Toronto Star Op-ed on IAW

March 3, 2010

A relatively balanced op-ed by the Toronto Star’s Thomas Walkom on Israeli Apartheid Week. Unlike most IAW critics, Walkom actually took the time to go to IAW events rather than just regurgitate accusations of it being a “hate-fest.”

The Star will likely get a response to the article, so be sure to email Thomas Walkom to thank him for bringing some balance to the hysteria, and/or send a letter to the editor in response to Walkom’s column.

Apartheid week one-sided but not anti-Semitic

By Thomas Walkom
National Affairs Columnist

I went to an Israeli Apartheid Week event Monday evening to see what all the fuss was about.

Israeli Apartheid Week is an international, pro-Palestinian teach-in that, for the last six years, has taken place annually at about 40 campuses worldwide. Detractors call it poisonous and anti-Semitic. Last week, the Ontario Legislature got into the act by unanimously passing a resolution that condemned it for inciting “hatred against Israel” and diminishing “the suffering of those who were victims of the true apartheid regime in South Africa.”

Thornhill Conservative MPP Peter Shurman called it “about as close to hate speech as one get without being arrested.” Toronto Liberal MPP Mike Colle said it was organized by “hate-mongers” and was based on the systemic hatred of “Israel and anything Jewish.”

I didn’t notice any hate-mongers at the Ryerson University lecture Monday night. It was clearly a partisan crowd – lots of Palestinian flags and kaffiyehs. The two speakers, South African political scientist Na’eem Jeenah and Canadian freelance journalist Jon Elmer, will never win any prizes as friends of Israel (Elmer at one point described Israeli officialdom as “the enemy.”)

But Jew-haters? Not according to anything I heard or could find. Indeed, back in 2006, Jeenah publicly denounced Iran’s infamous Holocaust revisionism conference as a misconceived attempt to deny a historical and moral crime committed against Jews.

It’s also hard to accuse Israeli Apartheid Week of being anti-Semitic when small Jewish organizations, like Independent Jewish Voices, are sponsors.

The apartheid charge against Israel is not new. It’s based largely on that country’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories – policies deliberately designed to create separate Israeli-only settlement enclaves linked by Israeli-only roads on lands that, according to the United Nations (and Canada), do not belong to Israel.

South African Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu has explicitly referred to Israel’s actions in the occupied territories as apartheid. So has John Dugard, a respected South African lawyer who, until 2008, was the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories.

So too has former U.S. president Jimmy Carter (although he recently apologized for saying anything that “may have” stigmatized Israel).

Henry Siegman, former national director of the American Jewish Congress, wrote two months ago that Israel is “the only apartheid regime in the Western world.” The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has called Israel’s occupation “reminiscent of … the apartheid regime in South Africa.”

Even Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff – who as a practising politician now finds himself denouncing Israeli Apartheid Week – has made the comparison, writing in 2002 of the occupied West Bank as a “Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid.”

Are all of these people hate-mongers?

What is true about Israeli Apartheid Week is that it is a root-and-branch attack on how Israel operates, both internally and in the occupied territories. The organizers’ stated aims are to create an international boycott and divestment campaign that will force Israel to change – just as similar pressure 20 years ago forced apartheid South Africa to change,

In particular, they want Israel to adhere to UN resolutions calling on it to pull out of the occupied territories and let Palestinian refugees who fled the country in 1948 return home. They also want Israel to change land ownership laws they say discriminate against the 20 per cent of its citizens who are not Jewish.

Controversial? Yes. One-sided? You bet. Fully achievable? I doubt it. But unless you think that criticizing Israel’s complex system of ethnic preferences is an attack on all Jews, this is nowhere near anti-Semitism.

Thomas Walkom’s column appears Wednesday and Saturday.


Harper’s Extremism is Showing

November 10, 2009

linda_mcquaig

An excellent column in the November 3rd Toronto Star by columnist Linda McQuaig

Harper’s Extremism is Showing

If, as polls suggest, Stephen Harper is poised to win a majority, it’s largely due to the media notion that his past reputation for extremism no longer holds.

In fact, apart from his reluctant embrace of economic stimulus, Harper has shown little of the “moderation” that supposedly now puts his government comfortably within the Canadian mainstream.

Departing from Canadian political tradition, for instance, the Harper government has abandoned Ottawa’s long-standing attempt at even-handedness in the Middle East conflict, repositioning Canada as unequivocally on Israel’s side.

The Harper government also appears to have embarked on a disturbing and less-reported campaign to silence Canadian critics of Israel, in ways that threaten to undermine Canada’s tradition of open debate, particularly at our universities. The Prime Minister himself set the tone for this by appearing to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

“I guess my fear is what I see happening in some circles is (an) anti-Israeli sentiment, really just a thinly disguised veil for good old-fashioned anti-Semitism,” Harper told Montreal’s CJAD Radio in May 2008.

Others in the Harper cabinet have gone farther. Speaking last September in Thornhill, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney charged that “Israel Apartheid Days on university campuses like York sometimes begin to resemble pogroms.”

York University has seen some intense debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly since Israel’s invasion of Gaza last winter. But to compare heated exchanges to pogroms—organized campaigns of slaughter and pillage of European Jews—is absurd.

Kenney’s depiction of York was so inaccurate it prompted a rebuttal from two York professors of Jewish studies, who like the Harper government’s support for Israel. “We and a large number of other Jewish men walk around campus every day wearing kippot and do so without fear,” professors Eric Lawee and Martin Lockshin wrote in the Canadian Jewish News. “Another 4,000 other Jews … also walk around campus every day in total freedom. They benefit from a wide range of Jewish activities – a kosher restaurant on campus, rich Jewish student activity life, a wide array of top-level Jewish studies courses, student and faculty exchanges with leading Israeli universities—all encouraged and supported by the president of York and his administration.”

Branding critics of Israel’s actions in Gaza as anti-Semitic is particularly untenable in light of the extremely critical findings about Israel’s Gaza campaign in a UN report by Richard Goldstone, an internationally respected South African judge who is also a dedicated Zionist and long-time friend of Israel.

The tone set by the Harper government seems to be encouraging an attack on open debate about Israel on Canadian campuses. An ad-hoc group of parliamentarians, including Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats, has set itself up as an “inquiry” into what it considers a new anti-Semitism, with a particular focus on campuses. They open hearings in Ottawa this week.

The charge that anti-Semitism is tolerated on campuses has been explicitly made by B’nai Brith Canada. In an ad in the National Post, the organization charged that students returning to university could expect “swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti all over campus.”

Before we’re lulled into the notion of the Harper government as “moderate,” we should consider what role it’s played in creating the climate for this sort of poisonous slur against Canadian universities—all because they’ve allowed student voices to harshly criticize the Israeli government. Just as Goldstone does in his UN report.


Defending the Indefensible Settlements

July 15, 2009

israeli_settlement

The Guardian’s Richard Siverstein has written an interesting piece entitled “Defending the indefensible settlements” looking at The Israel Project‘s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, designed to counter opposition in the US to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

“Douglas Bloomfield, former chief lobbyist for Aipac, writes that TIP, a group dedicated to promoting Israel’s positive image among the US media and policymakers, has circulated a 140-page primer designed to prompt supporters in their exchanges with US journalists and key decision-makers when they are arguing in favour of the settlements:

If you can’t convince ‘em, accuse ‘em. That’s the advice from The Israel Project (TIP) for pro-Israel activist. … Rather than try to defend Israeli settlements, change the subject. If that doesn’t work, try accusing those who advocate removing Jewish settlements of promoting “a kind of ethnic cleansing to move all Jews” from the West Bank. TIP calls that “the best settlement argument” in its 2009 Global Language Dictionary.

You can download the 2009 Global Language Dictionary in PDF here or here on Newsweek’s site. It’s an enlightening read.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 85 other followers