Site Search

Custom Search

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

BDS campaign: real concern for Palestinians or old-fashioned bigotry?

There was a time several years ago when the State of Israel was the darling of the left. In resent times, all that has changed. Now Israel is demonized regularly by left-wing journalists, organized labour groups and leaders of other so-called progressive organizations.

As often happens in our polarized world, it is not enough, apparently, to criticize policies of those with whom one disagrees. That’s sissy stuff. Now, one is expected to make over-the-top claims and denouncements as we try to stigmatize our enemies—I chose the term “enemies” on purpose. We no longer have “adversaries” with whom we can occasionally agree; now we have “enemies” with whom we must have no truck or trade. And, of course, civility is strictly for pantywaists and the uncommitted.

The move to discredit and demonize Israel’s every action is a disturbing one because it so often distorts or ignores the facts on the ground. Disturbing also is the rhetoric, which often borders on anti-Semitism. Too many times, one cannot distinguish whether one is dealing with a real concern for the welfare of the Palestinians or with abhorrent, old-fashioned bigotry. 

All of which leads me to recent comments by public figures who should know better: U.S. journalist Helen Thomas and NDP Deputy Leader Libby Davies.

The veteran White House Press Corps reporter, Helen Thomas, recently retired after she made the controversial remark that Israel should “get the hell out of Palestine.” Thomas said that Jews should “go home” to Poland and Germany. This she said to a rabbi with a video camera at a White House event to mark Jewish heritage month. Thomas, of course, has a Lebanese background and has probably held such views all along—now the public finally knows of her, apparent, disdain for the Jews in Israel.

New Democratic Party Deputy Leader and House Leader Libby Davies made her views on Israel’s right to exist crystal-clear when she said earlier this month that occupation of Palestinian lands started in 1948, which, of course, is the year the State of Israel was formed. She also made halting statements in support of the global anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

There was a lot of bafflegab surrounding her statements on the subject of the BDS campaign, but she did say “I’m very excited that its grown so much…,” and “I support what is going on… .” She also said there has to be “some kind of settlement” whether “negotiated” or “imposed” on Israel.  [See Davies on the David Katz video here and decide for yourselves.]

“Imposed” on Israel? By whom I wonder?

It is clear to me that Libby Davies understood very well what she was saying and the implication of her words. Surly a deputy leader and the house leader of the NDP has enough general knowledge not to misunderstand the simple question that was put to her. If she did not know this subject well enough to make an accurate comment, then NDP leader Jack Layton has an incompetent deputy and house leader.

Davies equivocates in the apology on her website:

“My reference to the year 1948 as the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory was a serious and completely inadvertent error; I apologize for this and regret any confusion it has caused.”

But, frankly, I don’t believe she made an “inadvertent error” as she claims. She’s not the sharpest knife in the NDP drawer, obviously, but it’s unlikely she’s that poorly informed.

On second thought, maybe she that fatuous.

Back in June 2008, Libby Davies delivered, in Canada’s House of Commons, a Parliamentary Petition signed by a mere 500 or so Canadians demanding a new 9/11 investigation. The petition read by Libby Davies said, in part, that “the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document…,” and “that elements within the U.S. government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people… .”

Need I say more? Well, perhaps I should.

Clever people, including this writer, sometimes say pretty dumb things. But when dull or obtuse people reach high office, their words too often are mindlessly accepted as clever. And that’s dangerous for any democracy.

 

Return to Main page »
© 2010 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

6 comments — This is a moderated blog and comments will appear when approved. Please don’t resubmit if your comment doesn’t appear immediately, and please do not post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable.

  1. You need to catch up on 911 Russ:

    9/11 Commission official says public story “almost entirely untrue”
    http://www.examiner.com/x-1551-Fringe-Culture-Examiner~y2009m5d21-911-Commission-official-says-public-story-almost-entirely-untrue
    "The White House Has Played Cover-Up"–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush
    http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover
    9/11 Commissioner States Attacks Were Part Of 30 Year Old Conspiracy
    http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=9836

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sure, Anon, you've got the proof, don't you. Or do you?

    No credible evidence has yet been uncovered to support Lobby Davies's statement to the House of Commons as follows: “the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document…,” and “that elements within the U.S. government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people… .”

    Cover-ups of U.S. failures in their response to the 9/11 attacks, if in fact there were failures, do not make true the allegation "the U.S. government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people."

    Some people so hate the U.S. they'll believe anything bad that's printed about the country.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So you're saying 911 Commission members aren't credible?

    Or these guys:

    Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070922_seven_cia_veterans_c.htm

    Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report http://patriotsquestion911.com/

    I don't have the proof Russ, but I'm willing to keep looking. Are you?

    I like the U.S., but I don't like what's happening to it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon, if you don't have the proof, then stop proselytizing. I look for truth, but I don't whip a dead horse. I don't discard every attempt to explain an event until I get something that fits neatly with my latest conspiracy theory.

    By the way, I find it most uncomfortable discussing something with a person who insists on anonymity. If you want to keep lecturing me, fine, but don't expect me to respond to an anonymous comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Proselytising? You're the one "blogging as a conservative" while attempting to "trump political dogma". I'll consider the topic a "dead horse" when dead soldiers stop coming home.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Re: the 9/11 "truther" petition - It's fair to criticize Davies for many things, but presenting a petition to Parliament is not one of them. If a MP's constituents give the MP a petition to present in the House, it's the MP's duty to do so. Of course, she could have simply presented the petition without reading it, but to automatically assume that she shares the views of those 9/11 "truthers" may not be fair.

    ReplyDelete

ShareThis