Tag: McGill

OH CANADA: ANTISEMITISM, DISGUISED AS ANTI-ZIONISM, RETURNS TO CAMPUSES AND AMONG LEFTISTS

I Watched Anti-Semitism Wither. Now I'm Seeing it Come Back to Life: Robert Fulford, National Post, Nov. 17, 2017— One day in the 1940s a man knocked on the door of my family’s house in the east end of Toronto, seeking signatures for a petition.

Normalizing Anti-Semitism in Student Governments: Richard L. Cravatts, Winnipeg Jewish Review, Nov. 9, 2017— In the campus war against Israel…

Pre-Apology for the St. Louis, a Look at Canada’s Former Determination to Keep Jews Out: Allan Levine, Canadian Jewish News, Oct. 11, 2017— On June 8, 1939, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King…

Canada Bids to Return to the Security Council: Paul Merkley, Bayview Review, Sept. 19, 2017 — Shortly after his election,  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his Liberal government will be actively pursuing assignment to the next seat available on the United Nations Security Council.

 

On Topic Links

 

Why I Don’t Want an Apology for the St. Louis: Sally Zerker, Canadian Jewish News, Oct. 10, 2017

Excusing Jew-Hatred in Canada: Bradley Martin, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 7, 2017

An Anti-Semitic Purge at McGill University: Ari Lieberman, Frontpage Magazine, Nov. 7, 2017

Let's Hope Canadian Courts See the True Meaning of the Niqab: Barbara Kay, National Post, Nov. 15, 2017

                                                           

 

 

I WATCHED ANTI-SEMITISM WITHER.

NOW I'M SEEING IT COME BACK TO LIFE                                             

Robert Fulford

National Post, Nov. 17, 2017

 

One day in the 1940s a man knocked on the door of my family’s house in the east end of Toronto, seeking signatures for a petition. After he said the petition was an attempt to keep Jews off our street, my parents declined to sign and he went away. Later I asked my mother why he and others were against Jews. She answered with probably the least offensive accusation she had heard about them: “People say they give loud parties.” She was not interested in the petitioner’s more virulent arguments.

That was my first brush, at age 10, with anti-Semitism, a prejudice I’ve tended to watch with great interest over the years. By the time I was grown it was much diminished. The barriers to Jews in the professions and business fell, one after another. Eventually, it seemed reasonable to say that, while anti-Semitism still existed, it no longer played a significant role in shaping Canadian society. But lately it has re-appeared, not just in Canada but across the West. Now, however, it takes the form of hostility to Israel. And now it is significant.

 

There are many people who campaign against Israel but claim not to be anti-Semites. They have nothing against Jews, they say, but they passionately oppose the alleged imperialism, militarism and racism of Israel. That’s intended as a reasonable proposition, but it ignores the alleged imperialism, militarism and racism of many other countries. Their foreign policy is focused on a single state, the Jewish state. How did they choose Israel over other states deserving of their critical attention?

 

In 2017, news of anti-Semitism is hard to avoid. A letter from the Gatestone Institute a few days ago noted that “Anti-Semitism has returned as one of Europe’s worst diseases.” Recently, at McGill University, an anti-Semitic email was used in a campaign against a Jewish candidate for the board of the student union. Noah Lew, a third-year arts student, posted on his Facebook page that “I was blocked from participating in student government because of my Jewish identity and my affiliation with Jewish organizations.” At the University of British Columbia, vicious anti-Semitic signs have recently appeared on campus. A news report from Paris yesterday announced, “Anti-Semitism is devouring the French Republic.”

 

Now the political context of anti-Semitism sharply differs. A few decades ago it usually emerged from those with right-wing views. In the U.S., the race-conscious “alt-right” falls within the traditional view of anti-Semitism, as do the advocates of “white supremacy.” But now anti-Semitic opinions are often held and spread by leftish forces. Last summer, a vast, nearly 1,000-strong convention of the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed the anti-Israel Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) movement. They are no doubt sincere and virtuous socialists, and they believe that trying to hurt Israel is a sincere and virtuous expression of socialism, a thought they hope to install in the campaign of the Democrats.

 

This week brings a report titled The Anti-Israel Agenda: Inside the Political War on the Jewish State (Geffen Publishers), by Alex Ryvchin, an Australian Jewish writer who details the anti-Israel activities of Oxfam, the UN and other forces. Ryvchin criticizes members of the anti-Israel movement as “self-righteous Westerners.” He points out that since 1948 Israel has withstood three invasions on multiple fronts, and hundreds of terrorist attacks, yet has emerged intact. So, he says, its enemies have opened a new front — “a full-scale political assault on Israel’s legitimacy.” Institutions of moral and political influence, including Western governments, the universities, the UN and the churches are being turned against Israel.

 

Their purpose is “to isolate and cripple the state until it can no longer defend its interests or its people.” He believes the campaign began at the UN’s World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa in 2001. The Durban Conference developed a strategy for attacking Israel on moral grounds. Creating the image of Israelis as occupiers, colonists and oppressors has become a triumph of modern propaganda, a project both impressive and totally unfair. Ryvchin has given Israel’s supporters and fair-minded observers an explanation of how this outrageous libel became so widespread.  

 

Contents

NORMALIZING ANTI-SEMITISM IN STUDENT GOVERNMENTS

Richard L. Cravatts

Winnipeg Jewish Review, Nov. 9, 2017

 

In the campus war against Israel, the all too familiar refrain from student anti-Israel activists, many of whom form the loose coalition of groups and individuals spearheading the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, is that their quarrel is only with Israel and its government’s policies, not with Jews themselves. But that specious defense continues to fall away, revealing some caustic and base anti-Semitism, representing a seismic shift in the way that Jews are now being indicted not just for supporting Israel, but merely for being Jewish.

 

At McGill University this week, as the latest example, three board members of the University’s Students’ Society were removed from their appointments after a vote at the Fall General Assembly due to what was reported to be their perceived “Jewish conflict of interest.” The ouster was led by a pro-BDS student group, Democratize McGill, which was campaigning against pro-Israel students in the wake of a September ruling by the Judicial Board that, once and for all, rejected the BDS movement on the McGill campus, stating that it was violative of the SSMU’s constitution because it “violate[d] the rights of [Israeli] students to represent themselves” and discriminated on the basis of national origin.

 

In retaliation, and to eliminate pro-Israel views on the board, Democratize McGill launched an effort to clear the board of BDS opponents, based on the cynical notion that these members harbored clear conflict of interests which arose from their purported biases, those conflicts of interests and biases stemming from the poisonous notion that because the students were Jewish or pro-Israel, or both, they could, therefore, never make informed or fair decisions as student leaders.

 

Ignoring their own obvious biases and the lack of any balance in their own views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the pro-BDS members nonetheless felt comfortable with suppressing pro-Israel voices and Jewish students on the board, asserting that they sought to remove these students because they “are all either fellows at the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC), an organization whose explicit mandate is to promote pro-Israel discourse in Canadian politics, or primary organizers for the anti-BDS initiative at McGill.”  In other words, they were being disqualified for having views that differed from those student leaders seeking to purge them from SSMU. The Jewish board member and two other non-Jewish, pro-Israel board members were subsequently voted off the board.

 

McGill has a previous history of seeking to suppress pro-Israel thinking by Jewish students, not in the student government but in its press. An example of that was the 2016 controversy involving The McGill Daily and its astonishing editorial admission that it was the paper’s policy to not publish “pieces which promote a Zionist worldview, or any other ideology which we consider oppressive.” “While we recognize that, for some, Zionism represents an important freedom project,” the editors wrote in a defense of their odious policy, “we also recognize that it functions as a settler-colonial ideology that perpetuates the displacement and the oppression of the Palestinian people.”

 

Leading up to this revealing editorial, a McGill student, Molly Harris, had filed a complaint with the Students’ Society of McGill University’s (SSMU) equity committee. In that complaint, Harris contended that, based on the paper’s obvious anti-Israel bias, and “a set of virulently anti-Semitic tweets from a McGill Daily writer,” a “culture of anti-Semitism” defined the Daily—a belief seemingly confirmed by the fact that several of the paper’s editors themselves are BDS supporters and none of the staffers were Jewish.

 

An attempted purging of a pro-Israel student from student government, very similar to the inquisition that just occurred at McGill, took place in February of 2015 at UCLA, when several councilmembers on the USAC Judicial Board, UCLA student government’s highest judicial body, grilled Rachel Beyda, then a second-year economics student, when she sought a seat on the board. The focus on her candidacy was not her qualifications for the position (which no one seemed to doubt), but specifically the fact that she was Jewish and how her “affiliation with Jewish organizations at UCLA . . . might affect her ability to rule fairly on cases in which the Jewish community has a vested interest in the outcome, such as cases related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” as the student newspaper described it…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

                                                                       

 

Contents

PRE-APOLOGY FOR THE ST. LOUIS, A LOOK AT

CANADA’S FORMER DETERMINATION TO KEEP JEWS OUT

Allan Levine

Canadian Jewish News, Oct. 11, 2017

 

On June 8, 1939, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, head of a Liberal government that had won power four years earlier, was in Washington, D.C. He was escorting King George VI and Queen Elizabeth on their royal tour and enjoying a splendid lunch with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his family at the White House.

 

Over tea, the conversation eventually got around to the matter of the SS St. Louis, a ship that had left Hamburg with 937 passengers. Nearly all those on board were German Jews fleeing the Nazi regime with the hope of finding refuge in the United States. The ship, which had departed on May 13, was bound for Cuba. Except when the St. Louis reached Havana two weeks later, the Cuban government refused to accept their landing certificates and transit visas. More than seven days later, no South or Central American country would provide the Jewish refugees with a safe haven. And the U.S. and Canada, both ostensibly still recovering from the Great Depression, did not want them either.

 

King listened attentively to FDR’s views on the matter, about how “immigration laws … placed certain restrictions” on permitting the Jews into both countries, and then decided that this was not Canada’s problem to solve. (From 1933 to 1945, the U.S. allowed in more than 200,000 European Jewish refugees; while Canada accepted slightly more than 5,000.) Other Canadians – including historian George Wrong, B.K. Sandwell, the editor of Saturday Night magazine and Robert Falconer, the former president of the University of Toronto – disagreed. They urged King to show “true Christian charity of the people of this most fortunate and blessed country.”

 

Yet the prime minister remained firm in his resolve to keep the Jews out. He heeded the advice of Ernest Lapointe, the minister of justice and his influential Quebec lieutenant, who staunchly opposed Jewish immigration because Lapointe knew that the vast majority of Quebecers opposed it – and Liberal power in Ottawa was somewhat contingent on winning most, if not all, of the province’s 65 parliamentary seats in future elections.

 

King was influenced as well by Frederick Blair, a longtime civil servant, who in 1936 became the director of the Immigration Branch. Blair was one of the most vocal opponents of Jewish immigration to Canada. Classically, as Irving Abella and Harold Troper note in their 1982 book, None is Too Many: Canada and the Jews of Europe 1933-1948, Blair did not consider himself to be anti-Semitic, merely “realistic about Canada’s immigration needs and about the unsuitability of the Jew to those needs.” The country did not have an official refugee policy at the time, so the German Jews had to be considered under the restrictive immigration regulations of the day and Jews were not “preferred” immigrants under any circumstance.

 

In what was to be one of the definitive statements of this whole sorry ordeal, Blair told Oscar Skelton, the undersecretary of state for external affairs, that the Jews on the St. Louis did not meet Canada’s immigration rules and that no country could “open its doors wide enough to take in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who want to leave Europe: the line must be drawn somewhere.” By the time Blair had written those sharp words, the St. Louis and its 907 Jewish passengers were on their way back to Europe. Nearly 300 of them managed to get into Britain and the rest found temporary refuge in France, Belgium and Holland. Of the 620 who returned to continental Europe, 254 perished during the war.

 

Though Blair and King are the villains of this saga – and legitimately so – King, at least, was not unsympathetic to the plight of the refugees. (On more than one occasion, the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews haunted King’s dreams and troubled his sleep.) In November 1938, after King had learned of the destruction of Jewish shops and synagogues in Germany on Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass, he was deeply upset by the news of this violence. “The sorrows which the Jews have to bear at this time are almost beyond comprehension,” he recorded in his diary. “Something will have to be done by our country.” But he was not quite certain then, or later, what exactly he could do.

 

This owed partly to the fact that King shared the anti-Jewish sentiments that were ingrained into Canadian society for the 19th and good part of the 20th centuries. He understood, as he reasoned in a diary entry of August 1936, that “there are good as well as bad Jews and it is wrong to indict a nation or a race.” But two years later, as the pressure mounted to admit more Jewish refugees, he wrote, “My own feeling is that nothing is to be gained by creating an internal problem in an effort to meet an international one.”…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

 

Contents

CANADA BIDS TO RETURN TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL

 Paul Merkley

Bayview Review, Sept. 19, 2017

 

Shortly after his election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his Liberal government will be actively pursuing assignment to the next seat available on the United Nations Security Council. (The Council is composed of 15 Members: five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States and ten  non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly. The current non-permanent members are: Bolivia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Italy, Japan,. Kazakhstan, Senegal, Sweden, Ukraine and Uruguay.) The current competition is for the term scheduled to begin in 2020. This means that Canada will have plenty of time to play nice to the electors. The electors consist of the nations belonging to the  Western European and Others Group (WEOG.)

 

There is a story that goes with creation of the WEOG. The Arab and Muslim nations would much prefer that Israel and the Jews should not exist at all and most of them are publicly declared in favour of their liquidation. Finding themselves, through no fault of their own, sitting side-by-side with these people in the General Assembly, they have until recently managed to keep Israel off all the main commissions. They had accomplished this by excluding her from the Asia-Pacific Group to which she logically belongs, until May 2000, when , following much arm-twisting by the American delegation, Israel was allowed to became a full member of WEOG, on a temporary basis; in December 2013, Israel became full permanent member of the WEOG group. Believe it or not, the “Others” in this “regional” group are New Zealand, Israel and Turkey. Like almost everything that happens at the UN this odd grouping (WEOG) proved necessary because the Arab States refused to break bread with Jews.

 

The first rule to understanding behaviour of nation-states in the General Assembly is the inordinate power of the 57-nation Islamic bloc (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.), Its members are only a minority of the nations of the world, but because it is the only continuing bloc no one on earth knows how many deals its members have outstanding with other nations of the world on matters of no interest to those other nations. This bloc can call in all the anti-Israel spirits at any time.

 

The last time that Canada made a bid for a Security Council seat it was shot down by this Islamic bloc. Despite winning a seat on the UN Security Council every decade since its inception, in 2010, the Conservative government withdrew its candidacy in October, 2010, when it became clear it would not receive the votes required to secure a seat. No one made a secret of the fact that the loss of this prestige opportunity was the price that Canada had to pay for its support Israel at the UN. The seat went, instead to Portugal, a loyal supporter of the EU’s “even-handed” views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and a country beholden to the European community for its recent rescue from massive budgetary deficit.

 

Immediately following the UN rebuff, Canada’s current Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said out loud that Canada’s defeat on this matter was payback for its pro-Israel policy. But, “we will not back down on our principles… Some would even say that, because of our commitment to these values, we lost a seat on the council, If that’s the case, so be it.” … Summoned by the CTVnews  to explain this story to the handful of Canadians who cared was Paul Heinbacker, former Canadian Ambassador to the UN: it was “because the Harper government was “selling policies that the international community is not sympathetic to … [among which are] policies that are frankly and strongly in support of the government of Israel, And again, whatever you think of the merits of the policy… they are  not vote-getters. There are 57 votes in the Arab and Islamic community.” Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal Opposition at that time, bemoaned the decline of Canada’s prestige : Harper “had paid the price …for shifting Canada’s foreign policy away from long-established traditions – among which was the pursuit of balanced policy towards Israel and the Palestinians.” Khaled Moummar, leader of the Canadian Arab federation, told the National Post that his constituency “feared that if Canada gains a seat on the Security Council if may be used against Arabs and Muslims around the world”.

 

Elaborating upon his pro-Israel policy, Prime Minister Harper told a Conference on Anti-Semitism in Ottawa in November 2010: “History shows us – and the ideology of the anti-Israel mob tells us all too well—that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are in the longer term a threat to all of us… And I know, by the way, because I have the bruises to show for it, that whether it is at the UN or any other international forum, the easiest thing to do is simply just to go along with this anti-Israel rhetoric, to present it as just being even-handed, and to excuse oneself with the label of honest broker. There are, after all, a lot more votes –a lot more – in being anti-Israel.”

 

Trudeau has accused the Conservative Opposition of falsely asserting that his new government is not being as supportive to the Jewish state as was the previous government. At the same time, he insists, the position of his government is more in line with Canada’s traditional even-handed approach to Israel and the Palestinians. “We won’t hesitate from talking about unhelpful steps like the continued illegal settlements… [After all,] “true friendship does not mean unequivocal support.”

 

Now, as Canada prepares for another contest for a seat on the Security Council, Trudeau has a huge opportunity to prove his fidelity to Israel. The principle obstacle is again the Muslim bloc. An obvious question occurs: Why is there not a bloc of European nations – or a bloc of Christian nations – or a bloc of Friends of Israel. Our statesmen gag at such thoughts. Indulgence by the majority of Non-Islamic, Non-Arabic nations of this bloc-voting of the Muslim nation is once face of a very large fact of life: No one familiar with the facts of world politics would expect any politician, in out of office, to stand up and identify his nation with our religious or cultural legacy, but at the same time they all fall over each other validating Islam. No one dares to suggest that an Islamic bloc, lobbying constantly against Israel, is inconsistent with the original goals or the ideals of the United Nations…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!

 

 

Contents

 

On Topic Links

 

Why I Don’t Want an Apology for the St. Louis: Sally Zerker, Canadian Jewish News, Oct. 10, 2017—On Sept. 27, at the inauguration of the National Holocaust Monument in Ottawa, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hinted that his government is considering apologizing for the 1939 MS St. Louis incident, when Canada turned away a boatload of Jews who were seeking asylum from Nazi persecution. To which I say: no, I don’t want an apology. And here’s why.

Excusing Jew-Hatred in Canada: Bradley Martin, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 7, 2017 The Toronto Star, Canada’s largest daily newspaper, recently published a disgraceful article defending a Toronto imam who called for the genocide of Jews. Ayman Elkasrawy is a former teaching assistant at Ryerson University and junior employee at his mosque, Masjid Toronto.

An Anti-Semitic Purge at McGill University: Ari Lieberman, Frontpage Magazine, Nov. 7, 2017— ​Despite suffering several public and humiliating reversals in various forums and venues, those pushing for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel have not dispensed with their pernicious campaign of hate. The latest outrage perpetrated by BDS activists occurred at McGill University, where a Jewish student and two non-Jewish students identified as pro-Israel were removed from their positions as directors of the Students Society of McGill University (SSMU).

Let's Hope Canadian Courts See the True Meaning of the Niqab: Barbara Kay, National Post, Nov. 15, 2017— As was widely anticipated, Quebec’s Bill 62, banning face cover in the realm of public services, will be legally contested: by an individual niqab-wearing woman, supported by the CCLA and the National Council of Canadian Muslims. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is considering how his government too may “weigh in” on the challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

UNIVERSITIES HYPOCRITICALLY CONDEMN RACISM WHILE CONDONING ANTI-ZIONISM

I'm a Student at McGill. Our Problems with Anti-Semitism are Far From Over: David Watson, National Post, Nov. 1, 2017— Last week, McGill University was thrust into the national spotlight for an unfortunate reason.

An Anti-Semitic Caricature of Me Generates No Criticism from Berkeley Hard Left: Alan M. Dershowitz, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 26, 2017— I was recently invited to present the liberal case for Israel at Berkeley.

Universities Can’t Have it Both Ways on Free Speech: Margaret Wente, Globe & Mail, Oct. 27, 2017— The trouble with campus speech codes is that they backfire.

I Don’t Want an Apology from Justin Trudeau: Sally F. Zerker, CIJR, Oct. 26, 2017— Canadian governmental spokespeople have been active lately in apologizing for historical wrongs.

 

 

On Topic Links

 

The Zionists are Coming! Panic at San Francisco State U.: Cinnamon Stillwell, American Thinker, Oct. 7, 2017

New Wave of Anti-Israel, Anti-Semitic Activity Emerges on US Campuses: United With Israel, Oct. 2, 2017

Against Faux-Feminists Who Deny the Rights of Muslim Women and Jews: Phyllis Chesler, Tablet, Oct. 2, 2017

Massey College Suspends ‘Master’ Title, Apologizes for ‘Completely Inappropriate’ Incident: Simona Chiose, Globe & Mail, Sept. 29, 2017

                                                           

                                

    I'M A STUDENT AT MCGILL.

OUR PROBLEMS WITH ANTI-SEMITISM ARE FAR FROM OVER                                                       

David Watson

National Post, Nov. 1, 2017

 

Last week, McGill University was thrust into the national spotlight for an unfortunate reason. Students at the bi-annual General Assembly of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) voted to remove a Jewish student, Noah Lew, from the society’s board of directors. Lew later wrote on Facebook that he had been targeted for his Jewish identity. Before the vote, Lew and two other directors were publicly accused of corruption by a student political group for their affiliation with Jewish political organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC).

 

The vote against Lew at the general assembly last week is certainly disappointing. But what’s even more troubling is that, to anyone with a decent grasp of student politics at our university, it wasn’t in the least bit surprising. Lew’s removal is just the latest symptom of a much deeper problem in McGill student politics. Unless it can be definitively resolved, it will only be a matter of time before the next episode of alleged anti-Semitism at the university.

 

I’ve been an undergraduate student at McGill since 2014, and I’m now in my final semester. For the past two years, I’ve been writing about student politics at McGill for a student newspaper, The McGill Tribune. In that time, I’ve become familiar with a student society that is engulfed in an endless debate over whether or not to support Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS), a movement that calls for a boycott of Israel over its occupation of the Palestinian territories. It’s a struggle that consumes the attention of the society and its members, and generates most of the scandals that plague the university, including last week’s vote against Lew.

 

For the past three years, BDS has been the organizing principle behind most of the major controversies on our campus. Motions to support BDS were brought forward three separate times in 18 months, before they were declared unconstitutional by the Judicial Board, SSMU’s version of a supreme court. Since then, the struggle over BDS has continued through proxy debates over constitutional issues, proposed reforms, and, as we saw last week, votes on individual student representatives.

 

Incidents like Lew’s removal are nowadays generally accompanied by a semantic debate about what does or does not constitute anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, or some other form of -ism. Those who voted against Lew claim that their grievances were only political, though I’m not aware of any legitimate criticisms of Lew, since no one even bothered to speak during the allotted debate period before the vote. But whatever their intentions, what matters most is that their actions have real, damaging consequences for our university’s Jewish students.

 

By voting against board members for things like their membership in CJPAC, McGill students are forcing many of their Jewish peers to make an unfair and harmful choice. They are forced to choose between getting involved in their communities and participating in student government at our university. No McGill student should be put in such a situation, and it’s our responsibility as fellow students to ensure that no one is. That’s why, after the results of the vote against Lew were announced, I joined dozens of my peers in walking out of the general assembly. To vote against Lew for his involvement with Jewish political organizations is to imply that one’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict should be a litmus test for student representatives at McGill. This would be an absurd requirement, and its burden would fall disproportionately on Jewish students at McGill.

 

In the days after the vote against Lew, many powerful actors voiced their concerns about the incident, and expressed their willingness to explore solutions. McGill Principal Suzanne Fortier released a statement promising an investigation and a task force. Lew was even the subject of a discussion in the House of Commons. And at a meeting on Oct. 29, the SSMU Board of Directors voted to establish its own committee to investigate anti-Semitism in the student society.         

 

If they are to make a meaningful difference, any proposed reforms will need to address the root cause of the issue: the persistence of the BDS debate at McGill. This isn’t to say that discussion of BDS or Israel should be banned on campus. Universities should be arenas for discussions on even the most controversial topics — that’s how we learn. But these issues shouldn’t come to dominate student politics, or to determine who should be able to sit on a student council.

 

One immediate fix would be for more students to take an active role in their student society. Much of the pro-BDS lobbying comes from a mobilized vocal minority — Lew’s candidacy was opposed by only 160 votes, at a school with more than 20,000 undergrads. Past online referendums suggest that most students don’t support BDS, but their inaction allows its supporters to drive the agenda. With only a few weeks left before I graduate, I won’t be around to see any of the changes I’m proposing. BDS will have defined my entire experience with student government at McGill. This can’t be allowed to continue. McGill is an otherwise great school, and its incoming students deserve a better experience than the one that the students now graduating have endured.

                                                                                   

 

Contents

AN ANTI-SEMITIC CARICATURE OF ME GENERATES

NO CRITICISM FROM BERKELEY HARD LEFT

Alan M. Dershowitz

Gatestone Institute, Oct. 26, 2017

 

I was recently invited to present the liberal case for Israel at Berkeley. In my remarks I advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state and a negotiated end of the conflict. I encouraged hostile questions from protestors and answered all of them. The audience responded positively to the dialogue.

 

Then immediately after my address, a poster was plastered outside Berkeley Law School with a swastika drawn on my face. The Dean of Berkeley Law School, Erwin Cherwinsky, sent a letter condemning the swastika: "Several of our students expressed their disagreement with him [Dershowitz] and did so in a completely appropriate way that led to discussion and dialogue. I was pleased to hear of how this went, but then shocked to learn of the swastika drawn on a flyer that someone had posted about him."

 

Shortly after, The Daily Californian – Berkeley's student newspaper – published an anti-Semitic cartoon, depicting an ugly caricature of me sticking my head through a cardboard cut-out. Behind the cardboard I am portrayed stomping on a Palestinian child with my foot, while holding in my hand an Israeli soldier who is shooting an unarmed Palestinian youth. Above the cardboard cut-out the title of my speech – The Liberal Case for Israel – is scrawled in capital letters.

 

In a Letter to the Editor, the university's Chancellor, Carol Christ, wrote the following: "Your recent editorial cartoon targeting Alan Dershowitz was offensive, appalling and deeply disappointing. I condemn its publication. Are you aware that its anti-Semitic imagery connects directly to the centuries-old "blood libel" that falsely accused Jews of engaging in ritual murder? I cannot recall anything similar in the Daily Cal, and I call on the paper's editors to reflect on whether they would sanction a similar assault on other ethnic or religious groups. We cannot build a campus community where everyone feels safe, respected and welcome if hatred and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes become an acceptable part of our discourse."

 

It is shocking that this vile caricature – which would fit comfortably in a Nazi publication – was published in "the official paper of record of the City of Berkeley" (according to the Editor.) The cartoon resembles the grotesque anti-Semitic blood libel propaganda splashed across Der Sturmer in the 1930's, which depicted Jews drinking the blood of gentile children. Canards about Jews as predators – prominently promulgated by the Tzarist forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – were anti-Semitic back then and are still anti-Semitic today, whether espoused by the extreme left or the extreme right.

 

This sequence of events – by hard-left students who originally protested my right to speak at Berkeley– confirmed what I've long believed: that there is very little difference between the Nazis of the hard right and the anti-Semites of the hard left. There is little doubt that this abhorrent caricature was a hard-left Neo-Nazi expression.

 

These anti-Semitic displays against me were in reaction to a speech in which I advocated a Palestinian state; an end to the occupation and opposition to Israeli settlement policies. Many on the hard-left refuse to acknowledge this sort of nuanced positioning. That is because their hostility towards Israel does not stem from any particular Israeli actions or policies. Even if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, destroy the security barrier, and recognize Hamas as a legitimate political organization, it would still not be enough. For these radicals, it is not about what Israel does; it is about what Israel is: the nation state of the Jewish people. To many on the hard left, Israel is an imperialistic, apartheid, genocidal, and colonialist enterprise that must be destroyed.

 

Nonetheless, just as I defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, I defend the right of hard-left bigots to produce this sort of anti-Semitic material, despite it being hate speech. Those who condemn hate speech when it comes from the Right should also speak up when hate speech comes from the Left. The silence from those on the Left is steeped in hypocrisy. It reflects the old adage: free speech for me but not for thee…

[To read the full article click the following link—Ed.]                       

                                                                       

 

Contents

UNIVERSITIES CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS ON FREE SPEECH

Margaret Wente

Globe & Mail, Oct. 27, 2017

 

The trouble with campus speech codes is that they backfire. That's what happened when Dalhousie University tried to discipline Masuma Khan for making rude remarks on Facebook. Ms. Khan is the black-robed student activist who got pushback after she urged people to boycott Canada Day. "F*** you all," she responded in one post. "Be proud of this country? For what, over 400 years of genocide?" For good riddance, she signed off with the hashtag #whitefragilitycankissmyass."

 

Never mind for now the remarkable ingratitude Ms. Khan expresses toward the country that took her parents in, and provided her with a first-class education. No one took offence at that. On today's campuses, the sentiments she expressed are common – and, for aspiring activists, practically obligatory. No one blinked until a white, male graduate student decided to test the system. He filed a written complaint alleging that her Facebook post was "blatant discrimination" against white people.

 

The university should have told them both to go away and grow up. But of course it couldn't do that. Dalhousie has a detailed code of conduct that, among other things, prohibits "unwelcome" actions that might make another person feel demeaned, intimidated or harassed – even if it's just a Facebook post. The vice-provost of student affairs investigated the matter and recommended that Ms. Khan should face a disciplinary hearing and be sentenced to re-education camp. What happened next was perfectly predictable. The very people who had insisted on rigid campus speech codes in the first place – left-wing professors, Indigenous and anti-racism activists and the like – suddenly discovered the importance of free speech. In an open letter, they vigorously condemned the administration, and demanded an environment in which "political speech can flourish." The university capitulated instantly.

 

These people are, of course, correct. Ms. Khan has every right to trash talk anyone she wants on her Facebook page. She should not, however, be surprised when she is trash-talked back. Nor should we expect these sudden converts to free speech to express the same zeal for protecting the free-expression rights of, say, conservative white male graduate students. For universities, the burden of policing speech creates an impossible dilemma of their own making. The requirement to create "safe" spaces, where people have a right to feel unoffended, undemeaned and undiscomfited, is incompatible with the right to free expression in the public square – for the simple reason that free expression is bound to make people feel cheesed off, threatened and unsafe. That's why it needs protection.

 

Ironically, universities have done much to institutionalize the idea that speech itself can be dangerous, and that certain speech should not be tolerated. This idea is now depressingly pervasive. In one recent survey of 800 U.S. university undergraduates, 81 per cent said they agreed with the statement: "Words can be a form of violence." Thirty per cent agreed that physical violence "can be justified" to prevent someone from espousing hateful views.

 

As intolerance spreads on campus, more and more students – and their professors – are insisting that "free speech" includes the right to shut down speech they don't like. At Columbia University, hundreds of students and professors have come to the defence of demonstrators who shouted down an address by the far-right U.K. activist Tommy Robinson last month. They insist that the demonstrators should not be disciplined by the university. By shutting down the speaker, they argue, the protesters "were providing a model of informed political engagement." As two graduate-school journalism students (!) wrote, "defining 'free speech' as a one-handed monologue full of unchallenged smears, however, is a lazy cliché."

 

These students simply echo the position of professors such as the University of Southern California's Charles H.F. Davis, who argues that students who shout down right-wing speakers are engaged in "resistance against white supremacy." Last week, anti-fascist protesters at a university in California even shut down a panel on – that's right – free speech. Universities should scarcely be surprised that campus conservatives are now using policies devised by leftists to constrain speech they don't like. People who are happy to see the leftie vigilantes get their comeuppance shouldn't be too smug. Those surveys show that students of all stripes – left, right and centre – aren't very tolerant of speech they don't happen to like.

 

As universities enthusiastically embrace a mission of expanding social justice, the tensions between their role as speech nannies and as a platform for ideas and debate will only grow. I am sorry to say that no university in Canada has yet followed the lead of the University of Chicago, which explicitly advises incoming students that it does not believe in trigger warnings, safe spaces, disinviting speakers, or presumably, in policing students' Facebook posts. The administrative time and energy that could be saved by adopting such a policy would be truly awesome. And imagine what would happen if universities stopped treating students like kindergarteners: They might grow up.

 

 

 

Contents

I DON’T WANT AN APOLOGY FROM JUSTIN TRUDEAU

Sally F. Zerker

CIJR, Oct. 26, 2017

 

Canadian governmental spokespeople have been active lately in apologizing for historical wrongs. Everybody was getting into the act; Trudeau with regard to mistreatment of Indian immigrants, Wynne with respect to exploitation of native peoples, Toronto’s chief of police for a raid on a gay bathhouse long ago. Now, Justin Trudeau is considering an apology for Canada’s turning aside a boatload of Jews seeking asylum in Canada from Nazi persecution in 1939.

 

Let me say right up front. I don’t want an apology although the Canadian government did me irreparable harm by their rejection of Jewish immigrants during the 1930’s and well into the 1940s. The refusal to allow the entry of the Jewish escapees from Hitler on the ship St. Louis was only one part of a larger discriminatory policy of the Liberal government in power.

 

What malice was inflicted on me personally by the Canadian government? It was responsible for the early deaths of my aunt, uncle, and their children—my cousins. Of course, the Canadian authorities didn’t directly murder these members of my family, but nevertheless they were responsible. How? My aunt Chaya was my father’s sister, she was married to Alter, and they had five healthy, bright children, who undoubtedly would have been a great asset to Canada.  Chaya and Alter lived in Lodz, Poland. In the 1930’s, they were all set to join their parents and siblings in Canada. By then, my father’s whole extended family, with the exception of Chaya’s, was already settled in Toronto, Canada.

 

My parents migrated to Canada in 1927, to join both their maternal and paternal parents and siblings. My father’s three brothers and one sister were newcomers to Canada. As you can imagine, these new immigrants were doing everything possible to earn a living. But they were determined to assemble enough money to bring their remaining sibling and her family to Canada. Unfortunately, it took a few years to accumulate the required amount.  By that time, in the thirties, the Canadian policy, with regard to Jews wanting to settle here, was in the hostile hands of Prime Minister Mackenzie King and Frederick Blair, head of immigration, who had the support of the Liberal cabinet and the caucus. They didn’t want any Jews to enter Canada. None! The result was that Canada had the worst record for the entry of Jewish refugees of any nation during the Nazi years.

 

The application of Chaya’s family to migrate to Canada was made in the normal way, and to my father’s surprise and disappointment, their visas were denied. An expert on immigration was hired to appeal the decision, but that too failed. A reason given for the rejection was that Alter, the husband and father of the family, had a limp, and was therefore liable to have tuberculosis of the limbs, which could threaten other Canadians. I don’t know how they came up with this excuse because it was a complete falsehood.  I know this for certain, because one cousin who survived the holocaust, and who came to Canada after liberation, was able to confirm that this accusation was utter nonsense. Her father was strong and young, was fully competent to work, walk and run, and with healthy legs.

 

Why then is it that I don’t want an apology for this cruel act? Because an apology can’t right this wrong.  It will not retrieve my relatives for me nor offer me any solace. Instead, it will whitewash a government and a Liberal Party that continued to do nothing to amend the type of antisemitism that was endemic in Canada until the 1970s. It is a shallow, empty, meaningless act for my extended family who lost part of this family for no reason except Jew hatred. It’s not as if Canada would have known any additional cost for my aunt’s family. In those days sponsorship meant total responsibility and upkeep for those committed to the newcomers.

 

And Canada was the undoubted loser. My father’s family of Friedbergs produced a generation that contributed very well to Canada’s interests. In total my cousins and I have three Ph.Ds in various fields, one Rabbi who led the largest Conservative congregation in Canada, two outstanding medical doctors, one excellent dentist, four who earned different kinds of post-graduate degrees, and were fruitfully employed in their respective areas of expertise, and a couple of cousins who took their talents to the USA, one who was a violinist in a Chicago orchestra. I often am filled with remorse for the loss to the Jewish community and to Canada that might have been had the bigotry and hatred not impaired the creativity and talent from thousands of Jewish refugees who were rejected. If Trudeau is set on making an apology, it is owed to Canada, not from Canada, and it should be in the name of the Liberal Party.

 

Dr. Sally F. Zerker is Professor Emerita at York University and a CIJR Academic Fellow.

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!

 

Contents

 

On Topic Links

 

The Zionists are Coming! Panic at San Francisco State U.: Cinnamon Stillwell, American Thinker, Oct. 7, 2017 —In the fevered imagination of the academic left, these are dark days at San Francisco State University (SFSU).

New Wave of Anti-Israel, Anti-Semitic Activity Emerges on US Campuses: United With Israel, Oct. 2, 2017—Jewish college students returning after their summer break are encountering a wave of swastika daubings and anti-Israel activity on campuses across the country—and there are signs the hostility may intensify in the weeks ahead.

Against Faux-Feminists Who Deny the Rights of Muslim Women and Jews: Phyllis Chesler, Tablet, Oct. 2, 2017—I came into my feminist destiny in 1967, both as an academic and as an activist. Our original feminist vision was radical and transformative. We believed in universal human rights.

Massey College Suspends ‘Master’ Title, Apologizes for ‘Completely Inappropriate’ Incident: Simona Chiose, Globe & Mail, Sept. 29, 2017—Massey College, an independent residential college affiliated with the University of Toronto, has temporarily suspended the formal title of "master" to refer to its head, and apologized for an incident earlier this week that deeply offended and hurt members of the school.

 

PRO-ISRAEL STUDENTS HARASSED & SILENCED AS UNIVERSITIES CAVE TO AUTHORITARIAN RADICALS

[NB: TO WATCH ASAF ROMIROWSKY’S PRESENTATION “UNRWA: THE CRUX OF THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT”, DEC. 14, AT CIJR’S MONTREAL OFFICE, CLICK THIS LINK—ED.]

 

The Radicals Have Taken Over: Academic Extremism Comes to Canada: Margaret Wente, Globe & Mail, Dec. 3, 2016 — I bet the poor guy never saw it coming.

Anti-Semitism: The Socially Acceptable Hatred: Tamar Lyons, Times of Israel, Dec. 2, 2016 — I write this in fear of what we have become and accepted as our norms.

McGill University Attempts Peaceful Dialogue Hindered by Protest: Eva Chorna, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 30, 2016 — The reason McGill University spoke to me so much was because of its emphasis on the importance of free speech and self-expression.

Universities Strive for Diversity in Everything but Opinion: Philip Carl Salzman, Inside Policy, Nov. 14, 2016 — My seminar students at McGill University told me that you can't say anything at this university without being accused of being sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, fascist, or racist, and then being threatened with punitive measures.

 

On Topic Links

 

Academics Are Spreading Anti-Israel Message At Universities Everywhere (Audio Recording): Asaf Romirowsky, Pundicity, Dec. 7, 2016

Revisiting CUNY’s Flawed Antisemitism Investigation: Manfred Gerstenfeld & Leah Hagelberg, Algemeiner, Dec. 2, 2016

"Hate Spaces" Film Exposes Campus Intolerance: Noah Beck, IPT News, Dec. 13, 2016

Jewish Students Must Realize That SJP Is About Hate, and Only Hate: Yaakov Menken, JNS, Dec. 15, 2016

 

 

THE RADICALS HAVE TAKEN OVER:

ACADEMIC EXTREMISM COMES TO CANADA

Margaret Wente                                                  

Globe & Mail, Dec. 3, 2016

 

I bet the poor guy never saw it coming. Until recently, Henry Parada was director of the School of Social Work at Ryerson University, Toronto’s big downtown commuter school. His career was going well and he got major research grants. Now he has stepped aside after a handful of students calling themselves the Black Liberation Collective accused him of “a violent act of anti-Blackness, misogyny and misogynoir.” What was this act? It seems that he left a meeting where a black female speaker was giving a talk. No one knows why.

 

What happened next won’t surprise anyone who has been tracking the steady rise of authoritarian illiberalism on the left. The Black Liberation Collective at Ryerson (which has perhaps the most diverse student body in the nation) issued an escalating series of rants demanding immediate action to address his crimes, along with institutional racism in general. Students disrupted faculty meetings. The administration has issued the standard non-response: Basically it values diversity and inclusion, and is looking into the matter. But really, it doesn’t matter what Prof. Parada did. He’s a white man, and therefore guilty.

 

Here’s a partial list of what’s been happening on campus lately. At the University of Toronto, psychology professor Jordan Peterson is under attack – not least by his own administration – for refusing to use invented pronouns for transgender people. (Last year, Kenneth Zucker, a renowned U of T psychiatry professor, was fired from his position at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health because his treatment of transgender kids was deemed not radical enough.)

 

At Queen’s, a good-natured off-campus costume party blew up into a crisis over racism. Queen’s principal Daniel Woolf denounced the event on his blog as “the unacceptable misappropriation and stereotyping of numerous cultures,” and solemnly vowed yet again to improve diversity and inclusion on campus. In other news from Queen’s, the head of a student theatre group was forced to grovel after announcing a plan to cast a white female as the lead in Othello. “There is absolutely no excuse for making a casting decision that was oppressive and caused people of colour to feel as though they were invalid,” she apologized. The production was cancelled.

 

At many campuses, students routinely try to shut down controversial speakers because they might make someone feel queasy. When Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi’s defence lawyer, was invited to speak at Bishop’s University early next year and have her lecture live-streamed to other schools, one women’s studies major at St. Francis Xavier said that Ms. Henein’s talk was a “disservice to students who are victims of sexual violence.” To his credit, Bishop’s principal Michael Goldbloom wrote a rebuttal – an unusual act of academic courage these days.

 

How did we get here? Here’s a very short answer. University campuses have always leaned a little left. But in the 1990s, as the previous generation of academics was replaced by baby boomers, they began to lean dramatically left. The humanities and social sciences were colonized by an unholy alliance of poststructuralists and Marxists – people who believe that Western civilization is a corrupt patriarchy that must be dismantled. According to studies of U.S. universities, 18 per cent of social-sciences professors say they’re Marxists. Only 7 to 9 per cent identify as conservative. Leftism in the academy is a positive feedback loop – and we’re now well past the point where the radicals have taken over. Those who don’t agree just shut up. “There’s no question there’s an atmosphere of terror,” one (older, white, male) professor told me.

 

According to classic Marxist ideology, people’s degree of oppression is determined by their ancestry and class. Today’s identity politics simply swaps in race and gender. But the anti-liberal thinking is the same. When your goal is revolution, dissent becomes intolerable, and you have a moral licence to shut down free speech. As the very liberal Jonathan Chait wrote in New York magazine: “Liberalism believes in political rights for everybody, regardless of the content of their ideas. Marxists believe political rights belong only to those arguing on behalf of the oppressed.”

 

Social sciences and humanities make up only part of universities, of course. Other disciplines – engineering, physics, B-schools – are relatively apolitical. So how is it that the radicals wound up running the show? Here’s Jordan Peterson’s answer: “Engineers and scientists are interested in things. They say, you guys are all insane, just leave us the hell alone.” And by the time they look up, the power positions have been taken over by the radicals. Not so long ago, I thought this craziness would pass. Now I’m not so sure. When institutions cave in to radicals, their demands will only escalate. As for Prof. Parada, his is a cautionary tale. He believed in the revolution. And it devoured him.                                         

 

Contents                                                                                                                                                             

ANTI-SEMITISM: THE SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE HATRED                                                                       

Tamar Lyons                                                                                                                  

Times of Israel, Dec. 2, 2016

 

I write this in fear of what we have become and accepted as our norms. I write this reflecting on the anti-Semitism I was privy to on my university campus. I am a student at Ryerson University. On Tuesday, November 29, 2016, I attended the Semi-Annual General Meeting (AGM) to show my support for a motion that stated that, the Ryerson student union should provide programming to educate people during Canadian Holocaust Education week.

 

To be clear — this was not a political statement or a controversial topic. This was simply to raise awareness to learn from the past in order to better our future. Meant to educate, it shows that less than a century ago, people were burned, gassed, and killed for being different. They were persecuted for having a different religion skin colour, or sexual orientation. Things we millennials are fighting for today!!

 

Today’s millennials pride ourselves on social justice. We pride ourselves on fighting for the oppressed, don’t we? At the meeting, I was trying to actualize my calling, to be deserving of the hero cape I wear so proudly everyday, and to let people know that hate and division lead to the worst atrocities ever committed by humanity. I lined up to speak at the microphone in favour of this motion. Three people including the President of the Muslim Student Association (MSA), and vice president of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), were ahead and opposed the motion. SJP claims to be against anti-Semitism (after tonight I can attest that it clearly does not live up to that standard) and stand up for social justice of the oppressed.

 

I stood behind them, politely welcoming them. I was then aggressively told by the president of the MSA and Vice President of SJP to “sit down” because there are too many people with my opinions. Excuse me? You think that just because I wear a Jewish star on my necklace you can assume my positions? Well, unfortunately for these individuals, they attacked the WRONG Jewish girl.

 

The opposition to the motion continued. A young individual from the Social work Union requested that all recordings be shut off reasoning that, “Holocaust education is not inclusive to all students, and it’s not fair to recognize this genocide.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME? She further explained that we should include within this week the Somali Genocide, the “Palestinian Genocide,” and a few others. We attempted to clarify that by morphing all of these genocides together, we pose the issue of degrading them. These genocides are different and deserve individual attention. Ryerson can hold awareness weeks for these at other times, Holocaust education week doesn’t have to be the only one.

 

Moving on, the opposition quickly realized that the more they continued to speak, the more controversy they created. Their strength is in numbers, and they chose to use that against us. As if rehearsed, they formed an unofficial walk-out in which they guarded the doors, patrolled the hallways and aggressively pressured attendees to leave the room so that there would not be enough people present to hold a vote or hear the “pro” voices. The president of the MSA then called for a recount on quorum. Out of a room of 200 of my peers, the audience was reduced to less than 50. The meeting was adjourned.

 

This act was motivated purely by anti-Semitism and an attempt to try to erase our past. They weren’t interested in discussion or the chance to hear us speak. They were not interested in providing education to the Ryerson community. Their only interest was to walk out of that meeting to ensure the Jewish voices not be heard. How is this social justice?

 

NOTHING is more inclusive than history. History has proven repeatedly to be cyclical. By raising awareness of the holocaust we wanted to make sure that as a race no one should ever suffer the way we did. This education would benefit everyone in our campus community. Our screaming of “never again” as all social justice leaders screamed in the past, has been silenced by these groups against the motion. As we were trying to express our hope for a better world and pay our respects to the ones that paved the way to our freedom, 200 students walked out making sure that quorum would not be met. Those students, confident in the justice of their action, walked out not only on the Jewish students, but they walked out on history. They walked out on every minority that was ever persecuted for being different.

 

Holocaust Education Week could have paved the way to discussions on genocide, awareness, and unity. By walking out, they turned their back on social justice. They turned their back on equity. They showed us tonight, that they only stand against “some” forms of oppression. They showed me that their definition of anti-Semitism is non-existent, because to them, it is irrelevant and doesn’t exist. These student leaders are repeating the same exact mistakes that lead to the worst moments of our history.   

 

Contents

 

MCGILL UNIVERSITY ATTEMPTS PEACEFUL

DIALOGUE HINDERED BY PROTEST                           

Eva Chorna

Jerusalem Post, Nov. 30, 2016

 

The reason McGill University spoke to me so much was because of its emphasis on the importance of free speech and self-expression. Coming from France, I often found I was not given a platform to express my support of Israel and was silenced by the necessity to prioritize my safety. Here, I was in a safe space, where my differences were not only embraced, but appreciated… or so I thought.

 

Over the past year and a half, I found myself disappointed by the relentless hatred that has brought three anti-Israel divestment resolutions to our campus over a two-year period. After all the ignorance and blind accusations I encountered, I decided that I wanted to learn more, and participate in fruitful conversations rather than passively witnessing a lot of hateful slogans thrown around. Therefore, I became a StandWithUs Canada Emerson Fellow, and have been given the tools and the facts to initiate those dialogues. The question remains, when will they happen at McGill? On November 8, I brought a program to McGill that I thought best represented the vibrant, spontaneous and optimistic nature that I experienced upon visiting Israel. I wanted to expose Israel – creative, multi-ethnic, inclusive and sometimes messy – to my friends and peers. Artists 4 Israel was the perfect vehicle. I wanted to use art as a platform to engage in meaningful and constructive conversations, that would help others develop a better understanding about a country that is too often wrongly criticized and misrepresented.

 

I wanted students to learn about Israeli culture and that it is a democracy with respect for all minorities – especially its 20 percent Arab population – who have full rights (including serving as the presidents of academic institutions, members of the Supreme Court and the Knesset). Soon enough, this event – one that so desperately tried to set aside political differences to share our common desire for peace – attracted negative attention from angry anti-Israel students on campus. They unfurled banners, elicited hateful slogans, and physically trapped us behind their sheets. Some of these individuals even interviewed us, before putting away their note pads and joining the crowd.

 

These same students reported about the event in the school newspaper, The McGill Daily. The biased article distorts our goals and further misrepresents Israel. As pro-Israel students on campus, we never imagined that an art exhibit intended to convey coexistence, diversity, culture and peace would become a flashpoint for an anti-Israel demonstration. Given the open-minded and safe-space approach taken, maybe now it’s time to question the real motives.

 

We can’t deny the facts: if the mural had been brought by any other culture club on campus, it would have never seen the opposition that it was subjected to. Various organizations present events to share their cultures, and introduce the community to some of the wonderful differences that make McGill so unique. In early November, the McGill Mexican Student Association (MMSA) brought an event to celebrate El Dia De Los Muertos, which had a great turnout and highly positive response.

 

So how did we get to a point that when pro-Israel students bring an event to campus – even in the most peaceful of scenarios – they can’t display a flag that brings us so much pride in representing our democratic values, without experiencing such strong opposition and backlash? The facts are that in the McGill Daily article (which touts itself as representing the voices of students), the art installation about Tel Aviv graffiti was labeled as an “insensitive concept and erasure of Palestinian voices.” To me, this is beyond belief.

 

The fact is that the violent silencing and blocking of this event is what should be considered insensitive, and an erasure of Jewish and Israeli voices. The protesters were unhappy about the fact that “Palestinian people, along with any Palestinian flags or symbols, were entirely absent from the event.” Yes, that is absolutely correct. This was a display about Israel. It was not designed to be a political statement. It was a display of the art of Israel’s streets. Seriously? Comparing an art exhibit to what they call “an apartheid wall” is ridiculous. Once again, it distorts and misrepresents, and in the end was simply their effort to deny Jewish and Israeli students the right to free speech in sharing their perception of Israel with their fellow students.

 

This experience shed light on a very upsetting reality – their problem is with the sheer presence of Israel, and not the dialogue or message it tries to promote. The fact that they protested a display calling for peace just because it had something to do with Israel is precisely this type of intolerance that hinders efforts to resolve the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians on the ground. 

 

We are no longer talking about political disagreements, given that this installation negated this. The issue is much more worrying. Now, we are talking about a fundamental disrespect for a difference of opinion. It is precisely this type of intolerance that results in these ugly attempts to silence any voices except those of McGill Students in Solidarity with Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR). We object strongly to the kind of partisanship that would result in the views of only one group being heard – and we object strongly to the characterization of this article, which seems to condone this kind of intolerant, and borderline racist behavior.                                   

 

Contents

UNIVERSITIES STRIVE FOR DIVERSITY IN EVERYTHING BUT OPINION                                                 

Philip Carl Salzman

Inside Policy, Nov. 14, 2016

 

My seminar students at McGill University told me that you can't say anything at this university without being accused of being sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, fascist, or racist, and then being threatened with punitive measures. They felt silenced by the oppressive atmosphere of political correctness. Nothing significant — sex, religion, relationships, public policy, race, immigration, or multiculturalism — could be discussed. Only the acceptable opinions could be expressed without nasty repercussions.

 

It is generally held today in the West, if not elsewhere, that diversity is a good thing. Diversity in origin, ethnicity, gender, race, and sexual preference is now regarded as not only desirable, but mandatory. Universities strive to increase their physical diversity. The currently accepted theory in Western academia is that physical diversity reflects diversity of experience and thus an enriching diversity of viewpoint.

 

McGill's committee on diversity proposed that we no longer define excellence as intellectual achievement, but as diversity. Their view is that a university populated by folks of different colours or having different sexual preferences is by virtue of this diversity "excellent."

 

However, among this excellent diversity, what is not encouraged or accepted is diversity of opinion. Only politically correct views are welcome. On the very first day in last year's seminar, students challenged my assignment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel on the grounds that "she is a controversial figure." These students felt that university was not a place to explore controversial issues, but only to repeat what everyone agrees with. Several students dropped out of the seminar saying that they disagreed with Ali's politics. They were apparently unable to tolerate ideas with which they disagreed.

 

Ali is a critic of Islam. To my students that is a violation of strict cultural and ethical relativism, which dictates that criticism of other cultures and religions is unacceptable. That Ali was an insider who had grown up in a Somali Muslim family, gone to Islamic schools, lived in Islamic communities and countries, and had at one time been rigorously observant, cut no ice with my students. Although they themselves were largely ignorant about Islam, they insisted they would not accept Ali's account as authoritative. Many of the students, notwithstanding their unfamiliarity with Islam, made an effort to defend it. What they were really defending, of course, was political correctness — in this case, upholding relativism by rejecting criticism of a foreign culture.

 

Ali's criticism of Islam focuses on the treatment of women, their second-class status (receiving one-half of a male share of inheritance, and their court testimony worth half that of a male), the forced marriages, polygamy, the requirement of obedience to men, doctrine-justified beatings of wives, and so on. One might have thought that these concerns would be of interest to women — and cultural anthropology these days is dominated by women. The sex ratio in my classes is usually around seven females for every male; in last year's seminar, there were 21 women and four men. The ratio of female to male professors also increases from year to year. Almost all would identify as feminists. My female colleagues are militant feminists who prefer to hire other female feminists. But their feminism stops at our borders. They, like the stalwarts who man the national feminist organizations, would never criticize other cultures for their treatment of women, and certainly not Islam. Cultural and ethical relativism trumps even feminism.

 

Blocking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from visiting Concordia University in 2002, shouting down Ishmael Khaldi, Israel's first Bedouin diplomat who spoke last year at the University of Windsor, the abuse of pro-Israel students at York University — these are par for the course at institutions infamous for Israel Apartheid Week. Canadian departments of Middle Eastern Studies and university speaker panels on the Middle East commonly represent only the Arab and Palestinian narratives, excluding any neutral or pro-Israel speakers.

 

No less than Infidel did, I shocked my students with my views of anthropology and of the world. My students repeatedly told me that they had never heard opinions such as mine at university. I was told that I was "out of the mainstream." This did not surprise or frighten me; I have been an anthropologist for over 50 years, have long been a tenured full professor, and have observed closely the development of my field. Classic liberal political views such as mine are unusual among the many Marxists and fellow travellers in the social sciences and humanities…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link

 

Philip Carl Salzman is a CIJR Academic Fellow

 

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!

Contents    

       

On Topic Links

 

Academics Are Spreading Anti-Israel Message At Universities Everywhere (Audio Recording): Asaf Romirowsky, Pundicity, Dec. 7, 2016—Renowned academic and author Dr. Asaf Romirowsky joined WIBC Morning Host Tony Katz to lend his expertise on an issue that Tony has addressed repeatedly – the anti-Israel movement known as Boycott, Divestment, and Sactions, or BDS.

Revisiting CUNY’s Flawed Antisemitism Investigation: Manfred Gerstenfeld & Leah Hagelberg, Algemeiner, Dec. 2, 2016—The recent official investigation into antisemitism at the City University of New York (CUNY) was so lacking in professionalism that we believe it requires a more focused analysis. This is particularly necessary because antisemitism both in its classic and its anti-Israel forms is also manifesting itself at a number of other American universities.

"Hate Spaces" Film Exposes Campus Intolerance: Noah Beck, IPT News, Dec. 13, 2016—A new documentary, "Hate Spaces," exposes the epidemic of campus intolerance favoring Muslims and anti-Israel activists over Jews and Israel supporters when it comes to free speech, academic freedom, and protection from abuse.

Jewish Students Must Realize That SJP Is About Hate, and Only Hate: Yaakov Menken, JNS, Dec. 15, 2016—When students from Toronto’s Ryerson University Hillel proposed to their Student Union that the school participate in the broader Canadian Holocaust Awareness Week, they did not anticipate the jeers, snickers and eventual walkout staged to prevent a quorum from approving the motion. Nor did they anticipate that this hateful behavior would be led by members of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). In this respect, their shock is itself surprising.

 

 

 

BDS BIGOTRY, MASKED BEHIND “HUMAN RIGHTS” RHETORIC, IS FUELED BY ANTISEMITISM

Anti-Semitism on Campus Is Not Just Uncivil, It’s Intolerant: Tammi Rossman Benjamin, Newsweek, Sept. 28, 2016— When more than a dozen Jewish student events about Israel were violently disrupted at schools from coast to coast this year…

Anti-Semitism at My University, Hidden in Plain Sight: Benjamin Gladstone, New York Times, Oct. 1, 2016 — Last semester, a group came to Providence to speak against admitting Syrian refugees to this country.

Dear Dupes: ‘Targeted Boycotts’ Enable Boycott Boycotts: Gil Troy, Jerusalem Post, Sept. 27, 2016 — To those who signed that New York Review of Books letter “For an Economic Boycott and Political Nonrecognition of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories”: I write with great respect and deep sorrow.

No Apologies for Being Jewish: Ruth R. Wisse, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 6, 2016 — Know Before Whom You Stand.

 

On Topic Links

 

Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus (Video): Jerusalem U, Feb. 25, 2015

Website says Holocaust-Denying Professor Has Been ‘Asked to Step Down’: B’nai Brith, Sept. 28, 2016

San Francisco State Prof on MEF's Call to End Ties to Radical West Bank U: McCarthyism! Islamophobia!: Winfield Myers, Campus Watch, Sept. 16, 2016

Welcome to College – and the Thought Police: Margaret Wente, Globe & Mail, Sept. 10, 2016

 

 

 

 

ANTI-SEMITISM ON CAMPUS IS NOT JUST UNCIVIL, IT’S INTOLERANT

Tammi Rossman Benjamin                                           

Newsweek, Sept. 28, 2016

 

When more than a dozen Jewish student events about Israel were violently disrupted at schools from coast to coast this year, including San Francisco State University, University of California Irvine and Davis, University of Maryland, Boston University, University of New Mexico, University of South Florida, University of Georgia, University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota, is it “incivility” or “intolerance”? When Jewish students who attempt to express their opposition to anti-Israel boycott resolutions are viciously mocked, vilified and heckled during student government meetings at schools such as Vassar College, Ohio University, UC Santa Barbara and University of Illinois, is it “incivility” or “intolerance”?

 

When Jewish students are shunned from participating in student government, rejected from progressive social justice activities such as pro-choice rallies, anti-rape demonstrations, Black Lives Matter events and racial justice conferences and ostracized from areas of campus life because of their “Jewish agenda” or presumed support for Israel at schools such as Stanford University, San Diego State University, UCLA, UC Santa Cruz, Northwestern University, Brooklyn College and SUNY Albany—is it “incivility” or “intolerance”?

 

University leaders who respond to these incidents—and the majority do not—have generally chosen to identify the problem as one of incivility, and attempted to address it by calling on members of the campus community to foster “civil” behavior and discourse. For example, after anti-Zionist student protesters at San Francisco State University disrupted a Hillel-sponsored talk from the mayor of Jerusalem by loudly chanting, “Get the hell off our campus!” “Long live the intifada!” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” for one hour, SFSU President Les Wong issued a statement in which he bemoaned “the state of civil discourse on our campus” and called for “a supportive and collegial environment in which disagreements can occur thoughtfully and respectfully.”

 

After members of an anti-Zionist student group disrupted a Brooklyn College faculty meeting by chanting slogans such as, “Zionists off campus,” CUNY Chancellor James Milliken announced that he was going to address the matter by defining best practices to foster “a climate of mutual respect and civil discourse.” While each of the incidents described above certainly contains “rude or unsociable speech or behavior,” university leaders who identify the problem as one of “incivility” rather than “intolerance” are making a critical mistake, for three reasons.

 

Incivility is defensible; intolerance is not. Anti-Zionist student groups whose members have been accused of incivility, along with the civil rights and legal organizations that support them, routinely argue that charges of “incivility” are blatant attempts to stifle political debate on campus and violate the First Amendment. But if the anti-Zionist student groups’ behavior, which itself stifles political debate and violates the First Amendment rights of Jewish students, is correctly labeled as “intolerance,” no such argument can be made. Indeed, the suppression of views and beliefs that is a direct result of intolerant behavior is the archenemy of academic freedom and undermines the core mission of the university.

 

Incivility is cool; intolerance is not. After the chancellor of UC Irvine (UCI) responded to the SJP’s disruption of a Jewish student event by issuing a statement entitled “Respecting the Lines of Civility,” an op-ed was published in the student newspaper which championed “willfully uncivil” behavior as “the only rational response to calls for civility,” and urged students to “embody critique and ‘free speech’ through acts of willfulness and rebellion.” Had the UCI Chancellor instead correctly identified the SJP’s violent disruption as “intolerance”—that is, a willful suppression of “critique and ‘free speech’” that differs from one’s own—no one would have dared to champion such repugnant behavior.

 

Incivility is victimless; intolerance is not. Rude and unsociable behavior may have a negative impact on the campus climate, but it does not inherently target particular individuals or groups for harm. Intolerance, on the other hand, necessarily involves the singling out of those with differing views, beliefs or behavior. At many schools it is anti-Zionist activity, whose core goal is the suppression and delegitimization of Zionist expression and those presumed to support Israel, that is the primary source of intolerant behavior, making Jewish students one of the most victimized minorities on campus today. 

 

For these reasons, when university administrators misidentify the harassment, intimidation, suppression of speech and ethnic discrimination of Jewish students as “incivility” rather than “intolerance,” they cannot help but fan the flames of anti-Jewish hostility on their campus. The regents of the University of California clearly understood this when they unanimously approved a landmark statement entitled “Principles Against Intolerance,” which highlighted anti-semitism and anti-semitic anti-Zionism as forms of intolerance that “have no place at the University of California.” Using the term intolerance was no accident. It was a deliberate and important distinction. It is high time for university leaders across the country to follow the UC regents’ lead. There must be zero tolerance for intolerance on our campuses.                                 

                                                           

 

Contents                                                                                                                       

                                                 

ANTI-SEMITISM AT MY UNIVERSITY, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT                                                                

Benjamin Gladstone                                                                                                      

New York Times, Oct. 1, 2016

 

Last semester, a group came to Providence to speak against admitting Syrian refugees to this country. As the president of the Brown Coalition for Syria, I jumped into action with my peers to stage a counterdemonstration. But I quickly found myself cut out of the planning for this event: Other student groups were not willing to work with me because of my leadership roles in campus Jewish organizations.

 

That was neither the first nor the last time that I would be ostracized this way. Also last semester, anti-Zionists at Brown circulated a petition against a lecture by the transgender rights advocate Janet Mock because one of the sponsors was the Jewish campus group Hillel, even though the event was entirely unrelated to Israel or Zionism. Ms. Mock, who planned to talk about racism and transphobia, ultimately canceled. Anti-Zionist students would rather have no one speak on these issues than allow a Jewish group to participate in that conversation.

 

Of course, I still believe in the importance of accepting refugees, combating discrimination, abolishing racist law enforcement practices and other causes. Nevertheless, it’s painful that Jewish issues are shut out of these movements. Jewish rights belong in any broad movement to fight oppression. My fellow activists tend to dismiss the anti-Semitism that students like me experience regularly on campus. They don’t acknowledge the swastikas that I see carved into bathroom stalls, scrawled across walls or left on chalkboards. They don’t hear students accusing me of killing Jesus. They don’t notice professors glorifying anti-Semitic figures such as Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt or the leadership of Hezbollah, as mine have.

 

Nor do they speak against the anti-Semitism in American culture. Even as they rightfully protest hate crimes against Muslim Americans and discrimination against black people, they wrongfully dismiss attacks on Jews (who are the most frequent targets of religiously motivated hate crimes in the United States) and increasing anti-Semitism in the American political arena, as can be seen in Donald Trump’s flirtations with the “alt-right.” They don’t take issue with calls for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state.

 

Many of my fellow activists also perpetuate anti-Semitism by dismissing Jews of color, especially the Mizrahi and Sephardi majority of Israel’s Jewish population, descendants of refugees from Southwest Asia and North Africa. Ignoring the expulsion of 850,000 Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews from Arab and Muslim countries from 1948 to the early 1970s allows students to portray all Israelis as white and European and get away with making a “progressive” case for dismantling the Jewish state.

Even hummus has become politicized: Anti-Zionists at my school who demanded that cafeterias stop serving hummus produced by a company with Israeli ownership, also claimed that the product showed cultural appropriation even though Mizrahim and Sephardim have been eating Southwest Asian cuisine since long before the rise of organized Zionism.

 

In my experience, anti-Semites refuse to acknowledge Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews to minimize the history of oppression against Jews, and in doing so dismiss contemporary Jewish concerns. For example, non-Jewish students at Brown tell me that I cannot appreciate a history of marginalization because, as they see it, Jews have historically been a powerful group, the Holocaust being the only few years of exception. They play down the temporal and geographic scope of that history so that the oppression appears circumstantial rather than global and systemic.

 

These are serious issues, and social justice movements should be addressing them. I recognize my white, male and other privileges, and, accordingly, I listen to people of color, women and members of other marginalized groups and support them as allies. Likewise, I expect non-Jews at Brown and elsewhere to recognize our oppression to include us in efforts for change.                                                          

 

Contents                                                                                                                                                           

                                          

DEAR DUPES: ‘TARGETED BOYCOTTS’ ENABLE BOYCOTT BOYCOTTS                                                       

Gil Troy                                                                                                                

Jerusalem Post, Sept. 27, 2016

 

To those who signed that New York Review of Books letter “For an Economic Boycott and Political Nonrecognition of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories”: I write with great respect and deep sorrow. I know many of you, and have learned a lot from even more of you. I have no desire to polemicize, demonize or ostracize, and I hope you will take my comments as an invitation to the kind of open, substantive debate about Israel (and the Palestinians, they count too here) that rarely occurs in the Jewish community – or the academic world – the two universes most of us share.

 

I read your 196-word contribution to this complicated conflict, and was appalled by its naïveté, one-sidedness, destructiveness and unfairness – especially to Jewish and pro-Israel students. That such sophisticated thinkers, who have done so much to teach me (and many others) about politics, power, justice, history, culture, America and Judaism, could really believe your careful modifiers emphasizing that this is only a “targeted” boycott “of all goods and services from all Israeli settlements” is so preposterous it makes me doubt your sincerity. That anyone in the anti-Israel lynch mob will respect your genteel distinctions is as believable as Donald Trump when he says “believe me.” Your letter makes you enablers, dupes. To the boycott forces and the media, supporting a targeted boycott supports a boycott.

 

Moreover, as precise writers, note the second half of your sentence: “and any investments that promote the Occupation.” Follow your words’ logic, as so many of you have taught undergraduates to do. Objective readers, let alone Bash-Israel-Firsters, could consider every investment in any part of Israel an investment that promotes the occupation, because money and support are fungible.

 

Even without your legitimizing shunning every Israeli, the boycott movement, fueled as it is by an irrational hatred of Israel and Jews, is no more contained than any other gang of bigots. Your slope is slippery – and you cannot claim you haven’t seen it before against Jews and other targeted groups. Boycotts, like bigots, metastasize – first goods, then people. You start by boycotting West Bank goods, then “settlers,” then Israeli goods, then Israeli citizens, and then Jews. (And remember, most Palestinian radicals call all Israelis “settlers” and consider all of Israel occupied).

 

Similarly naïve is your refusal to denounce the anti-Semitism that follows the boycott movement like carbon monoxide follows smoke. At my own university, McGill, last year’s Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) debate proved, as in other universities, that BDS unleashes bullying, demonization and slander. Simon Paranski, a law student, told CTV that “within an hour of the BDS vote passing, there were posts on social media about Zionist Jew-boys and insulting people of the Jewish faith.” One tweet sneered: “Little Zionist Jewboys not happy that McGill students don’t support their genocide.” Jewish students also reported being menaced.

 

Moreover, last week, Jewish students told me that the feminist, LGBT and Black Lives Matter clubs at McGill were clear: if they wanted to be involved in those social justice movements, they had to – to hijack Peter Beinart’s wording – check their Zionism at the door…

 

You should write a second letter, paralleling the one I and over 150 McGill professors signed, saying: “We all need to affirm our commitment to fighting bigotry of all kinds, even when masked behind human rights rhetoric or even if allied with political positions we might support. We fail when our students don’t feel genuinely safe in our university – and the BDS movement has made McGill students feel unsafe, unsupported and unwelcome in their and our academic home.”

 

Your naïve letter is also counterproductive. You claim you want “to promote… negotiations.” Yet the more Israel is delegitimized, the more unreasonably Palestinians act and the less compromising Israelis feel. The more Left you are, the more you seek sweeping territorial concessions from Israel, the more ardently you should fight boycotts, Israel-bashing, anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Note, Israelis respond to love love, not tough love. When the UN in 1991 renounced its Zionism is racism resolution, and when Bill Clinton emerged as Israel’s cheerleader in chief, Oslo and other compromises followed. And when the UN passed the Zionism is racism resolution in 1975 and 26 years later resurrected that libel at Durban, waves of terrorism bolstering Palestinian rejectionism followed.

 

Finally, let’s face it, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas don’t care about your words or my quibbles. But as academics and intellectuals your words count on campuses, where many of you are revered. That’s why I accuse you of being unfair to Jewish and pro-Israel students on those campuses facing boycott threats. They needed a more sophisticated, balanced, multi-dimensional letter. And they needed – and still need – a clear, eloquent, denunciation from you of the “kosher” antisemitism and anti-Zionism – perfumed by social justice talk – haunting too many campuses and spreading on the Left.

 

In that fight, the more outspokenly critical of Israel you are, the more credibility you have – although you will see that the Israel haters, like all irrational bigots, pick and choose. They will happily quote and misquote your harmful letter – ignoring any denunciations of the hatred they have unleashed on some campuses, including my own.                                 

 

Contents           

NO APOLOGIES FOR BEING JEWISH

Ruth R. Wisse

Wall Street Journal, Oct. 6, 2016

 

Know Before Whom You Stand. These words, inscribed above the ark holding the Torah scrolls in many synagogues, assume added significance between Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, and Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. During these Days of Awe, Jews of faith take the measure of themselves before the Almighty. The term “penitential prayers” does not begin to convey the range and intensity of the accounting that worshippers give of themselves about every aspect of their lives.

 

To lay bare one’s deeds before the ultimate Seat of Judgment is very different from the practice of individual introspection or meditation. Here each person stands within the community in a public attestation to dozens of wrongdoings. In the extensive Yom Kippur confessions, worshippers recount sins committed willfully or involuntarily, “by idle talk or by lustful behavior . . . violence or by defaming Thy Name.” All the verbs for transgression are in the first-person plural, we rather than I, making the individual an organic part of the nation. I used to marvel at how young college students, hardly past adolescence, passionately assumed moral responsibility for wrongs they had never committed.

 

Jews rightly take pride in their culture of self-accountability—before the Ultimate Judge and justly established human authorities. This culture has created and sustained a remarkably resilient people. Lamenting the excesses of the current American electoral cycle, the columnist Ira Stoll imagines how much richer the country’s politics would be if “this spirit of self-examination were exported from the Jewish religion into the rest of American culture.” If democracy requires the patient improvement of life in a community, nothing furthers that goal better than the practice of individual and collective self-scrutiny.

 

But the millennial-long history of Jewish self-restraint also stands as a warning. It is all very well to focus on overcoming your failings. Yet the search for moral perfection can also render individuals, and nations, prey to those who believe in conquest rather than self-conquest and who join in holding you accountable for their misdeeds. The same confessional posture, praiseworthy when standing before the Perfect Judge, becomes blameworthy when adopted before an enemy that has you before a rigged tribunal.

 

In the 20th century, some modern European thinkers and political leaders began singling out the Jews for their alleged racial or religious or social culpabilities. Many Jews felt obliged to answer apologetically for these supposed failings, instead of exposing the evil ideology that had chosen them for its target. Jewish Marxists, for example, blamed Jewish capitalists and bourgeoisie, even though defamation was leveled equally at Jewish professionals, artisans, journalists and paupers.

 

No sooner had the politics of Jew-blame reached its genocidal apotheosis in Europe than it was taken up in the Middle East. Rather than accepting the principle of co-existence and concentrating on improving the lives of their own subjects, Arab leaders refused Jews the right to their homeland in a war that they, the Arab leaders, had initiated. Forcing almost a million Jews from their ancient communities in Arab lands, the same leaders blamed Israel for Arab refugees whom they themselves refused to resettle.

 

This calumny is by now the basis of political coalitions not only at the United Nations and in Europe but on campuses here in the U.S. So ingrained are the assumptions of Jew-blame that newspapers will often devote more coverage to the shooting of one Palestinian Arab by an Israeli, often unintentionally or in self-defense, than to the murders of Jewish civilians by Arab and Muslim terrorists. What such belligerents do with the aim of eliminating the Jewish state, friends sometimes do in the name of holding Jews to “a higher moral standard.” And, as previously, some Jews join the blame-shifting ranks, castigating the Jewish state for engaging in self-defense rather than apology.

 

For its obsession with Israel’s putative misdeeds to the neglect of the unspeakable crimes committed by so many U.N. member states, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently declared at the General Assembly that “the U.N., begun as a moral force, has become a moral farce.” He is surely right that ending the obsession with Israel would benefit not only the enemies of the Jewish state but the entire world. The Jewish nation is owed the unconditional respect of its fellow nations and must demand of others what it expects others to demand of themselves.

 

Jews and Americans share the belief that a culture of self-accountability creates a wholesome society and a more responsible polity. But self-accountable societies can fatally internalize the resentment and violent opposition of others. For the sake of their own survival, they must always be aware of before whom—as well as before Whom—they stand.

 

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom & Happy Thanksgiving!

No Daily Briefing Will Be Published on Monday

Contents                       

           

On Topic Links

 

Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus (Video): Jerusalem U, Feb. 25, 2015— 'Crossing the Line 2' is a new documentary that exposes the rise of anti-Semitic activity on North American university campuses. This virulent anti-Semitism is disguised as opposition to Israel's policies, but it calls for Israel's destruction and threatens Jews on campus.

Website says Holocaust-Denying Professor Has Been ‘Asked to Step Down’: B’nai Brith, Sept. 28, 2016—According to American Herald Tribune, a website run by Professor Anthony Hall, the University of Lethbridge has requested that he resign over suggestions that he has promoted Holocaust denial and other antisemitic conspiracy theories.

San Francisco State Prof on MEF's Call to End Ties to Radical West Bank U: McCarthyism! Islamophobia!: Winfield Myers, Campus Watch, Sept. 16, 2016 —Rabab Abdulhadi, the San Francisco State University professor and founding member of the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (BDS) behind the odious Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between her school and terrorist-friendly An-Najah University in the West Bank, has responded to the Middle East Forum's petition calling on SFSU president Leslie Wong to end the MOU.

Welcome to College – and the Thought Police: Margaret Wente, Globe & Mail, Sept. 10, 2016—Freshman orientation week isn’t what it used to be. These days, it’s not just about learning your way around the campus. It’s also about learning how to avoid giving unintentional offence. Not all the answers are obvious. For example, is it okay to sing along with music that uses the “n” word if you are white? No, it definitely is not! Nor is it okay for anyone to use the term “you guys” (sexist).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NORTH AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES AFFLICTED BY CANCERS OF ANTISEMITISM, ANTI-ZIONISM & BDS

So You’re a Jew and You’re Starting College? Prepare for Anti-ZionismMolly Harris, Washington Post, Aug. 23, 2016— Congratulations, new college freshmen!

Inside a Hate-Filled Anti-Israel Protest: Aedan O’Connor, National Post, Sept. 8, 2016 — I donned a headscarf and sunglasses, and removed the Star of David I wear around my neck.

The American Inquisition: Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, Sept. 5, 2016 — The cancer of Jew hatred has taken over the body of US academia.

Remember Iran’s Role in 9/11: Joseph I. Lieberman, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 7, 2016— ‘Never forget” is the commitment the American people made after Sept. 11, 2001.

 

On Topic Links

 

BDS: A Threat to the Entire Middle East: Abed Almaala, Israel Hayom, Sept. 6, 2016

Review: Dreams Deferred: A Concise Guide to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict & the Movement to Boycott Israel: Ira Robinson, CIJR, Sept. 1, 2016

Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, Jewish Students and Failed Policies: Seth J. Frantzman, ISGAP, Sept. 7, 2016

The College Formerly Known as Yale: Roger Kimball, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 8, 2016

 

 

SO YOU’RE A JEW AND YOU’RE STARTING COLLEGE?

PREPARE FOR ANTI-ZIONISM

Molly Harris

Washington Post, Aug. 23, 2016

 

Congratulations, new college freshmen! Welcome to what will undoubtedly be some of the most exciting years of your life. Get ready to meet new people, learn things that fascinate you, and figure out who you are and who you want to be. If you’re Jewish, you should probably also prepare yourself for the various forms of anti-Israel sentiment, and maybe even anti-Semitism, you’re likely to encounter on your new college campus.

 

In the past year alone, as a Jewish student at McGill University in Montreal, I’ve been called a “Zionist b—-.” I’ve been told several times that Jews haven’t suffered (never mind the Spanish Inquisition, Eastern European pogroms and centuries of violence and marginalization leading up to the Holocaust). I’ve seen my friends mocked for their Judaism in crude, hateful language on popular anonymous social media platforms. When I asked if a student publication would write about instances of anti-Semitism on campus in its end-of-year issue, I was told that those instances were already covered in “mainstream Zionist media.” By no means do I defend every action of the Israeli government, but Israel as a Jewish homeland plays an integral role in my identity. I love Israel and firmly believe in its right to exist, just as I believe in a Palestinian state. I also consider myself a liberal and care deeply about a range of injustices, including gender inequality, homophobia and the racial opportunity gap.

 

Yet so many of my liberal peers, with whom I share so much common ground, have actively excluded Jewish students from their social-justice organizations. The activist community’s demonization of Israel is apparent again and again in my interactions on campus. These clubs propagate the idea that Zionism underpins many of the world’s problems, as well as claim that Jews have no right to feel connected to Israel and that any Jew who does feel a connection to his or her religious homeland is part of the problem. Despite many of our shared values, my Jewish peers’ and my attempts to reach out to these groups have often been dismissed.

 

As you begin your journey as a Jewish college student, you may find that the students involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel, which is on the rise on campuses across North America, are the same students who are active in feminist collectives, LGBT groups, environmental organizations and anti-racism clubs. As a Zionist, this can be extremely disheartening — why should you be alienated from a cause because you believe Israel has a right to exist?

 

The years to come will be challenging for you. Whether it’s fighting BDS, coming under attack in class discussions or being made to feel unwelcome in an activist group, your experience as a Zionist at school won’t be simple. But you should still get involved with the causes you care about. You are entitled to that as much as anyone else, and you might be able to build a very important bridge. Don’t abandon your causes just because some of the people involved with them condemn Israel. And don’t be afraid to speak up to peers, professors and community members. You never know where you’re going to find an ally, and they won’t know where to find you unless you’re vocal about what you’re doing.

 

At McGill, I and a group of students, both Jewish and not Jewish, have taken it upon ourselves to educate our peers about the discrimination that Jews face. When I moved into my dorm for my first year, I participated in a three-hour workshop about creating a safe space on campus for everyone. I mentioned a time that I was singled out for being Jewish — and the person in charge of the workshop told me that while I might be oppressed because I am female, “being Jewish didn’t constitute the grounds for systematic oppression.” That lack of knowledge of centuries of global history is stunning, and it has to change. My friends and I are dedicated to ending bigotry in all its forms — and that includes clueless or careless anti-Semitism.

 

Despite the frustrations, I know that your campus will also be a wonderful place to strengthen your Jewish identity and find community. I made some of my best friends and met brilliant professors as I attempted to tackle these issues. Despite the roadblocks that you will experience along the way, the work that you do on your campus will undoubtedly create positive change.

 

 

 

Contents                                                                                                           

                                                             

               INSIDE A HATE-FILLED ANTI-ISRAEL PROTEST

Aedan O’Connor

National Post, Sept. 8, 2016

 

 

I donned a headscarf and sunglasses, and removed the Star of David I wear around my neck. I knew that I was taking a risk by going undercover to the Al-Quds Day rally in Toronto on July 2. Al-Quds Day is marked by annual demonstrations around the world, opposing the existence of the state of Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, and supporting the Palestinian cause. In Toronto, there is usually a large Al-Quds Day protest and a strong counter-protest.

 

In years past, I have proudly waved my Israeli flag at the counter-protest. Police always set up barriers between the two groups of protesters, in order to keep the peace. I had thus never had a chance to experience the Al-Quds side for myself — until this year. I arrived early. The first thing I noticed was the signs the protesters were holding. Several claimed the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) are equivalent, saying, “ISIS and IDF are the same: Only difference is their name” and “Humanity devastated, Zionist collaborated, ISIS & IDF activated.” Some read: “Boycott IsraHell.” Others showed graphic images purporting to be bloodied Palestinian children being abused by the IDF. I later searched for these images online and found that they were from other conflicts, unrelated to Israel. The large crowd chanted “Zionism is racism is terrorism,” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Black, red, green and white, Palestine is going to fight.”

 

The speeches were also deeply unsettling. Speakers said there should be no “so-called” state of Israel, that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing, that “Zionists gun down women as their income” and that “Zionism is racism.” One speaker said that Israel had executed a 17-year-old boy, referring to the Palestinian who slaughtered a 13-year-old Israeli girl while she was sleeping and was shot by the IDF while trying to murder her family. Another said that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was not a true Canadian, claiming he was too pro-Israel. The crowd cheered each speaker, while constantly shouting, “Down with Israel.”

 

After I left, and took the scarf off, I was profoundly disturbed that there were people allowed to espouse this hatred outside the Ontario legislature. I was cautiously optimistic when B’nai Brith launched an investigation, both into the public school teacher who spoke at the event and the event itself. I was pleased when the Toronto District Catholic School Board suspended the teacher during its investigation.

 

But, as I head back to school this fall, I know I will continue to see these messages and tactics used frequently by anti-Israel organizations on campus. In my experience, most university students are anti-Israel. A major contributing factor is the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda spread on college campuses. I wish the Al-Quds Day event was an anomaly, but, as many students will attest, events like these occur far too frequently on campuses across the country. Simulated Israel apartheid walls are erected, “die in” protests are staged and demonstrations of fake IDF soldiers attacking students posing as Palestinians are all-too commonplace.

 

Even students who have no connection to the Middle East end up supporting the Palestinian cause, because anti-Israel groups often form coalitions with other groups of students who feel they have been oppressed in some way, by arguing that they have common cause. The fault in this logic is that Israel is comprised mostly of Jews. Canadian Jews have the largest number of religiously motivated hate crimes perpetrated against them. And Jews have been subjected to great injustices, including the Holocaust and various pogroms, around the world for centuries. It is the Jews, in other words, who are often oppressed. And the reality about Israel is, of course, that it is the sole liberal democracy in the region — the only country the offers legal protections to minorities — not the evil oppressor its enemies portray.

 

Canada has laws against hate speech, and targeting identifiable groups for intimidation. Having now spent time inside an Al-Quds rally, it’s hard for me to imagine that these events do not cross the line where free speech becomes something else, something far more sinister and dangerous. More Canadians, particularly those in positions of power and influence, need to know what is being said at these events. Until they do, they will not understand why Jewish students such as myself no longer feel safe wearing our Magen Davids on campus, even right here at home in Canada.

 

Contents           

THE AMERICAN INQUISITION

Caroline Glick

Jerusalem Post, Sept. 5, 2016

 

The cancer of Jew hatred has taken over the body of US academia. This week we caught a glimpse of the advanced state of the disease in an email sent by a Syracuse University professor to an Israeli filmmaker in June. As The Atlantic reported, on June 24, Syracuse professor Gail Hamner disinvited Israeli filmmaker Shimon Dotan from screening his film at the university’s film festival, scheduled for March 2017.

 

Hamner’s decision had nothing to do with the quality of Dotan’s work. She admitted as much, writing, “Obviously, my decision here has nothing to do with you or your work.” Dotan was disinvited because he is Israeli and because the title of his film, The Settlers, does not make it immediately apparent whether he reviles the half million Israeli Jews who live in Judea and Samaria sufficiently. Hamner explained, “My SU colleagues, on hearing about my attempt to secure your presentation [at our upcoming film festival], have warned me that the BDS faction on campus will make matters very unpleasant for you and for me if you come.”

 

She then elaborated on the harm his participation would cause her, personally. “My film colleague… who granted me affiliated faculty [status] in the film and screen studies program and who supported my proposal to the Humanities Council for this conference, told me point blank that if I have not myself seen your film and cannot myself vouch for it to the council, I will lose credibility with a number of film and women/ gender studies colleagues. Sadly, I have not had the chance to see your film and can only vouch for it through my friend and through published reviews.” Hamner added, “I feel caught in an ideological matrix and by my own egoic needs to sustain certain institutional affiliations.”

 

Hamner’s letter to Dotan provides us with a rare opportunity to see something that people generally go to great lengths to hide. Hamner demonstrated how boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) activists have enmeshed Jew hatred into the fabric of academic life in America. The BDS movement is qualitatively different from all other groups that operate on campuses today. Unlike even the most radical, fringe groups, the BDS movement isn’t seeking to advance or protect the rights of anyone. All it works to accomplish is the obliteration of Jewish rights, and indeed of Jewish existence in Israel.

 

Like Hamas and Iran, BDS activists seek the annihilation of the Jewish state. Like Hamas and Iran, the BDS movement does not strive to bring peace or to protect the rights of anyone. Rather, like Iran and Hamas, the goal of the BDS movement is the genocide of the largest Jewish population in the world and the annihilation of the only Jewish state in the world. Bullying is the BDS movement’s preferred tactic. They bully faculty, administrators and students into becoming anti-Semitic by harassing, ostracizing and persecuting everyone who refuses to actively promote Jew hatred. To force everyone into line, BDS groups have adopted two complementary tactics. First, they try to banish Israeli Jews entirely from their campuses by bullying their institutions into adopting and implementing anti-Israel boycotts.

 

Second, they enforce partial bans on Israeli Jews by requiring Israeli and non-Israeli Jews to behave in manners no one would never think of requiring of Israeli Arabs, or Italians or Japanese for that matter. BDS activists achieve both aims by bullying non-activists into enforcing their anti-Semitic positions – as Hamner did when she disinvited Dotan. These actions are a clear violation not only of the civil rights of Israeli and non-Israeli Jews. They are also an indisputable violation of the civil rights of all students, administrators and faculty at US universities. They deny everyone the right to hear viewpoints and receive knowledge from Israeli Jews and so limit the academic freedom of everyone.

 

BDS is a postmodern version of the pure, unrefined Jew hatred of Medieval Europe. Five hundred years ago, the only Jews permitted to enter the public square were Christians. Jews were rejected, ostracized, expelled and killed unless they could enthusiastically and soulfully recite the catechisms. On university campuses throughout the US today, Jews – Israeli and non-Israeli – are ostracized, silenced, harassed and humiliated unless they enthusiastically, soulfully and contritely declare their support for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Non-Jews who do not require them to do so are similarly ostracized and otherwise punished.

 

Case in point is the fate of Milan Chatterjee. Chatterjee is an Indian-American law student and a Hindu. Last year he was elected president of UCLA’s Graduate Students’ Association. Last week he announced his resignation from the post and his transfer to New York University Law School to complete his degree. In a letter to UCLA chancellor Gene Block, Chatterjee explained that his decision was the result of relentless attacks, harassment and bullying he has suffered at the hands of BDS activists and their enablers in Block’s administration.

 

Chatterjee wrote Block: “Your administration has not only allowed BDS organizations and student activists to freely engage in intimidation of students who do not support the BDS agenda, but has decided to affirmatively engage in discriminatory practices of its own against those same students. “Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the fact is that the UCLA campus has become a hostile and unsafe environment for students, Jewish students and non-Jewish, who choose not to support the BDS movement, let alone support the State of Israel.”

 

Chatterjee got on the wrong side of UCLA’s anti-Semitism enforcers in November 2015 when he adopted a student government policy of strict neutrality on BDS. Under his leadership, the graduate council would neither support nor oppose BDS. To this end, he allocated funds for a “Diversity Caucus,” with the stipulation that the caucus remain neutral on BDS. It was for his refusal to actively endorse BDS – rather than any action to oppose BDS – that Chatterjee became a target for the BDS mob. They submitted a bid to impeach him based on frivolous claims. To its shame, rather than stand by Chatterjee, the administration joined the mob. Chatterjee was censured by the university and subjected to disciplinary proceedings. UCLA’s administration claimed that he had “violated university policy” for refusing to fund BDS groups…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

           

Contents                                   

             

REMEMBER IRAN’S ROLE IN 9/11

          Joseph I. Lieberman

           Wall Street Journal, Sept. 7, 2016

 

‘Never forget” is the commitment the American people made after Sept. 11, 2001. Yet sometimes our leaders seem to have forgotten Iran’s role in that worst terror attack on American soil, and Iran’s continuing assistance to terror organizations and operations around the world. In the last 15 years, aggressive U.S.-led military and intelligence operations have killed many of al Qaeda’s leaders and damaged the group’s ability to plan and execute a similar attack. But a key al Qaeda partner, Iran, has never been held responsible for its enabling role—even though the 9/11 Commission found that “there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”

 

The State Department says Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. What is not adequately understood, however, is the regime’s willingness to work with extremists of the Sunni sect in the Arab world and elsewhere—even though it views itself as the vanguard of the world’s Shiite community. Iran is aiding both Sunni and Shiite terror organizations—including Sunni Hamas and Sunni Islamic Jihad, and Shiite Hezbollah and Shiite Iraqi militias.

 

Iran’s link to al Qaeda goes back to Sudan in the early 1990s, when Osama bin Laden lived in the nation’s capital, Khartoum. The Sudanese religious scholar Ahmed Abdel Rahman Hamadabi brought Sheikh Nomani, an emissary of Iran, to meet bin Laden and the nascent al Qaeda leadership. According to an account by scholar Rohan Gunaratna, Sheikh Nomani “had access to the highest echelons of power in Tehran.” As a result of these consultations, the Washington Institute’s Matthew Levitt and Michael Jacobson concluded, “Iran and al-Qaeda reached an informal agreement to cooperate, with Iran providing critical explosives, intelligence, and security training to bin Laden’s organization.” Because Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) already supported Hezbollah operationally and financially, a vehicle was in place through which they could support and influence al Qaeda.

 

Operating through Hezbollah gave Iran immense freedom to funnel money and weaponry and to train al Qaeda operatives in deadly tactics that would be employed around the world, including against the U.S. The coordinated 1998 truck bombings targeting the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were a direct result of the Iranian terror training, according to a finding by Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the 2011 case of James Owens et al. v. Republic of Sudan et al.

 

After 9/11, Iran became a more important haven for al Qaeda fighters who fled from Afghanistan as the Taliban collapsed. Iran claimed that these terrorists were under “house arrest.” In reality, Iran regularly granted the terrorists freedom to move within Iran and to cross into Iraq and Afghanistan to carry out attacks. From their safe base in Iran, al Qaeda members planned terrorist operations, including the 2003 attack in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia that killed 26 people, including eight Americans, and the 2008 attack on the American Embassy in Yemen that claimed 16 lives, including six terrorists. It took the U.S. government 10 years to publicly acknowledge Iran’s aid to al Qaeda. In 2011, the Treasury Department officially accused Iran, as a Wall Street Journal report put it, “of forging an alliance with al Qaeda in a pact that allows the terrorist group to use Iranian soil as a transit point for moving money, arms and fighters to its bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

 

As recently as July 20, 2016, the U.S. blacklisted three members of al Qaeda who were living in Iran, saying these al Qaeda facilitators in Iran had helped the jihadist group on the battlefield, with finance and logistics, and in liaising with Iranian authorities. Newly declassified letters captured in the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden reveal how crucial Iran has been to al Qaeda. In a 2007 letter, bin Laden directed al Qaeda not to target Iran because “Iran is our main artery for funds, personnel, and communication.”

 

Yet even as the U.S. has decried Iran’s support for terrorism, Washington policy makers have pursued closer relations with Tehran. In the years following reports, court rulings and U.S. government findings exposing the Iran-al Qaeda alliance, the U.S. led the countries known as the P5+1 in making a deal with Iran that at best postpones Iran’s nuclear ambitions—while giving them billions of dollars now, and a legal path to nuclear weapons in the future. We negotiated with our enemy, the Iranian regime, notwithstanding its declared and demonstrated desire to destroy our country. On the 15th anniversary of 9/11, the U.S. should not be rewarding Iran for its deadly actions with gifts of sanctions relief, and the easing of arms embargoes and ballistic-missile restrictions. It is time to hold the regime accountable for its reckless aggression and support of terrorism.

 

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends and Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!

 

Contents                       

           

On Topic Links

 

BDS: A Threat to the Entire Middle East: Abed Almaala, Israel Hayom, Sept. 6, 2016—As a Jordanian politician, I feel obligated to speak out against the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and its effect on ‎the Middle East and the world.‎

Review: Dreams Deferred: A Concise Guide to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict & the Movement to Boycott Israel: Ira Robinson, CIJR, Sept. 1, 2016 —It is not an exaggeration to say that the diverse community of supporters of Israel sees the movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions [BDS] as one of the greatest challenges it currently faces.

Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, Jewish Students and Failed Policies: Seth J. Frantzman, ISGAP, Sept. 7, 2016 —A new article at The Washington Post by Molly Harris claims that liberal Jewish students are being “actively excluded” from social justice organizations.

The College Formerly Known as Yale: Roger Kimball, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 8, 2016—The English novelist Kingsley Amis once observed that much that was wrong with the 20th century could be summed up in the word “workshop.” On American campuses today, I suspect that the operative word is “committee.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BDS B.S.: OTTAWA & U.K. CONDEMN ANTISEMITIC ISRAEL BOYCOTT, WHILE MCGILL BDS MOTION PASSES

The Proper Response to the BDS Movement is Not Censure, But Facts: Robyn Urback, National Post, Feb. 23, 2016— First off, let’s get one thing out of the way: the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel is a demonstrably ineffective…

Two Cheers for Britain’s BDS Ban: Melanie Phillips, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 18, 2016— The British government has done something in support of Israel, and the progressive intelligentsia is in shock. Prime Minister David Cameron is taking action against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Campus Anti-Semitism Looks to Instill Hatred for the Long Term: Barbara Kay, National Post, Feb. 16, 2016 — At McGill University, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) zombie has returned.

How the United States Mislabels Israel: Asaf Romirowsky & Benjamin Weinthal, National Interest, Feb. 16, 2016— In a move uncharacteristic of U.S. policy as it has been carried out for decades, the Obama administration recently endorsed Europe’s version of a soft Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) campaign targeting Israeli merchandise.

 

On Topic Links

 

Anthony Housefather Supports Anti-BDS Motion in the House of Commons (Video): Youtube, Feb. 20, 2016

Trudeau Backs Conservative Motion Condemning BDS Movement Against Israel: Huffington Post, Feb. 22, 2016

McGill Passes BDS Motion Hours After Government Condemns Them: Raphael Poch, Arutz Sheva, Feb. 23, 2016

The Lie of Pro-Palestinian Activism: Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 22, 2016

         

                            

          THE PROPER RESPONSE TO THE BDS MOVEMENT

IS NOT CENSURE, BUT FACTS

Robyn Urback     

   National Post, Feb. 23, 2016

 

First off, let’s get one thing out of the way: the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel is a demonstrably ineffective, hopelessly tired, morally disingenuous preoccupation that has achieved basically nothing in terms of territorial concessions, unless you count the occasional yield of meeting spaces on North American university campuses. Activists have tried for the last decade to put an economic stranglehold on Israel — as well as on companies that do business with Israel — while remaining blissfully blind to the innumerable products, technological advances and medical breakthroughs from Israel that touch our everyday lives.

 

Those who campaign for BDS are remarkably obstinate and won’t withdraw their gaze on Israel for anything: not for Russia, back when it invaded and occupied territory in Crimea, or more recently, dropped bombs on schools and private homes in Syria, indiscriminately killing civilians; not for Saudi Arabia, which continues to operate a tire fire of a kingdom where dissidents are imprisoned and executed with gratuitous impunity; and not for the brutal dictatorial regime in Syria, which has persecuted, gassed and slaughtered its own civilians, and home to the largest global refugee crisis in generations. No, for BDS activists, it’s still all about Israel — the only real democracy in the Middle East, its very existence threatened by its immediate neighbours — even though babies are literally starving to death 150 kilometres northeast.

 

It is because of that singular fixation with Israel that many people dismiss the boycott movement as thinly veiled anti-Semitism, and indeed, why many of those same people feel compelled to shut it down. Last week, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel introduced a motion in the House of Commons condemning the BDS movement in Canada, which, according to the motion, “promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel.” The motion further “call(s) upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.” On Monday, the motion passed by a vote of 229-51, with the Conservatives and Liberals (less two errant MPs) voting in favour, the NDP opposed.

 

The motion was introduced in the wake of news that students at McGill University in Montreal would soon be asked to vote on a BDS motion for the third time in less than three years. (It also presented as a ripe prospective wedge issue for the new Official Opposition — especially in the wake of the Liberals’ recent tough talk for Israel — but unfortunately for the Conservatives, the Liberals didn’t take the bait.) After it passed, the motion was celebrated by parliamentarians and Israel advocates as a strike against anti-Semitism, and decried by its detractors as an assault on free speech. In practice, it won’t approach either level of significance, or relevancy. It’s a gesture — nothing more.

 

Still, those who support the anti-BDS motion will tell you that symbols are important, and while nothing tangible will actually change in the wake of this vote, it sends the right message. And while that’s certainly true in some cases, in this case, when the whole point of the BDS movement is about standing up to the establishment and rejecting the alliances between Western governments and the State of Israel — well, a parliamentary condemnation might not end up having the desired effect. Indeed, if anything, the government’s censure will probably embolden the BDS movement, much more than it will discourage it.

 

But the main issue I take with the Conservatives anti-BDS motion is not about unintended consequences, or empty symbolism, or the government sticking its nose somewhere it probably doesn’t belong. Rather, it’s about lending credibility to a movement that deserves none, and yet, is granted legitimacy by a discussion in the House of Commons. But if we are going to talk about BDS, the proper response is not censure, but facts: here’s why it’s ludicrous to see people marching against Israel in Toronto’s Gay Pride Parade, let me tell you about the technology that went into running your laptop, do you know how many Palestinian workers were employed by the SodaStream factory in the West Bank?

 

We shouldn’t be trying to silence BDS activists: the more they talk, the more they expose the glaring inconsistencies in their own vacuous reasoning. For that reason, we shouldn’t try to shut down their campus marches or celebrate our parliamentarians’ collective “condemnation.” Instead, we should wait patiently while they prattle on about the oppressive colonialization behind Sabra Hummus, or whatever, and then proceed to methodically deflate each one of their arguments. The antidote to BDS nonsense isn’t denunciation — it’s reality.            

                                                                       

 

Contents

TWO CHEERS FOR BRITAIN’S BDS BAN

Melanie Phillips                     

Jerusalem Post, Feb. 18, 2016

 

The British government has done something in support of Israel, and the progressive intelligentsia is in shock. Prime Minister David Cameron is taking action against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. New government guidance will prevent any public body from imposing a boycott on a member of the World Trade Organization to which Israel belongs.

 

Local boycotts breach the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, which demands that all suppliers are treated equally. The guidance aims at preventing publicly funded bodies such as municipal councils or National Health Service trusts from boycotting goods produced by what they believe to be “unethical companies,” such as firms involved in arms trading, fossil fuels or tobacco products as well as companies based in Israel.

 

Matthew Hancock, the British government’s Cabinet Office minister, revealed the development on a visit to Israel this week. Such boycotts, he said, were divisive, potentially damaging to the UK’s relationship with Israel and risked fueling anti-Semitism. The enemies of Israel are beside themselves in fury. The British Labor Party has called the guidance an “attack on democracy.” NGOs in the forefront of anti-Israel activism, such as Amnesty, War on Want and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, have called it a “gross attack” on democratic freedoms and the ability of councils or other public bodies to make “ethical investments.”

 

The British government’s initiative has understandably delighted Israel and its supporters. They should nevertheless temper their jubilation. In its own limited terms, the guidance is certainly justified. It merely restates existing law and requires public bodies to comply. The boycott of Israel by public bodies is a gross abuse of taxpayers’ money. The protests at the government initiative are specious.

 

Democracy does not require a local council or hospital trust to busy itself in foreign policy matters. It does not require public bodies to behave in a discriminatory manner by singling out Israel for treatment afforded to no other country. And “ethical investment” hardly entails supporting Palestinian dictatorships and the proposed ethnic cleansing of the Jews from their own ancient homeland.

 

The term “boycott” doesn’t do this justice. BDS is a campaign of mass bullying and intimidation, sending threatening mobs into supermarkets, lecture theaters and concert halls intent on harassment and censorship under the guise of human rights – directed at further punishing the victims of a century of exterminatory terrorism and war in the Middle East. Many British Jews feel intimidated and threatened by BDS because they understand it to be nothing less than the Western front in the war of extermination directed at Israel.

 

No other country is subjected to such a campaign built on grotesque lies about its behavior designed to turn the Israelis into devils in the Western public mind. No country, indeed, is subjected to a boycott campaign based on the truth about its behavior. There is no boycott campaign directed against Saudi Arabia, Iran, China or any of the myriad states which oppress and subjugate their hapless populations. There is no boycott campaign against either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority which persecute and tyrannize their populations, jail dissidents and throw homosexuals off the roofs of tall buildings. On the contrary, these regimes are supported against Israel by the BDS brigade, who are mute on the Palestinians’ abuse of each other let alone their hysterical incitement against and mass murder of Israeli Jews.

 

Apartheid in South Africa was a real and demonstrable evil. When Jews hear that BDS against Israel is modeled on the anti-apartheid campaign, the comparison turns their blood to ice. That’s because accusing Israel of apartheid is a wicked and manipulative lie deployed as a weapon of war by Israel’s enemies to portray it as a rogue state which needs to be eliminated. BDS thus makes its Western proponents complicit in the attempt to destroy the only state in the Middle East which actually upholds human rights, and whose only crime is to exist at all as the homeland of the Jewish people.

 

Far from promoting human rights, BDS seeks to deny them to the Jews alone. As its co-founder Omar Barghouti openly declared, “We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” As such, BDS is directed not just at Israel but at the entire Jewish people. But the Israel boycott is by no means the whole problem. BDS is to anti-Israel lunacy what ISIS is to Islamic extremism: merely the noisiest and most eye-watering manifestation of a deeply rooted and widespread lethal contamination.

 

The poison is incubated in the universities. This week, the co-chairman of the Oxford University Labor Club, Alex Chalmers, announced he was resigning over its rampant anti-Semitism and endorsement of Israel Apartheid Week on campus. “Whether it be,” he wrote, “members of the executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explicitly defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former co-chair claiming that ‘most accusations of anti-Semitism are just the Zionists crying wolf,’ a large proportion of both OULC and the student Left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.”

 

A further statement from the Oxford University Jewish Society said senior members of the Labor Club liked to regale listeners with a song called “Rockets over Tel Aviv” and endorsed Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians, stated all Jews should be required to denounce Zionism and the State of Israel, and said those who refused to do so should be shunned. And they had arranged for a group of students to harass a Jewish student and shout “Filthy Zionist” at her.

 

Preventing BDS will not stamp out this deranged animosity against Israel and Zionism that has now gripped most of the Labor Party and Britain’s “progressive” intelligentsia. Indeed, the new guidance may provide a fig leaf for the derangement to continue. The British government can pose as a champion of Israel against delegitimization. But that very same British government continues to propound one of the key lies fueling Israel delegitimization: that its “occupation” and settlement of the disputed territories is illegal.

 

If David Cameron really wants to tackle anti-Israel incitement, he should be telling the British public some inconvenient truths – such as that the occupation and the settlements are legal several times over; that in the entire Middle East it is only Israel that upholds human rights for Arabs along with all its other citizens; that no decent person should support the Palestinian agenda of anti-Israel incitement, Jewish ethnic cleansing and the destruction of Israel; and that NGOs such as Amnesty and War on Want are a disgrace for doing so.

 

Alas, he will not do this. Although he has moved sharply in the right direction over Israel, he hasn’t yet joined up the dots. Or maybe he has, but isn’t brave enough to show his country the completed picture. Unless he does so, however, his guidance will do little to restore reason and decency to British public debate.                                                                     

 

Contents

CAMPUS ANTI-SEMITISM LOOKS TO INSTILL

HATRED FOR THE LONG TERM

Barbara Kay                                                                                    

National Post, Feb. 16, 2016

 

At McGill University, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) zombie has returned. For the third time in less than two years (and the fifth time in seven years), anti-Zionist crusaders are on the warpath. A motion calls on the Students Society of McGill University at their winter general assembly on Feb. 22 “to support any (BDS) campaigns on campus and to pressure the McGill board of governors to divest from corporations ‘complicit in the occupation of the Palestinian territories’.” Similar motions in the Fall of 2014 and March of 2015 were, respectively, shelved indefinitely and failed on a secret ballot. Yet here the anti-Zionists are again. Clearly they hope to wear down the student body to the point of indifference or numbed acceptance.

 

The vehicle for this latest anti-Israel motion is the McGill BDS Action Network, which consists mainly of members of a group advocating Palestinian human rights and is endorsed by the McGill Black Students’ Network, McGill Students for Feminism, the McGill Syrian Students’ Association, the environmental activist group Divest McGill and the Union for Gender Empowerment.

 

No thinking person can avoid noting the irony in these names. Environment? Israel leads the world in agricultural sustainability, water conservation and arid-land research, while its neighbours pump non-renewable oil in increasing quantities. Gender rights? Israel is the only country in the entire Middle East that accords equal rights to women and gays.

 

And the Syrian Students Association? More people have died in the past year in Syria than have died in the entire Arab-Israeli conflict in the last 65 years, and for reasons that have nothing to do with Israel. Why does the Syrian Students Association not direct its activist energies in support of their ethnic brethren, or the Christians and Yazidis who will never be able to return to their ancestral homes? Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of Western progressivism, where hatred of Israel is so fierce it can derail activists from attending to the causes they allegedly represent.

 

The McGill BDS Action Network (MBAN) is typical of a new, strategical campus process. First start a new group — like MBAN — and build relationships with other minority groups. Bustle around campus putting up anti-Israel displays and sponsoring meetings filled with emotional messages of oppression, colonialism and/or racism. Then cultivate student leaders reluctant to be caught out of step with campus politics. There are presently BDS resolutions in play all over North America, Britain, Australia and South Africa. They know that companies like Google and Microsoft will never divest from Israel. They know Israel is flourishing economically and their resolutions, even if they pass, will have no effect on Israel’s economy. No matter, because today’s activists are playing the long game.

 

At the University of Washington, BDS demanded the university divest from Caterpillar Corp., which supplies bulldozers to the Israel Defence Forces. The U of Washington doesn’t actually hold Caterpillar stock, but BDS is investing in the future. The student leaders of today are the political leaders of tomorrow. Winning them over now ensures a sympathetic ear down the road. Relentlessly driving home the anti-Israel message will, they hope, inculcate a permanent bias. This is classic anti-Semitism in action. Boycott proponents see Israel as not simply wrong, but sinful, as well. And in their view, sins can only be redeemed by the destruction of the state in which they breed.

 

It’s irrational and the opposite of democratic, yet campus administrations, so quick to empathize with other minority grievances, hesitate to acknowledge this true evil in their midst. As former Harvard University president Lawrence Summers said in an address on academic freedom, “the general failure of American academic leaders to aggressively take on the challenge posed by the Boycott, Divestment, Sanction movement represents a consequential abdication of moral responsibility.”

 

These resolutions are not an example of “freedom of speech.” They are designed to normalize the pernicious idea that Israel’s right to exist, alone among nations, is contingent on world opinion of its moral worth, and to prevent, amongst other things, the free exchange of ideas and research with Israeli universities. It is past time that McGill and other university boards of governors put a stop to this hateful, and institutionally corrosive, psychological pogrom.

 

Barbara Kay is a CIJR Academic Fellow

 

                                                                                    Contents

              HOW THE UNITED STATES MISLABELS ISRAEL

Asaf Romirowsky & Benjamin Weinthal            

                                                National Interest, Feb. 16, 2016

 

In a move uncharacteristic of U.S. policy as it has been carried out for decades, the Obama administration recently endorsed Europe’s version of a soft Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) campaign targeting Israeli merchandise. In late January, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency changed its policy on imports from the West Bank, imposing, in effect, a sanction on such goods.

 

The penalty states that products must no longer be labeled “Made in Israel,” because the United States views the West Bank as territory illegitimately controlled by Israel. Europe adopted such a labeling policy in November. Since then, the United States has chartered a zigzag course through the product demarcation debate. When asked in November if labeling constitutes a boycott, Mark C. Toner, U.S. State Department deputy spokesman, said: “It’s a—it could be—it could be perceived as a step on the way.”

 

Just last month, however, Toner’s boss, spokesman John Kirby, announced: “We do not view labeling the origin of products as being from the settlements a boycott of Israel. We also do not believe that labeling the origin of products is equivalent to a boycott.” The United States, like the European Union, goes to great lengths to insist that demarcating Israeli products from the settlements is not a boycott.

 

Yet, in an increasingly anti-Israel Europe, labeling could lead to sweeping damage to Israel’s economy. This slippery slope helps to explain why a bipartisan group of thirty-six senators protested the EU decision. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) took the lead in sending a letter of objection to the EU in November. “As allies, elected representatives of the American people, and strong supporters of Israel, we urge you not to implement this labeling policy, which appears intended to discourage Europeans from purchasing these products and promote a de facto boycott of Israel. . . ,” wrote the senators.

 

To blunt European economic warfare targeting Israel, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley in 2015 approved legislation that outlaws public organizations from conducting business with companies that discriminate against the Jewish state. Illinois and Indiana have passed similar anti-BDS legislation. In late January, Florida legislators announced they intend to pass a bill opposing companies involved in BDS.

 

Congressman Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania introduced HR 2645, legislation that seeks to prohibit the federal pension system from investing in companies that boycott Israel. The combination of the U.S. State Department endorsing the EU labeling of settlement products along with intensified criticism of Israeli peace process policies gives a tailwind to the boycott supporters. The stated aims of BDS are nothing short of the dissolution of Israel and its replacement with a binational, majority Palestinian entity. Put simply, the BDS movement’s goal is the opposite of peace.

 

These diplomatic maneuvers coming out of President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department at large are making Israel a partisan issue in the United States. From the beginning of Obama’s time in office his administration demanded that Israel halt settlement activity. Obama’s posture has been motivated by two assumptions: The key to solving the Middle East’s problems rests with the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and the be-all and end-all of obstacles to a final peace agreement in the region is remedying the problem of Israel’s control over the disputed territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

 

 

On Topic

 

Anthony Housefather Supports Anti-BDS Motion in the House of Commons (Video): Youtube, Feb. 20, 2016—Please watch my speech in the House of Commons on a motion to condemn the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement.

Trudeau Backs Conservative Motion Condemning BDS Movement Against Israel: Huffington Post, Feb. 22, 2016 —Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals have joined forces with the official Opposition to overwhelmingly approve a Conservative motion condemning  Canadians who promote the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel.

McGill Passes BDS Motion Hours After Government Condemns Them: Raphael Poch, Arutz Sheva, Feb. 23, 2016—As the Canadian Parliament passed a resolution to condemn the BDS movement by a vote of 229 -51 and received bipartisan support for the initiative, the picture on McGill campus in Montreal was the exact opposite.

The Lie of Pro-Palestinian Activism: Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 22, 2016—Last Thursday, yet again, we learned that pro-Palestinian activists couldn’t care less about Palestinians. For them, the Palestinians whose rights they claim to champion are nothing more than means to another end. Our latest lesson came from the University of Chicago.

 

 

                        

 

 

 

                  

 

 

 

QUÉBEC, QATAR, TOULOUSE, IRAN…

 

 

 

QUÉBEC: L'IMAM SAÏD JAZIRI, UN MANIPULATEUR
Dépêche

Postedeveille.ca, 2 avril 2012

L'imam islamiste Saïd Jaziri, un Tunisien, a été expulsé du Canada en octobre 2007 pour avoir menti aux autorités lors de sa demande d'asile politique. Il avait omis de déclarer qu'il avait fait usage de faux passeports et qu’il avait un casier judiciaire en France et en Tunisie. Il accuse maintenant le Canada de l'avoir «envoyé directement à la torture». Voir l'article de Taïeb Moalla dans le Journal de Québec, au titre trompeur: Le Canada a envoyé Saïd Jaziri à la torture. Pour un portrait de cette fripouille, lire l'article de Me Ftouh Souhail, avocat à Tunis, datant de 2009. Jaziri, qui se présente comme un «modéré», s'était prononcé en faveur de l'instauration de tribunaux de la charia et avait organisé une manifestation violente pour protester contre les caricatures danoises de Mahomet.

 

En 2011, Jaziri a tenté de revenir au Québec en passant par les USA. Ce grand voyageur qui semble disposer d'un budget illimité pour s'offrir les services des meilleurs avocats, a été arrêté aux USA après avoir franchi illégalement la frontière mexicaine dans le coffre d'une voiture. Il a demandé l'asile aux USA, ce qui ne semble pas avoir fonctionné puisqu'il est de retour en Tunisie. Le Canada l'aurait envoyé à la torture? Vraiment? En 2009, le journaliste Marc Thibodeau de La Presse l'avait joint par téléphone à Tunis pour faire un suivi. Jaziri avait alors indiqué qu'il n'avait «pas de problème» avec le gouvernement local. «La Tunisie a été beaucoup plus humaine avec moi que le Canada», a-t-il souligné.

 

Jaziri semble vouloir soutirer de l'argent aux contribuables canadiens. Il a d'ailleurs confié ses intentions à l'AFP : «Le Canada a sous-traité ma torture en Tunisie. C'est aussi simple que ça. … Je veux juste que les personnes responsables de mon expulsion (ndlr: du Canada) soient jugées et que je puisse revenir à Montréal pour m'occuper de ma famille».

 

Jaziri a eu un fils avec la québécoise convertie Nancy Adams alors qu'il était déjà sous le coup d'une ordonnance d'expulsion. Aujourd'hui, le Journal de Québec joue sur le registre de la culpabilisation éhontée en publiant un article illustré par une photo du petit Mohamed pleurant l'absence de son papa. Or cet enfant est victime des mauvaises décisions de ses parents, qui tentent d'en reporter les conséquences sur l'ensemble de la société québécoise. Quelle manipulation!

QUÉBEC: L'ISLAMISATION DE L'UNIVERSITÉ MCGILL
Dépêche

Postedeveille.ca, 1 avril 2012

Les universités occidentales sont à vendre au plus offrant, en l’occurrence les bédouins incultes des pétromonarchies, et ce financement a un impact sur l’enseignement et la recherche.

 

L’Université McGill de Montréal vient d’annoncer un important don du Qatar:

 

L’Université McGill et son Institut d’études islamiques ont reçu un généreux don de 1,25 million de dollars de l’État du Qatar. Annoncé aujourd’hui lors d’une visite à McGill de Son Excellence Salem Al-Shafi, premier ambassadeur du Qatar au Canada, ce don coïncide avec le 60e anniversaire de l’Institut et servira à financer une série de conférences qui seront présentées l’année prochaine:

 

«Nous croyons que cette contribution permettra à l’Institut de poursuivre l’importante mission qu’il s’est donnée lors de sa création, en 1952, qui est de favoriser l’avancement de la recherche sur l’Islam, ainsi que sur l’histoire et la civilisation du monde islamique, affirme Son Excellence Al-Shafi. Nous croyons également que l’Institut partage notre vision selon laquelle le savoir et l’éducation sont essentiels pour faire face aux défis d’un monde en perpétuelle évolution, qu’ils nous fournissent les outils nécessaires pour mieux comprendre les liens sans cesse changeants qui existent entre la religion et l’humanité, et qu’ils contribuent à notre bien-être et à la coexistence entre les peuples.»

 

Point de bascule [pointdebasculecanada.ca] publie un dossier sur cet évènement, où il rappelle que le Qatar possède un Centre international pour la propagation de la charia «éthique» établi en collaboration avec le prédicateur Qaradawi ainsi que Tariq Ramadan. Point de bascule note que l’annonce du don intervient peu après que la France a interdit des prédicateurs extrémistes de son territoire, y compris Qaradawi. Le ministre de l'Intérieur a également regretté la venue prochaine de Tariq Ramadan «dont les positions et les propos sont contraires à l'esprit républicain». Rappelons que Ramadan doit sa nomination comme titulaire d'une chaire d'études islamiques à Oxford à la générosité d'un roitelet arabe.

 

L’année dernière, Barbara Kay signait un article fouillé dans Campus Watch sur les dons aux universités du Canada et des États-Unis par des groupes liés à l'islam radical. Elle y souligne le manque stupéfiant d'examen diligent du dossier des donateurs. Elle déplore que des groupes radicaux colonisent les universités, devenues des lieux de propagande et d'apologie plutôt que de haut savoir, et blanchissent leur réputation en associant leur nom à des institutions prestigieuses. Elle prévient que la liberté académique est menacée.

 

En Grande-Bretagne, des études sur les dons des pays arabes aux universités ont révélé que sous des apparences philanthropiques, ces dons sont faits avec l’intention réelle de changer le climat intellectuel du pays. Selon l’étude du professeur Anthony Glees, ces dons ont pour véritable objectif de promouvoir une idéologie extrémiste et d’agir comme véhicule de propagande du courant wahhabite de l'islam au sein des universités. Ce financement encourage, conclut-il, «le mauvais type d'éducation, par le mauvais type de personnes, avec des fonds provenant du mauvais type de bienfaiteurs». Une autre étude révèle que le contenu de l’enseignement dans les centres financés par ces dons présente aux étudiants locaux et étrangers une vision du monde presque exclusivement anti-occidentale.

JUSQU’OÙ VA-T-ON LAISSER
L’INFLUENCE DU QATAR SE DÉVELOPPER?

Roger Cukierman
UPJF.org, 3 avril 2012

On voit apparaître en France depuis quelques années un émirat musulman particulièrement dynamique: le Qatar. Il envahit notre économie. C’est une invasion par le haut. Le Qatar est le 3ième exportateur mondial de gaz. Ce qui lui permet de détenir le record du plus haut revenu par tête au monde, et d’investir notamment en France, mais aussi en Grande Bretagne et en Allemagne [ainsi qu’au Canada, voir article ci-haut]. Le Qatar est un pays minuscule, grand comme la Corse. Il est dirigé par le Cheikh Hamad Al Thani. Il abrite 1,8 million d’habitants dont 10 % seulement sont des Qataris de souche, musulmans sunnites. Le reste est composé de travailleurs immigrés dont quelques jeunes Français de nos banlieues.

 

Les Qataris sont depuis peu les premiers actionnaires de Lagardère, avec 26% du capital. Or, cette société est gros actionnaire de Hachette, Europe 1, Canal +, et EADS, société mère d’Airbus. Il n’y a pas plus stratégique que la communication et l’aéronautique! Le Qatar a aussi des participations dans Total, LVMH, Vinci, Veolia, et possède plusieurs palaces hôteliers à Paris et à Cannes. S’ajoute à ces investissements une résidence somptueuse dans l’ile Saint-Louis, l’Hôtel Lambert qui appartenait autrefois à Guy de Rothschild

 

Mais c’est un investissement relativement modeste 40 Millions d’euros, qui a fait le plus de bruit en France: l’achat du PSG. L’émir désire avec l’aide du français Richard Attias, spécialiste des grands événements, faire du Qatar une capitale du sport, avec tournois de tennis, courses automobiles ou cyclistes. Le Qatar a même remporté l’organisation de la Coupe du Monde de football en 2022 et Al Jazeera a obtenu les droits télé du championnat de football de Ligue 1 et de la coupe d’Europe.

 

Cet intérêt du Qatar pour le sport lui donne une image positive auprès de l’opinion publique française. Les relations chaleureuses entre l’émir du Qatar et les Autorités françaises se sont manifestées par une convention fiscale qui exonère le Qatar d’impôts. Il est paradoxal d’accueillir à bras ouverts les capitaux étrangers au moment où l’excès d’impôts incite nombre de capitalistes français à envisager l’exil fiscal. Mais les Qataris savent être généreux, par exemple pour le sauvetage des infirmières bulgares, ou pour la création d’un fonds de 50 millions d’euros destiné à la création d’entreprises par les jeunes des banlieues.

 

Et c’est là que le bât blesse! Que veut réellement ce pays dirigé par un islamiste convaincu en étant aussi présent en France, particulièrement auprès des 10% ou plus de la population française de confession musulmane? En réalité la position du Qatar est très ambigüe. La réputation du Qatar doit beaucoup à la chaîne de télévision Al Jazeera, concurrent redouté de CNN ou BBC. Al Jazeera diffusait avec empressement les messages de Ben Laden. Elle donne la parole au prêcheur islamiste Qaradawi qui exprime sa haine des Juifs, recommande la lapidation des femmes adultères, et la mort des homosexuels et des apostats. Au point que notre gouvernement vient de lui refuser l’entrée sur le territoire français. Quant au gouvernement qatari il soutient en Égypte les salafistes, plus extrémistes encore que les frères musulmans, et maintient des rapports étroits avec le Hezbollah, le Hamas, et les talibans.

 

À l’inverse, le Qatar entretient les meilleures relations avec les Occidentaux, a eu des contacts avec Israël jusqu’en 2009, et s’est rangé aux côtés de la France et de la Grande-Bretagne lors du conflit contre Khadafi. En résumé, l’argent provenant du gaz a été intelligemment utilisé pour permettre à cet émirat de jouer un double jeu auprès de tous les acteurs, les gentils comme les méchants, de la scène internationale. Mais jusqu’où va-t-on laisser l’argent qatari pénétrer notre économie, et influencer nos dirigeants comme nos concitoyens?

QUAND UNE CERTAINE GAUCHE INTERDIT DE METTRE EN GARDE
CONTRE CETTE HAINE ISLAMISTE DE L'OCCIDENT

Gilles William Goldnadel
Atlantico.fr, 2 avril 2012

Au lendemain des deux drames montalbanais et toulousain, sans doute pour très peu de temps, les évidences indicibles peuvent être dites et montrées. Il existe encore, et si l’on ose dire, une fenêtre de tir, étroite, que l’idéologie en majesté va s’employer à refermer, comme elle en a la magie. Entre-temps, les Français auront pu apprendre ce qu’on leur cachait comme à des enfants immatures ou des adultes incapables. Ainsi, si l’identité du tueur ne leur avait pas été révélée aussi prestement, nul doute que les prestigieux invités au congrès annuel de l’Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF) qui se tiendra de ce vendredi à lundi au Bourget, auraient été reçus sans encombre et dans le silence des médias.

 

Nul n’aurait su, par exemple, que M. Abdallah Asfar avait légitimé le fait de battre son épouse si elle n’obéissait pas à son mari. Ou que les proches du Hamas, Messieurs Akrima Sabri et Al Huazi avaient respectivement déclaré : «Je vous annonce qu’il y a des centaines de femmes qui sont prêtes à se sacrifier pour libérer la terre de Palestine, et à sacrifier ce qu’elles ont de plus cher, leurs propres enfants» et encore: «Oui, je suis antisémite. Si ce ne sont pas les dirigeants arabes, nous devrons dévorer les juifs avec nos dents». Pour ne pas être en reste, le quatrième hôte empêché de l’UOIF, M. Al Qarni a qualifié les juifs de «frères des singes et des porcs» (le Figaro du 30 mars).

 

De même, jusqu’à présent, tous mes efforts à populariser les prêches sur Al-Jazira du cheikh Qaradawi, qui ne viendra pas non plus au Bourget à la suite de l’intervention de Nicolas Sarkozy auprès de l’émir du Qatar, qui a bien voulu se montrer compréhensif, étaient demeurés vains. Les Français auraient continué d’ignorer la qualité de la prose de celui qui, dans son ouvrage «le licite et l’illicite» recommande l’extermination physique des homosexuels.

 

Sur Qatar TV, en février 2006, cet ami du Hamas, déclara que «les opérations martyrs sont autorisées, même s’il se trouve des civils parmi les victimes». Pour ce qui est des occidentales violées, il ajoutait que celles-ci l’avaient été par ce que «une provocatrice non habillée décemment devait être punie (…) pour qu’elle soit affranchie de la culpabilité, une femme violée doit avoir montré la bonne conduite». Mme Gisèle Halimi et ses amies féministes ne semblent pas avoir été très émues jusqu’alors de semblables propos.

 

Ou encore, cette sortie le 28 janvier 2009, toujours sur Al-Jazira, dont bien peu d’antiracistes autoproclamés, hier encore, faisaient grand cas: «Tout au long de l’histoire, Allah a imposé aux juifs les personnes qui les puniraient de leur corruption. Le dernier châtiment a été administré par Hitler – et bien que les juifs aient exagéré les faits – il a réussi à les remettre à leur place. C’est est un châtiment divin. Si Allah veut, la prochaine fois ce sera par la main des musulmans». Pour se consoler, le public de l’UOIF pourra toujours applaudir Tariq Ramadan qui vient de considérer que Mohamed Merah «renvoyait la France à son miroir» et que celui-ci avait «fini jihadiste sans réelle conviction après avoir été un citoyen sans réelle dignité». […]

 

(Gilles William Goldnadel est un avocat pénaliste aux prises de position contestataires, président fondateur d'Avocats sans frontières. Il est l'auteur de «Réflexions sur la question blanche» et de «Le vieil homme m'indigne!: Les postures et impostures de Stéphane Hessel» parus chez Jean-Claude Gawsewitch.)

PAS D'EXCUSES POUR MERAH!
Giulio Meotti
Courrierinternational.com, 30 mars 2012

«Mohammed Merah n’est pas un loup solitaire, il avait de nombreux complices et tous n’étaient pas musulmans. La réaction de l’Occident relève du déni». Caroline Glick, rédactrice en chef du quotidien israëlien Jerusalem Post, livre ainsi son interprétation du massacre de Toulouse. Une véritable opération de dissimulation est en cours, fondée sur une immense méprise. Un musulman français a fauché trois parachutistes à coups de mitraillette, avant d’abattre un enseignant juif, ses deux enfants et une autre fillette. Dans les heures qui ont précédé l’assaut final des forces spéciales et son issue fatale, jeudi dernier, Mohammed Merah a révélé avoir préféré refuser une mission suicide d’Al-Qaida pour «rester en vie» et multiplier les attaques.

Merah n'a pas voulu se faire exploser pour semer la mort, il a tenu à regarder ses victimes dans les yeux, il les a achevées d’une balle en pleine tête, il les a même filmées, il les a exterminées au seul motif qu’il s'agissait de soldats ou de Juifs. Symboliquement, la dépouille de Merah devait être enterrée en Algérie, terre islamique où vit son père [après le refus des autorités algériennes, Mohammed Merah a finalement été enterré en banlieue toulousaine], alors que ses victimes juives avaient déjà été inhumées en Israël, un pays que les islamistes de son acabit aimeraient voir rayé de la carte.

 

Sur les sites Internet islamistes, les hommages au «martyre du frère Mohammed Merah», «la terreur de la France» confirment que Merah n’était pas une exception. L’administrateur du forum Al Shumukh lui a dédié une prière: «Ô Allah, accueille-le aux plus hauts niveaux du paradis parmi les prophètes, les hommes pieux et les martyrs». Une partie de la presse européenne, de ses intellectuels assermentés et de sa classe dirigeante s’obstine pourtant à faire de Merah un cas psychiatrique. Il avait divorcé deux jours avant le massacre des juifs de Toulouse, souligne-t-on. Il était chômeur. Il «délirait» et, comme n’importe quel serial killer, «il éprouvait du plaisir à tuer».

 

Tariq Ramadan l’a érigé en symbole de l’aliénation sociale qui gangrène les banlieues françaises. Les journaux français ont concocté une dichotomie réconfortante: «L’ignoble criminel et la France raciste». Merah a beau être coupable, la France est raciste et l’a bien cherché. La méprise se nourrit de la paranoïa. On en arrivera bientôt à plaider l’innocence de l’auteur des attentats, accablé d’une «situation familiale problématique» ou d’une «situation sociale peu enviable». […]

 

La minimisation de l’attentat est une aubaine pour tous ceux qui, dans le silllage de Le Pen, ne s’embarassent d’aucune nuance et veulent déclarer la guerre à l’immigration toute entière. Douglas Murray, collaborateur du Wall Street Journal et du Daily Telegraph, auteur d’essais sur l’Europe, fait partie des intellectuels qui ont inspiré le revirement du Premier ministre anglais David Cameron en matière de multiculturalisme [en février, Cameron a affirmé l'échec du multiculturalisme]. Il déchiffre pour Il Foglio l’opération culturelle en cours sur le massacre de Toulouse: «On a d'abord pensé que le meurtrier était néonazi, alors les médias se sont empressés de construire de toutes pièces le profil d’un coupable idéal en allant rechercher des photos de fascistes tatoués. Quand il est apparu que l’assassin était djihadiste, un grand silence a recouvert toute l’affaire. L’opération "déni" a démarré. La presse a alors inventé la figure du loup solitaire.»

Selon Douglas Murray, le phénomène est à la fois idéologique et culturel. «C’est la maladie de l’Occident, une cécité répétitive devant ce qui nous attend. Elle trahit un manque total de volonté d’appréhender le problème du multiculturalisme et de l’extrémisme islamique, qui se répand dans notre société. Il existe une hostilité et un dénigrement ultra-libéral qui fait l’amalgame entre dénonciation de l’islamisme en Europe et islamophobie. A Toulouse, le choix des mots s’est révélé décisif pour édulcorer l’identité du meurtrier. On s’est efforcé de trouver des excuses au terrorisme islamique.»

Selon Murray, la tragédie de Toulouse nous confronte à l’échec des modèles communautaristes d’intégration: «Le multiculturalisme d’Etat a ravalé les nations européennes au rang d’auberges. Le credo politique a poussé les Etats à traiter et à juger les personnes en fonction des critères de leur "communauté" d’origine. Les attentats et les complots terroristes en Grande-Bretagne et en Europe, menés par des extrémistes élevés sur le territoire national, ont conduit à un point de rupture que nul ne peut plus ignorer.»

POUR UN RÉALIGNEMENT DES FORCES AU MOYEN-ORIENT
DEVANT LA MENACE D’UN IRAN NUCLÉAIRE

David Bensoussan

Isranet.org, 5 avril 2012

Efforts diplomatiques, activités subversives, et sanctions économiques ont jusqu’à présent échoué et l’option d’une opération militaire qui ferait cesser les efforts iraniens visant à développer la technologie nucléaire à des fins militaires devient de moins en moins hypothétique. Les conséquences sur le plan mondial seraient considérables: hausse vertigineuse du prix du pétrole, conflit généralisé au Proche-Orient et augmentation des activités terroristes dans le monde entier. Est-ce-là un scénario inévitable?

 

Efforts diplomatiques, activités secrètes et sanctions économiques

 

Les puissances occidentales et Israël ont exprimé leur inquiétude devant la possibilité que l’Iran ne se dote d’une arme atomique. Au fil des années, les négociations avec l’Iran et les efforts diplomatiques visant à enrayer le projet iranien ont échoué et n’ont fait que faire gagner du temps aux Iraniens. Des activités clandestines dont il est difficile d’attribuer l’initiative, ont résulté en des pannes d’ordinateur au moyen de l’insertion d’un virus informatique ou peut-être même à l’élimination de savants iraniens. Cela n’a guère arrêté le gouvernement iranien, mais a quand même retardé leur projet. Les sanctions économiques ont eu plus de vigueur après que l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique ait conclu dans son rapport en 2011 que l’Iran œuvre en vue de fabriquer une arme atomique et soit en passe d’y parvenir. Tout récemment, en février 2012, le président Obama a ordonné le gel des avoirs iraniens dont ceux de la banque centrale d’Iran. De son côté, l’Union européenne a décrété un embargo sur les nouveaux contrats d’importation de pétrole; les anciens contrats ne seront plus en vigueur à partir de juillet 2012. Les USA ont augmenté leurs forces terrestres et navales dans le Golfe persique (le Golfe arabique) en vue de protéger le passage du pétrole dans le détroit d’Ormuz si l’Iran s’aventurait à le bloquer. Les États-Unis et les pays européens ont demandé au Conseil de sécurité d’appliquer des sanctions contre l’Iran, mais la Russie et la Chine s’y sont opposées. L’Iran est un acheteur d’armement russe important et la Chine a besoin du pétrole iranien.

 

Devant l’entêtement du gouvernement iranien, la probabilité d’une option militaire va croissant, que ce soit par Israël, ou encore par les États-Unis et les puissances européennes.

 

L’option militaire 

 

Une attaque israélienne rencontrerait beaucoup plus de difficultés que dans le cas du bombardement du réacteur irakien Tammouz. Les centrales nucléaires iraniennes sont dispersées et enfouies sous terre, parfois dans des zones peuplées. Israël peut agir en ayant recours à son aviation ou au moyen de missiles. Toutefois, les missiles iraniens Shaab 3 ont un rayon d’action qui peut atteindre Israël et, selon toute probabilité, la Syrie et le Hezbollah tireront des milliers de missiles contre Israël. Selon le Premier ministre israélien Netanyahou, une telle attaque est à prévoir même si les États-Unis se lancent dans une attaque contre l’Iran et que, par conséquent, l’attaque avec de missiles conventionnels serait préférable à une attaque nucléaire. Toutefois, bien des politiciens et des journalistes trouvent que cette attaque est irresponsable. Le Pentagone et le ministre des Affaires étrangères français ont exprimé leur inquiétude face à cette option. Quant à la Russie, elle prédit que cette dernière serait catastrophique.

 

Une attaque américaine aurait une puissance et un impact bien plus considérables. L’Occident n’est guère intéressé par un Iran atomique, car il constitue un danger pour l’ensemble du monde et bien des pays arabes  sont du même avis, le conflit entre Arabes en majorité sunnites et Iraniens en majorité chiites étant par ailleurs millénaire. Aussi, il n’est pas à exclure qu’une nouvelle guerre se tiendra,  similaire à celle de la Guerre du Golfe qui a permis aux États-Unis, à l’Europe ainsi qu’à un bon nombre de pays arabes d’être unis. Or, l’Amérique est fatiguée des guerres suite à son intervention en Afghanistan et en Irak. L’économie américaine s’essouffle et une guerre ne ferait qu’empirer la situation.

 

Israël n’arrête pas de réitérer que plus d’une alarme a été sonnée depuis une dizaine d’années et que la situation actuelle n’est pas sans rappeler celle des années 30 durant la montée du nazisme. Or, en 1940, il était déjà trop tard. Tout porte à croire qu’Obama ordonnera une attaque, mais que celle-ci ne se fera qu’in extremis et pas avant les élections américaines qui se tiendront en novembre 2012. De plus en plus, le Premier ministre israélien Netanyahou exprime sa conviction à l’effet qu’il serait dangereux de compter sur le reste du monde et qu’Israël ne doit compter que sur elle-même.

 

Pour un réalignement des forces au Moyen-Orient

 

La conception qui a prévalu jusqu’à ce jour veut que la possession de l’arme atomique soit en soi un équilibre de la terreur attendu que son usage impliquera l’annihilation réciproque. Cela s’applique-t-il dans le cas de l’Iran? Pensons au leader Rafsandjani qui, lors des élections iraniennes précédentes, fut considéré comme étant un modéré par les médias occidentaux durant les élections précédentes a déclaré lors d’un sermon fait à l’université de Téhéran en 2001: «l’emploi d’une seule arme nucléaire contre Israël détruirait tout, mais, contre le monde islamique, ne causerait que des dommages limités.» En outre, il existe une lecture islamique voulant qu’un pays conquis par l’islam doive rester entre les mains des Musulmans. Étrangement, cette lecture ne s’applique pas à l’Espagne ou aux Balkans, mais uniquement à Israël. Elle s’exprime d’une façon radicale: «L’entité sioniste est une forme de tumeur maligne du cancer qu’il faut extirper.» ou encore «l’extermination d’Israël est un devoir religieux.» Qui plus est, il est difficile de chasser de l’esprit l’idéal de martyrologie chiite et sa vision d’une apocalypse rédemptrice qui précéderait la venue du mahdi, le messie chiite.

 

Les discours haineux et l’enseignement de la haine précèdent généralement des actes irréfléchis. Or, les médias du Moyen-Orient sont sursaturés par la tenue de tels discours depuis plusieurs décennies: la cause palestinienne a servi de prétexte pour subjuguer les masses arabo-musulmanes. Aujourd’hui encore et pour augmenter leur influence dans le monde arabe, la Turquie et l’Iran se font la compétition pour montrer aux masses arabes lequel des deux est le plus anti-israélien. Ces deux pays continuent donc de déstabiliser la région, durcissant les positions des principaux concernés: les Israéliens et les Palestiniens. Or, s’il fallait prendre au sérieux la menace iranienne, en cas de conflit atomique, il ne resterait ni les uns ni les autres.

 

Plus que jamais, le temps est venu pour les Israéliens et les Palestiniens de cesser d’être les pions des aspirations hégémoniques des puissances du Moyen-Orient et de bâtir des relations de confiance afin de faire les compromis indispensables à une paix durable.  

 

(L’auteur est professeur de sciences à l’Université du Québec)

QUÉBEC, QATAR, TOULOUSE, IRAN…

 

 

 

QUÉBEC: L'IMAM SAÏD JAZIRI, UN MANIPULATEUR
Dépêche

Postedeveille.ca, 2 avril 2012

L'imam islamiste Saïd Jaziri, un Tunisien, a été expulsé du Canada en octobre 2007 pour avoir menti aux autorités lors de sa demande d'asile politique. Il avait omis de déclarer qu'il avait fait usage de faux passeports et qu’il avait un casier judiciaire en France et en Tunisie. Il accuse maintenant le Canada de l'avoir «envoyé directement à la torture». Voir l'article de Taïeb Moalla dans le Journal de Québec, au titre trompeur: Le Canada a envoyé Saïd Jaziri à la torture. Pour un portrait de cette fripouille, lire l'article de Me Ftouh Souhail, avocat à Tunis, datant de 2009. Jaziri, qui se présente comme un «modéré», s'était prononcé en faveur de l'instauration de tribunaux de la charia et avait organisé une manifestation violente pour protester contre les caricatures danoises de Mahomet.

 

En 2011, Jaziri a tenté de revenir au Québec en passant par les USA. Ce grand voyageur qui semble disposer d'un budget illimité pour s'offrir les services des meilleurs avocats, a été arrêté aux USA après avoir franchi illégalement la frontière mexicaine dans le coffre d'une voiture. Il a demandé l'asile aux USA, ce qui ne semble pas avoir fonctionné puisqu'il est de retour en Tunisie. Le Canada l'aurait envoyé à la torture? Vraiment? En 2009, le journaliste Marc Thibodeau de La Presse l'avait joint par téléphone à Tunis pour faire un suivi. Jaziri avait alors indiqué qu'il n'avait «pas de problème» avec le gouvernement local. «La Tunisie a été beaucoup plus humaine avec moi que le Canada», a-t-il souligné.

 

Jaziri semble vouloir soutirer de l'argent aux contribuables canadiens. Il a d'ailleurs confié ses intentions à l'AFP : «Le Canada a sous-traité ma torture en Tunisie. C'est aussi simple que ça. … Je veux juste que les personnes responsables de mon expulsion (ndlr: du Canada) soient jugées et que je puisse revenir à Montréal pour m'occuper de ma famille».

 

Jaziri a eu un fils avec la québécoise convertie Nancy Adams alors qu'il était déjà sous le coup d'une ordonnance d'expulsion. Aujourd'hui, le Journal de Québec joue sur le registre de la culpabilisation éhontée en publiant un article illustré par une photo du petit Mohamed pleurant l'absence de son papa. Or cet enfant est victime des mauvaises décisions de ses parents, qui tentent d'en reporter les conséquences sur l'ensemble de la société québécoise. Quelle manipulation!

QUÉBEC: L'ISLAMISATION DE L'UNIVERSITÉ MCGILL
Dépêche

Postedeveille.ca, 1 avril 2012

Les universités occidentales sont à vendre au plus offrant, en l’occurrence les bédouins incultes des pétromonarchies, et ce financement a un impact sur l’enseignement et la recherche.

 

L’Université McGill de Montréal vient d’annoncer un important don du Qatar:

 

L’Université McGill et son Institut d’études islamiques ont reçu un généreux don de 1,25 million de dollars de l’État du Qatar. Annoncé aujourd’hui lors d’une visite à McGill de Son Excellence Salem Al-Shafi, premier ambassadeur du Qatar au Canada, ce don coïncide avec le 60e anniversaire de l’Institut et servira à financer une série de conférences qui seront présentées l’année prochaine:

 

«Nous croyons que cette contribution permettra à l’Institut de poursuivre l’importante mission qu’il s’est donnée lors de sa création, en 1952, qui est de favoriser l’avancement de la recherche sur l’Islam, ainsi que sur l’histoire et la civilisation du monde islamique, affirme Son Excellence Al-Shafi. Nous croyons également que l’Institut partage notre vision selon laquelle le savoir et l’éducation sont essentiels pour faire face aux défis d’un monde en perpétuelle évolution, qu’ils nous fournissent les outils nécessaires pour mieux comprendre les liens sans cesse changeants qui existent entre la religion et l’humanité, et qu’ils contribuent à notre bien-être et à la coexistence entre les peuples.»

 

Point de bascule [pointdebasculecanada.ca] publie un dossier sur cet évènement, où il rappelle que le Qatar possède un Centre international pour la propagation de la charia «éthique» établi en collaboration avec le prédicateur Qaradawi ainsi que Tariq Ramadan. Point de bascule note que l’annonce du don intervient peu après que la France a interdit des prédicateurs extrémistes de son territoire, y compris Qaradawi. Le ministre de l'Intérieur a également regretté la venue prochaine de Tariq Ramadan «dont les positions et les propos sont contraires à l'esprit républicain». Rappelons que Ramadan doit sa nomination comme titulaire d'une chaire d'études islamiques à Oxford à la générosité d'un roitelet arabe.

 

L’année dernière, Barbara Kay signait un article fouillé dans Campus Watch sur les dons aux universités du Canada et des États-Unis par des groupes liés à l'islam radical. Elle y souligne le manque stupéfiant d'examen diligent du dossier des donateurs. Elle déplore que des groupes radicaux colonisent les universités, devenues des lieux de propagande et d'apologie plutôt que de haut savoir, et blanchissent leur réputation en associant leur nom à des institutions prestigieuses. Elle prévient que la liberté académique est menacée.

 

En Grande-Bretagne, des études sur les dons des pays arabes aux universités ont révélé que sous des apparences philanthropiques, ces dons sont faits avec l’intention réelle de changer le climat intellectuel du pays. Selon l’étude du professeur Anthony Glees, ces dons ont pour véritable objectif de promouvoir une idéologie extrémiste et d’agir comme véhicule de propagande du courant wahhabite de l'islam au sein des universités. Ce financement encourage, conclut-il, «le mauvais type d'éducation, par le mauvais type de personnes, avec des fonds provenant du mauvais type de bienfaiteurs». Une autre étude révèle que le contenu de l’enseignement dans les centres financés par ces dons présente aux étudiants locaux et étrangers une vision du monde presque exclusivement anti-occidentale.

JUSQU’OÙ VA-T-ON LAISSER
L’INFLUENCE DU QATAR SE DÉVELOPPER?

Roger Cukierman
UPJF.org, 3 avril 2012

On voit apparaître en France depuis quelques années un émirat musulman particulièrement dynamique: le Qatar. Il envahit notre économie. C’est une invasion par le haut. Le Qatar est le 3ième exportateur mondial de gaz. Ce qui lui permet de détenir le record du plus haut revenu par tête au monde, et d’investir notamment en France, mais aussi en Grande Bretagne et en Allemagne [ainsi qu’au Canada, voir article ci-haut]. Le Qatar est un pays minuscule, grand comme la Corse. Il est dirigé par le Cheikh Hamad Al Thani. Il abrite 1,8 million d’habitants dont 10 % seulement sont des Qataris de souche, musulmans sunnites. Le reste est composé de travailleurs immigrés dont quelques jeunes Français de nos banlieues.

 

Les Qataris sont depuis peu les premiers actionnaires de Lagardère, avec 26% du capital. Or, cette société est gros actionnaire de Hachette, Europe 1, Canal +, et EADS, société mère d’Airbus. Il n’y a pas plus stratégique que la communication et l’aéronautique! Le Qatar a aussi des participations dans Total, LVMH, Vinci, Veolia, et possède plusieurs palaces hôteliers à Paris et à Cannes. S’ajoute à ces investissements une résidence somptueuse dans l’ile Saint-Louis, l’Hôtel Lambert qui appartenait autrefois à Guy de Rothschild

 

Mais c’est un investissement relativement modeste 40 Millions d’euros, qui a fait le plus de bruit en France: l’achat du PSG. L’émir désire avec l’aide du français Richard Attias, spécialiste des grands événements, faire du Qatar une capitale du sport, avec tournois de tennis, courses automobiles ou cyclistes. Le Qatar a même remporté l’organisation de la Coupe du Monde de football en 2022 et Al Jazeera a obtenu les droits télé du championnat de football de Ligue 1 et de la coupe d’Europe.

 

Cet intérêt du Qatar pour le sport lui donne une image positive auprès de l’opinion publique française. Les relations chaleureuses entre l’émir du Qatar et les Autorités françaises se sont manifestées par une convention fiscale qui exonère le Qatar d’impôts. Il est paradoxal d’accueillir à bras ouverts les capitaux étrangers au moment où l’excès d’impôts incite nombre de capitalistes français à envisager l’exil fiscal. Mais les Qataris savent être généreux, par exemple pour le sauvetage des infirmières bulgares, ou pour la création d’un fonds de 50 millions d’euros destiné à la création d’entreprises par les jeunes des banlieues.

 

Et c’est là que le bât blesse! Que veut réellement ce pays dirigé par un islamiste convaincu en étant aussi présent en France, particulièrement auprès des 10% ou plus de la population française de confession musulmane? En réalité la position du Qatar est très ambigüe. La réputation du Qatar doit beaucoup à la chaîne de télévision Al Jazeera, concurrent redouté de CNN ou BBC. Al Jazeera diffusait avec empressement les messages de Ben Laden. Elle donne la parole au prêcheur islamiste Qaradawi qui exprime sa haine des Juifs, recommande la lapidation des femmes adultères, et la mort des homosexuels et des apostats. Au point que notre gouvernement vient de lui refuser l’entrée sur le territoire français. Quant au gouvernement qatari il soutient en Égypte les salafistes, plus extrémistes encore que les frères musulmans, et maintient des rapports étroits avec le Hezbollah, le Hamas, et les talibans.

 

À l’inverse, le Qatar entretient les meilleures relations avec les Occidentaux, a eu des contacts avec Israël jusqu’en 2009, et s’est rangé aux côtés de la France et de la Grande-Bretagne lors du conflit contre Khadafi. En résumé, l’argent provenant du gaz a été intelligemment utilisé pour permettre à cet émirat de jouer un double jeu auprès de tous les acteurs, les gentils comme les méchants, de la scène internationale. Mais jusqu’où va-t-on laisser l’argent qatari pénétrer notre économie, et influencer nos dirigeants comme nos concitoyens?

QUAND UNE CERTAINE GAUCHE INTERDIT DE METTRE EN GARDE
CONTRE CETTE HAINE ISLAMISTE DE L'OCCIDENT

Gilles William Goldnadel
Atlantico.fr, 2 avril 2012

Au lendemain des deux drames montalbanais et toulousain, sans doute pour très peu de temps, les évidences indicibles peuvent être dites et montrées. Il existe encore, et si l’on ose dire, une fenêtre de tir, étroite, que l’idéologie en majesté va s’employer à refermer, comme elle en a la magie. Entre-temps, les Français auront pu apprendre ce qu’on leur cachait comme à des enfants immatures ou des adultes incapables. Ainsi, si l’identité du tueur ne leur avait pas été révélée aussi prestement, nul doute que les prestigieux invités au congrès annuel de l’Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF) qui se tiendra de ce vendredi à lundi au Bourget, auraient été reçus sans encombre et dans le silence des médias.

 

Nul n’aurait su, par exemple, que M. Abdallah Asfar avait légitimé le fait de battre son épouse si elle n’obéissait pas à son mari. Ou que les proches du Hamas, Messieurs Akrima Sabri et Al Huazi avaient respectivement déclaré : «Je vous annonce qu’il y a des centaines de femmes qui sont prêtes à se sacrifier pour libérer la terre de Palestine, et à sacrifier ce qu’elles ont de plus cher, leurs propres enfants» et encore: «Oui, je suis antisémite. Si ce ne sont pas les dirigeants arabes, nous devrons dévorer les juifs avec nos dents». Pour ne pas être en reste, le quatrième hôte empêché de l’UOIF, M. Al Qarni a qualifié les juifs de «frères des singes et des porcs» (le Figaro du 30 mars).

 

De même, jusqu’à présent, tous mes efforts à populariser les prêches sur Al-Jazira du cheikh Qaradawi, qui ne viendra pas non plus au Bourget à la suite de l’intervention de Nicolas Sarkozy auprès de l’émir du Qatar, qui a bien voulu se montrer compréhensif, étaient demeurés vains. Les Français auraient continué d’ignorer la qualité de la prose de celui qui, dans son ouvrage «le licite et l’illicite» recommande l’extermination physique des homosexuels.

 

Sur Qatar TV, en février 2006, cet ami du Hamas, déclara que «les opérations martyrs sont autorisées, même s’il se trouve des civils parmi les victimes». Pour ce qui est des occidentales violées, il ajoutait que celles-ci l’avaient été par ce que «une provocatrice non habillée décemment devait être punie (…) pour qu’elle soit affranchie de la culpabilité, une femme violée doit avoir montré la bonne conduite». Mme Gisèle Halimi et ses amies féministes ne semblent pas avoir été très émues jusqu’alors de semblables propos.

 

Ou encore, cette sortie le 28 janvier 2009, toujours sur Al-Jazira, dont bien peu d’antiracistes autoproclamés, hier encore, faisaient grand cas: «Tout au long de l’histoire, Allah a imposé aux juifs les personnes qui les puniraient de leur corruption. Le dernier châtiment a été administré par Hitler – et bien que les juifs aient exagéré les faits – il a réussi à les remettre à leur place. C’est est un châtiment divin. Si Allah veut, la prochaine fois ce sera par la main des musulmans». Pour se consoler, le public de l’UOIF pourra toujours applaudir Tariq Ramadan qui vient de considérer que Mohamed Merah «renvoyait la France à son miroir» et que celui-ci avait «fini jihadiste sans réelle conviction après avoir été un citoyen sans réelle dignité». […]

 

(Gilles William Goldnadel est un avocat pénaliste aux prises de position contestataires, président fondateur d'Avocats sans frontières. Il est l'auteur de «Réflexions sur la question blanche» et de «Le vieil homme m'indigne!: Les postures et impostures de Stéphane Hessel» parus chez Jean-Claude Gawsewitch.)

PAS D'EXCUSES POUR MERAH!
Giulio Meotti
Courrierinternational.com, 30 mars 2012

«Mohammed Merah n’est pas un loup solitaire, il avait de nombreux complices et tous n’étaient pas musulmans. La réaction de l’Occident relève du déni». Caroline Glick, rédactrice en chef du quotidien israëlien Jerusalem Post, livre ainsi son interprétation du massacre de Toulouse. Une véritable opération de dissimulation est en cours, fondée sur une immense méprise. Un musulman français a fauché trois parachutistes à coups de mitraillette, avant d’abattre un enseignant juif, ses deux enfants et une autre fillette. Dans les heures qui ont précédé l’assaut final des forces spéciales et son issue fatale, jeudi dernier, Mohammed Merah a révélé avoir préféré refuser une mission suicide d’Al-Qaida pour «rester en vie» et multiplier les attaques.

Merah n'a pas voulu se faire exploser pour semer la mort, il a tenu à regarder ses victimes dans les yeux, il les a achevées d’une balle en pleine tête, il les a même filmées, il les a exterminées au seul motif qu’il s'agissait de soldats ou de Juifs. Symboliquement, la dépouille de Merah devait être enterrée en Algérie, terre islamique où vit son père [après le refus des autorités algériennes, Mohammed Merah a finalement été enterré en banlieue toulousaine], alors que ses victimes juives avaient déjà été inhumées en Israël, un pays que les islamistes de son acabit aimeraient voir rayé de la carte.

 

Sur les sites Internet islamistes, les hommages au «martyre du frère Mohammed Merah», «la terreur de la France» confirment que Merah n’était pas une exception. L’administrateur du forum Al Shumukh lui a dédié une prière: «Ô Allah, accueille-le aux plus hauts niveaux du paradis parmi les prophètes, les hommes pieux et les martyrs». Une partie de la presse européenne, de ses intellectuels assermentés et de sa classe dirigeante s’obstine pourtant à faire de Merah un cas psychiatrique. Il avait divorcé deux jours avant le massacre des juifs de Toulouse, souligne-t-on. Il était chômeur. Il «délirait» et, comme n’importe quel serial killer, «il éprouvait du plaisir à tuer».

 

Tariq Ramadan l’a érigé en symbole de l’aliénation sociale qui gangrène les banlieues françaises. Les journaux français ont concocté une dichotomie réconfortante: «L’ignoble criminel et la France raciste». Merah a beau être coupable, la France est raciste et l’a bien cherché. La méprise se nourrit de la paranoïa. On en arrivera bientôt à plaider l’innocence de l’auteur des attentats, accablé d’une «situation familiale problématique» ou d’une «situation sociale peu enviable». […]

 

La minimisation de l’attentat est une aubaine pour tous ceux qui, dans le silllage de Le Pen, ne s’embarassent d’aucune nuance et veulent déclarer la guerre à l’immigration toute entière. Douglas Murray, collaborateur du Wall Street Journal et du Daily Telegraph, auteur d’essais sur l’Europe, fait partie des intellectuels qui ont inspiré le revirement du Premier ministre anglais David Cameron en matière de multiculturalisme [en février, Cameron a affirmé l'échec du multiculturalisme]. Il déchiffre pour Il Foglio l’opération culturelle en cours sur le massacre de Toulouse: «On a d'abord pensé que le meurtrier était néonazi, alors les médias se sont empressés de construire de toutes pièces le profil d’un coupable idéal en allant rechercher des photos de fascistes tatoués. Quand il est apparu que l’assassin était djihadiste, un grand silence a recouvert toute l’affaire. L’opération "déni" a démarré. La presse a alors inventé la figure du loup solitaire.»

Selon Douglas Murray, le phénomène est à la fois idéologique et culturel. «C’est la maladie de l’Occident, une cécité répétitive devant ce qui nous attend. Elle trahit un manque total de volonté d’appréhender le problème du multiculturalisme et de l’extrémisme islamique, qui se répand dans notre société. Il existe une hostilité et un dénigrement ultra-libéral qui fait l’amalgame entre dénonciation de l’islamisme en Europe et islamophobie. A Toulouse, le choix des mots s’est révélé décisif pour édulcorer l’identité du meurtrier. On s’est efforcé de trouver des excuses au terrorisme islamique.»

Selon Murray, la tragédie de Toulouse nous confronte à l’échec des modèles communautaristes d’intégration: «Le multiculturalisme d’Etat a ravalé les nations européennes au rang d’auberges. Le credo politique a poussé les Etats à traiter et à juger les personnes en fonction des critères de leur "communauté" d’origine. Les attentats et les complots terroristes en Grande-Bretagne et en Europe, menés par des extrémistes élevés sur le territoire national, ont conduit à un point de rupture que nul ne peut plus ignorer.»

POUR UN RÉALIGNEMENT DES FORCES AU MOYEN-ORIENT
DEVANT LA MENACE D’UN IRAN NUCLÉAIRE

David Bensoussan

Isranet.org, 5 avril 2012

Efforts diplomatiques, activités subversives, et sanctions économiques ont jusqu’à présent échoué et l’option d’une opération militaire qui ferait cesser les efforts iraniens visant à développer la technologie nucléaire à des fins militaires devient de moins en moins hypothétique. Les conséquences sur le plan mondial seraient considérables: hausse vertigineuse du prix du pétrole, conflit généralisé au Proche-Orient et augmentation des activités terroristes dans le monde entier. Est-ce-là un scénario inévitable?

 

Efforts diplomatiques, activités secrètes et sanctions économiques

 

Les puissances occidentales et Israël ont exprimé leur inquiétude devant la possibilité que l’Iran ne se dote d’une arme atomique. Au fil des années, les négociations avec l’Iran et les efforts diplomatiques visant à enrayer le projet iranien ont échoué et n’ont fait que faire gagner du temps aux Iraniens. Des activités clandestines dont il est difficile d’attribuer l’initiative, ont résulté en des pannes d’ordinateur au moyen de l’insertion d’un virus informatique ou peut-être même à l’élimination de savants iraniens. Cela n’a guère arrêté le gouvernement iranien, mais a quand même retardé leur projet. Les sanctions économiques ont eu plus de vigueur après que l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique ait conclu dans son rapport en 2011 que l’Iran œuvre en vue de fabriquer une arme atomique et soit en passe d’y parvenir. Tout récemment, en février 2012, le président Obama a ordonné le gel des avoirs iraniens dont ceux de la banque centrale d’Iran. De son côté, l’Union européenne a décrété un embargo sur les nouveaux contrats d’importation de pétrole; les anciens contrats ne seront plus en vigueur à partir de juillet 2012. Les USA ont augmenté leurs forces terrestres et navales dans le Golfe persique (le Golfe arabique) en vue de protéger le passage du pétrole dans le détroit d’Ormuz si l’Iran s’aventurait à le bloquer. Les États-Unis et les pays européens ont demandé au Conseil de sécurité d’appliquer des sanctions contre l’Iran, mais la Russie et la Chine s’y sont opposées. L’Iran est un acheteur d’armement russe important et la Chine a besoin du pétrole iranien.

 

Devant l’entêtement du gouvernement iranien, la probabilité d’une option militaire va croissant, que ce soit par Israël, ou encore par les États-Unis et les puissances européennes.

 

L’option militaire 

 

Une attaque israélienne rencontrerait beaucoup plus de difficultés que dans le cas du bombardement du réacteur irakien Tammouz. Les centrales nucléaires iraniennes sont dispersées et enfouies sous terre, parfois dans des zones peuplées. Israël peut agir en ayant recours à son aviation ou au moyen de missiles. Toutefois, les missiles iraniens Shaab 3 ont un rayon d’action qui peut atteindre Israël et, selon toute probabilité, la Syrie et le Hezbollah tireront des milliers de missiles contre Israël. Selon le Premier ministre israélien Netanyahou, une telle attaque est à prévoir même si les États-Unis se lancent dans une attaque contre l’Iran et que, par conséquent, l’attaque avec de missiles conventionnels serait préférable à une attaque nucléaire. Toutefois, bien des politiciens et des journalistes trouvent que cette attaque est irresponsable. Le Pentagone et le ministre des Affaires étrangères français ont exprimé leur inquiétude face à cette option. Quant à la Russie, elle prédit que cette dernière serait catastrophique.

 

Une attaque américaine aurait une puissance et un impact bien plus considérables. L’Occident n’est guère intéressé par un Iran atomique, car il constitue un danger pour l’ensemble du monde et bien des pays arabes  sont du même avis, le conflit entre Arabes en majorité sunnites et Iraniens en majorité chiites étant par ailleurs millénaire. Aussi, il n’est pas à exclure qu’une nouvelle guerre se tiendra,  similaire à celle de la Guerre du Golfe qui a permis aux États-Unis, à l’Europe ainsi qu’à un bon nombre de pays arabes d’être unis. Or, l’Amérique est fatiguée des guerres suite à son intervention en Afghanistan et en Irak. L’économie américaine s’essouffle et une guerre ne ferait qu’empirer la situation.

 

Israël n’arrête pas de réitérer que plus d’une alarme a été sonnée depuis une dizaine d’années et que la situation actuelle n’est pas sans rappeler celle des années 30 durant la montée du nazisme. Or, en 1940, il était déjà trop tard. Tout porte à croire qu’Obama ordonnera une attaque, mais que celle-ci ne se fera qu’in extremis et pas avant les élections américaines qui se tiendront en novembre 2012. De plus en plus, le Premier ministre israélien Netanyahou exprime sa conviction à l’effet qu’il serait dangereux de compter sur le reste du monde et qu’Israël ne doit compter que sur elle-même.

 

Pour un réalignement des forces au Moyen-Orient

 

La conception qui a prévalu jusqu’à ce jour veut que la possession de l’arme atomique soit en soi un équilibre de la terreur attendu que son usage impliquera l’annihilation réciproque. Cela s’applique-t-il dans le cas de l’Iran? Pensons au leader Rafsandjani qui, lors des élections iraniennes précédentes, fut considéré comme étant un modéré par les médias occidentaux durant les élections précédentes a déclaré lors d’un sermon fait à l’université de Téhéran en 2001: «l’emploi d’une seule arme nucléaire contre Israël détruirait tout, mais, contre le monde islamique, ne causerait que des dommages limités.» En outre, il existe une lecture islamique voulant qu’un pays conquis par l’islam doive rester entre les mains des Musulmans. Étrangement, cette lecture ne s’applique pas à l’Espagne ou aux Balkans, mais uniquement à Israël. Elle s’exprime d’une façon radicale: «L’entité sioniste est une forme de tumeur maligne du cancer qu’il faut extirper.» ou encore «l’extermination d’Israël est un devoir religieux.» Qui plus est, il est difficile de chasser de l’esprit l’idéal de martyrologie chiite et sa vision d’une apocalypse rédemptrice qui précéderait la venue du mahdi, le messie chiite.

 

Les discours haineux et l’enseignement de la haine précèdent généralement des actes irréfléchis. Or, les médias du Moyen-Orient sont sursaturés par la tenue de tels discours depuis plusieurs décennies: la cause palestinienne a servi de prétexte pour subjuguer les masses arabo-musulmanes. Aujourd’hui encore et pour augmenter leur influence dans le monde arabe, la Turquie et l’Iran se font la compétition pour montrer aux masses arabes lequel des deux est le plus anti-israélien. Ces deux pays continuent donc de déstabiliser la région, durcissant les positions des principaux concernés: les Israéliens et les Palestiniens. Or, s’il fallait prendre au sérieux la menace iranienne, en cas de conflit atomique, il ne resterait ni les uns ni les autres.

 

Plus que jamais, le temps est venu pour les Israéliens et les Palestiniens de cesser d’être les pions des aspirations hégémoniques des puissances du Moyen-Orient et de bâtir des relations de confiance afin de faire les compromis indispensables à une paix durable.  

 

(L’auteur est professeur de sciences à l’Université du Québec)