Babb: School boards shouldn’t rush into adopting anti-Palestinian racism strategies

2024/07/04 Leave a comment

Sensible but unlikely to be followed:

…People will also likely struggle to understand what differentiates anti-Palestinian racism from Islamophobia. For the average person, many forms of racism, including, for instance, antisemitism and Islamophobia, are already difficult to comprehend, let alone address. By adding anti-Palestinian racism into the mix, there is serious potential to further complicate the anti-racism landscape at a time when efforts to combat many forms of racism are struggling to achieve substantive results.

Going forward, senior decision makers – particularly those responsible for educating and protecting our children – need to start having more realistic and difficult discussions before moving toward knee-jerk initiatives that could threaten certain groups of people. Indeed, there are reasons why hundreds of concerned parents, educators and community leaders protested outside the building where the vote took place. They’re worried about the future of their children in Canada’s public-school system, and many are left feeling more vulnerable than they ever have before. One Jewish community leader recently told me that despite all of the things he has seen since Oct. 7, the situation in the schools is what has him the most worried.

If we’re going to focus on anti-Palestinian racism, it needs to be done right, and it needs to be done after all voices are heard and difficult discussions are had.

Source: School boards shouldn’t rush into adopting anti-Palestinian racism strategies

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Yakabuski | L’ombre de Gaza

2024/05/30 Leave a comment

More on the politics – Liberals as road kill (middle of the road trying to satisfy two different constituencies):

…Chez les électeurs musulmans, les libéraux sont à la traîne de dix points derrière le Nouveau Parti démocratique, toujours selon Angus Reid, avec l’appui de 31 % des électeurs de cette communauté, contre 41 % pour le NPD. Parmi tous les groupes religieux sondés par Angus Reid, il s’agit du plus fort appui pour le parti de Jagmeet Singh. C’est deux fois plus que les intentions de vote qu’il récolte à l’échelle nationale. Les néodémocrates étaient à l’origine d’une motion débattue à la Chambre des communes en mars qui demandait au gouvernement fédéral de reconnaître immédiatement l’État de Palestine. Les libéraux avaient réussi à faire amender la motion en appelant plutôt à la poursuite des travaux « en vue de l’établissement de l’État de Palestine dans le cadre d’une solution négociée à deux États ». M. Singh a sommé le gouvernement Trudeau d’appuyer M. Khan et sa demande de mandat d’arrêt contre M. Nétanyahou.

Le Canada comptait plus de 1,8 million de musulmans, contre 335 000 juifs, lors du dernier recensement en 2021. Selon une analyse de l’ancien haut fonctionnaire fédéral Andrew Griffith, 109 circonscriptions canadiennes comptent entre 5 % et 20 % de résidents musulmans ; et il y en a six où les musulmans comptent entre 20 % et 50 % de la population. Le poids politique des électeurs musulmans dépasse maintenant celui des électeurs juifs. Preuve du pétrin politique dans lequel ils se trouvent plongés depuis le 7 octobre, les libéraux de Justin Trudeau n’ont plus la cote ni chez les premiers ni chez les seconds.

Source: Chronique | L’ombre de Gaza

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Nicolas | Racisme anti-palestinien

2024/05/11 Leave a comment

As mentioned earlier, I think the existing forms of racism, anti-Arab for both Muslim and Christian Palestinians, and anti-Muslim for Muslim Palestinians, cover the essential. The substantive examples raised by Nicolas can be addressed under both:

On apprenait mercredi dans le Toronto Star que la nouvelle version de la Stratégie canadienne de lutte contre le racisme, qui devrait être rendue publique sous peu, n’inclura pas de définition du racisme anti-palestinien.

Cette stratégie, publiée pour la première fois en 2019, « est conçue pour jeter les bases de la lutte contre le racisme systémique par des actions immédiates à l’échelle du gouvernement du Canada ». Plusieurs groupes ont fait pression sur la ministre de la Diversité, de l’Inclusion et des Personnes en situation de handicap, Kamal Khera, pour que le racisme anti-palestinien soit désormais défini et donc reconnu par le gouvernemental fédéral, au même titre que l’islamophobie et l’antisémitisme, le racisme anti-noir ou le racisme anti-asiatique, par exemple. Ça aura été en vain.

Pour l’instant, on continue donc officiellement à dénoncer l’islamophobie, du moins sur papier, laissant de son côté le racisme anti-palestinien se déployer au Canada. Ce n’est pas suffisant. Voici pourquoi.

D’abord, tous les Palestiniens ne sont pas musulmans. De larges pans du mouvement nationaliste palestinien ont toujours cherché à se rassembler autour d’une identité culturelle et d’une situation politique — et non d’une religion. Le keffieh, par exemple, est un symbole à la fois culturel et politique, selon le contexte, mais pas un symbole religieux. Le foulard blanc et noir a pris la signification qu’il a aujourd’hui après avoir été porté durant des décennies par le leader palestinien Yasser Arafat.

Lorsque le parlement provincial ontarien prend la décision de bannir le keffieh de sa chambre législative, comme il l’a fait le mois passé, on empêche l’expression culturelle et politique du peuple palestinien dans son enceinte. Parler vaguement d’« islamophobie », ce serait ici très mal nommer les choses.

En fait, pour bien comprendre le racisme anti-palestinien, il faut savoir qu’il se déploie notamment comme une forme de racisme anti-autochtone. Et ici, je fais très attention à mes mots et aux explications que j’en donne.

Être autochtone est une catégorie politique, et non pas seulement ethnique. Ce n’est pas simplement un terme qui réfère à « qui était là avant ». Il est important de le comprendre si on veut éviter de remonter aux temps bibliques. Le mot « autochtone », dans nos instances internationales, réfère notamment à une catégorie de personnes qui se retrouvent sans État qui parle en leur nom dans le système des Nations unies, parce qu’un État s’est construit « par-dessus » leur territoire ancestral, en quelque sorte. Si le mot référait seulement à de vieilles racines dans une terre, tous les Français chez qui on décèle une forme d’ADN gaulois pourraient participer au Forum des peuples autochtones des Nations unies, pour donner un exemple grossier. Le terme « autochtone » prend une grande partie de son sens à l’intersection de l’« ancienneté » et de la dépossession. C’est en ce sens que je m’exprime.

Lorsqu’un État assied sa souveraineté sur un territoire en dépossédant un autre peuple de ce même territoire, il doit déployer un récit national et un appareil idéologique qui normalise cette dépossession. L’âge d’or du colonialisme correspond avec l’invention de l’idée de terra nullius, par exemple, qui veut que lorsqu’un territoire n’est pas occupé — et par occupé, on veut dire occupé à l’européenne, sujet à des activités économiques « productives » dans une perspective européenne —, il est considéré comme vacant et donc disponible pour la prise de possession coloniale.

C’est aussi en pleine expansion coloniale que Friedrich Hegel et plusieurs autres penseurs européens ont développé leurs idées sur la téléologie de l’Histoire. D’abord, on a tracé une ligne arbitraire entre la « préhistoire » et l’« Histoire », puis on a posé l’État-nation comme l’aboutissement de l’« Histoire » et ainsi hiérarchisé les peuples selon leur « stade de développement ». On a, en quelque sorte, inventé la catégorie de « primitif » — une autre manière de naturaliser qui a le droit d’exercer sa souveraineté sur des terres, et qui peut en être légitimement dépossédé.

Ces idées continuent d’être mobilisées jusqu’à aujourd’hui un peu partout en Occident. Elles permettent notamment à certaines voix pro-israéliennes plus radicales de nier jusqu’à l’existence même de la Palestine, puisque le peuple palestinien ne disposait pas d’un État-nation indépendant avant la fondation d’Israël.

Ces notions nous permettent aussi de mieux comprendre, par exemple, les commentaires de Selina Robinson, qui était ministre de l’Éducation postsecondaire en Colombie-Britannique, lorsqu’elle a affirmé, en janvier, que la Palestine était un « morceau de terre merdique » (crappy piece of land) sur lequel « il n’y avait rien » avant la fondation d’Israël. Ses propos n’étaient pas « islamophobes ». Ils étaient un parfait exemple du racisme anti-palestinien ordinaire, appuyés sur une forme d’actualisation de la doctrine de la terra nullius. Finalement, Selina Robinson s’est excusée, a perdu son poste de ministre, puis a quitté le caucus du Nouveau Parti démocratique provincial.

Le maire de Hampstead, Jeremy Levi, nous a offert un autre exemple de dérapage anti-palestinien. La semaine dernière, il a encore déclaré sur X que le gouvernement canadien devrait « reconsidérer son plan d’immigration pour les Gazaouis », puisque « leurs valeurs semblent incompatibles avec les nôtres ». Il faut savoir que l’idée des « valeurs incompatibles » a été mobilisée durant l’histoire coloniale pour justifier le statut subalterne, « non intégrable » de certaines populations. Le discours est encore souvent employé à l’égard des Palestiniens, notamment dans les espaces médiatiques israélien et américain, pour justifier certaines inégalités ou violences structurelles.

La liste d’exemples pourrait être encore longue. Pour repérer le racisme anti-palestinien dans l’espace public, encore faut-il le comprendre. Pour le comprendre, il faut d’abord le nommer clairement.

Source: Chronique | Racisme anti-palestinien

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with ,

‘They don’t matter’: Advocates frustrated Ottawa not including anti-Palestinian racism in upcoming update of anti-racism strategy

2024/05/09 Leave a comment

Maybe I am missing something but wouldn’t anti-Palestinian be covered by a mix of anti-Arab and for Muslim Palestinians, Islamophobia? Not convinced by the arguments and like all one-off proposals, will have implication for other groups, including of course Israelis and Jews.

The broader question is whether the Canadian Anti-Racism Strategy has been effective, the rising numbers of hate crimes suggest it has not, as does the 2023 evaluation of the strategy:

Advocates for Canada’s Palestinian community have been told that a definition of anti-Palestinian racism will be missing from Ottawa’s newest anti-racism strategy, an inclusion they say would have helped Canadian institutions properly recognize and respond to the growing form of hate.

“I’m concerned that members of our community shared potentially traumatic, harmful, personal stories with the Trudeau government and that the government has disregarded those stories and ignored them outright,” said Dania Majid, head of the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association (ACLA).

“That’s going to make our people, our communities, those who participated (in government consultations) feel even more unheard, more unseen, and feel even more like they don’t matter.”…

Source: ‘They don’t matter’: Advocates frustrated Ottawa not including anti-Palestinian racism in upcoming update of anti-racism strategy

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , , ,

OPINION: University of Ottawa equity, diversity, inclusivity discussion ‘an abject failure’

2024/04/22 Leave a comment

Does appear to be an unbalanced selection of panelists:

Let’s say you are the vice president of Equity, Diversity and Inclusive (Excellence?), VP EDI, at a Canadian university and you organize an event to have a “courageous conversation” about anti-Palestinian racism, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism that ends up being a uniform rant against Israel and Zionism with no equity, no diversity, or inclusion for Jews.

This is exactly what happened on March 27 during the two-hour Zoom panel convened by the Vice-Provost of Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Excellence at the University of Ottawa, professor Awad Ibrahim.

With the declared goal of addressing in a balanced and unbiased manner the problem of increasing discrimination against Muslims, Palestinians, and Jews in Canada, especially in light of the conflict between Israel and Hamas after the massacre perpetrated by Palestinian Islamists on Oct. 7, the convened panel theoretically sought a balance: two people would discuss issues linked to anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, and two would talk about anti-Semitism.

In reality, the four speakers spoke with a unified biased voice minimizing the precipitous rise in anti-Semitism in Canada and around the world, because, according to them, many of the events that are reported as anti-Jewish are simply “legitimate” (sic) expressions against Zionism, Israeli colonialism, and the defense of the struggle of the Palestinians against the “Zionist occupation” and do not really target the Jewish community.

The activist Dalia El Farra (senior advisor, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion – Centre for Human Rights, York University) and professor Jasmin Zine (Wilfrid Laurier University) represented the pro-Palestinian and anti-Islamophobia views. Two members of the Jewish Faculty Network (an anti-Israel organization), professor Sheryl Nestel and professor Alejandro Paz (University of Toronto), both anti-Zionists Jews, were invited to talk about anti-Semitism.

The main function of both Jewish panelists was to assert that the increase in antisemitic incidents is inflated by the “Jewish lobby,” because they dare to count as anti-Jewish events those that are actually demonstrations against the “Western colonial enterprise” (sic) known as Zionism and against Israeli “genocide” (sic).

Although Vice-Provost Ibrahim was asked during the event’s Q&A why he had decided to invite only two anti-Zionist Jewish speakers to talk about anti-Semitism, the VP EDI made only brief mention of the question towards his closing remarks and did not answer the question…

…In French, one might have described the event by exclaiming, “Quel gâchis!” (What a flop!) to qualify this EDI event (by the way, if we are talking about inclusion, it should be noted that only English-speaking panelists were invited, thus failing the bilingual mandate of the University of Ottawa). It was certainly not a courageous conversation, nor was it diverse, not equitable, and lacked the inclusiveness of multiple viewpoints. It offered only a single, ahistorical, hateful chorus of anti-Israel propaganda.

Perhaps professor Ibrahim, the vice president of Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Excellence, thought he was promoting balanced perspectives because he had hosted an event as part of the same series on March 21 about Anti-Semitism in Healthcare, University and our Larger Society. Instead, the panel on Demystifying Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism and anti-Semitism of March 27 was a missed opportunity for the University of Ottawa’s EDI office to fulfill its mandate, failing to meet the most basic standards of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

The false moral equivalence between these two events, the former being grounded in scholarly research and fact, the latter being grounded in one-sided bias attempting to delegitimize Judaism and Israel, undermines inclusive excellence in the academy and further contributes to Jew hatred on Canadian campuses.

This is an abject failure of leadership of the VP EDI at the University of Ottawa and a direct assault on the protection of all minorities on Canadian campuses. It is a betrayal of trust with the Jewish community, and it undermines the core mission of the University to reveal and disseminate truth.

— Isaac Nahon-Serfaty is an Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa and Deron Brown is an MD in Toronto

Source: OPINION: University of Ottawa equity, diversity, inclusivity discussion ‘an abject failure’

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Reaction in Canada to Israel-Palestine war has me feeling spiritually homeless and disconnected

2024/04/13 Leave a comment

Thoughtful reflections, although it would appear that the activists on the Palestinian side have been engaging in more anti-Jewish community activities than vice-versa and her social media posts are more one-sided than this commentary:

The last few months have shown me that the Israel-Palestine war has changed what diversity, inclusion and respect for freedom of speech and religion means in Canada.

Whether these changes are permanent are yet to be determined. It is a sad waiting game and I wonder if my children will grow old in the Canada that is the only home they know.

Suffice to say, two things are true: Almost all Canadians have some opinion on this war, and almost all Canadians have zero control over what is happening in Gaza right now. The same applies to what happened in Israel on Oct. 7.

Where does that leave us? Are broken professional and personal relationships salvageable? Is there any way we can find our way back to one another? Is this the actual hill that professionalism and respect for religion will die on?

Everyone (including me) says this is not a Muslim and Jewish issue. My quivering voice is losing conviction, and here is why:

The social media campaigns are stronger than ever. The protests and public outcry (on both sides) around the atrocities in the Middle East are still making headlines (and they should). People continue to remain obsessed on what qualifies as hate speech conflating freedom of expression with the same. Furious onlookers continue to call for arrests at protests, conflating the right to demonstrate freely with targeted hatred toward a group of people.

People are angry and while they cannot control what is going on there, they are trying hard to control what is happening here. 

Jewish and Muslim businesses, places of worship and neighbourhoods are being targeted. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are rapidly on the rise. Those angry about the war are only targeting members of the Muslim and Jewish communities. That makes this a Muslim and Jewish issue in a morbidly tangible sense.

Our politicians have contributed to this religious divide. Put another way, even when they whisper about respecting religious values, their actions contradict them — loudly.

In the holy month of Ramadan, certain Canadian politicians have failed to offer customary Ramadan well wishes to Canadian Muslims. They have publicly solidified their anger toward Muslim communities. Conversely, other politicians say nothing to remind Jewish communities that they cannot and should not be targeted. They have left Jewish communities feeling painfully isolated.

The silence has incensed both sides, because these politicians care far more about their voter base and less about Canadians in general. A true failure as elected officials.

In my legal community, the divide is vicious and the criticism is relentless. The professional advocates on LinkedIn have spoken and in comparison to your average Canadians, they say they know best. They hold zero sympathy for anyone who disagrees with their view and I know with certainty that some relationships of many years are over — forever.

While I have no interest in debating the politics (to what end?), I would be the first to sit with my fellow Canadians to work toward a solution on how we continue forward with respect and professionalism. This has become imminent in my view. It our right as Canadians to continue to protest, to continue to advocate and to continue to support the causes that are nearest and dearest to us.

Let us also work to repair the damage to relationships preventing us from working together, learning together and respecting one another. Without a commitment from all sides to simply pause and forgive before saying something hateful here about what is happening there, the continued erosion of our Canadianness will continue.

We can protest and disagree, but not in a way that creates hate and division for any group in Canada. This present-day Canada has me feeling spiritually homeless and disconnected. If you are a leader of any kind, take a moment and ask yourself what steps you can take to cultivate safety in your home — if in fac fact, you still consider Canada to be your home.

Muneeza Sheikh is an employment lawyer.

Source: Reaction in Canada to Israel-Palestine war has me feeling spiritually homeless and disconnected

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Contrast: Anti-Muslim bias reports skyrocket after Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, Stephens: The Appalling Tactics of the ‘Free Palestine’ Movement

2024/04/04 Leave a comment

Starting with anti-Muslim bias complaints:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released its annual Civil Rights Report today. The organization says that last year it received the highest number anti-Muslim bias complaints ever.

CAIR says it took in 8,061 bias reports in 2023 and that nearly half of them came in the final three months of the year, following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel.

“I was stunned by the sheer volume of complaints we got,” says Corey Saylor, CAIR’S Director of Research and Advocacy.

“In 2022, our numbers showed the first ever drop since we started tracking incidents,” he says. “And then to see all of that erased, it’s real insight in to how easy it is for someone to just flip the Islamophobia switch back to on.”

The report, titled “Fatal: The Resurgence of Anti-Muslim Hate,” says 15% of complaints the group received involved employment bias. 8.5% of bias reports involved schools — including colleges and universities. And 7.5% of complaints involved allegations of hate crimes, including the case of 6-year-old Palestinian American Wadea Al-Fayoume who was allegedly stabbed to death by his family’s landlord near Chicago.

“I just don’t know how much hate it takes to drive an adult to target a child,” says Saylor. “And I think it’s also fair to say that hate did not originate last October.”

Prosecutors in that case have charged suspect Joseph Czuba with first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder for allegedly stabbing the child’s mother during the attack as well. Authorities have also charged Czuba with two counts of hate crimes.

Additionally, the CAIR report highlights a controversy highlights a controversy in Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools. The district allows parents to opt out of a Family Life and Human Sexuality unit, but it does not allow parents to opt out of books assigned for English classes that portray LGBTQ+ characters. A number of Muslim parents protested, saying the books were not in line with their religion’s teachings.

“The sincerely held religious beliefs of parents were completely ignored, disregarded, and even in a couple of instances criticized,” says Saylor.

The report also relays the story of how a regional airline accidentally posted to the internet part of the U.S. Government’s so-called No Fly List. CAIR’s analysis of a downloaded version of the list found that nearly all the names on it – 98.3% — were what the organization calls “identifiably Muslim.”

CAIR’s report also included mention of some bright spots. In 2023, New York City and Minneapolis permitted the call to prayer to be broadcast over loudspeakers. New Jersey and Georgia began recognizing Muslim Heritage Month. And school districts in at least 6 states added at least one Muslim holiday to academic calendars so students will have the day off from class.

Source: Anti-Muslim bias reports skyrocket after Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel

Brett Stephens in the NYT how many pro-Palestinian protesters have crossed the line into anti-semitism and being anti-Jewish (American examples but comparable ones in Canada):

Last week, Susanne DeWitt, an 89-year-old Holocaust survivor who later became a molecular biologist, spoke before the Berkeley, Calif., City Council to request a Holocaust Remembrance Day proclamation. After taking note of a “horrendous surge in antisemitism,” she was then heckled and shouted down by protesters at the meeting when she mentioned the massacre and rapes in Israel of Oct. 7.

At the same meeting, a woman testified that her 7-year-old Jewish son heard “a group of kids at his school say, ‘Jews are stupid.’” She, too, was heckled: “Zionists are stupider,” a protester said. At the same meeting, others yelled, “cowards, go chase the money, you money suckers” and “you are traitors to this country, you are spies for Israel.”

Protest movements have an honorable place in American history. But not all of them. Not the neo-Nazis who marched in Chicago in 1978. Not the white supremacists who chanted “Jews will not replace us” at their Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017.

And not too much of what passes for a pro-Palestinian movement but is really pro-Hamas, with its calls to get rid of the Jewish state in its entirety (“from the river to the sea …”), its open celebration of the murder of its people (“resistance is justified …”) and its efforts to mock, minimize or deny the suffering of Israelis, which so quickly descend into the antisemitism on naked display in Berkeley.

How did this happen?

It wasn’t a response to the human suffering in Gaza in recent months. A coalition of Harvard student groups issued a statementon Oct. 7 holding “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” Pro-Hamas demonstrations broke out worldwide on Oct. 8. A Black Lives Matter chapter posted a graphic on Instagram of the Hamas paragliders who murdered hundreds of young Israelis at the Nova music festival. A Cornell professor said he found the massacre “exhilarating,” and demonstrators rallied in his support.

This is only a partial list. But it reveals the bullying mentality at the heart of the pro-Hamas movement. It isn’t enough for them to speak out; they must shut other voices down. It isn’t enough for them to make a strong or clear argument; they also aim to instill a palpable sense of fear in their opponents. American civil libertarians of the past once understood that inherent in the right to protest was the obligation to respect the right of people with differing views to protest as well. That understanding seems to be wholly absent from the people who think that, say, heckling Raskin into silence is also a form of democracy.

In this sense, critics of Israel who claim that American Jews must choose between Zionism and liberalism have it backward. The illiberals aren’t the people defending the right of an imperfect but embattled democracy to defend its territory and save its hostages. They are the people who, like the former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, want Israel wiped off the map and aren’t ashamed to say so. Not surprisingly, they also seem to share Ahmadinejad’s attitudes toward dealing with dissent.

It’s true that in nearly every political cause, including the most justified, there are ugly elements — the Meir Kahanes or the Louis Farrakhans of the world. But the mark of a morally serious movement lies in its determination to weed out its worst members and stamp out its worst ideas. What we’ve too often seen from the “Free Palestine” crowd is precisely the opposite.

Source: The Appalling Tactics of the ‘Free Palestine’ Movement

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Irwin Cotler: Canada needs to fundamentally rethink its approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict

2024/04/03 Leave a comment

Missed opportunity in not addressing the blockage by the current Israeli government over many years and the need for political renewal on the Israeli side and reduced political influence by religious hardliners and extremists, although I agree on how the debate reflects poorly on parliamentarians:

The debate, amendment and passing of the NDP motion on Palestine on March 18 was a perfect representation of the current state of discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Canada today: chaotic, toxic, reactive and polarized; grounded in disinformation and misrepresentations; and performative rather than productive.

From a procedural standpoint, the motion made a mockery of the parliamentary process. After hours of polarized debate, it was amended significantly. These amendments were presented with mere minutes to spare, leading to parliamentarians raising concerns about the lack of debate on the substantially changed motion. Notably, the amendments were initially tabled without any French translation, characterizing the chaotic and ad-hoc nature of the process.

The substance of the debate was similarly flawed. Members of Parliament speaking in favour of the motion consistently relied on statistics provided by the Gaza Health Ministry — an arm of Hamas, a listed terrorist group in Canada. Even the text of the motion itself relies on these flawed statistics. Sadly, this is emblematic of the preponderance of disinformation and misrepresentations in current Canadian discussions on Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The ultimate result — the adoption of a watered-down motion that served primarily to inflame sectarian tensions and incentivize the anti-democratic behaviours of a domestic mob — is representative of Canada’s unproductive, performative and harmful approach to this issue.

It is clear that Canada needs a new framework for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — one that is coherent, principled, fact-based and characterized by long-term strategic thinking; one that promotes both coexistence in Canada and peace in the Middle East.

This new framework should encompass four dimensions: (1) it must be informed by, and anchored in, the global context; (2) it must contribute to a new regional reality; (3) it must centre on justice and accountability in Israel and the Palestinian territories; and (4) it must involve responsible leadership here at home.

The first dimension is necessary because the global context plays a substantial role in shaping the conflict and our perceptions of it. We are in the midst of a new global struggle between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes that are seeking to undermine liberal democracies and dismantle the rules-based international order.

The new authoritarian “axis of evil” — led by Iran, Russia and China — is using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a powerful tool to further their destabilizing agenda. They are spreading Hamas propaganda and disinformation, co-opting international institutions, weaponizing international law and directly funding, arming and supporting Hamas and other terrorist groups.

This facilitates their efforts to weaken and divide liberal democracies, undermine international norms and distract the West from their ongoing crimes — including the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Uyghur genocide in China and the horrific repression of Iranian women.

This authoritarian destabilization campaign is aided by pervasive, systemic, global antisemitism, which has been used by autocrats to further their repressive ends for centuries. Antisemitism is responsible for Israel being held to higher levels of scrutiny than any other country, and enables hatred of, and lies about, Israel to spread with unparalleled ease. Canada’s new policy framework on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must both account for, and actively counter, these harmful global factors.

The second dimension is that discourse and policy on Israel and the Palestinian territories must both acknowledge and support the new regional reality in the Middle East. The Abraham Accords provide new opportunities for working towards peace. Canada should encourage these new and potential allies to play a key role in regional peace-building.

As part of this, Arab countries must take greater responsibility for supporting and aiding the Palestinian people, rather than simply criticizing Israel. They should provide funding, humanitarian aid and other forms of assistance to Gaza and the West Bank. Arab countries should also be held accountable for their cynical treatment of Palestinians within their own countries, keeping them stateless and dispossessed as a political tool against Israel.

Crucially, Canada must also work with its regional partners to counter the malign influence of Iran and its proxies — the greatest enemies of peace in the Middle East — which are currently instigating a multi-front war against Israel, an asymmetrical dynamic that is noticeably absent from Canadian discourse.

The third dimension is the most important: ensuring justice and accountability for actors on the ground in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The status quo — for international institutions, governments, the media, human rights organizations and grassroots activists — is to hold Israel to an inequitably high threshold of accountability, while allowing the Palestinian leadership to shirk accountability altogether.

While it is true that democracies can be expected to demonstrate greater adherence to international laws and norms, it is an inversion of justice to impose stringent accountability on the lesser rule-breaker, and minimal accountability on the greater rule-breaker. Basic principles of fundamental justice demand the precise opposite — graver crimes and more persistent rule-breaking must result in greater sanctions and more accountability.

In addition to being unjust, the status quo creates perverse incentive structures that facilitate a continuous cycle of hatred and violence. Although, like any other state, Israel must be held accountable for any violations of international law, it is demonized and attacked no matter what it does, which contributes to its threat perception and domestic support for leaders who are obstacles to peace.

Hamas is able to garner global sympathy no matter how abhorrent its crimes, thus enabling its continued criminality, which culminated in the heinous mass atrocities of Oct. 7. Furthermore, Hamas is incentivized to ensure maximum Palestinian casualties and suffering, because it knows that all the blame will be placed on Israel.

This informs and emboldens Hamas’s comprehensive strategy of using its own citizens as human shields, including by placing its headquarters, weapons arsenals and rocket launchers under hospitals, next to mosques and in schools.

To bring justice and accountability, Canada must dedicate vastly more resources and energy towards holding Hamas, other Palestinian terrorist groups and the Palestinian Authority accountable for their contraventions of international law, their role in the continuation and deepening of the conflict, and their repression of their own citizens.

For Hamas, this requires more than lip-service condemnations. It requires pressure to be put on its allies in Qatar, Iran, South Africa and elsewhere; the mobilization of international legal mechanisms to put Hamas, rather than Israel, in the docket of the accused; and combating the spread of Hamas propaganda and disinformation on social media and in the mainstream media.

For the Palestinian Authority, accountability means refusing to accept its continued corruption and refusing to ignore the fact that its leader is in the 19th year of his four-year term and frequently engages in antisemitic incitement and Holocaust denial.

Accountability means ensuring that terrorism is not incentivized through the PA’s infamous “pay-for-slay” program. Accountability means the media shining a light on how Hamas and the Palestinian Authority repress their own citizens. Accountability also means putting strict conditions on funding for organizations such as UNRWA, which was not only complicit in the Oct. 7 crimes against humanity, but has indoctrinated children with hate and helped to keep Palestinians stateless for decades.

The fourth and final dimension is that of responsible leadership here at home. Responsible leadership means actively combating hatred and incitement rather than merely condemning it. A simple way for policymakers, pundits, the media and activists alike to embody responsible leadership on this charged and complicated issue is by always “starting with the endpoint.”

Hopefully, Canadians broadly agree that the ideal endpoint is: (a) peaceful coexistence in Canada, characterized by lowering tensions, reducing hate and polarization, and bridging communities; and (b) peace in the Middle East, characterized by a two-state solution, with mutual acknowledgement of each other’s legitimacy — two democratic states for two peoples.

When making statements or taking policy actions, responsible leadership means stopping to consider whether those statements or actions will bring us closer to that endpoint, or move us further away from it. Divisive and polarizing motions, such as the NDP’s opposition motion, fail this test by creating greater rifts between Canadians and perpetuating the perverse incentives that feed the cycle of hatred and violence in the Middle East.

Source: Irwin Cotler: Canada needs to fundamentally rethink its approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Lederman: Israeli-Palestinian groups bring their hopeful fights for peace to Canada

2024/03/30 Leave a comment

On a more optimistic note:

….Unlike some in the pro-Palestinian space, Standing Together in no way downplays, denies or justifies the atrocities of Oct. 7. But it also says the occupation cannot continue and is strongly opposed to Benjamin Netanyahu. It is calling for an end to the war and the return of the hostages.

“There is a very big difference between being in favour of the people living in Israel and the Israeli government,” says Ms. Daood.

“We need to build a society that understands that the benefit of having real peace and real agreement is for both sides. Having peace does not just benefit the Palestinians. It also benefits the people in Israel. Because then you don’t have to be in a place where you’re scared of your neighbours, where we’re at constant wars.”

Two days after the Oct. 7 attacks, I wrote that your Jewish and Palestinian friends are not doing okay. I can tell you with great certainty that we are doing much, much worse now. In this ceaseless and dark panorama of death, despair and polarization, groups like Women Wage Peace and Standing Together offer a different path, bringing in a bit of light and something that feels impossible now: hope, for peace, in spite of it all.

Source: Israeli-Palestinian groups bring their hopeful fights for peace to Canada

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Blurring the line between criticism and bigotry fuels hatred of Muslims and Jews | Kenan Malik

2024/03/05 Leave a comment

Good balanced and nuanced commentary:

Where do we draw the line between criticism and bigotry? From the uproar over Lee Anderson’s remarks about the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, being “controlled” by Islamists to the condemnation of slogans used on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, it is a question at the heart of current debates about Muslims and Jews, Islam and Israel.

The distinction between criticism and bigotry should, in principle, be easy to mark. Discussions about ideas or social practices or public policy should be as unfettered as possible. But when disdain for ideas or policies or practices become transposed into prejudices about people, a red line is crossed. It’s crossed when castigation of Islamism leads to calls for an end to Muslim immigration. Or when denunciation of Israeli actions in Gaza turns into a protest outside a Jewish shop in London.

In practice, though, that line can appear blurry. Claims about “Islamophobia” or “antisemitism” are often wielded in ways designed specifically to erase the distinction between criticism and bigotry, either to suppress dissent or to promote hatred. Such muddying enables some to portray criticism of Islam or of Israel as illegitimate because it is “Islamophobic” or “antisemitic”. It also allows those promoting hatred of Muslims or Jews to dismiss condemnation of that hatred as stemming from a desire to avoid censure of Islam or Israel.

It is for this reason that I have long been a critic of the concept of “Islamophobia”; not because bigotry or discrimination against Muslims does not exist, but because the term conflates disapproval of ideas and disparagement of people, making it more difficult to challenge the latter. It is, in my view, more useful to frame such intolerance as “anti-Muslim prejudice” or “bigotry”. The issue, though, is not one of wording; what matters is less the term employed than the meaning attributed to it.

The concept of Islamophobia became popularised in the 1990s, partly through an influential report from the Runnymede Trust thinktank entitled “Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All”. The report acknowledged the term as “not ideal” but thought it “a useful shorthand way of referring to dread or hatred of Islam – and, therefore, to fear or dislike of all or most Muslims”. Ironically, the “useful shorthand” itself exposes the problem, eliding hostility to beliefs (“dread or hatred of Islam”) with prejudice towards a people (“fear or dislike of all or most Muslims”).

In 2018, the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims defined Islamophobia as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”, a clumsy formulation that has nevertheless been adopted by the major political parties apart from the Conservatives. The APPG report dismissed the “supposed right to criticise Islam” as “another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism”.

It argued, too, that “Islamophobia” refers to Muslims being targeted by non-Muslims. Yet, the charge of “Islamophobia” or “hatred” is often aimed by Muslims at other Muslims, from Salman Rushdie to Monica Ali, from Hanif Kureishi to Sooreh Hera, to make their arguments appear illegitimate. It is a means of “gatekeeping”, of certain people taking it on themselves to police a community and determine what can be said about it.

The elision of criticism and bigotry works the other way, too: to deflect challenges to hatred. Some commentators have responded to the pushback against Anderson’s conspiracy theories about Khan by claiming that labelling his comments “Islamophobic” is intended “to stop criticism of Islamic extremism”.

The actions of hardline Islamists can have horrifying consequences, from forcing a teacher into hiding to the murder of an MP. Too often, as with the recent parliamentary mess created by the speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, politicians and institutions accede to threats rather than confronting them. None of this should lead us to conclude, though, that challenging anti-Muslim bigotry is a distraction from confronting Islamism. Opposing the one without opposing the other weakens our ability to challenge either.

The historical roots and contemporary manifestations of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim hatred are different. Nevertheless, the charge of “antisemitism” can similarly be deployed to marginalise dissent while also providing racists with an alibi for their racism.

Take the insistence that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism”. It is a claim that has become increasingly accepted in recent years by mainstream politicians and organisations, from the French National Assembly to the US House of Representatives.

Zionism is a set of ideas and social practices. Yet, many who insist that Islam, as a set of beliefs and practices, should be open to robust challenge refuse to countenance similar scrutiny of Zionism.

In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) formally adopted its “working definition of antisemitism”, a definition that has been embraced by many governments, universities and civil institutions. It has also become, in the despairing words of one of its own drafters, Kenneth Stern, “a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite”.

For Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, the IHRA definition was never meant to be a “hate speech code” but developed rather to help monitor antisemitism. It has, however, become a means by which supporters of Israel now “go after pro-Palestinian speech”. “As a Zionist, I don’t agree with some of the speech,” Stern notes, but such speech “should be answered, not suppressed”.

This is particularly so because “there is a deep internal Jewish conflict about … attitude[s] toward Israel”. “For many Jews,” Stern points out, “Zionism, and what it means for Palestinians, is irreconcilable with what Judaism says about treating the stranger or repairing the world.” Again, blurring the line between criticism and bigotry facilitates gatekeeping, in this case by making dissenting Jewish voices seem illegitimate.

The drive to suppress criticism of Israel and support for Palestinians has been aided by some on the left lacing their anti-Zionism with antisemitic tropes. And, mirroring the tactics of anti-Muslim bigots, too many dismiss criticism of their antisemitism as a kind of Zionist shield against scrutiny.

Anti-Zionism is not necessarily antisemitic; but it can be, and too often is. The answer is not to label all expressions of anti-Zionism as antisemitic but to call out the latter, while acknowledging the legitimacy of the former.

In the polarised debate about antisemitism and anti-Muslim bigotry, too many who rightly condemn antisemitism are less robust in challenging bigotry against Muslims. And too many of those who excoriate anti-Muslim bigotry turn a blind eye to the hatred of Jews. In both cases, blurring the line between criticism of ideas and bigotry against people narrows debate and nurtures hatred.

Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

Source: Blurring the line between criticism and bigotry fuels hatred of Muslims and Jews | Kenan Malik

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →