Rezek Faraj at one of the Canadian Arab Federation conventions.
Dear Friends:
With great sadness and a huge sense of loss, we heard about the passing of Rezeq Faraj http://www.geocities.com/rezeq_f/ on Oct. 24, 2009 from cancer. Rezeq was a founder of Quebec-Palestine Association, an ex-president of the Canadian Arab Federation and the co founder of Palestinian and Jewish Unity in Montreal.
Rezeq was a great Palestinian who carried the pain of his people on his shoulders all his life, even on his death bed. We visited him in the hospital last month and his spirit was high and the plight of the Palestinian people was all he talked about. He embodied the Palestinian hopes, aspirations, dignity and resistance.
Rezeq opposed the sellouts and treason of the Palestinian leadership, always reflecting on the the true interests of his people. He called for a democratic secular Palestine where human values would be more important than tribalism, sectarianism and self interest – see: “What has become of the secular democratic movement of the Palestinian people in these dangerous times?” by Rezeq Faraj. Also see his interview with Voice of Palestine on July 17, 2007.
We regret that Rezeq has passed away without his humanity and birthright being recognized. He joins the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have left us without their identity or their rights restored. Rezeq was not able to go and live in the Dehiesha refugee camp where he grew up, let alone return to the village he was ethnically cleansed from in 1948.
Rezek’s death is yet another scar on the face of humanity that still allows for settler colonialism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes to continue.
Our condolences goes to his wife Claudette, his daughters Leila, Miriam and Nadia. Our condolences also go to the Palestinian people and to humanity who lost a great pillar and advocate.
Our pledge to Rezeq is to continue the struggle until injustice is defeated in Palestine and everywhere in the world.
Gord Hill – Indigenous Intifada? From Gaza Strip to Six Nations
Watch a video for Gord Hill from the kwakwaka’wakw nation speaking at a Under the Volcano 2009 workshop about Indigenous Intifada? From Gaza Strip to Six Nations
Hanna Kawas – Colonization and Aparthied in Palestine
Watch a video of CPA Chairperson Hanna Kawas, speaking at a Under the Volcano 2009 workshop about Colonization and Apartheid in Palestine:
Watch also a video of Llanna Weaver, an Israeli anti-Zionist from the U.S., who protests apartheid with Hip-hop chants, speaking at a Under the Volcano 2009 workshop about Israel.
This video also begins with the conclusion of CPA Chairperson Hanna Kawas’ talk on colonization and apartheid in Palestine.
See below articles by Gord Hill and Hanna Kawas written in the program of Under the Volcano 2009:
From Gaza to Gustafsen
By Hanna Kawas
(From 2009 UTV guide pages 36,37)
The Link Between the Intifada & Indigenous Sovereignty
The objective of settler colonialists in Turtle Island and Palestine was to conquer the land (Steal It), ghettoize the indigenous people (Apartheid) and reduce the native population by committing genocide, spreading disease and ethnically cleansing the territory from its indigenous population. All this was carried out under the immoral pretext of a supremacist culture that looked upon other humans as inferiors and less worthy of compassion.
Zionism: A Settler Colonialist Movement
Zionism is a settler colonialist movement that started in Europe in the late nineteenth century with the objective of creating a homeland for the Jewish people. Zionist founders such as Leo Pinsker (1831-1891) and Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), although they started as assimilationists, argued later in their lives that Jews can not coexist in their respective nations due to anti Semitism and the only safe place for them would be their own state. Both these Zionist leaders argued for any piece of land, for example Pinsker wrote: “The goal of our efforts must not be the Holy Land, but a land of our own.” Herzl in his book the Jewish State suggested the possibility of a Jewish state in Argentina, and stated: “Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us”. And the Sixth Zionist Congress (Basel, August 1903) accepted by a majority vote (295:178, 98 abstentions) to investigate the British offer called the “Uganda Project”.
All Zionist leaders and organizations never hid their objective to colonize other peoples’ lands but also justified it by invoking the suffering of the Jewish people. In so doing, they not only cheapened this suffering but also gave comfort to the anti-Semites who have been proclaiming that Jews do not belong to their respective nations.
The Zionists used the colonialist logic to try to legitimize their project, labelled the Asians as barbarians and called for a “civilized post” to further European interests in the region.
Herzl was quoted as saying:
“For Europe we would constitute over there part of a bulwark against Asia as well as the advance post of civilization against barbarism. As a neutral state we would have relations with all of Europe, which would guarantee our existence.”
—Theodore Herzl, Judenstaat, French translation, publisher La Découverte, Paris, 1989, p. 47.
And Chaim Weizmann, then President of the British Zionist Federation, used the colonialist argument that “a Jewish Palestine would be a safeguard to England, in particular in respect to the Suez Canal.” (Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, NewYork, 1949 p. 243)
Zionism and Similarities with other Settler Colonialist Movements
Early Zionists also realized that the only way to establish and maintain their colonialist project was by force, similar to most other colonialist projects. The Revisionist Zionist founder Vladimir Jabotinsky clearly stated this in his 1923 article “The Iron Wall” by saying:
“There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs, not now, and not in the foreseeable future.
Try to find even one example when the colonization of a country took place with the agreement of the native population. Such an event has never occurred.
The natives will always struggle obstinately against the colonists – and it is all the same whether they are cultured or uncultured. The comrades in arms of [Hernan] Cortez or [Francisco] Pizarro conducted themselves like brigands. The Redskins fought with uncompromising fervor against both evil and good-hearted (sic) colonizers. The natives struggled because any kind of colonization anywhere at anytime is inadmissible to any native people…
Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope…
All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy… Force must play its role – with strength and without indulgence….” (Bold emphasis was added – H.K.)
The colonialist logic that was applied to the indigenous people of North America was also applied to the “new colonies”, with the same racist vigour. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations of 28 June 1919 stated: “Article 22. To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization (sic!) … The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.”
The Zionist movement since its inception allied itself with other similar settler colonialist movements and imperial powers of the day. In 1917 they succeeded to extract a promise from the British government to establish a Homeland for the Jews in Palestine, which manifested itself in what is known as the Balfour Declaration. Then in 1923, the League of Nations blessed and adopted this colonialist venture and the mandate for Palestine was submitted by Britain in July 1922 and confirmed on Sep. 29, 1923.
It is worth noting that Britain issued the Balfour declaration, in which it promised to give away Palestine with no regard for the indigenous population, five years before their colonialist venture was even approved by this so-called League of Nations.
For the past one hundred and twelve years, since the first Zionist congress was held in Basel, Switzerland in 1897, the Zionist movement has fabricated lies, erased total towns and villages from the map of the world, committed massacre after massacre, built an apartheid system of roads, towns and walls, and continued with its economic siege and “iron wall” policy to ethnically cleanse the rest of the Palestinian people from their homeland Palestine.
The Palestinian people reacted to this settler colonialist project with the same vigour that the indigenous people of Turtle Island reacted to the British and other colonialist powers’ occupation and aggression. And in both cases, the people never recognized this occupation, never ceded their lands nor accepted compensation from the settler colonialist authorities.
Palestinians have resisted the Zionist settler project with one Intifada (uprising) after another since the 1920s. The latest Intifadas were in 1987 and the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000. The indigenous people of Turtle Island also waged un-relenting resistance to the settler colonialist project for over five hundred years; the example of the Secwepemc Nation attempting to reclaim their ancestral lands at Gustafsen Lake in Sep.1995 is another example of the rekindling spirit of resistance to the unjust and imposed conditions of settler colonialism.
Ilan Pappé, one of Israel’s new historians that challenges the Zionist narrative, stated in the documentary movie “Memory of the Cactus” that if Palestinians tried to go back home, even peacefully, they are labelled as terrorists. This also applies to legitimate and peaceful acts of resistance like the one at Gustafsen Lake, which then British Columbia Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh, branded as a “criminal matter”.
There are of course Palestinians and indigenous people who have sold out to the settler colonialists and their friends. A clear example is the so-called President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas who has allied himself with Israel and the U.S. to suppress the resistance of the Palestinian people. The corresponding example is the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, who not only allied himself with the Canadian state, but also with the Zionist settler colonialists in Palestine (see Open letter to the Assembly of First Nations). No Palestinian or Indigenous quisling, mercenary or puppet will stop the resistance to both these forms of brutal settler colonialism.
The spark of hope (to quote Jabotinsky) will never be extinguished nor will the spirit of resistance to the unjust and inhumane conditions imposed on both indigenous peoples. We are certain that both peoples will regain their national and human rights and sooner or later they will regain their dignity and freedom.
Justice will prevail and it will reach all those who have been and are still committing genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
————————————————————–
Hanna Kawas was born in Bethlehem, Palestine and is a long-time Palestinian activist and broadcaster. He is the chair of Canada Palestine Association www.cpavancouver.org and founder and cohost of the Voice of Palestine on Vancouver Coop Radio www.voiceofpalestine.ca Hanna has been without a Canadian passport for over 10 years due to the refusal of Canadian authorities to inscribe Palestine as his country of birth on his document. See: Birthright Denied, Canadian complicity in Palestinian Dispossession https://cpavancouver.org/bdenied.pdf
————————————————————————————– Indigenous Intifada?
From Gaza Strip to Six Nations
By Gord Hill, Kwakwaka’wakw nation
(From 2009 UTV guide pages 32, 33
On July 1, 2009, as the country celebrated ‘Canada Day’, Omar Shaban, executive vice-president of the Canadian Arab Federation, wrote on his Facebook status “F*** Canada Day.” Although it was his personal opinion, the subsequent media controversy & position of the CAF prompted him to resign, stating he did not want to be part of an organization that refused to acknowledge “Canada’s colonial & shameful history,” labelling Canada a “genocidal state.”
In early February, 2002, then-Vancouver MP and junior minister for Indian Affairs Stephen Owen also caused controversy when he compared young natives in Canada to Palestinian militants:
“Canada’s native communities represent a “tinderbox” full of restless native youths ready to explode in violence if progress isn’t made in treaty talks… Owen likened young natives in Canada to Palestinian militants in Israel in his startling warning.
“If you see kids in an impoverished native village, with three generations of welfare behind them and no hope for the future, and they’re even moved to perhaps that most horrible statistic of despair, which is youth suicide, they are very vulnerable to someone coming in with a gun and a warrior ethic and saying ‘Why waste your life? Be a martyr…’”“That hasn’t happened. But if it’s happening in the Gaza Strip, if we are tolerating similar conditions of despair that will drive kids to commit suicide, that’s a tinderbox.” (Vancouver Sun, Feb. 5/02).
Owen’s comments are similar to other “warnings’ routinely issued by the RCMP, CSIS, politicians, and even band chiefs. Their purpose is to legitimize state repression of Indigenous struggles and marginalize our movement. They are also used to promote government policies– or the neo-colonial Aboriginal elite themselves– as the ‘reasonable’ and therefore ‘peaceful’ means to resolve issues (as opposed to the dark and sinister militants waiting in the shadows…).
Are we ready to “explode in violence” if progress isn’t made in treaty talks? Hardly. Most Native militants are opposed to treaties to begin with. Duhhh!
Owen’s comparison of Natives to the Palestinians deserves a closer look, however. There are indeed parallels between our struggle as Indigenous peoples and the Palestinians. Both are struggles being waged against colonization, apartheid, and genocide!
Israel
Despite some Jewish claims of an ‘historical right’ to the state of Israel, it is a colonialist regime, set up first as a British interest and now a US fortress in the Middle-East. Jews were expelled from the Palestinian region by the Romans in the Second Century, AD. Settling in Europe, they experienced both prosperity and persecution. Beginning in the late 19th Century, European Jews began organizing a Zionist movement aimed at settlement and eventually control of Palestine. Zionism is a political-religious movement that asserts a spiritual and historical right to the Holy Land.
The Nazi Holocaust of WW 2 served to reinforce the Zionist plan, as did Western interests in Mid-East oil. This was accomplished in 1947, when the United Nations divided Palestine and created Israel. In 1948 there was war as Arabs resisted
the partition of their territories. With Western backing, Israel took control of nearly 77 per cent of Palestinian land. Thousands of Palestinian homes were demolished, and entire towns relocated or forced out as refugees.
Whether or not one agrees with a ‘spiritual and historical’ right to territory, the colonial and apartheid regime established over Palestinians by Israel is oppressive and genocidal. As it is, Israel only exists as a geo-strategic interest of the United States, who fund and equip Israel’s powerful military.
The Occupied Territories
In 1967 Israel went to war with neighbouring Arab states, including Egypt, Syria and Jordan. During this Six Day War, Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They have come to be known as the Occupied Territories, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians live under Israeli military control.
Once Israel had secured the occupied territories, they imposed curfews, check-points, detentions, imprisonment, and deportations. The Israeli government and military set up administrative control of the Occupied Territories, imposing control over land, resources, education, media, and travel. Palestinians were required to have special ID passes issued by Israeli military in order to travel from one area to another.
These special laws & restrictions imposed on Palestinians have been denounced as forms of colonialism and apartheid, and are similar to methods used by Canada and other colonizing states to control Indigenous peoples, to remove them from their land and open up regions to settlement and resource exploitation.
In Canada, this was accomplished largely through the 1876 Indian Act, which established the band council & reserve systems. It also laid out special & seperate laws that impacted every aspect of Indigenous life, authorized the forced indoctrination
of Native children into the Residential Schools, prohibited traditional culture & social organization, & controlled the movement of Natives with a special pass system.
The Intifada
By 1987, two generations of Palestinians had lived under Israeli occupation. In December of that year, following the death of four Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, an uprising began which saw thousands of Palestinian youths fighting in the streets, with sticks and stones, against Israeli soldiers. This was an uprising of an entire generation and was known as the Intifada (uprising).
The tactics of the Intifada included organized boycotts of Israeli
businesses, strikes, public demonstrations, radio, leaflets, direct action, and riots. One observer compared it to a “fairly sophisticated strategy for urban guerrilla warfare, without the usual weapons.”
Concentration of Forces
In the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in refugee camps, villages, towns, and cities. In the Jabalia refugee camp, where the Intifada first began, approx. 65,000 people live in 2 square kilometres of land. In Canada, Native populations are far more dispersed, and it is difficult to concentrate large numbers into one area.
The concept of an ‘Indigenous Intifada’-form of resistance was first discussed after the 1990 Oka Crisis. At that time, some warriors questioned the usefulness of armed confrontations and standoffs. They suggested it might be more effective
to adopt the Palestinian-style of “low-level conflict.”
By its very nature, the tactics of the Intifada involve larger numbers of people than armed standoffs. These methods can potentially mobilize entire communities into action, ranging from boycotts, to strikes, to direct action—all of which involve people in the struggle.
Another aspect of the Intifada-style of conflict is that it portrays civilian populations fighting against military/police forces, thereby limiting the state’s ability to isolate resistance to an armed group of ‘terrorists’.
Of course, overall, Indigenous resistance and other social movements do have a hard time in the face of widespread apathy and present social conditions. But here’s another tip from the Palestinian Intifada:
“How is it possible, after 20 years of relative docility, that on 9 December, 1987, the Palestinians in the occupied territories could explode with such sustained fury? At the outset, few observers could have anticipated the remarkable endurance of the Palestinian protesters” (Imperial Israel, p. 241).
2006 Six Nations: Indigenous Intifadah
In April 2006, police attempted to dismantle a blockade erected by Natives at the Six Nations reserve in southern Ontario. The blockade was to stop construction of a condominium site on land originally part of their territory. In response to the raid, hundreds of Natives on the reserve– the largest in Canada with over 20,000 people– erected more blockades on highways, roads, and rail-lines. Direct action, including the burning of a rail-way bridge and an electrical power substation, occurred. Hundreds of riot cops were deployed as the conflict dragged on over the summer.
While this action is most similar to the Palestinian Intifidah, the 1990 Oka Crisis also revealed the potential for an Indigenous uprising across the country based on similar methods using tactics that turned the dispersal of Native peoples into an advantage. This was the widely dispersed solidarity actions with the Mohawks carried out by Natives across the country that included protests, occupations of offices, road and railway blockades, and sabotage of rail & electrical power lines. Across the country, in remote areas, are vast quantities of infrastructure that can be potentially disrupted, including not only highway, rail, and power lines, but also oil & gas pipelines.
More than the military capacity of the Mohawk warriors, it was this potential for sabotage that served to limit the government’s use of deadly force to end the siege. And it is this potential, more so than ‘suicide bombings’, that may be the real future for Canada if it continues with its policies of colonization, apartheid, and genocide, policies that in themselves lead to the high rates of suicide among Native peoples. After all, why waste your life, right?
——————————————————–
The above articles were also published by “The One Democratic State Group“, Gaza
Initial Comments on Resolution passed by the United Church of Canada
by Hanna Kawas
Aug. 15, 2009
The one resolution passed by the 40th General Council of the United Church of Canada includes item 1(g) (see below), which calls on Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
We also learned with horror this week, after reading the United Church Moderator’s statement that the official Church position, since 2003, has been the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. This position is more damaging than anything positive in the new resolution.
Does the Church understand that this is a racist position, that they are recognizing a state where one group (in this case, based on religion) is guaranteed more rights than other groups that constitute a huge 20% of the population?
Would they for a moment recognize or insist anyone else recognize Canada as a Christian state, or Eygpt as an Islamic state?
And its not just saying this is the official religion, but rather supporting exclusive priviliges enshrined in law based on that religion and institutional measures to ensure that this religion maintains a majority in the population base? (For further info, see my letter “Don’t Ask Palestinians if They Recognize Israel”
We are not surprised that the Zionist lobby in Canada is happy with these results.
Hanna Kawas
———————-
Resolution passed by the 40th General Council of the United Church of Canada
August 13, 2009
Amended proposal: Implementation of measures Towards Peace in The Middle East:
That the 40th General Council 2009
1. Record its convictions that a just peace in the Middle East will require:
a) The denunciation of Human Rights abuses committed by Israel and Palestine, as documented by Amnesty International and the United Nations, that will result in Member States of the United Nations taking subsequent, appropriate actions;
b) That the occupation and siege of Gaza by Israel cease, requiring the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza;
c) That the Government of Canada and Member States of the United Nations support international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza;
d) The withdrawal of Israeli military forces to pre-1967 borders and ending all forms of violence by the Israeli Government upon the Palestinian people;
e) The cessation of suicide bombings and other violent attacks directed towards Israeli civilians on the part of Palestinians;
f) Recognition that East Jerusalem, West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitute an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem must be dismantled;
g) The recognition by the emergent State of Palestine of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state within safe and secure borders;
h) The recognition by the Israeli Government and the emergent state of Palestine of equal citizenship rights, protections, privileges and responsibilities for all of their respective citizens regardless of religious or national origins.
2. Direct the General Secretary, General Council to inform the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in writing, of the above convictions and urge that Canadian policy and commitments in the Middle East reflect this position.
3. Affirm the United Church of Canada’s participation in the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel and seek further ways of augmenting our physical presence in the Middle East.
4. Support the principles of the Amman Call particularly those that promote Peace-Making, Bridge-Building and the development of long term strategies for peace and right relations.
5. Direct the General Secretary, General Council to engage in consultation, dialogue and study (with relevant partners and other interested parties), concerning implications of past and future actions to end the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and enter into conversation as how to move the two peoples toward reconciliation (including, but not limited to economic boycott), and to report to the 41st General Council and to provide continuing guidance to the other United Church courts until GC41.
6. Recommend that the United Church Conferences, Presbyteries, congregations and community ministries immediately enter into consultation, dialogue, study and prayer, and then to take appropriate action toward ending the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, and enter into conversation as to how to move the two peoples toward reconciliation (including, but not limited to economic boycott).
7. Affirm the United Church’s support of its partners through financial commitment, solidarity, delegations and ecumenical accompaniment.
Almost a month has passed since the BC provincial New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Carole James labelled anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism; by so doing, she accused the anti-war movement, the Palestinian support movement and all those human rights organizations that oppose the political ideology of Zionism of being “racist”.
We were hoping that some sane NDP leaders, MP’s, MLA’s or candidates would pressure Carole James into reversing her outrageous conclusions, after all the public criticism and outrage that followed her ill-advised libelling of people who oppose Zionism (1).
However, it does NOT seem it is coming especially before such a crucial provincial election.
We feel we should make our position clear, so the leadership of the NDP will not take the working class, the anti-war and the anti-Zionist movements for granted.
Let us start with some History.
The Zionist Movement is a settler colonialist movement that called for an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine.
Since its inception it worked on controlling the majority of Palestinian land and on changing the demography in Palestine and “reworking” the population to create a Jewish majority; all this was carried out through the barrel of the gun.
The settler colonialist movement wanted its followers to live on the land instead of the indigenous Palestinians rather than in peace and harmony with them.
The result was the Palestinian Nakbe (catastrophe) of 1948 where over 400 towns and villages were uprooted from the face of the earth and where two-thirds of the Palestinian people became refugees.
For Carole James information, the word Zionist does not always mean Jewish. There are 72 million Christian Zionists in the U.S. alone; it also refers to Muslims, Buddhists and even “socialists” who support the concept of an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine.
Ms. James herself would seem to be a candidate for such a definition.
Historically, the Jewish opposition to Zionism preceded even the Arab and the Palestinian opposition to it:
In 1897, the Executive Committee of the Association of Rabbis in Germany issued an anti-Zionist manifesto on the occasion of the first Zionist Congress, where they declared: “Judaism obligates its adherents to serve with all devotion the Fatherland to which they belong, and to further its national interests with all their heart and strength.” (2)
The strongest opposition to the Balfour Declaration within the British Government came from its only Jewish member, Sir Edwin Montagu, he wrote “When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country… I deny that Palestine is today associated with the Jews.” (3)
Many great leaders and historians of the twentieth century also opposed Zionism and Mahatma Ghandi was one such example. (4)
On the Canadian scene in 1935, the national leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) J. S. Woodsworth realised the dangers of the Zionist Movement in promoting anti-Semitism. He stated referring to Zionism that “if nationalism was ‘over-emphasized’ it would call forth a counter-nationalism that [would] be very disadvantageous.” He also said “the promotion of the interest of a sectional group tends to provoke a certain reaction in other sections of the population, and thus defeat the very object in view.” (5) (The CCF was the NDP’s predecessor and is the party that brought universal health care to Canada.)
Also in 1938, when Woodsworth was approached to get CCF support for the Zionist settler project by adopting a resolution seeking the right of Jewish settlers to enter Palestine, he was quoted as saying: “It was easy for Canadians, Americans and the British to agree to a Jewish colony, as long as it was somewhere else. Why ‘pick on the Arabs’ other than for ‘strategic’ and ‘imperialistic’ consideration…” (6)
As I recently told federal cabinet minister Jason Kenney when he tried to accuse Arab and Moslem Canadian organizations of anti-Semitism: “Zionism and anti-Semitism are two faces of the same coin; they both believe that Jews do NOT belong to their respective homelands because they are a “different race or nationality”, they are “superior” or “inferior” and they belong somewhere else. The founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl realised that early on. He made the connection and sought the help of anti-Semites to realize his colonialist project” (7)
It is outrageous, insulting and ignorant for Carole James to accuse us of racism. Human rights advocates, the anti war movement and the supporters of Palestinian liberation do not promote anti-Semitism; the ones who promote anti-Semitism are the ones who believe the Jews do not belong to their respective countries, and who libel all Jewish people by claiming that the atrocities and war crimes of the Israeli government are on the shoulders of every Jewish person.
Again, to educate Ms. James, Mable Elmore’s statement to “Seven Oaks” was very accurate. Local Zionists did support the war on Iraq, as did the government of Israel, and this was openly expressed on more than one occasion in local media. (8)
At the same time, large numbers of local Jewish Canadians were part of the anti war movement and part of the Palestinian support movement.
To equate Zionists with Jews is an insult to all those Jews who oppose Zionist practices and oppose Zionist war mongering in Iraq, Palestine, Central and South America, Africa and other countries in the world (9)
In a Vancouver Sun article “When asked if she has confidence in the vetting process, James said: ‘I’ll be talking to the party about that’.” (10) Yes, we agree that the NDP membership should have a vetting process where self-seekers and opportunists will not have a place in the party. The likes of Carole James, Ujjal Dosanjh and Bob Rae should not have a place in any party genuinely based on principles of democracy and social justice.
If you cannot win on your principles, deeds and practices, you cannot represent the people that entrusted you.
And if you dump your principles for the faulty perception that this will enhance your popularity with the electorate, this is the fatal mistake any party can fall into.
Finally, to Ms. James, all NDP candidates and the national NDP leadership, you will not get the Zionist (Jewish, Christian) vote whatever you do to appease or submit to them. Read what they say about you in their papers and pronouncements.
And if you really want to regain your reputation among the anti-war movement, the Palestine support movement including humane and non-racist Jewish Canadians, and all people in Canada struggling for human rights, we expect you to make a public apology to all these anti-racist organizations for calling them anti-Semites.
We hope to hear from you, although our previous experience in communicating with you and other NDP leaders does not bode well for any quick communication.
Finally; after seventy-one years, we would like to repeat what J. S. Woodsworth, the national leader of the CCF, said: “Why ‘pick on the Arabs’?”
Hanna Kawas,
Chairperson, Canada Palestine Association www.cpavancouver.org
Cohost, Voice of Palestine www.voiceofpalestine.ca
Your reporting was generally positive and accurate except where you state: “But Kawas, who says he acknowledges the right of Israel to exist as a state, …”. I believe either you misunderstood what I told you, or the insertion of this statement was an editorial decision not to offend the pro-Israel propaganda machine.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain why such a statement is unfair, offensive and upsetting to me and to the vast majority of Palestinians.
Israel as a state was build on stolen Palestinian land and as a result of the ethnic cleansing of the majority of the Palestinian people from their homeland. In the process of the establishment of the state of Israel over four hundred Palestinian towns and villages were wiped out from the map of the world (See: All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948) and two thirds of the Palestinian people were ethnically cleansed from their homeland and have never been allowed to return to their homes (See: The ethnic cleansing of Palestine By Ilan Pappe).
Israel as a state is an apartheid supremacist state where Palestinians, both Muslims and Christians, that constitute 20% of the Israeli population, are treated as second-class citizens. Calls continue to this day to ethnically cleanse the indigenous Palestinian people from their homeland, and the current Israel foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman is a prime example. Israel is not a state for all of its citizens, and offers privileges based solely on religious affiliation.
The Zionist movement that built the state of Israel is a settler colonialist ideology that was never happy with the usurpation of just 78% of historic Palestine. It is an expansionist movement that continues to this day to steal more Palestinian land and build new illegal Jewish only settlements on this land, something the new Israeli government is set to not only maintain but also aggressively increase.
The state of Israel has never adopted a constitution nor defined its borders. As a result of this omission, Israeli borders keep expanding. From the 56% of Palestine the UN Partition Plan allotted to a “Jewish State” to now all of Palestine plus other Arab lands.
So the fair and logical question is: Do you want me to recognize the rape and dismemberment of my country Palestine? Do you want me to recognize the thief who stole my land and murdered my people? Do you want me to recognize a racist apartheid state that to this day does not allow me to go back home to live, nor be buried in my homeland where I was born? Do you want me to recognize a state with elastic borders that keeps committing injustices and war crimes on daily basis?
I believe that there will never be peace or recognition, not tomorrow and not even in another sixty-one years, unless justice prevails. That means that first Israeli Jews should recognize the injustice that befell the Palestinian people in 1947/48, and second, pledge and work to rectify these injustices.
I believe that Israeli racist laws should be dismantled as discrimination between Jew and non-Jew is institutionalized in Israeli laws and infrastructure. An example of this is the Israeli law of return, which applies to any Jew in the world (Israeli or not) while the same law does not apply to Palestinians holding Israeli citizenship because they happen to be Muslims or Christians. Without recognizing the inherent inequalities of such laws and reversing them there can be no peace with justice
I believe that discrimination of any kind is not conducive to reconciliation. Discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation in land ownership is neither democratic nor ethical. For example, 93 per cent of the land in Israel, mostly stolen from Palestinians, is controlled by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and its affiliates and is reserved by law for Jewish citizens only, something that is being challenged right now even in Israeli courts.
Another manifestation of the injustices of the ethnic cleansing of 1947/48 is the creation of the Palestinian refugees. There are around six million Palestinian refugees and their descendents are crying out for justice and for UN resolutions regarding the Palestinian refugees to be implemented. Without the acknowledgement of the individual and collective rights of the Palestinian refugees, including their right of return and to compensation, there can be no mutual recognition or reconciliation.
As I stated before I recognize the inalienable historic human and national rights of the Arab Palestinian people in historic Palestine.
I recognize the fact that 60% of Israeli Jews are actually Arab Jews (Sephardim). They should be welcomed to live in any Arab country if they so choose and they are entitled to equal rights and privileges in any Arab country, especially in Palestine.
I recognize that the vast majority of Israeli Jews are now native to historic Palestine (Israel/Palestine). At least three generations of Israeli Jews were born on the land since the original sin of 1947/48. They should not carry the guilt of their Zionist settler parents who committed the original sin and the initial ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but they are responsible for their own actions.
During your interview with me, we were talking about a solution to the conflict and this is where, I believe, your misunderstanding has risen. I am sure the space and political limitations on your article contributed to that, so let me repeat what I did say and what I believe in.
Here is what I do recognize now at this moment in history.
We have entered the 21st century. Peace anywhere in the world, and especially in the Middle East, will never be achieved if we have states that give privileges to one group over another, based on religion or ethnicity or gender. This is an outdated concept that will only hold all of us back from achieving true reconciliation.
Finally, only after the conditions of equality, decency and morality are met, and after a referendum to decide on the name of the country among the citizens of the land of Israel/Palestine, only then could I say I recognize Israel if that name is chosen by the majority of the people of Palestine/Israel.
Would we have asked the South African blacks to recognize Apartheid, before we took note of the legitimacy of their struggle? Would we have asked the French resistance to recognize the Vichy government and the Nazi regime before we acknowledged the credibility of their goals? No, and it is grossly unfair to tell Palestinians that they must recognize the state that is building an annexation wall on their land and massacring civilians in Gaza, before those same Palestinians will be allowed to have a say in their future.
Only with justice, freedom and equality for all will there be peace in historic Palestine, the Holy Land, and accordingly on earth.
