Wednesday, May 13, 2009

You can't boycott an institution

After the answer period, there was a back-and-forth exchange between the panelists.

Here is something that Clive Seligman said:

“I have no problem with you taking a stand or anyone voluntarily deciding not to deal with Israelis or Israeli institutions or even Jews if they don’t want to. But you’re not taking a stand only for yourself. If your university is successful in imposing a boycott, you’re forcing even those colleagues of yours who disagree with you to take the same stand as you and that’s what I find objectionable. When you talk about a boycott, you’re not talking about a voluntary boycott, you’re banding together to some way use the policies of the university to impose behaviour on academic matters on every single member of the university, students as well as professors.

"And you have, I think, twice made some argument that there’s a difference between boycotting institutions and boycotting individuals.

“You can’t boycott an institution. Individuals work in the institutions. When you prevent a research collaboration, you are preventing a collaboration among individuals in the country that’s doing the boycotting and in the country that’s the victim of the boycott.

“You cannot get out of essentially the moral irresponsibility of saying, ‘There are exceptional times that I alone define and if I am successful in getting my whole university to do this, even those who disagree with me must yield to my definition of exceptional times…’”

Demonizing One Country

During the answer period, Howard Adelman started off by saying that this experience was painful for him.

This is part of what he said:

“The issue of what Israel is and does should be a separate debate and this debate should have been about academic institutions and positive and negative things about doing… but it becomes a debate of, as the first speaker – rather the questioner [my note: Ted Belman of Israpundit] – said, about demonizing one country and it becomes a separate debate and puts the people on the other side in impossible positions because it’s two different debates.”

Video here.

Video of Monday's "debate" at York University

Thank you to Clive Seligman for sending me the link to videotape of the "debate" on academic boycotts held on Monday at York University.

Wake Up

The only thing worse than listening to a truckload of anti-Israel propaganda is listening to it twice and that's what I'm doing. I'm taking a break but first I want to share with you this powerful statement by Clive Seligman which was cut short by shouts and arguments from audience members.

At Monday's so-called debate on academic boycotts held at York University, during the question period, audience members asked their questions one after the other; when they were done, each member of the panel was given time to respond.

Clive Seligman was first to respond. This part of his response was at the end of his allotted time.

“People have a right to opinion. The whole point of academic freedom is to prevent individual professors from being intimidated. The kinds of people that Professor Sears talks about, and some people in the audience talk about, who are, ‘Oh my God, how can you talk about Israel. Every time we talk about Israel, the whole wrath of the world descends on us.’

“Give me a break! You haven’t stopped talking about anti-Zionism. It is in the papers every single day. Half of all motions at the United Nations Council on Human Rights are about Israel. Wake up and talk about what’s happening today in the world, what’s happening in Pakistan in the Swat Valley today as we speak, what’s happening in Darfur, what’s happening in Sri Lanka. Israel is not the only country in the world and I have nothing but pity for people who think that Israel is by far the only country worthy of attention and the only country that…”

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

I guess that makes me a racist

Some friends and I went to York University yesterday afternoon to attend what was billed as a "debate on the academic boycott of Israel".

It was part of the York Centre for International and Security Studies (YCISS) series on "Academic Boycotts and Contemporary Conflicts".

The YCISS website stated:

"Boycotts raise fundamental issues for universities and other academic institutions: how do boycotts affect a university's commitment to free speech and inquiry? To what degree should public universities be considered as state institutions, and are they appropriate targets for boycotts which oppose state policy? Are boycotts a sustainable and peaceful way for intellectuals to intervene in conflicts or are they counter-productive?

"Following recent seminars on the boycott theme by Omar Barghouti and Edward Beck, YCISS again invites the community to come together for a respectful yet rigorous debate about the questions that the boycott issue raises for Canadian universities."

The panel featured five people: the moderator (Clem Marshall), two people who were supposed to advocate for academic boycotts and two who advocated against academic boycotts.

The pro-boycott speakers were Dr. Abigail Bakan (I was told she also goes by the name Abbie Baka) and Dr. Alan Sears.

The anti-boycott speakers were Dr. Clive Seligman and Dr. Howard Adelman.

The auditorium, appropriately called "Moot Court", was not filled to capacity. Someone guessed that 200 people were there; as during the lectures at "Israel Apartheid Week" (IAW) most of the older people in attendance were identified as university professors. I recognized a few faces from IAW as well as from the failed Israeli wine boycott.

During the question period, one woman complained that she had been invited to be a panelist but then had been prevented from participating because of her involvement with some group whose name I didn't write down. I am certain that I recognized her face and voice from the January 3rd anti-Israel rally held in downtown Toronto: I believe that hers was the shrill voice over the megaphone. I'm pretty sure her voice can be heard on video from other anti-Israel rallies as well.

Before the event started, I asked a young woman if videotaping was permitted. She said no. She said that guests were worried their words would be taken out of context and partial statements put online, so they had arranged to have an official videotape taken which would be put onto their website. However, during the event, I could not see a video camera anywhere. Did that girl lie straight to my face? Time will tell. I will have to keep an eye on their website for the official video.

During the "debate", Abigail Bakan and Alan Sears devoted most of their time to demonizing Israel and promoting the Palestinian cause. They talked of "ending the occupation", the "apartheid wall" and the "right of return" of every "Palestinian" on the planet. Mr. Sears referred to 1948 and called it the Nakba.

They didn't spend much time debating the issue of boycotts; instead, they threw out as much anti-Israel propaganda as their time would allow, using emotionally loaded terms and incorrect statistics, and depicted Israel as the big bully and Palestinians as its downtrodden victims.

They pushed the old line that universities are bastions of white, male hegemony where non-white issues are never raised and non-white voices are never heard.

Yeah, right. That's why the audience in the auditorium was stacked with brown-skinned Muslims. That's why, while walking on the grounds of York University and inside Osgoode Hall, there were almost no white students in sight. That's why York University keeps holding events that promote the Palestinian cause. That's why a Jewish student was threatened with decapitation at York during IAW. That's why a group of Jewish students at York was hounded by a mob of fellow students and forced to hide in an office and phone the police and that's why the university later charged both groups of students with wrongdoing.

Ms. Bakan and Mr. Sears complained that students and professors who want to research and support the Palestinian cause are mistreated and feel threatened. Pro-Palestinian audience members complained of intimidation.

However, the evidence disproves their claims of victimhood. I believe they are promoting the image of themselves as victims for various self-serving reasons, one of which is to foster a sense of group solidarity and a feeling of "us against them".

Clive Seligman and Howard Adelman attempted, in their allotted time, to present the issues surrounding academic boycotts and the reasons why they are never a good idea.

Mr. Seligman expressed concern that a boycott by York would force all of its academics to comply with one particular political view whether they agree with it or not.

He also said that academic boycotts violate Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (see below) and that boycotts promote the use of force instead of reason and may lead to intolerance and violence.

Mr. Adelman said that boycotts politicize universities. "You put a political police thought force in charge of what universities do."

During the two separate question periods, people lined up to ask their questions, one after the other. Most of the questions were not questions about the pros and cons of academic boycotts but were, instead, long diatribes against Israel.

After everyone at the microphones had asked their questions or stated their political manifestos, the panelists were given time to answer the questions. This format gave the panelists the opportunity to ignore any questions they didn't want to answer (Abigail Bakan and Alan Sears, I'm looking at you).

One of the people who asked a question is a man who appears in my video of the failed boycott of Israeli wine. He is the man on the NION side who was identified by someone else as being an "Arab". He asked for a comparison between Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Israel.

I believe it was Mr. Adelman who Mr. Seligman said in response that Iran is 100 times worse than Israel. At this, many audience members booed and jeered. One young man behind me said loudly, "What a racist."

During a response period, Mr. Seligman said that, if the people in the audience cared so much about Palestinians, why, "in the name of God or Allah" (he was interrupted here by loud boos and calls of "racist" until the moderator intervened to soothe hurt feelings), they didn't do something about Hamas.

In closing, Mr. Seligman read aloud from Article 7 of the Hamas charter (see below). He was interrupted twice by shouts and jeers from the audience. Many people yelled "racist". The moderator intervened both times, expressing respect for their feelings and talking about the pain he has experienced during his anti-racism work (implying, to my mind, that Mr. Seligman was a racist).

When Mr. Seligman finished speaking, one of my friends stood up, clapped and said, "He speaks the truth". Some audience members responded by yelling "racist" at my friend.

As one of the panelists said at the end, this wasn't a debate, it was merely an opportunity for some people to get together and bash Israel.

If yesterday's audience and the farce disguised as a debate present a true reflection of the state of Canadian universities, then we are all in big trouble.

In the same way the pro-Palestinian /anti-Israel / anti-America / anti-capitalist groups have broadened the word "apartheid" to mean any political or legal system they don't like, they have also broadened the word "racist" to mean anyone with whom they disagree.

Therefore:
  • Anyone who asks why pro-Palestinians don't also focus their attention on Hamas is a racist.
  • Anyone who asks why anti-Israel groups don't also focus their attention on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan or Darfur is a racist.
  • Anyone who says that Iran and its president are worse than Israel is a racist.
  • Anyone who reads aloud from the Hamas charter is a racist.
I guess that makes me a racist.


Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.


Hamas Charter: Article 7 (in part):

"The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews."


Update: It was Clive Seligman, not Howard Adelman, who said that Iran was 100 times worse than Israel. Thank you to Mr. Seligman for the correction.

Update #2: Welcome, Israpundit and Facebook readers! I'd love to know where this is posted on Facebook, if anyone would care to share.

Monday, April 20, 2009

The Case for Israel

About 600 people gathered last night at Shaarei Shomayim Congregation in Toronto to watch a free screening of the documentary, "The Case for Israel: Democracy's Outpost".

This documentary covers a lot of information in an interesting, easy to follow format; it is compelling and is never dull or dry.

It features clips of Alan Dershowitz speaking before various audiences and in interviews with politicians, military leaders and various experts. Some of the people featured in the interviews, either with Mr. Dershowitz or on their own, are Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Tzipi Livni, Caroline Glick, Phyllis Chesler and Canada's Irwin Cotler. (Full list with bios here.)

The film begins with Alan Dershowitz stating that he is pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian and that he supports a two-state solution. Later, he states that the two-state solution will only happen when Palestinians want a Palestinian state more than they want "no Jewish state". And that is the crux of the issue: demonization of Israel derives from hatred toward the concept and fact of Jewish nationhood and is not the result of any direct or indirect action of the Israeli government. Again and again, Palestinians have been given generous offers of land and again and again, they have turned their backs on the offers.

The idea for the documentary seems to have come about as a response to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid". The speakers in "The Case for Israel" use facts to refute the claim, made by Mr. Carter and others, that Israel is an apartheid, illegitimate state. It discusses the historical basis for the founding of Israel and Israel's approach to the many challenges it faces.

I scribbled a few notes in the dark but I think the trailer and clips will give you a better idea of the strengths of this film.

Watch the trailer here and clips here.

This excellent film is available on DVD for US $14.99 (via their website). We were told last night that this is a not-for-profit venture; perhaps that is why the price is so reasonable. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in this issue. Although I saw it last night, I am going to buy it so I can watch it again and show it to others.

Someone in the Q&A afterwards pointed out that the documentary did not cover the period from 1917 to 1946. He said an overview of that era is necessary to disprove the lie that Israel is an illegal occupier of Arab land. I thought it was a good point. (For background information about the Balfour Declaration, see here.)

If your (or your child's) school or university addresses the Middle East, the UN or the current Durban 2 spectacle, suggest that the teacher include this documentary in class as a way of presenting both sides of the story. Buy the DVD and have it on hand so they will have no easy excuses for neglecting the pro-Israel side.

Activist, author and documentary filmmaker Robert Friedman was the special guest at Shaarei Shomayim last night. After we watched the film, Mr. Friedman talked about ways that everyone can get involved and spread the truth about Israel. He stressed the importance of making connections with pro-Israel groups and working with them to make a difference.

Here's the trailer for Mr. Friedman's documentary, "More Precious than Pearls" and here is an essay he wrote about it. I'd like to see this film.

Last night's film and guest speaker were presented by the Speakers Action Group. This dedicated group organizes very interesting lectures; I've attended a few and hope to attend more in future.

Many thanks to the Speakers Action Group and the folks at Shaarei Shomayim Congregation.

Note to self: Learn the words to Hatikvah.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Friday, April 3, 2009

Go Out Fighting: Brigitte Gabriel

The way to fight radical Islam is to get organized, work together and defy political correctness by speaking out, Brigitte Gabriel told a crowded auditorium last night.

"Get bold. Know who you are, your heritage... Go out fighting," she urged the mostly Jewish audience. "Our enemy is organized and we are not... The only way they will be defeated is by an organized resistance movement."

Although she praised moderate Muslims such as Irshad Manji, Ms. Gabriel said, "the moderates are truly irrelevant at this point in the big picture," because most are afraid to speak out. "The problem is the radicals in their community are calling the shots."

I sat spellbound during Brigitte Gabriel's speech last night at the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre here in Toronto. This petite, beautiful, courageous woman has experienced Islamic terrorism first-hand and has dedicated herself to fighting its incursions into Western society. She's a force to be reckoned with and a voice we must heed. I am grateful to the Canadian Hadassah-Wizo's One Campaign for hosting her visit.

At one point, Ms. Gabriel raised her left sleeve and explained that every day in the shower she sees the scars made by terrorists: she carries this reminder on her body in the same way that some survivors of the Holocaust carry the tattooed numbers on their arms and this is one of the things that compels her to speak out.

Brigitte Gabriel is the president and founder of American Congress for Truth (ACT) and the author of the books, Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terrorism Warns America, and They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.

Last night, Ms. Gabriel recounted her experiences in her hometown of Marjayoun, Lebanon, from her idyllic early life as the much-loved daughter of a wealthy, elderly couple to the traumatic experiences that followed an influx of Palestinian Muslims into what had been a multicultural, tolerant, open society.

Ms. Gabriel, a Maronite Christian, described herself as a pro-Israel, pro-Jewish Zionist and credited it to the goodness of the Israeli people.

Although her religion hadn't taught her to hate, Lebanese society had taught her that Jews were the enemy and peace would only be achieved when the Jews were eliminated. This way of thinking changed when, as a young teen, during her mother's extended stay in an Israeli hospital, she witnessed the mercy and kindness shown by Israelis to everyone in their care.

"The Israelis were able to love and forgive their Palestinian enemies in a way I wasn't able to," she said, despite her Christian faith's emphasis on turning the other cheek.

This experience taught her to question everything she is told and everything she sees and reads in the media.

She described the difference between Israelis and Islamists as the difference between "civilization and barbarism" and "goodness and evil". She saw the face of evil in Muslims who persisted in hating Jews even after their lives had been saved by them.

For those who think that radical Islamists couldn't possibly gain a foothold and rule Canada by demographics and/or terrorism, the example of Lebanon must not be ignored. Lebanon was once the only majority Christian country in the Middle East: its society, like ours, was open-minded, fair and multicultural, with open borders. Now, Lebanon is "an infested terrorist hub for Hezbullah, funded by Iran."

The first changes came about through immigration and a higher birth rate amongst the Shiite Muslim population of Lebanon, which shifted the balance of power in the government from the formerly-majority Christians to the new-majority Muslims. The terrorism began after Lebanon, alone of the countries in the Middle East, accepted what Ms. Gabriel called the "third wave" of Palestinian immigrants who arrived after King Hussein of Jordan expelled the PLO in September 1970.

Yasser Arafat, Ms. Gabriel said, used Lebanon's tolerance and open-mindedness against Israel and Christians to make the country a launching ground for their war against Israel. The Muslim extremists were "blinded by hatred and violence and killing" and were "willing to destroy Lebanon in the process of fighting Israel."

She quoted the Muslim Arabic saying: "Saturday, Sunday: First we kill the Jews and then we come for the Christians." Muslims were openly declaring jihad, but "the Christians didn't want to believe" it.

The same thing is happening today in Western countries. We are being infiltrated by radical Islamists who have openly declared war against us and we don't want to see it.

Ms. Gabriel said the Western media erred in not showing the beheadings of Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl because, "we in Western societies need to see the barbarism that is heading our way."

"Islam is experiencing a true rise in radicalism," she said. Moderates are speaking out, but "the problem is those same people are being silenced by the political correctness" and also by the extremists.

In addition, "we have sleeper cells in our community that we think they are moderates but they are not" as a result of funding and infiltration.

Ms. Gabriel spoke of Iran, with its pending nuclear capabilities, and its proxy organizations, Hamas and Hezbullah, "with their tentacles spreading all across the world, including here in Canada."

"Hamas and Hezbullah have organized so well in Canada that they actually put pressure on the government."

She said Lebanese Christians in Montreal are afraid to speak out because they could be killed. In Canada. By Muslim terrorists.

Did you get that? Christians in Canada are afraid to speak their minds because of credible death threats.

During the Q&A, a young man who identified himself as a Lebanese Christian said that, if his parents knew he was there, they would be in fear for his life. He came anyway, knowing he could be killed just for attending a speech by Brigitte Gabriel. In Canada.

Ms. Gabriel mentioned that she had spoken previously at Queen's University and the Jewish organization that had brought her there had betrayed her by apologizing afterwards because some people felt offended.

She asked us to consider whether we have the courage, in our day-to-day lives, to speak as plainly as she does about the threat of radical Islam. Most of us are afraid of offending people. "Political correctness is killing us."

She urged us to speak up and take action: "It is your duty, it is my duty, it is all of our duty".

"I know what happens when good people don't say anything: evil dwells."

During the Q&A, someone asked about the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda that is being pushed at Canadian universities.

"Tolerating intolerance is a crime," Ms. Gabriel responded.

She said the problem is that many Jewish parents "have not taught their children to be confrontational, to be bold."

She said that Palestinians spend a lot of time telling their young people about their history and the myriad ways in which Israel supposedly mistreated their grandparents, etc. She joked that Jewish families talk about shopping and the movies and said they must educate their children before they get to university, both at home and through their synagogues or youth programs, about Zionism and the history of their people. As an example, she asked how many young Jewish people know that 97% of the "apartheid wall" in Israel is actually chain-link fence.

She also suggested that the Jewish community reach out to the Christian community and to others who value democracy, freedom and human rights.

When asked during the Q&A about changing Islam from within, she said, "We cannot change Islam from the outside: it has to change from the inside... We can resist but the change must come from within the Muslim society."

Ms. Gabriel's organization started ACT for Canada and has 1,200 registered members but is currently in need of someone to head its operations. If you are interested in getting involved, contact ACT via their website.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Defining "war"

"Israeli Apartheid Week" 2009

Thursday, March 5th: Part 4: Robert Lovelace
University of Toronto

According to his IAW bio:

"Robert Lovelace is a retired Chief of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation. He is an Adjunct Lecturer in Global Development Studies at Queen's University and a professor in Ecosystems Management at Sir Sandford Fleming College. He has written about community development and social reform as a de-colonizing strategy. On February 15, 2008, Robert Lovelace was sentenced to 6 months in prison for contempt of court. His crime was taking a leadership role in securing Algonquin land and refusing to permit exploration for uranium near Ardoch, Ontario."

I don't know if Mr. Lovelace was right or wrong or if his conviction and sentence were just. In all honesty, his presentation bored me. He spoke in a monotone and went on for far too long. In addition, he obviously did not get the memo that there is no "th" in apartheid.

Here's a link to a series of articles that give some background information about the dispute over which Mr. Lovelace fought and went to prison.

Mr. Lovelace gave some general information about his experiences and talked about being a "revolutionary." I couldn't tell if the young pro-Palestinians in the audience were interested in what he was saying but they applauded loudly when he was done. The university professor seated next to me was enthralled by him. To my dismay, during the Q&A he asked Mr. Lovelace an open-ended question like, "So, how is the struggle going now?" and the response swallowed up most of the Q&A time slot.

"Colonialism is a war," Robert Lovelace told us, and in this war, "it is better to be a revolutionary rather than a reactionary." To be a revolutionary, he said, you need enlightenment, engagement and self-sacrifice. And to challenge colonialism, you need education, art, debate, supply (food and medicine) and divestment.

His ancestors, the Algonquins, lived in the Ottawa Valley. He said that 200 years ago there were no buildings, dams or roads there, just his native language.

"Now," he added, "there is just devastation, with almost no trees over 100 years old."

The white people, he said, are to blame for "the rape of the world and the oppression of indigenous peoples."
When Mr. Lovelace said that peace is a verb, a process, in his Algonquin language, I wondered if he knew that, in Islamic religious tradition, peace means submission to Allah.
 
This is what the Palestinian government of Gaza says about the Middle East peace process:
Hamas Charter, Article 13

"The initiatives, the so-called peace solutions, and the international conferences for resolving the Palestinian problem stand in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement, for to neglect any part of Palestine is to neglect part of the Islamic faith. The nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its [Islamic] faith. It is in the light of this principle that its members are educated, and they wage jihad in order to raise the banner of Allah over the homeland...

"From time to time there are calls to hold an international conference in order to seek a solution for the [Palestinian] problem. Some accept this [proposal] and some reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the fulfillment of some condition or conditions before they agree to hold the conference and participate in it. However, the Islamic Resistance Movement - since it is familiar with the parties participating in the conference and with their past and current positions on the issues of the Muslims - does not believe that these conferences can meet the demands or restore the rights [of the Palestinians], or bring equity to the oppressed. These conferences are nothing but a way to give the infidels power of arbitration over Muslim land, and when have the infidels ever been equitable towards the believers...

"There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are a waste of time and a farce. The Palestinian people is far too eminent to have its future, its rights and its destiny toyed with."


Peace out.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Speak Softly and Carry a Big IDF

"Israeli Apartheid Week" 2009

Thursday, March 5th: Part 3: Leila Farsakh
University of Toronto

My friend has a beautiful, distinctive speaking voice. Although its tone is soft, it carries well, so one doesn't have to strain to hear what she is saying.

Partway through Leila Farsakh's speech, I heard my friend say, "But my friend..."

I turned and saw her at the doorway (the other door; the one with the bouncers whom I had neglected to inform of her late arrival). Unbeknownst to me, my Jewish friend had just attempted to follow another woman into the room but had been physically blocked by the bouncer. I stood, smiled broadly and waved at my friend and they let her in.

Muslim bouncer apartheid strikes again!

(Just for the record: throughout the evening, long after my friend's arrival, various people were allowed to enter and they found seats with no problem.)

My friend settled in to her seat and we listened to the rest of Ms. Farsakh's presentation.

Ms. Farsakh continued to toss out information without context or proof. She's a university professor; why didn't she have hand-outs so we could check her facts and do our own research?

Ms. Farsakh said that, since 1967, Israel has created a system that has fragmented Palestinian land and regulated the lives of Palestinians. She said the Oslo accords set the stage for this action.

Now, let's pause for a moment and think. What happened in 1967?

Oh, that's right: some Arab countries decided to pick a fight with Israel but Israel fought back and whooped their sorry asses and the losers have been whining about it ever since.

But Ms. Farsakh didn't mention the unprovoked war on Israel or Israel's victory. She also didn't mention the many concessions Israel has made, or has tried to make, for peace since its formation.

The "pass system", she said, is based on "domination" and was "institutionalized by Oslo". Thanks to Oslo, Israel created "islands" – "fragmented areas" that are "territorially unconnected" – consisting of eight major "Bantustans" including Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus (I didn't catch the rest). She mentioned checkpoints (according to her, there are 604 in the West Bank) and a permit system based on Oslo which grants Israel the power to regulate the movements of "workers, businessmen, anyone" which was introduced in 1993 and confirmed by Oslo in 2002.

The use of the term Bantustan is inaccurate; anti-Israel groups are simply trying to paint Israel with the same brush as apartheid South Africa. The situation in Israel is different in many ways, including the fact that its Arab and/or Muslim citizens have full and equal rights guaranteed by law.

See this document for information on the real Bantustans.

The 1993 agreement between the Palestinian representatives and the state of Israel, the Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements, starts out:

"The Government of the State of Israel and the P.L.O. team (in the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Conference) (the "Palestinian Delegation"), representing the Palestinian people, agree that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict, recognize their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process. Accordingly, the, two sides agree to the following principles..."

Now, that sounds kinda mutual to me.

As for the areas including Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus, I'd like to know how they came under Palestinian control. Were Muslims herded together, shipped off to "native reservations" and locked in before Israel threw away the key?

Or was this covered in other agreements between the two groups? For example, what about the Oslo 2 Agreement in 1995:

The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

And this in 2005: Israel, Palestinians Agree on Two Documents on Movement, Access.

Here's a link to a list of Agreements Israel has made with the Palestinians.

I keep seeing the word "agreement" alongside "Israel" and "Palestinians". This would suggest that the two sides have made official agreements on these issues. Despite this, I got the impression that Ms. Farsakh holds a low opinion of the Oslo agreements.

She made some other statements that were not backed up with facts: "Israel intends to incorporate all of Jerusalem into Israel" and "Israel's plan is to incorporate 90% of the West Bank into Israel". I'd like some proof, please.

She seemed disappointed with the refusal of the international community to get on board with the Bantustan refrain. She said that, although the international community refused to recognize Bantustans in South Africa, it has not done the same regarding the Palestinian territories.

"The big problem we have," Ms. Farsakh said, "is UN Resolution 181 and Resolution 242" as well as, she added, U.S. President George W. Bush "saying in 2002 or 2003 that the only solution is the creation of a Palestinian state".

But isn't that what they want: a Palestinian state? How could that be a problem?

"But it wouldn't be a state," Ms. Farsakh continued, "it would be a Bantustan."

Huh?

According to her, they already have Bantustans. How would creating a separate Palestinian state turn it into a new Bantustan? She didn't say.

Here's what she did say:

"The two-state solution has been killed by Israel: the only solution is a one-state solution."

Get that into your head, because that's what the Palestinian movement has been saying all along: Israel can't have its own state anymore. Not with a Palestinian state, not without a Palestinian state. The only solution they will accept is one Palestinian (Muslim)-majority state comprised of the geographical area currently known as Israel.

And whose fault is it? Why, it's Israel's fault, of course.

The Palestinian groups will never agree that Israel has a right to exist and that a two-state solution is therefore fair and workable. As far as they are concerned, Israel does not have a right to exist and they are doing everything they can to see to its erasure.

When the anti-Israel people talk about the "illegal occupation", they're not talking about Gaza or the West Bank or any other "disputed territory": they are talking about all of Israel.

Think about that. And riddle me this.

How many Muslim countries are there in the world?

57.

How many Jewish countries are there in the world?

One.

But that's one too many for them. And 57 isn't nearly enough: they want more. They want to make it 58-0.

And that's just for starters. If they are allowed to wipe Israel from the map, you don't really think they'll stop there, do you?

Up next: The Rape of the World or How My People had No Roads, Buildings, Dams or Infrastructure Until the Brilliant Europeans Came Along and I'm So Grateful to be Living in Such an Advanced Civilization.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Anything less than 100% employment is apartheid!

"Israeli Apartheid Week" 2009

Thursday, March 5th: Part 2: Leila Farsakh

Leila Farsakh's Wikipedia entry starts out: "Leila Farsakh... is a Palestinian Muslim who was born in Jordan..."

Excuse me, but wouldn't that make her a Jordanian Muslim?

At any rate, according to her IAW bio, Ms. Farsakh is an "assistant professor in political science at University of Massachusetts Boston." She was the first featured speaker of the evening.

In her speech, Ms. Farsakh discussed some aspects of South African apartheid and compared it in the broadest terms to "Israeli apartheid" and I got the impression that she considers the latter to be far worse than the former. Throughout her speech, she threw out statistics, catchphrases and definitions without any context or analysis. It was all one-sided: The Israelis did this to the poor, suffering Palestinians, the Israelis did that to the poor, suffering Palestinians, while the Palestinians bore no responsibility for any of it.

The anti-Israel groups have broadened and cheapened the definition of apartheid; they have co-opted its imagery and the emotional response it evokes. It doesn't matter to them that a comparable system does not actually exist in Israel; they are more interested in provoking pity or rage than cold reason derived from hard facts. They like the word's instant recognition factor, especially among middle-aged folks who boycotted South African grapes and read the hagiographic "Mother of a Nation" before Winnie Mandela championed the use of "necklaces" to burn people alive and before she was convicted for her part in the kidnapping and murder of a 14-year-old boy. Some mother.

Where once it was the name of a specific legal system governing the lives of blacks in South Africa during a specific era, anti-Israel activists have taken the literal meaning of the word apartheid, "apartness", and applied it to any practice they deem to be unfair against those who define themselves as Palestinians.

I was among those who decried apartheid and rejoiced when Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa but I am not so desperate to relive those days of activism that I will throw my rationality out the window and glom onto any cause featuring the word apartheid. Launch a campaign against a real apartheid state, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, and I will demonstrate alongside you in a heartbeat.

Ms. Farsakh talked about checkpoints, the security wall and Gaza's "economic and political depression" without once mentioning the reason for the checkpoints and the security fence/wall: terrorists coming from outside Israel to murder Israelis. She also neglected to mention Egypt's security wall; now why would that be?

She threw out statistics for the poverty rate, per capita income and unemployment in the West Bank and Gaza without any context. The statistics were meant to cast a negative light on Israel but I don't know how or why Israel is responsible for the economy of any other territory or country than its own.

It seems as if Palestinians want all the benefits of having their own country without any of the responsibilities.

"Palestinians depend on jobs in Israel," Ms. Farsakh said. According to her, 40% of all Gazans and 30% of all West Bank residents work in Israel but they comprise "only" 7% of the workforce in Israel.

So, a minority of Israel's workforce comes from these two places; this is not apartheid. If Israel does, in fact, provide employment for almost one-half of all Gazans and one-third of West Bankians, shouldn't their governments be doing all they can to improve relations with such a major employer of their citizens? Wouldn't that be the peaceful and sensible thing to do, instead of firing missiles into Israel and encouraging their people to become suicide-murderers of the citizens of this major employer? Talk about blowing yourself up in the foot.

Ms. Farsakh described the next statistic as "the tricky one": "Until 1993 a large percentage of the construction sector was Palestinian but that has dropped since the Intifada." Again, no explanation, no context. What's so tricky about cause and effect (terrorism from your side = restrictions from our side)?

Ms. Farsakh said, "There are still 60,000 Palestinians working in Israel."

According to her statistics, then, 60,000 Palestinians, comprising almost one-half of all Gazans and almost one-third of those in the West Bank (and not solely those of employment age), are employed in Israel. Somebody please tell me how this reflects poorly on Israel because I can't see it. In what way is any sovereign country responsible for providing work to any citizens other than its own?

Up next: Bantustans!

Monday, March 16, 2009

On the Inside Looking Out

"Israeli Apartheid Week" 2009

Thursday, March 5th: Part 1
University of Toronto

Arriving early and alone at the University of Toronto, I grabbed some of the "Israeli Apartheid Week" (IAW) printed materials so I would have something to read while standing in line. The booklets also came in handy when I spotted some familiar faces from Monday night's event at Ryerson. (Oh, no, that guy's in my video and there's that rude girl who argued with my friend in the line-up: look away, look away!) Luckily, my cover wasn't blown and I was permitted inside the auditorium.

Once inside, I sat near the back so I could keep an eye out for my friend. I put my coat and bag on the seat to my right, asked the university professor to my left to save my seat, and approached the students and security at the door.

Me: "My friend is late, I'm saving her a seat, please let her in when she gets here."

Bouncer: "I'm sorry, if the room is full, we can't save seats."

Me: "My friend is coming but she's late, I'm saving her a seat, please let her in."

Bouncer: (see above)

Me: "I've got my coat on the seat, I'm saving it for my friend, please let her in, she's a bit late, thanks."

Bouncer: (see above)

Me: "Thanks!"

Hillary Clinton, I feel your pain.

Later, I asked the students at the door how many people were in the audience and they guessed at 150. I'll leave it up to the math geeks to give me a projected estimate based on the following:

If there were 100-150 people in the near-capacity room
And the man on my left was a university professor
And the woman three seats to my right was a university professor
And the woman directly in front of her was a university professor
How screwed is our educational system?

Bonus points for creativity. Due at the end of March Break.

I didn't recognize the music playing over the PA system. It was some kind of rap or hip-hop and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in English. It might have been CBC Radio.

The activists had used abundant amounts of duct tape to attach their decorations to the walls. We're talking at least three long strips of tape per corner and a few more along the top, bottom and sides. I doubt the paint underneath was in good shape after everything was taken down.

But, teacher, it's not my fault: If those sneaky Israelis hadn't prevented the Palestinians from inventing a stick-free, temporary tape for putting up anti-Israel posters, this wouldn't have happened! The international community is complicit! F*** the West!

Surrounding a large Palestinian flag, posters on the wall featured these slogans:

"Free Palestine – Boycott Israel"
"Turtle Island to Palestine – Occupation is a Crime"
"People of Gaza You are not Alone"
"Break the Silence End the Siege on Gaza"
"Israeli Apartheid Week"

A large screen at the front of the room flashed images and charts such as:

"Palestinian Loss of Land 1946-2000" (map)
"60 Years of Israeli Apartheid & Occupation"

Smaller photos and posters at the front might have shown injured or dead people; I couldn't tell for certain from my seat and I didn't want to get any closer to inspect them. I had a seat to save!

Just before the moderator approached the microphone, I repeated my earlier request to the students at the door. They must have been new because they agreed to let my friend in when she arrived. Unfortunately, my friend showed up later at the other door. That's right, the door I didn't know about until it was too late.

Higher Learning Lesson # 5: Scope out the doors; there's usually more than one.

I didn't catch the moderator's name. He was a young man; I don't know if he is a genuine student or if he is one of those part-time, long-term students whose real function is as an anti-Israel agitator.

He showed this video.

I can't have been the only person in the room who didn't understand what the rapper in the video was saying. This is Canada, people: most of us don't speak Palestinian.

For those who do speak it, is "Hitler" the same in Palestinian as it is in English? At about the 0:28 mark, does the rapper say "Hitler"?

The moderator described this year's "Israeli Apartheid Week" as the largest and most successful to date; it was being held in 40 cities worldwide and U of T was the birthplace of IAW.

It was a friendly crowd and the moderator didn't have to work hard to get applause but he received an especially strong response when he disparaged the University of Toronto's President, David Naylor, as a "detractor" of IAW with "firm and strong links to Israeli apartheid".

After showing this video of David Naylor at an Israeli university (with the music – and base – cranked up), the moderator called, "Join me in shaming!" and everyone but me hissed, booed and yelled, "Shame!"

The moderator laughed and proceeded to the night's message.

He said, "Mosques, hospitals and educational institutions are being deliberately attacked" by the IDF in Gaza.

He mentioned the "ongoing illegal occupation" of Israel. He also said to applause that, although various universities have banned the IAW poster and they've had a lot of opposition, the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel groups are fighting and stronger than ever.

Before introducing the first guest, he went over the ground rules:
  • No video or photography unless you've registered as a member of the media.
  • No disruptions allowed. Following U of T policy, if you cause a problem, you will be given two warnings, then you will be asked to leave.
  • During the Q & A period, free speech & open dialogue are encouraged but racism, sexism or discrimination will not be permitted.
I wondered where the question, "Does Israel have a right to exist?" might fall in the above categories, but I was afraid to ask in case they threw me out or threatened to saw off my head.

Up next: Leila Farsakh and the rebranding of apartheid.