Guest post: responding to comments on Israeli Apartheid.

My last post, which was on Toronto Pride banning the term Israeli apartheid from the Pride Parade, led to an email comment debate that, I will admit, I am not entirely capable of handling, simply because I have not been aware of the situation for long enough to have done any extensive research. A friend and classmate has been quite involved for some time and, as such, can provide some insight on this issue.

The following post, written by Eileen, is directed towards the previous debate, but also provides some important information as a stand alone piece.


The term apartheid, used to describe the occupation, is correct and has been supported time and time again by South African anti-apartheid activists including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela.

The word "apartheid" means "apartness" in Afrikaans. It is a very new word in the first place and thankfully isn't terribly commonplace. Frankly, the fact that Western countries are able to get away with dismissing and censoring this word so hastily despite its validation speaks volumes about just how easy it is to disregard an Afrikaans word in the English world.

Language changes and the word apartheid is more than appropriate to describe the genocide of Palestine. This debate is not a new one, it's a tired, pro-zionist argument used as a distraction; if the world is scared into believing the very use of the word apartheid is an anti-semitic act, no one will be able to accurately talk about Palestine. Try to describe a painting without talking about the colour, shape, line, texture, space, value or form.

Israel is in violation of many international laws and war crimes, it is a rogue state that believes itself above the law because, aside from the Vatican, they are the only religious state and believe they have a religious right to be where they are. This is not an age-old religious clash, this is a 62 year war on Palestine. Jews, Muslims, Christians and people of many other religions lived there together for centuries, what we are seeing now in “Israel” is ethnic cleansing.

Amongst many other misinformed statements you [the commenter in the aforementioned debate] say “…many of the criticisms which are alledgedly[sic] only against the Israeli policies are in fact thinly veiled antisemitic comments.”
So tell me, as an anti-zionist Jew am I anti-semitic for calling out Israel for their war crimes? As an out queer am I homophobic because I’m ashamed of my city’s Pride committee for adopting censorship for the first time in their 30 years? I think of myself as a morally sound human being who is appalled by genocide no matter who the perpetrator.

Carving up the borders of Palestine to separate Palestinians from each other, setting up check points and road blocks, assigning special license plates, denying passports, not supplying enough medical aid, fresh protein and produce, building materials and many other bare-minimum aid supplies, not allowing Palestinian refugees the right to return, keeping 1.7 million Gazans (58% of them under age 18) in an open air prison of 360 square kilometers and using the fourth largest military in the world with Canadian and American support and weapons (including a high but unknown number of nuclear weapons) to kill 1,417 Gazans and maim thousands more in less than a month then claim everything was a success is the very definition of apartheid. These are the actions that should offend, disturb and anger you, not the word describing them.

Your initial reaction to stop arguing on behalf of Israel’s in light of the Mavi Marmara murders was correct and should have stopped you there, though Israel’s actions shouldn’t surprise anyone by now. There may be a media block but factual information isn’t totally obsolete, I highly suggest you familiarize yourself with news that doesn’t pass through many zionist filters from here on, you can start with the Goldstone report.

Toronto Pride and the term Israeli Apartheid

I just found out that the directors of Toronto's Pride Parade have banned the use of the term "Israeli Apartheid" at this year's parade. This is aimed at the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA), which has been involved in the Pride Parade for several years. I think that it is interesting that Pride, a group that is all about inclusion (so much so that their theme is "you belong") is taking it upon themselves to censor a group who is making a political message that I think can be compared to the statement that Pride was making when they began 30 years ago.

Their argument is that some people believe that the name is discriminatory, anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli. I am by no means an expert on the topic of Israeli Apartheid (according to my spell check, I hardly know how to spell it), but I would like to make a few comments on this anyway.... and anyone with more knowledge who wishes to add/clarify/correct something is more than welcome to comment.

Let's start this very simply... from wiki, the crime of apartheid is "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." United Nations reports seem to consistently show that the current regime is comparable to apartheid in South Africa (see here)

This is not anti-semitic. Antisemitism defined (again using wikipedia, which may not be the most reliable source, but I believe is useful for this purpose) is prejudice against or hostility towards jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture and/or religion. I don't understand how being opposed to the oppression of a group of people based on their race/ethnicity can be confused with hostility towards a different group, some of whom happen to be part of the dominant group in one particular country.

I can only think of two explanations. First, is ignorance. Those who are confusing the term "Isreali apartheid" with antisemite do not understand the meaning of these terms or the living conditions of Palestinians in Israel. But the politicians do understand this, as do the organizers of Toronto Pride, I am sure.

The other explanation is financial. The current Israeli regime is backed by the American government. Just two months previous to this decision, the Ontario legislature passed a resolution condemning Israeli Apartheid week, which is held at several universities. Last month, the federal government withdrew $400,000 in funding for Toronto Pride, a decision that is rumored to be connected to QuAIA. Now, the Toronto mayoral candidate motioned to deny funding to the parade if QuAIA is allowed to participate, on the grounds that it would be in breach of the city's anti-discrimination policy. Directors at Pride were concerned about the risk of losing this funding.

Queer Ontario founder and spokesperson Nick Mulé states

It appears Pride Toronto has opted to appease some City officials applying pressure based on misinformation regarding QuAIA and the use of the term ‘Israeli apartheid’, rather than work directly with the community in educating the City to develop a nuanced understanding of the human rights and discrimination issues at play.

I have heard it argued that Israeli Apartheid isn't a Pride issue, as it is not directly connected to sexuality or heterosexism. This argument is used to keep leftist movements separate, which means that they are containable. When organizers at Pride are separated from those at QuAIA, which are separated from feminist organizing and from socialism, it keeps special interest groups small enough that they cannot disrupt the status quo. I would like to applaud QuAIA for becoming involved with both groups, for building that coalition, as I believe it is only through these coalitions that change can occur.

Censorship at University of Ottawa

Ann Coulter, a very controversial conservative speaker, was supposed to talk at the University of Ottawa yesterday, but the talk was cancelled due to apparent threats of violence from people who were opposed to her support of certain acts, such as the murder of specific racial/ethnic groups and abortion providers (an interesting stance for a "pro-life" advocate).

On the CTV morning news, Ezra Levant, a conservative analyst speaking on her behalf, called it censorship. He said that Canada was strong and free, freedom that was being denied by this censorship.

He questioned how they could allow an "anti-Semitic hatefest" for Israeli apartheid week, but not let Coulter speak. I am appalled that he could call apartheid week anti-Semitic or a "hatefest." Granted, I have never been to U of O, but I did participate in anti-apartheid week at my school and found that it was anything but hateful- actually, it advocated for ending an illegal occupancy of Palestinians in Israel. However, I am no expert on this topic and am not able to really discuss this occupancy in any detail.

Speaking of censorship, our school censored emails about Israeli apartheid week, first deleting previously sent emails from the server, then putting out a letter saying that "these announcements do not reflect the views of the department, or the university."

They also refused to send out an email telling students about a book launch for an amazing book written by a former student that criticizes workfare because they do not endorse events that critique the government's welfare system.

But I guess it is only called censorship when it quiets conservative opinions... even those that advocate for murder of people who do not agree.

California school district bans dictionary

A California school district banned the Webster's Collegiate dictionary from fourth and fifth grade classrooms because it defines the words "oral sex." A committee of parents and teachers then decided to bring the dictionaries back, but to let parents decide whether their child is to be able to access this dictionary.

I can't get over how far these parental consent issues at school have gone. I don't think it should be up to parents to decide whether their children are allowed to look at a dictionary. I also do not think it should be up to parents to decide whether or not their children should have access to comprehensive and accurate sex education- I think children have the right to this information. There is little that annoys me more than denying people information that they want/need for no reason other than an authority figure doesn't think it is appropriate... why not just present facts and various arguments surrounding them, and teach children to think for themselves?

Nevermind this debate over whether or not it is acceptable for ten year olds to have access to this information, I wonder how many students have actually gone to the dictionary to look up the term "oral sex". I would guess very few of them... although, as punishment for talking in class, I occasionally had to write out dictionary definitions. It would have been slightly uncomfortable (or amusing) had I randomly selected that page... but no more so than with a multitude of other words. It doesn't mean they should be banned from classrooms.

I guess we now need to ban the internet as well. I would much rather my children get information from the dictionary than google... at least I know the stuff in the dictionary has been filtered through various editors to ensure it's accuracy.