Canada Palestine Association

Why ignore the war on Palestine?

By Hanna Kawas

Why did the Vancouver Nov. 17, 2002 Coalition not want to link the war on the Palestinians with the war on Iraq in all of its publicity (amazingly, some of the publicity did not even mention Iraq)?

This decision to ignore the war on Palestine in its publicity was taken at an organizing committee meeting in October, and passed by a majority vote. Our staunch opposition to this position arises not from a narrow sectarian concern, but rather from a long-standing commitment to the aspirations of all the Arab people and the interests of the Canadian people. The record of Canada Palestine Association (CPA) stands for itself. Not only is support for the Iraqi people an integral part of what we do, we were also the first (and only) group in this city to demonstrate against Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s Ozirak reactor in 1981, and the first group to demonstrate against the impending U.S. war on Iraq in the fall of 1990.

Lets look at the situation today.

The US government has declared that its objectives for the attack on Iraq are:

To force Iraq to abide by UN Security Council resolutions.
To get rid of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq.
To have a regime change in Baghdad.

It is also well known that:

Israel, since its creation in 1948, is the country with the worst record of violating UN resolutions, the UN Charter and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel is the only country in the whole Middle East that possesses 400 nuclear warheads with the largest stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and the capability of delivering them.

Israel is also working for regime changes in Baghdad and Palestine, and for that matter with any regime that challenges US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

So why deny the anti-war movement the main arguments that expose US hypocrisy and double standards and demonstrate the TRUE cause of why the US is carrying on this war against Iraq, Palestine and the whole Arab nation: the control of the region and its natural resources, as part and parcel of the US drive for world hegemony? Why not expose Israel for what it really is: an advanced military base with the most sophisticated and deadly US weapons that serve Western interests in the region? Why push to marginalize the Palestinian struggle?

“Israel is the American watchdog in the Middle East, and that’s why the Palestinians remain victims of one of the longest military occupations… Israel is the representative of the United States in that part of the world.” John Pilger, The Progressive, November 2002

We are sure that the Nov. 17 coalition didn’t serve the Canadian public by denying and hiding the facts, and we are more than sure that the coalition did not serve the interests of the Arab people nor the Palestinian people. Palestine and Iraq are linked whether they recognized this fact or not, and whether they ignored it or not. When and if the US launches its attack on Iraq, the events that will unfold in the Arab world will make this insistence on separation between Iraq and Palestine look not only shortsighted, but also insensitive to the aspirations of people in the Middle East.

Here are a few facts to consider:

Israel is the architect of the 1990’s US policy of so-called “dual containment” against Iraq and Iran.
George Bush’s Zionist speechwriter David Frum was the architect of the “Axis of Evil” phrase.
Ariel Sharon stated, “‘Iraq is a great danger. It could be said it is the greatest danger’…but he added that ‘strategic coordination between Israel and the U.S. has reached unprecedented dimensions’.” (Haaretz, August 13, 2002) And on November 4, 2002, Sharon told George Bush in front of reporters. “We never had such a cooperation in everything as we have had with the current administration.” Washington Post 11/04/2002
“Israel is secretly playing a key role in U.S. preparations for possible war with Iraq, helping to train soldiers and Marines for urban warfare, conducting clandestine surveillance missions in the western Iraqi desert and allowing the United States to place combat supplies in Israel, according to U.S. Defense and intelligence officials.” USA TODAY, 11/03/2002

The US opposed any linkage between Iraq and Palestine in 1991 and now again in 2002. Was this new coalition supporting this US objective as did their predecessors in “End the Arms Race” in 1991?? We recognize the tactical value of broad-based coalitions; however, such coalitions become meaningless without clearly defined minimum principles. Although there are new and encouraging trends emerging, the Canadian labour, left and peace movements have regrettably in the past demonstrated a consistent and entrenched pattern of denying the legitimate rights of the Palestinian and other suffering peoples at crucial junctures. This needs to be examined in more depth than can be attempted in this statement but here are just a few examples.

The “End the Arms Race” demonstrations of the 1980s, led in succession by then mayors of Vancouver, first the Zionist Mike Harcourt, and then later by none other than Gordon Campbell, were billed as massive popular achievements at the time.

What did these demonstrations really achieve (certainly not the education of Gordon Campbell), aside from heralding the downfall of one of the few deterrent forces – the USSR- against US hegemony? And why, following that downfall, were they not followed up by the same massive demonstrations against the new sole mega-superpower, the US?

The traditional “anti-war” movement during the Gulf War in1991 supported the sanctions on Iraq, which makes it complicit with all the atrocities committed against the Iraqi people since then. Another shameful aspect of that movement was the racist attitude it practiced against Arab Canadians here, with its attempts to marginalize them from the 1991 anti-war events. Last year’s attempt by grassroots individuals and organizations to form Mobilization Against War and Racism (MAWAR) was aborted by the same “anti-war” forces who transformed the agenda, created contradictions and succeeded in marginalizing the pro-Palestinian support movement. Unfortunately, MAWAR was eventually destroyed.

For all the above reasons, CPA urges all progressive, anti-imperialist and genuine anti-war activists and trade unionists to take a stand and to not allow the same old defeatist and revisionist forces to hijack the progressive anti-war agenda.

In an interview with Newsweek on Sep. 10, 2002, Nelson Mandela stated: “But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white.” We call on all future coalitions, in the interest of world peace, to not be intimidated by the Zionist forces and to take a principled position against these double standards, as have the anti-war forces in most of the rest of the world. The huge anti-war protests all over the world on the second anniversary of the Palestinian intifada were an example of this principled unity.

To take a stand is the only way to defeat these useless rituals that serve only the status quo and do nothing to support the suffering people of Iraq and Palestine. We will not allow anybody to trample on or attempt to sabotage the true aspirations and interests of the Palestinian and Arab people.

History Will Be Our Witness

Boycott the Vancouver Sun and the National Post, letter to supporters of the Palestinian people

By Hanna Kawas. An appeal to the supporters of the Palestinian people to boycott the National Post and the Vancouver Sun for their biased reporting (see below), August 2001

Dear friends of the Palestinian people:

The National Post published on July 30, 2001 an editorial under the title “Anti-racism, in name only”. The Vancouver Sun on July 31, 2001 reprinted the same editorial as a “Guest Editorial” under the title “The West should shun conferences where the racism deck is stacked”. On August 1, 2001, the Vancouver Sun published an opinion piece by Gerald M. Steinberg under the title “Canada shouldn’t support condemnations of Israel”.

It is very clear the role the “National Post” plays across Canada as an apologist and a propagandist for Israel. It is also clear the role the Vancouver Sun plays regionally in support of Israeli atrocities against the Palestinian people.

It is about time that we take a stand in support of the Palestinian people’s struggle against Israeli occupation and racism. It is about time that we make these yellow rags pay for supporting Israeli war crimes, occupation and human rights violations.

It is about time to start a boycott campaign against these two papers that are very clearly unbalanced and are violating journalistic ethics.

Stop your subscriptions to the National Post and the Vancouver Sun. Stop advertising in both. Stop carrying them in your stores, work places, schools and your private businesses. Start an educational campaign in schools, universities, work places, community organizations and trade unions, to explain why we are boycotting these two papers and urge people to support us. Do not give these papers any legitimacy for their phony objectivity, until they change their biased editorial policy. Publicize this boycott with any available media and communication outlets.

Yours in struggle Hanna Kawas Host, Voice of Palestine. Chairperson, Canada Palestine Association. Vancouver, Canada

National Post, July 30, 2001 Anti-racism, in name only

Organizers of a major United Nations conference that will begin in Durban, South Africa next month do not have to look far to find examples of the “racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” that is the purported subject of the meeting. In Zimbabwe, just across the border, President Robert Mugabe is encouraging his thugs to prosecute a race war against white farmers. Further north, in Rwanda, Burundi and Congo, tribal hatred between the Hutu and Tutsi has led, directly or indirectly, to the death of at least three-million people in the past seven years. In Sudan, Khartoum’s Islamic government sponsors a savage campaign of bombardment and chattel enslavement against Christians and animists. Racism and intolerance are rampant in other parts of the world as well: Macedonia is embroiled in ethnic conflict between its slavs and ethnic Albanians. In obscure corners of Indonesia, groups of Christians, Muslims, ethnic Malays and indigenous headhunters butcher oneanother with spears and knives. And then there is Iran and the Arab Middle East, where homophobia and poisonous anti-Semitism are preached as de facto state religions. In Syria, articles that have appeared in the official Syria media describe the Holocaust as a “myth.” The country’s defence minister is the author of a book promoting the theory that Jews kill Gentiles and consume their blood. Bashar al- Assad, Syria’s President, recently delivered a speech on the occasion of Pope John Paul

II’s visit to his country declaring that Jews “try to kill all the principles of divine faiths with the same mentality of betraying Jesus Christ and torturing Him.”

Given all these clear examples of virulent hate and intolerance, what do many nations want to talk about when the Durban conference convenes on Aug. 31? Israel, naturally. Delegates at a UN- sponsored regional preparatory meeting in Tehran earlier this year singled out the democracy as a paragon of hate, accusing it of “a new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity [and] a form of genocide.” (Naturally, the numerous instances of human rights abuses and discrimination that are standard fare in Islamic theocracies and totalitarian police states went unmentioned.) And what most concerns African nations? Not Sudan nor Mauritania, apparently, where chattel slavery is still practised, but the West, most of which abolished slavery more than a century ago. At a separate official preparatory meeting held in Addis Ababa last year, a group of African experts concluded the Durban conference should address “measures for reparation, restoration and compensation for nations, groups and individuals affected by slavery and the slave trade, colonialism, and economic and political exclusion.” They want cash, in other words — presumably in addition to the billions Western nations already spend in the form of aid. Oh, and just in case anyone reading the document is suffering under the delusion that Mr. Mugabe and his thugs are also guilty of racism, the authors tell us “the legitimate claims of Africans concerning land of which they had been deprived as the result of colonization and racist policies, as in the case of Zimbabwe, should not be confused and interpreted as manifestations of racism.” Thanks for the clarification.

In the past six months, U.S. President George W. Bush has gained our admiration for, among other things, his view that the United States should not go along with superficially noble but substantially flawed multilateral exercises simply for the sake of show. His administration’s position on the Durban anti-racism conference agenda, the final version of which is now being debated in Geneva, is consistent with this position. “The conference should not equate Zionism with racism or take up the reparations matter. And if they do, the United States will not go,” said a spokesman for Mr. Bush on Friday. “How can you say this is a conference to combat racism if it borders on anti-Semitism?”

Canada and European nations have resisted the temptation to criticize Mr. Bush’s “unilateralist” approach on this issue, and some leaders have actually expressed support for the U.S. position. They are right to do so. Many of the Arab and Third World attendees at the Durban conference will be more interested in bashing Israel and ancient colonialists than in pursuing substantive measures aimed at redressing real examples of modern racism. If spurious issues appear on the conference agenda, Western nations should not dignify the event with their representation.

Vancouver Sun Last Updated: Wednesday 1 August 2001 Opinion Gerald M. Steinberg: Canada shouldn’t support condemnations of Israel

In theory and from a safe distance, the dispatch of international peacekeeping forces and observers in war zones appears to be a very noble and humanitarian act. A neutral police force, standing between two nations that are armed to teeth and intent on destroying each other, has a strong appeal, particularly to Canadian sensibilities. Conflicts, however bitter and full of hatred, should be settled peacefully, through negotiations or the unbiased decisions of the United Nations.

However, on closer inspection, the experience in various parts of the world, and the Middle East, in particular, is far from positive. In most cases, instead of bringing peace and an end to murder and terrorism, and serving the cause of justice, the deployment of United Nations and international forces is counterproductive. It provides the hope, and the illusion, of peace, but ends up being a bitter disappointment, and often contributes to the carnage and injustice.

Indeed, for many cynical perpetrators and terrorists in the Third World, the gap between the hopeful theory and the bitter reality is precisely the reason for inviting United Nations peacekeepers. Behind the thin veneer of internationalism and the false rhetoric of human rights, the UN is a cynical and very political institution, whose actions often reflect the interests of the body’s majority of undemocratic and often totalitarian states. On the ground, UN peacekeepers have failed miserably, becoming part of the problem rather than the solution.

When considering the issue of international peacekeepers in the Middle East, these factors cannot be ignored. Last year, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat opted to reject the compromise peace plans presented by Israel and President Clinton, and instead chose the path of terrorism and violence. One of his main goals was precisely to create a situation in which an international “peacekeeping” or “observer” force would be dispatched to the region.

Watching the ritual UN votes of condemnation against Israel, and its failures in Bosnia, Lebanon, and other “hotspots,” Arafat knows that a UN or European force would be biased politically against Israel. He also understands that such a force would be a one-way filter, allowing Palestinian terrorism to continue, while shining the spotlight on Israeli military responses.

In addition, and crucial to Arafat’s scenario, a sympathetic international “presence” would force Israel to cede territory to the Palestinians, while avoiding the need to recognize and negotiate a peace treaty directly with the Jewish State. For precisely these reasons, Israelis are adamantly opposed to such a force.

For Israel, the evidence of the failure of internationalization is very fresh and painful. Despite over 50 years of UN failures, beginning with the dysfunctional armistice commission established after the 1948 war, Israel agreed to try again in Lebanon. This conflict began in the 1970s, after the PLO started to use Southern Lebanon as a terrorist base, and continued for many years. In May 2000, Israel withdrew its forces from the security zone, in precise accordance with UN Resolution 425, and with the promise of a serious international effort to prevent the return of cross-border terrorist attacks.

However, the UN failed to deploy along the border and did not disarm the radical Hezbollah terrorists; attacks against Israel continue, leading to Israeli responses. But instead of providing security and helping to alleviate the conflict, the UN forces in the area are accused of assisting the terrorists.

Last October, three young Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah and — in blatant violation of all basic humanitarian values — their abductors have refused to provide any information on their condition. Their families do not even know if they are alive or dead. The terrorists passed close to the UN positions, but instead of stopping them, the international police took out their cameras and made a videotape of the kidnapping. This tape and other evidence was then kept secret for many months, and now the UN, stands accused of hiding, or perhaps aiding and abetting this crime.

In addition, with the active support of Iran and Syria (a prospective new member of the UN Security

Council!) the Hezbollah terrorists have deployed huge arsenals of rockets along the border with Israel. If war breaks out in this area, the UN and its members, including Canada, will share moral responsibility.

Another tragic but telling example is provided by the European Union, which dispatched observers to the area of Bethlehem to monitor the “ceasefire” declared in June. This small group was located in an area controlled by the Palestinian Authority and used by gunmen, who commandeered homes and opened

fire on the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. The presence of observers succeeded in preventing the return of the gunmen and the area was quiet, but a few kilometres away, out of the range of the EU team, a group of terrorists was quietly preparing explosives for use by suicide bombers.

The terrorists chose this location precisely because it was close to the location of the observer force, and thus deemed to be protected from Israeli attacks. When one of the bombs detonated prematurely in a field near a Jerusalem stadium, the location and details of the bomb-making factory were revealed, and the Israeli army struck the cell’s leaders. As part of the ritual of one-sided political condemnation, Israel was criticized for its response and for protecting the lives of its citizens, but the EU’s failure to uncover and prevent the terrorist activity was totally ignored.

These failures are not unique to the Middle East, and other tragic examples can be found from Bosnia (including the terrible Srebrenica massacre, which took place under the noses of the UN forces from Holland in 1995), to Rwanda and Somalia.

The bottom line is that in international peacekeeping and similar activities, good intentions are not only inadequate, but are easily exploited and often contribute to murder and warfare. If Canada and other countries in the forefront of human rights and international law are serious, policy makers have to understand the full consequences of their actions, and prevent inhumane abuses. Blind and automatic support for these activities, based on wishful thinking and simplistic humanitarianism, is

unacceptable. Before leading the charge for intervention against Israel, Canada’s leaders should first take a more even-handed stance, and not vote for one-sided UN Security Council condemnations of Israel, and they should also invest the time and energy required to end the political and ideological abuses of the UN and its institutions.

Professor Gerald Steinberg, director of the Conflict Management and Negotiation Program at Bar-Ilan University, is an academic fellow of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, based in Montreal.

I am Proud to be a Palestinian

By Hanna Kawas. An open letter sent by Hanna Kawas to Canada’s Foreign Minister John Manley.

Dear Mr. Manley,

On Jan. 18/ 2001, Agence France Presse(AFP) reported that Palestinian demonstrators in Balata refugee camp near Nablus denounced Canada and Australia for their offer to RESETTLE the Palestinian refugees, and that they burned an effigy of you during this protest. Perhaps this surprised you. Why is there such a strong feeling on the part of the Palestinian refugees, considering that they have lived in miserable conditions under the mercy of UNRWA handouts for the past 52 years, and under continuous Israeli bombing and siege for the past four months? Why would they reject the “good life” in Canada and Australia? As a Palestinian-Canadian, and a Palestinian refugee from the city of Bethlehem, allow me to offer an explanation.

Canada is directly and morally responsible for the dispossession of the Palestinian people

Briefly, here are a few examples of the historical complicity of the Canadian government in the continuing dispossession of the Palestinians.

The Canadian Balfour and the U.N. Partition Plan to create Israel: ” Mr. Justice Ivan Rand… played a central role in formulating the recommendations of its majority report (for the U.N. Partition Plan) … with Mr. (Lester) Pearson (then the under-secretary of state for External Affairs) playing an active role in securing its passage. … Zionists were so grateful to Canada and to Mr. Pearson for the part he played in the whole process that they called him ‘the Balfour of Canada’.” (Report of the Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs published June 1985, page 49.)
Canadian volunteers and equipment to dispossess the Palestinian people: “The (Canadian) government was reluctant to draw attention to this matter (the Zionist volunteers) and refused to invoke the Foreign Enlistment Act (a law passed to discourage Canadians from fighting fascism during the Spanish Civil War) … More than 300 Canadians eventually joined the Israeli forces while tons of military equipment, from Harvard training aircraft to radio sets, were smuggled out of Canadian ports. The recruiting of volunteers and the smuggling of arms were done with the active knowledge and assistance of leaders of the United Zionist Council…” (Canada and the birth of Israel, David J. Bercuson, page191.) Not one of the culprits who broke the Canadian law and the U.N. embargo were brought to justice, although they brag about it every year when they celebrate the founding of the Zionist State of Israel.
On May 11/1949, Canada co-sponsored the U.N. General Assembly resolution 273(111) to admit Israel as a state to the U.N. That resolution stated: ” Recalling its resolution of 29 November 1947 (the Partition Plan) and 11 December 1948 (the Right of Return), and taking note of the declaration and explanation made by the representative of the government of Israel before the ad hoc Political committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions {my emphasis}, the General Assembly … decides to admit Israel into the membership of the United Nations.”

Justice Delayed, Justice Denied

During the past 52 years, since the adoption of U.N. Resolution 194(111) of Dec. 11, 1948 recognizing the Palestinian right of return, the Western World – including Canada – has been encouraging, supporting and protecting Israel in its violations of international law and U.N. resolutions. Your latest statements to the “Toronto Star” on Jan. 10, 2001 (although not posted on your ministry’s web site) are part of this longstanding biased position in favor of Israel and against the legitimate aspirations of the dispossessed Palestinian people. You are attempting with this ‘trial balloon’ on behalf of Israel and the U.S. to not only circumvent U.N. resolutions, but also to split the Palestinian people and their consensus on the right of return and on ending Israeli occupation. The U.N. resolutions Canada introduced and claimed to support during the process of creating Israel should be binding on all Canadian governments; without taking practical steps to implement them, sweet-talk alone does not absolve you from your direct and moral responsibility for the suffering of the Palestinian people.

In the “Toronto Star” article, you refer to our right of return as “that dream” and then state that you “are prepared to receive refugees” and “are prepared to contribute to an international fund to assist with resettlement…”

It seems very clear that you are offering your services not out of concern for the plight and suffering of the Palestinian refugees, but to save Israel from its obligations regarding U.N. resolutions. Was the purpose of these resolutions to create facts on the ground in Israel’s favor and then to call the parts relating to the Palestinians a “dream”?

Almost every Palestinian in this country knows how you have treated us since the creation of the state of Israel. We have been and continue to be treated as “terrorists” and “criminals” by different Canadian departments including Immigration and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), and NOT as victims of the most atrocious crime committed against a whole nation. If you are indeed trying to introduce a new humane Canadian policy towards the Palestinian people, may we suggest that you treat us the same way you treat Israeli citizens and allow us to enter Canada as visitors without a visa. Or may be you should offer the Israelis what you are offering us: resettlement in Canada if they renounce their “Law of Return”.

End Israeli Occupation

I read your letter of January 12, 2001, to Mr. Nabil Ayyad, the president of the “Canadian Palestinian Centre”. It is also not posted on your ministry’s web site. If the letter is authentic, I think that CIDA’s donations of $330,000 for Palestinian humanitarian institutions are commendable. Any donation is appreciated, but I am sure you realize that this meager amount will not change the total picture of suffering. One victim of a car accident here in Canada could get more compensation than what you sent. Recent estimates put the injured by Israeli Occupation Forces(IOF) at 16,000 since the start of the Al Aqsa intifada on September 28, 2000, in addition to the estimated 350 Palestinians murdered by the IOF. The only way to stop this carnage is to force Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands, dare we suggest the same way you and your western allies forced Iraq out of Kuwait, without waiting for 52 years of U.N. resolutions and “peace talks”.

In your letter to Mr. Ayyad, you affirmed Canada’s support for Resolution 194. If that is truly so, why are you calling the right of return a “dream”? Why are you offering to “resettle” the Palestinian refugees? Why are you still protecting Israel by extending diplomatic, economic and political support, while leaving the Palestinians under the mercy of a brutal military machine? By abstaining on the
recent U.N. Security Draft Resolution (Dec.18/2000) to send International Forces to protect the Palestinian people, you carry a direct responsibility for the failure of that resolution and accordingly for the current bloodbath the Palestinian people are enduring.

Birthright Denied

In my own personal experience, Canada has denied me my birthright. As if it was not enough that Israel dispossessed me, my family and my people, Canada has to take the side of my oppressor and deny even the existence of my country, Palestine. When I applied for my 3rd Canadian passport on June 9/ 1997, the Passport Office in Surrey, the CEO of the Passport office in Ottawa, Mr. M.J. Hutton, and your predecessor Mr. Axworthy all refused to acknowledge the fact that I was born in Palestine, and that Palestine is my country of birth. They refused to put this on my latest Canadian passport, even though the other two Canadian passports I was previously issued showed PALESTINE as my birthplace. (For more detail on the subject, see ‘Birthright Denied‘ published by the Canada Palestine Association, June 1999.) The above incident is not an isolated one. It is a part of pro-Israel policies adopted by successive Canadian governments that aim at liquidating the national character of the Palestinian people.

Hypocrisy and Double Standards

As a proud Palestinian, I don’t appreciate you calling my people’s struggle against the Israeli Occupation Forces “acts of terror”. I do not appreciate you equating the legitimate resistance of my dispossessed people with the violence of a brutal occupier and oppressor.

Why this hypocrisy and the double standards? You never referred to the French resistance against Nazi occupation as “acts of terror”, and more recently, you did not label the Kuwaiti, East European, Afghani, Bosnian or Kosovar resistance as “terrorist”. Are we Palestinians less human, to the point that international law and human rights standards do not apply to us?

Finally, when you accepted the Kosovars, the Indochinese and other refugees you did not put a condition on them to renounce their right of return to their respective homelands. Why demand that only from the Palestinian people, or else their chance to come to Canada is in jeopardy? In your interview with the “Toronto Star”, you said, “Palestinians are not going to cease to exist either. They are going to need a place to live.” While it is true that we refuse to disappear, the only place we need and want to live in is Palestine, no matter what the western powers’ schemes might be for the Middle East and its peoples.

Thank you for your attention

Yours truly Hanna Kawas
Chairperson, Canada Palestine Association, Vancouver
Host, Voice of Palestine, Vancouver

Do Not Fail the Palestinian People

An appeal from the Canada Palestine Association to all members of the Arab and Moslem communities

Since we distributed our position paper on Nov. 14, 2000 to the Arab and Moslem organizations, all we have received from these groups is silence or a whole range of excuses. For example, why we should not support the NDP because they are not “ an effective voice.” Why we should give the Liberals another chance, and see how they behave after the elections. Why we should vote for individual candidates who “support our causes” even if they are members of a party that is condoning Israeli slaughter against our people. And the most precious excuse: how we should “unequivocally and vigorously reject” voting and determining the political outcome on a ”single issue”!!

It seems to us that the leadership of the Arab and Moslem communities in Canada and North America in general are not much different than the existing leadership in the Arab and Moslem World. They are both failing the Palestinian people and they are not deceiving anybody except themselves and their cronies.

This is why we are directing our call to you, the individual members. We call on you to vote with your conscience. In fact, most Canadians vote on the most important “single issue” to them, whatever that may be. We certainly know what is the most important “single issue” to the Zionist organizations. We urge you to read the attached “Position Paper: Vote for Justice, Vote for Palestine” carefully and make an informed decision. We also urge you to make a commitment to not be influenced by personal or material gains. Our brothers and sisters in Palestine are scarifying with the ultimate, their lives and the lives of their loved ones so as to achieve freedom.

In the last week, many analysts in the media are recognizing the possibility of a minority government. If this does happen and the NDP forms a coalition government with the Liberals, then we have achieved our immediate objective. It is defeatist to argue that because we are not well financed and well organized, we should skip election after election without having any impact on the political process.

On Oct. 20, 2000, the Vancouver Zionist paper, the “Jewish Western Bulletin” wrote in its editorial: “ Moreover, if there is ever a genuine threat to Israel’s existence, the full force of Diaspora Jewry will come to its aid. The Palestinian partisans cannot even come close to making such claims.”

LET US PROVE THEM WRONG!!

Hanna Kawas,
Chairperson, Canada Palestine Association

Position Paper on Canadian Elections 2000

VOTE FOR JUSTICE
VOTE FOR PALESTINE

We, in the Canada Palestine Association, call on all Palestinian and Arab-Canadians, Moslem and Arab Christian-Canadians, and all our supporters, to cast a vote for justice for the Palestinian people by voting for the New Democratic Party (NDP) in the next federal election. The NDP is the only party that is supporting the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. At the same time we will be casting a protest vote against the Liberal and Alliance Parties, who are unconditionally supporting Israeli occupation and aggression against the Arab people. The Liberal Party (the party currently in power)

This party is responsible for the biased Canadian position in favor of Israel ever since the UN Partition Plan was passed in 1947. The main objective of the Partition Plan was the creation of the “Jewish state”. Lester Pearson, “the Balfour of Canada” (as the Zionists called him), played “ an active role in securing its passage”, according to a Canadian Senate report.

“Canada’s Position on Key Issues”, which was issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on Dec. 1996, is clearly pro-Israel and unconditionally concerned only with “the security, well-being and rights of Israel as a legitimate, independent state”. When it comes to the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, including their rights to self-determination, the right to statehood, their right to return and their right for freedom from occupation, these are conditional on the acceptance of Israel to any of these rights. It gives Israel a VETO power on these internationally recognized rights. Since Canada voted with UN Security Council 1322, the well financed and organized Zionist organizations have crudely threatened and blackmailed the Canadian government into maintaining a policy of serving Israeli interests and not the Canadian peoples’ interests. Already, Canada has voted against a UN Human Rights Commission resolution denouncing Israeli actions as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Canada also abstained from a UN General Assembly motion denouncing Israel for using excessive force, and abstained on a UN Third Committee motion, which reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and called for this right to not be subject to any veto. All these motions were passed overwhelmingly.

The Canadian Prime Minister met with the Zionist organizations on October 17, 2000 and gave them a “direct link right to the Prime Minister’s Office”, according to the “Canadian Jewish News”(CJN, Oct. 26, 2000). The national chair of the Canada-Israel Committee, Mr. Joseph Wilder, commented on this direct link as a “’most unusual’ but also ‘a major step’ that could help avert problems in the future.” The CJN reported the PM as telling the Zionist delegation “I want to help you”, adding that he will review Canadian aid to UNRWA “to ensure funds are being used as intended”. The PM’s implication of financial blackmail to the Palestinian PEOPLE was quite clear.

The PM on Nov.2, 2000, issued a statement following the car-bombing in Jerusalem, stating “All Canadians join me in expressing our revulsion at the cowardly and vicious act of terror perpetuated today in (J)erusalem.” However, the Prime Minister did not express his revulsion, in the name of ALL Canadians, at the indiscriminate use of Israeli tanks and helicopter gun ships against centers of civilian population. He did not express his revulsion at Israel for carrying out the most cowardly acts against Palestinian children including killing, torture and ill-treatment (see Amnesty International, Nov.10, 2000, “Mass Arrests and Police Brutality”). We did not see his indignation at the indiscriminate acts of terror perpetuated on a regular basis by the illegal Jewish settlers who live on stolen Palestinian lands in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. We did not see his revulsion at Israeli troops killing and injuring medical personnel, hindering them from carrying out their humanitarian work, and shooting at and destroying many of their ambulances. We did not see him condemn the Israeli death squads. We did not see his revulsion at 33 years of brutal Israeli occupation of Arab lands. Does the PM really think that Jewish Israeli life is worth more than Arab Israeli and Palestinian life? For the PM to be credible and balanced, he should not have such double standards.

In a letter to the Canadian Zionist leaders dated Nov.3, and released by the PM’s office on Nov.6, the Prime Minister and tells them; ”We regret that Canada’s vote on UN Security Council Resolution 1322 has added to (your) distress and frustration”, and adds “Our commitment to Israel is longstanding and will remain a pillar of Canada’s policy in the Middle East.” Then he states how “Canada has opposed what we felt to be a grossly unbalanced resolution (#S-5/1) at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. And we would not support a recent UN General Assembly Resolution (#A/ES-10/L.6) because it represented an unhelpful initiative in our collective efforts to move away from violence (sic) and back toward negotiations. ”The prime minister, in this same letter, also endorses old, tired Zionist myths, and goes on at great length as to how the Canadian government understands the “frustration expressed that the unprecedented risks taken and courageous compromises (sic) offered by the Israeli government in pursuit of peace have not been reciprocated.” Does the PM and his government want the Palestinian people to compromise further on the scant 22% (the West Bank and Gaza) of historic Palestine that they have already agreed to, which also is just 50% of what the Partition Plan gave the Palestinian state in 1947? This is the optimum in absurdity!!! Again in this same letter, he shows his government and his party’s true faces when they “express deep and understandable concern about the impact of the renewed bloodshed on the security of Israel.” Notice the only concern here is for Israel. As if it is the Palestinians who are occupying Israel, as if the Palestinians are putting Israeli towns and communities under siege, and as if it is the Palestinians who are building illegal settlements, confiscating properties and demolishing houses.

The Liberal party’s response to our recent election questionnaire was patronizing and an insult to our intelligence. It did not answer any of our questions directly except for question # 7 relating to the sanctions on Iraq. They stated, “our government believes that sanctions must be targeted to impair operations of the offender while avoiding negative humanitarian impacts. Improving the effectiveness of sanctions was an integral part of our agenda during Canada’s Presidency of the United Nations Security Council in April 2000.” The Liberal Party is still defending these genocidal sanctions against the people of Iraq, they not only want to maintain these sanctions, they want to “improve” their effectiveness and “impair” the civil society in Iraq. They are callously disregarding the “humanitarian impact” of these sanctions on the Iraqi people, which have resulted in the mass genocide of one and a half million Iraqis, half of those children.
The Canadian Alliance (the official opposition)

The Canadian Alliance issued a press release on Oct. 9, 2000, which criticized the Canadian government for voting with UN Security Council Resolution 1322. “I am disappointed that the Chretien government appears to be openly taking sides in this crisis by passing Resolution 1322,” said Mr. Stockwell Day, the opposition leader. “The resolution is clearly slanted with an anti-Israel bias” he added, and then concluded, “Israelis and Palestinians (sic) need to trust Security Council members like Canada to fairly assess the situation in the Middle East. By supporting resolution 1322 Canada risks eroding that trust”. It is clear to us that the only “fair assessment” Mr. Day is concerned with is one slanted with a pro-Israeli bias. In the same release, the Opposition Foreign Affairs critic Monte Solberg stated “the resolution itself is unfair in referring to the holy site in question only as Al-Haram Al Sharif, as it is known by Muslims and not also as the Temple Mount, as it is known by Jews. The Canadian government has made a grave error in supporting this unjust resolution.” Why should Mr. Solberg care about the name of “the holy site in question”? And is it “in question”? For Mr. Solberg’s information, Al-Haram Al Sharif is in occupied territory, part of east Jerusalem which was occupied in 1967 and covered by UN Security Council Resolution 242.

According to the Oct.26/00 report by the Canadian Jewish News, a meeting between Canadian Zionist leaders and Stockwell Day “was a pretty straightforward, simple meeting where he expressed support and we thanked him for it on behalf of the Jewish community”. Mr. Wilder (Canada Israel Cmte.) said Day “announced firmly right off the bat that he was not in favor of any votes contrary to Israel. He was critical of the government for its vote. He made a point of saying that he stands with Israel on a matter of principle, not a matter of politics, and that his support is steadfast and constant.” This quote is quite clear and we will leave the principles and the politics of Mr. Day to your judgment.

MORE ROYAL THAN THE KING!!

These two parties have proven beyond any doubt that they are more loyal to Israel than former Israeli prime ministers, let alone the Israeli peace camp. They are even competing to be more loyal than Canadian Zionists. For example, on Nov.9, 2000, the Israeli paper Ma’ariv reported that former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres (now Israeli Regional Cooperation Minister) “was angered that the IDF continued to shoot in the territories and mainly over Israel’s decision to surround Palestinian villages.” He told Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami at a security cabinet meeting; “Why do you continue the use of sieges? Why can’t we have even one day without funerals?”

It is also interesting to note Ben-Ami’s response: “We must have red lines. A forgiving attitude will bring us back to the ’67 borders.” And on Nov. 10, 2000, the Zionist paper, the “Western Jewish Bulletin” in its editorial “Israel needs a new cast” stated, “Israel is losing the war of words yet again. Since the start of the current troubles, bundles of Israeli spokespersons, speakers and advisors have been taking turns at making jumbled statements on Israel’s striving to live securely. Yet, Israel’s information campaign is getting more confused and confusing.” It seems to us that the only ones who are not confused are Mr. Chretien and Mr. Day. The editorial went on to say, “… Israel’s various speakers appear at times as grim white men – mostly security types and power lawyers – mumbling monotonic vague statements that often sound like orders being issued.” It concluded, “In this propaganda war, Israel cannot compete with the Palestinians for the role of the underdog.”

Nonetheless, the leaders of the two major Canadian parties are trying very hard to show Israel as the underdog. They are making a mockery of our electoral system by competing shamelessly to win Zionist campaign financing and votes.

WHY ARE THE TWO MAJOR CANADIAN PARTIES COMPETING IN THEIR BLIND SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL?

Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and an Israeli human rights activist, summed it up this way in his recent book “Open Secrets”, published by Pluto Press in 1997. “Curiously Canada represents a case where influence of its organized Jewish community upon the country’s politics is even more palpable than in the U.S. The effect is that, although Canada’s interests in the Middle East are quite secondary, its dedication to Israel surpasses even that of the U.S.”

Should Canadians at large allow the dictates of a small but influential minority, to shape Canadian foreign policy in a way that is detrimental to the strategic interests of the Canadian people? Should we allow our government to support aggression, occupation and human rights abuses? Should we allow politicians to sell themselves to the highest bidder? Is this democratic, principled, honest or decent?

WHY SHOULD WE VOTE NDP?

Since the start of the Intifadah, the NDP, represented by Svend Robinson, their foreign affairs spokesperson, courageously criticized both Israeli brutality and Canadian government complicity with Israel.

Two days before UN Security Council Resolution 1322 was passed, Mr. Robinson issued a statement on Oct.5, 2000, condemning the weak response of the Canadian government: “Canada must condemn the excessive use of force by Israeli security forces. The government should also join calls for an international investigation into events leading up to and following Sharon’s irresponsible provocation.” He concluded by saying, “ Prime Minister Jean Chretien has been appallingly silent. He must speak out to condemn this violence and urge the Israeli government to respond to Palestinians concerns about the status of Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.”
On Oct.13, 2000, Mr. Robinson demanded, as the NDP International Affairs spokesperson, that an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be held with Minister Lloyd Axworthy regarding the escalating crisis in the Middle East. He stated in his letter to the committee’s chair Bill Graham, “I commend the decision of our government to support UN Resolution 1322 in the Council. I believe that Canada should be urging immediate United Nations involvement in the Occupied territories, to help put an end to the violence and bloodshed which has plagued innocent victims, both Israelis and, in much larger numbers, Palestinians. We should also be supporting the call by Amnesty International and others for an independent international inquiry into the recent events which have led to the loss of life.”

On Oct. 18, 2000, in the debates of the House of Commons, Mr. Robinson asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs a very specific question, “… can the minister explain to the house why Canada shamefully abstained on the vote to call a special session of the UN commission on human rights into the situation in the Middle East?” Mr. Axworthy replied by giving an irrelevant preamble and then said “I spoke yesterday to Syrian and Lebanese representatives to talk about the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers and to see if we could have some return in those areas. We met with the Israeli envoy today to talk particularly about how we can assist as Canadians in trying to restore peace. This is the important thing.” Mr. Axworthy has sent the message that the only thing that is important to him and his government is freeing Israeli soldiers, not Palestinian lives nor Palestinian human rights.

In response to our election questionnaire, Mr. Robinson stated; “Briefly, let me say how moved I was by Dr. Gabor Mate’s piece in the Globe and Mail at the beginning of this month. As he so eloquently writes, there can be no true, lasting peace without justice. I believe that peace must encompass both a Palestinian State and the State of Israel, living in mutual security. Israel must withdraw from the territory illegally occupied since 1967, as the UN has noted on countless occasions. Jerusalem is sacred to both nations, and I believe that this must be represented in any final peace settlement. I despair for the future of the region if Ariel Sharon, the author of Sabra and Shatilla, is invited to play a significant role in the Israeli government. We have long supported the right of return as well. Finally, I support Resolution 1322, and believe that an international presence in the occupied territories, and a full independent inquiry into the recent deaths, are both urgently needed. You know our position on the immoral sanctions on Iraq…they should be immediately lifted.”
Svend Robinson visited Iraq in January this year, and exposed the horrific impact of sanctions on the Iraqi people. He called them genocidal, and also successfully lobbied the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs to recommend to the government to withdraw from the sanctions regime, a recommendation that was obviously ignored.

It is also timely to recognize the tireless and principled efforts of solidarity by Libby Davis, NDP MP from East Vancouver, on behalf of the Palestinian people. She chaired the International Day of Solidarity meeting with the Palestinian people in Vancouver last year, and in fact has been a long- standing supporter ever since she was a Vancouver City Councilor. Among many other solidarity gestures, she condemned Israeli aggression on Lebanon in 1982, and chaired a meeting for Dr. Fathi Arafat when he visited Vancouver in the late 1980s.

A PRINCIPLED VOTE — A PROTEST VOTE

Supporting the NDP in the next election is a principled choice in all of the Canadian provinces. Some Arab voices have called for a protest vote in Quebec by supporting the Bloc Quebecois, and the community there should decide on the best possible strategy. However, we should not waste our votes on individual Liberal or Alliance candidates, even if they support us. A vote for these candidates is a vote for their party and a vote of confidence in their leaders. We must make our voices heard. Let us send the Liberal and the Alliance parties a protest message at the ballot box. LET US VOTE AGAINST THE TWO MAIN PARTIES AND DENY THEM A MAJORITY GOVERNMENT. We should not vote for a lesser evil as some apologists are spouting; a vote for a lesser evil is a vote for evil nonetheless. We are not as well financed as the Zionists, or as organized. Still, we can count on the support of the decent majority of the Canadian people, who eventually, once they are aware of our just cause, will stop this infamy. We must be united in our actions and responses. Let us be principled and not fall into the political patronage quagmire. Let us be true to our beliefs and to what we know is right.