Canadian Jews condemn suppression of criticism of Israel

Blogged.

And the "news" and "opinion" industry wonders why people no longer consider it relevant.

I have read the op and completely agree with the position taken by those who wrote and signed the letter. This is obviously a ham-fisted attempt to stiffle legitimate debate about the sins Israel is committing in Gaza. It's hard to stand against the tide and point out that Israel is wrong and committing war crimes. It's harder still if every time you open your mouth our government is going to lable you an anti-Semite. This is bullshit that must be opposed! Shame on both the Star and Globe for refusing to print this. I have written my letter of complaint to the Star & I hope many other babblers will do the same.

I will agree with contents of the letter.  I also agree that at least one of the papers should be publishing it.  I won't suggest that they must.  I do think that the letter was well-written and that readers could be gaining new information from it.

I don't know if I should suggest trying the National Post.

I won't propose any solution to the Israel-Palestine issue.  It will be between the Israelis and the Palestinians to agree or impose a one or two state solution.  They'll need to live with their actions.

On the issue of Israel being an apartheid state, if we wish to label Israel as such, I think in general that if we should propose a boycott, we should make clear to Israel the requirements that would stop it from being labelled an apartheid state and end a boycott.

We should be free to criticize Israel without being labelled anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish.  As for me, if I criticize Israel, it is because I want Israel to become a better place for Jews and other people.

Done unionist!

I too have read this letter and there are some statements for which I have great sympathy.This paragraph however I found disturbing:

"The signatories are particularly concerned that unfounded accusations of
anti-Semitism deflect attention from Israel's accountability for what many
have called war crimes in Gaza. They state that B'nai Brith and the
Canadian Jewish Congress have led campaigns to silence criticism of Israel
on university campuses, in labor unions and in other groups. Immigration
Minister Jason Kenney and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff unquestioningly
echo the views of these particular Jewish organizations."

Is there actual proof for example that any Jewish organization has "led campaigns to silence labour unions?" Besides the usual caterwauling around Sid Ryan what other hard proof do you have of this charge?To me it sounds terribly conspiratorial and hyperbolic without some back-up. The only other thing I would comment on is the style of the "op-ed". As a writer I can note that this is not in an op-ed style. It reads much more like a news release (albeit a rather long news release). Frankly it leaves me cold. A statement with such good beginnings should have been better referenced with appropriate journalistic style.  

Well, the Globe's refusal to run the statement sorts well with their decision to publish this piece by Yossi Klein Halevi, which concludes with this attack on unnamed "detractors":

Ironically, those among Israel's detractors who turn every Israeli act of war into a war crime and subject the Jewish state to a level of moral judgment not applied to any other nation are acting in the worst interests of the Palestinian people. For by deepening Israel's sense of siege, they help empower the same hard-line forces they deplore.

While I understand Zusken's points above, it is clear from Halevi's op-ed that "references" and "proof" are of little interest to the Globe's editorial board, since Halevi makes several claims that would not withstand five minutes of Googling, let alone a rigorous fact-check.

So, while one might wish for more specifics in any piece of writing, the lack of them in the text Unionist has provided is very unlikely to have been the reason for its rejection by the Globe.

It may surprise people to know that I for the most part agree with the letter. However, I don't know that I would accuse the Star and the Globe of "refusing to print" it. The fact is that newspapers get HUNDREDS of unsolicited articles, petitions and press releases a day - only one or two of which make it into the paper. Just because they don't choose to publish this doesn't mean that its some sort of conspiracy.

I'm not sure what you do this this document if you are a newspaper. It reads like a long, long letter to the editor or maybe a news release - but newspapers NEVER public letters to the editor or news releases that are anywhere near that long. I've also never heard of a major newspaper publishing a petition free of charge. It could never be an op-ed piece because it isn't written in the journalistic style of that either - there is no analysis - just a petition style rant (much of which I agree with - but that doesn't make it journalism). 

I suggest to the people behind this letter that they follow one of two strategies. Either raise money to run the letter the petition as a full page ad in the paper, OR get ONE of the signatories who knows how to write and who is well-known (like maybe Naomi Klein)  to submit a journalist-style commentary that is a suitable op-ed piece. Something like that would probably have a very good chance of being published. 

But you can't blame a newspaper for not publishing a petition free of charge. They never do that for anyone.

If signatories offered to buy ad space and the newspapers refused to publish the letter, THEN I would agree that the newspapers have done something wrong. But they are not under obligation to give free space to anyone.

Judaism ≠ Zionism

Though I oppose Zionism, I think there are approapriate ways of going about it, and publishing the statement above would be a wonderful way of doing to.

We do need to keep it clearly separated from anti-semitism. I remember reading one article recently of a protest in which one man was approached by a protestor and called a 'F***ing Jew.' He did support Zionism, but that's still not a reason to intimidate him and insult him as a Jew. Such actions only hurt the cause of justice in Israel, because then Zionists use such incidents to effect, make sure they get published, and thus can successfully portray the other side as anti-semite. Very effective PR on their side.

From a PR standpoint, I think it would make more sense, especially for non-Jews, to limit protests to petitions, letter-writing campaigns, and ideally even educational programmes, either at schools, in living-rooms, or in public libraries, but certainly not by intimidation and calling people 'F***ing Jew'. There are ways of doing it without attracting accusations of anti-semitism to ourselves, and I think publishing the statement above is definitely an effective way of doing so. It's conservative, in good taste, and yet gets the message across clearly while distancing itself emphatically from anti-Semitism at the same time.

Whatever Stockholm.

http://www.nkusa.org/

Another organization worth working with.

http://nswas.org/

Yet another organization with a firm foundation for peace in the Middle East.

Where were these people 20 years ago when I first tried to say that Israel's actions against Palestinians were criminal?

At the time was people tried to shut me up by calling me an anti-Semite. 

People tried to shut me up 40 years ago for the same thing, but they had to call me a "self-hating Jew".

As for the Neturei Karta, they have been around since 1935. They opposed the creation of the state of Israel and still do.

Naturei karta are a "shanda fur de goyim" and no serious Jewish group, religious or secular, takes them even remotely seriously.

That may be true, SSC, but at least they're ok in a negative sort of way. They don't sing apologias for racism, ethnocentric hegemony, aggression, violation of international law, occupation, apartheid, and mass murder - as some of your "serious Jewish groups" do. So I forgive them their fringe ultra-orthodox sectarianism.

Anyway, the only reason they were mentioned in this important thread is because Machjo is surfing the internet and tossing links around in his effort to build a better world.

Why don't you comment on the 150 serious Jewish Canadians who have condemned the antisemites like Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper, SSC? And why do the mainstream media not flock to them with cameras to get this hot story about prominent Jews who oppose Israeli crimes? That's a more serious topic of discussion. 

Curiously, I used the exact same expression to describe Frank Dimant, leader for life of Bnai Brith Canada, to his face. 

My second healthy laugh of the morning! I would hope, though, that you called him both a shanda and a herpah. Thank you, Mycroft.

Actually, I agree with those who say that the letter really isn't written in op-ed form.  It sounds more like a petition than an op-ed piece, and so I'm not surprised that the papers refused to print it in op-ed format.

The fact, though, that they're refusing to report on it, and reporting so one-sidedly (with the odd exception included merely to stoke the apartheid supporters' fire), and not covering Israeli Apartheid Week at all beyond statements from pro-Apartheid groups claiming it's a "hate fest", is disgusting. 

Michelle, I agree with you. In my own feeble defence, I simply copied the entire text of the OP from an email I received - including the introductory paragraph. The fact that it may have been rejected as an op-ed piece is not shocking (though it might have worked as a letter to the editor). The fact that the MSM portray Jews as Zionists - or attacks on Israel as attacks on Jews - is.

Generally, whenever anyone sort of "appoints' themself as the "representative" of any large, homogeneous group amd uses it to try to get media attention and push their personal agenda it ends up really poorly and they alienate a good chunk of the people on behlaf they claim to speak. Whenever I hear Dimant or any of these other "professional Jews" I get a feeling that i imagine must be similar to the one Barack Obama gets whenever he sees Al Sharpton on TV.

Agree with you on that, Michelle. Are thy trying to raise money to put it out as a full paper ad? That's how these things tend to go...

Sid Ryan doesn't seem to have any trouble getting his columns published in such anti-Zionist hotbeds (lol) as the Toronto Sun and the National Post and i have seen plenty of other articles critical of Israel as well. In fact the foreign affairs columnist of the Toronto Sun Eric Margolis is very pro-Palestinian (and a very good writer too).

I would like to see more publicity given to the views of Jewish-Canadians who are against the policies of the current Israeli government and in fact I would have no problem adding my name to the petition above. BUT, as i said above, if this group wants to get publicity for their case in the mainstream media - there is a way to do it and that way is NOT sending major daily newspapers a petition full of "be it resolved that" style clauses and expecting them to publish it. There are plenty of intelligent, talented writers among the signatories - let one of them write a well-reasoned op-ed column that synthesizes the views expressed in the petition and I would be surprised if the major papers don't run it.   

The letter has become part of a blogburst. Also, someone reported my blog post (in which I duplicated the letter) to reddit so it has begun going the rounds by that route too. 

Naci_Sey, I sniffed around your blog a bit after following the link there. Wonderful! Don't know how I missed it before.

And thanks for helping this release go viral. I wish I knew more about blogbursts and reddit...

I just learned that Jewish people are homogenous.

I can tell you where that statement went wrong right off. Definitely should not have reminded anyone of the anti-communist terror of the 50's. It is a fair point, but one that carries a lot of baggage.

I'm a betting he meant "heterogeneous". Context and all that. Wouldn't want to get side-tracked with elitist, pedantry would we?

At least we're not pastorized.

Not shofar, Unionist.

I called him a shanda right after he accused me of not being Jewish. It shut him up pretty quickly.

All right, Caissa and Mycroft, now you've got me giggling. Stop it right now.

Caissa wrote:

I'm a betting he meant "heterogeneous". Context and all that. Wouldn't want to get side-tracked with elitist, pedantry would we?

I am sorry, the point that Jewish people are found in all cultures and come from a multitude of ethnic and racial backgrounds has been worked to death, even by in the name of Zionism, and certainly in the name of anti-racism. And rightly so, because it is true. Jewishness religious belief is likewise diverse.

I find these repeated attacks on anti-Zionist orthodox Rabbis, as "a shame before the nation", to be very strange in this context. I rarely see this kind of commentary about the Rabbis leading up the charge in Hebron, even though they are clearly wingnuts, whose influence on Israeli settlement policy goes far beyond their appeal in "mainstream" Jewish culture.

What "repeated attacks"? The attack came from SSC. SSC has not hidden his sympathy for Zionism on this board. Nothing strange about him mocking anti-Zionist rabbis. He doesn't tend to acknowledge that besides this tiny fringe ultra-orthodox sect, there are vast numbers of Jews. religious and irreligious, orthodox and atheist, who are disgusted by Israel and its policies. Talking about Neturei Karta is a typical ploy (introduced here by Machjo, surprise surprise) to gloss over the widespread revulsion felt by the non-fringe.

He has made this point before. Therefore it is a repetition.

Ah, ok, I got it - yes, he has.

damn! I meant "heterogenuous!

Guys, if you look at anything I've said on this subject, I was very clear in acknowledging not only that there are vast numbers of orthodox Jews who vehemntly oppose zionism but ahve said that this was basically the norm among orthodoxy pre-1948. even since the establishment of the state of Israel, many in the orthodox camp (Chassidus Ger, for example) who participate in Israeli civic life still maintain an officially anti-Zionist theological position.

The founder of Satmar hasidism, rabbi Joel Teitelbaum (ZTL) was one of the great tzadikim of the last century. this is a man who survived Bergen Belsen eating nothing but raw potatoes because he refused to eat non-kosher food even in that situation. He survived, moved to brooklyn and rebuilt a shattered and decimated community into the biggest hasidic group in the world with a vast network of shuls, yeshivot and charitable organizations. Despite not being anything close to orthodox let alone hasidic, I can't walk through their neighbourhood in brooklyn without being overcome by a sense of civic/ethnic/fuck-the-nazis pride.

And the Satmar rebbe and his followers are as vehemently opposed to zionism as anyone out there (for theological reasons). But Naturei karta is a fringe splinter group that has, among other things, participated in an Iranian Holocaust denial conference where they embraced Ahmadinejad. The current Satmar leader (nephew of Rebbe Teitelbaum) has issued an edict banning them from Satmar synogogues and schools.

I mean, jsut google them or go to Wikipedia and see to what extent this group represents a compelte fringe even among the ultra-orthodox. Denouncing them and pointing that out doesn't equate to "mocking anti-zionist rabbis" - especially since these self-described "Ultra-orthodox" rabbis are willing to violate the Shabbos in order to participate in anti-Zionist initiatives.

What about the freaks in Hebron who are leading the IDF around by the nose?

Was that directed to me? What about those guys?

Actually, let's forget about this thread diversion. I'm kind of interested in SSC's take on the press release in the OP.

The distinction between being Jewish and supporting the Israeli government is, I think a very basic distinction.  It is unfortunate that it even needs to be asserted.  To equate a monolithic political view or the actions of a state apparatus with an entire ethnic group is racist.  It implies that "they all think alike."  To call criticism of Israeli policy anti-Semitic also implies that Israeli policy in the occupied territories benefits all Israelis equally.  As though wealthy land developers in the Knesset and privileged politicians with heavy investments in the arms industry have the same vested interests as everyday working Israeli's.  That is absurd.  Though the US government tries to pull the same tactic on it’s own population, people do not buy it. War always takes a greater toll on the poor than on the rich.  It is the poor who rely on the public services that are being curtailed now in Israel to pay for the bellicose policies of the government.There are layers of racism / anti-Semitism active in the notion that to be "Jewish" is to support the Israeli government.  For one thing, it blanches over a class analysis of how war-like policies affect Israelis differently on the basis of their economic background.  I can't help but wonder if this stems from the notion that Jewish people have money.  Well the ones in the Knesset sure do. Just like people in Congress do.  But that doesn't mean that the people they represent have the same privilege, or that the kids they send off to fight in Gaza are going to reap the same benefits from the spoils of war as the politicians they fight for. We have no problem identifying war profiteering when it happens in Congress but somehow people are blind to how this can happen in Israel. 

"War always takes a greater toll on the poor than on the rich.  It is the poor who rely on the public services that are being curtailed now in Israel to pay for the bellicose policies of the government."

Its also the poor in Israel who tend to vote overwhelmingly for the most rightwing warmongering parties.

Have a link Stockholm?

You mean the 20% of Israelis who are Arab? Nope.

Or are they rich? Uh-uh.

Or did you forget about them? Aha! There's a long noble tradition of that.

Sorry Star Spangled. I was aware Naturei Karta was Orthodox, but never realized how much of a fringe they were. My only point was that I was aware that there were plenty of Jews that oppose Zionism and that was the one I'd heard of the most.

So what can you say about Neve Shalom? It's a group I'd heard about a few years ago and know a little about, but not too much.

And a side note to Unionist. You're not a very good clairoyant. Stick to the text and stop misreading between the lines.

Neve Shalom are a fascinating group. They started out as air traffic controllers in Jonquières, got fed up with language hegemony, decided to speak only Esperanto, and moved to Fort Knox, where they adopted gold as a universal currency. They built up a nest egg and sent missives to 150 prominent Canadian Jews, asking them to appeal publicly for the reform of Canadian linguistic and air navigation policies, to conform with ICAO directives. Unfortunately the Jews, speaking only a Litvak variety of Yiddish, misconstrued the missives, and instead issued a news release condemning the suppression of criticism of Israel in Canadian society.

See how easy it is to remain on topic - you can get there even where you come from!

 http://nswas.org/rubrique22.html

 And it's all in English too, if that helps at all? And here's how they describe themselves:

"Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam is a cooperative village of Jews and Palestinian Arabs of Israeli citizenship. The village is situated equidistant from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv-Jaffa."

From what I can see of their website, they're quite opposed to the Israeli occupation of Gaza. And no, that's not Esperanto up there (I have no idea why you always insist on bringing that topic up), but Hebrew and Arabic. Honestly, I can't see what it is exactly that's so dispicalbe about them in your mind.

Machjo, please read the thread title. Then read the opening post. Then consider whether you have anything to say about the subject. If not, there are many many other threads dealing with Jews and Zionism and Israel. If you can't find the right one, just open one. I know you know how.

Please. And thanks.

What creeps me out most about the Jewish = Israeli Government equation is that it blames Jewish people for the actions of the Israeli government far more than it blames ethnic Christians for the actions of the US government.  Why should that be the case? Why do so many people assume that the Israeli government represents the wishes and interests of Jewish people more than the US government represents American people?  Americans take public international blame for the actions of their government but no where near to the degree that Jewish people are blamed for the actions of Israel. Or to the degree that Palestinians are blamed for the actions of Hamas I might add.

Now the argument is made, "But they are doing it.  They are saying that to criticise Israel is anti-Semitic."  It is the very notion of that “They” that worries me.  That “They” is a construction.  It is used to manipulate ideas about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable policy in the Middle East.  That "They" is not a Jewish construction.  It is a "Western" construction.  And it is Imperial.

Here are a few responses to a recent assertion of the anti-Semitism = anti-Zionism canard at the National Post.

Sorry about that. I'll start another thread then.

"What creeps me out most about the Jewish = Israeli Government equation is that it blames Jewish people for the actions of the Israeli government far more than it blames ethnic Christians for the actions of the US government.  Why should that be the case?"

There is a simple explanation for that. The United States is one of about 100 countries in the world that are largely Christian - so why would people link "Christians" to the actions of one country with no official state religion that happens to have a majority Christian population. If Christians were a persecuted minority all over the world and there was only one country named "Christiania" whose founding principle was to be a sanctuary for Christians - that would be a different story and that would be analogous to the relationship between most Jews and Israel.

Today all of downtown Toronto was filled with Tamil-Canadians waving Tamil Tiger flags. Why should these people care about what happens in Sri Lanka? Why can't they just be Canadians and let the Tamils in Sri Lanka fight their own battles?

You can't be fucking serious? 

This reminds me of the guy that used to go "I AM WARNING YOU!"

"YOU ARE MAKING A BIG MISTAKE!"

"YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO YOURSELF"

Well, he got his wish; now, Anti-Semitism is such a common accusation nobody believes it.

Well said, Stockholm.  I'm all for Canadian Jews critical of Israeli policy speaking out.   I agree with much of the statement as well.  However I don't buy that they are victims of political discrimination because the papers won't publish the letter.  Having an oped rather than a treatise is the way to go.

It is deeply concerning that Ignatieff has decided to become identical to the Tories on Israel.  We have become like the U.S. where both major parties support Israel uncritically, in an effort to get Jewish votes and money.

Its not about money. When the most anyone can donate to a party is $1,000 a year - its not a factor.

It's not about Jewish votes or money. That said, the public relations machine behind the Israeli cause is extremely well financed. Well financed enough to sow enough confusion that it is difficult for politicians to take a clear stand on what is otherwise a clear cut position on human rights. At the same time right wingers can parade their sympathy for Jews (as emobdied in the state of Israel) as some kind of badge that proves they are supportive of minority causes.

Very convenient to be able to assert this status as an anti-racist, while appealing to society wide sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust, and the patriotic legacy that this stands on (as if we actually went to war to end Nazi racial policies LOLOLOLO), while at the same time supporting reactionary policies on other scores.

Note for example, Harper's immigration policies. Plenty of milage to be gained from making a big deal about ones support for the "Jewish" state, and the appeal is actually largely among the gentile right, not Jews.

Btw, no one said anything about newspaper being obligated to publish anything. I see you never miss a point, to miss the point. Typical Stockholm evasion and distraction. And look! It works some idiot has come along to agree with you even though its a straw man -- keep spinning, Stockybaba. What people noted was that newspapers are more than willing to pick up the offal offered up by right wing fringe Jewish organizations, even the JDL, which is on the FBI terror list, and treat it as serious commentary, but don't seem to find the time of day to publish views opposite to those, from respected persons. In other words the mainstream media has a bias.

Your trying to say that newspapers don't have bias? I'll be looking for your bitching and moaning about the "media bias" after the NDP loses yet another election.

I am always impressed with how well you absorb and then regurgitate reactionary tropes, when you find yourself on the "right" side of the line. The "no obligation to publish line" is exactly what we hear when the press is ignoring the moustache. ROFL.

These so-called rightwing fringe Jewish organizations, were smart enough to get a writer to write an opinion piece that is suitable for an op-ed page. They aren't as stupid as the other side which thinks that all they have to do is draw up a petition and send it in to the Globe and expect it to be published for free. You're comparing apples with oranges.

If you want an ARTICLE published then send in an ARTICLE not a petition. Newspapers absolutely never publish petitions for free. Its as simple as that.

Setting the petition aside, I believe the opinion piece written by Judy Rebick and Alan Sears a few weeks ago and published by rabble.ca was first offered to the Globe and Mail and, I assume, the Toronto Star who turned it down - and Judy certainly knows how to write publishable pieces so the problem wasn't with the quality of writing or format. I also know that past attempts to have actual op ed pieces (not petitions) published in the Star and Globe have been turned down - ACJC (IJV's predecessor) had it's main opinion piece turned down by the Globe and Star until the Winnipeg Free Press picked it up thanks to Cy Gonick's intervention.

I should never have included that first paragraph in the OP - I should have just reprinted the statement itself. That would have prevented Stockholm from torpedoing discussion about suppression of criticism of Israel in the media. The fact that the statement might have been rejected as an op-ed or not (and I have no direct personal knowledge of that) is irrelevant. It clearly wasn't written as an op-ed.

The plain fact that Stockholm and other pro-Israeli babblers wish to ignore is that the entire mainstream media connects Jews (especially Canadian Jews) with Israel in a manner which can only be described as antisemitic. It would be like connecting Canadian Muslims with Saudi Arabia or al-Qaeda. Or, identifying ordinary Canadian Catholic families with the criminal behaviour of the Vatican. That is the crucial issue which needs to be explored here.

Unionist: I presume this phenomenon is tied to the concept of Diaspora.

Unionist, I'm not sure why you're trying to group me with the "Israel can do no wrong crowd". The first thing I said was that I would have been willing to sign the petition!!  What more do you want?

Meanwhile in today's Toronto Star, there is a lengthy op-ed piece by Haroon Siddiqui thattalks about howout of tune the Liberal/Conservative line on the Middle East is with Canadian public opinion and he adds:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/604583 

"A combative declaration was issued last week by 160 Jewish Canadians, including Anton Kuerti, Ursula Franklin, Naomi Klein, Meyer Brownstone (recipient of the Pearson Peace Medal) and Judith Deutsch, president of the Canadian group, Science for Peace.

"We are appalled by recent attempts ... to silence protest against Israel. We are alarmed by the escalation of fear tactics (which) bring the anti-Communist terror of the 1950s vividly to mind."

But both Deutsch and Sears say they feel far less lonely these days than they used to.

"There has been a real shift over the last few years where being a marginalized troublemaker is less marginalized and more acceptable," Sears said."

I know, I know, you'll say its just "tokenism" on the part of the Star to publish an op-ed piece that you agree with 100%. You would you rather that they not run columns like that at all - so you could go back to the security blanket of screaming that the media is so biased and will never publish any alternate points of view??

I will side with Stockholm on his comment. (#59)

In my opinion, there was a lot of great infomation in the petition.  Unfortunately, it was a petition and not a commentary even though the petition had commentary elements.  If people want petitions published in a newspaper, they will need to buy ad space.  It may not seem fair, but it's business.

My understanding is that Israel had a large influx of people fleeing the economic conditions in the fomer Soviet Union during the financial collapse there. Those folks came to make up 20% of the Israeli population and were mostly on the lower economic rungs.  They actually took a lot of the slots that the Arab Israelis filled. Maybe the poster referred to that demographic. 

Much of the cheap labour previously provided by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza has been provided since the early 90s by foreign workers on temporary work permits.

As a petition, the organizers could ask for donations for the ads, if they had a forum for doing so, (Rabble?). However, even that would not guartantee the ads would be run in the print megamedia outlets. I would doubt the Nat Post and CanWest Global papers would run it (that excludes most of BC)  given their clear editorial policies on the Middle East.  The Globe & Mail would also be somewhat doubtful.

Here is an excerpt on the legal status of rejecting ads.  

"....What is particularly noteworthy about The Globe's position is that it had the legal right to arbitrarily reject the advertisement in question. That was the position of the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1974 advertising case involving such a rejection by the Vancouver Sun.

In that case, the Supreme Court stated that a newspaper is able to refuse to publish an advertisement on the mere basis that the material being advertised offends its editorial position. Justice Martland, speaking for the Court's majority, stated the law as follows. "The law has recognized the freedom of the press to propagate its views and ideas on any issue and to select the material which it publishes. As a corollary to that, a newspaper also has the right to refuse to publish material which runs contrary to the views which it expresses...."

http://www.advertisinglawyer.ca/news-mag-1997-12.htm

Newspapers are all in such dire financial straights that I think there is ZERO chance that they would refuse to run a PAID full page ad that consisted of the petition above. I think the only place they would draw the line would be if the ad called for more suicide bombings and was a clear incitement to violence 9which it obviously isn't) (and even then Can West is so close to bankruptcy, they might not even turn their nose up at that).

A single page ad is a drop in the bucket lost in the arterial gushing of red ink.  The inevitable threats to withdraw advertising would far outweigh it.

It would be an interesting experiment to try, however.
I would recommend that
a) the wording of the petition be made "bullet proof" because the attacks on it will be extensive, regardless.
b) that it be known there will be an addendum, that lists the newspapers that did refuse.

In the past the Toronto Star (which is extremely progressive on social issues like same sex marriage etc...) has run ads from evangelical Christian groups denouncing same sex marriage. I think that as long as an ad is in good taste (ie: nothing from Rev. Phelps) - if you want to pay for it - its yours.

Stockholm, I described you as "pro-Israeli" - not as "pro-Likud". Surely you would accept that labelling?

As for "what more do you want", I wanted a discussion of how the MSM constantly identifies Jews with Israel, and how it suppresses criticism of Israel even when it comes from "personalities" who are otherwise newsworthy. What I did NOT want was a debate as to the precise form an article should take in order to be publishable. But because I included that foolish first para in the OP, I guess I got what I asked for, and people seem to be far more excited about the stylistic issue than the substantive one.

Okay, let's deal with the substantive issue Unionist. I wonder if the concept of the Diaspora with the subtext that Jews outside of Israel are not in their natural place contributes to the phenomenon you are describing.

In a world where fifth generation Irish-Americans were up until very recently passing the hat for donations to the IRA in bars in Boston - why should it come as a surprise that a certain segment of Jewish-Canadians feel strongly about Israel.

Any of that sort of financing of sectarian violence by emigres is deplorable, IMV.

source?

I think the author is saying that it is more difficult as a Jew, to voice criticism of Israel now, than it used to be; that Jewish identity is much more closely identified with Israel now, than it was when the state was younger.

I wonder how much of this change in identity is due to pressure form corporate American Media?  The United States as we know, benefits from Israel's financial dependence on US money and armaments.  Basically, Israel has no choice but to represent American interests in that region of the world.  It works out very well for the United States.  Israel takes a lot of heat for US policies in the Middle East.  I can see why the American media would be very opposed to representations of Jewish identity that are independent of Israel; or worse, voices of Jewish people who are not supportive of Israel.  It would ring as un-American.

Its much more than a "certain segment" Stockholm

Caissa, I am convinced you have a point there. Listen to what the OP statement said:

What do the B'nai Brith and Jason Kenney / Stephen Harper have in common?

Harper and Kenney hate Jews. They would freak out and die if someone in their family married one. They publicly connect Jews with the crimes of Israel. They believe that the homeland of Jews is not Canada. They are antisemites.

All the above applies to B'nai Brith, except the marriage part. They also hate Jews who are non-Zionist or (like me) anti-Zionist. They (like JDL) would suppress Jews who tell the ugly truth about Israel. They, like Harper and Kenney, are ultra-right fanatics.

So Caissa, you may be right. The Jews who cherish the Diaspora - that is, who are and want to be one with the peoples of the world, rather than a species apart, spiritually, politically, or geographically - are the hated targets of the B'nai Brith and the Jason Kenneys. Yet the Diaspora Jews are the ones celebrated throughout history for contributing to the progress and enlightenment of humanity. This is what these forces of darkness fear the most.

It's no accident to see the names of Jews who sign statements like these in Canada, the U.K., and elsewhere. They are scientists and artists and musicians and progressive political figures. They are the "light unto the nations", the best that Judaism has had to offer over the centuries. They are not Frank Dimant or Ariel Sharon.

I haven't seen it yet but I believe it's in today's NOW Magazine as an ad.

A sematnic point - the title of this thread should be "Jewish Canadians (as opposed to "Canadian Jews") condemn suppression of criticism of Israel.   Canadian Jews implies that they are Jews who just happen to live in Canada (but it's not their "homeland") while Jewish Canadians clearly implies a Canadian nationality with a Jewish ethnic identity.

LP, I think I understand your nuance, but have you ever referred to anyone as a Catholic Canadian?

Google tests:

"Catholic Canadians" - 1,250 hits

"Canadian Catholics" - 15,700 hits

"Jewish Canadians" - 13,100

"Canadian Jews" - 30,900

Interesting... bizarre, in fact. Oh well, that's material for another thread.

No, but I haven't heard the term "Canadian-Italian" either.  I guess in the case of Jews it's more complicated because it's both an ethnic identity and a religion.

LP, when I was a kid, I clearly remember the word "Jew" being considered as impolite in the media and elsewhere. Instead of saying "they're Jews", one would say, "they're Jewish". No such opprobrium attached to "she's a Catholic" or "he's an Anglican".

Haven't thought about it recently, but it seems to me that "Jewish Canadians" sounds so much more polite than "Canadian Jews".

You're right, though - being Jewish isn't exactly akin to being Catholic or being Italian or being black (which is now African Canadian I guess), so linguistically it has its own dynamic. 

It seems to me that Jewish people suffer because of a political dynamic that oppresses Blacks and other marginalized groups.  When a group is marginalized, there is usually less political maneuverability.   Within a marginalized group there can be great pressure to conform to the most promising leaders and ideology at the time.  If you question them you are seen as betraying the cause, even if you are only trying to enrich the general critique and dialogue. You hear about this happening within the Black community.  Many people within the Black community feel pressured to blanketly support popular leaders whose ideas they may question because, for instance, they may be chauvinistic,  just as people in the Jewish community feel pressured to support Israel regardless of concerns they may have over the Palestinians or the wisdom of maintaining such a costly occupation. When Unionist talks about  B'nai Brith practicing a kind of and-Semitism because they are denying the right of other Jewish people to express their political views, he's got a point. Zionism is analogous to other liberation ideologies that can be very constraining and oppressive of the people identified with its cause.

What is marginalized about Jewish people in contemporary Canadian society?

Jews are viewed as foreigners, with a foreign "homeland", by the Canadian government. It is the oldest anti-Jewish canard in the world - the strange wandering folk of "divided loyalties". 

They are portrayed as agents and allies of Israel, which gives rise to criminal assaults, vandalism, and arson against Jewish sites.

They are no more and no less "marginalized" (whatever that term means) than Jews were in pre-1933 Germany.

You're right to raise the point about certain elements of the non-Jewish right - the Christian Zionists in particular - who are big Harper supporters and love his extreme pro-Israel stance.  But they were already big Tory supporters to begin with.  I don't think too many non-Jewish voters swung to Harper because of his Israel stance.

I'm actually torn in terms of how much Jewish opposition there is to Israeli policies.  Certainly those who are explicitly anti-Zionist are a small minority, but growing.   I do think a lot of Jews find Israel to be an embarrassment, and the really hardcore Zionists are a minority.  Certainly if these so-called Jewish leaders were representative, US Jews would be big supporters of attacking Iran.   They're not - over 60% are opposed despite all the rhetoric of Iran being the next Nazi Germany.  My gut feeling is that the majority of Diaspora Jews find Israel to be an embrassment - supporting Israel increasingly conflicts with their generally small-"l" liberal views. 

But then I read surveys showing over 80% of American Jews supporting the latest attack on Gaza and realize Peter Kent (a great example of a non-Jewish politician who shows his "tolerance" by being a pro-Israel fanatic) wins the GTA riding of Thornhill in an upset, where the Israel issue certainly must have played a role...and then I feel we haven't come as far as we'd like.  

LP, I think we have to start calling a spade a spade.

When Canadian politicians (or anyone else) identify Canadian Muslims (or Muslim Canadians, whatever) with beheading and al-Qaeda and 9/11, etc., what do we call them?

Correct, Islamophobes.

Does it make any difference how some, most, many, a few Muslims actually view these things?

No, it's still Islamophobia.

When Canadian politicians portray Jews as being connected with Israel, dependent on Israel's fate and success, supportive of Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories, supportive of its ethnocentric laws and practices - what do we call them?

Why would we not call them antisemites? I've been doing that for some time. As Jews, we must stand up and call these non-Jews antisemites, and explain why we are saying so.

As for the Jews that hold exactly the same positions, we should rally Jews to reject those organizations and "leaders" who sully our name daily by their crimes.

I'm not suggesting that it's easy. I am, however, suggesting that it is essential - because it is true.

Well said.

"

When Canadian politicians (or anyone else) identify Canadian Muslims (or Muslim Canadians, whatever) with beheading and al-Qaeda and 9/11, etc., what do we call them?

Correct, Islamophobes."

That all depends. If they are identifying them in that way but with a negative slant - then I guess you could call it "islamophobic".

But what do you call people who actually support Al-Qaeda, beheadings, the 9/11 attacks etc... and actually do think that these were great things for Islam and think that all Muslims all over the world ought to be proud to be associated with such activities? I wouldn't call them anything nice - but i don't think "islamophobic" would be the right word either.

Enemies and slanderers of Muslims. Anti-Muslims. That's what I call them.

And if someone says "Jews support Zionism and Israel", I call them antisemites.

Get used to it. Slander and defamation are just that.

I'd call them excellent PR agents for the military-industrial complex, which is also part of Canada's shadow economy. As Dr Strangelove might have said, they help to create in the minds of an enemy the fear to attack.

How can it be slander if its meant as a complement?

Both Al and Qa'eda were supported by US and British governments throughout the decade of the 90's, so I'm not sure where the slander comes in.

You mean like, how can "those women are gorgeous and are great in the kitchen and just as great in bed" be misogynist?

Or, how can "those ghetto types have a great sense of rhythm and are just brilliant at B&E" be racist?

Duh, search me, Stock, I'm new here.

What an "interesting" thought.

ETA: Cross-posted with Unionist's far less vague rebuttle

Or, how could the CIA-MI6-ISI's database of expendible Islamic militants do such a great job of destabilizing Central Asia and Balkans, and then the crazy Arabs, as treacherous and untrustworthy Arabs will often do without rhyme or reason, turn around and bite the hand that feeds?, be interpreted as anti-semitic?  

"Or, how can "those ghetto types have a great sense of rhythm and are just brilliant at B&E" be racist?"

I would call that misguided stereotyping. To me ANTI-semitism has the word "ANTI" as a prefix for a reason. Because it is a 100% negative antagonistic sentiment. If some says "Jews are evil Christ-killers who are responsible for all bad things in the world and deserve to be discriminated against and preferably killed" - THAT is anti-semitism. If on the other hand someone says "Jews make good lawyers and know how to manage their money" - I would call it stereotyping - but I wouldn't call it anti-semitic - because while it is an incorrect stereotype - it isn't being antagonist - just slightly naive and misguided. 

Could someone please move this to the AR forum and leave Stockholm behind?

How is it "ANTI-" if its saying something complementary? I'm not saying that it isn't still wrong - but the prefix "anti" means "against" and if you are saying something complementary - you are not "against" them - in fact in this case the misguided stereotype could actually lead to Jewish lawyers getting more business than they would otherwise get.

Do you mean complimentary, as in, "Hey, nice job those guys did on 9/11"?,

... or complementary, as in, "Hey, those guys who were trained in terrorism and guerilla warfare by the ISI, CIA and even SAS, did a nice job of things on 9/11"? 

It's because we love Stockholm, and we know how much he enjoys his word games, that we don't call him names. But listen carefully. Those who call Jews allies and friends of mass murderers are antisemites. It doesn't make any difference whether they think "mass murderer" is a compliment or not.

Frank Dimant is an antisemite. Jews everywhere should bar their doors and reach for their pitchforks when they see him lurking in the street.

Do you actually believe this? 

Do I actually believe what?

That Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper portray Israel as being the homeland of the Jews?

Indeed, yes, I do.

That Harper boycotts Durban II saying that Durban I was "antisemitic", when in fact he means that there was lots of criticism of Israeli apartheid at Durban I?

Yes, I do.

That the identification by government and media and various religious nutbars of Jews with Israel in the public mind helps fuel antisemitic attacks and outrages?

Of course I do. Look at the arson attacks in Montréal against Jewish schools. Do you think the criminal perpetrators had something against Judaism? Or did they think they were striking a blow against Israel and Zionism?

So which part are you questioning my belief about, DrConway?

My parents, who survived the Nazi genocide, tried to teach me how to recognize who were the friends and who were the enemies of the Jews. When I see and hear Stephen Harper or George Bush talk, there can be no doubt in the world.

No kidding.  There are now three ultrarightwing Jewish organizations which take identical positions on pretty much everything - the CJC, Bnai Brith and the JDL.  What about an organization for mainstream Jews, as ohara fondly calls them?

Although I'm totally secular and atheist and know very little about Judaism, I'd sign the statement.  I'm Jewish.  If I said I was Italian people would laugh.  An Italian named Max Bialystok?  I think not.

Unionist: In case it has escaped you, your claims that "Jews are viewed as foreigners, etc etc" smack of a hoary old siege mentality that simply has no place in Canada. Nobody I know, and nobody I've seen in the media, says anything like that about Jewish people.

*I* certainly don't believe that sort of thing about Jewish people. People used to say exactly the same sort of crap about Catholics - that they took orders from the Vatican, and that they represented an unsafe fifth column of sinister intent within society.

Here's Bernie Farber's response to Siddiqui's article.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/605945

Have you never heard anyone describe Israel as the Jewish homeland?

Have you never seen anyone suggest that some politicians side with Israel in order to secure Jewish votes or support?

I'm suggesting that those views are antisemitic, and that they call into question Jews' full membership within Canadian civil society. You may disagree with my interpretation. But you'll have to do better than that to convince me that Canada is a society which has overcome antisemitism (or racism or misogyny or homophobia or supremacy toward Aboriginal peoples etc.).

Who exactly accused you of that? No need to plead not guilty.

And Japanese and Ukrainians and Germans and Muslims and Sikhs... 

Again, it's time for mainstream Jews to disassociate themselves with the ultrarightwing trio of CJC/Bnai Brith/JDL.   Thanks for clearing things up, Bernie.

Too many ironies:
From one of the pro-Israel organizations frequently given op-ed space we have a direct response to the suppressed statement by a substantial sampling of respected Jews --a statement which was not permitted to be seen in any any of the main papers op-ed spaces.
The alluded to statement about suppressed expression was suppressed.

Some of the tactics  of vilification used against it can be found in the suppressed statement--not viewable in the major media.

etc.

=====

It reminds me of the case of early Roman critics of Christianity whose remarks only survive in the very short quotes attacked in Christian writing-- the main criticisms were burned by the triumphing Christians. 

Such is the state of the megamedia today.

Did you hear that Unionist? It seems you have a "hoary old siege mentality" for simply perceiving that Jews are still viewed as foreigners! Your kind of keen perception "simply has no place in Canada!"

Modern Canada is a secular society which has no need of stereotypes about Jewish people. That is why there is no place for such attitudes.

Well, I don't know about that. It's a nice thought. But describing Jews in Canada as "foreign" is way of the mark. And even marginalized is pushing the envelope. The great majority of white Jewish Canadians live lives that are largely indistinguishable from other white Canadians. Jewish families are highly integrated and established, not just among the general populace but also as ranking members of the business class, in politics, and the media.

They are no more ethnically marginalized that Italian Catholics.

That said, I agree with Unionists general point about the attempt to subject Jewish-Canadians to social framework where they are associated with Israel is a form of prejudice that exists in Canadian society, and one that definitely connects at some level with traditional European anti-semetism. After all, one merely has to go to the nearest Nazi blog to find real anti-semites using the exact same set of definitions that are used by Zionist extremists.

Both Zionists, and their backers, and the right wing racists share the conviction that Israel and Jews are inextricably one and the same thing, and that Israel speaks for all Jews as the Jewish state.

You know, Cueball, you're quite right that Jews in Canada today don't experience anything resembling the kind of "marginalization" that many other groups of Canadians do.

But don't you think that stereotyping is dangerous - because that's what Harper, Kenney, and Dimant do - and that's what Farber does by his creation of the "Mainstream Jew"?

And do you have any idea of how it felt, or what I faced on the street, growing up as a Jewish child of immigrants in a poor neighbourhood?

And just exactly how "marginalized" do you think German and French and Dutch Jews were before they were rounded up, overnight, and slaughtered - with limited resistance from their communities?

Having said that, I appreciate your point about the commonality of views between Zionists and Nazis that Jews don't fit in here among normal folks.

Yes. Some sense of that actually. I personally was never poor. However my father was the son of shoemaker from Chicago. He used to tell me vivid stories of how my grandmother beat his head against a radiator. A vicious and brutalized life.

That said, children are pretty mean. We were awful to the native kid in my neighborhood.

My sources are as good as yours, I guess. Were you there?

They were far more marginalized than Jewish Canadians, today. For one thing, as far as I can remember every one of those countries had specific laws restricting Jewish rights at one level or another, prior to the appearance of the NSDAP on the political landscape. France in particular had a very sorry track record in this regard, when Hitler was still wetting his diapers. European anti-semetism of the 1930's is a completely different kettle of fish then what we see today.

Back then the Canadian prime minister openly expressed antisemitic ideas, and this was indeed common for politicians of all stripes of the era. That is very far from the reality of today.

France was the first country in the world that accorded Jews equal rights as citizens - under Napoleon Bonaparte. I'd be fascinated to know what "specific laws restricting Jewish rights at one level or another" you think existed in France.

Anyway, if you think antisemitism is a joking matter in Canada today (as per your previous radiator post), enjoy a hearty chuckle. I would have preferred had you opened your discussion in this thread by supporting the statement in the OP instead of attacking its style.

I have no idea why you are making fun of my personal family history. Its ridiculous in the context of your marked proclivity to parade yours. Perhaps if I had said that my father was a poor Jewish kid and the son of immigrant family, whose mother was so angry and frustrated by the conditions of working class life in Chicago that she viciously beat his head against a radiator, you might have taken a different tack. 

That said, I will get back to you about your misinformation about 19th century and early 20 century Europe later. For one thing, descrimination continued in various forms throughout Europe despite the "emancipation". Franz Joseph repealed parts of the 1848 law by 1850 in Germany, as one example. Further, social attitudes and exclusion, are as much a part of official prejudice as the written law. One has to go no further than the Dreyfuss Affair to see this plainly.

We don't see any Jewish officers of the Canadian military being put up on phoney charges of collaborating with the Taliban, now do we? The idea of that is indeed a "chuckle", and a "hearty" one at that.

France, Cueball. France. And "laws", Cueball. You said "laws".

No kidding about Dreyfus. The whole point of the story was that a non-marginalized Jewish community, free and equal before the law, suddenly came face to face with the ugly xenophobia of the most reactionary elements of the ruling clique. Reminds me of Harper and Kenney.

Having said that, I apologize about the radiator comment. But I thought we were talking about systemic racism. I and my parents faced that not just from children, but in the corner grocery store, from neighbours, and later by smirks and comments in the workplace. Your attempts to deny it (which is what I was reacting to in case you,ve forgotten) are offensive in the extreme.

But because I love you and we're allies, I'm going to laugh it off. One day you will as well. But not today, I fear.

Yeah, funny! It must be nice to define "antisemitism" in some comic-book fashion and then declare: "No antisemitism here!"

Legal disabilities against Jews in metropolitan France continued into the the mid 19th century. Algerian Jews were not awarded French citzenship until 1870. A year later official emancipation was finally instituted in Germany. Ok, that's a half generation before Hitler was wetting his baby clothes, not precisely when he was wetting his baby clothes.

That is enough prevarication on point. Laws are only part of the process of social integration. Social prejudice and indeed persecution continued despite laws: your entire case for "marginalization" rests on this point. Your entire case for the exceptional "marginalization" of Jews in Canada rest upon factors other than legal grounds. For if it didn't then Dr Conway's point about Canada being a secular society would stand on the law alone.

Jews as an ethnic group are one of the better established minorities within the spectrum of the white Canadian rulling class. That is not evidence of marginalization. It is the opposite.

So, no your arguement is not about law but about social prejudice which results in marginalization. Jews are no more marginalized in Canadian society, either in law, or in practice than Italian Canadian Catholics, and in fact, in comparison some other communities, emphasizing the plight of Jews in Canada as if it is exceptionally arduous or comparable to that of 19th Century Europe is spurious to the point that it makes a mockery of what we mean when we say "marginalized".

Goodbye, Cueball.

Heh. Can't really argue this can you when the Aspers own Global TV and Can west? Marginalized as a community? My ass.

How many TV stations are owned by Native Canadians? How many by Black Canadians? Huh?

There's a name for comments like yours. But I meant what I said. Even if you can't control what comes out of your mouth, and even if you feel the need to destroy important threads like this one, you're still an ally.

I would name it is an example of the real access to power and authority that some member of the Jewish community in Canada have access to based on established facts. What it establishes that there are few apparent extraordinary impediments for Jewish people in the mainstream of society.

What would you name it?

Upon what verifiable facts do you base your claim that Jews are particularly marginalized in comparisons to, say, Italian Canadian Catholics?

I won't call you the names you deserve. But I will note that there are assholes in the U.S. (such as Obama himself in his pathetic renunciation of Rev. Wright) that say that racism against POC isn't endemic in Amerika. Why, a person of colour could even become President some day!

I still love you, Cueball. I forgive you, because I know that your confusion comes from a good place and the right sentiments. One could only wish sometimes for a little more openmindedness about others' oppression.

MODERATORS: Close this thread for length, please, and kindly monitor any continuations for thread drift. This is an important topic. It's not easy for Jews to publicly condemn Israel, and I think it should be encouraged - not what is happening here.

Thank you.

You know, the Olympics are still over a year away, and the running of the bull isn't one of the events.

If Mr. Obama wants me to provide the economic source data, and line up comparisons of job status, income, and ownership of corporations in the USA and cross-reference that with ethnicities, in order to show there is indeed evidence to show that white persons do indeed seem to have more access to power and wealth in American society, than non-white people, I will be happy to do so.

In the mean time, since it is just you and me, I was hoping you could provide similar evidence that establishes that Jewish Canadians are more marginalized than Italian Catholic Canadians.

That's your only comment about this thread topic? What roused you from your slumber, jack?

Long, and now off topic.