Recognition first, debate second
Re: Israel debate rages on, Sept. 10
Sana Ahmed’s article gave a mere nod in the direction of any detractors of this event, solely noting the existence of groups that disagreed. The article also raised a number of potentially libelous claims against those groups, so as to undermine even the token counter-argument given. The article details in propagandist terms the views of the anti-Israel event; a critical reading shows a writer barely concealing her own beliefs.
The Coalition against Israeli Apartheid’s one-state solution, with the inclusion of all claimants to Palestinian heritage currently living in the surrounding area, demonstrates that the group is actively seeking cultural genocide against Jews in the Middle East.
The term “apartheid” in no way applies to Israel. It is employed only as a smear word. Unlike most of these detractors, I have spent a lot of time in Israel, and have seen firsthand that there is no ethnic divide or discrimination within Israel. “Zionism” simply means the desire of the Jews for their own homeland, as many other ethnic groups have. To be anti-Zionist is sadly to be deeply anti-Semitic, as it is to say that Jews are not permitted the rights of all other people. Once all accept Zionism, negotiations on the details of full implementation can begin.
William J. Musgrave
• Ignoring the daffy Israel-South Africa comparison, ignoring the sham propagated by the mainstream media that the security fence is a wall (less than eight per cent is wall), ignoring that the writer forgot that those villages she mentions are mostly under Palestinian control, and ignoring the fact that most Western aid money was funneled into private bank accounts if not used to buy ammunition, I am not willing to ignore the following sentence in Ahmed’s article: “…severing Zionism from Israel’s state policies.”
Zionism is the concept and movement which believes that Jewish people, like all people (not above all people), have a right to a state. Denying this is to say that the one people in the world who cannot have a state are Jews. One might look at any country in that region, for example Jordan, in which Jews cannot own land, or at the P.A., which officially stated that Jews would not be allowed to live in Gaza.
I am interested, did the Boycott Divestment Sanction initiative pay for the advertisement, the article entitled “Boycott and divestment primer,” or was it a gift with the purchase of unbalanced reporting? If I were to name Canadian charities that have funded terrorist attacks on civilians, would The Varsity allow me to advertise for free as well?
Maier Yagod
• Recent events seem to indicate another year of campus strife between proponents of the two groups of the Israeli-Palestinian debate. But do we not owe other students at U of T even an attempt at diffusing such tensions?
Hillel incorporates views from all parts of the political spectrum. As divergent as these views may be, they all share one basic principle: Israel has a right to exist, and will continue to exist. Upon this principle we can open dialogue and discourse. So, in the spirit of our counterparts in the Middle East who have tried, and will try, to bring an end to conflict, I invite any person who is willing to recognize the simple principle of Israel’s right to exist to come and discuss with us the substantive issues at hand. If nothing else, this dialogue will be undertaken in the name of making this a campus free from animosity and tension.
Shaun Hoffman
VP Israel Affairs, Hillel @UofT
