Five Liberal members of Parliament are asking 25 Canadian university presidents to say whether calling for a genocide against Jewish people or the elimination of Israel violates their school policies.
Calling for genocide is illegal in Canada so why is it necessary to cover it in school policies? I wouldn’t expect murder to be included in school policies either.
How about we don’t call for the genocide of any group you fucking cunts. We can’t call for the genocide of Jews (rightfully so) but calling for the genocide of Palestinians is fine I guess. Why is the question framed the way that it is (spoiler: we all know the answer)? Shouldn’t Palestinians feel safe on campus as well?
Also CTV can get fucked with their reporting on Palestine and Israel: https://breachmedia.ca/ctv-bell-media-forbids-palestine-suppresses-criticism-israel/
How about if we also agree that saying “bombing hospitals is bad” is not antisemitism?
There are two entities that embrace “from the river to the sea” politics and that employ war tactics that kill innocent civilians : (a) Hamas and (b) Israel.
So I don’t know what the fuck these MPs are going on about. If we want to condemn genocidal and eliminationist rhetoric and war crimes, this Israeli government is guilty and so is Hamas.
The only legitimately moderate party in this conflict is the Palestinian Authority, which stands firmly on the Two State Solution position.
Edit: TL;DR: context matters.
For examples:
“I don’t like them Jews; fuck them, their space lasers, and the state of Israel” always bad.
“I’m Palestinian and I would very much like my people to stop being genocided; I think removal of the state of Israel is the only feasible way” correct or incorrect, a geo-political statement, not necessarily a genocideal one, but could be with context.
“TL;DR” implies a summary of the article, but you just seem to be stating a position which I guess is your own view.
I mean, that was my understanding of the article.
There’s also the question of how to deal with groups using “McGill” in their name; but that seemed unresolved.
Just FYI, some quotation marks here would clear up what is your summary of the article, vs. your personal opinion. As it stands, it comes across as an actual antisemitic post which I don’t think was your intent.
Hope that edit is more clear.
Frankly, most people come to this issue with such blinders one way or another I don’t think it matters.
The problematic part starts when you ask what should happen to all the Israelis. Maybe they want a one-state solution, which is fine, but quite often they want a genocide or ethnic cleansing of Jews in order to make space.
Both the actual antisemites (of both white and Arab flavours) and the Zionists want to blur the fact that there’s two ways that could be meant. It’s really amazing how well people who hate each other can end up coordinating. See also Netanyahu and Hamas.
See also Netanyahu and Hamas.
I wish everyone knew about this, and that it was widely reported. Netanyahu has been supporting Hamas (insane terrorists) for decades, and ignoring the PA who want a negotiated peace. He has been deliberately stoking the fires on both sides of the conflict, so he can commit genocide in retaliation.
Check this out: this guy here is Netanyahus grandpa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Mileikowsky
He is credited with helping start the far right revisionist Zionism movement, which preaches expansionism and use of force https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism
Further into that article you will read the Netanyahus grandpa was directly involved in the assassination of this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Arlosoroff
Arlosoroff was a very popular socialist Zionist leader who preached pacifism and coexistence with the Arab population.
Netanyahus family and his ilk not only altered the original purpose of Zionism, hence the name “revisionist Zionism”, but permanently changed Israel’s history and led them down a path of violence.
…Netanyahus grandpa was directly involved in the assassination of this guy …
Well, at least he’s keeping his grandpa’s legacy going, by appointing a convicted terrorist who was also involved in the assassination of Rabin to minister of security.
The Jewish history definately complicates the conflict.
We don’t have the same discussions about Shai/Sunni conflict in Yemen, or Russia/Ukrainian conflict in Ukraine, or all the ethnic groups in Myanmar, or the Ethiopian-Tigray conflict, or non-arabs in Dafur/Sudan, or the host ongoing Al-Qaeda/ISIS conflicts.
Yeah, Russia/Ukraine tends to be painted with an ideological brush, and all the rest are just ignored.
Stop and correlate skin colours for a moment, if you would.
Where the Holocaust comes in, is that Israel still has American support, while they bailed on South Africa in the 80’s, because they can pretend the favouritism is about something else.
For anyone outside the West reading, most Western people don’t know they’re doing this, we just imagine we live in a magical bubble where nothing bad happens, and only react when something looks like it’s breaking it. I’ll leave it to you if that’s a good excuse.
Good thing we haven’t and don’t do anything like that in Canada. Like coerced sterilization of indeginous women until 2018.
I’ve lived in Israel and Lebanon, though young at the time. The conflict isn’t an easy one with an “X group is correct/more correct” solution. Both groups have very legitimate grievances, have been genocided, and have done shit things to each other
100% agree.
Come to think of it, Native people fall outside the bubble for the most part themselves. Some of those reservations might as well be in a cold version of Africa, and I’ve only seen them on TV.
What does “a cold version of Africa” mean? Are you talking about distance, or some other factor?
Bad conditions. No drinking water, unsuitable structures, things like that. And all fairly invisible to white people, because they might be remote, or just not a place we ever need to go.
Get help.
Get help about?
I’m not saying either of those positions are correct.
I’m saying one is anti-Semitic, and the other is a geo-political position.
It obviously does.
Yes, I think the real contention is whether the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a call for genocide. The answer is: to some chanters in Canada it might be, but I think that it is a vanishingly small percentage, however for a significant percentage ofJewish Canadians hearing the phrase, it IS. Which makes it a difficult issue to address, how do you balance the right to political protest against the right to feel secure against genocide.
