Edward Lovoquintanilla
Pro BDS
Within the occupied territories of Palestine, Palestinians are continually displaced from their homes; their olive harvests uprooted; mothers, sisters, and daughters are abused; children are arrested without trial; living in disconnected ghettoes that bear a stark resemblance to South Africa’s bantustans.
Along with Palestinian civil society, prominent South African anti-apartheid activists Bishop Desmond Tutu and the late Nelson Mandela have called upon us to endorse the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Its aim is to pressure the state of Israel to put an end to its military occupation of the Palestinians and its discriminatory policies.
Noble students around the world stood by the side of Nelson Mandela and the ANC as they endorsed the BDS campaign against the apartheid regime of South Africa. We must now do the same, as we are called upon to endorse BDS.
The student unions’ support of Mandela was instrumental in the struggle for black liberation. Mandela recognized the essential link between Israel and South Africa, as the former did not abide by the UN arms embargo against the latter. Birds of a feather flock together: Israel and South Africa, as well as their oppressed peoples.
Let us stand together against the oppressive Israeli regime and pressure them into ending their military occupation of and discriminatory policies towards the Palestinian people.
------
Alon Coret & Sarah Silverberg
Against BDS
BDS (Boycotts, Divestments, and Sanctions) is a hateful and illegitimate campaign that seeks to hypocritically single out Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. In this light, BDS has no place on our campus. The MSU should not be taking political stances on complex and polarizing issues that stand to divide our student body. This movement runs counter not only to peace and progress, but also against the values of mainstream, Canadian students who value moderation, peace and tolerance.
While offensive and discriminatory in its rhetoric, the BDS campaign on Canadian campuses is failing, and has had no practical impact on university decisions. In fact, not a single North American university administration has endorsed BDS, and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) just this year signed a Memorandum of Understanding with its Israeli counterpart calling for increased collaboration.
BDS has been criticized across the political spectrum by Canada’s three largest political parties. For example, it was deemed “grossly unacceptable” by NDP leader Thomas Mulclair. It has also been rejected as a tactic by well-known critics of Israel, including Norman Finkelstein, who deemed it a “hypocritical, dishonest cult.”
Even the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is opposed to BDS: “We do not ask anyone to boycott Israel itself… We have relations with Israel, we have mutual recognition of Israel.”
If BDS were selectively imposed on Israel, it would collectively punish every Israeli (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze, Atheist) regardless of their political views.
This is unacceptable. This includes Israeli goods, Israeli agriculture, and Israeli academics. It seeks to burn bridges, rather than build new ones; it seeks to censor universities, knowledge and free speech; it unfairly discriminates against an entire people based on their nationality and nothing else. For all intents and purposes, it undermines the rights and views of anyone who supports Israel and believes in their right of self-determination. It has also led to hate crimes on other campuses; surely we do not want such an atmosphere to be created here.
The BDS campaign delegitimizes, demonizes, and applies a double standard against the State of Israel. It is not about peace, since it blames Israel exclusively for the conflict in the Middle East; it emboldens the Palestinians in their non-compromising stance, further reducing the chances of a peace agreement.
BDS promotes a single story, which dangerously ignores the balance of voices needed when addressing such a complicated situation. If you are a critical thinker, an open-minded global citizen, a supporter of liberal values, and a student interested in dialogue and learning – say no to BDS.
In a recent book attacking academics that support Palestinian human rights, Professor Alan Dershowitz writes, “Many supporters of Israel – and I count myself among them – care deeply about the Palestinian people. I am pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. I want to see a vibrant, democratic, economically viable, peaceful Palestinian state…”
‘What a fair-minded guy’, I naively thought to myself back then. Little did I know that this deceptive mantra has long been deployed by apologists for Israel and sympathizers of its war crimes. It represents accurately Israel’s long standing two-faced propaganda tactic: pretend to be an advocate for peace to the Western world while continuing the unending oppression of the Palestinian people.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Knowingly or naively, many are inclined to adopt this flawed dogma because, on the outset, it appears as a fair stance to the uninformed. The major flaw in this idea of being pro-Israel and pro-Palestine is the following: it ignores that Palestinians have been living under Israel’s brutal military occupation since 1967. Approaching its 50th anniversary, the occupation is the longest and one of the bloodiest in modern history. Israel continues to usurp Palestinian land to build colonies for the exclusive use of its Jewish population; barring Arabs access to their own land. It continues to implement draconian apartheid laws on these occupied people to maintain absolute domination. The military check-points, the Separation Wall, apartheid roads, permit systems – the list of injustices is never ending.
Israel’s intention to control Palestinian territory is no secret, as highlighted in the Drobles Plan which was adopted by Israel’s cabinet. It states: “there must not be the slightest doubt regarding our intention to hold the areas of Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) forever… State and uncultivated land should be seized immediately for the purpose of settlement in the areas located among and around the population centers with the aim of preventing as much as possible the establishment of another Arab state in these territories.”
As is evident by the shrinking map of the Palestinian territories, the Drobles Plan has been implemented to a tee - all the while Israel has been pretending to negotiate a ‘peace processes’ for two decades now. Former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, Meron Benvenisti, observed that, “It goes without saying that ‘cooperation’ based on the current power relationship is no more than permanent Israeli domination in disguise, and that Palestinian self-rule is merely a euphemism for Bantustanization [i.e. dividing land based on race].”
Israel’s continued air, land and sea blockade of Gaza has made this Palestinian strip inhospitable. The UN declared that if the current siege continues, Gaza will be unlivable by 2020 – that’s only 6 years away. Sewage treatment plants are broken down and can’t be repaired due to the blockade; untreated sewage now pollutes the Mediterranean. This has rendered 90 percent of water there undrinkable. The Israeli army regularly conducts raids to destroy agricultural produce in order to squash any nutritious growth. Fishermen are shot at for fishing in the ‘wrong places’; same goes for the farmers. Students are barred from studying because their schools have been shelled; winners of scholarships abroad are denied leaving the occupied territory. This is some of what is happening in Gaza; the injustices in the West Bank haven’t even been mentioned here.
In the face of such brutality, how can one pretend to keep silent about the perpetrator of these atrocities? How is one expected to stay ‘respectful’ and not express outrage? The path of co-operation and dialogue can happen when two parties are on some sort of equal footing. However, in a conflict where one side is armed with the military and financial arsenal of the world’s superpower, it becomes a moral obligation to support the oppressed.
So it comes down to the following: you can delude yourself into thinking you are being fair-minded by arguing for both sides of the conflict; or you can join the global movement to put pressure on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories and comply with international law. The choice is yours.
By Alon Coret, Erin Dessau, Yardena Winegust
It is easy to look at a complex political issue and see two opposing sides, and to think of their goals as conflicting. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this seems to be the case. However, a closer look reveals that both parties have a common goal: change.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
To be sure, the current situation in the region is complicated. Countless lives, on both sides, have been lost or ruined due to the conflict. But this does not mean that a fair and peaceful solution is not within reach. When McMaster Israel on Campus thinks about the future, we see a free and democratic Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel. We see families thriving in both countries, without the fear that their homes or dreams will be destroyed at any moment. We envision Israelis and Palestinians working side-by-side, trading, and getting to know each other’s cultures.
While we look forward to the day that Israelis and Palestinians will be able to live in peace and security, we also know that there is important work to be done here on our campus. In addition to celebrating Israeli culture and innovation, McMaster Israel on Campus strives to present balance and moderation in a sphere of rhetoric that too often demonizes and delegitimizes that State of Israel. Especially at this time of year, we are reminded of the importance of this work.
Anti-Israel rhetoric creates a barrier to the discussion of important issues in a respectful, honest, and academic manner. Campaigns that seek to isolate supporters of the Jewish homeland are counterproductive. They encourage discrimination and hatred of the “other,” adding nothing to constructive discussion or relationship building. We look forward to the day when those unfounded accusations will not stand in the way of partnership and mutual understanding based on shared values.
McMaster Israel on Campus is pro-Israel, pro-Palestine and pro-Peace. We are ready to celebrate the creation of a Palestinian state, created through negotiation, and living alongside a free and democratic Israel. Until that day comes, however, we have a choice. We can either participate in attempts to antagonize, demonize and spew clichés back-and-forth, or we can hold ourselves to a more intellectually honest and productive standard. From our perspective, the choice is clear.
Will you join us in this effort?
Edward Lovoquintanilla
The Silhouette
On the day of Nelson Mandela’s death, people from all walks of life mourned his loss. Amongst the loudest mourners were politicians who criminalized his actions, branded him a terrorist, and supported his imprisonment—labelling his anti-apartheid work an act of ‘anti-white hostility.’
Today he is mourned a hero. Conveniently forgotten are the campaigns against him. Mandela was on the United States’ terrorism watch list until 2008, Margaret Thatcher famously said that, “the ANC [African National Congress] is a typical terrorist organization ... Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land.”
These were not isolated remarks. Returned and Services League of Australia’s Bruce Ruxton commented that the ANC was a more dangerous “terrorist” organization than the Irish Republican Army and the Palestinian Liberation Organization - the latter ironically transformed into a legitimate arm of government after the Oslo Accords.
These histories of vilification—where the powerless are demonized by the powers that dominate them—are almost cyclical (examine the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., for example). Voltaire’s phrase “To know who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize,” echoes through the passageway of time into contemporary events: Mandela’s imprisonment after organizing against a white supremacist regime; the criminalization of the ANC; Palestinians, both adults and children, incarcerated for refusing to cooperate (though sometimes arbitrarily) under the conditions of occupation; Israel’s refusal to recognize the democratically elected Hamas (while prizing themselves as the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, no less) and converting the Gaza Strip into an open air prison.
In 1997, years after Mandela’s release and the crippling of the apartheid state by popular boycott, divestment and sanctions, Mandela famously said in an address at the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, “we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” And yet those who publicly mourn him sugarcoat the true zeal of the great man that was Nelson Mandela, and work to silence his call for action in solidarity with Palestine.
And yet, there is still hope. In the spirit of Nelson Mandela, actions across the world have taken place in the last year alone.
The Association for Asian American studies passed a resolution for a Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) in April followed by the American Studies Association in December. The European Union boycotted several Israeli companies and sanctioned Israel for its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Stephen Hawking endorsed the academic boycott beside the name of Noam Chomsky the York Federation of Students passed a BDS resolution. Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War’s and Palestinian Association of Hamilton’s, joined by McMaster Muslims for Peace and Justice, picketed at Canadian Tire to boycott SodaStream products, whose production is in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Each one of these actions received backlash from Israel and its supporters. Backlash eerily similar to the controversy surrounding Mandela during the age of apartheid South Africa.
The similarity of the portraits—and the absurdity of both—of South Africa and Palestine leaps out when Palestinians who throw rocks are called terrorists, but when Israeli leader Ariel Sharon levelled Palestinian cities and encouraged their further expulsion (all acts of ethnic cleansing as defined by the United Nations and International Criminal Court)—now he’s an example of a warrior!
The question we are faced with is: will we continue to praise Mandela yet sit comfortably in our hypocrisy in not heeding his call for action?
Lauren Grammer
The Silhouette
Simple labels are easy to use but are often purposely misinforming. The label of apartheid that has been put on the state of Israel is a misinformed term. As the sole Jewish and democratic state in the Middle East, Israel has always been a lightning rod for controversy. The complex issues impacting Israel including Arab rights and so called ‘apartheid wall’ have therefore been cast under the shadow of apartheid. The annual Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) that occurs at McMaster and around the world is therefore deeply disturbing as ill-informed activists simplify complex issues using a term that is purposely inflammatory.
Apartheid is an official policy of racial segregation involving political, legal, and economic discrimination. Apartheid is most commonly associated with South Africa. From 1948 to 1994, black South Africans were legally persecuted and segregated from the white population. There was an official mandate identifying blacks as second-class citizens who could not vote, hold political office and had to reside in certain locations. The people involved in IAW at McMaster try to compare the so-called Israel apartheid with the South African apartheid.
How can Israel be an apartheid state if it operates on a system in which all citizens and minorities have full rights? This means that every Jew and Arab living in Israel has the same exact freedoms. Arabs have the right to vote, the right to health care, the right to move about freely within the country and much more. Also Israeli Arabs can be seen in government, on Israeli national sports teams and even in international beauty contests representing Israel. No black South African ever had the kind of rights and freedoms that Israeli Arabs do. In fact, Arabs with Israeli citizenship are actually entitled to more rights than any Arab living in the Arab world, as Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East. It seems that those using the term apartheid at McMaster year after year forget this fact. On this principle alone, Israel is not an apartheid state as there is no legal policy separating Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis.
Despite the aforementioned rights and freedoms McMaster IAW still continues. Many have pointed to the so called ‘apartheid wall’ as the quintessential example of apartheid in Israel. When Arabs want to come into Israel they are subjected to security checks due to the building of the security wall that separates the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Israel. This wall was built in reaction to the abundant amount of terrorism that occurred in Israel from 2000-2005 called the Second Intifada. Since the wall has been built terrorism has gone down by 90 per cent. This wall may separate Israel from its bordering regions, however it is no different than the wall being built between the US and Mexico to stop illegal immigration. The US-Mexico security fence is not an apartheid measure and neither is the one that separates Israel from its neighbors. Therefore, the only way for McMaster’s IAW advocates to use the security wall as an argument for apartheid, which they have, as seen on McMaster’s Israel Apartheid Week 2012 Facebook page, is to suggest that the US-Mexico wall is also an act of apartheid.
The purpose of this article was not to devalue some of the points that are being brought to light due to Israel Apartheid Week because many of these issues are real and worthy of discussion. However if one wants to be taken seriously, activists must stop using apartheid as a convenient catch-all for the plight of the Arabs in Israel. When using the term “apartheid” to describe the situation in Israel, one is not using the word correctly and sounds, at best, ill-informed. Comparing the two is simply a plea for media attention, as the situation in Israel is completely different than what occurred in South Africa. A more effective way to utilize an entire week is to set aside the rhetoric and focus on the real issues that are affecting the Palestinian people.
Alon Coret / The Silhouette
Every March, the tensions of the Middle East are felt at McMaster University in the form of Israeli Apartheid Week.
This campaign intimidates Jewish and Israeli students on campus (as well as passersby), spreads propaganda under the guise of “human rights” and demonizes the only liberal democracy in the region.
Don’t get me wrong – I believe we all have the right to express our opinions and be critical of any government’s policies – but let’s get rid of the hypocrisy.
Suppose for a minute that Israel was a Muslim nation, but with the same policies regarding the Palestinians. Do you think that McMaster students would really go out of their way to criticize it, call for boycotts and sanctions against it, or compare its policies to those of Nazi Germany? I doubt it. That would offer obvious proof that IAW is an anti-Semitic venture – a week whose sole purpose is to gang up on the Jewish State.
I hope that I am wrong. Maybe I am giving too little credit to our school’s “social justice” clubs, and they are not really trying to be hypocrites; perhaps if Israel were a Muslim nation, they would organize a campaign to try to delegitimize it. Well then, I ask, why are we only hearing about Israel’s faults? This is an issue worth exploring.
Take Syria, Israel’s northern neighbor. If you opened a newspaper in recent months, you are probably aware of the atrocities committed by Bashar al-Assad’s regime against his own people. We have seen thousands of civilian deaths, Internet being shut down, rampant censorship, towns being bombarded - it’s a brutal civil war. To make matters worse, Palestinians in Syria are being especially targeted and cannot escape the country. Where is Syrian Human Rights Week?
In Egypt, tensions rose as the country’s new Islamist leader tried to implement more conservative Muslim legislation. The government is shaky; the political situation still hasn’t settled since the recent revolution. While all this is happening, minorities in Egypt, specifically Coptic Christians, are oppressed and persecuted. Copts have suffered mob assaults on their churches, Coptic girls and women have been regularly abducted and trafficked, and Copts face state-sanctioned discrimination at both political and judicial levels. Where is Egyptian Human Rights Week?
In Jordan, there is a monarchy with a tight grip on the population. A large portion of Jordan’s population comprises of Palestinian refugees, or those of Palestinian descent; nearly two million of the country’s population of six million. Jordanian Palestinians do not enjoy the same rights as their Jordanian counterparts, and are severely underrepresented in the higher education and electoral systems. Where is Jordanian Human Rights Week?
In Lebanon, Palestinians face perhaps the worst of discrimination. They are barred from over 25 professions, including medicine, law and engineering. They are also prevented from registering property, and according to Human Rights Watch, they live in “appalling social and economic conditions.” Where is Lebanon Human Rights Week?
These are only Israel’s neighbors. Countless other human rights abuses are taking place all over the Middle East.
Any critical thinker could understand that the cases of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon represent serious human rights violations and are topics worthy of discussion.
To date, little if any campaigning has been done at this university to shed light on these issues. If anything did take place, it was a far cry from a week of boisterous and aggressive action - the kind of week dedicated to criticizing Israel.
So we’re back to the start. If students committed to human rights, peace and justice are going to campaign on this campus - they ought to cover more of the issues.
Choosing to obsess over Israel is hypocritical at best and anti-Semitic at worst. I believe that the McMaster community deserves to see a better use of their student centre.
The IAW slogan commands us to “call it what it is” and so we should. IAW is toxic, it is divisive, it is a twisting of facts and most of all it is hypocritical.
If you want to gain knowledge about the Middle East, you can do better than this. Check out scholarly research, read various newspapers, or take a course on the region’s history and contemporary issues.
By educating yourself and thinking critically, you will become a more responsible global citizen.
Sean Haber / The Silhouette
You don’t have to major in Political Science to know that there’s a buzz about Israel. If you’ve opened up a newspaper or walked through MUSC enough times in the past few years, you know that one tiny country in the Middle East (smaller than New Jersey!) is getting more than its share of attention.
The buzzword when discussing Middle East politics seems to be peace. But who exactly is pro peace and who isn’t? The answer is far from simple; it is rooted in thousands of years of history and deep attachments to the land. Yet modern history has proven that Israel has made continual efforts toward a lasting peace and is still waiting for a willing partner with whom to negotiate.
Israel’s efforts at a peaceful two-state solution date as far back as 1947, when the UN voted for partition. The Zionist leaders were overjoyed with the offer even though it consisted of only 13 per cent of the original land under the British mandate. The Arab leaders, however, were displeased with the idea of a non-Muslim state in the Middle East and attacked this fledgling state from all sides. Israel’s newly formed army, consisting largely of Holocaust survivors with little formal training, managed to fend off its attackers in only 15 months, claiming roughly one per cent of the Israeli population. Sick of war, Israel and its neighbours agreed on temporary “armistice lines” - lines that left key defensive sections of Israel, including the central city of Jerusalem, in enemy hands.
These armistice lines lasted until 1967. Fast-forward two wars and the unilateral withdrawal from Sinai in 1957, and Israel still had not managed to make peace with any of its hostile neighbours. Continued aggression from Israel’s neighbours (“Pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews!”) led to yet another war. Families in Israel were prepared for the end.
Miraculously, Israel defeated its attackers in only six days and despite modest goals of survival, it managed to capture enough territory to double its size with strategic buffer zones that are essential for defense. These territories include the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. The UN’s response was Resolution 242, which called for Israel to give up some captured territory in exchange for the neighboring Arab countries’ recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The Arab League responded with a resounding “Three NOs” - NO peace, NO negotiations, and NO recognition.
Two wars with Egypt later (post-1967 and 1973), Israel gave up the entire Sinai Peninsula, forcefully evacuating 4,000 settlers in order to make peace with Egypt. Although this involved an evacuation from 91 per cent of all land captured in 1967, the consensus is that it was worthwhile: the peace treaty with Egypt is still in place today.
Skip ahead to 1993 - one defensive war and one intifada later. Israel and Palestine agree on the Oslo accords.
This attempt at peace stipulated that, over time, Israel would withdraw from most of the territories and grant self-government to the Palestinians. In return, there would be peace: an end to incitement, terrorism, and the denial of Israel’s right to exist. By 1997, 98 percent of Palestinians were governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in accordance with the Israeli side of the peace deal. Palestinians have since broken all conditions of the Oslo Accords.
After a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan and a unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon, arguably the most striking display of Israel’s peace efforts happened in 2005. Although the Palestinian Authority refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist, Israel withdrew from the entire Gaza Strip. Eighty-five hundred Israeli citizens were forcefully evacuated from their homes and communities. By withdrawing unilaterally, Israel hoped to take steps toward a two-state solution with defined borders – land for peace.
The response? In 2007, Hamas, which is a recognized terrorist organization by both the EU and the UN, took over leadership of the Gaza Strip in a forceful coup.
Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, over 8,000 rockets have been fired indiscriminately from Gaza at civilians – think homes, schools, and playgrounds – in Southern Israel. It’s no wonder that Israel is wary of giving up more land without a secure promise for peace.
It’s true that there is much suffering on both sides. Israelis are sick of sending their children to war and fearing rockets and bombs, while Palestinians are tired of being put in a compromising position by their corrupt government.
But on both sides of the conflict, people are tired of living without hope for peace in their children’s futures. So stop defining yourself as “pro-Israeli” or “pro-Palestinian.” Both sides need to open up to the greater picture and become pro-peace. But that can’t happen without negotiating and working together.
Israelis have shown that they are willing to make immense sacrifices. Golda Meir, Israel’s fourth prime minister, put it best: “Of course, we all must realize that the path to peace may be a little difficult, but not as difficult as the path to war.”
Chad Regan / The Silhouette
This past week, the Faculty of Humanities had Jasper Puar to speak on her work ‘Ecologies of Sensation, Sensational Ecologies: Sex and Disability in the Israeli Occupation of Palestine’ for their Whidden Lectures series. If the verbiage of the title doesn’t lose your interest, hopefully the borderline anti-semitic sentiment encapsulated by it will.
First, some pretext: I am an openly homosexual man, and a proud supporter of the state of Israel. Some, such as Ms. Puar, would call this intellectual schizophrenia; I call it logic.
Israel is a modern state, unparalleled in the Middle East for its liberalism, modernity, and acceptance.
Ms. Puar’s lecture, held on Jan. 14 and funded by the Faculty of Humanities, was an exercise in spitballing and seeing what stuck. Her lecture discussed two main themes: Israeli prenatal screening practises and ‘pinkwashing’. If you were unable to understand what those words meant without a Women’s Studies lexicon, join the club: her talk was as esoteric as a lecture could be, and with a purpose. Ms. Puar, who is from the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies at Rutgers University, made some rather outlandish claims that do not find their place in fact, but in an intrinsically anti-Israel political agenda.
To examine them is to familiarize oneself with the rhetoric of pseudo-intellectualism.
Ms. Puar began by discussing what she effectively described as a military-industrial fuelled eugenics program in Israel-Palestine. Citing the practise of prenatal screening, Ms. Puar somehow managed to say she was both pro-screening but simultaneously found the Israeli practise thereof to be deplorable, because it devalues disability: all of this, of course, is a result of the Israeli Defence Force’s lust for warm, healthy bodies to go out and perpetuate ‘the Occupation’ (a term she used both liberally and vaguely, a catastrophic combination when it comes to intellectual speakers).
Let’s set the record straight: Israel’s disabled rights movement began in 1988 (arguably) with the Special Education Law, and continues to this day with the National Insurance Institute providing benefits to children 3-18 year old.
After this, a series of equality measures were enacted, least of which included the Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Law, and a series of integration laws to better include mentally and physically handicapped individuals in the broader society. With about 7.6 per cent of Israeli children (both Arab and Jewish) having some form of disability, the government provides grants for both home accommodations, and education accommodations. As of yet, these efforts have not been enough, with a need for about 30 per cent more coverage than current programs achieve: Israel, like most modern democracies, is not a perfect state - welcome to reality.
Regarding Ms. Puar’s claims of a ‘perfect baby syndrome’ amongst Israeli parents fuelled by the national military complex, this is simply an unfounded interpretation.
A prenatal screening process is much needed in a population historically afflicted with a disproportionately large number of Tay-Sachs and other genetically transmitted disease sufferers, particularly amongst Ashkenazi populations. While Ms. Puar expressed support for this, she seemed to reject the practise when conducted by Israelis, which seemed to be a thread throughout her discourse.
On that note, while Ms. Puar expressed support for rights for LGBT people generally speaking, when it came to Israeli LGBT rights, she preferred the term ‘pinkwashing’.
‘Pinkwashing’ is a nifty manufactured term used to claim that Israel’s stellar LGBT rights record is only used as a cover for its brutal occupation of ‘Israel-Palestine’.
While she acknowledged the progress the State of Israel has made, she downplayed it by claiming that the end of the occupation superseded rights for gay and lesbian Israelis. Israel’s long history of liberalism toward its LGBT population, starting with the de facto nullification of buggery laws in 1960 and culminating today with legal recognition for same-sex civil marriage, Right of Return to gay couples, and the adoption of one’s partner’s children.
Thankfully, all of this progress has occurred in spite of people like Ms. Puar, who seemed to convey that LGBT citizens could wait to have their rights dealt to them.
Any progress Israel makes is, in Ms. Puar’s eyes, tainted by the occupation and therefore ought not be made at all. As gays in Palestine are constantly maltreated and dealt with under Islamic law, gays in Israel enjoy the rights and freedoms afforded to any individual in a free, democratic nation. This is the reality whether Ms. Puar would like to remain blissfully ignorant to it or not. When this point was contended, the questioner was shot down: Ms. Puar’s ability to respond to critical questions was just about as good as her ability to make clear, decisive statements on the existence of Israel.
Throughout her talk, I felt the urge to ask Ms. Puar one simple question: What would your optimal State of Israel look like?
Deep down, however, I knew I need not even ask. Her answer was clear: it would look like nothing at all.
By Sabeen Kazmi
On my way home from McMaster on Wednesday evening last week, my sister texted me exclaiming that Israel and Hamas had agreed on a ceasefire.
According to Owen Jones - an independent columnist - the recent conflict between Israel and Gaza began in early October when Israel ignored the ongoing ceasefire negotiations and killed fifteen Palestinians fighters, a mentally disabled individual and a thirteen-month old in an intrusion. During negotiations for ceasefire agreement, air strike missiles were fired by Israel, killing Ahmed Al-Jabari, the military leader of Hamas. The assassination of Al-Jabari resulted in the end of ceasefire negotiations and the Palestinians retaliated by firing rockets at Israel. On Nov. 8, Israel responded to the firing of rockets by striking air missiles, which lasted eight days. These bombs and missiles destroyed several homes, headquarters of news channels, injured thousands of civilians and killed a 168, 37 of whom were children. The rockets fired by Hamas killed five and injured 219 Israelis.
News of the ceasefire agreement was conflicting for me. I was, of course, relieved to hear that there was no immediate danger to innocent civilians on both sides. However, I was also skeptical - just how long will the ceasefire agreement hold? Worst yet, I was afraid the ceasefire agreement would end the recently growing interest regarding the decades long Gaza and Israel conflict. I did not want people to stop talking about this issue because there was no longer an imminent threat – bombing and the firing of missiles and rockets’ endangering the lives of innocent civilian.
Yes, rockets were fired into Israel. And yes, the targeting of civilians is wrong and should be condemned. However, only calling Hamas’ actions ‘acts of terrorism’ is ridiculous and blatantly hypocritical. Israel has committed similar actions on a much larger scale and violates basic human rights on a daily basis.
Over the last decade, 1,476 children and over 6,500 Palestinians have been killed and 59,575 injured by Israel.
Even though Israel exited Gaza in 2005, it now maintains and controls the occupation from the outside.
On his recent visit to the area, Noam Chomsky described Gaza as the “world’s largest open-air prison.” The idea of the Gaza siege in the words of Israeli official Dov Weisglass “is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” Israel’s current siege limits water, food, medical supplies and is the cause of 40 per cent of Palestinians living in poverty after losing their jobs in Israel. The siege has also halted all exports which resulted in the crash of private sector. Furthermore, due to the tight regulations of imports, Gaza does not have the necessary supplies needed to attempt the rebuilding of infrastructures which were demolished by Israel.
Thus far, 24,813 Palestinians’ homes have been demolished by Israeli defense forces since 1967. A large number of Palestinians continue to live in the rubble of their homes; meanwhile, others move in to live with relatives. A total of 80,000-90,000 Palestinians are displaced due to this conflict, 50,000 of whom are children. The numbers of displaced refugees continue to rise; the shelters are overcrowded and are sheltering twice their originally planned capacities
Additionally, the entire civilian population in the Gaza strip remains vulnerable, with no safe haven, no bomb shelters and closed borders, making it one of the rare conflicts where civilians have no place to flee.
We must not be placated at the news of ceasefire agreements; instead we should use this tragic event as an opportunity to prevent further violations of rights from occurring to Palestinian people.
The siege on Gaza must be lifted along with regulations implemented on food, water and medical supplies. Gaza’s dependency on Israel must end and living conditions must be restored.
By Rachel Charney
Last week’s issue of the Silhouette featured an article entitled “Call for Peace” that provided a one-sided account of the current conflict in the Middle East under the guise of ‘news’. This conflict is extraordinarily complicated, but this is no excuse for completely ignoring that there are two sides to every story. News articles should strive to present current events in a balanced, objective way. For example, if a count of the Palestinians that were wounded is provided, a count of the Israelis that were wounded should be provided as well. The article “A Call for Peace” made no attempt to tell a balanced story – it was anti-Israel propaganda, and Silhouette readers should demand a higher standard of news.
Since the article did not offer any context or explanation of the recent conflict, it is where I will begin. Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005. In 2007 Hamas - a terrorist organization - took control of the government. Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and has fired over 8,000 rockets into Israel since 2005. It’s hard to imagine that any state would tolerate constant rocket fire and not respond with equal or greater force than Israel has in order to keep its citizens safe.
Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense began on Nov. 14 with the aim of putting an end to the rocket fire that has forced those living in southern Israel to retreat to bomb shelters time and again. “A Call for Peace” mentioned that Israel has Gaza under a siege – rather, Gaza is under a weapons embargo intended to weaken Hamas and prevent Hamas from acquiring more of the lethal rockets that they use to terrorize Israeli civilians. Israel continues to supply necessary goods to Gaza including electricity, food and water, as Israel does not aim to punish a civilian population, but rather prevent a dangerous organization from arming itself.
As mentioned in last week’s article, over 100 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict. This number includes both militant and civilian deaths. Civilian deaths occur because Hamas has violated international law by hiding their rocket launching equipment behind civilian infrastructure. As a result, to protect its own people, the Israeli army is forced to attack civilian areas to destroy Hamas’s launching equipment. Hamas’s use of civilian shields is a despicable war crime.
The Israel Defense Force does everything it can to prevent civilian casualties – it drops leaflets, makes phone calls and sends text messages alerting citizens to evacuate areas that it will be targeting. It is true that Israel has been responsible for civilian casualties, but these casualties are never deliberate, and it is Hamas that makes the Palestinian civilians into targets in the first place. Israel has gone above and beyond its humanitarian responsibility in offering medical aid to injured Gazans. This is in stark contrast to Hamas, a terrorist group that fires indiscriminately at Israeli civilians, and has made their aim of killing innocent Israeli civilians very clear; when Hamas kills Israeli civilians it is intentional and a cause for celebration. During November 2012 four Israeli civilians were killed and 219 Israeli civilians were wounded by rocket fire, and the bomb that blew up a Tel Aviv bus on Nov. 21 wounded 27 more Israeli civilians.
In a recent video, Hamas stated that they love death more than the Israelis love life. For Hamas, it is not about building a better home for the Palestinian people – it is about destroying the State of Israel. The Palestinians deserve a government that will work towards their safety and security, and Hamas is not interested in working towards either of these goals.
Prime Minister Harper and President Obama announced earlier this month that they stand with Israel and recognize Israel’s right to defend itself. The United States was instrumental in orchestrating the ceasefire that was called on Nov. 21, and although twelve more rockets were fired following the ceasefire, it looks like the worst has passed. Hopefully, the Israeli government will be able to find a partner for peace, and in our lifetime peace in the Middle East can be a reality.
