IAW motion is coming to Manitoba

of all the opposition to IAW, i have heard not one single quote or reference to any specific incident of anti-semitism or racism.  it is ridiculous they can trot out accusations like that, pass motions and issue public defamation and condemnations without even TRYING to prove their claims.  

milo204 wrote:

of all the opposition to IAW, i have heard not one single quote or reference to any specific incident of anti-semitism or racism.  it is ridiculous they can trot out accusations like that, pass motions and issue public defamation and condemnations without even TRYING to prove their claims.  

It's because all criticism of Israel is considered anti-semitism by these folks.

Seems to me that the only support for IAW is here.

Jaku wrote:

Seems to me that the only support for IAW is here.

Yup and not your so-called "mainstream Jews."

Just asking a simple question, does Israel have the right to exist? 

Chester Drawers wrote:

Just asking a simple question, does Israel have the right to exist? 

Within which borders, Chester? With which constitution and legal system, Chester? With which people as recognized citizens, Chester? Does "exist" include occupying foreign territories or crossing borders without U.N. sanction? Does "exist" include assassinating political enemies around the world? Does "exist" mean "as a Jewish state", or is that part not included in the question?

Answer my points of clarification, and I will happily answer your "simple question."

I asked the simple question.  I was hoping for a simple answer devoid of the expected hretoric on policies of the Israeli government.  Yes Israel has done some questionable, horrible and illegal acts.  I will not defend them for that.  The tit for tat fight between Palistinians and Israelis is truly sad and it will not stop until one side actually makes a policy change.  The sad part is neither side trusts the other for good reasons and this conflict will not be resolved in my or your lifetime.

Does Israel have the right to exist?  Once that question is answered then the political policy discussion can further be debated and hopefully reconciled.  The problem with many organizations and events like the IAW is that question is never asked and answered.  They scream and rant (justifiably) about the transgretions of the Israeli government, yet at the same time do not do the same about what other politicized militias are doing.  Both sides are guilty, but it is never a debate it is a bashing session.

If the answer is yes, then there is hope that a resolution can be found.

If the answer is no, then we will have generations of conflict. 

To follow up on kropotkin's questions, I'm going to ask Chester another one:

Did the municipality of Scarborough have a right to exist in 1997? Was that right trampled when the municipality Scarborough was dissolved in 1998 and it became part of a new larger entity called Toronto (composed of pre-1998 Toronto, Scarborough, York, North York, East York, and Etobicoke)?

Now, does Israel have a right to exist in 2010? Would that right be trampled when the current state of Israel is dissolved in 2011 and it becomes part of a new larger entity called Israeli-stine (composed of pre-1967 Israel, West Bank, Gaza, and Golan)?

Just trying hard to understand your original question. Your answer to kropotkin's questions and my current one (because you ignored my earlier ones) will help me give you a thoughtful response.

Progressive Jews are under attack - something you no doubt have never experienced - and you sympathize with the attackers.

It's not really relevant how long you've belonged to the NDP, or how progressive you are on some other fronts. The most important task of any progressive is to oppose, openly, the oppression which is committed [b]in her name[/b].

For Jewish Canadians, that means we must pay first attention to the wrongs which Canada commits, and (unfortunately) those done by Israel, which constantly and falsely is purported to be "our" state. Those Jews who organize Israeli Apartheid Week are courageously fulfilling both [i]mitzvot[/i] simultaneously. They do not deserve your contempt.

"Just answer my question - don't ask me to explain it - you don't need to understand what I mean - JUST ANSWER!!! - After you answer, I'll tell you what the question meant, and I'll tell you what your answer means!!!"

Here's a question - can anyone point to an actual achievement of this year's IAW other than to split the left and make IAW look like hate-mongers and hypocrites in the eyes of the majority of Canadians?

LimeJello wrote:

Here's a question - can anyone point to an actual achievement of this year's IAW other than to split the left and make IAW look like hate-mongers and hypocrites in the eyes of the majority of Canadians?

I must tell you that having attended their functions since its inception here in Toronto, I find the organization and consistently high quality of their information evenings to be nothing less than extraordinary. Having quite a bit of experience attending various activist and political formations' outreaches and campaigns - you won't find many more effective than this one. Their functions are always exciting, well run and productive. Additionally the question and answer sessions don't seem to attract the usual egomaniac or flake component. And no hate mongers or even hypocrites certainly not based on what I've seen in TO. Somehow IAW works and works well! Achievements? Many and myriad - that's why Toronto is considered by Reut to be 'a hub of deligimitization'.

As for 'splitting the left' in Canada since when has it ever not been? Long before IAW certainly. What do you mean by 'left' the NDP?

the "right to exist" question is just a propaganda term used in reference to what in israel is referred to as "the demographic threat", which is a propaganda term for the return of refugees who used to live in israel before statehood. 

the reality is that all major parties to this conflict agree on the principal of israels "right" to  exist in its 67 borders, including Hamas, and have been saying so for some time now (predictably left out of the mainstream press) on the condition, held by most of the world, that there be a state of palestine with east jerusalem as capital with contiguous territory and full autonomy.  It's kind of ironic that a state (that exists) and it's allies (who also exist) is telling a population of stateless refugees to "recognize their right to exist"  when none of those countries will "recognize" an independent declaration of palestinian statehood, accompanied by free elections.  These countries are forcing palestinians to bargain and negotiate with a totally unwilling partner for their right to exist, negotiations being a courtesy that was certainly never extended to them.

besides, Israel has the same rights every country has under international law, even more so because of the protection and veto power of the united states.

Chester Drawers wrote:

IAW should be allowed to present on campus no doubt.  But so should all other organizations as well.   So long as no one calls for the destruction or killing of an identified group.

Hear Hear! The most effective way to resolve conflict is to talk about it in a civil, non-inflammatory manner. Can a simple cardboard robot succeed where world leaders and educators have failed? Tune into Pax101 on Facebook or follow @Pax_101 and decide for yourself. It's an experiment in Israeli-Palestinian peace-brokerage and social media, proving that civil dialogue and respectful debate are the roads to the future. Peace!

pretty good JPJ but you forgot 2 steps. first mass email campaigns by both sides to show that they are right and have numbers to back it up. i can't wait for my email account to be filled by groups and people pro and con. and then their will be leaks of a raucus caucus meeting where the ndp member has been forced to explain themselves

after that the media will report on divisions within the ndp and the left over support for or against israel and jews. because to the press it is just that simple

I am sure Chester that devout Moslems would love to have the city turned over to them as a type of Vatican city.  Did you miss the obvious difference that the Pope rules at the Vatican and does not share the city with any other religion?

The problem with your moral equivalency is that the Israeli army has always had at least a 10 to 1 kill ratio compared to suicide bombings. There are many Palestinians who have been killed by Israel that never had anything to do with suicide bombings or any armed faction.  They too get murdered.  

So why is it you endorse the actions of the Israeli government in its brutal occupation?  Just because some old book says to smite the Cannonites and get your promised land doesn't mean there is a rational for theft of land and incarceration of a entire country in open air prisons. 

By the way you never answered the simple question.  Does Haida Gwaii have the right to exist?

You qualified your remark so I will agree with your statement with the qualification.  I think Israel has a right to exist if it can come to a negotiated settlement. 

There you see we do agree.

As for vilifying suicide bombers I don't think anyone needs my help.  I prefer to vilify people who murder in my name instead.  I condemn governments that invade countries and slaughter innocent civilians to bring them democracy.  I condemn them because they claim they are acting on my behalf so far no suicide bomber has said they are fighting a holy war on my behalf.

What if an Israeli missile killed your family?  

The question is irrelevant and obfuscating of the real issue attacks which is attacks on civilians.  State terrorism is no better than any other kind of terrorism except maybe it is more effective given most states who engage in it like Israel have far superior weaponry to the forces opposing them.

Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan are imperial wars that have inflicted unimaginable grieve and hardship on the civilians caught in the big powers war games.  Oil Oil Oil Oil don't you get it?

Quote:

WINNIPEG - B'nai Brith Canada is asking University of Manitoba president David Barnard to reconsider its plan to allow Israeli Apartheid Week events on campus next week.

"We sent a letter to the university's president Feb. 10 asking for a ban but it is not happening," David Matas, senior council for the Jewish community advocacy group and a prominent human rights lawyer, said at a press conference today.

Flanked by members of the Jewish community and prominent politians - NDP Christine Melnick and the the Tories' Hugh McFadyen - Matas said the events have spread misinformation and hatred at campuses in other cities and should be banned from the university.

The funny thing here is Matas had agreed a month or more ago to participate in a debate on campus with a Jewish anti-apartheid activist as part of IAW. He withdrew a week or so ago saying he is counsel to BBC and since they're opposing IAW he feels he can no longer participane and now he's the point man in denouncing IAW.

Hypocrite.

Reminds of how Matas praises the fact that Spanish courts have indicted Chinese government leaders over allegations that Falun Gong members are having their organs harvested while saying foreign courts shouldn't indict government officials over domestic policy when it comes to Israel.

I thought it was supposed to be anti-Semitic to argue that Israel should be treated differently than other countries?

Not Apartheid? Really? What would you call it? I call it genocide.

Israeli Gov't allows Sale of Stolen Palestinian Land to Israelis

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=58214

"The Israeli Justice Ministry has clarified its recent revision of Israeli land law, confirming that the revision allows the sale of Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to JEWISH CITIZENS OF ISRAEL, or to private companies.

90% of the land in Israel is owned by the Jewish National Fund and rented to JEWISH ONLY TENANTS. Much of the land under JNF control was illegally seized from the Indigenous Palestinian owners in 1948.."

South Africa: Was Natives Land Act SA's Original Political Sin

http://allafrica.com/stories/201003110294.html?viewall=1

"The 1913 Natives Land Act is considered by many people to be SA's original political sin. The act, which became law on 19 June, 1913, limited African land ownership to 7% (increased to 13% via the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act) of SA and barred Africans from buying land in 93% of SA set aside for white control.

It did this by enacting a legislative distinction between white owned areas and native reserves, also known as scheduled areas. It also introduced anti-squatting measures to put a stop to sharecroppers. FW De Klerk said in 1991 "to an agrarian community, whose entire economy and social structure was based on the distribution of land, DISPOSSESSION WAS AN ACT AKIN TO NATIONAL DESTRUCTION..."

the destruction and expulsion of Palestinians from their lands and homes is ongoing as we speak - it has not stopped or slowed - there really is no argument or rational defence against the actually existing ISRAELI APARTHEID. This is a fact that cannot be denied if anyone actually looks at what has, is and continues happening there. Only in another stupid settler state can IAW be challenged in the way it has here.

A New Hotbed of Hatred by Rosie Dimanno  [email protected]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/779944--dimanno-sweden-a-new-h...

"With the repugnantly named-and deliberately so - Israeli Apartheid Week behind us, it feels particularly correct to have taken a commentary pass on the annual hate-fest, since media focus is clearly one of the event's objectives.."

EU Found Guilty: Russell Tribunal

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11135.shtml

"Two days and 21 expert witness testimonies later the RTP found individual states and the EU as a whole guilty of persistent violations and misconduct with regards to international and internal EU law, These included: assistance in perpetrating the crime of Apartheid--deepened in definition as applicable to the violation of the inalienable right of return for refugees and the collective punishment and ghettoization of Gaza; aiding the procurement of war crimes and crimes against humanity particularly with respect to Gaza; And violating the Palestinian right to self determination, aiding illegal colonization, the annexation of East Jerusalem adn theft of natural resources..'

It is abominable and disgusting that on a supposedly progressive board the holocaust denial of what is going on in Palestine to Palestinians is permitted to continue as if 60 years of this horror didn't and hasn't happened. Diabolical!

One day soon perhaps there will be a Canadian Apartheid Week because there is no doubt that Canada has achieved what the Zionist entity  can only dream of..

I see that the pertinent point of the Russell Tribunal deliberations from the above piece to this thread was:

"The RTP's endorsement of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as a means to hold Israel and its collaborator states (CANADA!) accountable under international law was also a boost to Europe's civil society groups and prominent figures sitting on the fence about the tactic..."

someone should advise Harper, Kenney, Ignatieff,  Di Novo and any of the other flunkies for Zionism that there could come a day when they might find themselves in the dock as well..

Thanks Jaku for pointing out that the debate over Israeli policies is really just a propaganda war.  It was clear from this "unbiased" journalist that the propagandists are on the anti-Israel side.  Good thing he said that because accusing Israel of using propaganda would invoke images of Nazis Germany and anyone who uses that imagery in relation to Israel would be anti-Semitic.  Thanks for the clarification on who the good guys are in the debate.

I'll remember that "Israel is the only democracy in the middle east" and not pay attention to any of that propaganda stuff.

BTW: Its not correct to say that Israel is the "only" democracy in the Middle East - one of the few yes, only no. Turkey is in the Middle East and is a democracy. Lebanon seems to have parliamentary elections....and what about Iraq?? If you buy the neo-con line - a war was fought to bring democracy to Iraq and now they have free multi-party elections there as we saw last week so isn't Iraq also a "democracy in the Middle East"?

Stockholm, if you twist yourself into all sorts of contortions trying to make coherent and consistent the neo-con ideology then you're just going to injure yourself.

In regard to Iraq, it is a country that's been under occupation for over 7 years now. I don't really see how any serious observer can treat an "election" there other than with scare quotes as I have.

k. fine. Don't say I didn't warn ya.