In Canada, BDS loses in the House of Commons but wins on university campuses (Updated)

Activism
on 58 Comments

Update:

Regretfully, the online ratification of the McGill BDS resolution (which follows the actual live vote at the General Assembly of the Student Society) was not successful. As mentioned in the conclusion of the original article, the Zionist pushback was expected and follows the pattern in other universities. The students have pointed to alot of “dirty tricks” used by various pro-Zionist on and off-campus groups, that violated the rules of no campaigning during the online vote. In a statement on their website, the McGill BDS Action Network concluded: “We will be pursuing recourse for the fact that there was illegal campaigning to vote no on the motion. Thanks to everyone for all your support. The fight is not over.” And indeed, the fight is not over! The struggle continues.

 Original Post:

So the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions BDS movement had a big day on Monday, Feb. 22, 2016 in Canada, both in the House of Commons and on university campuses.

Within a few hours of each other, Canadian politicians voted 229-51 to condemn BDS and even individuals who promote it; then the Students Society at McGill, a leading university in Montreal, voted to support BDS. An interesting irony here is that the new Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau is an alum of McGill and even personally condemned the efforts to support BDS at McGill when it was first introduced a year ago.

Lets deal with the motion in the House of Commons first (not yet a bill but it was made clear that’s where some MPs would like to see it go). It was introduced (not surprisingly) by the opposition Conservative party, the same party that governed Canada for the previous 10 years and were incredibly staunch supporters of Israel. It stated:

“That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad”.

Note particularly the inclusion of “individuals” in the condemnation phrase. So of course the Conservative Party supported the motion overwhelmingly. And those who had voted in the new Liberal government hoping for change were immensely disappointed as it was announced (and followed through with) that the government would also support the motion. Three brave Liberal MPs did actually vote against it and others abstained. But the logic of the Liberal Party as to why they were supporting it was a real lesson in political double-speak and illogic.

The new Foreign Minister, Stephan Dion, when commenting on the wording of the motion in the debate in the Parliament, which happened several days before the actual vote, stated that … “this rhetoric elicits mistrust and it comes from the Conservatives, who in recent years have constantly tried to transform support for Israel into a partisan issue in Canada.” But then also said “We must oppose anything that stands in the way of stronger ties between Canada and Israel”.

As Neil McDonald, a veteran CBC journalist, noted in a wry commentary about the debate and Minister Dion’s comments:

“There is also, added the minister, the small matter of freedom of speech and debate. Dion denounced the Conservatives’ opposition day motion…as just more “politics of division.”

The Tories, he said, are just “bullies” who want to turn the defence of Israel into a partisan issue. They’ll portray anyone who votes against their motion as “dissidents.”

‘It’s not us who wrote this motion,’ Dion complained, ‘but we have to vote yes or no.’

So, um, yes. Reluctantly, yes.”

The take-away message from the official Liberal position was something like this: yes, this motion infringes on freedom of expression, we are against that, but we’re going to support it anyway to show our support for Israel. Really?! So support for a foreign country or government is more important than the right of free speech in Canada and upholding the Charter of Rights? Would this approach apply in all cases, or just when it comes to Israel?

Now, the position of the New Democratic Party, who did vote against the motion along with the Bloc Quebecois, was summarized like this during the debate by one of their MPs, Charlie Angus:

“Mr. Speaker, To be clear, we are not debating issues of racism and anti-Semitism.

That is not what this is about. This is about a political tactic and whether we agree with that political tactic or not.

The House, supported by the Liberal government of the day, is supporting actions for the government to condemn any attempts made by individuals or organizations.”

Right on, and words we could get behind and cheer for if this wasn’t the same party that purged some of their own candidates for speaking out on this issue back in August 2015 during a heated election campaign. It would seem that the issue of Palestinians rights and lives is a political football in Canada (the Greens being the one exception). We must content ourselves with accepting whatever limited crumbs are thrown our way whenever it suits the prevailing winds and are criticized if we’re not grateful.

Lets go back to the Student Society at McGill. The McGill BDS Action Network had submitted a resolution calling on the Student Society to:

“stand in support of BDS campaigns and to recommend to the Board that McGill divest entirely of all its holdings in companies that profit from the occupation, as well as implement a screening mechanism that would prevent future investments in similar companies. The motion will specifically support the campaign for McGill to divest from corporations that profit from the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. These corporations include Re/Max Holdings Inc., whose Israeli subsidiary sells real estate in settlements throughout the West Bank, and Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank, which has financed settlement construction projects and provides mortgages to homebuyers in settlements. A third company, L-3 Communications Inc., has supplied equipment to Israeli checkpoints, signed contracts with the Israeli Ministry of Defense for the production and remanufacture of tank engines, and developed the Hermes 900 drone with Elbit systems, used for the first time in Operation Protective Edge in 2014.”

The motion passed with 512 in favour, 357 opposed and 14 abstentions. This represents the future and embodies all our hopes for justice for the Palestinians. The Canadian House of Commons, alternately, reminds of the opposite.

The main lesson here for activists is that only effective grassroots organizing will really help the Palestinian people in their struggle and intensifying BDS work is part of that effort. The efforts and ultimate success by the McGill BDS Action Network is just one positive example of that, although the pushback from the Zionist lobby has already begun and surely will continue. But the hard work of networking and maintaining BDS campaigns have proven to be the best strategy for international supporters who want to see the Palestinians be able to live in freedom and dignity.

58 Responses

  1. German Lefty
    February 25, 2016, 4:24 pm

    Fury as German city plans tolerance prize for pro-BDS group
    Israel’s ambassador to Berlin ‘appalled’ that boycott-supporting Code Pink being honored ‘in Germany of all places’
    link to timesofisrael.com

    • Talkback
      February 26, 2016, 3:07 am

      The Israeli ambassador propably thinks that Germans still support supremacism, lebensraum policy and a blood and soil ideology.

  2. Juan R.
    February 25, 2016, 5:08 pm

    The “occupied territory of the West Bank” is not occupied. […]

    • Talkback
      February 26, 2016, 3:30 am

      Juan Rabinovits aka “Moshe Habaita”: “The “occupied territory of the West Bank” is not occupied.”

      Lol. Besides the rest of the world, the UN and the International Court of Justice even the Supreme Court of Israel considers the West Bank to be under Israel’s belligerent occupation.

      “In 1948 Israel was confirmed as a national entity by the U.N. with Judea and Samaria as part of this sovereign state …”

      Lol. Israel failed twice to be admitted to the UN in 1948 and declared statehood within borders according to the partition plan. It even declared Jerusalem to be occupied by Israel in August 1948.

      “… based on an international agreement signed by the government of Turkey and recorded in the Treaty of Lausanne which legalized the San Remo Accords.”

      LOL. There’s nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne ro the San Remo Accords which proves anything that you are claiming.

      “The government of Turkey as signatory to this binding treaty gave up all claim to its former territories and the Mandate for Palestine came into legal force.”

      Remarkably that’s not a lie. The outcomes of this detachments were newly created states which came under class A mandates.

      “And thus ‘Jewish Palestine’ was established by the League of Nations on September 16th 1922 as Eretz-Israel when Israel was defined as the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea by the Transjordan Memorandum

      Lol. The state of Palestine was established, not “Jewish Palestine”or “Eretz Israel” or “Israel”. The mandate was called Mandate for “Palestine”.

      “This subsequent partition plan of 1947 was merely a proposal and totally rejected by the Arabs.”

      Sure. The Jewish Agency had other plans, too. Colluding with Transjordan to split up Palestine and to take over the rest, after forming the necessary army. And look, what happened.

      “The San Remo agreement and the Treaty of Lausanne are Israel’s Magna Carta and are in full force to this day.”

      Lol. How can these treaties even be Israel’s “Magna Charta”?

      “No country may try to change the legitimate borders of another country by intimidation, coercion or force.”

      And no country may try to chance its own boders by intimidation, coercion or force of others.

      Now, Juan R. Since you are just an Eli E. Hertz spam bot I will not expect a counter argument (your propaganda source has no argumetns either) but that you are going to spam another thread with your copypaste ideocies like you do all over the internet,correct?

      • Juan R.
        February 26, 2016, 11:53 pm

        Israel’s declaration of Independence made no mention of its borders.

        The borders were determined by the Mandate for Palestine. After Trans Jordan was separated from the Mandate the area between the river and the sea remained. The Balfour Declaration,
        the Sam Remo Agreements and the treaty of Lausanne all confirmed that Palestine was to be a homeland for the Jewish People. The Partition plan was just a plan. It never came into existence because it was rejected by the Arabs.

      • MRW
        February 27, 2016, 10:21 am

        Juan, you’ve missed years of discussion here, and the drivel you spout has been roundly dismissed as wishful thinking by uneducated Israeli nationals raised on fairy tales and myths, but discredited by the actual wording of the official papers.

        Here is the British Mandate, or Mandate for Palestine, as you call it. It is immortalized in the British White Paper of 1939. I quote:

        [T]he Royal Commission, His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows.

        Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.’ His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated …. the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE.” [Emphasis in original.]

        But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

        You are just plain wrong. The official documents say you are wrong.

      • Mooser
        February 27, 2016, 12:06 pm

        “Israel’s declaration of Independence made no mention of its borders.”

        Moderators! Get the Moderators! I will not be subjected to a comedic assault! I nearly had an infarction!

        Yup, that’s what Israel was declaring independence from! Its borders! ROTFLMSJAO! That, of course, was to provide an refuge for persecuted Jews. It’s completely safe, nobody knows where it is!

      • talknic
        February 28, 2016, 6:51 am

        @ Juan R. February 26, 2016, 11:53 pm

        “Israel’s declaration of Independence made no mention of its borders”

        So what? That only means they didn’t mention them. Fact is, by their own admissions they didn’t mention them in order to deceive. (By 1945 it was illegal under the UN Charter to acquire territory by war or by any coercive measure)

        …1948 …discussing the Declaration… Ben-Gurion did not want to limit themselves from the outset: We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don’t accept?”

        However the Israeli Government’s OFFICIAL plea for recognition DID mention them “the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” link to trumanlibrary.org — Nail it to your thick head, because that is how Israel was recognized

        “The borders were determined by the Mandate for Palestine”

        Sorry to burst your Ziopoop bubble buddy. There’s no mention of any Israeli borders in the Mandate for PALESTINE</strong.

        Guess why it's called the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine pal, because it was the mandate for PALESTINE

        Read Article 7, then shut the f&ck up and take your pathetic twaddle to the people who proclaimed Israel’s borders in the Israeli plea for recognition.

        “the Sam Remo Agreements and the treaty of Lausanne all confirmed that Palestine was to be a homeland for the Jewish People. The Partition plan was just a plan. It never came into existence because it was rejected by the Arabs”

        Israel didn’t reject it. Israel proclaimed its borders by it and was recognized by it and that’s how Israel was accepted into the UN

        Why is it that People like Juan.R are so thick?

    • talknic
      February 26, 2016, 3:48 am

      Juan R

      Treads in it then tries to walk around, swiftly sinking over his head

      “The “occupied territory of the West Bank” is not occupied”

      The UNSC unanimously disagrees with your Ziopoop pal.

      .“In 1948 Israel was confirmed as a national entity by the U.N. with Judea and Samaria as part of this sovereign state based on an international agreement signed by the government of Turkey and recorded in the Treaty of Lausanne which legalized the San Remo Accords. “

      Strange, the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT officially pleaded for recognition

      “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”

      That state was recognized 11 minutes later, by those boundaries

      “The government of Turkey as signatory to this binding treaty gave up all claim to its former territories and the Mandate for Palestine came into legal force. And thus ‘Jewish Palestine’ was established by the League of Nations on September 16th 1922 as Eretz-Israel … etc etc “

      Article 7 of the LoN Mandate FOR PALESTINE tells us you’re really full of Ziopoop

      “This subsequent partition plan of 1947 was merely a proposal and totally rejected by the Arabs. It has no legal standing whatsoever.”

      Odd Israel was recognized as it proclaimed itself in order to be recognized

      “The San Remo agreement and the Treaty of Lausanne are Israel’s Magna Carta and are in full force to this day.”

      How strange … the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT claimed it terminated at midnight May 14th 1948

      “We declare that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)” link to pages.citebite.com

      I suggest you take your whining ignorance to them

      ” No country may try to change the legitimate borders of another country by intimidation, coercion or force”

      Correct. UNSC res 242 and numerous other unanimously adopted UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of the binding Laws, binding UN Charter that those resolutions emphasize and re-affirm told us long ago.

      This might interest you. It’s the foundation of one of the Customary International rules of Law that Israel obliged itself to uphold, but has failed numerous times over its short 68years

      link to cfr.org

      Go peddle your foul Ziopoop elsewhere Juan. Here it makes you look stupid

      • Juan R.
        February 26, 2016, 1:03 pm

        Talknic is that the name your mother gave you? You sound Russian. Am I right?
        I am Russian and will be glad to meet you face to face anywhere in the world.

      • Mooser
        February 26, 2016, 4:54 pm

        “I am Russian and will be glad to meet you face to face anywhere in the world.”

        Oh, no, not another Zionist pisk-malocheh!

      • gamal
        February 26, 2016, 6:08 pm

        “I am Russian and will be glad to meet you face to face anywhere in the world.”

        Is this a Musical?

      • talknic
        February 26, 2016, 11:00 pm

        @ Juan R

        “Talknic is that the name your mother gave you? You sound Russian. Am I right?”

        Wrong and totally irrelevant to the issue at hand

        You’ve been shown by the the documents you’ve cited that the documents you’ve cited DO NOT SUPPORT your Hasbara drivel.

        Instead of changing the subject, a rational person would admit they were wrong. But like every idiotic Zionist I’ve ever met online and in life, you’re incapable of admitting the truth

        “I am Russian … “

        A Russian named Juan … how odd

        ” … and will be glad to meet you face to face anywhere in the world”

        And what? Get the shock of your life? I can’t wait!

      • Juan R.
        February 27, 2016, 12:02 am

        The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan. The want a one state solution through Jihad. Nothing less.

      • RoHa
        February 27, 2016, 6:28 am

        “Is this a Musical?”

        Argumentum ad baculum always sound more respectable if accompanied by song and dance.

      • MRW
        February 27, 2016, 10:34 am

        Educate yourself. Read Hostage’s archive: link to mondoweiss.net

        You don’t have a leg to stand on. Every point you try to make has been soundly denounced by Hostage over the past years. And you don’t want to get into an argument with him. He’ll mop the floor with you. That is, if he’s in the mood to treat you generously.

      • talknic
        February 27, 2016, 6:13 pm

        @ Juan R. “The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan”

        So what? ISRAEL didn’t!

        May 15, 1948 “ the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

        That’s how Israel was recognized and accepted into the UN

        ” The want a one state solution through Jihad. Nothing less”

        Strange, Abbas in front of the world at the UN offered to accept only 22% of the Palestinians rightful territories for peace with Israel

        Palestine has already been recognized as they asked to be recognized by the majority of the nations of the world.

      • Juan R.
        February 27, 2016, 7:31 pm

        Talknic: The Treaty of Lausanne stated that the status of territories not named in the treaty must be agreed upon by the parties concerned. Of course Israel did not sign it. Israel did not exist then. Nor did Palestine, except as a Mandate. But Great Britain signed it and they bound themselves to try to get the concerned parties into agreement. So blame them. Israel was agreeable but the Palestinian Arabs were not. So no deal. The Palestinians attacked Israel with the Arab armies behind them and lost. The Jordanian Arabs did not want the green lines to be a boundary so there wrote that into the armistice agreement and signed it. Israel acted defensively and so they gained sovereignty over the 22%. The Arabs tried again in 1967 and lost even more territory. So there still needs to be agreement between both sides and we agree on that. Let’s have lunch as soon as I get back from Damascus.

      • Talkback
        February 28, 2016, 3:07 am

        Juan R.: The Treaty of Lausanne stated that the status of territories not named in the treaty must be agreed upon by the parties concerned. Of course Israel did not sign it. Israel did not exist then. Nor did Palestine, except as a Mandate.”

        Palestine was not a “Mandate” (which was a treaty between a mandatory and the League of nation) but a STATE UNDER mandate. It was one of the sucessor states detached from Turkey under the Treaty of Lausanne which was confirmed in the Mavrommatis case at the (then) International Court of Justice. What’s your point?

        “Israel acted defensively and so they gained sovereignty over the 22%.”

        Lol, you mean the other 78%. And no, the Arab Palestinians were only defending Palestine’s territorial integrity against Jewish seperatists and terrorists.

        “The Arabs tried again in 1967 and lost even more territory.”

        Nope. The Jews tried again in 1967 and acquired even more territory by war and expulsion. Like 1956 it was another war of choise according to the former Prime terrorist and minister Menachem Begin.

      • talknic
        February 28, 2016, 7:30 am

        @ Juan R. February 27, 2016, 7:31 pm

        “The Treaty of Lausanne stated that the status of territories not named in the treaty must be agreed upon by the parties concerned.”

        You’re spouting twaddle pal. The parties concerned are named in Article 1 of that treaty. The documents you cite DO NOT support your Ziopoop

        Never the less, it and everything that went before 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) was superseded by the Israeli Declaration, the subsequent plea for recognition and subsequent recognition by that[pleas borders.

        Whatever lay outside of Israel’s borders was not Israeli. It’s that simple, except of course to moronic little Zionist trolls, have nothing better than bullsh*t to peddle

        ” Israel did not exist then. Nor did Palestine, except as a Mandate.”

        Oh FFS. It was a Class A Mandate and Article 7 of the Mandate for PALESTINE makes it VERY CLEAR to all but a moron that Palestine was a state, by 1925 it had adopted the Palestinian Nationality Law. It was a Nation State in which Jews could get PALESTINIAN citizenship

        “But Great Britain signed it and they bound themselves to try to get the concerned parties into agreement. “

        Hey idiot, read Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate for PALESTINE and stop posting garbage

        ” The Palestinians attacked Israel with the Arab armies behind them and lost.”

        How do you know they attacked Israel? You said Israel had no borders, so it must have been absolutely impossible to tell if Israel had been attacked.

        The Israeli Government on May 22nd 1948 didn’t mention Israel being attacked. The war was in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        “The Jordanian Arabs did not want the green lines to be a boundary so there wrote that into the armistice agreement and signed it.”

        More crap. Israel AND Jordan signed it and the West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the majority of its legal inhabitants The annexation was as a trustee only by DEMAND of the other Arab States (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950).

        ” Israel acted defensively”

        Bullsh*t. Under Plan Dalet Jewish forces were already outside Israel’s borders on the day Israel proclaimed them in its plea for recognition.

        ” and so they gained sovereignty over the 22%”

        Since 1945 it has been illegal to acquire territory by war or any coercive measure. Read the UN Charter and the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States link to pages.citebite.com

        ” The Arabs tried again in 1967″

        More bullsh*t. Israel was attacking its neighbours in 1966 link to unispal.un.org

        There are no UNSC resolutions condemning ANYONE for invading or attacking Israel, because Israel started all its wars and they were all fought in territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        ” Let’s have lunch … “

        No thanks when I have lunch I like to enjoy it, not be treated to Ziovomit by an idiotic Israeli propagandist

        ” … as soon as I get back from Damascus”

        Save it pal. Nothing you’ve provided as a fact has in fact been true, why on earth do you think anyone in their right mind would believe you’re going to Damascus?

      • Mooser
        February 28, 2016, 1:32 pm

        “Nothing you’ve provided as a fact has in fact been true…”

        “Talknic”, as unpleasant as they are, we must give them their due! The “hits” have all been true. So are the UPVs, and the “sessions”.
        And what about his archive? It is indubitably true, an exact copy of his comments.
        And then there are the responses they evoke, and those are wonderful in many ways.

        Yup, Zionism is in good hands, I tell ya’. Not even the slightest realistic conception of how the Web works. Every one of ’em swinging in high, wide and handsome to set us straight. Do they wonder why Mondo is still “on the air” when they are done?

      • Mooser
        February 29, 2016, 8:23 pm

        “accompanied by song and dance.”

        Just give me a couple of good strophes and anti-strophes, and I’m happy .

    • zaid
      February 26, 2016, 8:18 am

      Great now give the Palestinians in the west bank the right to vote.

      You dont annex a land without the people living on it.

      • DaBakr
        February 26, 2016, 6:25 pm

        @z

        yup.

      • Juan R.
        February 27, 2016, 7:36 am

        They vote in all the Palestinian elections. They elected Abbas and local leaders.

        You want them to vote also in the Israeli elections?

    • Misterioso
      February 26, 2016, 9:26 am

      Juan R.

      Utter nonsense. I can’t believe you are trotting out this long since debunked canard.

      To be brief:
      The 1922 League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate, i. e, Palestine was to be administered by Britain AS A WHOLE until its citizens were able to assume democratic self-rule. By incorporating the Balfour Declaration the mandate did facilitate Jewish immigration to “secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home,” but it did not call for the creation of a sovereign Jewish state or homeland in Palestine or any form of partition. This was made very clear in the Churchill Memorandum (1 July 1922) regarding the British Mandate: “[T]he status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.”

      Regarding the 1922 British Mandate, as approved by the Council of the League of Nations, the British government declared: “His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.” (Command Paper, 1922)

      Furthermore, In May 1939, the British government issued the MacDonald White Paper, which in accordance with its Mandate, declared Great Britain “could not have intended Palestine should be converted into a Jewish state against the will of the Arab population of the country.” The White Paper called for a Palestinian state in which Jews and Arabs would govern jointly based on a constitution to be drafted by their representatives and those of Britain. The constitution would safeguard the “Jewish National Home” in Palestine and if good relations developed between Jews and Arabs, the country would be granted independence in ten years. (Land sales to Jews were to be restricted and the annual level of Jewish immigration was to be limited to 15,000 for five years, following which, Palestinian Arab acquiescence would be required.)

      Hence, consistent with the terms of its Class A Mandate, Britain abstained on the UNGA vote regarding the recommendatory only Oct. 29/47 Partition Plan (UNGA Res. 181)

    • Waterbuoy
      February 26, 2016, 11:09 am

      Even Theodor Meron, the state of Israel’s own expert on international law, agrees that it is occupied and that the settlements are illegal.
      There is a link to a PDF copy of the legal English translation of his 18, Sept, 1967 letter to his Prime Minister’s office on this page from the University of London.
      link to soas.ac.uk
      Good reading and worth sharing.

    • kalithea
      February 26, 2016, 7:36 pm

      @JuanR

      ZZZZZZZZZ — Hogwash.

      • MHughes976
        February 27, 2016, 10:49 am

        I think that the basic political right is to be enfranchised as the subject of a sovereign power. There is no Palestinian sovereign power. The Palestinians are for the most part subjected to the sovereign power of Israel, which disfranchises them.

    • Stogumber
      February 27, 2016, 11:35 am

      But certainly the Turkish government wasn’t entitled to give the land to anyone they just wanted. Turkey was an empire itself and had no legal hold over the inhabitants of its colonies. This treatment of affairs as if it was a dedication of private property is rather shocking. Anyway, if there were a state of Israel from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, this state would have to grant citizen rights to its whole population.

      • MHughes976
        February 27, 2016, 12:01 pm

        Nor of course was a committee of bigwigs from the countries recently victorious in WW1.

      • Juan R.
        February 27, 2016, 3:17 pm

        The Treaty of Lausanne said specifically that and deal must be worked out by the parties concerned. And that is still going on.

        Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne
        “Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.”

      • talknic
        February 27, 2016, 6:04 pm

        @ Juan R. …. Insists on making an idiot of himself. Why?

        “The Treaty of Lausanne …” was not with Israel you stupid stupid person and it effected only the parties concerned

        link to wwi.lib.byu.edu em>”ARTICLE I.

        From the coming into force of the present Treaty, the state of peace will be definitely re-established between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of the one part, and Turkey of the other part”

        Ancient history pal. ISRAEL proclaimed itself

        em>”as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” link to trumanlibrary.org

        Why are supporters of Israel’s illegal activities in non-Israeli territories such morons?

    • Misterioso
      February 27, 2016, 7:04 pm

      Juan R.

      You state: “The occupied territory of the West Bank’ is not occupied.”

      If, as the old adage goes, “ignorance is bliss,” you must be a very happy man.

      To wit:

      (A) In the summer of 1967, “[t]he legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked [by Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol] whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked ‘Top Secret,’ Meron wrote unequivocally: ‘My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.’” (New York Times, 10 March 2006)

      (B) Security Council Resolution 446 (22 March 1979) “[Affirms] once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
      “1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;..”

      (C) Security Council Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) “determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…”

      (D) Israel’s 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem was unanimously rejected by the UNSC in Resolutions 476 and 478, i.e., in accordance with the UN Charter and the preamble of UNSC Resolution 242, which governs all that follows and emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war….”

      (E) On 17 December 1981, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 497, which declared Israel’s 14 December 1981 annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights “null and void,” i.e., in accordance with the UN Charter and the preamble of UNSC Resolution 242, which governs all that follows and emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war….”

      (F) In accordance with the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel, and further underscoring the illegality of the settlements, Part 2, Article 8, section B, paragraph viii of the Rome Statute of the International Court (1998) defines “the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as a War Crime, indictable by the International Criminal Court.

      (G) On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report entitled Israel and the Occupied Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: “Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War…. The international community does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories.”

      (H) In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations.

      (I) US Secretary of State, John Kerry: “The US views all of the settlements as illegitimate.” (13 August 2013, Reuters Video)
      (link to uk.reuters.com)

      (J) British Foreign Secretary William Hague regarding Jewish settlements in the West Bank (5 April 2011): “This is not disputed territory. It is occupied Palestinian territory and ongoing settlement expansion is illegal under international law…”

      • Talkback
        February 28, 2016, 3:14 am

        Juan R. “The Treaty of Lausanne said specifically that and deal must be worked out by the parties concerned. And that is still going on.”

        Rofl. The party was Palestine, the state under mandate. That was its international status. What is still going on is the Zionist conquest of Palestine.

        Even the Supreme Court of Israel considers Israel’s version of “Bohemia and Moravia” to be under Israel’s belligerent occupation.

  3. talknic
    February 26, 2016, 3:25 am

    Meanwhile and seemingly seamlessly

    link to smh.com.au European Parliament calls for Saudi Arabia arms embargo

    • Talkback
      February 28, 2016, 3:17 am

      The patients of mine who suffer from encephalitis zionica explained to me that this means that Europeans hate Saudi Arabians, because Saudi Arabia only defends itself against terrorists who want to destroy Saudia Arabia and hide behind civilians which are tought to hate Saudi Arabians from a young age.

  4. Misterioso
    February 26, 2016, 10:42 am

    Worth noting:

    link to theglobeandmail.com

    Canada’s Globe and Mail, Feb. 23/16

    “Parliament votes to reject Israel boycott campaign”
    By Patrick Martin

    EXCERPTS:

    “Israel is increasingly concerned with the successes of the boycott and divestment efforts. In 2014, foreign direct investment in Israel dropped 46 per cent from the previous year, in part, a United Nations report said, because of BDS efforts.

    “These initiatives are taking hold at North American universities, churches and trade unions, where many institutions are dropping investments in Israel or Israel-connected companies. In Europe where hundreds of academics and entertainers are personally boycotting Israel, major companies such as telecom Orange and water company Veolia are pulling out of Israeli ventures, and some EU governments are putting warning labels on products produced in Israeli West Bank settlements.”

    “Specifically, the non-violent punitive measures are to be maintained until Israel ends ‘its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and [dismantles] the Wall’ (a reference to the security barrier erected to cut off Palestinian communities from Israel); recognizes ‘the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality,’ and protects ‘the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.’

    “These goals are not dissimilar from Canada’s official positions on Israeli occupation, settlements and human rights, and are not, on the face of it, what most people would consider anti-Semitic.

    “Israel’s reaction has been to launch a worldwide campaign by its overseas missions and supporters to discredit the BDS movement.”

    “The important thing to note about the reference to UN Resolution 194 is that this resolution calls for “negotiations” with Israel over the terms by which the Palestinian rights to return would be implemented. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative also refers to Resolution 194, even as it offers full recognition of Israel.”

    “This was another popular refrain in Parliament – that the BDS movement’s singling out Israel from among all nations is proof of its anti-Semitic nature.

    “Yes, the BDS campaign singles out Israel, quite naturally. It was started by a group of Palestinians, including Mr. Barghouti, to elicit help in dealing with Palestinians’ biggest problems. It was not intended to solve all the problems of the world. Just as the worldwide campaign against apartheid in South Africa did not address the ills of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, or the dictatorship in Somalia, this BDS movement is uniquely tailored to safeguarding Palestinian rights.

    “The fact that this anti-BDS parliamentary motion passed is ridiculous, says Diana Buttu, a Canadian-born Arab Israeli and former adviser to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.

    “‘Canada follows international law and correctly labels Israel’s colonization of the West Bank as illegal,’ she notes. ‘BDS aims to hold Israel accountable for its illegal acts,’ she points out, ‘yet the government passes a resolution condemning those who aim to uphold international law and Canadian foreign policy?’

    “’It’s nuts,’” Ms. Buttu said.”

    • Juan R.
      February 27, 2016, 3:11 pm

      The president of the United States of America Barak Obama said publicly:

      “I have directed my Administration to strongly oppose boycotts, divestment campaigns, and sanctions targeting the State of Israel,” President Obama said in a statement following the signing ceremony in the Oval Office. “As long as I am President, we will continue to do so.”

      • talknic
        February 27, 2016, 6:23 pm

        @ Juan R

        Sorry to burst your Ziobubble pal

        link to jta.org

        ” Obama signs bill defending Israel from boycott, says it won’t apply to settlements

      • Boomer
        February 28, 2016, 7:10 am

        Much as I regret doing so, I have to agree with Juan R. on this one: on balance, it’s a clear win for Zionism. First, once again Obama goes on record supporting Israel, and deploring the only method that might influence Israel, i.e., BDS aimed at Israel per se. Also, the law that Obama signed is now the law; his signing statement (of debatable legality) means nothing to the next President. Most likely the next President will be a Zionist too. (I have no idea what Trump would do, so some uncertainty exists.)

        Even for this President (especially for this one) the signing statement seems an empty gesture. As far as I can tell, there is no effective mechanism to identify settlement goods as such. Even if there were, I suspect that BDS limited to them wouldn’t be enough to have much impact on Israel as long as we lavish aid and support on Israel. And finally, as far as I can see, the U.S. government has never done anything to enforce its position regarding settlements since George Bush the Elder threatened some loan guarantees.

        The new law will help Zionist PR and legal fights agains BDS, while the Obama administration will continue to do nothing, or so it appears. Obama could do some things if he cared to. He could, for example, recognize Palestine, and stop using the veto at the UNSC to defend Israel against all sanctions.

  5. Waterbuoy
    February 26, 2016, 11:05 am

    Until recently I was a monthly donor to the Liberal Party of Canada. I have notified them that that has shifted to the NDP.
    I note that the chief fundraiser for the LPC is Stephen Bronfman… of the Taglit Bronfman family. I suspect that this has had something to do with the “Pragmatically P.E.P” position of the Liberals.
    My own MP, Nathan Cullen (NDP) spoke as follows on this issue: (shared with me by Tyler Levitan of IJV, Canada)
    “I have a very specific question for my friend [Sean Casey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]. We find things that we do not agree with all the time as legislators. We see movements come and policies brought forward by constituents or groups around the country that we do not agree with, yet we agree with the principle of allowing them to have that freedom of speech. That is the basis of this place we call Parliament, the place
    where we speak not the place where we ban speaking. That would be a different word and a different place. My question is this. Does the member or his government allow for this idea?”

  6. lonely rico
    February 26, 2016, 5:07 pm

    For those who read French, an open letter by Rachad Atonius to Canada’s foreign minister Stéphane Dion in Le Devoir, Feb 26 –

    link to ledevoir.com

    Quelle honte

    Puisque vous être contre les pressions pacifiques, il reste donc deux choix. Ou bien vous favorisez la lutte violente contre l’apartheid israélien, ou alors vous favorisez la continuation de l’occupation israélienne des territoires occupés.

    Quelle déchéance morale, M. Dion.

    [My translation, with apologies to Mr. Antonius]

    Shameful

    Insofar you are against peaceful pressure on Israel (BDS), you have a choice. Either you are for violent resistance against apartheid Israel, or you are for the continued Israeli occupation of occupied Palestinian territories.

    The moral decay of Mr. Dion.

    Worth noting, over the years Le Devoir has published a number of honest and fair articles critical of Israel and the cruel/criminal dispossession of the Palestinians.

  7. kalithea
    February 26, 2016, 7:31 pm

    PM Trudeau is in the infancy of his political career. His father was big on social justice. Justin Trudeau is very vulnerable to the criticisms of his electorate because he won support from a part of the electorate that often votes further to the left.

    PM Trudeau owes his victory to the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP). This is a party that tends to lean further left than the Liberal Party in Canada, but because the present leader of the NDP made the fatal mistake of moving center thinking this might win them the elections and mistakenly believing Canadians had moved center with the two previous wins of the Conservative Party, Canadians turned on the NDP and many NDP voters threw their support in the final weeks before that election behind the Liberal Party.

    Therefore Justin Trudeau is very aware that he owes his victory not to anyone on the right, but to Canadians who were further to the left than the Liberal Party, so he knows how vulnerable he is and how tenuous his position is. He doesn’t owe the Bronfmans anything; on the contrary, he owes tens of thousands of Canadians who were desperate to get rid of Harper. Therefore, he should be made aware of the dangerous precedent that this motion sets for freedom of expression, and freedom to protest and the right to peaceful means of activism.

    Let him know that you are against the Liberal vote against BDS, and that you will throw your support next time behind the party that respects human rights and justice for all people and nations including Palestinians and that you believe that freedom of expression is sacred in the Canadian Charter and should not be compromised for political gain or to repay Zionist millionaire support or to pander to a foreign state, namely Israel. He should be reminded that the Canadian people and people who normally voted NDP and supported him are the only ones he owes his victory to and this move is a slap in the face to everyone who put their trust in him.

    Riding email: [email protected]

    PM site: link to pm.gc.ca

    • kalithea
      February 26, 2016, 7:49 pm

      Not sure why the first address doesn’t work; but the other one does.

      • MRW
        February 27, 2016, 10:43 am

        Use the PM’s office.

      • kalithea
        February 29, 2016, 11:22 am

        I believe it works if you type the address in your own email and send it from there.

  8. Hanna Kawas
    February 27, 2016, 7:03 pm

    Sadly, but not surprisingly, the online ratification of the McGill BDS resolution did not pass. The students have pointed to alot of “dirty tricks” used by off-campus Zionist groups, that violated the rules of no campaigning during the online vote. See the statement below from other student groups asking McGill alum to sign.

    link to facebook.com
    “We are disgusted – yet unsurprised – by an email sent by McGill principal Suzanne Fortier to students and alumni immediately after the results of the online ratification were announced, condemning the BDS movement in the name of “the tolerance and respect we cherish as values fundamental to a university.” We reject the principal’s unilateral adoption of a political position in the university’s name without democratically consulting students and other workers.”
    link to docs.google.com

    • Juan R.
      February 28, 2016, 9:12 am

      You published your article too quickly Hanna.

    • MHughes976
      February 28, 2016, 2:24 pm

      The difference between the results of meetings and of referenda is one of the facts of life. I’d be interrested to know how quite how heavy the defeat was. The fact remains that there is substantial opposition to Israel within student opinion but it has not made any serious impression on the political class as yet and had only a limited impact on public opinion.
      The dynasty of documents descending from the Balfour Declaration always included a reference to non-Jewish rights, though the original hypocrisy of the Declaration – Sir Mark Sykes’ excited report ‘Dr, Weizmann, it’s a boy!’ conveying its real intent; the Press was immediately briefed on its Zionist import – probably seeps through into the rest. Balfour and Lloyd George were deep-dyed Christan Zionists. The thought that they were doing God’s work probably buoyed them up in the act of giving away and carving up the patrimony and rights of others. Which of couse is wrong and unjustifiable however many kings with centuries of lineage and however many presidents with massive democratic mandates sign up to it.
      We’re not supposed to deny the Nakba here. I still think that Nakba justification is worse than mere ‘denial’ and wonder what short shrift holocaust justification would receive.

  9. Juan R.
    February 27, 2016, 7:43 pm

    Balfour Declaration:
    “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

    Article 2 San Remo Convention:
    “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home”

    • Annie Robbins
      February 27, 2016, 8:10 pm

      so juan, when the higher ups decided establish a holocaust museum in the national mall did you think it meant the whole mall was going to be turned into a holocaust museum?

  10. Kay24
    February 27, 2016, 8:53 pm

    One of the reasons why Israel deserves to be sanctioned internationally, and why the US must stop sending aid and handing over ammunition to these vicious zionists:

    “BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah on Thursday condemned Israel’s “deliberate” destruction of EU-funded structures in the occupied Palestinian territory, as he called on the international community to take action.
    “Israel must be held accountable for its deliberate targeting of EU-funded humanitarian aid structures built for the Bedouin communities in Area C,” the prime minister said in a statement.
    He accused Israel of destroying EU-funded structures “in an apparent retaliation for the EU guidelines on indication of origin products from Israeli settlements.”
    He called for an “immediate intervention by the international community to put an end to the destruction of Palestinian-owned property in Area C,” referring to more than 60 percent of the occupied West Bank where Israel has full military and civil control.
    Recent weeks have seen a dramatic surge in home demolitions carried out by Israeli forces, with nearly 500 Palestinians left homeless since the beginning of the year.”

    link to juancole.com

    Rubio must have not got this memo.

  11. Juan R.
    February 28, 2016, 9:01 am

    In Canada, BDS loses in the House of Commons but wins on university campuses –

    Wrong again people, signed. – El Zorro “Z”

    • Mooser
      February 28, 2016, 1:01 pm

      “Wrong again people, signed. – El Zorro “Z””

      And that’s “Z” for “Zinger”! Can Mondo stand the hit?

  12. Juan R.
    February 28, 2016, 1:05 pm

    OK now let’s start on Apartheid…Marion you do the first draft.

  13. hophmi
    February 29, 2016, 11:05 am

    Eventually, student governments will get tired of this, and BDS is going to get itself banned from campuses. People are tired of having their campuses hijacked by shrill political activists who turn students against one another by falsely define everyone who doesn’t support their tactics as racist. These activists ask student governments to pass dilatory resolutions that alienate alumni and make their campuses laughingstocks. BDS hurts university campuses.

  14. lonely rico
    March 2, 2016, 11:36 am

    >hophmi

    BDS hurts university campuses.

    You got this backwards hophmi.

    The shrill political activists, both on and off campus, who try to shut down and marginalize those who wish to address the appalling racist nightmare called Zionism and its cruel dispossession of the Palestinians, hurt campuses.

    I believe students and student governments both at McGill and elsewhere will not get tired of this, but will respond with increased energy and dedication against the intimidation –

    The fight goes on, but we will not be discouraged: from the principal’s office, to the government of Justin Trudeau, to the Israeli Knesset, the reactionary response to BDS is increasingly desperate. This is the direct result of the Palestinian-led movement and the work of all of you who offer your time, energy, and resources in support of their cause and the cause of oppressed and occupied people everywhere.”
    link to docs.google.com

Leave a Reply