Sunday, June 28, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Israeli Apartheid Week 2009 Round-Up
Phew, it's finally done: I've finished writing about my experiences at this year's "Israeli Apartheid Week" (IAW).
I attended two nights in Toronto. On the first night (a Monday), I couldn't get into the auditorium, so I stayed with the crowd inside the lobby and outside. On the Thursday night, I arrived early, got a seat and listened to the anti-Israel lectures.
I wrote about my experiences here:
Intro
March 2nd: Part 1
March 2nd: Part 2
March 2nd: Part 3
March 2nd: Part 4
March 5th: Part 1
March 5th: Part 2
March 5th: Part 3
March 5th: Part 4
March 5th: Part 5
March 5th: Part 6
Keep in mind that Leila Farsakh will be one of the guest speakers at the anti-Israel bash being held as part of York University's 50th anniversary party.
These people have one goal in mind: the conquest and dismantling of the only Jewish state in the world.
The arguments don't matter much to them: they're trying every tactic they can think of to convince the world that the Jewish people are not entitled to their ancestral homeland, that of all the UN-mandated countries in the Middle East, somehow Israel is illegitimate while all the others remain legitimate.
They don't actually care about "apartheid" or the living conditions of the perpetual "Palestinians". If they did, they'd be protesting against Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah.
Jews have lived in Israel for more than 3,000 years.
Israel is the legal and legitimate homeland of the Jewish people.
Facts don't matter to these people (who include in their number Muslims, communists and socialists, all with their own anti-Jewish and/or anti-capitalist agendas).
They can call it anti-Zionism all they like and pretend it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism: but Israel is the Zionist project. To be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Israel.
They want to end Israel, "the Zionist project". They want to transform it into another Muslim country: that's their bottom line.
All the rest is just window dressing.
I attended two nights in Toronto. On the first night (a Monday), I couldn't get into the auditorium, so I stayed with the crowd inside the lobby and outside. On the Thursday night, I arrived early, got a seat and listened to the anti-Israel lectures.
I wrote about my experiences here:
Intro
March 2nd: Part 1
March 2nd: Part 2
March 2nd: Part 3
March 2nd: Part 4
March 5th: Part 1
March 5th: Part 2
March 5th: Part 3
March 5th: Part 4
March 5th: Part 5
March 5th: Part 6
Keep in mind that Leila Farsakh will be one of the guest speakers at the anti-Israel bash being held as part of York University's 50th anniversary party.
These people have one goal in mind: the conquest and dismantling of the only Jewish state in the world.
The arguments don't matter much to them: they're trying every tactic they can think of to convince the world that the Jewish people are not entitled to their ancestral homeland, that of all the UN-mandated countries in the Middle East, somehow Israel is illegitimate while all the others remain legitimate.
They don't actually care about "apartheid" or the living conditions of the perpetual "Palestinians". If they did, they'd be protesting against Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah.
Jews have lived in Israel for more than 3,000 years.
Israel is the legal and legitimate homeland of the Jewish people.
Facts don't matter to these people (who include in their number Muslims, communists and socialists, all with their own anti-Jewish and/or anti-capitalist agendas).
They can call it anti-Zionism all they like and pretend it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism: but Israel is the Zionist project. To be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Israel.
They want to end Israel, "the Zionist project". They want to transform it into another Muslim country: that's their bottom line.
All the rest is just window dressing.
"The End of the Zionist Project"
"Israeli Apartheid Week" 2009
Thursday, March 5th: Part 6: Q&A with Leila Farsakh
University of Toronto
Such mild, pretty language glosses over the hoped-for destruction of the only Jewish state in the world.
57 Muslim countries. One Jewish country.
During the Q&A, a woman asked Leila Farsakh:
"Ms. Farsakh, you said: 'The two-state solution has been killed by Israel; the only solution is a one-state solution.'
"What would that one state look like? What would it entail?"
Ms. Farsakh responded that, among the proponents of the one-state solution, people were considering two options: a binational state such as Belgium or Switzerland or a secular, democratic state.
In a binational state, she explained, Israeli Jews would be able to keep their own communities, religious institutions and schools, and so would Muslims.
She did not explain how the binational state would differ from the current situation in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank or how the communities would be apportioned.
She did not say that the three areas would be melded into one.
Nor did she mention that the outrageous perpetual "right of return" – of not only people who had once lived in Israel but including their descendants through every generation for all time – would cause the binational state or the secular, democratic state to instantly become a Muslim-majority state.
Ms. Farsakh did not give one example of a secular, democratic state in the world with a majority Muslim population. Past history and current trends demonstrate that, in most or all cases, a country in which Muslims make up the majority will become a country that is ruled by Sharia (Muslim religious) law. In most or all Muslim countries today, right now in 2009, Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and non-religious people, as well as Muslims, are being persecuted and murdered either because they are not Muslim or because they are deemed not Muslim enough.
None of this was brought up by Ms. Farsakh. Perhaps it does not concern her; I do not know.
It seemed to sadden Ms. Farsakh that "the international community is not on board and that is key" to their success.
This is precisely what she will be working toward this month at York University.
Ms. Farsakh ended with the following:
"Jews and Israelis are worried that it would mean the end of Judaism and Israel. It would be the end of the Zionist project but not the end of the Jews or 60 years of Israeli culture."
"The Zionist project" is Israel.
Thursday, March 5th: Part 6: Q&A with Leila Farsakh
University of Toronto
Such mild, pretty language glosses over the hoped-for destruction of the only Jewish state in the world.
57 Muslim countries. One Jewish country.
During the Q&A, a woman asked Leila Farsakh:
"Ms. Farsakh, you said: 'The two-state solution has been killed by Israel; the only solution is a one-state solution.'
"What would that one state look like? What would it entail?"
Ms. Farsakh responded that, among the proponents of the one-state solution, people were considering two options: a binational state such as Belgium or Switzerland or a secular, democratic state.
In a binational state, she explained, Israeli Jews would be able to keep their own communities, religious institutions and schools, and so would Muslims.
She did not explain how the binational state would differ from the current situation in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank or how the communities would be apportioned.
She did not say that the three areas would be melded into one.
Nor did she mention that the outrageous perpetual "right of return" – of not only people who had once lived in Israel but including their descendants through every generation for all time – would cause the binational state or the secular, democratic state to instantly become a Muslim-majority state.
Ms. Farsakh did not give one example of a secular, democratic state in the world with a majority Muslim population. Past history and current trends demonstrate that, in most or all cases, a country in which Muslims make up the majority will become a country that is ruled by Sharia (Muslim religious) law. In most or all Muslim countries today, right now in 2009, Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and non-religious people, as well as Muslims, are being persecuted and murdered either because they are not Muslim or because they are deemed not Muslim enough.
None of this was brought up by Ms. Farsakh. Perhaps it does not concern her; I do not know.
It seemed to sadden Ms. Farsakh that "the international community is not on board and that is key" to their success.
This is precisely what she will be working toward this month at York University.
Ms. Farsakh ended with the following:
"Jews and Israelis are worried that it would mean the end of Judaism and Israel. It would be the end of the Zionist project but not the end of the Jews or 60 years of Israeli culture."
"The Zionist project" is Israel.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
"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.
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:
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
