"Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism" - Canada's immigration minister
This is another wake-up call for those who said there was no difference between a Harper government and all those that came before:
Kenney says some Canadian Arab groups express hatred toward Jews
Canada's immigration minister suggested that organizations like the Canadian Arab Federation and Canadian Islamic Congress should not expect to receive government funding because of their "hateful sentiments" toward Israel and Jews.
"There are organizations in Canada, as in Britain, that receive their share of media attention and public notoriety, but who at the same time as expressing hateful sentiments, expect to be treated as respectable interlocutors in the public discourse," Jason Kenney said in a speech Tuesday at an international conference on anti-Semitism in London.
"These and other organizations are free within the confines of our law and consistent with our traditions of freedom of expression, to speak their mind, but they should not expect to receive resources from the state, support from taxpayers or any other form of official respect from the government or the organs of our state," Kenney said. [...]
Kenney said a new type of anti-Semitism is taking root in Canada that manifests itself in anti-Zionist views.
"We do see the growth of a new anti-Semitism, the anti-Semitism predicated on the notion that the Jews alone have no right to a homeland," Kenney said.
Kenney said this isn't about legitimate criticism of the Israeli government.
"The argument is with those whose premise is that Israel itself is an abomination, and that the Jews alone have no right to a homeland. And in that sense anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism," Kenney said.
I proudly fit this wannabe Bnai B'rither's definition of an "anti-Semite". People should be very concerned about this latest declaration of war against democracy. Members of his own party, and certainly those of other parties, should be asked to publicly distance themselves from his views. We must tell the world that he does not speak for Canada.
Comments
Well, I'm sorry but telling people not to elect Bob Rae as Liberal leader because we can't let Canada have a "Zionist Prime Minister" sounds awfully close to being a "coded" way of saying "Don't vote for Rae because his wife is a Jewess" or "Beware - Bob Rae is a secret agent of ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government)". What would people say if a Jewish group put out a leaflet saying "Don't vote for Gerard Kennedy - we can't let Canada have an Islamist Al-Qaeda supporting PM"??? We would all call it racist (and I agree)...ditto if someone said "Obama must be stopped because we can't let the next President of the US be a black power Mau-Mau (sic.)".
I think that if people actually want to advance the Palestinian cause at all - they should realize that shrieking the word "Zionist" as some sort of insulting epithet is totally counter-productive and will only make people dismiss the source of those comments.
Ironically, in December, Gerard Kennedy - the guy that the pro-Palestinian group was urging people to support - threw his support to..."Zionist (sic.)" Bob Rae. And, Ignatieff has now become leader and he seems to be even more pro-Israel than Rae is!
Indeed, there is no difference between the Liberals and Tories on Israel anymore.
What would people say if a Jewish group put out a leaflet saying "Don't vote for Gerard Kennedy - we can't let Canada have an Islamist Al-Qaeda supporting PM"??? We would all call it racist (and I agree)...ditto if someone said "Obama must be stopped because we can't let the next President of the US be a black power Mau-Mau (sic.)".
Yes we'd call it racist but who said something like that? Do you have a link?
No it doesn't, except perhaps in your excited imagination.
I know some like to equate Zionism with Paul Newman in Exodus, "making deserts bloom," or other such fairy tales, but for others, supporting Zionism equals supporting the continuing massacre, theft and dispossession of Palestinians.
I agree with Stockholm. While I may dislike what present day Zionism stands for, the CAF erred terribly in its demand that Rae not be elected leader because his wife was an officer of the Jewish Congress. I just think this is another way to say don't vote for Rae because he has a jewish wife who supports Israel. That is improper.
Winnifred and Stockholm, what you are saying is tautological.
"I just think this is another way to say don't vote for Rae because he has a jewish wife who supports Israel."
The CAF has said it is because Bob Rae and his wife are vocal Zionists.
Now I personally think that is not wise politics. But that isn't the point. The point is that the CAF said that they were oppossed to Bob Rae because he and his wife are vocal Zionists.
You say that really amounts to saying don't support him because his wife is a Jew. It would appear you buy into the equating of anti-zionism as anti-semitism.
If you choose to define "Zionist" as anyone who thinks Israel has a right to exist than I guess that makes about 95% of all Canadians "part of the global Zionist conspiracy". Gerard Kennedy was and is just as much a Zionist as Bob Rae is and for that matter I guess Jack Layton is also a Zionist. Oh and I guess anyone Palestinian who supports a two-state solution is also a Zionist - Mr. Abbas - step right up!!
It just seems a little - shall we say - coincidental that you had 9 people running for the Liberal leadership and all with virtually identical policies on the Middle East, but the one candidate out of nine who has a family connection to Judaism is the only one that gets labelled a potential "Zionist Prime Minister"
Rae has also written a few articles about Sri Lanka that seem rather sympathetic to the Tamil cause. Oh my God he must be a TAMILIST or a "Hinduist" stop him before its too late!!!! Just imagine if Rae's wife were a Tamil from Sri Lanka. Or better yet, imagine if his wife was Muslim and wore a hijab - I can bet you that people on the far right would be spreading vicious gossip that he was some sort of a Trojan horse for an Islamist takeover of Canada.
As has been explained a thousand times before, "Zionism" is a very specific ideology that came into existence in central and eastern Europe at the turn of the century in the wake of a series of bloody pogroms and in the wake of an out break of anti-semitism in France as a result of the Dreyfus case. It called for a Jewish homeland - period. To this day there are many Zionists who want either want to return every square inch of the occupied territories to the Palestinians including Jerusalem and there are Zionists who want a single bi-ethnic state exactly as some on this board advocate. The issue is not with "zionism" per se - its with the way that the far right in Israel has appropriated it to advance their own ends.
I don't spit out "Islamist" under my breath at anyone who supports a Palestinian state and I also wouldn't call people who supported the Catholic side in Northern Ireland "papists".
It would appear you buy into the equating of anti-zionism as anti-semitism.
Ken, you are debating with vocal supporters of Israel and vocal "critics" of the Palestinian people and their rights. Except that, being defenders of an unjust cause and knowing it, they play the anti-Semitic card.
Associating the Jewish people with the crimes of Israel is the height of anti-Semitism. And because some low-lifes around the world are bound to be influenced by such propaganda, Jewish lives are endangered, in Israel and elsewhere, by this blood libel.
The salvation of the Jewish people, now as in the past, is to identify with and be one with the struggles of people for liberation, wherever they are. For Jews in Canada, it means being one with all progressive causes here in Canada, and never accepting the neo-Nazi lies of a Jason Kenney that our "homeland" is somewhere else. It also means solidarity with the cause of people worldwide fighting for freedom - and, for the purpose of this subject, solidarity with the struggle of the Palestinian people.
Well said, Stockholm. We can only imagine the outcry if anyone raised a candidate's wife being Muslim or Sikh as a reason not to vote for them.
If you choose to define "Zionist" as anyone who thinks Israel has a right to exist than I guess that makes about 95% of all Canadians "part of the global Zionist conspiracy". Gerard Kennedy was and is just as much a Zionist as Bob Rae is and for that matter I guess Jack Layton is also a Zionist. Oh and I guess anyone Palestinian who supports a two-state solution is also a Zionist - Mr. Abbas - step right up!!
It just seems a little - shall we say - coincidental that you had 9 people running for the Liberal leadership and all with virtually identical policies on the Middle East, but the one candidate out of nine who has a family connection to Judaism is the only one that gets labelled a potential "Zionist Prime Minister"
I agree that the term Zionist is thrown around in a manner that is not helpful. I tend to use more descriptive terms like pro-Israeli, rabidly pro-Israeli or 'Israeli apologist' if we are specifically referring to someone who virtually always chooses to defend or rationalize whatever Israel is doing [which often takes the form of "I do not support _____ that Israel has done / everything Israel does, but....]
I also admitt that I have never read everytng that the CFA said around the Rae incident. I'm going on what has been said here.
And here it was pointed out that the CFA said that it was not because Rae's wife is Jewish, that it is because he and she are strong Zionists.
You are putting up a reductionist straw man saying that eveyone who supports Israel's right to exist gets called a Zionist, so isn't it supicious Bob Rae is singled out. Its only some people who call everyone even supportive of Israel's right to exist a Zionist.
It is misleading to merely describe Bob Rae's wife as just another someone who supports the right of Israel to exist. She's a leading member of the CJC. We can quibble about whether Zionist is the right thing to call her [and its not the term I would choose], but the CJC is more than just another group supporting Israel's right to exist.
And that is you showing your colours. Maybe I missed something, but I don't remember the CFA criticizing Rae because his wife is Jewish.
Right. They just call her a "Zionist" because "kike" has become politically incorrect.
My first reaction is to ignore you because you seem to be deliberately assinine.
But just to be sure:
I just said that the CFA said the objection was because Rae's wife is a Zionist. That it was never said it was because she is Jewish.
You have not given any evidence to the contrary.
But you keep repeating this canard. So do I take it that for you calling someone a Zionist makes them in fact anti-semitic? Or, what is just as bad: that you reserve the right to say without any evidence that someone in particular who says Zionist is in fact anti-semitic?
Calling someone a kike is clearly anti-semitic. So your intent here is clear.
While I may be careful about who I call a Zionist. I'm clearly anti-Zionist.
You going to call me an anti-semite while you are at it?
And while we are at it, where do anti-zionist Jews like unionist fit in?
Which brings us back to the opening post: that equating anti-zionism as anti-semitism IS an attempt to marginalize and silence people.
I just said that the CFA said the objection was because Rae's wife is a Zionist. That it was never said it was because she is Jewish.
You have not given any evidence to the contrary.
As Stockholm pointed out, EIGHT other candidates in that race were ALL zionists. I'd say that Joe Volpe was probably the most hawkish on Israel. So why single out the ONE "zionist" with a Jewish wife?
And you all have a perfect right to be Zionists. Further, your beliefs deserve respect that admittedly you don't always get around here.
But that does not excuse equating anti-zionism and anti-semitism. Let alone people here defending or rationalizing that.
I just said that the CFA said the objection was because Rae's wife is a Zionist. That it was never said it was because she is Jewish.
You have not given any evidence to the contrary.
As Stockholm pointed out, EIGHT other candidates in that race were ALL zionists. I'd say that Joe Volpe was probably the most hawkish on Israel. So why single out the ONE "zionist" with a Jewish wife?
Like Stockholm you are trying to softpeddle "zionist" by saying that is just anyone who supports the right of Israel to exist. I unequivocally support the right of Israel to exist.
I don't know about Joe Volpe, and you don't have the credibility for me to accept your say-so that he is the most hawkish on Israel. But even if he was, having the most reservations about the candidate whose wife is a leading member of a group that actively and vociferously promotes Israeli positions in Canada is not, as you keep trying to pretend, singling her out simply "because she is Jewish".
You and your scummy remarks do not belong here.
And while we are at it, where do anti-zionist Jews like unionist fit in?
I, and the mushrooming numbers of Jews like me, are the worst nightmare of the Star Spangled Americans. We represent the best in Judaism, the traditions of enlightenment, progress, solidarity - the traditions of the "Diaspora", of living among the nations. We are an accusing presence against the ethnocentric anti-Arab "me, myself, mine" of the B'nai Brith, the Israeli government, and the provocateurs who show their face on this board. We have suffered for our stand of principle, but it's so frigging insignificant compared to the suffering of the victims of U.S. imperialism and its Zionist Israeli handservant. We are the world, and we shall overcome.
My first reaction is to ignore you because you seem to be deliberately assinine.
Trust your first reaction, Ken.
What you have said in this thread SCC is blatant testimony to how pervasive has been this equating of anti-zionism with anti-semitism.
[Not that you have been alone.]
Not at all. I'd hardly call the Satmar hasidic sect "anti-Semitic" despite their being vehemently anti-Zionist since long before 1948.
At the same time, there's no doubt in my mind that some people do use "zionist" as a more socially acceptable substitute for "kike" just like I think some people use terms like "Islamist" as a more socially acceptable substitute for "raghead."
And i DO get suspicious when in a race between 8 people - ALL of whom could be labelled 'zionists" - the ONE guy who gets signled out for abuse is the same one guy who is married to a Jew. And i DO also get suspicious when, in a world overflowing with states that abuse human rights, certain people seem obsessed with singling out the ONE state with a majority Jewish citizenship.
I'm sure your suspicions are very convenient for you.
When people offer no evidence except their suspicions...
And no one said that you think every anti-zionist is an anti-semite, just that you are using the canard.
Im sure im not the only one that got confused reading your comments : zionism, judaism, pro-israeli, left, right...
What these words used to stand for and what the situation is today i presume is different.
Israeli govt is condemned as zionist and anti-judaic, anti-palestinian... but at the same time the govt members are religious, they celebrate shabbat and other judaic holidays. So don't we have here zinoists that are religious? or should we say zionist policies instead of zionist govt members ?
my question may sound naive, but imagine most of the voters that are miles away to make the difference... people here are only maybe 10% of voters
How do you know? did you know them in person? zinoist movement wasn't religious in its essence but individually they probably been religious..
Probably? You have no idea do you? I know because I've read the writings of early Zionist thinkers like Moses Hess, Borochov, Herzl, Gordon etc and also read books on them and yes, with few exceptions they were secular and either areligious or anti-religious. Conversely, most religious Jews, with very few exceptions such as Rabbi Kook, were anti-Zionist.
Pino (or anyone else), if you want the single best resource in understanding the zionist movement, the best book I could recommend is an anthology called The Zionist Idea, which is edited by and features a great (lengthy and detailed) introduction by Arthur Hertzberg, one of the best scholars of contemporary Jewish thought of the last century.
Also, if you don't ahve the time or energy for that, jsut go to your local video store and pick up a copy of The Chosen, based on Chaim Potok's novel, as this dramatizes some of the conflict between religious and more secular Jews over the issue of zionism in the lead-up to the 1948 creation of Israel.
Why is it so difficult for people to label public figures who they deem to be "too uncritically pro-Israel" as "too uncritically pro-Israel" - instead of getting sidetracked with this red-herring of using the term Zionist as an ad hominem coded attack that smacks of calling people "communist fellow travelers" or "Islamists" or "papists"?
I'm sure that Tamils in Canada don't like politicians who they feel are too pro-Sinhalese. I don't here them calling such people "Sinhalists" or "Buddhist supremacists" etc...
There is a long, long history in the later part of the 20th century of people "talking in code" and using "dog whistles" when they want to appeal to racist sentiments (before that no one cared and would openly be racist) and whether you like it or not saying that someone's political ambitions need to stopped because their Jewish wife is a "Zionist" or because we can let Canada have a "Zionist PM" is clearly non-so-subtle dog whistle for "stop this guy because his wife is a kike".
I agree that being "anti-Zionist" doesnt necessarily make a person an anti-semite (Can someone explain what it means to be anti-zionist and yet to also support Israel's right to exist?) - I think the issue is the tone and the way in which the term is being used. When people start hissing "stop the guy with Zionist wife" there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it is just coded anti-semitism.
Similarly when rightwing freaks in the US would go out of their way to speak of Barack HUSSEIN Obama with the middle name being said at triple the volume of the first and last name - it was clearly a coded appeal to anti-Muslim prejudice. It doesn't matter that Hussein is Obama's legal middle name - its the way in which it is being manipulated.
Why this diversionary bullshit? Because Jason Kenney said the CAF is anti-Semitic and he will cut off their funds. So instead of saying "I agree with Kenney", the cowardly Israel fans here pile on the CAF. Support for Harper's politics, support for Israel - and calling themselves Jews. I guess it takes all types to make a world, but our people have survived far greater adversities than these.
I'm not sure who you're referring to. I oppose Harper's politics and I am very critical of a lot of policies of the current Israeli government. But I do think that ad hominem attacks on "Zionists" can and often are a code way of pandering to anti-semitism and does nothing to help the Palestinian cause. If anything it only helps people like Kenney to peddle their crap.
Actually, by equating "anti-Zionism" with "antisemitism," you're helping Kenney peddle his crap.
This just in from the CAF:
Canadian Arab FederationLa Fédération Canado-Arabe NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 19, 2009 Response to Mr. Jason Kenney, M.P.
The Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) finds it deeply regrettable that Canada's Minister of Immigration, Jason Kenney, has threatened to cut funding to newcomer service agencies served by the CAF and has used the remarks made by CAF’s president, Khaled Mouammar while Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza, as an excuse to malign and intimidate Arab and Muslim communities who have suffered and continue to suffer from marginalization, threats and the muzzling of their voices.
We note with disappointment that this most recent attack on the CAF is part of a campaign waged by Mr. Kenney who has targeted and systematically vilified the CAF. In January 2008, Mr. Kenney smeared and stereotyped the Arab community during one of his exchanges with a Liberal MP in the House of Commons, and he described CAF as a racist organization in a speech in Bucharest Romania in June 2007. Mr. Kenney’s most recent attack on CAF came just 3 days ago at an anti-Semitism conference in London, England where he labeled the CAF and Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) as groups that promote anti-Semitism. This characterization is slanderous and untrue on a number of levels. The CAF works with many Jewish anti-Zionist groups on a variety of projects. Furthermore, Arabs are a Semitic people, so Mr. Kenney's unfounded allegations and intimidating threats against the CAF misrepresent the organization and our community and work to inflame and divide Canadians.
Since 1992, CAF's settlement programs have demonstrated a solid record of success that is available for any interested party to examine and review. These programs are thoroughly audited and have been praised for the efficiency and dedication with which they are implemented. Threatening to cut funding for these programs is a form of indiscriminate and collective punishment upon people who require these services. We wonder what motivated the Minister to issue this threat. If it stems from a disagreement with our position on certain political issues, we strongly believe that this constitutes an infringement on our freedoms and rights as guaranteed by the Charter. We have consistently sought to empower our community to speak its mind and participate fully, openly and unabashedly in the Canadian democratic process. Mr. Kenney’s comments serve to set this endeavour back. Is the muting of our voices is now a condition for receiving funding and support from our government? This is a matter of grave concern to all agencies providing language and settlement services to immigrants and newcomers.
Mr. Kenney's comments, whether intentionally or unintentionally, perpetuate negative sentiments towards Arab and Muslim Canadians. These come directly after the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) released a report stating that "Canada should strengthen its domestic violence laws and stop religious discrimination against Muslims…and do more to improve the welfare of its Aboriginal citizens".
We call upon the Harper government to adopt a zero tolerance approach to expressions of Islamophobia and Arabophobia (the latter of which is a form of anti-Semitism), in the public arena. The government must recognize Islamophobia and Arabophobia for what they are, pernicious evils that must be exposed, confronted and repudiated whenever and where ever they appear, evils so profound that they are ultimately a threat to us all.
The CAF will continue to provide its services to all Canadians and expects that funds will be unchanged for programs that we have implemented with excellence. The CAF will not be intimidated into silence and will defend the rights and freedoms of our communities as protected under the Charter. We will continue to combat racism and uphold the rights of racialized groups and human rights in Canada and abroad, as well as to vigorously expose the serious human rights violations perpetuated by Israel against the Palestinian people and its illegal occupation of Arab lands.
For more information, please contact:
Mohamed Boudjenane
CAF Executive Director
416-493-8635 x 23 ed@caf.ca
"Actually, by equating "anti-Zionism" with "antisemitism," you're helping Kenney peddle his crap."
If you would actually bother reading what I wrote you would see that I just said that I do NOT equate so-called anti-zionism with anti-semitism. (I'd still like to hear someone explain what you call someone who says they are anti-zionist, but who also thinks Israel has a right to exist). But I think that when people use the word "Zionist" as an ad hominem insult that they hiss at people who are Jewish or who are married to Jews then THAT is thinly veiled anti-semitism - and you can't deny it.
Do you equate "anti-Islamism" with "Islamaphobia" or do you think its A-OK to point fingers and shriek "Islamist" at anyone who is pro-Palestinian.
Let's have less name calling and more discussion of the ISSUES.
"Bother" is putting the experience rather lightly.
Your example makes no sense, since not all Palestinians are Muslims.
Zionism is a hyper-Nationalist ideology that grew out of similar movements in 19th-century Europe. It's basically a school of thought.
One can be critical of Zionists and not be critical of Jews in the same manner that one can be critical of supply-side economists, Stalinists and Nazis without being critical of greedy white people, Russians and Germans.
That's true. But if Ignatieff had a German wife and people started hissing "Nazi" at her and started murmuring that we had to stop the "Nazi-lover" from being PM - I would call that anti-German bigotry.
As I have said before - there is a HUGE difference between being "critical of Zionism" and singling out someone who happens to have a Jewish wife and hissing "Zionist" at him as if believing that Israel should exist is to be equating with supporting child pornography.
The kinds of people who go around shrieking "Zionist" as an ad hominem insult are about as brain dead about what Zionism actually is as are people who call anyone who supports a Palestinian state an "Islamofascist".
(I'd still like to hear someone explain what you call someone who says they are anti-zionist, but who also thinks Israel has a right to exist).
Since I'm the one who said that I'll answer.
Labels are not timeless. There are a number of you who hold to a bygone view of Zionism- from its origins. You are enititled to do so. But you are not entitled in a discussion with others to treat the definition convenient to you as if it is the only one.
In todays world- and in practice for some decades now, more than half of Israel's exostence- real world Zionism is not a homeland for Jewish people. But a project that invites anyone who is Jewish to settle in a de facto ever expanding Israel, directly and unequivocally at the expense of the land, resources, and livelihoods of Palestinians.
You are entitled to the belief that is not what Zionism is about to you. But you are not entitled to act as if really living Zionism is not what it is about. [Let alone, please show me this Zionism of old today.]
The fact that Zionism gets used as an all encompassing toss off epithet does not mean it does not richly deserve to be used in the critical way it is typically used on this board and many other places.
So it is very easy for me, and many other people, to be anti-Zionist and to unequivocally affirm the right of Israel to exist.
It is bad faith reductionism to reduce Zionism simply to an affirmation of Israel's right to exist.
But I think that when people use the word "Zionist" as an ad hominem insult that they hiss at people who are Jewish or who are married to Jews then THAT is thinly veiled anti-semitism - and you can't deny it.
You "think". Star Spangled Canadian "suspects". Convenient 'evidence'.
And once again, sufficiently on the basis alone that she is a leading member of the CJC, I am calling Bob Rae's wife a Zionist. So are you calling me a 'thinly veiled anti-semite'?
I do agree with you that it is better not to use labels like Zionist and to use more unambiguously descriptive terms such as you suggested. And this is what I do.
But I'm also going to defend people from the smearing because they 'dare' to use the term.
So would pretty well anyone.
But if Ignatieff's wife was a prominent member of the Bund and Iggy was actively promoting lebensraum, you might become suspicious about their political sympathies.
And you'd hissssssss, Sssstockholm, you'd hisssssss.
From KenS
It is misleading to merely describe Bob Rae's wife as just another someone who supports the right of Israel to exist. She's a leading member of the CJC. We can quibble about whether Zionist is the right thing to call her [and its not the term I would choose], but the CJC is more than just another group supporting Israel's right to exist.
I don't understand this. what "more" is CJC? I have known it to fight hate-mongers and racists. Is that what you mean?
I don't understand this. what "more" is CJC? I have known it to fight hate-mongers and racists. Is that what you mean?
Oh yes, the CJC also kisses children, they're so sweet. Just like you.
If being active in the CJC means you can be denounced as a "Zionist", I guess that means that anyone who's a member of the Canadian Arab Federation should also be denounced as an "Islamofascist".
"But you are not entitled in a discussion with others to treat the definition (of Zionism) convenient to you as if it is the only one."
Yeah, well I think we also have to say that the anti-Israel freaks are also not entitled to treat the definition of Zionism convenient to them as if it is the only one either.
The issue is the policies of the Israeli government - not what Herzl stood for a hundred years ago. The only way that Israeli government policies are ever going to change is when the current rightwing nationalist perversion of Zionism is ended and Zionism goes back to the socialist humanistic values that it had in its first phase.
If being active in the CJC means you can be denounced as a "Zionist", I guess that means that anyone who's a member of the Canadian Arab Federation should also be denounced as an "Islamofascist".
Can you actually be so ignorant as to believe that the CAF is a Muslim organization - or that Arabs are Muslims? Or are you just ranting?
I don't understand this. what "more" is CJC? I have known it to fight hate-mongers and racists. Is that what you mean?
Oh yes, the CJC also kisses children, they're so sweet. Just like you.
I don't understand this. what "more" is CJC? I have known it to fight hate-mongers and racists. Is that what you mean?
Oh yes, the CJC also kisses children, they're so sweet. Just like you.
Excuse me, oh well-mannered and deeply sensitive friend of Israel, for my boorishness. But you said the CJC fights racists -- and you're calling ME sarcastic!!??
I like boorish. Might even look it up.
tomtoronto "Anti-zionism is anti-semitism." Jason Kenney's statement is the sort of thing that I find revolting. And no matter who wrote it for him, Maysie, he said it (and he will wear it in Canada for many years). I believe Mr. Kenney's statement is not as simple as ignorance, but it is an example of the willful ignoring of the goodness possible in the world in favor of a hateful political stance, a nihilism in human affairs, one that is being taken by our government without notice or press coverage, and one that is locking Canada more closely to the machinations of the neoconservative wing of American politics.
According to what I have read - here's the link: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8530
Stockwell Day went to Israel in order to sign a public safety and security agreement with the state of Israel; it was signed on 23 March 2008. "Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was also in Israel on official business, as guest of Israel's Minister of Public Security, Avi Dicter." The article reports that Dick Cheney was also in Israel at that time...Evidently, the governments of Canada and Israel will collaborate in counter-terrorism and homeland security. Canada signed a Declaration of Intent, which is an agreement at the ministerial level. I see Mr. Kenney's statement as first evidence of the agreement's impact on Canada's immigration policy.
It is possible that the effects of this agreement, made so secretively, will have a continuous negative effect on our immigration policy and on the country at large; it may negatively effect our freedoms if it continues to suppurate throughout our country. Will our personal information be shared with Israel? With Mossad? Etc.
I like boorish. I might even look it up.
It means Dutch peasant (as in the South African Boers), and it got its English connotation from the British colonial rulers. Quite appropriate for our dear friend who used it above.
"Can you actually be so ignorant as to believe that the CAF is a Muslim organization - or that Arabs are Muslims?"
...and the vast majority of Canadian Jews are not Israeli either.
As much as I hate to give Stockholm the last word, I'm going to close this for length.
The flip side of the "Zionism is racism." meme. Neither statement is helpful.
Okay, someone else wrote that speech for Jason Kenney. There's no way he even knows what "respectable interlocutors in the public discourse" means. I've met him and heard him speak (long icky story).
That said, I'm pretty sure he was chosen by his party to spread this particular message to the international community. Harper doesn't let anyone go out on their own, and Kenney is saying the Conservative party line, just with some new additions.
Oh, and I'm sure cutting the vast levels of funding the CAF gets federally will help with the deficit.
P.S. Damn it! After reading the article I started to read the comments. Note to self: Don't Do That, Ever!
I didn't mean to suggest this is Jason Kenney's personal crusade. I don't care who wrote the speech. Don't you think we should call on all people, including those who vote Conservative, to condemn this?
If we carry Kenney's comments to their logical conclusion i guess that also means that anyone who thinks that Palestinians or Tamils or Chechens also don't have a right to a country of their own - is also a racist and not deserving of any government funds.
Or Quebeckers!
The Jews alone have no right to a homeland? Wow, that's amazing.
Where is the Baptist homeland? I wanna go there! Furthermore, I want to annex Alberta for my new Baptist homeland!
What? You mean Albertans might have a problem with that? It's not fair! They're anti-Baptist! The Baptists alone don't have a right to a homeland!
And Wiccans! Where's their homeland? Surely they deserve one after what witches have gone through in Europe and in other areas of the world. And witches are still persecuted and discriminated against all over the world. Which country should give up their land so that Wiccans can move in and create their own homeland? Perhaps we could convince Ontarians to clear out, and the Canadian government to allow the New Wiccan Homeland to secede from Canada.
After all, every group has a right to a homeland.
Are we really going to compare being a Jew and being a Baptist?
The first question we pondered in a course I took on the history of Jews in the European Diaspora was "What is a jew?"
You're right - Baptists are actually a privileged group in the US. But Wiccans aren't. Where's their homeland?
Where's the Atheist homeland, Caissa? Don't atheists have a right to a homeland, and to clear out all the current inhabitants from whatever land the international community decides would be best?
Attitude probably explains this differing response:
"President Barack Obama moved toward reversing the Bush administration's boycott of the United Nations Conference Against Racism by joining talks this week on the proposed outcome declaration.
Obama sent a delegation to negotiations that began today in Geneva, and the U.S. will consider attending the April 20-24 conference, according to the State Department.
. . . .
Israel and Canada have decided not to attend the conference in April, the UN said."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aA8OrcAcDZ3c&refer=us
Given that Kenney is point man for increasing Cons multi-cultural depth [for which he has had some success]- I find this an alerming indication of how much they don't care what Muslims think and/or how much they have to gain among others with Muslim bashing.
I also think it was calculated. And I suspect they see benefits beyond ingratiating themselves with Jewish voters [the ones who were already leaning their direction are going to reliably like this].
And even it was Kenney going overboard with his personal opinion, its just as deplorable. I wouldn't bet everything the statement with a mandate from Harper. But I would bet that at the very least we are going to see no backtracking.
Michelle are you being serious or frivolous and provocative? If you want to reduce Judaism to a religion, that's your prerogative but you know the historic terms of debate are much wider.
Methinks the immigration minister should get out of the real world and spend some time in the internet. Sheesh, that's the first time I've ever said that.
In every forum I've visited the anti-Zionism=anti Semitism argument has been crushed by the end of page one.
Salsa:
And the real world that Kenney inhabits is no real world that I would recognize.
Unionist: yes of course we need to call on everyone to condemn this, I just don't see it happening from Conservative circles.
[thread drift]
I think the whole concept of "creating" a homeland, for any reason, and the idea of being entitled to having one/"returning" to one is an entirely weird concept to begin with, many times grounded in notions of imperialism and dominance, since aside from the aboriginal population who lives somewhere, everyone else is an outsider. Maybe a separate thread?
[/thread drift]
Thanks, Maysie, that was the point I was trying to illustrate too, but you said it better. :)
It may seem old fashion but I support the right of both Jews to have a homeland and the right of Palestinians to have a homeland.
We just seem to go around the same mulberry bush...
Look I think that this entire story is sad. The CAF does good work on immigrant settlement issues. I have sat at meetings with their leadership at such meetings. Many organizations across Toronto get fed funds for such programs.
But at the same time the leadership of the largest Arab advocacy group should not have referred to a minister as a political whore. It is just not good optics.
If you are going to refer to the Minister that funds your programs as a political whore then you have to expect the Minister to respond.
Guess what Kenney fell for it -- now what happens?
After all, every group has a right to a homeland.
Did the left oppose the creation of Israel (or the theft of Palestine) when it was originally created?
I don't know. I wasn't born yet. What's your point?
Mostly that that would have been a more effective time to oppose appropriating the land. Also that if the left supported the creation of Israel at the time, it makes it that much more difficult to oppose it now (not to be confused with opposing the actions of the State).
Isn't the CAF the group that passed around literature at the last Liberal leadership convention imploring people not to vote for Bob Rae because his wife is a Jew?
The first country to recognize the new state of Israel in 1948 was the USSR. I don't know if that constitutes the Left, Snert.
Really, it is a religion forming a culture around it, and nothing more. And Michelle's points are more than valid. Next thing you know, the Mormon's will want a homeland, and it quite possibly could be Alberta!
Funny, I do not believe the historic terms of the debate are much wider than the current debate, AT ALL.
Obviously our mileage varies, remind.
Well, you know what they say, Snert. The best time to do something is ten years ago. The next best time to do it is now.
This line of thinking presumes a static state of Israel and is part of the confusion (often deliberate) surrounding the term "Zionism".
Regardless of the real injustices in the original violent creation of the state of Israel, most nations and people accept it as a fact and would be willing to guarantee its pre-1967 borders. So in that strict sense most nations and people could be labled as "Zionist"..
However, Israel is not a static state. It is continually in the process of ethnic clensing, expanding settlements and stealing resources from de facto annexed territories.
This is the form of imperialistic hyper-Zionism that most people of conscience object to when using the term "Zionism".
And it is also this pro imperialistic hyper-Zionism which is defended by the Canadian government's use of the term "Zionism", that is made very clear by its actions and words.
The diaspora lobbying is very influential in US politics. As long as US is backing them, there will be no peace.
Media coverage and propaganda is very much in favor of Zionist purposes. Beside, regularly there's a holocaust reminder either a holywood movie, museums, monuments...
Bottom line : Zionists beleive, as the Tora says, Palestine region is their promised land period! they dont care about UN, EU, international laws, racism, what we say on this blog or elsewhere...as simple as that
Oh, don't bring the Torah into this, Pino. The founders of Zionism were NOT Torah-believing Jews. They were secular.
you're totally right, at the origin Zionists were not that religious.
But as u see today the people that keep supporting the ideas of zionism are very much religious, and Tora overrules all human rules , according to them...
That's a gross understatement - the Zionist founders of Israel were not at all religious and many were anti-religious.
The word, Pino, is "Torah" and if you are not a thread-derailing troll, try to educate yourself before posting.
How do you know? did you know them in person? zinoist movement wasn't religious in its essence but individually they probably been religious..
Israel govt today is right wing and it finds its audience in many very religious groups...what zionists were at that time exactly is different from what Israel reality is today.
Instead of putting so much effort in correcting exact word meanings, i just wish that you put so much effort on helping Canada not to support such injustice in Palestine...
Do some reading on Theodore Herzl, Pino.
guys(3 last posters) you should go on the field and see what's happening! i may not be "academically" as educated as you pretend, and english is not my mother tongue btw, but i worry more for what the reality is... it's far away from your "intellectual-confort" zone...
In french there's a say: "intelligence is like jam, the less you have the more you spread"
You should have suggested to S.Harper to read Herzl
or to Kenney ...
guys(3 last posters) you should go on the field and see what's happening! i may not be "academically" as educated as you pretend, and english is not my mother tongue btw, but i worry more for what the reality is... it's far away from your "intellectual-confort" zone...
In french there's a say: "intelligence is like jam, the less you have the more you spread"
Intellegence is not a matter of academic education, and not having a firm grasp of the language (if such the case) is not a problem in itself--but intellegence certainly doesn't include making sweeping and grossly inaccurate statements such as:
"Bottom line : Zionists beleive, as the Tora says, Palestine region is their promised land period!"
Have a look at the signs in the image here:
http://www.nkusa.org/and here:
Israel versus Judaism
http://www.israelversusjudaism.org/index.cfm
Interpretations of the bible play a much more total role in "Christian Zionism."
That "blood libel" type big lie was amply refuted on this board at the time. Thanks for reviving this trash.
"The Canadian Jewish Congress has condemned the flyer and blamed Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation for circulating it. The federation has, in turn, accused the CJC of making "a pitiful attempt to discredit" it and has denied producing or distributing the flyer.
Nevertheless, in a release Thursday, the federation supported the content of the flyer.
"CAF believes that Canadians have the right to know the factual information provided" in the flyer, the federation said.
It went on to say that the Jewish National Fund manages all state lands in Israel and allows only Jews to live on such land, a "practice that amounts to ethnic cleansing," and added that "Canadians have the right to know who supports the JNF in Canada."
The flyer was produced and e-mailed to all MPs by Ron Saba, editor of an obscure magazine called Montreal Planet. But The Canadian Press has obtained an e-mail from Mouammar, in which he forwarded the flyer to others. Several days before Saturday's leadership vote, it wound up being posted on a website operated by an immigrant advocacy group."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061207/bob_rae_061207/20061207/
I am a Jew, and Canada is my homeland. The homeland of the significant majority of Jews in the world is not Israel. Jews are entitled to consider Israel as their "homeland" if they feel like it, as long as they abide by international law and don't oppress or expel others and actually live there.
But when non-Jew Kenney tells the world that the Jews are "entitled to a homeland", he is telling me that I don't belong in Canada. That makes him an anti-Semite, akin to Hitler. He should go find a bunker somewhere and do the right thing.
And, one of the motivations of the originag gentile supporters of Zionism, such as Arthur Balfour, was to keep Jews(especially those from the Pale, who were considered by the British to be spreaders of Bolshevism)from immigrating to places like Britain, Canada and the U.S. If there was a "Jewish state" these reactionary antisemites reasoned, the Jews could be kept out of THEIR states.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
"Did the left oppose the creation of Israel (or the theft of Palestine) when it was originally created? "
The answer is NO. Back in the 40s, 50s, 60s and into the 70s - being pro-Israel was a sentiment that was largely associated with the Left. In those days, if you were a good social democrat in North America or Western Europe your idea of a politically correct holiday was to be a volunteer on a kibbutz etc...In those days, the people who tended to be anti-Israel in the western world were realpolitik-loving rightwingers in the foreign policy establishments of the US, UK and France who thought that it made sense to be pro-Arab because the Arabs had all the oil. On top of that old-fashioned rightwing anti-semites tended to be anti-Israel as part of a reflexive hostility to anything Jewish.
I realize that the situation today in 2009 is very different - but i'm just telling people what the situation was in the early years of Israeli independence.
It's amazing how this thread attracts attacks on the very targets of the anti-Semite Jason Kenney, and nostalgia for how nice Israel was. It shows how deep-rooted is the desire to sympathize with European settlers and denigrate the indigenous population. People should ask themselves how they manage to end up on the same side as aggressors and murderers, while still nourishing the narcissistic fantasy that they belong to the "Left".
I think many of the early Socialist Zionist kibbutz settlers would be aghast at what Israel has become.
If one is to be true to ones ideals one has to also take long hard reality checks. Otherwise, you end up thinking Stalin is the savior of the working class long after that ship has sailed and sunk or thinking that Israel is some sort of peacenik, socialist paradise when the kibbutzes have all largely abandoned most tenets of collectivism and largely privatized, most of the agricultural work is done by Thai foreign workers, own factories where other Thai workers toil, and exclude Palestinians from kibbutz membership.
Sounds like Jason Kenney's speech was written by Irwin Cotler.
"If one is to be true to ones ideals one has to also take long hard reality checks."
There are some babblers who still refuse to acknowledge that Stalin ever did anything bad!!
Stalin? He also believed Jews were entitled to a fucking "homeland". Google Birobidjan. The Israeli aggressors have many troubling features in common with both Hitler and Stalin. And we are still plagued with so-called "leftists" who can always see the evils of the past, but never the ones of the present.
"And we are still plagued with so-called "leftists" who can always see the evils of the past, but never the ones of the present."
That's for damn sure - look at all the people who are still in denial about how evil Robert Mugabe is.
[deleted to try to navigate around drift]
"And we are still plagued with so-called "leftists" who can always see the evils of the past, but never the ones of the present."
That's for damn sure - look at all the people who are still in denial about how evil Robert Mugabe is.
sorry for the drift
It's not so much we support Mugabe but oppose the use of anti-colonialism gone wrong as a crutch.
Stockholm - in threads about freeing Omar Khadr, you rant about his family's attitude to homosexuality. In a thread about Harperite attacks on Arabs and attempts to suppress anti-Israel politics, you talk about Stalin and Mugabe. Is there a method behind this madness that I am missing?
I think what Jason Kenney did is dangerous and worthy of discussion. I don't want to single you out, because if one scans this thread, there's a lot of diversion that has gone on, much of it from certain people who have shown a lot of sympathy with the "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism" libel. I'm still hoping that there are some babblers prepared to discuss the issue I raised in the OP, or if they find it too boring, then post their valuable contributions in other threads.
I suggest Kenney be held to account for this speech, and that we try to get political representatives to comment on this issue.
My first comment in this thread was to derisively scorn Kenney's comments. I'm not sure how many times you want me to jump up and down and flap wings repeating my scorn for his comments before you'll deem it sufficient.
I appreciated and supported your first comment - but what the hell happened to this thread after that? And I repeat, I don't mean to single you out. But look at all this diversionary crap.
I think we all got diverted because there was unanimity that Kenney's comments were stupid and so there was nothing else to say. How many times do you expect people to go back and forth and back and forth saying the same thing over and over again and expressing agreement with one another.
In case you haven't noticed, the threads that get 100 postings are the ones where people in babble express some disagreement with each other or where things digress. The threads that die after just a couple of posts are ones where virtually everyone is on the same page and there is nothing more to be said.
I'm glad you responded to this Star-Spangled crud before I had the chance to reply.
As a member of the CAF, I receive plenty of notices about activities of theirs in Toronto (I think I'm the only member in Saskatchewan), many of which are held in conjuction with Jewish groups. Just today I received a bulletin from the CAF, forwarding a message from Abraham Weizfeld of the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians regarding B'nai Brith's statement in the National Post a few days ago:
It's interesting to note what SS Canadian didn't quote from that CTV article:
Mouammar wrote on that website that the flyer had "nothing to do with Bob Rae's and his wife's religion and ethnicity but has a lot to do with their political views."
"It is well-known that Bob Rae himself is hostile to Palestinians and Arabs," Mouammar wrote.
He added that "his wife's leadership position in the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) should be a matter of concern to everyone" and went on to condemn the CJC as "an ardent supporter of Israel, lam basts (sic) anyone who dares to criticize Israel and resorts to undermining human rights and civil liberties to protect Israel's war crimes."
But the flyer wasn't the only example of anti-Semitic attacks on Rae.
On another website, operated by a Montreal-based pro-Palestinian group, Liberals were urged about a week before the leadership vote: "Do not vote for Bob Rae, we're not looking or another Zionist PM."
The group recommended that delegates vote for Gerard Kennedy, the fourth-place contender whose dramatic decision to throw his support to Stephane Dion after the second ballot clinched the victory for Dion. It said that "voting for Bob Rae is a vote for the daily massacre in Palestine (and) . . . for a new Zionist PM in Canada."
The CTV article called these "anti-Semitic attacks," but then they would, wouldn't they? Like Jason Kenney and so many others, anyone criticising Zionism, the State of Israel or even their supporters, is automatically labelled antisemitic.