Israeli Apartheid Week: Here's Why

108 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2010-03-08 14:52

Ripple

At the risk of being "rabid and intolerant," it is not about someone disagreeing with me. It's someone censoring me - I'm not allowed to disagree with them. And, I think, it is part of a larger campaign to suppress free speech. The Canadian Parlimentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) would make such disagreements illegitimate, if not illegal.

I'm no political strategist, but couldn't the NDP have opposed/oppose such a motion on the grounds of free speech? "We aren't saying that we agree Israel is an apartheid state, but others are free to present that position." Especially at universities for goodness sake ...

I also see, in this thread and others, an effort to say that the general public is hostile to this discussion. Having leafletted for ten years on this issue (not Israel as an apartheid state specificallly), I can tell you that I have many more positive discussions than hostile these days.

And if the NDP is not going to take stands on these issues, what makes them different from the Liberals? Seriously?

Mon, 2010-03-08 15:24

#103

contrarianna

Ripple wrote:

At the risk of being "rabid and intolerant," it is not about someone disagreeing with me. It's someone censoring me - I'm not allowed to disagree with them....

Exactly right, Synthome's dishonesty in portraying the issue is clear.

Agreeing or disagreeing with the Israel=Apartheid claim is a source of (often heated) argument where information (for both sides)can be aired. It is precisely this exposure of information that is feared by the lobby.
The vote(s) in parliament are not about "disagreeing" they are essentially pledges of allegiance to Israel with the normalization of the smear: "criticism of Israel as apartheid is antisemitic"(the smear-laden wording of the Ontario motion available at least):

Quote:
That this House considers itself to be a friend of the State of Israel; that this House is concerned about expressions of anti-Semitism under the guise of "Israeli Apartheid Week"; and that this House explicitly condemns any action in Canada as well as internationally that would equate the State of Israel with the rejected and racist policy of apartheid.

Mon, 2010-03-08 15:37

#104

Michelle

Yes, Ripple, they definitely could have opposed it on the grounds of free speech - I agree with you.

Thanks for the link, Mycroft. A number of comments about it continue to survive in the thread, which is good. I added my own.

I just think it's such a pity. She's such an amazing activist in other ways, and yet, this one bizarre act of siding with Conservatives in labelling activists anti-semites and purveyors of "hate speech" has really hurt many of her supporters. And I count myself as one of those supporters. Her anti-poverty work is stellar.

For those who are claiming that people are "attacking" her - well, a lot of us were really upset when she came out in support of this motion, because it was a total attack on us. I know this isn't grade school, but the fact is, she attacked us first. And I think the reason the response is so passionate about it is because I think a lot of Palestinian rights activists feel not only unhappy at her political stance, but also personally betrayed.

It IS personal when someone you trust and support sides with Conservatives who call you anti-semites and accuse you of hate speech. It doesn't get much more personal than that. This is why I think you're seeing such an outpouring of hurt and anger over this.

It was the same when Bev Desjarlais voted against marriage equality for gays. She basically sided with churches against their victims, and that was deeply personal to a great many people. Which is why they (and their friends and allies) were so angry, despite Desjarlais' support for other progressive causes. Because it's personal. It's an attack on people when you do stuff like that. It's not "just politics" or "just business". The personal is the political, especially when it comes to direct frontal attacks and smears like the one she supported against activists.

Mon, 2010-03-08 15:45

#105

Gus Williams

I think we need some perspective here. Remember it was the Conservatives and Libs who supported Shurman's resolution and despite present attempts by Andrea to distance hersself from the vote, she clearfly had to known about the resolution. You can try to convince yourselfe all you want to the contrary but you would be fooling yourself and you know it.

So if your are going to go after Cheri you have to go after Andrea as well. And at least with Cheri she has been honest and upfront. Can't say that about the leader or Rosario. The whole thing stinks!!

Mon, 2010-03-08 15:47

#106

Michelle

Oh, are you the good cop today? :D

Mon, 2010-03-08 15:50

#107

Unionist

You know Gus, in the unlikely event that (for example) you came out today and said: "On reflection, I'm not happy about Israel's daily crimes against the Palestinian people" - I might even forgive you.

So why shouldn't we give Andrea Horwath a little bit of encouragement when she shows some conscience and says some decent things? We're supposed to say, "Ahh, too little too late, you hypocrite!?"

When you're fighting for a just cause, you have to be able to distinguish between potential allies and not. You have to be able to distinguish between Andrea and Gus.

Mon, 2010-03-08 17:50

#108

Maysie

Long thread.

Pages

Topic locked