Protesters Hooligans are at it again on the streets of downtown Montreal:
A handful of protesters, lofting wooden boards and metal dustbins, took out their frustrations on the windows of a Burger King restaurant, the American clothing chain The Gap and Canadian clothing store Jacob.
The demonstrators, 200-strong at one point, also smashed the windshields of two cars, a Porsche and a BMW, which had been parked on the street, and shattered windows at a building occupied by Canada’s armed forces.
This protest, against the World Trade Organization meetings taking place downtown this week, was billed as “child-friendly” and organizers renounced the use of violence.
Yeah right.
About five city blocks of downtown are shut to traffic because of the security concerns associated with these demonstrations, inconveniencing people who work downtown and virtually shutting down retailers and businesses. Not to mention the damages that the rioting and destruction are incurring.
How much do you wanna bet that the protesters, a la Netanyahu-riot, will blame the WTO for “provoking” their actions and renounce all responsibility? I’d say it’s pretty much a sure thing.
Update: Well, that didn’t take long. Organizers are defending the violence:
Another organizer, Stefan Christoff, defended the violence against the stores, saying the Gap is a multinational corporation that runs sweatshops.
“These are very legitimate targets, as the WTO is a legitimate target,” said Christoff, who denounced the police presence in downtown Montreal as a militarization of the city.
Police have arrested 100 people already, including Jaggi Singh, one of Canada’s most high-profile shit-disturbers.
I swear, these news stories could’ve been written weeks in advance.
Speaking of inconveniences…
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=322416&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
In the interest of accuracy:
The child-friendly march — and it was — occurred without incident on sun/jul/27.
The snake-marches on mon/jul/28 were direct-action marches planned to be confrontational — and they were.
Can you fucking ever stay on topic? How does this relate to Israel?
Since I dont like you, do you mind if I punch you in the face, or are violent tactics reserved for the left? Too bad we’re not in Saudi Arabia, you’d probably get your head chopped off for destroying property.
hey segacs,
HYPOCRITE. say it with me, H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E. You seem to have a major contention with all of these rowdy “hooligans” causing damage to downtown businesses. Well, I guess those businesses are lucky that they aren’t running under the occupation of the only democracy (sic) in the middle east. How do you justify and internalise, everyday of your life, the fact that your beloved Israel has forced 3.5 million Palestinians to live under circumstances ten fold worse for the last generation? Brain washing….from cradle to grave, brainwashing I tell ya.
Yeah, and remember, the protesters only attacked the Gap and Burger King AFTER the stores attacked THEM, and slaughtered many protesters with their exploding hamburgers. For Burger King does not have tanks and Apache helicopters! No, they can only defend themselves with their exploding hamburgers!
Well, the analogy was ridiculous to start with, you deeply irritating collection of terror apologists.
So are we going to hear disparaging remarks from you about the Warsaw Ghetto “riot” next?
Wow Adam.
Comparing corporations that don’t pay an appropriate wage to a group of people who slaughtered millions based on their religion? Amazing.
The brain-washed people are the Americans, not the Israelis.
Yeah Advanced Calculus,
I gave your sorry little blog a hit. Man, are you a one-trick pony.
Comments: (0)
Comments: (0)
Comments: (0)
Comments: (0)
Comments: (0)
Comments: (0)
No connection between Zionism and the WTO?
Why then did we see no representation of Zionist organizations in the protests against the world trade oligarchy, protests simply calling for global justice?
Instead, what we’re seeing is a discrediting of the protests among Zionist apologists.
So does the consistent opposition of Zionists to the WTO protests not indicate a connection?
they discredit themselves. the same way anti free speech rioters did on Sep 9.
Yeah “Me”, I saw protest recently against the chinese government and I didn’t see a single zionist organization. Obviously the jewish people have now taken over China.
David,
Did you also see a Zionist opposition to and discrediting of that protest?
Someone else is posting under adamslat, as they have been under adam and adamslater. This system doesn’t register names and people have been posting under segacs also (I saw a post where she called for the destruction of Israel!)
Not names but IP addresses. I’m only one person but I’ll ban the trolls when I spot them. Just send me an e-mail if I haven’t noticed. Thanks.
Absence of “Zionist” anti-WTO protesters means a mysterious Zionism-WTO connection?
What an odd little idea. Let’s assume for a moment — incorrectly, but just for fun — that the social networks of people that turn out for anti-WTO rallies did *not* constitute a hostile environment for those who support Jewish self-determination (“Zionism”) and aren’t afraid to say it.
Even under that false assumption, I have a hunch that there were few protesters in the anti-WTO from very many nationalist movements around the world. Few advocates for a Kurdish state waving signs about it at the WTO. Few advocates for Assyrian self-determination waving signs about it at the WTO. Few Nagorny-Karabakh homeland advocates waving signs about it at the WTO. Ditto for Free Tchetchenya, Greater Armenia, United Kashmir …
Of course, I’m only guessing. Perhaps all of these movements were out in magnificent throngs, provided much-needed certification for their not-necessarily-all-fans stance on the WTO.
Point is that, even in that unlikely scenario, there’d be way too many ifs. If you don’t send official representatives to demonstrate, does it mean you disagree with the ideas of the demonstrators? Their way of expressing them? Etc.
And then, of course, there’s the little fact that an anti-WTO rally *isn’t* disconnected from the various Israel-is-the-devil refrains that float around town now and again. As some of the activists like to say, all these issues are connected. Or, to borrow someone else’s phrase (Diplo guy): la pensée unique.
Oh, reread and saw that the argument where lack of Zionist signs at the WTO protests means that world trade is obviously linked to Zionism was just one of the try-me theories. Me is also wondering about whether “the consistent opposition of Zionists to the WTO protests [does] not indicate a connection”.
On which, sure, it might. Assuming the “consistent opposition” he talks about was both consistent and representative of Zionist movements, which is probably a false assumption. (Of course, it’s possible that the various labour Zionist movements have all issued major press releases repudiating anti-WTO street activities. But I must say I missed them.)
Even were it a true assumption, though, I’d tend to think that the disgusted reactions I’ve seen from folks whose political positions include support for a Jewish self-determination in Israel — Zionists, though surely not a representative sample of them — has a lot more to do with opposition to the pensée unique of the protest-hopping set.
That’s certainly true for me. Zionist. Critical of a range of WTO positions, though knee-jerk hostile to black-and-white characterisations. And completely uninterested in participating in the sort of expressions of mass hatred and vilification that protests these days seem to be all about, clever puppets or no, especially when the “this is the correct position on issue x” line seems to have been erected as mantra … at least among friends of mine who participate enthusiastically in such events, and with whom I discuss anything organised-political less and less for the simple reason that they’re less and less inclined to tolerate someone’s disagreeing with them.
Want me to participate in an “anti-WTO” event? Hold a debate; do public education. Invite speakers from different sides of the debate who aren’t idiots. Structure an environment in which they can engage each other and the audience without serving as the brunt of ridicule, hostility, or caricaturing.
Not that you need to want me to participate in anything, of course. But at least don’t be surprised if I, and Zionists like me, don’t show to events that purport to mirror some of our political positions.
Nanook. Zionist. Discredits and opposes anti-WTO protests.
Surprise surprise.
Imagine this: Zionists marching alongside anti-war activists, anti-corporate-globalization activists, anti-WTO activists…wouldn’t that cause many to do a double-take, to question their own beliefs of what Zionism stands for?
These are the bases for connection, for humanization of one another.
Instead, Zionists have placed themselves in firm opposition to such movements.
Is it any surprise then that those who see themselves as championing the self-determination of not just Jews but of the globally disenfranchised equate Zionism with injustice?
A comparison of placards spotted at two rallies:
-Anti-war rally: “Peace, Paix, Salaam, Shalom”
-Israel day rally: “Peace, Paix, Shalom”
The Zionist gathering co-opts the inclusive anti-war chant, but pointedly excludes Muslims from the shared hope for peace.
What conclusion is one to draw from this, except that Zionism, in its quest for Jewish self-determination, tramples on the self-determination of non-Jews?
Look, Me, you may disagree with … well, me. But wouldn’t it be more useful to say why, or at least something logical? I mean, they did teach logic at Concordia when *I* was a student there, and that wasn’t so enormously long ago. Surely things haven’t changed that much?
First you explain that I, Nanook. Zionist. Discredits and opposes anti-WTO protests. For those confused by this, let me clarify: I criticized, specifically, the protests — read said criticism above; odd how you seem to believe that protests should be immune from criticism, and that one is not allowed to criticise because what it really does is “discredits”. Although I’m sure you’ll like the fact that I offered up an alternative. Though, I agree, it’s not nearly as exciting or glamorous as a good old fuck-you march.
More germane, though: I was quite explicit in distinguishing my position on WTO from my position on the protests. That you leap to cast aspersions on anyone who dares criticise the protests is consistent with your past posts. But let’s not confuse this as having anything to do with WTO.
Zionists marching alongside anti-war activists, anti-corporate-globalization activists, anti-WTO activists…wouldn’t that cause many to do a double-take, to question their own beliefs of what Zionism stands for?
Now it really starts to slide. You talk excitedly about Zionists walking beside various brands of activists, and from there leap to the idea that, because they (it’s assumed) don’t, Zionists have placed themselves in firm opposition to such movements. No; Zionists have tended not to march as Israel-supporters in the protests you tag as vitally important to such movements. (Which is something, as noted, Zionists have in common with Armenians, Kashmiris, Tchetchens, etc. of nationalist ilk. Hooray! Linkage!)
Anyway. Whether a failure to fly
Israeli flags in the anti-[fill in the blank] protests means that Zionists are present or not, and — separately — whether that means that Zionists do or do not support the various vague causes you reel off, are separate issues. On the latter, you’re obviously quite mistaken (as noted above) in my case, and though it’s possible I’m a giant anomaly, it’s rather unlikely. On the former, reread above on feeling safe flying flags in said protests. (Ditto as to why I don’t march alongside those you feel to be the standardbearers for all that is good in the world; that you repudiate them doesn’t make alternative political strategies less possible.)
Is it any surprise then that those who see themselves as championing the self-determination of not just Jews but of the globally disenfranchised equate Zionism with injustice?
If your “those” refers to the protest set who show up in the latest cause célèbre, I assume your horizons are large enough to realise that neither do said folk constitute the entirety of those who see themselves as championing self-d
…etermination, nor have said folk done much championing of the self-determination of Jews. Indeed, public displays have been rather to the contrary, hammering the prejudice that Jews do not in fact constitute a national community and therefore may not exercise any right to self-determination.
(You’re familiar with the idea, right? Pushing German spellings of Hebrew- and Yiddish-language words so as to imbue them with a European flavour; seeking wherever possible to “out” Israelis whose families once had European-language family names, so as to Europeanise them, too; and generally the line on Jews as “fellow citizens of the Mosaic faith”, etc., etc. Yes, thought you were … familiar with the concept.)
‘Course, that doesn’t say why the protest set loathes Israel so, which (whittled down) is the evidence you invoke. On which, sure, it’s *possible* that that’s because these are enlightened folk who possess The One True Truth (and, as it happens, are generous enough to transmogrify it for the rest of us into easy-to-digest chanted slogans, fists pumped into air). Or it may be, I don’t know, something rooted far deeper in European culture (and its remnants) that seems to come up around Jews and peoplehood and stuff. Who knows, right? In any case, no, I’m not likely to march alongside Israel-is-the-devil folk anytime soon. Alternative strategies which don’t embrace racism are, I think, a better idea, and that’s where I’d rather put *my* energy. That you disagree is your choice; that you see other choices as illegitimate is your prejudice.
(Oh, the “co-opting” argument is downright weird. I wouldn’t use that one again if I were in your shoes; neither is it obvious that a sign saying “peace” in the national languages of the Montreal Jewish community co-opts what you bizarrely posit as the originary location of said word, neither is it odd that Montreal Jews choose not to represent themselves in Arabic, given the rather tiny proportion of the community who speaks that language. Rather more authentic to speak in one’s own words, I think.
If you are all fixated on Jews, peace, national languages, and Arabic as a particular language, I suppose you would probably fare better in Israel, where a rather higher proportion of the Jewish citizenry does speak that language. Start, if this is a burning issue for you, with the hit song “Shalom – Salaam” (Sheva).
Salaam is an Arabic word; not all Arabs are Muslims, by the way; and so your line on pointedly excludes Muslims is no more accurate on “Muslims” than on “excludes”. But you knew that, right?)
Halldor,
You arrive at several incorrect assertions on my attitudes towards the events of the past week. Firstly, did I ever say that I AGREE with trashing the BK or the Gap? No, and I consider it counterproductive to our movement, as a matter of fact. My simple point was that I find Ms. Segacs chastising of the demonstrators, especially Mr. Singh, as methodologically fraudulent, on the basis that she continually agrees with Israel’s gross flaunting of judicial imperatives for the Palestinian people, yet she attacks protestors for breaking the law. That said, I also have a problem with many of my compatriots on the progressive left who play the other side of the coin, in that they agree with trashing a BK, yet scourn Israel for its illegal actions. Both actions, that of the Israelis and of the vandals, are not the correct course, so I think that both criticisms are valid. However, one must also remember that, having been there myself, I cal tell you that the organisers are not being misleading when they claim that only a small percentage of those participating were the vandals.
Lastly, to be frank, the leaders of the anti-WTO organising group do have a point when they speak of the violence of the corporations mentioned above. While, like I said, I am no big fan of breaking a window, let us not loose too much sleep for these companies, as they are massive human rights abusers. They bust unions throughout the world, they refuse to pay their workers a living wage (and in many cases even minimum wages), and they are causing massive damage to the ecological integrity of the planet. Have you ever considered how bad cattle raising is for the environment, or how much toxic crap a worker in China inhalls when making your sneakers, you spoiled brat?
All that drivel later:
1)Again, it’s not just non-participation (a la Armenians, Kashmiris, etc.) but opposition to and discrediting of the movement that makes the link.
2)’Nanook. Zionist. Discredits and opposes anti-WTO protests.’ –> This clearly still holds.
3)I disagree that such movements proselytize the One True Truth (any movement, including Zionism, could easily be accused of the same — it’s a blanket attack that requires no analysis). What I see instead is a coming together of diverse groups of people (and all the epistemological friction that that implies) in an attempt to join forces to call for the self-determination of the disenfranchised. In the process, this becomes an exercise in tearing down (ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic, class) boundaries in order to establish a humanistic basis for solidarity. A far cry from the ‘racism’ with which you accuse it.
4)Your fear to fly the Israeli flag at such gatherings begs the question which your response sidestepped: how do you get around the ethical conundrum that the quest for Jewish self-determination (a la Zionism) tramples on the self-determination of non-Jews?
5)Your argument regarding the placards — that Montreal area Jews should not be expected to chant in Arabic — disappears the Arab-Israeli conflict which the inclusion of both languages in the anti-war rallies attempted to address (ie. the desire for peace among ALL people, including those on both sides of this conflict). That the Israel day rally, in light of this, imitated but altered (ie. co-opted) the anti-war slogan by excluding the Arabic reveals a drawing of boundaries between those for whom peace is desired and those for whom it is not.
(Note: Arabic is the theological language of Islam; ‘salaam’ is a word common to all Muslims. Though not all Arabs are Muslims, all Muslims use the word, and so the word usually connotes the faith)
Seems Concordia taught you something more than logic; it imbued you with the idea that poisonous misrepresentations of your critics’ arguments (or, as I’ve referred to it previously, playing the twisted mirror) will work better than confronting questions or criticism head-on.
Nevertheless, in the interest of grasping your ontological framework, a couple of questions:
1)What exactly is your (nuanced) criticism of the WTO?
2)Does Zionism, for you, include the desire for a ‘greater Israel’ which includes significant portions of the land and resources currently located in occupied Palestine?
If so, how does the Zionist quest for self-determination allow for the self-determination of the Palestinian people?
1)Again, it’s not just non-participation (a la Armenians, Kashmiris, etc.) but opposition to and discrediting of the movement that makes the link. Yes. Let’s make sure we understand each other, yes? Some Zionists criticising (as opposed to the leading “discrediting”) a particular mode of protest that purports to strengthen a political position. You label that form of protest “the movement”. Said movement being quite distinct from one’s position on WTO.
2) Nanook. Zionist. Discredits and opposes anti-WTO protests.’ –> This clearly still holds. Almost, anyway: criticises a particular form of anti-WTO protest. Certainly doesn’t oppose — indeed, has participated in a whole bunch of — anti-WTO protesting generally. On why, as a Zionist, I criticise the type of WTO protest held in Montreal (by a particular set of folks, who have built organic links and quasi-institutionalised forms of organisation, and with whose tactics I disagree most vehemently), once again, see above.
3)What I see instead is a coming together of diverse groups of people (and all the epistemological friction that that implies), etc. You and I obviously disagree; the hostility towards the kind of friction you’re talking about is something I’ve felt personally. No longer interested in beating my head against walls, thanks.
4)Your fear to fly the Israeli flag at such gatherings begs the question which your response sidestepped: how do you get around the ethical conundrum that the quest for Jewish self-determination (a la Zionism) tramples on the self-determination of non-Jews? Oh, this again? It needn’t. When it does, it’s wrong; that’s why I actively criticise Israel. Which, in case you’re about to leap into it, is rather different than waging of war of delegitimation.
5)Your argument regarding the placards — that Montreal area Jews should not be expected to chant in Arabic — disappears the Arab-Israeli conflict which the inclusion of both languages in the anti-war rallies attempted to address (ie. the desire for peace among ALL people, including those on both sides of this conflict). Nah. It speaks to why Montreal area Jews do not feel comfortable chanting in Arabic. To conclude that excluding the Arabic reveals a drawing of boundaries between those for whom peace is desired and those for whom it is not is a charming leap, but hardly follows. But, sure, do feel free to assume that Jews who don’t coopt the Arabic voice must be against peace with Arabs.
Though not all Arabs are Muslims, all Muslims use the word, and so the word usually connotes the faith Um, in the Israeli and Palestinian context — is that we were talking about? — Israeli and Palestinian Christians are kind of an important part of the equation. That’s my point in that context.
poisonous misrepresentations of your critics’ arguments (or, as I’ve referred to it previously, playing the twisted mirror) will work
better than confronting questions or criticism head-on. You know, I think I’ve been pretty consistent in answering your various questions and criticisms (can’t say that the reverse is true). If “poisonous misrepresentations” there be, it’d be a lot easier for you to talk directly about them rather than float vague innuendo. Your choice, though.
1)What exactly is your (nuanced) criticism of the WTO?
Dude, seriously? In case you hadn’t noticed, this is the comments section of a blog. Or did you think that nuanced criticisms of international trading systems were slogan-type things?
Generally, the usual: dislike the transformation of a growing portion of goods and services into commodities; dislike free-trading of commodities without attendant free-trading of labour (“feel free to roam about the planet”) but with consistent erosion of labour and related (environmental, political, …) protections; feel the political process behind it is fundamentally flawed because most people are neither represented nor have anyone speaking for them except as subjects of corporate activity, etc. Off the top of my head. But it’s a little bit more complicated than that, don’t you think?
2)Does Zionism, for you, include the desire for a ‘greater Israel’ which includes significant portions of the land and resources currently located in occupied Palestine?
Uh, no. (Nor does it include such desire for most Zionists, according to most polls I’ve seen.) Why?
If so, how does the Zionist quest for self-determination allow for the self-determination of the Palestinian people?
Well, I guess it starts with a medium-term vision for complete Israeli withdrawal from what becomes a self-governing Palestinian state, where both Israeli and Palestinian states, it is agreed by the various countries formally and informally at war with one or the other, are full members of the international community of states, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities, including full protection and promotion of minority cultural, economic, and political rights. In both countries, an understanding of the simultaneous responsibility of the government to promote the flourishing of the national majority’s culture — much as we do here in Quebec — and the difference between that national majority and the citizenry at large, with all of the caveats that that implies.
For starters, anyway. The long-term part, were things to work out, might include gradual move towards a federal system that saw unification of the two states. The short-term part, which is of course the trickier bit, is a realistic plan for getting to the medium term.
Thanks for the responses; perhaps we’re not as far apart on some of these issues as I had assumed.
Too bad more opinions like yours (though I still take issue with some of your own assumptions regarding the protesters) aren’t circulating, rather than segacs-type polemic attacks on all things Arab/Muslim/left-of-centre.
Might change a lot of peoples’ notions of what exactly ‘Zionism’ stands for.