Feel free to discuss the issue currently occuring on campus surrounding the use of the term "Israeli Apartheid". Please make sure to follow and respect the MacInsiders Rules before posting.

A really great summary macinsiders! I didn't really know what was going on and didn't get to stay for the event. keep up the good work!!!

Yes, great summary, like most people I had no idea what was going on there lol.

As to the topic itself, I dont know why people get all worked up about this stuff.

Also, I find it a little hypocritical that at a rally against censorship and for freedom of expression and speech, they had these rules in place for the audience:

"...no banners/posters/signs/symbols would be allowed to be held up or shown during it (protest posters for example), as well as no booing or interrupting the speakers, that there would be no sides, etc."

I don't see how you can be angry at someone else denying you of absolute free speech when under certain situations you do the same. As Bart Simpson once said, "the ironing is delicious"

You bring up an interesting point Scott about the no posters/signs rule. I hadn't thought about it being ironic like that.

I think what they were going for was trying to make it as fair as possible where onlookers wouldn't judge one side over the other based on the amount of 'supporters' they saw one side had (eg. if 80% of the audience were holding up anti-israeli posters). Sort of like the MSU election ballot box areas aren't allowed to have campaigning or posters near or around them.

My point is that by banning protest posters, they felt a need to limit free speech under certain circumstances. While the reasons may not be identical, this is exactly the same reason why McMaster took similar action; they felt the use of a certain phrase and picture on a poster was not worth the amount of potential conflict it could cause, and believed its removal would cause less potential harm.

It seems to me that McMaster just didn't want a huge banner to be displayed on the front of a building saying the phrase in large letters... cause that would upset a large number of students. Understandable. But they never banned the term, and they were also not the ones who said that posters couldn't be printed... they just didnt want that big banner up..thats it.

It's the human rights services people who stopped the poster being printed and were limiting things more it seems, and the MSU had to go with their recommendation

Dr. Peter George wrote something related to the demonstration on Friday, and was a feature in today's Daily News. Here is the link: http://dailynews.mcmaster.ca /story.cfm?id=5267 You should all take a look.

Didnt know that violence can be shown on posters. But when its about women's rights or child abuse we see pictures depicting violence in the posters(not to say I am against that).

The posters in question at this event showed a side that is almost never shown in the western media and seems to have been too truthfull for some students to handle.

I belive the posters should not have been banned rather some sort of event should have been organized that acutally tried to show that the human rights violations in those pictures were somehow "fake" or produced for "hate-mongering".

I am glad that atleast peter george supported the freedom of speech and didnt ban the term.

Az

I believe the decisions that were made by HRES and the University had to do with events that occured prior to this poster not being approved.

There was a table that was set up during Israel Apartheid Week in the student center by SPHR and MMPJ on the first day of IAW, that included banners with statements such as "Zionism = Racism", as well as posters with quotes of palestinians stating that Israel specifically targeted Palestinian Women and Children.

These posters, quotes, and banners DID offend and intimidate a LARGE number of both students and staff (there are no "it MAY have offended" about this...), and numerous complaints were lodged with Human Rights and Equity Services, who looked into the table and the information passed around.

I think it is most likely the case that following these complaints the HRES, in following the Student Code of Conduct, took that stance that while none of the events should be shutdown the aggressive advertising of such sayings should be toned down in order to prevent a portion of the McMaster student body from feeling harrased and intimidated.

I see a similarity to the MSU Policy that someone tabling can not aggressively pass out flyers to students passing by, but information can only be handed out if an interested student approaches the table. Similarly, inflammatory statements such as those made should not be forced upon ever student passing by the MUSC without being informed.

I have been following the situation in the middle east (out of personal interest...) for a number of years, and I believe that the term 'Israel Apartheid' is an extreme slander, which is known to originate from a UN conference held in South Africa in 2001. The Durban World Conference Against Racism was not attended by the United States or Israel, however it was attended by Canada, believing it would be about the worthy humanitarian cause of addressing Racism and Human Rights throughout the world. Instead, the conference was subverted by anti-Israeli rhetoric and focused on the Middle-East. The Canadian Delegation made a statement that the conference was a sham and an attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel. (The full statement from Canada can be found on pages 119-122 of this .pdf file) Canada has since stated that they would not participate in a Durban II Conference.

For those of you who may not be familiar with the term Apartheid and why it is found to be offensive, the key thing to understand is not only that it does not apply to Israel, but that Apartheid is deemed by international law to be a crime against humanity. The sole purpose of pairing the two terms is to delegitimize Israel, and does not further the cause in supporting Palestinian Human Rights at all.

Unfortunately, the term 'Israel Apartheid' has entered into the realm of public debate. Israel Apartheid Week is held at a number of universities internationally, and has been growing in popularity since its start in Toronto in 2004. Due to the general communities policy on either debating the issue (adding credence to the claim), or else remaining silent so as to avoid conflict with organizing groups (specifically getting into issues over "Free Speech" as we saw here), the event has now spread to 20 cities internationally.

As a speaker stated at the forum on Friday, they wanted to hear reasons as to why Israel is not an Apartheid... For those who have not heard the explanation, there is an excellent article in the Hamilton Spectator, published on Monday, about the term, its history, and why it simply does not apply in the case of Israel.

I do not know much about how the table was organized or who organized the events that were run during the week, but I have heard from from friends that when they approached the table and asked for more information, many of the students running at the table did not know the meaning of the term Apartheid, let alone the implications, history, or even the South African context to which the term properly refers. If this is true, it is worrisome to me because it makes sense (at least to me) that anyone tabling such a controversial table, SHOULD be capable of conveying their point of view fully, and should be fully aware of what they are talking about.

I think the University was correct in identifying this topic as a very divisive and controversial one, and was correct in the steps that they took in order to uphold the Student Code, as well as attempting to maintain the friendly, productive, and communal environment in the University. I only wish they would have been more clear on their stance from the outset, as there WAS a lot of confusion.

I also have a lot more to say about the fiasco on Friday morning in the atrium, but it is late, so I'll come back online when I have a chance (probably tomorrow late night) and respond to any comments or questions, as well as post more information on what happened on Friday and my thoughts on the incidents.

Damn this is a long post! I hope wasn't too long, and I really hope this helps clarify some reasons as to why the University may have taken the stance that it has.

Hey! Thx for clearifying out some points and stating the origin of the term "Israeli Aparthied". Sure it may not directly apply to the Palestinian Conflict but the message behind is of awareness of the occupation and restriction of the human rights accesses to the Palestinion people.

I would also like to mention that the article you posted was highly biased and ignores many large aspects. I could post articles that are pro "Israeli Aparthied week" along with others mentioning the notorious human rights voilations commited by Israel over the last few years. However I wont do that because they are biased as well since they dont show both sides of the story just like the article you posted.

What I meant to say in the previous post was that this event shed some lights on issues that are sadly taboo and not shown in the western media. We constantly see the "terrorism" commited by fundamentals on the Arab side but nothing of why they are forced to do such things.

As for what Canadian government thinks, I think we all know is highly influenced by our neighbour in the south, and I give no importance to it.

Thanks again for clearing out some misconceptions I had about the issue at McMaster. Perhaps I should have done more research.

Some good information there Ron. Thanks for posting! And I look forward to any other info you have about the other event on Friday.

Things like these

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7280026.stm

are a reason for events like Israeli Aparthied Week.

I believe that nobody has a problem with a discussion of the issues in the middle east, or with anyone discussing the human rights situation in the palestinian territories.

In fact, Israeli's are often the most vocal critics of their own policies. Unlike in Canada where there are 3 major political parties, or in the US, where there are only 2, Israel has over 30 political parties, leading to a LOT of debate and disputed policy. (srry for that little sidetrack...)

I think problems arise when the debate shifts from being pro-Palestinian to being blatantly anti-Israeli. Now, I know that my saying that is debatable, but I feel that the palestinian situation is too often used as an excuse to garner hatred towards the Israeli state without proper explanation. It is my belief that Israel has shown itself to be far more than willing to have peace with the Palestinians and coexist peacefully, unfortunately groups like Hamas constantly undermine the process. The true cause of the palestinian situation are the anti-israeli leaders in the middle east who treasure the palestinians as their best weapon against Israel, and it is these groups and leaders that need to be singled out and called to task.

That article that Aizaz posted is most likely as a result of the recent Israeli engagement in the Gaza Strip. Last week, Hamas increased the range of their rocket bombardment of Israel (which has been continuous for the last 7 years), and have targetted entirely civilian and heavily populated cities (i.e. the port of Ashkelon).

This was just a response to Aizaz's comments, I will talk about the events of Friday night when I get back to my residence (in about 10 minutes or so). I also just want to mention how I feel this whole situation can be applied to the student body as a whole (absent middle-east politics), to make the whole thing a little more relevant to everyone.

P.S. I also just want to point out, that the silhouette has a somewhat hypocritical standpoint on freedom of speech: while they came out strongly for freedom of speech in their latest edition, they have a strict policy which does not allow any editorials on the middle east situation to published... How is that for irony?

Originally Posted by rlevitin

P.S. I also just want to point out, that the silhouette has a somewhat hypocritical standpoint on freedom of speech: while they came out strongly for freedom of speech in their latest edition, they have a strict policy which does not allow any editorials on the middle east situation to published... How is that for irony?

Wow I've never heard of this. I wonder why?

I have heard that the reason why the Silhouette has this policy is because in the past, they allowed it, and it ended up turning into too much of a back-and-forth argument, without any resolution (kind of like it has been in the middle east for the last 60 years... a back-and-forth argument without any resolution), which just leads to tempers rising and dischord growing on campus... which leads me into the events of Friday. (Which can be dealt with seperately from the whole Israel Apartheid Week debate, but also can be seen as a direct result from it).