Someone shared this video yesterday and we discussed it a bit on Facebook. I've watched it several times and find the entire thing very disturbing.
It appears that what they are attempting to do with this is counter the Israel Apartheid Week, with a bit of doctored footage, to justify their claims that criticism of Israeli occupation in Gaza is indeed antisemitism.
I haven't broken the entire video down, because I really didn't need to. However, I did notice that the soundbite of teaching assistant Rafeef Ziadeh, was edited for impact. I listened to a longer version of that speech and she goes on to say why there was nothing to dialogue with Zionists about, because they won't listen. Clever though.
The problem we have in this country is that we are not allowed to debate this important issue. To our government, Israel is right, everyone else is wrong, and to suggest otherwise is a hate crime.
In the video they discuss the 3-Ds: Delegitimize, Double Standard and Demonize; as part of the raging antisemitic movement. But I would challenge those subjects as applying more to Palestine than Israel.
Christians United For Israel, the radical fundamentalist group that is spear heading much of this nonsense, was founded in the U.S. by the controversial John Hagee. The Canadian chapter was started by Charles McVety, the man who appears to have more power than most of our elected officials.
Hagee, who has been described as the current face of Christian Zionism, is quoted as saying: "Joel 3:2 says do not do it. Those who divide up the land of Israel will come under the judgment of God. Therefore, don't do it. It's just that simple."
He also uses fear mongering by claiming that Muslims have a "mandate" to kill Christians and Jews; "those who live by the Quran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews."
And when asked "So, for you, there's absolutely no way of tolerating Islam at all? I'm not talking about extreme Islam. I'm just talking about the Muslim religion." He answers: "No, there are Islamics who want peace, but they don't have center stage right now. And whenever Islam, radical Islam, does things that make the headlines, like getting on a bus with a bomb strapped around them and killing people, the moderates do not speak up because they're afraid that they will be killed by the radicals. So it gives the appearance that there are no--there is--there are no moderate Islamic people...
So should we assume from the Christian fundamentalism that now defines the Harper government, that all Christians are radical because they like killing people? I certainly hope not. How's that for your 'double standard'?
This is eerily similar to a speech given by Lt. General Thomas Metz, to Canadian military personnel; as documented by author Linda McQuaig.
The Islamic faith is not evil," says the general [Metz], then quickly adds. "but it's been hijacked by thugs ... Most of the Islamic World believes the suicide bombers of the World Trade Center are now in the land of milk and honey." The general notes that there are almost a billion people in the Islamic world, and that if only one per cent of them are radical, "that's ten million radicals." He then shows a chart depicting the military challenges America faces, measured in terms of level of danger and level of likelihood. At the very apex—the most dangerous and the most likely—sits just one: radical Islamic terrorism. "Radical Islam wants to reestablish the Caliphate," says Metz. "Just as Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, you can read what they want to do." (Holding the Bully's Coat, Canada and the U.S. Empire, Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, pg. 67-68)
And unfortunately most of the North American media has adopted this alarmism (another bloody 'ism'), and demonization, when reporting on the conflict. According to journalist Jim Miles:
Canada lives in the unfortunate position of being under the thrall of U.S. media for most its information and cultural relevance. At the same time, its own media, apart from the national broadcast company CBC, is highly centralized under the influence of two media empires (Canwest Global and CTV GlobeMedia) who support the same kind of biased coverage that is provided by the U.S. In sum, Canadians who wish to receive a balanced view of events in the Middle East, Gaza in particular, have to rely on alternate or external media.
Canwest Global (Israel Aspers' media empire) provides nightly updates with little context and "balanced" reporting of showing deaths in Israel from the Qassam rockets as being equally as devastating as the IDF attacks in Gaza.
The current Canadian Conservative government under Stephen Harper is very much a shadow of U.S. conservatism: right wing Christian moralism; a hawkish if small military projection to give the world what it needs (whether it asks for it or not); and an unquestioning support of 'neoliberal' free trade practices. As such it echoes/mimics/supports the all too familiar U.S. perspective that Israel is the victim and Hamas the perpetrator of events in Gaza.
The Harper government, and in particular Jason Kenney, is trying to turn the control of the Middle East into a crusade, and they are using a form of McCarthyism, to stifle dissent. I call it 'Kennyism'.
If NGOs, in particular human rights organizations, dare to report on the deplorable conditions in Gaza, he cuts off their funding; or threatens to if they don't tow the line. His line. Or I should say John Hagee's line.
In the first video, they show the graphic cartoons, but what about the Danish cartoons that Kenney's buddy Ezra Levant so gleefully published? They also use a 2002 headline and not one more current.
They are alienating the Arab community in an attempt to demonize Islam and justify further agression. We have got to start paying attention.
Stephen Harper's friend and co-founder of the Northern Foundation, Link Byfield spoke at a REAL Women conference in 2002, and his message to fellow Christian fundamentalists was pretty clear.
And those three scenarios:Mr. Byfield's talk was originally to have been on "The Effect of Feminism on the Media", but he declared that the topic was simply too depressing. He spoke, instead, on his view of "Three Futures for Mankind," two of which are quite dark, while one is bright. Which will become our eventual fate?
1. Islam Prevails - Although Muslims share the Christian notion of family, Islam also demands submission. Democracy is a Christian philosophy and, therefore, does not exist or, at best, is only a peripheral force in most Muslim countries.
2. Materialism (secular humanism) prevails: Interesting how he equates materialism with 'humanism, something he no doubt ponders as he's being whisked away in his limo. Technology is good, but materialism turns man into God. The Brave New World morality will be a blasphemy, based on laws which man makes up rather than on the laws of God. Since couples will not be needed to produce children in families, boys and girls will be sterilized before puberty so the state can keep the upper hand. The state can do it better, so who cares about Kate and Tom? It's all happening: sterilization, abortion, test tube babies, designer babies, sex-change operations ...
3. Christianity Prevails. There you go. Why all faiths can't co-exist is obviously not in his range of expertise. It comes down to a classic struggle. Islam or Christianity (which makes it very comforting to know that the prime minsiter can declare war any time he wants).
And they carry that notion into everything they do, even the abortion issue. As columnist Antonia Zerbisias states on the issue:
IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?Meanwhile, the usual right-wing suspects, mostly male pundits, are accusing Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff of advocating abortions for women in poor countries, as if he is some evil eugenicist.
(Funny thing is, many of the critics making that charge are the very same people who constantly sound alarms about how white Christian women aren't making as many babies as those brown Muslim women.)
No comments:
Post a Comment