National Post attacks Independent Jewish Voices

You know, no matter what kind of bootlicker Bernie Farber may be for Israel, I have trouble believing even such as he was accurately quoted saying IJV is "anti-Jewish". I predict he will retract or deny that quote.

If I'm wrong, then I have some adjectives I'm saving about which are not pleasant.

Here, for example, is another fairly rabid report which looks to have a more accurate quote:

It's the same as the NP quote, but the article doesn't repeat the "anti-Jewish group" allegation.

Speaking from my family's personal experience, Caissa, I don't recall the CJC lifting a finger to help post-war Jewish refugees come here - but it's thread drift anyway.

The tide is turning in public opinion after Israel's barbaric attacks on Gaza and the ongoing siege, which has itself been called an act of war.  The TIFF Toronto Declaration shows that people are coming to understand that everyone has to take a stand for justice.

The implication that the United Church is connected to the Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) shows the desperation of those making that accusation.  The IJV support of the United Church's boycott, divestment and sanctions resolutions at their recent national conference showed that such non-violent, justice actions are not anti-Semitic and can be supported by people of conscience regardless of religion. [As a result of that conference, United Churches can now pursue actions "including economic boycott" to work for a just peace in Israel/Palestine.]

The CJC might be asked how much funding it has received from Christian and other non-Jewish sources.

These people trying to turn israel and jew into synonyms are incredibly dangerous.

Don't these kinds of organizations raise money for Jews to move to Israel?

I hope that this story is completely false. I have had my differences with the stances that IJV have taken but I never for a second considered that it was not a Jewish run and funded organization.

To me this story is a problem because the conferernce that the money was given to help fund was in essence an internal fight that led to teh creation of IJV and the destruction of ACJC.

While of course, donations by non-Jews to Zionist groups have always been gratefully accepted and appreciated, right JPJ?  When Theodor Herzl travelled throughout Europe looking for donations to found what became the World Zionist Congress are you saying he refused donations from gentiles? If 10% or so of the "shekels" raised by the early Zionists came from sympathetic Christians or other non-Jews does this mean Zionism and Israel was run and founded by Christians? Don't by hypocritical

A donation of a few hundred dollars - less than 10% of the conference's budget - can hardly be said to be responsible for "founding" IJV or make IJV a subsidiary of the UCC as the CJC claims in its email blast today. The conference would have happened regardless of the donation and IJV would have been created regardless. And where do you get this suggestion that IJV isn't run by Jews and funded by Jews? From a $900 donation that accounted for 1/10th of the budget of a conference? Get real. I suppose by your argument if the CJC gets money from the government for a conference (which happens all the time) the CJC is government run.

Farber's line of argument is sensationalism at its worst as is yours.

You're not seriously arguing that IJV is only in opposition to Zionism because Gentiles contributed to it financially, jpj.  Please tell me you wouldn't stoop to that kind of a smear.

Farber Jaku thinks that by repeating this phrase over and over, someone may believe that Jewish Canadians actually are Zionists and that they support mass murderers and aggressors like Netanyahu, Olmert, and Sharon. I admire his adherence to discipline.

If your dream came true and 100% of Jews were aligned with murderers and racists, it would be tragic - but it wouldn't exonerate the murderers and racists. The greatest danger facing the Jewish people in today's world is that vile dream of yours. It was not for such goals of conquest and religio-ethnic supremacy that our martyrs, zichronam livrocho, gave their lives.

Funny the CJC quotes McVety in their paper, as well as works with him all the time. But they think the UCC should not have a relationship with Jews too?

http://www.cjc.ca/template.php?action=oped&Rec=61

http://www.jewishtoronto.com/local_includes/downloads/16378.pdf

Today's Post runs as its editorial a scurrilous commentary attacking Diana Ralph that first appeared in its online Full Comment section under the byline of Jonathan Kay. It even has a picture of Diana and uses as its pullquote "The United Church of Canada is a supporter of some of the worst bigots on our political landscape". Looking at the print page it's clear that this "bigot" is supposed to be Diana.        The editorial misrepresents an article by Diana falsely claiming that "Ms. Ralph argues that the Sept. 11 attacks were not perpetrated by al-Qaeda, but rather by American and Israeli conservatives..." Actually, her thesis was that 9-11 was used as a pretext for American imperialist aggression abroad and the curtailing of civil liberties within the United States, not that Americans or Israelis actually perpetrated 9-11.       

The Letters page carries two letters that are critical of yesterday's article:  

aka Mycroft - thanks for those posts - and please invite me down for champagne when the money starts rolling in from the "mainstream"!

I'd be willing to offer high odds against it.

I would tend to see this donation as giving the finger to supporters of fascism and genocide. Funny what difference perspective makes, eh, Jaku?

Not so funny is what happens when people combine my perspective with yours, making the mainstream Jewish community supporters of fascism and genocide. What you are doing is very dangerous, and remarkably stupid.

There is no defending the indefensible - and your use of the Jewish people of Canada as a human shield is certainly indefensible.

Thanks aka

Baptists would strike up a committee. :D

WOW, the editorial was clearly over the top.

I re-read the original article though and while I firmly disagree with the CJC's position, its statements are it seems to me within the boundaries of "fair comment".  I have seem much worse attacks on groups and organizations in newspapers and blogs, even here for that matter.

We may not like what the CJC  said but it hardly reaches the level of defemation

Prophit, are you a judge?

Much much lesser things have been found to be defammation, and the CJC itself has slapped suits against people for less.

AKAMycroft, I have seen many libel casaes and have studied many others. Fsrber's use of "anti-Jewish" does not appraoch any level of defamation known within our libel laws. And recent cases have made fair comment even more open. However a law Prof once told me that anyone can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean it will ever pass muster.

Why is there a difference between anti-Jewish and anti-semitic?

Seems like a slippery slope, that some can use however they want, eh. While one says they are being "anti-Jewish" another would say, to suit their purposes; "no, you are being anti-semitic".

So, really I will have to call it nonsensical to try and differentiate between the 2. As it would seem some would try and play too cute by far, with such a loosey goosey definition.

Expert anti-semites, you mean?

As Bertell Ollman, professor of politics at NYU, said:

Amen selah.

Remind - you are absolutely correct. There is no difference. The desperation of the pro-Israel champions is illustrated by trying to mangle words to hide their aims. They represent the gravest danger facing the Jewish people today, let alone the daily menace they represent to the Palestinian and other peoples of the region. And with every passing day, more and more Jews are catching on to their crimes.

The positions taken by the National Post on the UCC are far different than the one quote attributede to Farber.

While I still believe it would be a difficult case there is more merit on the NP issue. On the Farber quote, alone as defemation? No chance.

Unionist, take a look at some of the past comments you have made about B,nai Brith and CJC. Either organization would have a stronger case trying to prove defamation (though again very difficult) than the one quote by CJC againsy IJV.

I admire Unionist for his honesty but question his courage. Farber at least puts himself out there and people can take him on. Unionist, you claim "let them sue me" for calling CJC and B'nai Brith anti-Semitic. Easy to say when you choose to remain anonymous. I question no one's right to post using any name they wish but when you become sanctimonious and oh so brave under a pseudonym well...

One other thing I also thougtht labeling people or organizations racist or anti-Semitic are contrary to babble rules. People were banned for way less. Or does that only apply to certain folk and groups?

edited to add...By the way Unionist, not being jewish I have no clue what you mean when you wrote or inferred that Farber will see his real punishment after Yom Kippur. To me that reads like an ominous personal threat on Babble.

I lay claim only to honesty, so thanks.

If I can't call racists "racists" and anti-Semites "anti-Semites" on babble, then we'll need to change the rules. I think you're confused (whoops, is that against the rules too??).

Sorry, I'm not at liberty to explain this to non-Jews. I'm sure you'll understand. Some of my best friends are Gentiles, but there are limits...

How long have you been having these feelings?

Bless you, my friend. Discretion is the better part of valour, especially when dealing with the Almighty.

I see Unionist so you believe that CJC is anti-Semitic and that gives you license to say so. But Farber who also believes IJV is anti-Jewish should be sued for doing exactly what you have done...worse really.

I did not word my post carefully. Yes its true Unionist never called for farber to be sued. He is smarter than that and given Unionists defamations against groups like CJC here at babble it would almost be self-incriminating. The call seems to have come from elsewhere though I now see that a few people have tried to explain the law. Apologies for my sloppiness.

Exactly, akaM. In fact, contrary to Gus's understandable error (not being schooled in the Faith), I neither called for Bernie to be sued - indeed, I defended his freedom to speak naarishkeit:

... and further, I never said he should be punished. What I said was:

... and as aka Mycroft correctly notes, Bernie can repent - I encourage him to repent, in fact - because the Kadosh Baruch Hu will always embrace a sincere Ba'al T'shuvah.

Bernie has until the chazzan begins to chant the immortal tones of the Kol Nidrei - next Sunday evening. Good luck, Bernie.

Yeah, but it'll be almost worth it.

I love this thread.

"Men do not know the way they have been judged in all time." (Zohar II, 199b)

Sweet if there is no rebuttal personal attacks suffice.

[Removed by moderator]

Ernst Zundel. It's the guy on the left I wonder about...

Maybe in lieu of repentance he could shed his facial hair.

Who's Fernie's Barber?

Jaku, why are you so hostile to Judaism? You remind me of Barbara Kay, someone who thinks anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic while at the same time expressing contempt for the Jewish religion and views observant Jews as an embarassment.

I've read through The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader a few times and it is amazing the contempt many 19th century and early 20th century Zionist and proto-Zionist writers had towards Jews, Judaism and Jewish culture. Yiddish, in particular, was fervently opposed. While it wasn't actually banned in Israel it was actively discouraged for many decades - so much so that Yiddish theatres could not receive funding and were virtually non-existent. It's ironic that at the same time Stalin was moving against Yiddish culture in the USSR in the late 1940s and 1950s, Israel was doing virtually the same thing, though more benignly.

Hmmm, which prompts a few questions or points.

1. What would be the point of a "Jewish" state if the components which make one Jewish were unrecognized?

2. What could their lack of knowlege of written and oral traditions signify? A reason for their abhorant behaviour, or indicating that really they are not "Jewish"?

Many Zionist thinkers of the 19th and early 20th century internalized the anti-Semitism of the times and wrote in very derogatory terms about the shtetls, Yiddishkeit, and the supposed traits of diaspora Jews. (There were exceptions, Borochov was a Yiddishist for example). For some Zionism was seen not only as a cure for anti-Semitism but a way of "redeeming" the Jewish people by removing them from their perceived role in European society (some Zionist writers actually use words like "parasitic") and rooting them in the soil. So where the perception was that Jews were largely played a role as traders and merchangts and financiers they would, by moving to their own land, become "normal" and become farmers, workers etc. Reading some passages of Zionist writings you'd think you were reading some old anti-Semitic tract.

Here's what A.D. Gordon wrote for example:

and also

Herzl blamed Jews for anti-Semitism in his Der Judenstaat:

It's ironic that Zionists will often assail their critics as "self-hating Jews" when, in fact, it was many of the founding Zionist ideologues who expressed genuine self-hatred.

"Seinfeld, you were wrong to condemn our Toronto protest" (Haaretz)

Of course, Zionist anti-Semitism didn't end with the early Zionist thinkers. Here's what ultra-Zionist settler Moshe Saperstein told a writer for the New Yorker a few years ago:

You can ignore your slime all you want and I don't give a fig of what you think of Farber. But Profit nailed it, the comparision of Zundel to Farber is about as sick as anytyhing you would see on STORMFRONT. Anyone who keeps quiet about this kind of slander on an alleged progressive board is as the slanderer himself!

Oh knock it off jaku. It was a compare of looks, and they do actually look alike, as a matter of fact.

ETA: Oh aapparently martin meant more than a compare of looks, but personally that was all that I saw.

Of more concern, to me,  is the actual slander Farber  committed against IJV.

AHAMycroft and others, Farber's opinion of IJV seems to be consonant with many letters I have seen in the Post. It is an "opinion" and only an opinion. one many here don't like. I get it. However to morph this into a personal attack, is as someone said here already, what I would expect from racists and anti-Semites. Comparing Farber to Zundel is the unforgivable. I hope someone informs the CJC. In my understanding of defamation this has all the earmarks.

Oh for heaven's sake. 

Okay, I'm going to remove those images because who knows, maybe Farber would be litigious enough if "somebody" informed the CJC (gosh, who would do such a think I wonder, innocent blinking).  Heaven forbid that a public figure should be the butt of political satire. 

The other reason I'm pulling it is because it's over-the-top, off-topic, and just gives an opportunity for off-topic hysteria by those who love to derail conversations with this kind of hand-wringing.  Let's not stoop to National Post smear standards, even if the CJC gang and their buddies at the National Post do.  We're better than that.

 Michelle, first, good move on dumping that analogy between Farber and Zundel. It was potentially defamatory but more it was a personal ugly attack and that is all Prophit was trying to tell us. Your rather extreme reaction to him was unecessary.

Remember there may be Zionists here who are progressive and while you don't agree with them you can't limit debate for that reason alone. Prophit seems to be rather reasonable. And he was right on about that ugly post.

Oh unionist,  I thought you were going to finish that allegory with "it makes them have to gnaw on their own paw", but melt away works too, as I I visualized the witch in under the house in the Wizard  of Oz, melting away.

Well, I can teach witchcraft, and magic,  and I am surprised that they knew there is a difference. Have a wand, and Ravens always follow me around.

Living in a cave would be great,  and I can bring my own cats.

Also, I have long white blond wavey hair that would look great under a witches hat, which would be its own attraction. ;)

Would have to practise cackling though,  I "bock" with my Ravens.

Only draw back, England is about the last place in the world I would go work and live. :D

Unbelievable! - martin posts two pictures side by side - Farber and Zundel.

Unionist makes a comment - Who's Fernie's Barber?  I have a good laugh. I smile at the resemblence.

This could have been a sketch on the Mercer Report, This Hour, Air Farce, or whatever.  I would have had added the picture of Farber parading around in public like one of the Village People in his "Nobody Knows I'm Gay" t-shirt (written in Hebrew - it's a joke - get it?). But that's just me.

The simple juxtapostion of two pictures obviously set off a number of flag-as-offensive hits that result in a removal of a post (and a funny one at that).  A sad day for babble.

Ernst Zundel was a fruitcake ass clown of minor historical note, eventually thrown in jail.  I bet 60% of Canadians have no idea who he is (my wife didn't).

As for the comparison to Farber?  Well I know better now than to say anything more.

Farber is a public figure. He says some stupid things. Whatever he says however, is open to "fair comment".  Winnefred had a lot to say about the Supreme Courts ruling on fair comment when defending George Galloways defamation by Farber. Pay attention Babble - and have some courage!

Thanks Unionist for the explanation. Self-mockery and needed humour by Zionists, the comparision of a notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier to a child of a Holocaust survivor. Yes that's very very funny.

I do indeed. Here is one of my faves:

A man appeared before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. "Have you ever done anything of particular merit?" St. Peter asked.

"Well, I can think of one thing," the man offered.

"Once, on a trip to the Black Hills area in South Dakota, I came upon a gang of bikers, who were threatening a young woman.

I directed them to leave her alone, but they wouldn't listen.

So, I approached the largest and most heavily tattooed biker and smacked him in the mouth, kicked his bike over, ripped out his nose ring and threw it on the ground.

Then I yelled, "Now, back off! Or I'll kick your butt!"

St. Peter was impressed, "When did this happen?"

"Just a few minutes ago..."

Hmmm guess I must be off but what exactly was Dufrense doing? Oh of course it wasn't a comparision, it was a joke. How silly of me not to get it!! And I'm sure the mods took it down because it didn't happen.

As the CJC shifts further and further to the right and out of the mainstream, Farber is peddling furiously to get out in front. Even so he is often attacked by the right so I expect that the exercise will be futile and all that Farber will have accomplished at the end is the destruction of his credibility and the compromising of whatever ethics he has. The most he can hope for is to delay his purging long enough so he can get a nice fat early retirement package and so doesn't have to go back to doing social work at a fraction of his current salary.

I agree with you. But of course your post is going to be seen as a personal attack on the moderators.

Long thread.