campuses as places of special interest, but provided no substantive evidence. Later, the inquiry’s findings confirmed their biases through distorted claims that pro-Palestinian events create a campus environment ripe for anti-Semitism. Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW), an annual program of public talks, films and workshops supporting the Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, is singled out; it is depicted as an aggressive campaign that “hijack[s] any open and honest dialogue regarding the Middle East.”

The report conveniently overlooks IAW’s value as a site of global education on the plight of Palestinians living on, and in exile from, land that is illegally occupied by Israel. The participation of Jewish students and professors in IAW is systematically ignored. So is the fact that IAW organizers focus their analysis on a critique of the Israeli state, not Jewish people. That IAW explicitly condemns anti-Semitism and all racism is similarly neglected.

The report also dismisses the testimony of campus administrators who refuted the CPCCA’s preconceived notions. To be clear, the 25 university presidents or their representatives who spoke to the panel are no friends of pro-Palestinian organizers, having previously banned IAW posters, obstructed room bookings and otherwise tried to silence criticism of Israel on their campuses. And yet, their testimony consistently denied that the “new anti-Semitism” threatens their students. Instead, they suggested debate of difficult ideas should be encouraged at universities, not censored.

Most who seriously challenged the CPCCA were simply excluded from the so-called “public” hearings. Faculty for Palestine — a network of 450 faculty members from Canadian universities and colleges — for example, was not invited to discuss our written submission despite the CPCCA’s assertion that the “new anti-Semitism” is especially concentrated on campuses. Co-chair Mario Silva explained these exclusions as follows: “I personally feel I didn’t want to give a platform to individuals who had no time for us. Why should we have time for them?” It is no wonder that Bloc Québécois MPs withdrew from the CPCCA in 2010, citing the refusal of the steering committee to hear groups with opposing viewpoints, including from organizations such as the Canadian Arab Federation.

The CPCCA is fluent in doublespeak. The coalition urges critics to commit to serious and rigorous debate, but it avoids engaging in debate. It relies on hearsay, anecdotes and cherry-picked testimony while ignoring a wealth of research countering its claims. The report asserts that IAW should not be banned, but then asks university presidents to condemn IAW and calls on government to legislate this new criminalizing definition of anti-Semitism.

Faculty for Palestine is deeply concerned by the CPCCA’s analysis and recommendations — we think it should be treated with extreme skepticism. Its conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is inaccurate and dangerous. Indeed, the Israeli state just announced unprecedented legislation banning boycotts. If Canada accepts the CPCCA’s recommendations, we may soon travel this same politically repressive road. A commitment to real dialogue on this complex conflict in the Middle East must win out over attempts to shut down debate and criminalize movements for social change.

The authors are members of Faculty for Palestine.

Leave a Comment » | BDS, Canada, Commentary/Analysis, Corporate Media, Freedom of Speech | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by psnedmonton

The Arab World and Palestine

March 10, 2011

An op-ed in this week’s Vue Weekly by PSN’s Siavash Saffari on the uprising in the Arab world and the implications for Palestine. The topic will be explored in more detail during Edmtonton Israeli Apartheid Week on Wednesday, March 16 at 7:00 pm in Telus Building 236/238 with a panel entitled The Season of Revolt: New Arab Uprisings and Implications for Apartheid.

The Arab world and Palestine:
What do the democratic movements mean for a struggling Palestinian state?
Siavash Saffari

For 18 fateful days, the world watched as events unfolded in Egypt. While people around the globe found inspiration in Egyptian protesters’ steadfastness as they fought against the dictatorship, here in North America the major concern of many political circles and media reports was the hegemonic interests of the US empire, especially where it concerned the Israel-Palestine question.

There is no doubt that any democratic change in Egypt will have an effect on the country’s relationship with Israel. Egypt under Mubarak was an important friend to Israel, providing, among other things, 40 percent of Israel’s natural gas needs and helping to maintain a brutal and illegal siege on Gaza. In the words of Aluf Benn, editor-at-large for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, “Without Mubarak, Israel is left with almost no friends in the Middle East.”

It leaves some commentators wondering if this tsunami of social and political change will be a catalyst for a mass movement demanding Israel’s recognition of Palestinians’ equal rights. So far, that hasn’t happened. Nevertheless, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza held rallies in solidarity with Egyptian protesters and in defiance of the Fatah-and Hamas-imposed bans against such rallies. And, there are reasons to believe that Palestinians, too, might witness a turning point in their struggle against a decades-old occupation, and an expanding structure of apartheid.

With the failure of the secular-nationalist political elite to bring an end to the Israeli occupation, and with the limitations of Islamism in creating a broad social movement, in recent years we have witnessed the growing popularity of the Palestinian anti-apartheid movement. The movement is the convergence of various individuals and groups around a common agenda with an emphasis on universal human rights, commitment to non-violence and grassroots activism, and cooperation with Israeli and international solidarity activists and networks.

In 2001, a number of South African and Palestinian civil society groups launched the International Anti-Apartheid Movement against Israel. But it was the 2005 call for an international campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel by over 170 Palestinian parties, trade unions and non-governmental and grassroots organizations that solidified the anti-apartheid movement within Palestinian civil society. It also made possible the prospect of a popular resistance with an appeal to international law, universal human rights and opposition to colonialism, apartheid and racism.

The BDS campaign was formed around three objectives: an end to colonization and occupation of all Arab lands and dismantling of the Israeli-West Bank barrier wall; recognition of the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and respect, protection and promotion of the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands as per UN resolution 194.

While a growing movement around the world is assembling under the BDS banner, here in Canada Harper’s Conservative government has effectively become Israel’s closest friend and ally. From supporting the 2006 invasion of Lebanon and the 2008-09 assault on Gaza, to condemning the calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Canada has also vetoed key UN motions on the rights of Palestinian refugees, to cutting funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and labeled any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. The Conservative government’s position has consistently been unqualified support for Israel. In fact, both Canadian and Israeli officials insist that “Israel now has no better friend in the world than Canada.”

It came as no surprise when the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lawrence Cannon declared that Canada’s chief concern with regard to Egypt is a stable transition that would protect the peace treaty with Israel. This time, there was little talk about supporting democracy and human rights.

While the government’s official policy has been one of unconditional support for Israel, in recent years the Canadian civil society has established strong links with the anti-apartheid movement. Many Canadian unions including the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario, Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and la Centrale des syndicats du Quebec (CSQ), have joined the broad coalition that is forming around the anti-apartheid movement.

Most significantly, Israeli Apartheid Week, which is held in cities around the world this month, began as a Canadian initiative. It was launched in 2005 by students at the University of Toronto with the idea of raising awareness about the structures of legal, political, economic, social and cultural domination imposed on Palestinians within Israel and in the occupied territories. In its seventh year, IAW continues to make a significant contribution to the opposition of Israeli apartheid and to bolster support for BDS.

Siavash Saffari is a political science doctoral student at the University of Alberta and an organizer with Palestine Solidarity Network.

Leave a Comment » | Commentary/Analysis, Edmonton, Independent Media, Israeli Apartheid Week | Permalink
Posted by psnedmonton

This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus

March 10, 2011

An excellent article from The Bullet on the silencing campaign on campuses aimed at Israeli Apartheid Week, co-authored by Mary-Jo Nadeau who will be speaking at IAW in Edmonton on Friday, March 18 at 1:00 pm in Education Building Room 165 as part of the panel on Academic Freedom and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement: Making the Connections.

This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus
Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears

The campaign to silence Palestine solidarity reaches its annual crescendo during Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW). As IAW 2011 approaches, we need to prepare for another round of silencing. This means assessing the silencing campaign and the experience of standing up for free expression over the last few years.

The ongoing campaign to silence Palestine solidarity on Ontario (and Canadian) campuses represents a major assault on academic freedom and freedom of expression in general. Over the past five years, attempts to suppress speech about the issue of Palestine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have become routine, both on and off campuses. The goal of this campaign is quite simply to shut down political activism and scholarly exchange that explores Palestinian experiences and/or criticizes the Israeli state. This silencing project echoes that of the Israeli state itself, which has systematically clamped down on all aspects of Palestinian life while trying to eliminate signs and memories of Palestinian existence

IAW Attacked

The silencing campaign on Ontario campuses has included: the attempt to ban the words “Israeli apartheid” on McMaster campus in 2008; the banning of Israeli Apartheid Week posters on four campuses in 2009; ongoing attempts to ban IAW altogether including a motion in the Ontario Legislature condemning the event; efforts to shut down the “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace” conference at York University in 2009, including political pressure on the SSHRC to defund the conference and an unprecedented inquiry commissioned by the York administration to investigate that conference; a campaign of attacks on the York University administration for letting former British MP George Galloway speak on campus after being banned from Canada at least in part on the basis of his Palestine solidarity work; attacks in the National Post and the Ontario Legislature on the Sociology and Equity Studies program at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) (part of the University of Toronto) and specifically on the thesis of one of its graduate students, Jenny Peto; and most recently, the assessment of extraordinary security fees to shut down a talk by American scholar Norman Finkelstein at Mohawk College in Hamilton.

These relatively overt acts of silencing are accompanied by more insidious attempts to restrict the boundaries of legitimate debate. In this essay, we explore both the overt and the more subtle aspects of the silencing campaign, analyzing specific instances to examine their broad implications for freedom of expression and activism on campus.
Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | Canada, Commentary/Analysis, Edmonton, Freedom of Speech, Israeli Apartheid Week | Permalink
Posted by psnedmonton

The Revolution Continues After Mubarak’s Fall

February 12, 2011

The Electronic Intifada‘s Ali Abunimah looks at the regional impact of the ouster of Hosni Mubarak.

The revolution continues after Mubarak’s fall
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 12 February 2011

Yesterday evening, after it was announced that Hosni Mubarak had met the first demand of the revolution and left office, I headed toward the Egyptian embassy in Amman. The joy on the streets was something I had never experienced before.

From all directions people came, pouring out of cars stuck in gridlocked traffic on Zahran Street and into the side street where the embassy sits. They were young and old and families with children. Egyptian laborers — the unacknowledged back bone of much of the Jordanian economy — sang, carried each other on their shoulders and played drums. Egyptian flags waved and signs were held high.

The chants were as varied and lively as the crowd which grew to thousands: “Long Live Egypt!,” “The people overthrew the regime!,” “Who’s next?,” “Tomorrow Abbas!” Some people showered the crowd with sweets, as fireworks burst overhead. Everyone took pictures, recording a moment of victory they felt was made by the Egyptian people on behalf of all of us.

After Tunisia, a second great pillar of oppression has been knocked down, at such great cost to hundreds who gave their lives, and many millions who saw their lives destroyed for so many years. It was a night for joy, and the celebrations continue today.

After the celebrations are over, the revolution too must go on, because it will not be complete until the Egyptian people rebuild their country as they wish it to be.

But standing in the streets of Amman there was no mistaking that the Egyptian revolution will have a profound impact on the whole region. Arab people everywhere now imagine themselves as Tunisians or Egyptians. And every Arab ruler imagines himself as Ben Ali or Mubarak.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | Commentary/Analysis, Independent Media | Permalink
Posted by psnedmonton

Ahava and the Bay: a BDS Victory

January 31, 2011

An analysis for rabble.ca by Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA) and Faculty 4 Palestine member Mary-Jo Nadeau on the meaning of the recent removal of Ahava products by the Hudson’s Bay Company and whether it should be considered a victory.

The Bay drops Ahava
A victory for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement in Canada

This month, the Hudson Bay Company (HBC) have discontinued sales of Ahava cosmetic products. Ahava is an Israeli company that has been a target of the Palestinian campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

HBC was the main retailer in Canada that carries Ahava’s line, and has been targeted by a number of Palestine solidarity group over the past 18 months. Many participated in the campaign across the country, including Tadamon in Montreal, the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid in Toronto, with Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East being the latest group to join in.

HBC’s decision was seen as a major BDS victory, and is being widely celebrated by BDS activists. After receiving a deluge of angry pro-Israeli e-mails and supportive pro-Palestinian e-mails, HBC partnered up with the Canada-Israeli Committee (CIC) to issue a joint statement announcing that the discontinuation of Ahava was a business decision, not a political one.

In addition to revealing that Ahava sales have been declining for some time, and admitting that it was not profitable to carry their products, HBC also affirmed their support for Israel and promised to launch a reformulated Ahava line the spring. Pro-Israel groups quickly declared victory and proclaimed that HBC made a business decision that had nothing to do with BDS.

A debate is now taking place within the BDS movement about whether the HBC decision is a victory. We believe that it is, and here’s why.

Ahava: a major international boycott target

In 2005, over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations endorsed a call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel until it complies with international law. All Israeli companies profit from and contribute to Israeli apartheid and are therefore targets of the BDS campaign.

Ahava became a focus of BDS activists because of its particularly egregious role in the occupation of the West Bank. The company is majority-owned by two West Bank settlements, has manufacturing facilities in those settlements and its entire product line is manufactured from materials stolen from the Dead Sea, which is located in the occupied West Bank. Building settlements in and extracting resources from occupied territories is illegal under international law. Ahava’s entire operation is therefore in contravention of the Geneva Conventions. Companies that sell Ahava products are also in violation of international law.

HBC decision: Apolitical business decision or BDS victory?

The ultimate goal of the BDS campaign is to put economic and political pressure on Israel, but a key step in achieving this goal is education and raising awareness about Israeli apartheid. Every time a BDS story makes headlines, we achieve a victory because it engages the public in a debate about Israel, Palestine and the BDS campaign. When these debates happen, people around the world increasingly side with Palestinians precisely because the facts emerging from a 60-year history of Palestinian dispossession, displacement and ethnic cleansing by Israel are undeniable.

Moreover, the Ahava debate is taking place as we mark the two-year anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s massacre in Gaza, which left over 1,400 Palestinians dead, over 5,000 injured and at least 6,000 homes destroyed or severely damaged. After five years of the growing BDS campaign and in the wake of atrocities like Cast Lead, the on-going siege on Gaza, home demolitions and the continued construction of the apartheid wall, the Israeli narrative is rapidly losing ground. The Zionist outcry about HBC’s decision shows their increasing fear of BDS.

Beyond their educational value, the purpose of consumer boycotts is to hit Israeli companies where it hurts — their bottom-line. By HBC’s own admission, Ahava sales have been declining for some time now. Ahava is reformulating and rebranding because their image has been so badly damaged by the BDS campaign. This is all good news — the BDS campaign is affecting this company’s profits.

Significantly, these declining sales have happened despite efforts by the CIC’s Buycott campaign, which has urged supporters to buy Israeli goods, including Ahava products. Their strategy is clearly failing to stop BDS and apparently is not even effective enough to keep Ahava profitable in Canada. This is more good news.

BDS and big business

The BDS campaign is not built on the naive assumption that corporations will drop Israeli products out of some moral imperative. HBC is Canada’s oldest corporation and has been profiting off of colonialism and genocide here in Canada for generations. We do not expect HBC or any other big business to take a courageous stand against Israeli apartheid. Our goal is to apply intense public pressure so that carrying Israeli goods ceases to be profitable. It will take time to build the kind of momentum needed to make that a reality, but we are well on our way. Ahava is no longer profitable to HBC and the BDS movement will continue to educate and agitate until this true of all Israeli goods sold in Canada.

Mary-Jo Nadeau is a member of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA) and Faculty 4 Palestine.

Leave a Comment » | BDS, Canada, Commentary/Analysis | Permalink
Posted by psnedmonton

How Canada Subsidizes Illegal Israeli Settlements

January 31, 2011

An excellent article on Counterpunch by Montreal activist and author Yves Engler.

Enabling Crimes Against Palestinians
How Canada Subsidizes Illegal Israeli Settlements

By Yves Engler

Canada’s tax system currently subsidizes Israeli settlements that Ottawa deems illegal. However, the Conservative government says there’s nothing that can be done about it.

In June of last year, Guelph activist Dan Maitland emailed Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon concerning Canada Park, a Jewish National Fund of Canada initiative built on land Israel occupied after the June 1967 War. Three Palestinian villages (Beit Nuba, Imwas and Yalu) were demolished to make way for the park.

A few weeks ago Maitland received a reply from Keith Ashfield, Minister of National Revenue, who refused to discuss the particulars of the case but provided “general information about registered charities and the occupied territories.” Ashfield wrote that “the fact that charitable activities take place in the occupied territories is not a barrier to acquiring or maintaining charitable status.”

This means Canadian organizations can openly fundraise for settlements Ottawa (officially) deems illegal under international law and get the government to pay up to a third of the cost through tax credits for donations. To justify the government’s position, Ashfield cited a September 2002 Federal Court of Appeal case (Canadian Magen David Adom for Israel v. Minister of National Revenue), which reversed the Canadian Revenue Agency’s previous position.

The exact amount is not known but it’s safe to assume that millions of Canadian dollars make their way to Israeli settlements every year. In 1997, when it was more of a legal grey area, tax lawyer David Drache claimed that “there are hundreds of [Canadian] organizations … supporting organizations directly or indirectly beyond the Green Line,” referring to the internationally-recognized armistice line between Israel and the occupied West Bank.

In the late 1990s, Israel’s largest settler group, Yesha, raised more than $700,000 a year in Canada. When former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited in the mid-1990s, the Canadian Arab Federation’s Jehad Aliweiwi said he “left with more than $1 million in tax-deductible funds, with no secret as to the destination.” Through the 1990s the Press Foundation was probably the largest known source of funds for settlements, raising as much as $5 million annually for settlers in the occupied West Bank town of Hebron and in the occupied Golan Heights, which was captured from Syria in 1967.

Illegal settlements are not the only questionable activities in Israel that Canadians subsidize through their tax system. A mid-1990s survey found more than 300 registered Canadian charities with ties to Israel, a relatively wealthy country. Every year Canadians send a few hundred million dollars worth of tax-deductible donations to Israeli universities, parks, immigration initiatives and, more controversially, “charities” that aid the Israeli army in one way or another.

One example is Aid to Disabled Veterans of Israel or Beit Halochem (Canada), which brings soldiers singled out as heroes by the Israeli military on trips to Canada. Many Canadians, including the Charles R. Bronfman Foundation, support the Libi Fund — “The Fund For Strengthening Israel’s Defense.” In early 2008, Major Gil Chemke, a member of Israel’s elite search and rescue team, toured the country on behalf of the Canadian Magen David Adom for Israel (CMDAI), which operates in the occupied West Bank. Established to assist wounded soldiers and the population during disasters, CMDAI has raised millions of dollars. Chemke drummed up financial contributions for CMDAI by showing “behind-the-scenes video footage of a rescue operation in Lebanon for a female air crew member whose helicopter was shot down by Hizballah” during Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon.

Established in 1971, the Association for the Soldiers of Israel in Canada (ASI) provides financial and moral support to active duty soldiers. In 2009, ASI (Canada) — which provides tax receipts through the Canadian Zionist Cultural Association — and El Al airlines granted a 50 percent discount on flights to Israel from Canada for families of “lone soldiers” who join the Israeli military.

While it’s legal — and government will foot part of the bill — to finance charities linked to a foreign army responsible for numerous war crimes and settlements that contravene international law, Ottawa has made it illegal for Canadians to aid a hospital operated by the elected Hamas government.

Ottawa’s post-11 September 2001 terrorist list makes it illegal to financially assist Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, the Abu Nidal Organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the Palestine Liberation Front, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and groups associated with these organizations. Only one Israeli group, the marginal Kahane Chai, is on the list.

On 25 December, Hamas criticized Canada for re-listing it a “terrorist” entity. “The decision is a clear bias to Israel,” Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum told Xinhua. “This encourages Israel to commit more crimes against the Palestinian people.”

Ottawa makes it difficult for Canadians to support many Palestinian groups all the while subsidizing expansionist and militaristic Israeli institutions. Canadians of good conscience should protest and demand change.

Yves Engler is the author of Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid and the Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy. For more info: http://yvesengler.com

Leave a Comment » | Canada, Commentary/Analysis, Independent Media, Settlements | Permalink
Posted by psnedmonton

Postscript on the New McCarthyism

December 20, 2010

An interesting article on the CPCCA/ICCA by Murray Dobbin from the Tyee.

Postscript on the New McCarthyism
Stephen Harper is succeeding in his efforts to make it a crime to criticize Israel.

By Murray Dobbin, Dec 20, 2010
thetyee.ca

A year ago I wrote a column reflecting on the activities of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA), the Canadian branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism. The latter is an international pro-Zionist group whose sole task is to redefine anti-Semitism to mean virtually any criticism of Israel. It developed at the behest of Israel when international criticism of the apartheid state began to seriously damage the image Israel so carefully established over decades — you know the one, where Israel is the tiny democratic state whose existence is threatened by its powerful neighbours. It was a masterful bit of myth-making and lasted a long time.

But in virtually every country in the world that image is now permanently tarnished. The success of the BDS campaign — Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) — is the other side of the campaign to expose Israel’s brutal occupation of the West Bank and its continued oppression of the 1.5 million Palestinians essentially imprisoned in Gaza. The BDS campaign is also having a major impact on Israel and the “new anti-Semitism” campaign hopes to slow it down.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | Canada, Commentary/Analysis, Freedom of Speech, Independent Media | Permalink
Posted by psnedmonton

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers