(Hat tip: Antidhimmi)
Mindy Alter writes a response in the Toronto Star to a justification for the CUPE boycott of Israel by Linda McQuaig the day before. The McQuaig piece is a brilliant illustration of the cognitive egocentrism of progressive Canadians projecting their own life-style onto very different cultures; of the effectiveness of Pallywood in smearing Israel; and of the profoud denial that lies behind a distorted moral outrage of people in the grip of the “Human Rights Complex.”
In a key passage, McQuaig raises the issue of the “right of return” of the Palestinians and the threat that poses to the Israeli state:
The Canadian Jewish Congress argued last week that this “right of return” would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state. This may be true. If it remained democratic, Israel might become a multi-religious and multi-ethnic state — like Canada — rather than being an exclusively Jewish state.
CUPE therefore has raised an important, routinely ignored question: Do we as Canadians support Israel’s policy of giving preferential rights to members of one religion? Clearly, we wouldn’t pass laws like that in Canada.
But preferential rights for one religious group are central to the notion of Israel. Israel was created as a Jewish homeland.
Jews born anywhere in the world have the automatic right to become Israeli citizens — a right denied to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians refugees who were born on land that is now part of Israel. International law gives them the right to return home, but Israel refuses to let them back in.
Note that if the CUPE wants to go after countries with “right of return” laws, she could consult the two dozen nations on this list.
Linda McQuaig admits that CUPE Ontario’s insistence on the Palestinians’ “right of return,” a component of the union’s resolution to boycott Israel, would spell the end of Jewish sovereignty. But, to borrow a phrase from a famous Seinfeld episode, “not that there’s anything wrong with that” since the fall of the Jewish state would undoubtedly give rise to a “multi-religious and multi-ethnic state like Canada.”
As a supporter of Israel, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at such a ludicrous assertion. Not only would the demise of Jewish sovereignty not result in a multicultural state “like Canada,” given the demographics, it would result in the establishment of yet another Arab state, like all the ones that currently surround Israel. Furthermore, it would likely be an Arab terrorist state, as it would be controlled by an Islamist regime which subscribes to the dangerous ideology that threatens not only Israel, but the entire Western world.
It is profoundly disturbing that McQuaig could call for the end of the Jewish state in such a cavalier and offhanded manner. If anything, it shows how effective Israel’s enemies like the organizers of the international boycott have been at falsely smearing Israel as an “apartheid state.” In truth, Israel has been doing little more than using defensive actions like building checkpoints and a security barrier to protect its people against the threat of terrorism, as would any nation in its position even Canada. If McQuaig and CUPE Ontario leader Sid Ryan object to such policies, fair enough. But they have no right to defame Israel and then use these defamations as evidence that it’s time to dismantle the Jewish state.
Antidhimmi comments: “So its not that the supporters of the Canadian Boycott don’t understand the consequences of the ‘right of return”, those consequences (the destruction of Israel) are precisely what they seek.” But of course, they seek this not with malice towards the Jews, but with all the best intentions since the fall of the Jewish state will give rise to a much better one — multicultural, just like us! At what point does stupidity become malice?
Stupidity, or rather ignorance in this case, is by far more dangerous than malice, because it disguises its
intentions with naivete, and thus appears more objective.
Comment by Al Tira — June 6, 2006 @ 10:09 am
Antisemitism by effect, if not intent.
Comment by Bruce Kodish — June 6, 2006 @ 11:20 am
Shortly after WW2 a Frenchman said to a Brit, “We will never forgive you for having been braver than we”. In the eyes of Europe, maybe this is what Israel is guilty of…?
Comment by igout — June 6, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
I heard a Frenchwoman say, “The French will never forgive the US for saving us twice.” This is obviously a base emotion, which the French expect to be forgiven because they’re so witty and charming (when they want to be), their women are so beautiful and their restaurants so tasty. and under normal circumstances, they do get away with it.
the problem is that in a period like the current one, that kind of attitude is suicidal, and we can’t help them even if we want to.
i was thinking today, sometimes integrity is crucial to survival… like now.
Comment by RL — June 6, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — June 7, 2006 @ 1:14 am
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Abolish the “N” Word by ShrinkWr…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — June 9, 2006 @ 1:51 am
Anti-zionism ?= antisemitism folowup
Judeopundit expanded on my thoughts about Antisemitism and Antizionism So I think that maintaining the distinction bewteen anti-Zionism and anti-Semtiism may actually provide some clarity in the face of people who claim that they are being labeled “An…
Trackback by Soccer Dad — June 11, 2006 @ 5:59 am
Based on my experiences of visiting Israel as a non-Jew I have to say that Israel does a better job of multiculturalism that we do.
Apartheid State? Hardly.
http://indefenceoftherighteous.blogspot.com/
Comment by Kevin -Canuck- — June 26, 2006 @ 3:18 pm