Apologists for war crimes and terror
JON ELMER
Dalhousie Gazette, 26 September 2002
see original article and letters: click here
I have selected two themes that I think represent the main objection to my comments on the Netanyahu's talk at Concordia, in "Riot, language of the unheard" (Sept 12). I only wish I had more space.
First, my 'journalistic integrity' in commenting on an event I did not myself attend. In addition to reading all available media accounts and many personal statements, I engaged in several lengthy interviews and discussions with Concordia students and attendees, one of which was broadcast in its entirety on CKDU's Guerrilla Radio before my editorial appeared in the Gazette.
I make no apologies about where my bias stands on the issue of unarmed students voicing their resistance to their university being used for exclusive speeches that are little more than a pep rally for a war criminal (no question/answer, attendees were encouraged to bring Israeli flags, hand picked audience, addressing the urgency of heightened war against Palestinians) vis a vis riot police swinging truncheons and shields, tear gassing and pepper spraying.
I reserve the use of terms like 'resistance' and 'defense' for those who are being impressed upon, rather than the oppressors (be it Montreal police aggression or Netanyahu's war-mongering) - this might be shocking to the sensibilities of those whose complete understanding of the event was dictated by the slovenly corporate media. Considering none of my "facts" in describing the demonstration were refuted, I can only assume the writers were challenging the integrity of my opinion on the riot in relation to their own, something altogether different from 'journalistic integrity'.
The second issue is my "irresponsible, slanderous and dangerous" accusations leveled at the State of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu for "some of the most serious crimes committed since WWII". This is an irresponsibility that places me firmly within the "dogma" of the countless United Nations Resolutions, The Geneva Conventions, not to mention Human Rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Medecins Sans Frontieres in condemning Israeli crimes in an increasingly brutal military occupation now in its 35th year.
Instead of addressing point-by-point the Dal law students apologia for state terror, I will use Amnesty International's report entitled "Five years After Oslo" (1998) to speak to the Netanyahu regime in particular and the State of Israel in general: Israel "effectively legalized the use of torture" (with Supreme Court approval, a war crime); in pursuit of security "all international rules of conduct could be broken" (war crime); an estimated 1600 Palestinians routinely arrested every year and "systematically tortured" (war crime); "there continues to be almost total impunity for unlawful killings of Palestinians" (war crime).
Another AI report - "House Demolitions" (Dec 8, 1999) - stated: "The Palestinians are targeted for no other reason than because they are Palestinians... The family may only have 15 minutes to take out what belongings they have before the furniture is thrown into the street and their home bulldozed". A UN Special Report released in 2000 (Nov 13), just after Netanyahu left office stated speaks to the ensuing "land grabs": "(Since the Oslo "peace" Accords) Israel's confiscation of Palestinian land and construction of (Jewish-only) settlements and bypass roads for Jewish settlers has accelerated dramatically in breach of Security Council Resolution 242" (war crime).
There is a glut of reports far harsher than the sanitized AI and UN reports, it is a shame the letter writers didn't spend more time researching, but rather chose reflexive and baseless digs. As well, had the writers not limited their research to a quick internet search they would have found the citation for the Netanyahu quote advocating "mass deportations of Arabs" with a simple newspaper/periodical search. Or maybe they would like more recent scholarship on Netanyahu: "Just say no to a Palestinian state," (May 13, 2002 - Globe and Mail)
Shoddy is their defense of Netanyahu's war crimes, but downright spurious is their assertion that the Wye River Memorandum was praiseworthy valor. If you will allow me to quote the Israeli cabinet at the time of the its signing (Nov 11, 1998): "The (Israeli) Government will continue to purse its policy of strengthening and developing the communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district, on the basis of a multi-annual plan... (including) security areas, the areas around Jerusalem, the areas of Jewish settlement, infrastructure interest, water sources, military and security locations, the areas around north-south and east-west transportation arteries, and historic sites of the Jewish people". In short, furthering the apartheid State of Israel.
It is an observation made by two figures whose words resonate in the arena of identifying and resisting racist State policies: Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Said Tutu to the BBC after visiting the West Bank and Gaza in April of this year: "It reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon?"
Letters to the Editor:
Elbaz, et al
Dr Ismail Zayid
Larry Riteman
Brooks Kind