honeybadgerpress.ca

Unpublished Articles: 2013-2026

Zionist Extremists at Canada’s National Gallery – Passing the Hat for Israeli Ethno-supremacy

14 May, 2013

Canada’s National Gallery recently hosted the annual Negev Dinner to raise money for the expansion and more extreme form of Zionism; perhaps the irony of its “limited seating availability” message was lost on prospective guests. I refer to the Jewish National Fund’s 107-year-old policy of accumulating land in Israel and limiting its occupation to Jewish Israelis even if the land had originally been owned by dispossessed Palestinians. I somehow doubt if the Gallery’s management would be willing to officially host a similar fund-raising dinner to help displaced Palestinians retrieve some of their stolen farms and olive groves.

Beyond that fact is another irony; the idea that the dinner’s declared purpose is to “support research and development stations in the Negev desert.” Since the Negev is the site of Israel’s ultra-secret Dimona nuclear research facility is it reasonable to suggest that the publicly-subsidized National Gallery may be supporting the expansion of Israel’s nuclear arsenal while Israel hypocritically opposes Iran’s alleged attempts to develop atomic weapons.

The November 20, 2012 dinner also honored John Baird, Canada’s foreign minister and vociferous supporter of all things Israeli. On his last visit to Israel, this gentile politician was accompanied by a Rabbi as he alternately glad-handed Israeli luminaries and issued stern lectures to the Palestinians who had recently dared to take their territorial grievances to the United Nations rather than dealing directly with their powerful Israeli opponents. The strangeness of a Canadian politician being accompanied by a religious official on a state visit seems to have been lost on most Canadians.

A friend once remarked that I used the term Zionism as a default pejorative. I replied that he was correct and explained that while the form extreme form of expansionist Zionism has been a major success for the world’s Jews; it has been a total disaster for the Palestinian inhabitants of Israel and its occupied territories. That being said, a home for the Jews does not have to mean no home for the Palestinians-balance is essential. Traditionally, Zionism is presented from the perspective of its dominant beneficiaries rather than its subordinate victims. This imbalance de-legitimizes the noble idea of a secure state for Europe’s persecuted Jews. My objection to Zionism lies not with its public goals but with its demonstrated methodology, which remains “…exclusionary, discriminatory [and] colonialist.”

The absolute brilliance with which Zionism has managed to legitimize itself globally is genuinely impressive. However, its inherent racism still hides securely behind walls of eloquent rationalization and Holocaust-shaming tactics. The roots of Zionism’s normalized anti-Arab discrimination lies in its emulation of a European imperialist/colonialist mentality that permitted “…Europeans to view non-Europeans as inferior, marginal and irrelevant.” Zionism’s genius continues to be its ability not merely to rationalize its blatant racism but also to delegitimize and even remove the Palestinian perspective from public consideration.

Canada’s corporate media reflect,”…how deeply-ingrained are the anomalous, imperialist perspectives basic to Zionism.” For example, a local Ottawa radio host recently claimed, “There was never a country called Palestine,” when challenged by a pro-Palestinian caller and an evangelical broadcaster excused the Nakba by claiming the Palestinians were crude custodians of Palestine so the more “cultured” European Jews were justified in forcing them out and claiming their land. Supplementing this perspective are the rationalizations of Christian Zionists and those hawkish pundits who admire the “cowboy” Israelis for taming a wilderness full of people they still consider godless savages.

While planning their future State of Israel, founding Zionists like Theodor Herzl eagerly adopted the European view that the non-European world was virgin territory available for seizure and occupation. The Arab occupants of Ottoman Palestine, for example; were considered a mere nuisance to be removed, “…discreetly and circumspectly.” Or, if this were not possible,”…the small class of [Arab] landowners could be ‘had for a price’, as indeed they were.” So, perhaps the greatest failings of these non-people; Palestine’s agrarian population; were their lack of organized resistance to Jewish immigration and their failure to overthrow their corrupt Arab landlords. Hardly crime enough to justify their current condition where, “…there is an unmistakable coincidence between the experiences of Palestinian Arabs at the hands of Zionism and the experiences of those black, yellow and brown people who were described as inferior and subhuman by 19th Century imperialists.”

Critics of Israeli government policy are frequently dismissed as Anti-Semites by those who refuse to acknowledge the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians. This broad slur is both inaccurate and misleading. Anti-Semitism is commonly understood to describe comments or behavior harmful to Jewish people but since both Arabs and the descendants of the ancient Hebrews are Semites; it is both fair and accurate to expand the concept of anti-Semitism to include comments and behavior harmful to Arabic people as well. This commonality even has the potential to unite Arab and Jew in mutual defense against whatever powers might be ranged against them.

To further clarify: all Israeli Jews are not necessarily Semites. Arabs are Semites but Israeli Jews come from all over the world, especially Europe and the U.S. Many of these naturalized Israelis have no biological link to their new homeland but enjoy rights superior to native born Palestinians who have lived in Israel for generations as second and third-class citizens.

The Oxford dictionary defines Semitic peoples as both Hebrews and Arabs but defines anti-Semitic only as hostility to Jews. That being said, Hebrew is a Semitic language and the descendants of the ancient Hebrews are Semites. Therefore, while popular and emotionally-potent; the term anti-Semitism is probably not the best word to describe the persecution of Jewish people. It is, however; a convenient tool for discouraging and muting legitimate criticism of Israeli state policy.

Perhaps anti-Zionist would be a better term to describe opposition to the darker conduct of Israel’s government. Unfortunately, while militant Zionist extremists continue to oppose the idea of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, one thing is certain: early 20th century Zionism’s lofty contempt for and active hostility towards the native Arabs of what was then called Palestine created conditions guaranteed to ensure a future of endless conflict. However, the situation is not yet beyond salvation. The Israeli population must continue to “…confront the terrible social and political injustice done the native Palestinians…” and act in solidarity with them to pressure Israel’s political leaders to reject Zionism’s destructive philosophy and embrace the Palestinians as equals in a shared land defined by the spirit of reconciliation rather than the violence and division fostered by the existing Statist religiosity.

I support the notion of a bi-national state where Palestinians and Israelis live together as equals under the same laws. Bi-nationalism is inevitable because Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have mainly destroyed any realistic chance of a separate Palestinian state. It is essential that peace activists on both sides dare to meet and cooperate with their so-called enemies in an effort to end the long trauma of Palestine and commence the healing process.

Cubans Benefit from Obama’s Self-Interest
26 Dec. 2014

The cynicism behind Obama’s decision to lift the crippling U.S. trade embargo on Cuba is unstated but the move was overdue. According to reports by the Pew Research Centre, “While Obama should certainly be lauded for putting an end to an utterly disastrous embargo on Cuba; it's not exceptionally politically ambitious. The public was ahead of the curve on this issue… Latinos and Americans overall are also generally supportive of thawing the Cold War freeze on Cuban-U.S. relations. The [Atlantic Council] poll found that 62% of Latinos and 56% of people nationwide generally support normalizing relations or engaging more directly with Cuba.” Perhaps more important is the fact the Cuban and Latino Americans are shifting their political support from Republican to Democrat and Obama sees an opportunity to undermine his domestic adversaries.

Obama’s self-interest may help repair the damage caused by a succession of U.S. governments’ relentless hostility towards the fiercely-independent island nation. The United States actually owes reparations to the Cuban people who have suffered needlessly for daring to pursue their own destiny within America’s arbitrarily-declared sphere of influence.

According to Noam Chomsky, “The Batista dictatorship was overthrown in January 1959 by Castro's guerrilla forces. In March, the National Security Council (NSC) considered means to institute regime change. In May, the CIA began to arm guerrillas inside Cuba. During the winter of 1959-1960, there was a significant increase in CIA-supervised bombing and incendiary raids piloted by exiled Cubans" based in the US.”

The state of Florida is home to any number of expatriate anti-Castro Cuban militants recruited, trained and shielded by the CIA. In Cuba, they stand accused of various terroristic crimes that occurred from 1960 to the late 1990s. People like Orlando Bosch come to mind. He lives free in Miami after being pardoned by George Bush Sr. for his role in the 1976 destruction of a Cubana airliner that killed 76 people. In 1998, the Cuban government invited the FBI to Havana and provided them extensive anti-Castro terrorism evidence and the identity of Cuban agents infiltrating the anti-Castro terrorist cells in Miami. Ironically; the infiltrators, not the terrorists, were arrested and sent to U.S. prisons.

We may trace Cuban engagement with these states, particularly Soviet Russia; back to the early 1960s, when, faced with a U.S. trade embargo and covert terrorism, the Cubans had no choice but to seek assistance where they could while protecting themselves from the covert and overt tactics of a superpower determined to impose regime change. While Castro and his regime have treated their opponents harshly and even committed human rights abuses; a little perspective is necessary before we judge his regime.
U.S. Cuba rhetoric emanates from the same class of arrogant imperialists who tolerated decades of Latin American atrocities under Pinochet, Somoza, Duvalier, the juntas of El Salvador and Guatemala and the local elites who kept these countries safe for U.S. corporations. A good example of a useful and pliable tyrant is Panama’s Noriega, a paid CIA asset whose excessive independence earned him a long U.S. prison term. His miraculous transformation from ally to narco-terrorist went largely unremarked in the American press.

Ironically, independence is Cuba’s greatest sin in the eyes of U.S. power brokers, who have always viewed Cuba as U.S. property. As Thomas Paterson wrote, “Cuba, as symbol and reality, challenged U.S. hegemony in Latin America. International terrorism and economic warfare to bring about regime change are justified not by what Cuba does, but by its "very existence," its "successful defiance" of the proper master of the hemisphere.”

After ejecting U.S. organized crime from Cuba in 1959, Castro made the mistake of defying the Monroe Doctrine and pursuing an independent course. The Monroe Doctrine, for those unfamiliar with it; was a turn of the century understanding that North and South America were U.S. territory and therefore off-limits to the European powers with the exception of the French, British and Dutch colonies dotting the Caribbean.

A brief history of the Central Intelligence Agency is necessary to illustrate what the Cubans have faced over the last fifty years. Many Canadians seem unaware of the CIA’s long and sordid record of practicing torture directly while also training the military and secret police of U.S. allies like Latin America’s fascist regimes and a host of international thugs. Vietnam’s Diem (the Phoenix Program), the pre-Taliban Mujahedeen, Iran’s Shah, Indonesia’s Suharto, Saudi Arabia’s rulers, the Turkish military and Saddam Hussein’s secret police all received CIA tutelage in the diabolical art of “enhanced interrogation”. Fingernail pulling, testicle crushing and gang rape were not the cruelest torments suffered by the captives of these monsters; many of whom were trained at the infamous School of the Americas; a U.S. army academy notorious for graduating the worst torturers of Central and South America. The school has changed its name and location a number of times to avoid public scrutiny and protest.

Largely ignored by the corporate media are the CIA’s numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro and members of his inner circle. Similar attempts by Cuban intelligence to kill any U.S. president would have earned Cuba a crushing military onslaught delivered without a moment’s hesitation. The stark examples of Grenada, Panama and Nicaragua are clear for all to see in a world where naked power acts with impunity and the weak are obliged to arrange their affairs accordingly.
If Cuba-U.S. relations are to improve, the U.S. government must adopt a humane approach that acknowledges the possibility that without American interference; Cubans might have created their own modest prosperity and been more inclined to embrace liberal democracy. This program should include a formal apology for decades of oppression and economic assistance unfettered by neoliberal pre-conditions. Such an approach might also be applied globally wherever the U.S. government has trodden heavily to ensure that capital enjoys more freedom than most human beings.

Censoring Examination of Gaza Invasions Inhibits Peace Process
28 Dec. 2014

Following the established pattern, the U.S. government recently demonstrated its commitment to the “peace process” by vetoing yet another UN Resolution calling for Israel to “withdraw from Palestinian territories”, in this case by late 2017. At the end of the 1967 War, Israel seized and occupied the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem in violation of international law that forbids the retention and development of captured territory. The Israeli government, with full American support; rejects this particular facet of international law since it interferes with their expansionist plans.

U.S. diplomats offered the questionable pretext that supporting such a resolution would interfere with the upcoming Israeli national elections and America’s efforts to democratize the Middle East requires that the “right” party win. Right in this context means whoever will comply with U.S. interests. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been struggling recently with cabinet ministers who oppose his harsh line on Palestinian autonomy. By way of comparison; the New York Times reported that the U.S. government spent nearly two million dollars to oppose Hamas in the months before the 2006 Palestinian elections. American and Israeli diplomatic comment on Palestinian activism at the UN ignores the fact that Israel owes its very existence to that much-maligned international body.

December twenty-seventh marked the fifth anniversary of Operation Cast Lead; the 2008-2009 Israel invasion of Gaza that cost fourteen hundred Palestinian and thirteen Israeli lives. It is worth reviewing that event to increase public awareness about what is euphemistically called the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process”. However, the above-mentioned anniversary will probably garner even less publicity than commemorations of the Nakba; the forcible ejection of Palestinians from their homes by Jewish forces in the period preceding the creation of Israel. In fact, efforts to have the Naqba included at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights have been rejected.

Commentators on Israeli-Palestinian issues should know that the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) is currently lobbying the federal government to adopt a sweeping new definition of anti-Semitism that would criminalize even the most reasoned criticism of Israeli state policies and conduct. They categorize even academic research on Israeli violations of UN resolutions and international law as the “new anti-Semitism”; as if calling something “new” somehow makes its better or worse, a pure marketing ploy. Much like medieval witchcraft charges; an anti-Semitic accusation is difficult to refute because the concept of anti-Semitism is subject to infinitely flexible definitions. Even the mildest defense can somehow be twisted into a fresh offense and often is. Thus, many people been falsely branded for even daring to examine the notion of anti-Semitism. Most insidious is the subtle suggestion that critics of Israel are Nazi sympathizers.

As an ally and military trading partner of Canada, the Israel state is open to vigorous criticism because it is a democracy that claims to be committed to principles of human rights and free speech. Therefore, its leaders are internationally accountable for the treatment of Palestinians under their control. Conversely, critiquing the brutal despots in Syria and Saudi Arabia is necessary but largely futile because such tyrants are unaccountable both to their people and the world and, unlike the poor; leaders are insulated from the harmful effects of sanctions. Beyond that, such vicious regimes usually enjoy powerful sponsors who block punitive UN actions and issue threats to anyone bold enough to act unilaterally; Russia for the Syrians and America behind the Saudis. The Iranian situation seems to be improving slightly.

According to the CPCCA’s proposed definition; the UN, the European Union (EU), Israeli military resisters and all members of Israel’s peace movement are all guilty of anti-Semitism. Considering the Harper government’s polarized stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it is vital for Canadians to publicly express their opinions on Middle East peace before the CPCCA censors succeed in redefining the legal limits of discourse according to their dangerous version of free speech. This publicly-subsidized organization includes former Liberal MP Irwin Colter and Harper cabinet minister Jason Kenney among its more vocal members.

It is widely-assumed that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) invades Gaza to stop Hamas rocket and mortar attacks into Israel but the reality is more complex and rarely-exposed in Western mainstream press. The Israel government is well aware that sincere peace negotiations with the Palestinians will include restricting, ending or even reversing their extensive illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Therefore, periodically antagonizing Gazans evokes the sort of violent Hamas response which can then justify another “measured response” to maintain the necessary cycle of violence that prevents the outbreak of serious negotiations. This tactic has been employed throughout the history of counterinsurgency and involves reacting aggressively to the defensive conduct of your victims without reference to your instigator violence.

I offer the example of the under-reported November 4, 2008 Israeli incursion into Gaza. A section of main battle tanks; supported by IDF fighter aircraft, penetrated several hundred yards into Gaza a full six weeks before the conclusion of the previously-established Hamas-IDF truce; thus sparking a further round of retaliatory Hamas rocket fire into Israel. This series of events eventually led to the massive Israeli invasion dubbed Operation Cast Lead whose horrors caused UN investigator Richard Goldstone to accuse both Hamas and the IDF of major human rights violations and war crimes.

One of the most sinister IDF actions was their timing of bombing raids to coincide with periods of peak pedestrian activity, including schoolchildren in the streets. This timing could not have been accidental; considering Israel’s advanced intelligence and surveillance capabilities. Conversely, Hamas rocket and mortar attacks were and are more malicious than effective and seem insignificant when compared to the devastating power of supersonic jets, helicopter gunships, armored fighting vehicles and computerized artillery.

This is old news to Israeli readers, whose newspapers offer clear reporting about the reality of the “peace process”. According to a Haaretz report quoting a senior Israeli bureaucrat in 2004, just one year before the “national trauma” of Israel’s exit from Gaza: “…when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refuges, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda.” Such candor is notably absent from the pages of Canada’s timid mainstream journals; who generally tiptoe quietly around this particular minefield or tread the cleared middle path. When one considers that Hamas must be aware of this calculated Israeli cynicism; their adherence to ceasefires and treaties is quite remarkable.

Readers might be surprised to learn than Hamas’s 2006 election as the government of Gaza was the result of Canadian-supervised elections. As well, Hamas owes its initial development to considerable Israeli assistance. The Israel government saw Hamas as a useful tool to undermine the previous Fatah government so Israel’s condemnation of Hamas is comparable to current American hostility to those Islamic militants who trace their ancestry to the Afghan mujahedeen generously supported by the CIA against the Soviets. In such cases the hypocritical pretense of nobility is expounded upon by a pantheon of academics and corporate pundits who understand the value of serving power’s needs.

Of course, the situation will not improve until the U.S. government attaches punitive conditions to its military, economic and diplomatic support for the Israeli state; an unlikely scenario considering Israel’s strategic value to the U.S. and strong pressure from lobby groups like the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to maintain the status quo. Thankfully, the UN, the EU and global peace activists will continue to work for incremental progress on a fair settlement and an end to the mutual cycle of violence.

The realpolitik of Canada’s Approach to Middle East Peace
22 Jan. 2015

The realpolitik of Canada’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is reflected in John Baird’s recent condescending paternalism towards the Palestinian Authority after it was revealed that they may succeed in joining the International Criminal Court (ICC). Israel and the U.S., alone among the world’s democracies; have refused to join this war crimes body. It is likely that the recent conduct of both Israel and Hamas in Gaza would interest the court.
While it is natural for the weaker party to a dispute to seek third party mediation; the massive power imbalance between the Israelis and Palestinians is usually ignored or minimized by Israeli, American and Canadian diplomats who insist that the Palestinians negotiate directly with the Israelis. The Palestinian Authority wisely sought to rectify this imbalance through increasing their international status through the United Nations since an enhanced international profile will ultimately improve their bargaining position.

Israel, Canada and the U.S. have issued enough threats and warnings to the Palestinians to suggest that the ICC is a body to be reckoned with; even by those who refuse to acknowledge its authority. In this case, Palestinian defiance regarding the ICC indicates an organizational ability and independence that bodes well for the future of a Palestinian state.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has presented Canadians with a false choice on Middle East peace: either voice “absolute, non-negotiable belief in Israel” or be declared an anti-Semite. Emma Teitel of MacLean’s wrote that, “His cheerleading for the Jewish state was excessive enough (even for a Jew) that it verged on the absurd.” (Teitel: 2014). Stephen Harper refuses to be a real friend to the Israelis in the sense that he excuses their more objectionable behaviour for the sake of political support, fundamentalist religiosity and what he calls principle.

“Two days after Harper won a majority government on January 23, Hamas won Canadian-monitored and facilitated elections in Palestine” (Engler: 2013) Canada was quick to condemn the fair and democrat elections as a failure and immediately cut off aid to Gaza. “The aid cutoff, which was designed to sow division within Palestinian society, had devastating social effects.” (Ibid.) Since Canada is among those few nations (also Israel and the U.S.) who consider Hamas a terrorist entity; it is worth commenting on the Harper government’s approach to the highly-subjective concept of terrorism. Once again, the vital element of context is missing from the government’s stance although they are probably aware of the history of Hamas and its inevitability. A recent Ottawa Citizen editorial examined the fact the Harper refuses to acknowledge or investigate the root causes of terrorism; choosing instead to simply declare it an “evil” that must be fought with state security and military force. The editorial states that, “Conservatives like to use “root causes” as code for naïve and simplistic attempts to excuse terrorism as the inevitable result of poverty or some other social factor.” (Ottawa Citizen: 2014)

While it is beyond dispute that Jewish terrorism in pre-1948 Palestine and the current violence perpetrated by illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank had definite and well-documented causes; Stephen Harper would never apply the root causes argument to such events. They remain safely outside the realm of examination. Refusing to discuss the root causes of any given problem almost guarantees its perpetuation. To do so for myopic political advantage is at the very least, reckless.

Prominent among Harper’s Canadian boosters is conservative senator Linda Frum, sister to strident neoconservative writer David Frum. When asked recently about Canadian Jewish support for the Harper government; Senator Frum commented in MacLean’s magazine that Canadian Jews had simply grown tired of the”…notion that, when Israelis and Palestinians quarrel, Canada should consider the grievances of both sides equally.” (MacLeans: 2013) In the current climate, senator Frum has little to fear in that regard.

Relevance of the “New Anti-Semitism”

December twenty-seventh marked the fifth anniversary of Operation Cast Lead; Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza. While commenting on Israeli-Palestinian issues it’s important to note that the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) has lobbied the federal government to adopt a sweeping new definition of anti-Semitism that would criminalize even the most reasoned criticism of the Israeli state’s policies and conduct. Considering the Harper government’s radical stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it is vital for Canadians to publicly express their opinions on Middle East peace before the CPCCA censors succeed in redefining the legal limits of discourse.

Current immigration minister Jason Kenney and former Liberal justice minister Irwin Colter have been the most public voices of this bizarre program that is the Canadian chapter of a global movement to silence even the most reasoned criticism of Israeli state policy by creating a climate of fear.

Economic divestment campaigns against the Israeli state are falsely labeled as anti-Semitic in a vain attempt to discourage states and their citizens from taking peaceful steps to pressure the Israeli State. Dershowitz writes that, “Even those who believe that singling out Zionists or the Zionist state for criticism is not anti-Semitic must surely acknowledge that there is a difference between mere criticism of Israel and singling it out for unique sanctions such as divesture or boycott.” (Dershowitz, 2002) Describing the current international effort to bring economic pressure to bear on Israel is hardly unique unless one subscribes to the belief that Israel itself is a unique entity; rather than a regular nation in a unique situation.

It is worth asking why the brutal sanctions brought to bear against Iraq in the mid-nineteen nineties were not described in the corporate press as anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, which they certainly were. Such concepts lack the cachet required for reflexive employment in the manufacture of consent.

Canada signed the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement in 1997 for political and economic reasons. “In an implicit recognition of the occupation, Canada’s free trade accord with Israel includes the West bank as a place where the country’s customs laws apply. Canada’s trade agreement is based on the areas Israel maintains territorial control over, not on internationally-recognized borders” (Ibid.) considering these facts it’s safe to assume that Canada would have applied the same standard to Israel settlements in Gaza; had the territory not been abandoned. In stark contrast, “The European Union’s trade agreement with Israel…explicitly excludes products from territory Israel captured in the 1967 war and occupies against international law.” (Ibid.) Of, course; this occupied territory may someday form the basis of a Palestinian state; if the Israeli state decides to seriously abandon its traditional rejectionism and pursue peaceful coexistence.

Name all the Dead-Everyone Matters
Jewish terrorist victim dies after a year in a coma
November 1, 2015

While the recent death of Canadian/Israeli dual national Chaim Rothman at the hands of a Palestinian extremist is an inexcusable atrocity; it forces me to confront another ugly reality I wish to highlight the hesitation of Canada's mainstream press concerning efforts to expose and comment on the rarely-reported aspects of the ongoing tensions between Israeli state/expansionist interests and the various Palestinian factions and Israeli peace activists.

It seems that the life of one Canadian expatriate rates more coverage in Canada’s mainstream press than the thousands of anonymous Palestinians killed by the Israeli military and security forces over the past few years. Yes, literally thousands of deaths and hideous injuries have been caused by high-tech weapons designed for use against an equally well-armed conventional military force; as opposed to lightly armed guerillas like Hamas

It's almost as the Canadian media establishment fears the attentions of organizations like Honest Reporting Canada; a Orwellian-titled lobby group eager to expose anti-Semitism according its own flexible and highly-subjective definition. As well, blatant anti-Palestinian bias is being subsidized by Canadian taxpayers and reported uncritically. Cconservative Senator Linda Frum commented in a 2013 MacLean’s magazine article that Canadian Jews had simply grown tired of the”…notion that, when Israelis and Palestinians quarrel, Canada should consider the grievances of both sides equally.”

Frum’s partisan sentiment clearly reflected the stance of the recently-defeated Harper government. The position of the new Liberal administration has yet to be announced but the governments of Chretien, Martin and Trudeau did little but blandly support the status quo of opposing “terror” and defending the Israeli state for business and political peace. Until elite gatekeepers publish commentary that grants moral equivalency to both sides in the dispute, the Palestinian cause will continue to suffer from negative public perceptions in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere.

While I reject the senseless violence that killed Mr. Rothman; it is inconceivable that a non-combatant Palestinian of Canadian origins would receive such public attention had they been killed during one of Israel’s regular Gaza assaults or West Bank targeted assassinations. The last time a Palestinian victim of Israeli violence was actually mentioned by name was the recent case of a Palestinian Authority legislator who suffered a heart attack after a scuffle with Israeli police.
While the Rothman piece in the October 26, 2015 Ottawa Citizen was a gracious account of a Canadian Jew assaulted last year in Jerusalem; we might remember that this man freely chose to inhabit a contested and dangerous city previously conquered and held by military force in defiance of international law. Therefore it is possible to simultaneously and reasonably acknowledge both the tragedy of his murder and his acceptance of serious risk in Jerusalem; a city where Arabs have been gradually and marginalized and ghettoized since 1967 Israeli victory.

According to B'Tselem, The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories; the fatality ratio in the ongoing conflict is approximately nine to one in Israel’s favor; not surprising when one considers the fact that the IDF’s arsenal outclasses any of the European NATO members. This comparison does not include Israel’s undeclared stock of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which are an open secret and a serious worry to her neighbors and the U.S. government; Israel’s main source of financial, military and political support and protection.

Interestingly, Western, Palestinian and Israeli peace activists are generally ignored or dismissed in the mainstream press and even regarded as irrelevant or even disruptive to the eternal “peace process”; that stumbles endlessly onward; to Israeli advantage. The expansion of illegal West Bank settlements encourages proponents of bi-nationalism and those who support Palestinian advocacy at the United Nations; the obvious choice of a weak party opposed by overwhelming power and influence.
By extension, and comparison to Canadian Jews who move to the Occupied Territories and Jerusalem or volunteer for the IDF; the tens of thousands of “collateral” dead and those horribly wounded by U.S. and NATO military “mistakes” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Yemen had few choices about their living conditions and mainly remain nameless. In fact, former American Secretary of State Colin Powell once stated that the U.S. military didn’t record civilian casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan; nor did Britain or Canada for that matter. Perhaps anonymous victims are easier to forget if their death is an unavoidable cost of whatever fate we decide for them.

Haitian Reality

22 Oct. 2016

While vaguely benevolent; mainstream commentary on Haiti is often condescending and even paternalistic. The depth of denial concerning official duplicity in Haiti’s fate is demonstrated by Evan Dyer’s September 27, 2016 CBC story on the Trudeau government’s frustration with Haiti’s sputtering democracy.

In the CBC piece, Jim Morrell; executive director of the Haiti Democracy Project in Washington D.C., stated, "Over time, if given real choices, Haitians would choose the more competent people from among them…They need some tough love.” By electing Jean Bertrand Aristide in 1990 Haitians actually did choose one of “…the more competent people among them.”
This immensely popular leader was actively implementing policy changes more favorable to working Haitians than absentee U.S. sweatshop and plantation owners. As well, he opposed Haiti’s employment as a dumping ground for highly-subsidized U.S. agricultural products like dark poultry meat, considered undesirable in North America.

When Aristide was obliged to counter his violent opponents with harsh measures; he was portrayed as a tyrant in the U.S. media while his enemy’s atrocities were ignored or cast as liberation efforts. Aristides’s anti-poverty efforts infuriated Haitian elites who were right to fear a democracy, that; in the words of Haitian historian Patrick Bellegarde-Smith, would stifle their ability to,”…monopolize economic and political power.”

Of even greater concern for these elites during the initial Aristide period in 1990-1991 was “…the favourable reaction by international financial institutions (World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank) to Aristide’s programs. Not surprising, the first Bush government began, “…shifting aid from the democratically-elected government to what are called ‘democratic forces’ the wealthy elites and business sectors…” who operate the low wage factories and agriculture conglomerates on behalf of U.S. and French owners.

Unfortunately, Canada’s Liberal government was willing to undercut Haitian democracy since they had dared elect an excessively independent leader. Harper responded in similar fashion when Hamas won Canadian supervised Gaza elections in 2006. According to Yves Engler, “In discussing the January 2003 Ottawa Initiative on Haiti, high level US, Canadian and French officials discussed overthrowing elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.”

In fact, President Aristide was visited a year later by U.S. consular officials and a team of heavily-armed Marines. The Aristide and his wife were escorted to the Port Au Prince airport where a private jet flew them to the Central African Republic; a nation in the French sphere of influence. During a March 8, 2004, interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Aristide stated, “They [the U.S. government] forced me to leave Haiti…. It was a kidnapping under cover of a coup d’état.” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to CNN in 2004, called Aristide "A man who was democratically elected, but he did not democratically govern or govern well….Now we are there to give the Haitian people another chance." Consider Powell’s boss, George W. Bush, who was not democratically elected and whose regime prospered by exploiting fear and paranoia.

In a gesture of imperial arrogance evoking the hoary Monroe Doctrine, U.S. ambassador James Foley echoed Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in opposing Aristide’s presence in the Western Hemisphere. Foley declared on March 16, 2004 that Aristide’s, “…coming within 150 miles from Haiti is promoting violence.” Conversely, anti-Aristide violence had proven both useful and acceptable to Foley as the local U.S. agent.

Before continuing on this theme, a brief history of Haitian democracy is necessary since this nation was never destined to be poor or ill-governed. After gradually destroying the indigenous inhabitants and importing African slaves, France turned Haiti into the most prosperous colony on the planet; a source of vast wealth for the French elite. However, resentment simmered among the slaves and exploded into armed rebellion under the leadership of Toussaint Louverture. The independent republic of Haiti was declared on January 1, 1804 after thirteen years of bloody struggle with U.S.-backed French forces. Had their independence been recognized internationally, the Haitians may well have perpetuated their nascent democracy and enjoyed modest prosperity and independence to this day.

Instead, after France threatened an 1825 invasion and the restoration of slavery, “…Haitian officials signed what was to prove the beginning of the end of any hope of autonomy, King Charles X agreed to recognize Haiti’s independence only if the new republic agreed to pay an indemnity of 150 million gold francs…” worth about “…half a billion U.S. dollars in the most conservative estimate, without attempting to calculate 175 years of interest and inflation.” This unjust debt continued to be paid in installments until shortly after World War Two.

Eventually, the U.S. dominated Haiti; which represented an immense source of wealth for those controlling the vast plantations of sugar cane and other tropical produce. Commenting in 1896 on democratic Haiti’s relevance to the U.S. military occupation of Cuba, Winston Churchill wrote in the Saturday Review of the “…grave danger…of another black republic.” In 1915, U.S. Marines invaded Haiti and the nation suffered a 19 year U.S. occupation, whose low point was the summary disbandment of the Haitian parliament to facilitate, “…a 1918 law granting U.S. corporations the right to turn the country into a U.S. plantation.”

From 1934 until 1957; Haiti has been governed by an assortment of individuals with scant interest in working people. Francois Duvalier’s cult of personality torture state was an exotic abomination replete with secret police (Tonton Macoutes or bogey men) and Voodoo-based population repression. After his election in 1957, Duvalier declared himself president for life in 1964, as did his seven predecessors.

An unsuccessful democratic exercise occurred in 1987, following Jean Claude Duvalier’s exit to luxurious exile in France. At that time future Haitian president Catholic priest Jean Bertrand Aristide was a dedicated opponent of the post Duvalier dictatorship and an advocate of liberation theology. This emancipatory philosophy was strongly opposed by powerful individuals like the Pope and U.S. President Ronald Reagan whose advisors considered the anti-poverty movement, “…less Christian than Communist and recommended that U.S. policy must begin to counter (not react against) the liberation theology clergy.” This stance largely inspired the Latin American “anti-communist” pogroms of the 1980s.

In spite of overt and covert U.S. hostility, Aristide won the presidential election on December 16, 1990 only to be driven from office in September, 1991 by a U.S.-sponsored military coup. He returned to office in 1994 after the UN-authorized U.S. military intervention but political changes in the U.S. Congress sharply limited aid. The U.S. government combined with the European Union and international banks to force Haiti to repay the “odious debt” accumulated by the Duvaliers and their predecessors in spite of international law excusing such repayment. Instead, Aristide informed the French government in 2004 that they owed Haiti over $20 billion for past resource thefts and human rights abuses. While U.S. and French politicians scoffed publicly, “...lawyers saw the case as not without legal merit.”

The post-Aristide years have feature leaders like Michel Martelly; a Canadian favourite. “A supporter of the 1991 and 2004 coups against Aristide, Martelly was a teenaged member of the Duvalier dictatorship’s Tonton Macoutes death squads. As president, he surrounded himself with Duvalierists and death squad leaders.” In spite of this taint, former Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird expressed enthusiasm for Martelly and the other post-Aristide President, Rene’ Preval; stating in La Presse, “The Martelly administration is going in the right direction.” Since the Trudeau government has expressed no support for Aristide-type reforms; Canada seems content to allow poor Haitians to suffer needlessly.

How can any nation prosper when it is manipulated into accepting a harsh “…neoliberal program…virtually guaranteed to demolish…economic sovereignty..,” and benefit only domestic elites and foreign investors? Haiti never needed our “help”, although it is certainly owed massive reparations from France and the U.S. and even Canada for helping shove them back into servitude. The so-called “democratic deficit” underlying Haiti’s problems will only be repaired if Western nations renounce what John Dewey called “…politics that is the shadow cast on society by big business.”

Ten million dollar Khadr award latest cost of “tagalong” foreign policy
19 July 2017

Hopefully, the ten million dollar Khadr award will provoke Canadians to demand greater transparency regarding our government's willingness to “tagalong” on U.S. military misadventures. Unfortunately, outrage over Khadr’s award serves mainly as a public distraction from the dubious legality of his imprisonment and prosecution by a U.S. administration unconcerned with trivial matters like the Geneva Convention or international law.

Public attempts to link Khadr’s award with substandard veteran’s care are a weak tactic since the federal government was short-changing veterans long before Omar Khadr was born. Like previous torture award recipient and Canadian citizen Maher Arar; Khadr was abandoned by his own government to please the bullies in Washington. Unfortunately, Khadr may be the last Canadian spirited off to a U.S. black prison.

It’s easy to dismiss Omar Khadr as a terrorist and a war criminal if you faithfully subscribe to official history and the simplistic Cold War narrative we’ve been fed since 1945. Since we always seem to need an enemy, our former nemesis; Soviet Communism, has been replaced by the bogeyman of global Islamic terror. Accepting this trickery is easier and more comforting than acknowledging Canada’s support role in the United States’ permanent campaign to make the world safe for major corporations like Exxon and Haliburton. The case can be made that Canada sent troops to Afghanistan and quietly supported the U.S. occupation of Iraq to demonstrate support for American control of regional petroleum resources. All the bold talk of democracy-building was nonsense and Canadian soldiers paid the price in blood.

Undoubtedly, Khadr’s critics would applaud those Israeli/Canadian dual nationals who exploit a legal loophole in the 1985 Foreign Enlistment Act to join the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and stomp around the West Bank. This territory, along with the Gaza Strip and Golan Heights were seized by Israeli during its cynical 1967 pre-emptive attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria. These so-called Lone Soldiers serve in many IDF formations, including elite combat units whose members continue to reject their commander’s callous attitude to Palestinian civilian casualties and refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories. Organized repression of an indigenous population by an occupying power is the definition of state terrorism, a policy generously subsidized by Canadian tax legislation.

I don’t dispute the notion that fifteen year old Omar Khadr made a poor choice in traveling to Afghanistan and taking up arms against NATO forces. He was negatively-influenced by his father and left Canada with at least some awareness of the possible consequences. On the other hand, it seems no nation, including the U.S. or its NATO “partners”, have learned history’s dire lessons about invading Afghanistan. Khadr merely joined the thousands of young Muslims before him who had travelled to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and later NATO. His misguided behaviour was little different from that of Victorian-era Canadians’ rallying to defend the brutal racism of the British Empire in South Africa. However, labelling and prosecuting him as a war criminal was both excessive and unfair; considering the scope and circumstances of his so-called crimes.

According to many pundits, Omar Khadr is worthy of lingering persecution for killing an American Special Forces medic. To be clear, the so-called "medic" reportedly killed by Khadr's grenade was an elite Green Beret commando who just happened to be his team’s medical technician. Therefore, he was equally adept with a dagger or a battle-dressing. While Sergeant Speer’s death is tragic, it is doubtful that we will ever know the identities of even a fraction of the thousands of Afghan civilians killed during the NATO invasion and occupation of that nation. Beyond that, the Reagan-era warlords who empowered Islamic extremism in the late 1970s - 80s have yet to be held accountable as war criminals for the awful consequences of their blinkered ideology. Al Queda and ISIS did not emerge fully-formed from an old lamp; although news reports create that impression.

Were the WWII Nuremberg standards applied to Barak Obama, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfelt they would likely be hanged since they all participated in planning and waging an insidious campaign of aggressive war. Many low-ranking U.S. soldiers have been prosecuted for the the Abu Graib atrocities while their political leadership remains unpunished. As well, Canada’s role in transferring Taliban “suspects” to U.S. and Afghan police custody has yet to be fully investigated. Many of these detainees turned out to be innocents denounced by other Afghans for financial reward. The situation was the same in Iraq and the bounty system has long been a feature of colonial occupation policy.

Not surprisingly, the United States has used its massive power to ensure that American military forces are safe from prosecution by the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague. They claim this exemption is necessary to protect the world’s only superpower from “frivolous and vexatious” accusations leveled by those who seek to undermine America’s global missions of mercy and emancipation.

The only Canadians who benefit from the ongoing misrepresentation of Khadr’s Afghanistan episode are lawyers, corporate pundits and opposition Conservatives pandering to diehard supporters. As well, we do ourselves a grave disservice by ignoring the arrogant conduct of our mighty neighbour. Since the American government claims to represent honor and the rule of law, perhaps our government should take a closer look at America’s more cynical motives when considering participation in their foreign misadventures. On the other hand, Canada’s power brokers may consider a ten million dollar per decade penalty an acceptable cost of doing business American-style.

911 Reflections - 2017
1 Sept. 2017

I contend that the victims of 9/11 were innocents and those responsible for the attacks must be identified and tried in open criminal court rather than secretive military tribunals tainted by legalized torture. Conversely, when such bloody mayhem is inflicted on anonymous foreigners at the hands of Western military forces, it is generally dismissed as collateral damage on the road to their political and social emancipation.

Though 9/11 was a horrific shock, our official reaction was dangerously jingoistic and arrogant and almost guaranteed to inspire more violence. While our massive military response was predictable and politically-expedient; a more measured response was both preferable made possible by the Taliban’s under-reported willingness to negotiate on Bin Laden’s presence in Afghanistan. Their conciliatory stance was staunchly ignored by a Bush regime eager to teach the world a hard lesson about the high cost of blowback.

Now, fifteen years of the so-called “War on Terror” have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, reduced everyone’s freedom and benefited only extremists (of all types), intelligence agencies, security consultants, military contractors and arms dealers. Iraq and Afghanistan are now in worse shape than before because emancipation was never the true motive behind the invasion and occupation of these states. Declaring war on an idea is a purely totalitarian device designed to instill permanent fear in the public consciousness. As Herman Goering said of war, “…., the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders…All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger."

The deeper significance of 9/11 is the fact that it was the first time North Americans have suffered the kind of extreme violence common in much of the developing world. Images of that violence; such as Gulf War One; are now supressed by compliant media quite willing to support military public relations strategy. The lessons of Vietnam have been well learned by those who benefit from constant war and conflict.

While it is near-heretical to say so, the isolated violence of 911 was minor compared to events like the illegal U.S. carpet-bombing of Laos during the early 1970s; the 1960s U.S. – backed genocide of Indonesian communists and Israel’s 1981-82 Lebanon invasion. As Noam Chomsky said, the dead and maimed victims of these atrocities have, “…gone down the rabbit hole of history,” since their fate served our ends. Since information on the negative aspects of Western foreign policy is excluded from the formal education system; widespread public acceptance of official history is not surprising.

Why is critical commentary on the implausibility of official 911 explanations still absent from the mainstream media? The evidence behind the atrocity’s official explanation remains vague, contradictory and implausible but largely unchallenged. According to the Obama administration, the recent release of 28 highly-censored pages of a 911 Joint Inquiry document “provides no evidence of Saudi Arabian complicity” in the attacks. While U.S. intelligence agencies and the 911 Commission claim insufficient evidence exists to establish a Saudi connection; questions linger because security excuses make it is impossible to examine their investigative methodology.

Compounding the confusion are conflicting scientific opinions over the causes of high-rise collapse and serious questions about aeronautics in the Pentagon attack and Air Force response times in the Twin Towers incident. As well, there is the suspiciously lengthy delay by the Bush administration in even creating the 911 Commission. Perhaps the urgent desire to invade Afghanistan and Iraq slowed them down.

There must be a deeper reason behind so-called Islamic terrorism that simply a mindless hatred of Western decadence that suddenly erupted without cause or context. There is some recent evidence to indicate that the Muslim world does not hate the U.S. for cultural reasons but instead deeply resents U.S. interference in issue like the endless Palestinian/Israeli conflict. According to a 2007 University of Maryland survey by political scientists Peter Furia and Russell Lucas, “[they found]…no evidence that ordinary Arabs resent countries for what they are, and considerable evidence that they resent them for what they do.” (Basham, 2008 in Ottawa Citizen, July 31, 2008)

Much of what we subjectively call terrorism arises from our refusal to apply to ourselves the same ethical standards we impose on the enemies we’ve created. While we read every detail of our own military casualties; do we ever learn the identities of dead Afghans or Iraqis? The civilian victims of Western military action in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere remain conveniently anonymous. Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell; once said that Iraqi civilian casualties were,”…not a matter of concern to him.”

The West, and the U.S. in particular; has created deep animosity through decades of overt and covert military interventions and arrogant regime changes undertaken mainly to maintain global economic hegemony with little regard for the working people of subordinate nations. Prior to the NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, the U.S. government did not consider it problematic that no serious evidence existed linking Osama bin Laden to al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. The 2002 Afghan bombing campaign proceeded with unrelenting fury and at a high cost in civilian life.

The following account of FBI thinking on the matter is as disturbing as it is revealing. In a June 6, 2002 Washington Post story written by Walter Pincus fully eight months after the 9/11 attacks, FBI chief Robert Mueller stated that “…[the idea] may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but it was probably implemented in the Gulf Emirates and in Germany.” The fact that the head of the FBI feels free to make a casual statement like this while Afghanistan was being heavily bombed and attacked speaks volume about the presumptuous nature of U.S. power and the irrelevance of human life in its calculations. According to U.S. government’s official definition of terrorism, both Germany and the Gulf Emirates ought to have been bombed along with Afghanistan.

It is worth noting that the U.S. government cynically empowered the brutal Afghan Mujahedeen back in the late 1970’s when their aid was required against the Soviets. Afghan society had never recovered from that empowerment and now we are there to save Afghans from the very situation our allies created. Prior to the resurrection of fundamentalist Islam during that time, Afghan society was making real progress on human rights and democratization. While the U.S. and British governments’ arming and subsequent abandonment of the Afghan mujahedeen created the conditions for the proliferation of Islamic extremism; such an acknowledgement have been removed from public examination by co-opted academics and corporate journalists eager to serve power.

Muslim Threat to Canada Exaggerated
June 18, 2017

Exaggerations about the threat of Islamic extremism remain a useful bogeyman for the governments of Canada and its allies. The Harper government’s cynical anti-Muslim rhetoric set an ugly tone during the last federal election. Unfortunately, scapegoating continues to be a reliable political tactic, in spite of Trudeau’s careful remarks. According to a recent Statistics Canada report, “…hate crimes that target Muslims rose 61 per cent in 2015.”

Harper’s last year in power overlapped with Pauline Maurois’ short stint as Quebec Premier. Data from May, 2015, show hate crimes in Quebec increased by nearly 47 per cent from the previous year. Also that year, while Statistics Canada reported a drop in the total number of hate crimes; anti-Muslim acts increased considerably; particularly in Alberta; home of white supremacist factions like the Three Percent and Soldiers of Odin.

Although Canada has suffered no major terror events when compared with the U.S. and Europe, the Ottawa and Quebec shootings of fall 2015 were carried out by individuals with “apparent” connections to Islamist extremism. Unfortunately, official secrecy makes it very difficult to verify the full extent and seriousness of the Islamic connections of these tragedies. Nevertheless, according to The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); Islamic extremism is only one of the terror threats currently facing Canada.

CSIS believes that “’Lone Wolf” attacks, like the fatal mosque shootings in Quebec City; more often originate with white supremacists and extreme right-wing groups rather than Islamic radicals. Further, CSIS noted that the idea of waging war on Islamic terror actually assists in terrorist recruitment by alienating young Canadian Muslims who might otherwise avoid radicalization. Regardless of CSIS reports about white supremacist threat; Public Safety Canada continues to focus on Muslims and the RCMP’s terrorism Awareness Guide Glossary still contains only Muslim/Arabic references.

Anti-Western sentiment and terrorism are unrelated to Muslims hating our so-called freedoms although that soothing fiction is ubiquitous. Many Canadians, Americans and Europeans seem unaware that the rest of the world, including the Muslim nations; view us rather differently than see ourselves. In spite of the West’s overwhelming prosperity and advantages, we have yet to fully acknowledge the circumstances of people living “over there”. Of special note is the fact that the atrocities of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS are still presented without contextual reference to the West’s cynical strategy of empowering Islamic extremism during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Academics speak of “the other” when describe people whose customs and appearance seem strange and even threatening to what we have decided is normal for us. In spite of official multi-culturalism; this subtle bias is reinforced by our comfortable distance from the direct effects of war and foreign domination. We have much to learn from the First Nations people of North and South America whose cultural reawakening is an embarrassing reminder of our violent history.

International law enforcement cooperation is the most efficient and humane strategy for containing terrorism. Such efforts could be further enhanced our support of civil society in those nations damaged by Western military and economic interference. Debt forgiveness and payment for the damages of war, sanctions and resource theft would also create enduring good will. Eventually, lasting peace will require a comprehensive examination of Western interference in the Middle East and elsewhere to find the original source of the current strife. Only such a process can provide the foundation for realistic appraisal, patient diplomacy and corrective action.

Separate but Unequal: Pandering to Quebec Separatists
5 March 2018

I welcome the possibility that Justin Trudeau may have mentioned past separatist violence in Quebec while discussing Sikh independence with India’s leaders. Hopefully, Trudeau’s alleged remarks will inspire public discourse on the darker aspects of Quebec’s persistent separatist movement. Since Canada’s political leadership seemingly ignores the consequences of endless pandering to Quebec’s discontents; I’ll take any excuse to examine these matters.

Successive Canadian governments have exhibited an unhealthy tolerance for Quebec’s agitations for special status within confederation. This has led to a series of federal concessions that seriously undermine Canada’s national integrity. From Mulroney to Trudeau, Canada’s prime Ministers have submitted to the extortions of Quebec separatism for the sake of their own power while claiming to defend national unity.

Quebec’s program of language-based nationalism, immigration control and French-only unilingualism have developed under the veiled threat of separatism and have enabled the province to portray itself as a unique and distinct entity within Confederation. Since such words have been employed throughout history to justify every sort of excess and abuse of power; Canada may yet pay a higher price for its official indulgence.

The FLQ phase of Quebec’s struggle for independence provides a clear example of what may occur when separatist movements embrace terrorist violence. The FLQ (Front de libération du Québec) operated in that province from 1963 to 1970; detonating 95 bombs and killing six people before the terrorist Felquistes were arrested. The violence inspired Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to invoke martial law but ultimately, it was dogged police work that brought the crisis to a conclusion in October 1970. Although it’s hard to imagine today, armed soldiers patrolled all federal facilities on Cape Breton at that time. My father recalled being ordered off the wharf at the Canso Causeway by stern troops in battle dress carrying assault rifles and sub-machine guns.

Unfortunately, most Canadians of my generation seem to have forgotten the FLQ period and dismiss it as an unfortunate but minor incident in our national story; not unlike the so-called Oka Crisis which also happened on Quebec. Contemporary commentators often criticize the military’s role in these cases; considering the scale and localized nature of the violence. However, Canadian law enforcement agencies in 1970 and even 1990 were ill-equipped for counter-terrorism; especially in comparison to the militarized police of the post-911 world.

The phenomenon of Quebec gradually acquiring semi-national status has created resentment among those Canadians who object to one province being accorded a unique status that could well be claimed by every indigenous and settler/immigrant group in the country. Quebec is merely the heir of one of Canada’s two conquering nations. Of course the British victory was also as Scottish triumph although Highland soldiers’ deaths in New France were, “no great mischief” to warlords like Wolfe and Cornwallis.

Although no Prime Minister has dared mention it, a nationalist militia has existed in Quebec since at least 2009. The Milice Patriotique Quebecoise (MPQ) seeks to defend Quebec from “foreigners” and, “…are willing to voluntarily sacrifice their lives for their country of Quebec…” While the MPQ claim to oppose violence while conducting private military drills, the FLQ also began in a similar way. It is unlikely that the federal government would ignore or tolerate such behaviour in Alberta or Cape Breton. Worse still is the MPQ’s common cause with white supremacist groups like Quebec City’s Soldiers of Odin chapter. Unlike Quebec’s separatists, Cape Breton’s provincial status advocates have never resorted to violence or other tactics designed to gain concessions by inciting political and economic instability.

While mainly comedic, The late General John Cabot Trail and his Cape Breton Liberation Army nevertheless reflected the Island’s long history of peaceful agitation for provincial status dating back to the mid-nineteenth century. Like their ancestors, Cape Bretoners expect the same level of provincial service enjoyed by other Nova Scotians and rightly oppose perceived imbalances in services like road maintenance and health care.
The concept of provincial status for Cape Breton was recently resurrected by Senator Dan Christmas as a means to greater economic prosperity. While this idea will encounter political opposition from the mainland; the Island’s enduring character will always distinguish it as surely as the sea surrounds it.

Post Media Columnist on Jerusalem: Straw Men Beware - Reflexive Accusations of the “New Anti-Semitism”
13 March, 2018

During a recent AM radio interview; Post Media columnist and history lecturer John Robson flung broad accusations of anti-Semitism against anyone who dares critique the notion of establishing Israel’s capital at Jerusalem. Such a reflexive slur seems aimed more at creating a chill among reasonable and well-intentioned critics of Israeli state policy than eliminating genuine anti-Semitism. Speaking generally of “Israel’s many enemies” and that nation’s assumed nobility; Robson’s remarks suggest that he was defending a weak and vulnerable nation rather than a country with military forces superior to any European NATO member and certainly any Middle East state.

As the brutality of Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights increases international pressure for change; those who approve of the current arrangements conjured up a novel way to shame and silence even Jews who critique Israeli policy. Robson’s comments are typical of those who wish to portray any criticism of Israel’s official behaviour as the “New Anti-Semitism”; a truly Orwell construct. Canadian parliamentarians like Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney and Irwin Cotler have been strong advocates of this desperate misconception.

Perhaps Robson is unaware that the Israeli parliament passed a law that would require a supermajority vote on Jerusalem issues. While that law can be overturned; it symbolizes the Netanyahu government’s stubborn intention to expand the Jewish population of the city and place Palestinian areas outside the city limits. In fact, Israel intends to add 150,000 West Bank settlers to Jerusalem’s population and further marginalize over 100,000 Palestinians whose homes will be outside the illegal Separation Wall that surrounds the city; thus revoking their residency and denying them civic rights in Jerusalem.

Much like medieval witchcraft charges; the anti-Semitic accusation is impossible to refute because the notion of anti-Semitism is subject to infinitely flexible definitions. Even the most reasoned defense against this ugly slur can somehow be twisted into a fresh offense and thus, many well-intentioned people been falsely branded for even daring to examine the concept. The concept is especially attractive to those who have internalized monotheistic dogma.

Robson’s comments indicate his apparent satisfaction with the fact that the Palestine-Israel issue is generally devoid of comprehensive historical context on Zionism’s brutal anti-Semitism. During the years between the World Wars, European Zionist leaders like Ben Gurion and Sharett were so obsessed with their Palestine colonial project that they actively sabotaged U.S. and British efforts to re-settle Jewish refugees from Nazism in Britain and North America.

After the Second World War ended, they were content to allow thousands of displaced Jews to remain in European camps even though these refugees had little interest in moving to the new State of Israel. Many languished in poverty and despair in camps that were dominated by Zionist thugs employed by the Zionist authorities. These people applied extreme pressure to any Jews who merely wished to restart their shattered lives somewhere other than Israel.

For these fanatics, the Zionist project mattered more than the lives of their fellow Jews; many of whom were murdered in Palestine and elsewhere for daring to refuse financial and material support to terror organizations like the Irgun, Stern Gang and the infamous Lehi, who even recruited children as killers. Former terrorist leaders like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir later assumed senior political roles after careers of brutality.

Responding perhaps to the revealing work of historians like Benny Morris and Illan Pappé, Israeli bureaucrats continue to reseal declassified records that threaten to expose the darker aspects of Zionism and Western efforts to help Israel expand territorially. These censors may have been inspired by Mr. Orwell, who said of history, “those who control the past control the future.”

History Contradicts Claims that Hamas’ October 7 Attacks Unprovoked
2024

Canada’s mainstream media has expressed outrage at the “moral equivalency” of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) simultaneous “…arrest warrants for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity…” by Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hamas’ leader Sinwar.

I note the editors’ exclusion of historical matters such as past United Nation’s Resolutions designed to induce (unsuccessfully) Israeli compliance with International Law and the Geneva Convention. Both the United States and its Israeli proxy have long exempted themselves from such restrictions.

Mainstream editors claim that Israel’s ongoing Gaza campaign is completely justified by Hamas’ October 7 2023 attack. The Hamas attack killed approximately 1200 Israelis and resulted in over 200 hostages taken and retained. Unfortunately, this “unprovoked” assault was entirely predictable given occupied Palestine’s tragic history.
Throughout 2023 the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and settler gangs killed hundreds in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and violently harassed Muslim worshipers at the Al Aqsa mosque, one of Islam’s holiest sites. The Netanyahu government did nothing to prevent this abuse.

Since 2008, 6263 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military and security forces, mainly in Gaza but also as a result of access prevention, demonstrations, Israeli settler attacks and during search and arrest operations in the OPT. IDF violence against Gaza accelerated sharply after Israel’s 2005 “exit” from the crowded coastal zone.

The IDF’s military presence within Gaza’s borders was quickly replaced with total IDF control of its airspace, coastal zones, land borders, as well as the entry/exit of people and goods; an external occupation. The staged-managed 2005 exit was designed to stymie the peace process and facilitate the Sharon government’s accelerated West Bank settlement plans. A year later, Hamas’ 2006 election victory and successful resistance to the failed U.S./Israel-backed Fattah coup attempt resulted in Hamas’ designation as a terrorist entity by Israel and its allies.

This strife could have been avoided has Israel not rejected both Hamas’ 1988 peace offer and the 2002 Arab League Peace Initiative stipulating the “…establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel…” because both offers required “…full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967…”
Secure in their U.S.-backed military might and diplomatic cover, Israel chose to keep all Palestinian and Syrian territories taken by force, in open defiance of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338…” If anything, Israel’s nationalist leadership is increasingly contemptuous of even world opinion as it embraces religious extremists and accuses even reasonable critics of anti-semitism.

Perhaps mainstream editors ought to have referenced the previous information before declaring that the October 7 Hamas attack was unprovoked. Among other offenses, both Israel and its allies highlighted Hamas’ alleged but unverified use of human shields, a bizarre charge given Gaza’s densely populated environment.

Although the use of civilians as human shields is prohibited by the ICC and the Geneva Convention, it is a traditional tactic of guerilla forces facing vastly stronger enemies. Powerful modern armies like the IDF have the luxury of moralizing about the inhumanity of their irregular foes, calling them terrorists or worse. Such demeaning rhetoric is standard practice in all armies.

Hamas’ violence against civilians is unacceptable. However, occupied people do have a legal right (under the Geneva Convention) to resist occupation by force. This is not terrorism. Palestinian Arabs are aware that modern terrorism was introduced to the region by pre-state Jewish groups like the Lehi and Stern Group, violent factions willing to kill Arabs, Britons and even fellow Jews whose support for Zionism was questionable.

Hamas’ killing of Israeli civilians exceeded their right to resist occupation and must be prosecuted. However, Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment of populated areas also exceeds the definition of self-defence but follows the IDF’s brutal Dahiya Doctrine of disproportionate retaliation.

If unchecked, the IDF the will completely destroy Gaza’s infrastructure, kill or exile its population and render it uninhabitable due to pollution and unexploded munitions. The IDF is currently planning to attack the over-crowded Rafah area on Egypt’s northern border, with predictable results.

The devastating violence of the “most moral army in the world” has severely damaged the IDF’s reputation and guaranteed a new generation of enemies to justify the increasing militarization of Israel’s economy and society in general. That might actually be the goal of an Israeli state that openly thrives on conflict and has little patience with peaceful opposition or fair negotiations.

The oft-referenced but disingenuous two-state solution remains an Israeli expansion ploy that has facilitated Israel’s annexation of Golan and the best parts of the West Bank. Only a binational state with equal rights for all citizens has any hope of bringing a lasting peace to the region. For now, though; the Western powers derive great benefit from Israeli dominance and see no profit in supporting Palestine autonomy.