Canada-Israel Committee counters criticism of Israel with homophobic tweet

Just to complete the picture, [url=http://www.theprovince.com/Editorial+Davies+goofy+views+must+denounced/3... is the editorial[/url], entitled "Davies' goofy views must be denounced", - and I think I need to break our usual rule of not linking to obscenity and hate, otherwise one can't really understand this story:

Quote:

One wonders if Vancouver East MP Libby Davies has ever imagined what her life would be like if she lived in the Gaza Strip, or in nearly any other Muslim territory.

As an extremely left-wing, outspoken, lesbian woman, there's a very good chance that if she hadn't been murdered already for everything she represents — either by the state or possibly her family — she'd long ago have been buried away in some dark cell, out of sight and mind, to prevent her ideas or example from spreading to others.

So, the CIC will no doubt defend themselves (if anyone challenges them - but no one will, especially not Libby's leader) by saying they were merely describing the editorial, not their own view of Libby. But as I said, no one except a few insignificant people like Rick Telfer and other oddballs, like us, would step forward on just a jokey harmless little jab like this, right?

But seriously - shouldn't Jack Layton hold a press conference to defend his Deputy Leader against being called a "mouthy lesbian", and demand that the CIC identify and take action against whoever posted that - besides the NDP taking its own action?

I read that editorial earlier today. It seemed to me to be just short of an outright warning, to Libby, to lesbians and gays, to women, to the left generally -- be grateful we haven't put you in jail. Yet.

Maybe the mindlessly conventional don't realize how close to fascism they come with that argument, but really, a fair translation of what they're saying to us would be something like, "Look here, you weirdos: we tolerate your sort in Canada. So STFU. Or ..." Or forking what?

But you know, skdadl, queer Davenport Liberal Mario Silva made the very same argument in his year-ender with the Capital Xtra Politics Blog "Hill Queeries":

Quote:

Q: Have you weighed in on the Pride Toronto debate?
A: I think the Pride committee is doing the right thing by saying no to the hate mongering of the Queers for Israeli Apartheid. It's a total distortion of reality - Israel is the only country in the Middle East that gives protection to gays and lesbians, so I find that it's just absurd, it's wrong, it's falsehoods, and it has nothing to do with advocating and a celebration of Pride, which all of us want to be doing. This is going to be a great event in Toronto, and I look forward to participating again this year, and we should all be proud of our community and the efforts that have gone, but we shouldn't allow for a small minority group within the community or people who want to associate themselves with the community to hijack what has been now, traditionally a fantastic Pride Day event.

Q: And you're not concerned about the censorship complaints?
A: I'm not concerned about that at all. I think what they're doing is spreading falsehoods in the first place, so there's no merit to their statements, and I certainly can't support that. I think the Pride Committee is absolutely right and in compliance with the city's guidelines, and I'm very much support of the actions taken by the Pride Committee, and the City of Toronto has taken some real initiative, both from the Mayor and even the people who are running for mayor, have all shown solidarity around this issue. So I think this is a minority group within the community, who may not be members of the community but want to affiliate themselves with the community, and hijack an event that is overall one of the most successful events in the city of Toronto.

Now, I'm pretty sure the journalist mis-transcribed the answer, because it's Queers *against* IA, but apart from that ...

Unionist, I'm sure he's picking his moment, and looking forward to it.

And Bob Rae has associated himself with these people....

Rae demanded her job.

My feeling on 'Muc'lair and his actions in this respect have already been declared

Michelle: thank you for posting the Facebook page comments, I find them particularly interesting (as well as confirmation of my decision to have nothing to do with Facebook). Ilona Jonnele's are of particular interest to me. They are the clearest indication that those coordinating the Facebook attack should spend a little more time training their minions to stay on message, and doing a wee bit of education that this great big interweb thingy actually connects to places outside of the USofA - at least they could have created a sample message that wasn't quite so easily identifiable as to where it originated.

No forking problem.

Doug... are you really sure you want to be saying Jerusalem is part of Israel?

Depends on which part of it.  I think even Palestinians are ok with WEST Jerusalem being part of Israel.  As far as I know.

skdadl wrote:

The listing of the offences to the amendments is amusing, is it not? (Much though I honour the USian Bill of Rights as a classic expression of basic principles and structures.) Some people are just so talking-pointy when they write, eh? Such a giveaway.

I wish to apologize for my outburst above. I don't usually burst out, and I was wrong to do that. Sorry, and hugs to all.

Not to mention that most Christian sects in the USA also violate those same ammendments ... but the constitution  includes religious freedom, so the fundamentalist Christians, like the Muslims, and that poster, are free to be repugnant iceholes.

skdadl wrote:

I wish to apologize for my outburst above. I don't usually burst out, and I was wrong to do that. Sorry, and hugs to all.

Hugs and forgiveness. Anyway, if June is busting out all over, why not skdadl?

Ken Burch wrote:

Cueball wrote:

?

Isn't the position that East Jerusalem would be the capital of a Palestinian state?

I wasn't aware that they now wanted all of Jerusalem.  If that is the case I stand corrected.

When you say "they now wanted all of Jerusalem", I hope you have noticed that it is the Israeli aggressors that have continuously brayed the mantra of "the indivisible capital of Israel" - a "capital" that no serious country in the entire world recognizes.

Yes, you stand corrected.

Oh really, Stockholm? You think the U.N. has jurisdiction over sovereign peoples and states? All I said was that the claim by the Israeli racists and war criminals to any part of Jerusalem enjoys [b]NO[/b] support anywhere in this world. The people of the region will decide what to do with Al-Quds - not you, not the U.N., not I.

Ken Burch, if you're still watching, here is the official position of the Palestinian National Authority on Jerusalem:

Quote:

The Palestinian position on Jerusalem is straightforward:

1. As part of the territory occupied in 1967, East Jerusalem is subject to United Nations Security Council 242. It is part of the territory over which the Palestinian state shall exercise sovereignty upon its establishment. The state of Palestine shall declare Jerusalem as its capital.
2. As stated in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, Jerusalem (and not merely East Jerusalem) is the subject of permanent status negotiations.
3. All of Jerusalem should be an open city. Within Jerusalem, irrespective of the resolution of the question of sovereignty, there should be no physical partition that would prevent the free circulation of persons within it.
4. As to sites of religious significance, most of which are located within the Old City in East Jerusalem, Palestine shall be committed to guaranteeing freedom of worship and access. It will take all possible measures to protect such sites and preserve their dignity.

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20060212195415/http://www.minfo.gov.ps/permen...

The people who live in Jerusalem have "jurisdiction" over it. Right now there are something like half a million Israelis there - what do you recommend - deporting them all to Poland??

The Palestinians don't ven want west Jerusalem. How can you create an Islamic state under Sharia law if you have over 50% of the population who are non-Muslims?

"Palestine shall be committed to guaranteeing freedom of worship and access"

That's nice to hear - I wonder what happened to that sentiment during the 1948 to 1967 when the Palestinians controlled Old Jerusalem and went out of their way to desecrate Jewish religious locations even using Jewish gravestones to build roads for people to walk on. I;d like to believe that they have a more charitable attitude towards other religions now. Please provide some evidence that is the case.

Sorry, but I just have to post this whenever I read about the Israeli/Palestine situation -

John Lennon:

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Cueball wrote:

If I remember correctly Hamas ran and won in East Jerusalem council races with female Christian candidates.

Ken Burch wrote:

Cueball wrote:

?

Isn't the position that East Jerusalem would be the capital of a Palestinian state?

I wasn't aware that they now wanted all of Jerusalem.  If that is the case I stand corrected.

This is indeed the danger of the "forget" everything prior to 67 position you are defending. Somehow you end up saying that the Palestinians "now wanted all of Jerusalem" as if this is some new "extra" demand, when in fact the present Palestinian position of accepting only East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state is a major concession on their part.

Sometime in the future, after you have stuffed everything that has happened between 1967 and the present because of some alleged "international consensus" you will be going on about how you are surprised that the Palestinians "now want all of Hebron" as the capital of the Palestinian state.

Greedy fucks, those Palestinians, always wanting what we are taking from them.

Why would you think I would EVER "stuff everything that has happened between 1967 and now"?  I've never absolved the Israelis of anything or in any condoned the Occupation or the Siege.  You're being very hostile in this and you're making assumptions about where I come down on the issues that are completely unfounded.

I abhor everything the Israelis have done to Palestinians since 1967.  I realize that it's a major concesson on the Palestinians' part to even consider accepting the continuation of  Israel in any form at all.  I just thought that what they always had said was they wanted East Jerusalem, that West Jerusalem(which was always, as far as I knew predominately Jewish)was not so much a concern.  As I said, if I was wrong about that, I stand corrected.  Please stop acting as if I suddenly turned into Bernie Farber or Hillary Clinton.

Hamas has made some noises about recognizing the 1949 armistice line as a basis for peace - and the 1949 armistice line puts west Jerusalem in Israel and east Jerusalem in Jordan (to be grandfathered to Palestine).

BTW: I'm surprised that Harper in his efforts to be more pro-Israel than Avigdor Lieberman hasn't yet resurrected Joe Clarks promise to move to the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? What's he waiting for??

Cueball wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

The charter of Hamas calls for the creation of an "islamic state" in Palestine. I would like to know how exactly you go about creating an Islamic state if the majority of the population is not Muslim and wants no part of that? (Not to mention that many Muslims want no part of an Islamic state) How? I'd like to know. What's the secret recipe?

Yes, well the Israeli declaration of independence calls for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. You don't seem to find that so appauling.

I find it "appalling" if it has to be a Jewish state in the entire old mandate of Palestine (ie: everything between the Med. and the Jordan river) with no rights for non-Jews - (i.e. if Israel annexed all the occupied territories and forced all 2 million Palestinians to convert to Judaism and/or live under Jewish religious law).

Ken Burch wrote:

Why would you think I would EVER "stuff everything that has happened between 1967 and now"?  I've never absolved the Israelis of anything or in any condoned the Occupation or the Siege.  You're being very hostile in this and you're making assumptions about where I come down on the issues that are completely unfounded.

I don't know why. You seem perfectly happy to flush everything prior to 1967 down the memory hole, why not also everything from then until 2010?

You proclaim your surprise at the idea that Palestinians might now demand all of Jerusalem as the proper capital for their state, as if this was some kind of extra new agressive territorial demand, as opposed to recognizing that agreeing only to having East Jerusalem as the capital is a major concession on their part.

The people who are now demanding more, are not the Palestinians, but the Isrealis, who are now demanding all of Jerusalem as part of their territory. Indeed as we speak they are affecting this land transfer through an agressive policy of disallowing Palestinian development, ongoing evictions of Palestinian families, and giving out permits to Jews seeking to build in East Jerusalem.

Unionist wrote:

Anyway, all this stuff about Jerusalem is thread drift, and I'm sorry I participated in it. It would make a very interesting thread. The issue here is the Canada Israel Committee and its homophobic attack on Libby Davies. Should Jack Layton condemn it - or say nothing?

I'd actually like to see a gay rights organization like Egale take the lead in demanding an apology from the Canada-Israel Committee.

Stargazer wrote:

Oh Stock, me thinks you are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room.

I do try to ignore Unionist as much as possible - though I wouldn;t be so hard on him as to call him an elephant.