SPHR invited Netanyahu . . . ‘s nephew to speak at Concordia, only just over a year after violently rioting against Netanyahu himself to get his speech shut down.
Eric Ben-Artzi came to speak on behalf of the Refusenik movement – Israelis who would prefer to go to jail than serve in the IDF.
SPHR once again demonstrated that the only speech it will tolerate is speech it agrees with. As for Ben-Artzi, the only thing he proved – besides being shameless about trading on his family connections – is that he represents nothing but a fringe minority in Israel:
The bigger issue involves his repeated claim that he represents the Israeli centre, while he himself admitted that despite the million Israelis who serve in the army, and the six million citizens, only 550 make a point to refuse to serve. He went further and explained that 1,300 other Israelis signed a petition in solidarity. That still makes it far fewer than one per cent of the population.
If we were to have a legitimate discussion about people refusing to serve in the Israeli army, I think the focus would most likely be on the thousands of people who don’t serve due to religious exemptions. Or even on the under-the-radar Israelis who look for creative ways to skirt the draft, including medical excuses or “instead of” service. The first group – and even the second – are surely much more numerous than the “Refuseniks”.
Either way, even the fringe element that Ben-Artzi represents doesn’t want to see SPHR’s goal of no more Israel. But SPHR wasn’t interested in any of that. They saw an opportunity to exploit him for their propaganda purposes, that’s all. As usual. Only this time, the attempt was as transparent as glass.
from the gazette
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/story.asp?id=2231EF25-854A-434C-80CF-9B9A0FC23558
“SPHR’s goal of no more Israel”
Any proof for this characterization?
SPHR’s goal is what they call a “bi-national state”, which is just another way of saying, let’s turn Israel into “Palestine”, another Muslim state with a Jewish minority that will be persecuted like they are everywhere else in the Arab world. Proof? See Samer Elatrash’s admission to the Global documentarist.
SPHR’s refusal to condemn terrorrism, their constant equation of Zionism with racism and Israel as an illegitimate state, and their publication of hate material against Israel on their tables are all pretty convincing proof.
But hey, maybe you want to do us all a favour and prove it right here, right now. Do you support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state?
First, I’m not associated with SPHR, so my opinion does nothing to prove or disprove their views on anything.
Second, yes, I do support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state — but I think that Israeli law has to be refined enough to maintain its Jewish character without impinging upon the rights of non-Jews. Otherwise, you have a population of mistreated second-class citizens comparable to the non-Arabs (Muslim or not) in ‘Muslim’ countries such as Saudi Arabia.
Third, vague references and generalizations do not constitute proof. Can you show me where SPHR has clearly indicated its supposed “goal of no more Israel”?
Finally, some questions for you: What do you see as the basics of a ‘Jewish state’? That is, what characteristics must Israel possess to retain its Jewish nature? I’m asking for a definition of ‘Jewish state.’ Also, do you see any contradictions between the concept of democracy and a the concept of a Jewish state? Finally, I ask for a definition of Israel; that is, would you consider the West Bank and Gaza as a part of Israel or not?
segacs?
Will you not return the favour?
This blog being about supporting zionism and the Jewish state, I’d think you’d leap at the opportunity to spread some knowledge here.
Or will these questions simply be met with another of your strategic silences?
All I’m asking for is honesty.
Me,
You do bring up some valid points. What we want is a democracy and a jewish state. The only way to do both is through a two state solution as outlined by the UN in 1947 and later in resolution 242. Contrary to popular belief, the arabs have undeniable responsibilities under resolution 242, and there is no way Israel can implement this on her own.
“Me” (or shall I say, “you”), I find it peculiar that you seem to think that I base my life’s schedule on your rantings.
That’s quite an egotistical assumption on your part, to assume that my silences are “strategic” and in any way connected to you. When my time is freer, I post more. When I’m preoccupied with other things, I post less. This is a hobby, not a full-time obsession. And I certainly don’t have to explain myself to you.
Some of us have lives that aren’t connected to this board. Might I suggest you get one, so you can count yourself in that category?
To answer your questions:
1) You may not be associated with SPHR – or you might. How can we know from a nickname. You certainly jump at every opportunity to defend them.
2) Israeli law forbids discrimination against non-Jews. Name one Muslim country that has laws that forbid discrimination against non-Muslims. Go on, I dare you. And how exactly do you suggest Israel update its laws to accomplish the goal you would like?
3) Just watch Samer Elatrash’s statement in the Global film “Confrontation at Concordia”. There he is on tape, clearly saying he believes in a “one-state solution” which is just another word for Israel becoming another Arab state with second-class citizenship for a Jewish minority. Sounds like no more Israel to me. And don’t try to tell me Mr. Elatrash wasn’t speaking for SPHR.
4) Your questions are biased from the outset. A “Jewish State” is a state for the Jewish people. A definition of Israel? The West Bank and Gaza Strip are “disputed” territories, which means that their ownership is still up in the air. Right now Israel is controlling them. Before that, Jordan and Egypt controlled them, respectively, and that certainly had no legal basis because unlike Israel, Jordan and Egypt took them in an OFFENSIVE war. They were intended to be parts of a Palestinian state under the UN’s 1947 partition plan, but the Arabs rejected the plan. (Before you yell at me for saying “Arabs”, recall that in 1947, the Jews were “Palestinians” too – there were Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs). Prior to that, the British mandate controlled them, except the British left in 1948.
So who do they belong to? Israel couldn’t have invaded Palestine because Palestine never declared statehood. You can’t invade a country that doesn’t exist. The people exist, of course, but there was no country “Palestine”. Israel was entirely justified in defending itself against Egypt and Jordan, two countries who attacked it and tried to destroy it. So, what, then? Should Israel give the land back to Egypt or to Jordan? Land that wasn’t theirs in the first place?