cpaadmin – Page 53 – Canada Palestine Association

#BoycottPuma takes off in Canada

On October 27th, Palestinian solidarity groups and their supporters came together to highlight the #BoycottPuma-Give Puma the Boot campaign. Activists from across Canada participated with solidarity photos and in Vancouver, there was a flash picket at the Puma outlet store. The social media response to the campaign was enormous and #BoycottPuma is here to stay in Canada.

Cohosted by: BDS Vancouver-Coast Salish, Canada Palestine Association, Canadian BDS Coalition, Independent Jewish Voices Vancouver, IJV Vancouver Youth Bloc, International League of Peoples’ Struggle ILPS Canada, Just Peace Advocates, Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network

Endorsed by: BAYAN Canada, Canada Philippines Solidarity for Human Rights, Gabriella BC, Migrante BC, Migrante Canada, Sulong UBC

Why Boycott Puma?

Global sportswear manufacturer Puma is involved in violations of international law and human rights. Puma is the main sponsor of the Israel Football Association (IFA), which includes teams in Israel’s illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

In addition, Puma’s exclusive licensee in Israel is Delta Galil Industries, which has branches in illegal Israeli settlements. Delta is listed in the UN database of companies that are complicit in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise. (More background info here.)

Flash Picket outside PUMA outlet near Vancouver.

For more solidarity photos from across Canada, check out CPA Facebook page

Activists in Calgary are giving Puma the Boot!

#BoycottPuma: Give Puma the Boot!

Join us on Oct. 27th to help launch our #BoycottPuma campaign! Take a photo of yourself or with a few friends holding a Boycott Puma sign. If there is a Puma outlet near you, consider doing a small action there and send us your photos and videos. Send your photos to cpavancouver@gmail.com (with the name of your city) by Oct. 25th or post them anytime on the FB event page. Lets give Puma the boot!

Cohosted by: BDS Vancouver-Coast Salish, Canada Palestine Association, Canadian BDS Coalition, Independent Jewish Voices Vancouver, IJV Vancouver Youth Bloc, Just Peace Advocates, Samidoun

Its wrong to legitimize supporters of Israeli militarism!

It pains Palestinian activists that even now, in 2020, we are forced to call out our allies on dealing with defenders of Israeli apartheid. Several organizations are having a webinar on October 15^th about the important subject of why the Canadian government is insisting on spending billions of dollars on buying new fighter jets. The initial event announcement showed several speakers including Paul Manly, MP and Leah Gazan, MP along with other prominent figures. Canada Palestine Association was shocked to discover on October 9 that the name of Randall Garrison, NDP MP on Vancouver Island, was added to the line-up.

Why is Randall Garrison being included on this panel? He has a well-documented history of anti-Palestinian behaviour and his statements on the fighter jets have been uninspiring at best. Simply because of his position as NDP defense critic? Why bestow a “progressive” cover to a politician that is openly supporting Israel’s aggressions against the Palestinian people?

For those not familiar with Garrison’s history on the Palestinian issue, a simple internet search will bring up a mountain of information. He is vice-chair of the Canada Israel Interparliamentary Group, he reposts articles and statements that denounce BDS and call it anti-Semitic, he retweets posts from the Israel Defense Forces, and he is probably considered the most pro-Israel of all of the sitting NDP MPs.

But lets look at Randall Garrison’s public statements on the issue of Canada purchasing new warplanes. He made an official statement over a year ago saying that whatever jet was chosen should be a Made-in-Canada option and have a priority on Arctic capabilities. There was no criticism of the idea of getting new jets, just that they should be made here and contribute to the Canadian economy. The same sentiment was repeated just last month in an interview in Canadian Defence Review, where he also rejected the need for defense spending cuts despite the pandemic.

Some reports have suggested that an alternative to the new warplanes could be armed drones, and one of the main competitors for Canada’s new drones is ‘Team Artemis’, a partnership between MAS, a subsidiary of L3Harris Technologies, and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). The actual drone would be a “Canadianized” version of the IAI Heron TP drone. And according to Canadian Defence Review, “the Artemis’ Heron TP platform is mission-proven. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has flown the Heron TP UAV for tens of thousands of hours since 2010 and it has been operated extensively under combat conditions.” To decode, that means it has been tested on Palestinians and Arabs, especially in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.

So perhaps that’s something Randall Garrison might favour – an Israeli drone, the production of which will be done in Canada and also meets criteria for operating in the Arctic. That would certainly check all the boxes for our pro-Israel NDP Defense Critic.

A discussion on why militarism is wrong cannot be conducted with a speaker that is himself an advocate of Canadian militarism, and cheering for Israeli militarism that regularly kills and wounds Palestinian civilians. A speaker that refused to sign a simple pledge against Israeli annexation. A speaker that helps chair a parliamentary group that “works alongside the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC) to host lobbying events on Parliament Hill.”

Canada Palestine Association tried unsuccessfully to convince the organizers of the event to not include Randall Garrison on their platform. We now call publicly on solidarity groups who have endorsed this event to withdraw their names as endorsers and reject any association with this legitimization of a supporter of Israeli apartheid.

It should not be incumbent upon the victims of Israeli colonial violence to always have to point out these glaring contradictions. Contradictions that should never occur in the first place by genuine progressives and internationalists. This is not a burden we should be expected to carry any longer.

Another version of this article appeared on Mondoweiss under the title: The glass ceiling for Palestinian rights

Sabra and Shatila massacre: a scar that won’t heal

There are certain profound events in a nation’s history that leave an indelible mark on all its people. The massacre in two Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Sabra and Shatila, on September 16, 1982 stands as one of those events.

Taking place during the course of the Lebanese civil war, Israeli forces shot flares into the night sky, lighting the way for far-right Lebanese militias to carryout the systematic killing of up to 3500 Palestinian and Lebanese men, women and children. The massacre lasted 48 hours.

Sabra and Shatila signalled the end of an era for the Palestinian resistance movement. An era that grew from the refugee camps in Lebanon and honored Palestinian refugees and their right of return; an era that did not question the value of armed struggle in national liberation; an era that nurtured some of the best of Palestinian cultural and political life; an era that restored Palestinian dignity after the harrowing years that followed the Nakba.

In 1982, the U.S. administration betrayed the written guarantees they had given to the PLO to protect Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps. An article by Palestinian academic Rashid Khalidi in 2017 titled “The United States was responsible for the 1982 massacre of Palestinians in Beirut” studied what guarantees were given by U.S. officials and what they knew at the time. Khalidi also noted in his conclusion that the “ill-considered and morally flawed decisions about the 1982 war that were made by American policy-makers” continue to this day, with the same dangerous repercussions.

Nonetheless, a decade later, the Palestinian leadership agreed to the Oslo Accords, which we now know did immense damage to the Palestinian struggle. Where would the Palestinians stand now if the Oslo Accords had never been ratified, if the First Intifada had continued, if the PLO still inspired unity and stood for all the concepts encompassed in its name?

In 2007, on the 25^th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacres, I wrote a commentary that was presented on the Voice of Palestine radio show in Vancouver. Sadly, its words still ring true; we are still waiting for justice, not only for the victims and survivors of Sabra and Shatila but for all Palestinians.

“It was September 1982. The summer had been brutal, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon being the issue we lived with, woke up to, and went to bed with. There was no internet, and our days were consumed with obtaining even the smallest slivers of news about the Palestinian and Lebanese casualties of the war, that numbered in the tens of thousands. We organized rallies, raised money for humanitarian aid, but none of it could erase or even reduce the emotional turmoil we constantly faced.

And then, as we all debated how and why the PLO forces left Beirut with supposed U.S. guarantees for the safety of civilians, we began to receive the flickering images on our TV screens of piled up and disfigured bodies from Sabra and Shatila. At first, the full horror of it was not immediately realized, and again, it took some time before all the details emerged. At least 3000 civilians (bodies were dumped in mass graves so figures are at best conservative) butchered and mutilated by Lebanese fascist forces with the full support of the occupying Israeli army in manners almost too gruesome to think about. And all of this with American guarantees for civilian safety.

We were like people in shock, numbly going ahead with plans for large protests but knowing at some deeper level, that the tragedy here would take a long time to process.

Many events happened in the aftermath but none brought the smallest amount of justice to the Sabra and Shatila victims. Ariel Sharon was found complicit even by Israeli institutions, but then returned as prime minister some years later. The victims tried to receive some modicum of accountability with their lawsuit in Belgian courts, which was then squashed by pressure from U.S. and other governments. Once again, the massacre of Palestinians was an inconvenient reality, and the memory of it even more inconvenient.”

Perhaps the new normalization/weapons agreements that have just been signed at the White House, one day before the Sabra and Shatila anniversary, will be looked back on by future analysts as marking the end of another era. The era of U.S. hegemony, destruction, and disregard for the lives and livelihood of the Palestinian and Arab peoples. And only then will the scars of the Sabra and Shatila massacre truly begin to heal.

by Marion Kawas
Pubished Sept. 17, 2020 in Mondoweiss

CBC Insists on Erasing Palestinian National Identity

The following letter was sent on September 10, 2020 to the CBC Ombudsman requesting an official review of CBC’s flawed explanation of its language guide on Palestine. The Ombudsman has already confirmed that the review will happen, noting the results will be made public on his website.

Dear Mr. Jack Nagler,
CBC Ombudsman

We have received the more detailed reply regarding CBC’s language guide on Palestine from Paul Hambleton, Director of Journalism Standards. We understand many people received a very similar response with identical points defending CBC’s insistence on not using the word “Palestine” except in very rare circumstances (i.e. part of a name). Even in that, CBC management could not adhere to its own policy when Mr. Hambleton referred to the Palestinian Liberation Organization rather than the Palestine Liberation Organization in his reply.

We are not satisfied with this response and are requesting the Ombudsman Office to launch a review of this case.
Frankly, the more CBC explains this biased policy the more convoluted their verbal gymnastics seem to become. They have now shed more light on the relevant clause that started the whole fiasco and led to The Current apologizing on air for referring to Palestine, rather than the Palestinian territories. The full clause has fastidious detailing of when not to use the word Palestine; one cannot refer even to pro-Palestine supporters, they can only be pro-Palestinian. And when referring to historic Palestine, one must use the term “British Palestine” if talking about the period of British colonial rule after WW1.

Even if one puts aside CBC’s argument on Palestine not yet being a “sovereign country”, why this obsession with removing any usage of the word Palestine in nearly all other contexts, including generic or historic ones? The “British Palestine” reference seems particularly ridiculous and archaic in post-colonial times.

Here are some documented historic facts:
a. In 1896, the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl wrote in his book “The Jewish State”: “In Palestine (our emphasis) … we shall be for Europe a part of the wall against Asia, we shall serve as a vanguard of civilization against barbarism.”
b. In 1897, the First Zionist Congress listed as some of the aims of the movement: “Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine (our emphasis) secured by public law. The congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:
The promotion on suitable lines of the colonization of Palestine (our emphasis) by Jewish agricultural and industrial workers…”
c. The British Balfour Declaration that adopted and legitimized Zionism stated: “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine (our emphasis) of a national home for the Jewish people…”
As demonstrated, Palestine existed and was referenced as such before and during the colonial British Mandate on Palestine, the official name of which explicitly recognized Palestine. For CBC to claim that it should now be referred to only as “British Palestine” is not just dishonest, misleading and a fabrication of history, it also adopts the narrative of the Zionist movement that denies the existence of Palestine and its people.

As CBC seems to fully understand that language is an important component of defining issues, we assume that they also understand that their policy makes them complicit in trying to eradicate Palestine’s national identity. This has long been a pillar of the Zionist project, which goes to great lengths to ensure that the Palestinian struggle is not framed as a national struggle against settler-colonialism.

Mr. Hambleton stated: “We think it would be misleading to state or imply that “Palestine” is a sovereign country (which is substantially different from having “non-member observer status” at the United Nations). We also think it would be inappropriate for the CBC to unilaterally declare that Palestine suddenly exists (where are its negotiated borders?)…”

We should inform CBC that Israel has never officially demarcated its “borders” (negotiated or non-negotiated), so by this logic, it is inappropriate for CBC to use the term Israel.

Although CBC does state the term “occupied territories” is preferred to “disputed territories”, most of their language guide nonetheless refuses to frame the Palestinian and Arab struggles as national ones against a foreign occupying power. The language guides also notes, after acknowledging that the Golan Heights is “occupied territory”, that this is territory “which Israel and Syria are at odds over”. “At odds over” – really? This is not the kind of precise language that Mr. Hambleton repeatedly insists CBC wants to use when reporting on these issues. The Golan Heights is not only occupied territory, it is also illegally annexed territory, and should not be represented as a “territorial squabble”.

In response to our question on how this language guide was developed, Mr. Hambleton stated that amongst other criteria, it was based “on research and interviews conducted by CBC foreign correspondents (including interviews with Israeli and Palestinian experts inside and outside the Middle East)”. He does not specify which “Palestinian experts” were interviewed or if they were even Palestinian. We would like him to clarify who these experts are because we seriously doubt any Palestinian or knowledgeable objective expert on Palestine and its history would have agreed to such restrictions on referencing the Palestinian national struggle.

It is interesting to compare CBC’s approach to language around Kosovo. Although each situation is unique, surely there are universal principles that should guide CBC’s policies. Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations in any capacity, it is recognized by fewer countries in the world than the state of Palestine, yet CBC is happy to use the proper term Kosovo in its reporting. The only difference we can see is that the Canadian government has officially recognized Kosovo, but not Palestine. Although CBC’s mandate states it has administrative and programming independence from the Canadian government, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Their website states: “This principle of ‘arm’s length’ relationship between the CBC and government is critical to the Corporation’s independence.” This “arm’s length relationship” doesn’t seem to have held up well. Shouldn’t we just acknowledge that our national broadcaster implements the foreign policy of successive Canadian governments in its reporting? A foreign policy that resulted in Canada twice losing out on a seat at the UN Security Council, a foreign policy that desperately is in need of a review, a foreign policy that has isolated Canada internationally. CBC could better serve people in Canada by discussing these issues rather than just simply reflecting the defunct foreign policy of the day.

Finally, we strongly believe that CBC is promoting the Zionist narrative, and the official Canadian position in support of that narrative; in doing so, this makes CBC complicit in the dispossession and genocide of a whole nation and its people. It is a sad and supreme irony that the program in which CBC enforced these biased policies and denied the existence of Palestine was titled “the themes of colonialism and resource extraction”.

Regards,
Hanna Kawas, Chair
Canada Palestine Association

Updated article in Canadian Dimension: CBC Doubles Down on Erasing Palestine