As we come to the end of what has been deemed "Israeli Apartheid Week" in Canadian and American Post-Secondary Institutions, I feel the urge to comment on the last week's banter back and forth about the ideas behind the organization.
I want to start by sending a very simple request to Bernie Farber and the other members of the Executive Board of the Canadian Jewish Congress: Grow up. For the last three months, each and every one, without fail, has demonstrated some of the most pathetic scare-tactics I have ever seen. Every single time a peep about Israel was mentioned by anyone, be it Mr. Ryan of the CUPE, Dr. Norman Finkelstein (whom I actually heard at a lecture in Calgary a month and a bit ago), Noam Chomsky, the Canadian Arab Federation, or the Palestinian-Canadian Students Society, Farber and Co. immediately began the press campaign of screaming out "antisemitism! antisemitism! Any criticism of Israel turns you into a racist bigot who wants the holocaust to restart!" and various other statements to that effect. Where are we living? Germany in the 30's?
Believe it or not, there are some people in the world, and when I say some I mean 95% of the nations in the UN General Assembly, who do not support Israel's actions towards Gaza and the West Bank. Believe it or not, this disagreement does not make us inherently antisemitic. Yes, there is some antisemitism within the movement against Israeli colonialism. But, anyone who notes this also has to realize that the same is true of the neozionist side of the debate. Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the ultranationalist "Yisrael Beiteinu", has called for the execution or deportation of Arab MKs within Israel's government. His supporters at massive rallies have frequently chanted "Death to the Arabs!" as they awaited his arrival. If that isn't racism, then kindly tell me what is.
So long as scare-tactics and fear-mongering are permitted to be used by the fascist-controlled press within Canada, the United States and Britain, there will never be a shred of honest public debate concerning the Israel-Palestine debacle. On one side, you have those in Egypt and North Africa calling for "Jews [to go] back in the ovens" - that's horrific, and I'll be the first to concede that. On the other end of things, you have those calling for the Palestinian populations to be pushed out of Greater Israel in their entirety, or (to again refer to Lieberman) that Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons should be "thrown into the Dead Sea". This sort of polarizing opinion on its own gets us virtually nowhere; and in the background, you have radically pro-Israel organizations screaming "antisemitism!" to the point where there can be no open and honest debate, because you're either a raving anti-Semite or the supporter of a colonial regime.
Throughout the entire debate, there's this whole misconception that antizionism is automatically antisemitism. They are not. True, they have converged on several occasions, but then again - so have capitalism and fascism and totalitarianism, and yet no one would suggest that all capitalist societies are totalitarian by their very nature. To disprove this incredibly absurd theory, I point to three of the harshest critics of Israel. The first of these - and also my favourite political author - is Noam Chomsky. In 1947, his views were considered Zionist. He supported a secular socialist binational Israeli-Palestinian state. Today, he is one of the harshest critics of neozionism to walk the earth. The second of these is Dr. Norman Finkelstein. Both of his parents survived the Holocaust (his entire extended family was annihilated 12 years before his birth), and yet he is perhaps even harsher than Chomsky in his criticism of Israel's government policies towards Palestine - and in particular the Settlement Blocks in the West Bank. The third of these is the Orthodox Jewish communities, the group that ultimately disproves the absurd claims that any and all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. The most Orthodox among Judaism criticize Israel's policies continuously. Are they antisemitic? NO THEY'RE NOT!
Until Farber and Co. realize that the world of Israel/Palestine is not black and white; until they realize that Israel has made a continual series of colossal screwups since it rejected the 1971 Peace Accords that have led it only closer to colonialism and apartheid; until they realize that peace doesn't come by polarizing the debate; and until they realize that open and honest discussion gets the region far closer to peace than the irrational screamfest we're subjected to every time the issue comes up, I cannot help but express my support for Israel's courageous critics, those who stand up to Alan Dershowitz and Lieberman and Farber, and expose them for what they are: Fools who only lead us ever further away from Peace in the Near East.
Ebook , by Autumn Reed
6 years ago
6 comments:
1. Israel Apartheid Week is a massive bucket of lies, distortions of truth, and falsehoods. If Israel is a "racist" or "apartheid" state, why are Arabs allowed to vote in Israel? Why do Israeli Arabs get many, if not most, of the same rights as Jews? Why has the Israeli Supreme Court repeatedly allowed Arab parties that called for Israel's disestablishment to run in Israeli elections? It's truly amazing that the Left can fawn like sheep around anything that says "Israel BAAAAAAAAD!!!!!" while ignoring many of the Arab states that would fit the definition of racist or apartheid far better. If any one is racist in this case, it's most likely the IAW activists themselves, like in Toronto, when Jewish students trying to speak out were attacked and shouted down by IAW activists, many saying "Die Jew…get the hell of campus" and "Die bitch…go back to Israel."
2. If you actually read anything other than Chomsky or Fisk, you'd know that first, Lieberman hardly fits in the Israeli idea of hard-right (since he's a militant secularist and supports the creation of a Palestinian state), second, that he wants every Israeli citizen to take a oath of loyalty to Israel (including Jews), thirdly, that his response to the Arab MKs (while admittedly extreme) was because some of them called for the destruction of Israel and endorsed suicide bombings within Israel, and fourthly, that he is willing to give Arab-populated areas of Israel pre-1967 to the Palestinian Authority (which the Arabs in Israel don't want, leading to the sidethought that if they want to stay, maybe Israel isn't so racist after all.)
3. Just on a sidenote, do you actually know why Western universities are centers of anti-Israelism? Mainly, it's because many, if not most, of the first courses in those universities regarding the area (the Middle East, Israel-Palestine, etc.) were established by grants and funds that were supplied by Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states.
4. Orthodox Jews are harsh critics of Israel because they actually endorse and want Israel to ethnically cleanse the Arabs and Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza, since they see all of Palestine as "their" land.
5. Up until about 2001, nearly every single Arab state rejected every single peace accord for the simple reason that it allowed Israel to exist. Israel, in many cases, was more than willing to make peace with them. Maybe we would have peace right now in Palestine if the Arabs could get over the simple fact that Israel should be allowed to exist, as a Jewish and democratic state. Until that time, there never will be any sort of lasting peace.
5. Speaking of which, I'll end on this note. Actual anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, since it explicitly calls for denying the Jews a right to their own homeland. Legitimate criticism of Israel isn't, I know. But anti-Zionism is.
1: Yet only Israeli Jews are permitted to live in settlement blocks, they've built a security fence around Gaza and are building one around major settlements in the West Bank. How is that not discriminatory?
2: Yet Lieberman's supporters are everyone's definition of extreme. You'd know that if you debated anymore, it was the subject of two rounds at today's regionals.
3: It's because Western Universities make people think. It's because academics see through many of the lies of our corporate controlled media, not because the ultra corrupt Saudi regime supports a few of them.
4: You need to do more reading. They're actually critics because they feel that Israel's policies directly contradict Torah teachings. I've met several of them, I know you're wrong.
5: Ah..no it isn't. It can be, but it isn't always. Going back to Chomsky (who, if you read no one else's books in the world - is the author worth reading) in 1947 he was considered a zionist because he supported a binational secularist state. Today, he's considered anti-zionist, because zionism isn't what it once was. Modern zionism - neozionism - is centred around the idea of an exclusively Jewish state in ALL of the West Bank and Gaza, and even the Negev Desert and parts of Syria, the idea of an exclusive ethnic state of Jewish ultranationalism. Even then, exclusive zionism built on a firmly Jewish state is 1400 YEARS OUT OF DATE, since the day Mohamed directed his followers to turn their eyes to Jerusalem. Since that day, it's been out of date.
1. You're right about the settlements, I'll admit. They need to go if there is to be any hope of peace. But those fences are there so that Palestinian suicide bombers can't get into Israel, pure and simple. And by the way, Israel denies Jews the right to pray on the Temple Mount if they wish, while it freely allows Muslims to do so.
2. Cameron, it's on record that Saudi Arabia and other Arab/Muslim states have provided millions of dollars in gifts and grants to American universities to spread their distorted view of the Middle East. They've spend upwards of $50 billion to spread Wahabbism around the world; I don't think it would be a stretch to see them doing it with Western universities. If you want to read some actual research on the subject, here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7634EF94-18DC-471C-A93F-6D0C0E15F610, for starters.
3. Four people does not a group make, Cameron. It's the Orthodox Jews in Israel who are making the settlements, and it's them who condemn the Israeli government for daring to give up an inch of their "God-given land." You're probably confusing Hasidic Judaism, the most extreme form of Orthodox Judaism, with Orthodox Judaism itself. Because, I can assure you, a good many Orthodox Jews are Zionists.
Just a quick question about one of your comments, Cam.
Why is it that as soon as Islamic fundamentalism and/or extremism (since there seems to be no moderate Islam anywhere) enters the picture, it's their world view that predominates? You note that neozionism is 1400 years out of date, from the time that Mohamed called for the uma to turn their eyes to Jerusalem. Why do they get first dibs?
By the way, some of Chomsky's statements on Israel and Palestine are--uh, well, not exactly the product of a great mind any more. The video Imperial Grand Strategy has him saying some very thought-provoking things but he also lets some very specious logic slip through. I'll have to go back to it to pick out some of the zingers, but he's made a few in his time.
Good chat again...
And how'd you do at debate regionals?
10th overall with crap judging in round 1; if we'd won round 1, we would have been ranked 4th overall.
And as for the Islamic comment, by no means am I giving legitimization to Islamic fundamentalism. What I'm simply trying to point out is that neozionism is out of date. I don't base my political beliefs on what people thought in the 17th century, let alone the 5th BC. I'm not saying Islam gets first dibs, but if you really want to go even farther back, then technically the Caananites get first dibs, and before them the Hittites get first dibs, and before them to Sumerians, you get the picture. I'm not saying either has first dibs, but acting on either side as though the other side has no dibs doesn't get the debate anywhere, and I see that happening more and more from the Jewish side of things than I used to. Yes, there is extremism in the Islamic World with regards to Israel, yet for the Judaic world to stoop to that level and throw the same arguments right back only acts as gasoline on a fire.
Post a Comment