Anti-Israel motion defeated by Ontario teachers union local
CBC Toronto
Union rejects boycott of Israel
However do notice the influence of the Lobby on the CBC headline versus the Globe and Mail headline which actually says what the motion was about.
See:
Israel
Zionism
Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
B'nai-Brith, Canada, Israel, Jewish Defnese League, JDL, OSSTF, union, Ontario Teachers, Onatario, Canada, boycott Israel, free-speech
7 comments:
I'm sorry, but I don't see the difference between the two headlines. A boycott of Israel certainly sounds like an "anti-Israel" motion to me.
Yes Joseph and lord knows you can't be anti-Israel. To be anti-Israel is the same as being anti-semitic, damn near a Nazi sympathizer.
Do you see the difference now?
Israel's treatment of the the Palestinians s abysmal. A large number of Israelis think this too. Despite that, I fully expect to be accused of antisemitic merely for criticizing Israel and its government and policies.
Remember the last country that treated its citizens and nieghbours the way Israel treats its Arab and Palestinian populations? It was called South Africa. And people who pointed out this treatment were called heroes.
You know, maybe people could have intelligent conversations about Israel and avoid "contreversial" headline issues if people would stow their expletive deleted angst for a second and take the time to lsiten to each other...
All I said is that the two headlines carried the same connotation to me; that's all. Their motion was anti-Israel because it was by its nature against the Israeli government of the State of Israel.
I offered no judgements or defenses, just stated my ontological view on the issue at hand. I don't think you're an anti-semite, nor do I consider you anything near a Nazi Sympathizer. What I do think is that you're an driven hot-head who has invested so much in this particular issue that he is unable to discuss the subject in a civilized or intelligble manner.
But the term boycott is far less loaded than Anti-Israel which immediately equates in the popular imagination as Anti-Semitism
It is a sad truth that "anti-Israel" and "anti-semitism" are both terms which have grown beyond their literal meaning, but I don't think that the use of said term in here was inappropriate especially considering the motion was more than a simple boycott; it was also an attempt to create a highly politicized curriculum program.
"What I do think is that you're an driven hot-head who has invested so much in this particular issue that he is unable to discuss the subject in a civilized or intelligble manner."
Ha! Thanks for the laugh. My point, made rather snarkily yes, was exactly what you said - anti-Israel IS equated to anti-semitism, rightly or wrongly. Thus, as Eugene has pointed out, the headline with "anti-Israel" was far more loaded.
As for my vested interest, it is only to give all sides a fair shake. When I criticized, in a post last summer, the bombing a Cana, I was roundly criticized as anti-semitic, by Liberals. When I tried to argue on their blogs and in mine that perhaps the Palestinians are suffering in equal or greater degrees than Israelis and that my views are shared by almost 1/2 the Israeli population, I was attacked. Ironically before this, I had no position at all, least of all one that could be described as "driven."
And after being a member in good standing of the Bloor JCC for 6 years when I lived in Toronto.
You see Joseph, I have tried to have the civilized discussion and when it comes to Israel, discussion is not welcome, apparently.
"Their motion was anti-Israel because it was by its nature against the Israeli government of the State of Israel."
No. The motion was against a policy of the current government of Israel, not against Israel the nation. Disagreeing with Bush does not make one anti-American. Disagreeing with Harper does not make one anti-Canadian. Even the fight against Aparthied in South Africa was a fight against a policy of a government, not against the people or against a country. That is also the point.
"it was also an attempt to create a highly politicized curriculum program."
The current situation of saying nothing about the actions of the Israeli government means we already have a highly politicized curriculum. Kids aren't stupid...they notice these things. The point is not to have an a political curriculum - I think that is nearly impossible - but to have a fair and balanced one. When we accept and teach only one side of a story, only one perspective, we are being far more political than by confronting it.
I'm sorry, but I just have to ask... did you ever see that creepy painting in the old "Board Room" at the JCC?
No. The motion was against a policy of the current government of Israel, not against Israel the nation. Disagreeing with Bush does not make one anti-American. Disagreeing with Harper does not make one anti-Canadian. Even the fight against Aparthied in South Africa was a fight against a policy of a government, not against the people or against a country. That is also the point.
I'm sorry, but I think someone can make an Anti-American argument without being anti-American. That's just me.
The current situation of saying nothing about the actions of the Israeli government means we already have a highly politicized curriculum. Kids aren't stupid...they notice these things. The point is not to have an a political curriculum - I think that is nearly impossible - but to have a fair and balanced one. When we accept and teach only one side of a story, only one perspective, we are being far more political than by confronting it.
The last time I checked, there is no Israeli history taught in the Ontario curriculum... and call me a skeptic, but I don't trust someone who would propose condemning the Israeli government for it's actions without likewise condemning Hamas for theirs to write a two-sided curriculum.
Post a Comment