He-man Communist Israel-haters Club

"Israeli Apartheid Week" 2009

Thursday, March 5th: Part 5: David McNally
University of Toronto

David McNally's IAW bio states:

"David McNally is Professor of Political Science at York University and author of four books, including Another World is Possible: Globalization and Anti-Capitalism. He is active with the New Socialists and the Popular Education and Action Project in Toronto."

He began his "Israeli Apartheid Week" lecture by railing against Michael Ignatieff who, he said, had "joined the chorus" of those who had spoken out against Israeli Apartheid Week. He said that Mr. Ignatieff is a professor and "a shoddy one in my view."

He was so angry at Mr. Ignatieff for "defending the crimes of Israel" that he read aloud from one of his own books in which he criticized Mr. Ignatieff.

I wrote, and I quote...

A plug for his book or an onan-homage to his superior critiquing skills? One hand washes the other...

With that out of the way, Mr. McNally said the focus of his talk would be "globalization and social responsibility in the context of oppression, occupation and war and human rights violations against the Palestinians."

It didn't take long for Mr. McNally's socialist/communist leanings to become glaringly obvious. He talked about "relations of domination", "anti-capitalism" and "a high-tech war economy".

He said, "Canada is a thoroughgoing partner in the Israeli war machine... utterly complicit in the crimes, murders, human rights violations..."

Since 1977, Canada and Israel have had a free trade agreement, he said. (As if it were a bad thing.)

"Don't let anybody tell you that Canada is a peacemaker," he said.

He listed the following companies as being "completely tied into the Israeli war machine." He didn't explain how or why, he just rattled off their names.

Bell Canada (they make phones and provide email and internet service)
Air Canada (an airline)
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan (they make fertilizer)
Nortel (Can someone translate their mission statement for me? They used to make phones.)
Bombardier (they make planes and trains)
Pratt & Whitney (they make engines for airplanes and other systems)
Frontline Robotics ("Autonomous Perimeter Security")
Diamond Aircraft (they make airplanes, too)
Virtual Defense Canada (I can't find this online)
Vanguard Response System (they make counter-terrorism equipment)

According to Mr. McNally, Vanguard Response System works closely with the Israeli police.

Their website says, "Allen-Vanguard Corporation is Canada’s first publicly traded company offering proprietary counter-terrorist equipment systems for defeating and mitigating conventional and unconventional terrorist devices of all kinds."

That sounds like a good company to me but not to David McNally! How dare they work with Israeli police to defeat terrorists!

I felt like writing each company a supportive email but what would I say? I might start with, "Hey, thanks for being part of the Canadian and Israeli war machine against terrorists!" but would they even know what I was talking about? I mean, a fertilizer company, for heaven's sake?

Mr. McNally continued to beat on his drum: "Canada is complicit in colonialism, occupation and war."

He then quoted Marx on capitalism, which forced me to break my pencil in two because I draw the line on quoting Marx. How many millions of people have been murdered, and how many more have lived terrible lives in hellholes, thanks to that communist's manifesto?

I cheered up when Mr. McNally said there are two main reasons why some people on the left are not convinced regarding the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

First, they balk at the issue of academic freedom. Mr. McNally said the solution is to emphasize that they are boycotting institutions and to ask, "Where is the academic freedom on the Palestinian side?"

[To which I would respond: 1) You can't boycott an institution; and 2) the citizens of Gaza are not Israeli citizens, so their academic freedom is the responsibility of their elected government, headed by Hamas.]

Second, some leftists ask why Israel is being singled out for a boycott. Mr. McNally said it is not a question of ranking injustice but rather identifying where it exists and supporting calls for action.

[In other words, don't ask why we want to boycott only Israel: we're not being unfair, so just support the boycott for the sake of supporting the boycott, and stop asking questions.]

David McNally clearly holds a dim view of Canada and of capitalism. I think he would be happier living in a nice communist country such as... such as...

Wait, it'll come to me. In the meantime, perhaps he could move to Gaza; surely he would feel more comfortable living among friends. They could sit around a Palestinian work accident bonfire and read aloud from his books.

Up next: Leila Farsakh and the gender-and-race-equality-Q&A.

"He speaks the truth"

For the part in the video where Clive Seligman called on the audience on Monday at York University to do something about Hamas and read from Article 7 of the Hamas Charter (and was booed and called a racist), go to 02:15:30 here.

You can't hear the audience clearly but many were loud and rude; you can see and hear the moderator's response to the audience.

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.

View it here.

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…”

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.

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.

Video from London - Part 3 - Q&A with Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle & Salim Mansur

Human Rights Commissions: Useful or Obsolete? Part 3: Audience Q&A from josephinejosephine on Vimeo.

Video from London - Part 2 - Salim Mansur & Ezra Levant

Human Rights Commissions: Useful or Obsolete? Part 2: Salim Mansur and Ezra Levant from josephinejosephine on Vimeo.

Update: Welcome, Ezra Levant readers!

Video from London - Part 1 - Intros & Kathy Shaidle

Human Rights Commissions: Useful or Obsolete? Part 1: Intro & Kathy Shaidle from josephinejosephine on Vimeo.

Update: Welcome, readers of Five Feet of Fury and Blazing Cat Fur!

Update #2: Welcome, Mark Steyn readers! I will never stop kicking myself for being the woman who told Mark Steyn to be careful crossing the street on his way back to Queen's Park.

Update #3: Welcome, friends of Dr. Roy!

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.

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.

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.