Ignatieff condemns fellow citizens, defends foreign government

Actually, this is encouraging. To know that the young people of Canada know the truth, and are not afraid to speak the truth, should make us happy. As for that oligarch Ignatieff--if he bends any lower for israel he may hit his nose on the ground. He is bowing in the same manner as Harper et al. Not one of them defends Canada with the same gusto. Which just proves who really owns Canada--and it is not Canadians. Our politicians have been bought and paid for. Thank God the next generation has more knowledge of the reality of the situation that our governments of all levels seem to ignore, or even worse, support. Which makes us all complicit in genocide. Why do we stand silent? We should be supporting the students who have this courage. courage is something that is sadly lacking in our country.

And now on May 15 in Israel it will literally be a thought crime to show any signs of sorrow. Put on a big smile or face legal sanctions.

I was going to blog on this but you've said it all.

Incidentally, cold comfort perhaps but at least the Israeli legislation has (apparently) been amended:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3853265,00.html

Israeli Apartheid Week is a deliberate attempt to portray the Jewish state as criminal.

That much is true. It's because Israel is criminal. How many violations of international law and UN resolutions are we up to now?

The activities planned for the week will single out Jewish and Israeli students. They will be made to feel ostracized and even physically threatened...

That may well be slanderous. The most recent claim that Jewish students at York were threatened and assaulted turned out to be completely bogus.

It's just friggin' depressing to look forward to the day when Harper is no longer Prime Minister and figure that his likely successor is this walking insult to democracy.

I like that sleazy conflation "Jewish and Israeli students," too. "Israeli students?"

It is beyond cynical. I'm thinking Velshi leaked news of Uppal's proposed motion to condemn IAW in the HoC 3 days ago so that Iggy would be suckered into rushing a more extreme statement out first. It's a wedge. Your move, Jack.

Let me get this straight: you can criticize Israeli policy but not the government of Israeli for approving said policy?

Hmmm... maybe Israeli Apartheid Week should be renamed Palestinian Ghettoization Week. Or Israeli Human Rights Abuse Week. Or Palestinian Freedom Week.

Equating criticism of the Israeli State to anti-Semitism almost makes me vomit. Ignatieff does know that there are Christian and Muslim Israeli's right? He does know that being "Semitic" does not necessarily mean being Jewish, right?

Equating Israeli Apartheid Week to anti-Semitism demeans all those who suffered from real anti-Semetism under the Nazi Regime. It ignores their suffering and normalizes the tragedy of the Holocaust.

Shame Ignatieff, shame!

All they accomplish by lumping in those who oppose Israels policies towards the Palistinians (both Muslim and Christian) on ethical and moral grounds with the real anti semites is to give cover to those who oppose Israel solely because of hatred and bigotry.

As this debate continues, I have to say I think this is a disaster for all concerned. What I think Iggy should have done is requested the right to speak at an IAW event where he could have made the case that he thinks IAW isn't an apartheid state. Or, he could have asked the Israeli ambassador to come with him for him/her to defend Israel's position.

I agree that Canadians do and should have the right to freedom of expression and conscience and I see no evidence of hate speech or threats to the physical safety of Canadian students who oppose IAW. There is a case to be made against Israel and there is a case to be made for Israel-shutting down that debate is a bad thing and shutting it down on the grounds of anti-Semitism really is unacceptable absent compelling evidence that there is anti-Semitism there.

Having said that, you do hear many Jewish students who feel an affiliation to Israel say that while they don't want IAW to be banned, they really find that week difficult because they feel like they are under suspicion for being right wing settlers. Given that IAW takes place on publicly funded university campuses, it would be appropriate for administrators to ensure that everyone is welcome and that opposing views are handled in a way you'd expect in an academic setting. I have no idea what the atmosphere really is like and while I intended to check it out this year, given what our politicians have now done I can't imagine the atmosphere is going to be a good one.

You also hear a lot of men announce that they "feel" they are "under suspicion" whenever women campaign against domestic violence or march to Take Back the Night or remember the dead and wounded of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre.

For some people, it's always about them. That's called privilege, and if the people who have it can't recognize it in themselves, they deserve nothing but our scorn and ridicule.

I think that Ignatieff's statement is quite reasonable. Obviously it has nothing to do with McCarthyism, since that involved penal consequences for those summoned to testify about their alleged Communist affiliations.

The Israeli apartheid campaign is deeply dishonest, since its central pretence is that Hamas/Hezbollah, organizations racist at their core, are somehow analogous to the ANC, which promised a South Africa for all peoples, including whites.

By contrast, Hamas and Hezbollah claim that "Zionists" caused World War II to profit from millions of deaths, and basically control the world.

"They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it."

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html

So, this is Nazi rhetoric, right? And what, again, is the reason that the "Israel-apartheid" group can't see the difference between this and the ANC? No wonder no one listens to these nostrums.

So when Muslim Canadians "felt" uncomfortable with the Danish cartoons and the same elites censored publication of the cartoons here, I take it you had a similar reaction?

Surely you are not the Jeff House? Progressive Toronto lawyer? I'd appreciate some reassurance on this point.

Obviously it has nothing to do with McCarthyism, since that involved penal consequences for those summoned to testify about their alleged Communist affiliations.

So true, Jeffry. We haven't yet got to the penal consequences. And that is kind of the point, eh?

One thing I can never understand about the apologists (for any kind of tyranny): they seem to be saying that those of us who see the signs approaching must keep our mouths shut until things really get drastic, get just as bad as the worst genocides known to history.

Screw that. I see it coming; I speak up. Let's stop it in its tracks.

Jeff House - You cannot claim Israeli actions are not similiar to South African Apartied just because Hamas and the ANC are radically different political entities. that would be similiar to claiming Team Slovakia and Team USA must be the same because they both played against Team Canada in the Olympics just passed. Bogus.

Although I beleive that Israeli policies are analagous to apartied, and I am disapointed in Ignatieff's statement (yet agian) I think some here are exagerating his position (yet again). "Criticism of Israeli gov policies is legitimate" quite frankly puts acres of sunlight between him and Harper "An attack on Israel is an attack on Canada".
Ignatieff knows that IF he becomes the PM he will have to deal with the Israeli/Palestinian issue, and he seems to be trying to position himself and the Liberal party back to the neutral ground that Harper and the Cons were so quick to abandon.

Dr Dawg - There are more than a hundred Israelis attending University here in Canada.

Marky - Iggy can't go to IAW to give a speech saying why IA isn't real. It just doen't work that way. He can, and should've made his case in his press release. Missed oppertunity.

Dylan - nowhere does he say all criticsim of the Israeli government is anti-semetic. He said the opposite "Criticism of Israeli government policy is legitimate." The problem here is once a government recognizes a crime, then they have to do something, so if Iggy recognizes publicly that this is a crime, then he has to act, or he becomes a hypocrite to one side while remaining an enemy to the other. But the Israeli issue is so internationally sensitive, acting unilaterally could end up making things worse. (yes it can get worse). Pushing the two sides into taking slow baby steps towards peace cannot be accomplished by throwing down ultimatums or shouting apartied. Ironically, mass protests like this may be more helpful in pushing Israel than a PM making the same claims (good cop, bad cop). Israel is far more dependent on american support than it likes to admit, and mounting pressure on our pols here make it harder for Israels to ignore our pols when they push for changes. Quietly and slowly. and hope another f'n Bush doesn't show up to push things backwards for another 8 yrs.

"Legitimate" is a powerful word. It implies that one must have the legal right to say what is on one's mind. One must either be in a position of power in order to exercise legitimacy, or one must obtain legitimacy from the powerful.

Michael Ignatieff's words scare me. He wants to give me permission to speak about Israeli government policies. He won't give me permission to speak about many of its citizens who benefit from Israels policies--those same people who benefit from the abuse of a people who inhabit the same territory as the Israelis. He thinks he has the power to grant me permission to speak. However, he doesn't have the authority to grant me permission as I will speak freely without his permission.

I would rather be called "an anti-Semite" than not be called anything at all. It won't hurt me if I am called "anti-Semitic." My throat will hurt if I cannot speak freely.

My fellow Canadians,

Do criticize me if you do disagree with my thoughts about Israeli apartheid. Do not grant me legitimacy to speak about Israel or any other topic as I do not need your permission to speak freely. I beautifully fly and sing outside your cage of legitimacy.

nowhere does he say all criticsim of the Israeli government is anti-semetic. He said the opposite "Criticism of Israeli government policy is legitimate."

Yeah, they always say that. But you'll notice they never go on to make any "legitimate" criticisms themselves and they never specify what they mean. They leave us in the dark as to what we can say that won't be considered objectionable. That's no accident. The implication is: if you're not sure what speech is legitimate, don't say anything. The strategy is to use the accusation of anti-semitism to bully people into silence and in itself it's not new. The innovation here is having the government formally adopt it.

Well said, Skinny D.

Legitimate: past participle of legitimare, "to make legal."

Wouldn't it be nice if our politicians and lawyers paid attention to the language they use?

Yes, anyone with any kind of public power who starts labelling thought or expression "illegitimate" is making a threat, the threat that such thought or expression is about to be outlawed. Ignatieff does it; Harper and Kenney do it; Irwin Cotler does it; the whole of the CPCCA do it. It is clear from, eg, the submission of the CJC to the CPCCA hearings that they expect legislation to issue from that committee's work.

This is frightening and shameful, not to mention vulgar and tacky.

The very premise of Israeli Apartheid Week runs counter to our shared values of mutual respect and tolerance, regardless of nationality, race or creed.

It's the policies adopted by the Israeli government towards its citizens and in the Occupied Territories that run "counter to our shared values of mutual respect and tolerance, regardless of nationality, race or creed! Doesn't he realize that he has in effect condemn the Israeli policies himself?

Grammar correction: The longer I look at that, the more I think that "legitimate" (pronounce le-GI-ti-mate, as in "to legitimate") is actually the infinitive, the straight translation from the Latin. Dunno what my source was on about with the pp.

The inimitable Glenzilla takes this on today, too:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/02/israel/index.html

He's talking about a Richard Cohen op-ed in the WaPo that intentionally leaves out all mention of the Israeli Defense Minister talking about Israel as an apartheid state, but tell me it doesn't get a bit surreal for a Canadian to read this quote:

"That demonization campaign becomes impossible if Israel's own Defense Minister makes exactly the same point. So Cohen just shuts his eyes tightly and pretends the whole thing never happened. Beyond that, Barak's willingness to explicitly raise the comparison that is all but off-limits in American political discussion once again illustrates the bizarre fact that debates over Israeli policies are far more permissive and open in Israel than they are in the United States."

Anyone uncertain that Israel is and has every intention of remaining an apartheid state need only look into the perilous freshwater problems besetting the region. Israel is dependent on West Bank aquifers. It's why they refuse West Bank Palestinians permission (yes, they need Israeli permission) to expand their orchards, why West Bank Palestinians remain dependent on ancient wells, and why the only modern West Bank water systems serve Israeli 'settlements.' If you said this to an Israeli they would not be surprised. Israelis, particularly those of conscience, write about this all the time and in depressing detail. The bottom line is that Israel is not remotely interested in 'sharing' the Palestinians' water with them. What better way to drive them out of their homeland?

Oh yeah, - fuck Michael Ignatieff and the horses asses he rode in on.

Dr Dawg - There are more than a hundred Israelis attending University here in Canada.

Many thanks--that clears that up.

Btw: I couldn't resist, and posted this morning.

I've decided people should not be allowed to comment anymore unless they first have written the LSAT--are people saying that an Israel from the river to the sea would be "apartheid" (as Barak and Olmert are saying) or are they saying that Zionism/the existence of an Israel altogether, under any borders is "apartheid?" This is a crucial distinction that LSAT writers would understand...give more power to the lawyers!

I've decided people should not be allowed to comment anymore...

Next time I'm tempted to comment at your blog I'll remember that you've set that policy. Meanwhile, we're not at your blog.

The international crime of apartheid is not based on or limited to the South African model. It stands apart.

Apartheid is institutionalized discrimination and oppression of one racial/ethnic/national group by another.

Israel does not have to have the same laws and policies as South Africa to be an apartheid state.

It just has to practice institutionalized discrimination, which it does against the Palestinians, both in the occupied territories and in "Israel".

Not that it should matter (oh wait, it doesn't. Thanks pogge!) ... but since Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer, I'm pretty sure he's passed the LSAT anyway.

See what happens when I'm not "earnest?"

Who's Earnest?

"Two years ago, an American friend took me on a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Golan Heights over the Palestinian West Bank. He wanted to show me how vulnerable Israel was, how the Arabs only had to cross 11km of land to reach the sea and throw the Israelis into it. I got this message but I also came away with another one. When I looked down at the West Bank, at the settlements like Crusader forts occupying the high ground, at the Israeli security cordon along the Jordan river closing off the Palestinian lands from Jordan, I knew I was not looking down at a state or the beginnings of one, but at a Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control."-- Michael Ignatieff April 2002

Thanks skdadl for your reply. My Latin is a little rustae. My high school did offer Latin. I chose to take French instead.

Skinny D: lol. I have small Latin and no Greek, as the saying goes.

I loved the Latin I did -- it's satisfying in the way that doing math is, and it taught me tons about grammar. You can see the words peeping through the French and the structure peeping through the German.

But I cannot carry on a conversation in Latin. I understand that some can -- Jesuits, eg. It hurts my head to think of that; to me, it would be like talking in equations and calculus. But then I'm afeard of talking to my bank.

To wiegh in on "Legitimate", a legitimate crticism of Israel would be complaining about something they have done - the Wall, various land grabs, extra-judicial/territorial killings (assassinations) and the false use of the passports of other countries. An illegitimate criticism would be "Israelis drink the blood of muslim children." That would be slander/libel depending on the context, and also would be considered hate speech, and not protected free speech.

Marky Mark, if there's one thing we don't need, it's lawyers dominating the discussion.
If you wanted to allow only some elite to talk, people who have taken some philosophy courses might be a saner group to nominate. It would still be silly, but at least it would be a group trained to seek the truth rather than redefine it as desired.

Seems to me the hair-splitting about just what about Israel might hypothetically be sufficient to constitute apartheid is kind of silly. Israel isn't an ideology it is a state. Pretty much everyone complaining about it complains primarily about the state and its actions. Objecting that some might claim Zionism, an ideology, could on its own "be" apartheid seems rather incoherent, and irrelevant. Personally, I really don't like the ideology of Zionism--it seems basically to be all about exceptionalism and ignoring the rights of others--and I would tend to suspect that putting it into action pretty much requires either creating apartheid or conducting ethnic cleansing, or both. But Zionism can't in itself *be* apartheid, apartheid is an institution, not an abstraction--if there are no "facts on the ground", there is no apartheid. So what people might think about the ideology of Zionism is almost irrelevant to what they think about whether Israel is in fact practicing apartheid. I might theorize that a Zionist state can't really stop practicing apartheid and still truly remain a Zionist state, but such speculations are irrelevant until Israel tries to stop, and everyone's issues aren't with such hypotheses, they're with the actual situation.

Hey PLG. I was trying to be funny, but I suppose I also do think there is a gap in reasoning in interpreting the Barak and Olmert statements. Having said that, I can't really argue with how you put it other than to say that your comment applies to all forms of nationalism and not just to what Israel has done. Examples abound in the region but if the point is that Israel should behave as do the western liberal democracies, examples about there as well, albeit perhaps with a difference of degree. Look at our own country for example-if you move to Quebec, it is illegal to send your children to an English language school and if you set up a business in an English speaking area you nonetheless are regulated. Why? Because the French want to preserve their language and culture. There has been a debate as between collective rights and individual rights. I think simply calling Israel itself an "apartheid" state, which is akin to calling it a criminal state that has departed beyond what other nations do, is incorrect. And the people who do it tend not to be willing to debate it and are quite hostile and contemptuous of those who attempt to calmly disagree. Which is why I don't really see a distinction betweem those who throw around the Apartheid word without being willing to debate it and those who label people who do so as anti-Semitic.

Quebeckers have been dropping white phosphorus bombs on one another lately? Jailing children of anglo businesspersons whose signs don't conform to the law? Setting up concrete barriers to turn Westmount into a Bantustan?

Haven't you heard, skdadl? Quebec City is now closed off with access down to two guarded checkpoints. Food shipments into the city are strictly limited. No construction materials are allowed in at all so if your house burns down, you have to rebuild it out of mud.

Don't you keep up with current events?

Obviously not. But while there are some who complain about those real acts which may well be war crimes, there are some who toss around the A word at the existence of an ethnicity based state altogether. I think that's the opposition to IAW-people on the other side hear it as treating israel as the only state that can't exist for such purpose (i.e., as the "Jew among nations"). And there are many among the IAW activists who are too contemptuous of those who see things differently to use their "inside voices" and make an attempt at reason. As a result, they fall into the very clear trap set by Harper and allow a civil war to develop within the broad coalition of the Left.

(And of course Israel doesn't take those actions gratuitously, does it? It has had to deal with a foe that doesn't want it to be there, many of who view Jews in starkly anti-Semitic terms. Is this not true, such as among the Jews are "the sons of apes and pigs" crowd? Or are we not meant to notice.)

The activist Left, which had a big role to play in the creation of Israel as an example of "regulation" on a grand scale, also ignores what would happen if Israel were undone. There are those who say the Jewish Israelis should return to where they came from. Really? Poland? That didn't end so well, did it? Egypt? Iraq? They were more or less explelled from those countries. Russia? I don't think so. It might be nice to imagine Israel/Palestine like Canada, but this is as realistic as the Dubya vision of Iraq that the same activist IAW crowd thought was a howler.

there are some who toss around the A word at the existence of an ethnicity based state altogether

The word is apartheid. And your position seems to boil down to a claim that because some people use it incorrectly, no one should use it all. That's ridiculous.

And the Israelis built the wall solely because they wanted to keep out the inferior race, right? Or were there not quite a lot of attacks by Palestinian forces aimed at Israeli civilians which you folks normally would call war crimes? Normally you would say they were so egregious that you might want to form a BDS movement aimed at the states that sponsor, fund and abet those acts. But, hey, it's just Israel so they had it coming.

And the Israelis built the wall

If the wall was on their own borders instead of cutting through the West Bank and in some cases literally separating a Palestinian's house from his fields and orchards, I wouldn't have an argument with it.

The word is apartheid. And your position seems to boil down to a claim that because some people use it incorrectly, no one should use it all. That's ridiculous.

Truly fascinating: 1. because it's not quite my position; and 2. because I hear you as having attacked CPCCA on precisely those grounds you're now saying are ridiculous-namely, that because some misuse the term "anti-Semitism" to silence dissent in the case of Israel, that others can't use it when they have a narrower and honest good faith belief that it is present.

My bottom line is that I think there is a case for the existence of Israel to be made on liberal progressive grounds and I hate to see the "baby thrown out with the bath water." Israel should be criticized (and is criticized) often, in the same way that all states are criticized when they do equivalent things, but I don't know why it constantly has to fend off the argument that its existence as an ethnicity based nation state is somehow a wrong. I also worry, as I said, that Israel is becoming THE issue that defines "the Left," reminiscent of the anti-Vietnam War era, and I just think this is both more nuanced and a recipe for the complete fracture of the historical coalition. I also don't see it actually succeeding at achieving the objective articulated by many in the BDS/IAW movement, so it could well be a lot of damage for nothing.

I hear you as having attacked CPCCA on precisely those grounds

Quote and link please. I've never written about the CPCCA. I'm waiting for their final report and, just as important, the disclosure they've promised concerning their funding. I may have a lot to say at that point but I've held my fire so far.

My comments about legislators refer to the Ontario legislature, Michael Ignatieff, Irwin Cotler (see the National Post archives), Stephen Harper who has stated quite clearly that he regards criticism of Israel as anti-semitism, Jason Kenney and other noteworthy Conservatives.

And I've certainly never claimed to believe that hatred expressed towards Jews -- or prejudicial acts committed against Jews -- simply because they're Jews shouldn't be called anti-semitism. Of course it should and I challenge you to find an example where I've said otherwise. Seriously. Cough it up.

(Why does the friggin' spell checker in Firefox not know how to spell anti-semitism?)

I've seen you spend a lot of time here and in other venues (like Dawg's) making references to the opinions of some segment of the BDS movement without ever naming names, supplying sources or citing links. I don't even know who you're talking about so I can hardly be expected to defend their positions.

Edited to add: That's not an invitation for you to supply a link to some fringe player I've never heard of so I can waste more time defending things I've never said. If you think [insert name here] is wrong, go talk to [insert name here]. If he doesn't take comments, you can always write an open letter to him at your own blog.

And I've certainly never claimed to believe that hatred expressed towards Jews -- or prejudicial acts committed against Jews -- simply because they're Jews shouldn't be called anti-Semitism. Of course it should and I challenge you to find an example where I've said otherwise. Seriously. Cough it up.

Will deal with the rest later, but what I was trying to say is that there are those who would characterize anti-Zionism (or the one state thesis) as anti-Semitism. CPCCA generally has been attacked as having an agenda to criminalize criticism of Israel as prohibited anti-Semitism, which would be going even further. But much of the work of CPCCA has been about looking at the extent of the "old" anti-Semitism and so far there is no evidence they want to criminalize anything, despite what a segment of the submissions may have advocated.

My take is that CPCCA tends to be attacked for its presumed extreme position even when that wouldn't apply to many if not most of the MP's who are part of that coalition. It's the same as saying all IAW sponsors and participants are anti-Zionists. (And some are, and I did provide some examples at Dawg's with a link.) I thought you'd written on CPCCA, but perhaps it was one of your co-bloggers here or I was wrong altogether. In either case I apologize for being inaccurate.

Meanwhile I wanted to return to this:

I also worry, as I said, that Israel is becoming THE issue that defines "the Left,"...

In the last year I believe I've written more about Afghanistan than about Israel and I'm not including the controversy surrounding the handling of Afghan detainees. If you include that, it isn't even close. I've also written extensively on civil liberties in the context of the so-call War on Terror™ and on the specific cases in which our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been complicit in the detainment and abuse of Canadians. Skdadl often writes about civil liberties with a greater focus on events south of the border. I also have a particular interest in corporate influence on public policy and I do a certain amount of what passes for media criticism.

I could go on. You're the one who has only popped up when the subject is Israel.

I have written a bit here about the CPCCA, quite a bit more in private, and I will write again to explain my position on principle.

In short, though, I consider it an abomination in the sight of democracy, long before we get to any discussion of anti-semitism. It is wrong, absolutely wrong, for "parliamentarians" to be passing judgement on something they are pleased to call "our shared Canadian values," certainly to be prescribing any such values.

The Charter is not a codification of anything as mushy-minded, Americanized, or Disneyfied as "shared values." It is a codification of the underlying principles and structures necessary and sufficient to building and maintaining a democracy. It is the law, here as in every other democracy creeping towards being worthy of the name.

What the Charter then goes on to do is to protect DIFFERENCES among values, not sentimentalized "sharing." I'm sure that Scott Reid and Irwin Cotler and Jason Kenney have a great many "values" that I do not share, and the Charter says I don't have to -- and they can't make me.

Well -- since they control the police and the army, they probably could. But I go down fighting. I really hate mushy-mindedness.

In short, though, I consider it an abomination in the sight of democracy, long before we get to any discussion of anti-semitism.

Yes, I agree with that. I agree completely with the idea that we don't elect MPs to lecture us about our values. We elect them to represent us and that means representing and defending our diversity of values, not picking and choosing which ones are "legitimate."

Gee, I don't think I've ever had so many comments, and I hardly had to work at that post at all.

Sometimes I write things here that are very hard to write and take a lot of time and work. And nobody ever says much.

But occasionally, I slap up a post either in anger or in simple joy, and the commenters flood in. Dunno what causes that. So far, the short list seems to be: memorials for my cats or my dad or my husband; tigers; gibbons; gibbons making fun of tigers; pandas; serial killers in East Anglia; Russian assassins in London; and Israel.

Funny how that works.

Sometimes I write things here that are very hard to write and take a lot of time and work. And nobody ever says much.

You may remember how many posts I wrote about Maher Arar and the subsequent inquiry, and how much detail I went into on some of it. A lot of those posts got very few comments or none at all and I wondered from time to time if the interest was really that low. When the inquiry was over, after the final report came down, I received emails from two different people who had never turned up in comments thanking me for staying with it and covering it so thoroughly. If two people were motivated enough to email, I'm guessing there were more "lurkers" who felt the same way. Don't assume that a lack of comments is necessarily a lack of interest.

I remember indeed, pogge. I also remember a conversation you had -- mainly with Alison, I think -- about what can happen to you when you get that deep into the weeds of a story as important as Arar's.

Something similar has happened to me with all the torture files, although I keep plodding along with the reading, if not the writing. You should know that Arar's story is one of the few that actually has registered with Merkin activists, and there is no way someone as well informed as you are should let it go.

I do hope that my previous comment will not discourage anyone from commenting the next time I post about gibbons making fun of tigers. Or my dad. Or my husband. Or teh kittehs.

Just thought I'd throw my two cents in to tell you folks that, while I don't comment often, I consider this site one of my main sources of in-depth political news and I visit here darn near every weekday. I've learned a lot from you guys, and you've made me look really smart and well-informed in front of my friends and family. :)

Please keep it up, and I promise I'll try to comment more, even if it is just a quick "Thanks for writing!" to let you know someone was appreciating your time and effort.

Cool!

To which I say: "Amen"! Here's to us lurkers, at least we're not trolls!
(You'll never even know I've been here 'cause I've taken measures to protect myself online. (Wait a minute, wait just a goldarn minute! Am I the only one who shows up thusly:
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 174.6.17.# (Unknown Organization)
ISP Unknown ISP
Location
Continent : Unknown
Country : Unknown
Lat/Long : unknown)
(You mean to tell me that even using a different Operating System from time to time won't fool you?)
How many brackets is that anyway?) this is worse than algebra!))

I knew it! I knew you were really Unknown!

"I agree completely with the idea that we don't elect MPs to lecture us about our values. We elect them to represent us and that means representing and defending our diversity of values, not picking and choosing which ones are "legitimate."

Actually, "representing us" might well mean criticizing inappropriate or divisive values. Ignatieff thinks the "apartheid" campaign is racist.

If the Ku Klux Klan were to hold a rally, would it be ok for Ignatieff to condemn it? Would you complain that he is "picking and choosing which values are legitimate"?

Or, to REALLY extend the analogy, what if, say Hugo Chavez were to criticize Venezuelan students as "fascists" when they legally demonstrate against his government?

In other words, is your objection one of principle, or political convenience?

http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=139943

"Jeff House - You cannot claim Israeli actions are not similiar to South African Apartied just because Hamas and the ANC are radically different political entities. that would be similiar to claiming Team Slovakia and Team USA must be the same because they both played against Team Canada in the Olympics just passed. Bogus."

And what if Team USA were wearing jackets filled with explosives under their uniforms?

Would you criticize Team Canada for keeping them "apart"?

Ignatieff thinks the "apartheid" campaign is racist.

So do you think Ignatieff has had that big a change of heart in the eight years since he used the word "apartheid" himself in writing about the West Bank? Or do you think perhaps he's the one who's voicing his objections now out of political convenience?

In order to make your comparison to the KKK accurate, you'd have to demonstrate that the people who are organizing IAW are in the habit of wearing white robes to hide their identities while they burn crosses on people's lawns and lynch people. Holding seminars doesn't count.

As for Chavez, I don't read Spanish (which you probably know) and think he's irrelevant to this conversation.

Actually, "representing us" might well mean criticizing inappropriate or divisive values. Ignatieff thinks the "apartheid" campaign is racist.

Well, in my view -- and I write here as a citizen of Canada, than which there is, in my view, nothing more noble (except for everyone else who considers herself a citizen of anywhere) -- I think it is obscene for elected representatives to put the force of their public positions behind any moral statements they might want to make.

Every citizen has the right to express personal, moral, aesthetic, cultural, social opinions -- all of us do, and even our dorking MPs exist as private citizens (although some of them seem not to grasp the distinction). But when they speak with public force, they're supposed to know where the lines are drawn.

But we don't elect representatives to make moral judgements about things. We elect them to think intelligently about the laws we need to build and protect democracy, and those laws have to do with structure: how do you preserve the maximum amount of liberty for everyone while still permitting us to stand one another?

Yes, I disapprove of our hate laws. I think they are an offence in the sight of democracy, and we should get rid of them. A decent government wouldn't find it that hard to go after the KKK -- or, indeed, the JDL -- who have been accused of "terrorist" activities by, eg, the FBI. If there are criminals among us, go after the crimes. Incitement is a tougher call, a judgement call, but I can accept that check on freedom of conscience. No more.

What the fork do "inappropriate" and "divisive" values mean? Sorry: I'm not Emily Post, and we don't do the bourgeois proprieties here. Me, anyway, I do civil liberties, not fussy table manners, and not Americanized sentimentality either.

Jeff - no i wouldn't criticize Canada for keeping them apart. A massize international peace keeping force to seperate the Israelis and Palestinians to control terrorism and prevent further warcrimes and dismantle apartied is an excellent idea, and I'm glad YOU brought it up.

I don't think the Israel/apartheid group is seriously analogous to the KKK. Far from it. But I DO think that we DO want our elected leaders to "represent" us by denouncing outlandish, even insensitive campaigns by one group against another. And I think that is what Ignatieff did.

I disagree with Skdadl that there is some reason why our elected leaders have to stay silent about these issues.

"Civil liberties" are not protected when members of Parliament are shushed by people shouting that it's McCarthyism.

Please don't tell us that your civil liberties are offended when someone denounces you, and then claim that you are a freedom of speech fundamentalist.

Jeffry, MPs are also, in their private lives, citizens of Canada.

And if someone like Scott Reid were to preface his remarks on "values" by saying "I'm speaking now as Scott Reid, citzen," then I'd think he had every right to say any silly thing he wanted to say (and most of what Scott Reid has to say is silly).

But if he is putting any kind of official force behind what he says about "values," then he is wrong and a threat to democracy.

Listen to the members of the CPCCA at the website. Some of them are truly horrifying. The day I listened to Van Kesteren, Carolyn Bennett, and Hedy Fry talking to the police chiefs, I was shocked. Compared to those three, eg, Blair and Fantino sounded like constitutional scholars -- at one point, Blair was obviously trying to talk them back from their extremism about York U.

At least that is reassuring. Our cops seem to grasp the law. It would be nice if some of the MPs did.

skdadl, I now understand your point. It's interesting because I recall people like JFK being criticized for not weighing in on moral issues like the civil rights struggle.

MM, how old are you? The Kennedy brothers never "weighed in" on civil rights? Really? You weren't around in 1960 or 1962 or 1963, were you. Mississippi? Alabama?

Kennedy also started off the Civil Rights Act and he set up the commission on the status of women. That he didn't see these and other initiatives through had a lot to do with his being dead.

53. The Kennedy brothers were highly criticized for not doing enough. I may think that criticism is unfair, but that doesn't change the fact that they were criticized for being slow and for being followers rather than leaders. Remember that there were many in his party who viewed JFK as the son of Joe Kennedy rather than a liberal icon-many of that wing of the party were very much upset that he was nominated. But the point I thought you both were making is that you didn't want elected leaders to exercise moral leadership.

Check out this link as an example of how JFK was criticized for doing too little.

"Moral leadership" -- see, there we are back to that logical fuzz so beloved of our cynical conservative politicians and some lobby groups.

To me, civil rights and civil liberties are not just "values," in that devalued, mushy-minded, Americanized way that our Poloniuses are using the word now. They are the foundational structures and principles that are necessary and sufficient to building and maintaining democracy.

Other "values," or "morals," as you put it, pertain to individual conscience -- see section 2 of the Charter. I wish some of our politicians would.

Section 2 of the Charter defends differences among values or morals, not "sharing."

The Kennedys were defending the Bill of Rights, not Disneythink.

"To me, civil rights and civil liberties are not just "values," in that devalued, mushy-minded, Americanized way that our Poloniuses are using the word now. They are the foundational structures and principles that are necessary and sufficient to building and maintaining democracy."

I congratulate you. Too many leftists defend civil liberties in their own countries, but when it comes to countries actually governed by leftists, they don't think these rights are so foundational. (I guess that's why I included, above, Chavez' denunciation of student protesters as "fascists" in the belief that some would notice that this denunciation business is sometimes accepted.)

I still don't think Ignatieff did anything wrong in being critical of the "Israel/apartheid" groups. I realize you'd like our MPs to begin by saying--"I am speaking as a private citizen right now"--before criticizing some action--but I know of no principle, Parliamentary or otherwise, which requires this.

I've seen you spend a lot of time here and in other venues (like Dawg's) making references to the opinions of some segment of the BDS movement without ever naming names, supplying sources or citing links. I don't even know who you're talking about so I can hardly be expected to defend their positions.

Edited to add: That's not an invitation for you to supply a link to some fringe player I've never heard of so I can waste more time defending things I've never said. If you think [insert name here] is wrong, go talk to [insert name here]. If he doesn't take comments, you can always write an open letter to him at your own blog.

OK, how about this link titled: "Basis of Unity for Israeli Apartheid Week International Coordination." It is beyond question that the theme is that Zionism itself is viewed as Apartheid and not Policies X, Y or Z.

Given that IAW takes place on publicly funded university campuses, given that apartheid is defined as a crime against humanity, given that those who support crimes against humanity are deserving of shame....it's more than reasonable for politicians to take a position that that characterization of the very IDEA of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish People, consistent with the UN Partition Plan and UN resolutions in support of the right of all peoples to self determination, is a moral issue. But even if it isn't in the way you describe as a Charter issue, practically speaking I find it difficult to see why politicians should view the topic as out of bounds.

OK, how about this link ...

Palestinian citizens of Israel are barred from controlling and developing over 90% of the land, and discriminated against in most aspects of life, particularly in education, health care, public services and employment; simply because they are Palestinians.

Is this true?

No.

If you can say so unequivocally that it's not true, then wouldn't it be a better line of attack to criticize them on their misstatements of fact instead of trying to debate the meaning of the word apartheid?

Incidentally, I'm going to edit your last comment but one just to put that second paragraph into italics so it's clear that it was part of my comment that you were quoting. The html tags are a little quirky in comments here -- they don't always behave the way you'd think.

I thought the point was that I said BDS and IAW included an anti-Zionist component and you asked for some supporting links. I think the site clearly manifests ant-Zionism.

You've now raised the issue as to whether the substance of that particular sentence is true. That sentence has a lot in it. While I don't think it's a flat out fabrication, I'm also quite confident that the aggregate of all of the "bald" statements contained in it are false.

I actually do take the view that it's fair to debate these things. I just think it's also fair in that debate to make a distinction between those applying the apartheid label to try to shame Israel into changing policy X (Jimmy Carter) and those using that same label to try to sanitize the argument that Zionism (and only Zionism, among all the nationalistic movements across the planet) is racism.

Thanks for that edit. I put the second paragraph in italics too but when I previewed it I could see it didn't work. I couldn't fix it, so added the square bracketed note.

those using that same label to try to sanitize the argument

You make it sound as though they're trying to hide something. And yet, that document says:

We are against the racist ideology of Zionism...

That doesn't sanitize anything. That doesn't try to hide anything.

To back up in your comment:

While I don't think it's a flat out fabrication, I'm also quite confident that the aggregate of all of the "bald" statements contained in it are false.

So a bunch of it is true but enough of it isn't that you can make some claim about "the aggregate"? Are you going with that?

If that statement is even mostly true then calling it apartheid doesn't rise to the level of justifying the attempts we're seeing from the likes of Ignatieff to bully his fellow citizens into silence in order to protect a foreign government from the consequences of its own actions and policies. You've said all along that you think there should be a debate. It isn't an open and honest debate if the force of the state is used to try and intimidate one side into silence because you don't like the way they're framing their arguments but you haven't been able to rebut them. That's been my point all along.

And incidentally, I note that you had to send me to a site that actually opposes IAW and refer to a two year old piece to make your point. I found the reference to it:

The discriminatory document Apartheid Week participants must agree to is entitled the "Basis of Unity for Israeli Apartheid Week International Coordination."

Maybe in 2008 though "must" seems like it overstates matters. But is that still the case? Can you point me to that on the actual IAW site for 2010? Or has your source cherry-picked a document that has since become obsolete? It seems a fair question considering the cartoon on that page which attempts to conflate IAW with a statement from Iran's president (which was itself a bad translation).

As for the markup, you have to close the tag at the end of each paragraph and open a fresh one for the next paragraph.

pogge,

I'm impressed that you found my source for that site! But the site is still a real site.

Palestinian citizens of Israel are barred from controlling and developing over 90% of the land, and discriminated against in most aspects of life, particularly in education, health care, public services and employment; simply because they are Palestinians.

Let's step back. That statement is a serious accusation which casts aspersions on the moral character of a society. As a matter of process, the burden is on the maker of the statement to make the case. As for the substance, I believe the reference to 90% is to the portion of land owned by the state as opposed to by individuals and the point is being stretched to say Palestinians (non-Jewish Israelis?) cannot own that land-but I have it right Jewish Israelis also can't buy that land as individuals.

As for discrimination, yes it exists in various ways. Take these recent resolutions of the Union of Reform Congregations (which met in Toronto) as a view on the problem. But many societies and countries have like problems. I thought I something today in the Globe about TB rates for members of our First Nations being dramatically higher than those for non-aboriginals. here is another source for that same point. I don't think either situation (Israel proper or Canada) descends to the level of apartheid. Do you? In fact, I'd argue that using the word shifts the debate from how to solve a clear problem to whether the label fits. It's the same with false accusations of anti-Semitism.

And here is the Globe link too.

"A new federal report reveals the TB rate among status Indians to be 31 times higher than that of non-aboriginal Canadians. Among the most susceptible of aboriginal populations are the Inuit, for whom the TB rate is 186 times that of Canadian-born non-aboriginals."

Should Canada now be subject to a BDS type campaign? What are the exact principles that stand for when the apartheid label fits or doesn't fit? And what is gained and lost by throwing such a word into the mix?

Can you point me to that on the actual IAW site for 2010? Or has your source cherry-picked a document that has since become obsolete? It seems a fair question considering the cartoon on that page which attempts to conflate IAW with a statement from Iran's president (which was itself a bad translation).

Not really, and that's why I linked to the other piece. But if you follow the BDS link, it's clear that anti-Zionism is part of the BDS coalition, even if not a pre-requisite. If I'm not mistaken David Heap who seems to be part of BDS and the Cairo Declaration made that point.

The key wording is as follows, with my comments notes:

"These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall [what lands exactly? and why would Israel end its occupation of the WB other than as part of a two state solution required by UN resolutions 242 and 338];

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and [they do have full legal equality right now]

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194. [the big issue not yet solved by negotiation-that resolution applies to those who left/were pushed in 1948 but does not pick up descendants, who are not viewed as legal refugees. And are they saying Jews who live in, say, Hebron, must leave the new Palestinian state at the same time?]
"

It also refers to the "Occupied Palestinian Territory," a term distinct from the "occupied territories," and understood by some to refer to pre-partition Palestine, including Israel. Of course it never includes Jordan, severed from Palestine in 1922, as nobody seems to have a problem with the Hashemites having a state (and one where Jews are barred from owning land, which seems to concern nobody).

I'll read the rest more carefully later but let's get this out of the way.

Should Canada now be subject to a BDS type campaign?

Sure. Am I supposed to be outraged at the idea that someone might think Canada is guilty of racism, discrimination and grossly unjust treatment of aboriginal peoples? I'm not because it's true. Furthermore I think the current Conservative government is making matters worse and if the rest of the world grew impatient with us and started a BDS campaign to make that known ... okay.

I'd argue that using the word shifts the debate from how to solve a clear problem to whether the label fits.

Self-fulfilling prophecy. You, the CJC, B'nai Brith and others work overtime to shift the debate to whether the label fits and then argue that the word shouldn't be used because it shifts the argument to whether the label fits. To invoke a crude but effective saying: don't piss on my leg and then tell me it's raining.

Meanwhile, you're leading me around in circles and I honestly don't have time for it. The Israeli government could defuse this situation tomorrow by lifting the seige in Gaza, cancelling the settlement program announced earlier this week for East Jerusalem and truly freezing the settlements in the West Bank. That would eliminate the Palestinian objections to resuming negotiations on some of the other issues you raise. Much of the support for IAW and the BDS movement would likely melt away as soon as people began to believe that Israel was truly looking for an honourable way out of the occupation. When that happened, any true anti-semites using the movement as cover would either be exposed or scurry back under a rock somewhere.

From everything I've seen, changing the language used by the BDS movement would accomplish precisely nothing. Israel's critics were branded as anti-semites before the BDS movement started and they would be branded as anti-semites if they stopped using the word apartheid and called it something else. I'm quite confident that's the case. Meanwhile Israel, based on the events of just this week, continues to be supremely uninterested in serious negotiations. Pardon me for shouting but THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES.

I'll repeat what I've already said: our elected representatives have no business condemning the speech and opinions of their fellow citizens in an effort to protect a foreign government from the consequences of its own actions. If what the organizers of IAW and the BDS movement are saying rose to the level of hate speech, you can bet there would be prosecutions. But it doesn't even come close to that.

Again: you say you want to see a debate. But you don't get an open and honest debate when the power of the state is used to intimidate one side into silence because the other side doesn't like the way the arguments are being expressed.

"But you don't get an open and honest debate when the power of the state is used to intimidate one side into silence."

That's for sure! But that didn't happen, either.

If you think a resolution by members of the Legislature is "the power of the state", then you haven't felt the power of the state!