An Open Letter to Michael Ignatieff, MP

Mr. Ignatieff,

I write you this letter in response to your March 5^th article, “Israeli Apartheid Week and CUPE Ontario’s anti-Israel posturing should be condemned”, published in The National Post. Throughout your article, while claiming to respect the values of “differences of opinion, nationality, race and creed”, you attack the organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week and their allies in CUPE Ontario for having such a difference in opinion. Your letter is rife with falsehoods, exaggerations, and distortions. You attack the free speech of others, yet claim paradoxically that this is done in the name of diversity and academic freedom. I would like to respond, point by point, to what I consider the most egregious misunderstandings, falsehoods, and distortions in your article, in the hopes of correcting some of the misinformation that has been circling about IAW and the global BDS (Boycotts, Divestments, Sanctions) movement launched against Apartheid Israel.

You claim, “Israeli Apartheid Week betrays the values of mutual respect that Canada has always promoted”. Yet, you do not provide any evidence of such claims in your article, instead making numerous unsupported statements. As an academic, you are well aware of the fact that it is the sign of a poor argument to make unsupported statements. Could you please share with us the basis for your claim? On what evidence do you make such a claim? If you had educated yourself on the matter, or perhaps attended one IAW lecture, you would see that this is far from the truth.

Israeli Apartheid Week holds true to the values of mutual respect by offering a forum for discussion of the daily realities faced by millions of Palestinians, both inside Israel, and in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. During the week-long event, which is held in more than 40 cities worldwide, academics of various stripes as well as journalists, activists, and community leaders come together to offer a critical discussion in relation to the State of Israel and its policies towards the Palestinian people. In Toronto this year, speakers included Naomi Klein, Omar Barghouti, and Robert Lovelace-a retired Chief of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nations, to name but a few. The goal of Israeli Apartheid Week is to educate the public about Israeli policies and their effect on the Palestinian population, and to motivate persons of conscience to act towards a just solution to the Palestinian question.

You write, “Labeling Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish State itself.” Mr. Ignatieff, if there is anyone who has deliberately undermined Israel’s legitimacy, it is Israel itself. Two months ago, the global public recoiled in horror over Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza, which has been under siege since 2005, the time of the supposed Israeli ‘withdrawal’. In reality, there was no withdrawal, only a reformulation of an existing strategy-to isolate Gaza from the rest of the Palestinian territories, and the world at large. Israel controls all but one of the border crossings; it exerts enough influence with Egypt to keep the remaining crossing-Rafah-closed. It controls Gaza’s sea ports and airspace, and regulates the flow of goods and services into the strip. This sealing in of 1.5 million people has resulted in Gaza becoming an open-air prison; even before the latest assault, Gaza was undergoing a humanitarian crisis, now made worse by the bombings-which included the use of white phosphorus, illegal under international law, as I am sure you are aware. As horrific as this latest attack was, it is but one of many that have happened since Israel illegally occupied Gaza and the West Bank in 1967. Israel enacts these policies based on race and religion-a key component of Apartheid.

Secondly, it is interesting that you claim that Israel’s existence as a “Jewish State” is legitimate. In doing so, you justify the maintenance of a state based on ethno-religious lines. Should states-Israel or otherwise- not be states for all its citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion? Certainly you would object to Canada being defined as a state for white people of British descent-this would fly in the face of the values of tolerance and mutual respect you claim to uphold-why can this same standard not be applied to Israel? If one is for democracy and multiculturalism, one must be for democracy and multiculturalism everywhere-no exceptions.

You write, “Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Attempting to describe its very existence as a crime against humanity is not.” I take issue with this statement on two points. Firstly, at what point did you become the authority on acceptable criticism of any topic, let alone criticism of Israel? The use of the term ‘Apartheid’ to describe official Israeli policies is not new, nor was it invented by the organizers of IAW. Figures such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter have used the term among others to describe Israel, whether as a whole or in relation to its policies in the Occupied Territories. The use of it in academia is also not new; there are numerous articles which describe in detail the realities of Israeli Apartheid, some of which predate Israeli Apartheid Week. I would suggest you read them before commenting next time, as it will lead to a greater understanding of the term “Israeli Apartheid”, and allow for a more intelligent and productive response on your part.

Secondly, no one is claiming that Israel itself is a crime against humanity. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, akin to saying, “Does Israel have the right to exist?” A cliché that is as tired as it is irrelevant (As you know, in international law no country, be it Canada, Israel, or Luxembourg has the inherent right to exist. The legitimacy of a state is based on its actions.) The criticisms found at Israeli Apartheid Week are in relation to the actions of the Israeli government, and are therefore subject to criticism, up to and including the use of the term ‘apartheid’, to describe its discriminatory policies. Let us look for a moment at the three main arguments that Israel is an Apartheid State.

1. Israel discriminates against its Palestinian citizens: True. This has been documented by, among others, Adalah-The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.
2. Israeli Actions in the Occupied Territories are based on discrimination on racial or religious grounds: True. Since 1967, Israel has continued its policy of illegally colonizing the West Bank, in violation of international law. In 2004, Israel began construction of its Apartheid Wall-deemed illegal by both the World Court and the Israeli High Court, as I am sure you are aware-which diverges from the 1967 borders, encircling and isolating the remaining Palestinian villages and towns, cutting them off from one another and the outside world. Israel maintains this system of racial segregation through a series of checkpoints and Jewish-only roads, leaving what remains of the West Bank as a series of disorganized, separated Bantustans.
3. Israel refuses to allow the Palestinian Right of Return: Once again, this is a true statement, and has been documented many times over. At the same time, it allows any person of Jewish descent, whether they have ties to Israel or not, to immigrate to Israel and receive automatic citizenship. Israel refuses to allow the same right to the Palestinian refugee population-the largest in the world-based on racial reasons (Allowing the right of return would change the demographics in Israel from one of a Jewish-majority state to one of a mixed state, with a relatively equal number of Jews and Palestinians).

What we have here is a state which discriminates against a visible minority group, colonizes territories it occupies on racial terms, and refuses a basic human right to those it has dispossessed-whether in 1948, 1967, or beyond. If that is not an Apartheid state, Mr. Ignatieff, then what is? The reason Israel has been labeled as an “Apartheid State” is because it is an apartheid state-a fact backed by the historical record and the experiences of the Palestinian people.

You write, “IAW is part of a global campaign of proclamations, boycotts, and calls for divestment which originated in the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance held in Durban, South Africa in 2001.” I am not sure where you get your facts, Mr. Ignatieff-in reading your statement there has been a steady stream of opinions predicated on false assumptions-but this is not correct. Israeli Apartheid Week follows in the wake of a 2005 call from Palestine for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) signed by over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations, including trade unions, refugee associations, and cultural organizations. IAW, as well as the broader global BDS movement has heeded this call, and stands in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for human rights and self-determination, which Israel has continuously denied, historically speaking and up to the present day.

Nor does IAW or the Global BDS movement, in your own words, “target institutions and individuals because of what and who they are—Israeli and Jewish”. The global call for BDS, heeded by the organizers of IAW and their allies worldwide, is based on the following three demands, which can be viewed online at (www.pacbi.org):

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; 
 
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 
 
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

As you can clearly see, the global BDS call is designed to bring the State of Israel into compliance with international law and is not, as you seem to believe, targeting Jews and Israelis based on national or ethno-religious reasons. The Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid, the organization behind Israeli Apartheid Week, is strongly against any and all forms of racism, Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or any other form of discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, or religion. During Israeli Apartheid Week, this was repeated over and over at the beginning of every presentation, and compliance with these was strictly enforced. In fact, the only one who is making statements about Israel based on racial and ethno-religious lines is you, Mr. Ignatieff. I thusly call on you, as a respected academic and Member of Parliament, to renounce your previous, ill-informed statement. Failure to do so will only contribute to the current climate of misinformation and fear surrounding Israeli Apartheid Week and the BDS movement, and will impede healthy debate and discussion on this issue.

Your statement, “IAW goes beyond reasonable criticism into demonization”, is as false as it is misleading. Again, when did you become the moderator of what is and what isn’t ‘reasonable criticism’ in relation to Israel-Palestine? I refer you to the Open Letter issued by Faculty for Palestine, which can be viewed online at (www.caiaweb.org). The open letter which has been, to date, signed by 377 Canadian academics, reads as follows: 

We the undersigned:

• Defend the right to freedom of speech about Palestine for all members of the university community, including freedom to use the term ‘apartheid’ to identify and debate certain policies associated with the state of Israel and the freedom to support, facilitate and participate freely in activities under the rubric of “Israeli apartheid week”
• Call for an end to the silencing of speech around Palestine, removing extraordinary requirements for security clearance and fees for security services
• Support increased ties to Palestinian institutions and scholars, and activities to support the right to education and academic freedom of Palestinians

This statement reflects a growing consensus in the Canadian academic community in regards to the nature of Israel as an Apartheid state. Moreover, it is essential for academic freedom that individuals are allowed to present dissenting, even controversial at times, opinions without accusations of “demonization” or Anti-Semitism. What you appear to be encouraging is a silencing of a dissenting opinion based on false information, generalizations, and your own personal dislike of the term “Israeli Apartheid”. This, Mr. Ignatieff, is the exact opposite of the academic freedom you claim to defend, and indeed, of the free speech rights contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is also wrong to suggest that IAW, in your words, “leaves Jewish and Israeli students wary of expressing their opinions, for fear of intimidation.” As we have seen in the virulent campaign of distortion and misinformation conducted by the Zionist lobby and their allies, including you, there is no fear of expressing opinions on the pro-Israel side. There has been, however, a campaign of repression against Palestinian Solidarity activists, in particular on university campuses nationwide. At the University of Ottawa, IAW posters were banned from campus after being previously approved. At McMaster University, the administration attempted to ban the term “Israeli Apartheid” entirely. At the University of Toronto, your alma mater, it has recently come to light that the university administration, up to and including President David Naylor, actively conspired with Zionist groups on campus, including Hillel, to shut down pro-Palestinian events on campus through denial of space and the charging of security fees, in what amounts to effective censorship and repression of dissident voices. There have been numerous reports of intimidation, threats, and hate speech directed towards activists and their allies, in particular towards women of colour. At various events during IAW Toronto, attendees and speakers alike were confronted by the Jewish Defense League, considered by the FBI to be a terrorist group. These JDL supporters shouted hateful and racist slogans, including calling the speakers and organizers “terrorists”. During the events themselves, there were numerous attempts at disruption by Zionist students. Rather than encouraging the expression of opinion free from intimidation, it has become clear that there is an active and organized operation by Zionists on campus and elsewhere to restrict the debate on this issue, through a campaign of intimidation, repression, and hateful false accusations. Given your stated belief in the freedom to express one’s opinion without fear, I would expect a denunciation of these hateful acts to be forthcoming from your office almost immediately.

Lastly, your statement regarding the CUPE Ontario resolution is completely misguided. Had you read the resolution for yourself, as well as the BDS statement, you would see that the CUPE resolution and the global BDS campaign does not call for the boycott of individual Israeli academics, as you suggest, but an institutional boycott against those academic institutions which are complicit in Israel’s Apartheid policies. The CUPE motion was brought to its members and passed through democratic means. It is hypocritical of you to praise the actions of CUPE National President Paul Moist, who was not present, and did not vote, while condemning Sid Ryan and the members of CUPE Ontario, where the issue was debated and passed democratically. It is this feature-the ability to debate, discuss, and pass motions reflective of the collective will of the majority of members-which is a hallmark of democracy and gives the CUPE resolution its weight. That you would condemn a democratically-enacted motion because you disagree with the outcome betrays a contempt for democracy and the democratic process, the very pedestal from which you lecture the rest of us.

It is also unclear how IAW, the global BDS movement, and the CUPE resolution violate academic freedom. More specifically, of who’s academic freedom do you speak? Certainly not the academic freedom of Palestinians. During the Israeli assault on Gaza, the Islamic University of Gaza, along with several UN-run schools, were deliberately targeted by the Israeli military. Is this not an attack on academic freedom? What of the academic freedom of the residents of the West Bank, where Israel’s system of checkpoints, settlements, and settler-only roads severely restricts and curtails the right of Palestinians to education? Do their rights count less than that of Israeli academics, many of whom benefit from and contribute to the policies which define Israeli Apartheid? You are right to say that there is an attack on academic freedom, Mr. Ignatieff. However, the perpetrators are Israel and its allies; the very same people whose freedom you rush to defend.

As for the reasons for this targeted campaign, you have stated them quite clearly. Quoting you,      “Canada enjoys strong academic, economic, and cultural ties with Israel and Israeli institutions, and these relationships benefit both our countries.” It is this complicity with a state engaged in apartheid policies which open the door for a BDS campaign. We are guilty of encouraging and supporting, through our academic, economic, and cultural ties, the continued campaign of dispossession, colonization, and oppression by Israel of the Palestinian people. It is for this reason that events such as Israeli Apartheid Week exist: to educate the public about Israel’s racist apartheid system, its effect on the Palestinian people, and Canada’s links towards their continuation. In doing so, the organizers and their allies hope to build momentum towards the full boycott of, divestment from, and sanctions against Apartheid Israel until it complies with international law and fully recognizes the human rights of Palestinians inside Israel, in the Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora.

Try as you might, your condemnation does not appear to be having an effect. This year alone, Israeli Apartheid Week was held in 40 cities worldwide, including cities in Canada, South Africa, and occupied Palestine. Global support for BDS is growing by the day, with resolutions passing in Ontario, the United States, and Britain. Recently, a South African dockworkers union refused to offload a shipment of Israeli goods, in solidarity with the Palestinian people and in support of the global BDS call. You and the Liberal Party can continue to posture and condemn, and Zionists and their allies can continue to attempt to repress and intimidate those who stand in solidarity with Palestine. It will do you no good, Mr. Ignatieff. We are witnessing a new movement of global solidarity with Palestinians and for a just resolution in the Middle East-and towards the end of Israeli Apartheid and the Zionist ideology which has inspired and sustained it, both in Israel-Palestine and worldwide, including Canada.

 

Regards,

 

Andrew Hyland

Whitby, ON