CIJA statement on Upcoming York University Conference
Posted on May 12, 2009
Updated on May 12, 2009

Statement by Hershell Ezrin, CEO, Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA):

2009 marks the 50th anniversary of York University, a proud academic institution with a long history of Jewish life and Jewish involvement. However, it saddens and concerns us that the anniversary celebrations include a conference running June 22-24, 2009, titled: “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace.”

The conference aims to explore a one-state, bi-national solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the imposition of which would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The conference will include a number of speakers who are recognizable for their roles as organizers and outspoken proponents of “Israel apartheid week” and the Israel boycott movement.

Following on the heels of other recent occurrences at York that have intimidated Jewish students on campus, this seems a remarkable lapse of judgment on the part of the University. The organizers have procured a few balanced speakers of high repute, but this is certainly not enough to characterize the conference as one of high academic integrity or good scholarship as would befit a first-class institution.

Through its agencies, our community has spent months trying to work with York University on this and other issues related to antisemitism and anti-Israelism and is committed to continuing to do so in future.

CIJA recommends that you write to President Mamdou Shoukri ( and Dean Patrick Monahan ( to make clear to the administration at York and Osgoode that:

  • Events like this should not have the sanction of the university.
  • These events only serve to further the already degenerating situation at York University surrounding the Israel/Palestinian issue.
  • These events lead to an increased sense of insecurity for those who should feel free to express their support for Israel.

If you have any questions, please contact Susan Davis at CIJA (

Comments Policy
  • articule

    There is CIJA again seeking to stamp out academic freedom and any discussion of Palestinian human rights. What a sad-state of affairs. No wonder Canadians are increasingly less receptive to knee-jerk charges of ‘anti-semitism’ if even a conference that explores joint statehood and full equality for Israelis and Palestinians is deemed unworthy of academic consideration!! By issuing this statement, CIJA only affirms its support for the current apartheid reality that divides Israelis from Palestinians.

  • Marcey Katzman

    I am disappointed that York University would sanction this kind of event. The university’s recent actions, coupled with this conference, present a picture of an institution that is not interested in equality, or in facilitating discussions that could have positive results.

  • Mel

    This conference would not be a bad idea if the preponderance of speakers were not anti-Zionist and hence antisemitic. As currently planned, you can expect an emphasis on a one-state solution with the attendant consequences of a denial of a Jewish state and the ascendance of a Palestinian state. In the result, a subterfuge to deny Jews sovereignty and statehood.

  • stevieb

    It is deplorable for the CANADIAN Jewish Congress to send a message of non-reconciliation with the the rest of the world by condemning a conference which aims to discuss alternative ways of bringing PEACE to Palestine/Israel.

    Absolutely deplorable. Zionism is a supremest ideology that posits a Jewish state through conquest and domination in a land occupied by a majority Muslim/Arab population for thousands of years.

    The Canadian Jewish Congress is well out of line with its comments here.

    I strongly recommend those leaders inside this association reconsider this stance; and very seriously reflect on how this stance reflects on the Jewish community as a whole and it’s pursuit of CANADIAN values – which do not include the targeting of civilian populations and ethnic cleansing for the purpose of Jewish colonies inside the Occupied Territories(that are supposed to be for a Palestinian state – and you have the chutzpah to criticize reflection on a one state solution? That is unbelievable in its shortsightedness.)

    Respectfully yours,

    Stevie B.

  • Les Green

    Mr Ezrin seriously misunderstands the relationship between a university and the events that occur in it. The organization of a conference, or for that matter the reading of a book, are not actions “sanctioned” in any relevant sense (i.e. approved, endorsed, etc.) by a university. They are actions *permitted* by the university. Subject to the usual criminal and civil laws, universities must be places where controversial and, to some, misguided and pernicious ideas may be thoroughly explored and debated. The CIJA should be ashamed of itself for calling for the shut-down of an academic conference of this kind.

  • Academic

    The Canadian Jewish Congress is on the wrong side of this issue. I’m genuinely sorry to see it resort of bully tactics and to attempt to censor academic discussion. Shame!

  • T

    Mr Green says:

    “universities must be places where controversial and, to some, misguided and pernicious ideas may be thoroughly explored and debate.”

    I don’t know what the law allows. But surely there should be limits. I at least could only oppose university debates about such “controversial” ideas as racial hygiene and Zuni creationism.

    Anyhow, anyone who doubts how pernicious and mendacious proponents of one-state and binational solutions are should read Benny Morris’s new book “One State, Two States”.

  • Mel

    Actually it’s Les Green and not Hershel Ezrin who misunderstands the relationship between a university and the events that occur in it. A university is a place where teaching and learning are to take place on an objective basis i.e. all points of view on a subject are to be canvassed and presented in an even-handed and dispassionate manner. The majority of the speakers are anything but even-handed and dispassionate and are even on record as being in favour of denying fundamental rights to Jews by way of anti-Zionism (the denial of self-determination for Jews in their historic homeland)and promoting the hateful canard of apartheid. I doubt that there will be any speakers at the conference that will deny self-determination for Palestinians! By Les Green’s definition of an appropriate university conference, a conference which would discuss any subject however racist, sexist or offensive, etc. would be an appropriate university conference. It is clear from the Conference homepage that the objective is to demonstrate that the two-state model does not work, and the single binational state model holds “promise”, a clear and unequivocal distortion and bias.

  • Neil

    As a Jew and supporter of the right to Israel to exist in peace, I am offended. Offended that the CIJA should endorse attacks on freedom of speech, liberty of conscience and academic freedom. How dare you? Are you trying to play up to the libel that Israel is fascistic, by behaving like fascists?

  • ronald r.

    “preponderance of speakers were not anti-Zionist and hence antisemitic”

    It is also unfortunate that the avid supporters of Israel are so insecure in the stand they are taking morally that any discussion of it regardless of who the speakers are has them demanding through intimidating letters like the one here to have the meeting cancelled. It also amazes me that we like to say that our centers of higher learning are bastions of free and open thought but only if the topic of Israel/Palestine is never broached. Otherwise the “antisemite” word comes out of its hiding place to beat down the person insolent enough to open his mouth(as shown above by our friend Mel above). Just for the record…zionism and judaism are not synonymous.

  • Alon Harel

    I am proud that in Israel itself there is a lively debate on this issue and to the best of my knowledge nobody wishes to silence it. I am opposed to the idea of one state solution. Yet it is better to discuss it than to silence it. I hope Mr. Ezrin will take example from the country which he purports to support.

  • Les Green

    “Mel” states ‘By Les Green’s definition of an appropriate university conference, a conference which would discuss any subject however racist…would be an appropriate university conference.’ This is incorrect. As anyone can read above, I wrote “Subject to the usual criminal and civil laws…’ “T” does not know what the law allows. I suggest “T” start by finding out.

    Alon Harel is correct. Those who call for the silencing of an academic debate in Canada would be very unhappy citizens of the State of Israel, where these matters are debated vigorously and openly. They would, I presume, be happier in the company of Professors Steven and Hilary Rose in the UK, who called for an academic boycott of cultural and research links with Israeli scholars.

  • David Enoch

    Oh, come on — in my university there is absolutely no problem holding conferences of this kind (including the protests that would – in a reasonably free society – come along with it). I don’t think this is because my university is antisemitic. I teach at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

  • Craig Scott

    It saddens me to feel the need to respond to this CIJA criticism of York University. I understand the deeply held and passionate commitments that motivate this call from CIJA. Also, in no way do I wish to belittle what some students experience as intimidation in campus life (which I mention because the CIJA makes it central to their statement). However, this in no way excuses the form of pressure the CIJA is seeking to impose on university inquiry and debate. Indeed, in my view this kind of campaign is ethically off-base (if not ethical malfeasance) for the reasons given below.

    Consider the explicit and implicit structure of what passes for argumentation in the CIJA statement. Students’ sense of security is seamlessly and rather recklessly leveraged into what is effectively a demand to have a quite narrow band of views of self-appointed external (Toronto) community advocates uncritically affirmed as the only views that students from the advocates’ community should be allowed to know can be debated on a university campus. This then gets wrapped into what amounts to a call for the University to withdraw support (phrased as University “sanction”) from an academic conference that dares to do exactly what universities are in significant part there to do (and academic freedom is designed to facilitate), namely, to ask controversial questions that mainstream or dominant perspectives don’t even want asked. And there is seemingly no awareness how ironic (perhaps even hypocritically ironic) the CIJA position is: while the statement takes a different form from the (in my view) undesirable calls from various quarters for a boycott of Israeli universities, the CIJA and others are nonetheless in effect taking an even more problematic line by exerting political pressure on York University and the conference organizers to boycott in some fashion the ‘wrong’ kind of Israeli academic (and others too, of course).

    Quite apart from the silencing narrative, consider the following in the CIJA statement: “[A]few balanced speakers of high repute…is certainly not enough to characterize the conference as one of high academic integrity or good scholarship as would befit a first-class institution.” What manner of reasoning requires that (on the judgment of non-academic and politicized outsiders) everyone at an academic conference be of the same proven standard and stature as the conference’s leading participants, such as Kretzmer, Bisharat, Gans, Smooha, Rouhana, Schoenfeld, Kamir, Farsakh, Mandel, and Lustick (to name only some of the highly respected academics presenting papers at the conference), apart from the significant academic credentials and accomplishments of the three professorial organizers (Osgoode’s Ryder and Drummond, and Aiken of Queen’s)?

    I have carefully looked at the scholars and summaries of papers so far committed to this conference. The overriding impression is that the conference will not only provide a context for younger and lesser known scholars but also has attracted major scholars (see the earlier list as just an example), including – so importantly and with great credit to the organizers – a significant number of highly reputable Jewish scholars from Israel. When I then read the following words in the CIJA statement – “The conference aims TO EXPLORE a one-state, bi-national solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, THE IMPOSITION of which would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state.” (emphasis added)– I am perplexed by the blinkered (il)logic embedded in this sentence. How does an academic exploration slide into either becoming or generating an imposition? Hamas-style ideologues committed to forcible imposition of a NON-binational state or extremist Israelis with an agenda of one-state-by-perpetual-occupation-or-annexation are a far cry from the ethos of the papers that are digested for this conference, wherein dialogue, negotiation, and non-violence appear to be the dominant modes for progress towards ANY solution, whether one-state, two-state or (dare I say it without risk of censure?) some creative combination of the two.

    (On the latter score, allow me to add an observation that is less tangential than it might at first appear. At the moment, I personally can’t see the feasibility of a one-state solution, especially given the clear support in international law and morality for the state of Israel within lawful and secure borders – such that any one-state solution would have to include a new self-determining act by Israelis themselves. Even if a one state arrangement were achieved in some remarkable set of mutual self-determination negotiations, I wonder if, and worry that, the inevitable trade-offs would make it a worse solution than the trade-offs that would produce a two-state outcome, BUT I am immensely grateful to know there are people thinking in good faith and with no small measure of scholarly acumen about these questions. And who knows? Even if my views were not changed, the somewhat binary debate over one versus two states could have radical implications for the more creative possibilities for a two-state solution.)

    In contrast to what CIJA expects, York University should respect the academic courage (and defend the academic freedom) of the organizers of this conference and not bend before the gusts of external censure. If York were to give in to political pressure of this sort, in the process abandoning a core mission of a university to support scholars such as this conference’s organizers (as well as the attendees), it would deserve to be laughed off the world stage of serious universities. Its reputation would likely be damaged for years and a lack of faith in the University leadership would be generated amongst the large majority of the scholars at York, some of whom might well not hesitate to seek out opportunities to move to a less compromised institution. For these reasons, I have faith that the University will continue to do the right thing.

  • Mel

    Apparently some are a trifle touchy with the obvious nexus between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Actually no less a person than Martin Luther King Jr. pointed this out in his “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” in 1967. And logically it holds. The denial to the Jewish people of the fundamental right of self-determination which we justly claim and accord to other peoples of the world is discrimination against Jews and hence racist.

    Contrary to the assertions of some writers, no one is silencing academic debate. What is being called for is a fair and balanced debate with all sides and points of view being canvassed. If anything a fuller exchange is being encouraged. The current roster is not that and a publicly-funded university should be promoting that format rather than a partisan exposition.

  • Les Green

    Herhsell Ezrin: “Events like this should not have the sanction of the university.”

    ‘Mel’: “Contrary to the assertions of some writers, no one is silencing academic debate.”

    As I pointed out the only relevant sense of ‘sanction’ here is permission of the University to hold the conference. In no other sense does the University ‘sanction’ a debate, a book, a lecutre etc.

    Mr Ezrin and others believe the university should not permit the conference *as constituted*. The fact that he, and no doubt ‘Mel’ would allow the University to hold a *differently* constituted conference, one more in line with their own politics, their own ideas about ‘balance’ etc. I take for granted, as do the many others who point out that their proposals take direct aim at academic freedom.

    The suggestion that no one is proposing silencing this debate, as actually constituted, is false.

  • Mel

    This conference is not about academic freedom at all. Would or should a speaker be able to advocate on behalf of racism? In fact, some of the speakers are on record as advocating a boycott of Israeli academics. Not quite academic freedom is it ‘Les’.

  • e flanders

    oy, enough already! there are enough Israelis and Jews on the conference list to satisfy your ongoing kvetching and fear-mongering. The whole world knows that Israel is committing atrocities in the West Bank daily, that they are guilty of war crimes in Gaza and that a solution needs to be found. So here is a legitimate group of people looking for that and you are all just sitting on your collective tuches writing letters and whining. The world is moving forward and you are are so far behind it is embarrassing. You don’t speak for me–a bigger Jew than most of you–spending most of my time here in Israel and Palestine. You don’t speak for many of my generation and more so, those of us who believe in a just solution. Maybe you should just try attending the conference and learning a little before you demand that it be shut down–Free speech anyone?! Or did you throw that concept out when you declared Israel the only democracy in the middle east?!

  • Rochelle Michaels

    The following definition describes many of those who have posted their comments above.

    Today’s Anti Semite…….

    “The modern anti-Semite looks entirely different. He does not have a shaved head. He has good manners and often an academic title as well. He mourns for the Jews who died in the Holocaust. But at the same time he wonders why the Survivors and their descendants have learned nothing from history and today treat another people as badly as they were once treated themselves. The modern anti-Semite does not believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But instead he fantasizes about an “Israel lobby” that is supposed to control American foreign policy like a tail that wags the dog. For the modern anti-Semite, it goes without saying that every year on January 27 he will commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. But at the same time he militates for the right of Iran to have atomic weapons. For “how can one deny Iran what one has permitted Israel or Pakistan?” as Norman Paech [the foreign policy spokesperson of the German Left Party] has put it. Or he inverts the causal relationship and claims that it is Israel that is threatening Iran and not vice-versa as [German Middle East scholar] Dr. Udo Steinbach did in a recent radio interview. The modern anti-Semite finds ordinary anti-Semitism disgraceful. He has no problem, however, embracing anti-Zionism and is grateful for the opportunity to express his resentment in a politically correct form. For anti-Zionism is a sort of resentment just like classical anti-Semitism was. The anti-Zionist has the same attitude toward Israel as the anti-Semite has to Jews. He is not bothered by what Israel does or does not do, but rather by the fact that Israel exists. That is why he participates so passionately in debates about the solution to the Palestinian question which could well mean a final solution for Israel. On the other hand, he is left indifferent by conditions in Darfur or Zimbabwe or Congo or Cambodia, because there are no Jews involved in those places. Ask the foreign policy spokesperson of the Left Party, for instance, how many statements he has issued about “Palestine” and how many about Tibet.”


    I am most grateful to CIJA, B’nai Brith and the Jewish Defence League of Canada who have exposed this Conference as being Anti-Semitic.



  • Naftali Lavie

    CIJA’s lobby efforts in the name of “the Jews” and directed to thought control tarnishes all Jews with the anti-democratic brush. We need to speak out against the Jewish deniers of vigorous debate and stand up for the Jewish traditions of integrity. Frankly, the recent campaigns of the CIJA, Bnai Brith, and CJC are symptoms of the panic that is overtaking them and is alienating intelligent and enlightened Jews from those organizations. On a non-ethnic basis, Jews and gentiles can stand up against Zionist bigotry and for solidarity and peace.

  • Steve Mennie

    There are so many things to disagree with in the quote from Mr. Henryk Broder’s essay presented by Rochelle Michaels above that one hardly knows where to begin..But I will restrict my comments to one statement that I think exemplifiies the blind spot in much of the somewhat overheated rhetoric concerning Israel and anti-semitism..

    Mr. Broder states: “….The anti-Zionist has the same attitude toward Israel as the anti-Semite has towards the Jews. He is not bothered by what Israel does or does not do, but rather by the fact that Israel exists.”

    I most certainly am concerned about what Israel does and does not do. I have no quarrel with Israel’s right to exist, although I think an argument could be made that it is not really in Jewry’s best long term interests..but that is another question.

    My argument with Israel is entirely based on what they do and have done in the past..taken over another people’s land to establish a Jewish state. And for over 60 years they have relentlessy and illegally taken more and more land while claiming to be seeking peace.

    And to state, as Mr Broder does,that the ‘new anti-semite’ is not concerned with other open sores such as Congo, Cambodia Darfur et al because there are no Jews involved is disingenous at best. It is possible to be against violence and bullying behaviour (what Israel DOES) and not be either anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic.

    And we should remember that these other obscene situations are not being directly paid for by American taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

  • Steve Mennie

    short addendum..

    What I think is a very good essay concerning anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

  • Salomon Benzimra

    What is striking in most of the postings above which criticize the CIJA position and which support the Conference is the sheer ignorance of the facts.

    In a nutshell, most of those postings rest on the premise that Israel “illegally occupies Palestinian lands”, which is a factual falsehood, notwithstandng the persistance with which it has been peddled. Opinions derived from a falsehood are worthless.

    As to the rightly praised “academic freedom”, Mr. Mamdouh Shoukri reminded everyone that “…with academic freedom come certain obligations. Scholars’ academic activities must be based on evidence, rigorous thought and extensive research…” I couldn’t agree more. That is why a Conference that implicitly endorses the falsehood mentioned above as the starting point of the debate dismisses evidence, rigorous thought and extensive research. And so, it is also worthless.

  • Steve Mennie

    Could you please elucidate Mr. Benzimra? My understanding is that it is against international law to increase or extend a state’s borders by war or aggression. Also that it is illegal to build permanent settlements on occupied territory.

    Could you explain why this is a factual falsehood?

  • Salomon Benzimra

    Thank you, Mr. Mennie, for your question.

    When one talks about “occupation”, the first question that must be asked is “occupied from whom?” There is no doubt that Nazi Germany occupied sovereign France. But what about the so-called “West Bank”? Was there a legal sovereign of that land between 1949 and 1967? Certainly not, since this territory was illegally annexed by Jordan in 1950.

    Besides, Judea and Samaria (misnamed “West Bank” after 1950, in relation to Jordan’s “East Bank”) was part of the territory of Mandated Palestine, which was allocated to the Jewish people by international law at the Conference of San Remo in April, 1920. This was the first time in history when Palestine became a legal entity and the ensuing British Mandate of 1922 recognized the historic connection of this land to the Jewish people and the grounds for “reconstituting” (not “creating”!)their national home there. These provisions have never been abrogated and the rights of the Jewish people to these lands are implicitly entrenched in the Charter of the United Nations (Article 80).

    With regard to wars of aggression, you are right: any acquisition of territory by military aggression is illegal. But the War of June 1967 was a defensive war, when Israel responded to acts of aggression triggered by Egypt as it closed the Straits of Tiran (cassus belli) and threatened Israel with imminent annihilation, and then Jordan initiated the bombing attacks against Israel from the “West Bank.” That is why UNSC Resolution 242 never condemned Israel of “aggression” and it was not passed under Chapter VII of the Charter (which deals with acts of aggression and threats to peace). The inclusion of the “inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war” in the Preamble of the Resolution is a declaratory statement of principle (non operative) that only applies to wars of aggression.

  • Aeyal Gross

    I second what Prof. Alon Harel said. Discussing an idea is legtimate. It’s hyporitical that those that I am sure oppose academic boycotts of Israel work in this way against academic freedom.

  • David Webster

    What’s needed here is free and open academic debate, with the goal of a peaceful solution, between people from different perspectives.

    The CIJA, sadly, has decided to attempt to stifle such free and open debate, and try to interfere with academic freedom and to shut down debate.

    York will not, of course, as a reputable university, agree to any such thing. Nor could it — this is an event organized by academics at York, not by the university. I suppose the CIJA can waste its time trying to have York come down like ton of bricks on a conference, and seek to create a precedent for stifling free discussion, if it wants. After all, the conference will go ahead, and so it should – with some impressive speakers, I see, coming from Israeli universities. (In other words, the organizers reject that offensive and counter-productive boycott of Israel-based academics.)

    The effect, for me, is to show up the CIJA as a group more concerned with imposing censorship than with positive advocacy. I’ll certainly be sure to toss all their future appeals for funds into the blue bin, since I do not believe in backing pro-censorship organizations.

  • David Northern

    Steve Mennie says;
    My understanding is that it is against international law to increase or extend a state’s borders by war or aggression. Also that it is illegal to build permanent settlements on occupied territory.
    By reference to “War and the Law of Nations” by Neff, when land is won in a defensive war, absent a peace treaty among combatants, the land does not have to be returned. Russia and Japan never actually got around to signing a peace treaty after WWII, and up until a few years ago, Russia (or the former Soviet Union, if you will) still held some Japanese islands it had won in this war.
    It is true that Israel`s borders expanded after 1967, but this war was started by the Arab countries.
    Further, prior to 1967, the Golan, the West Bank (Judea and Sumeria) and Gaza, were controlled by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt respectively. None of these countries would permit the `Palestinians `to have their own state. Significantly, the West Bank was set aside for the Palestinians under the Palestinian mandate, but Jordan seized it illegally in 1948. I guess some “occupations`are more equal than others.

  • Salomon Benzimra

    Just a brief note to David Northern’s post: the Palestine Mandate never set aside the West Bank for the Palestinian Arabs. The whole area east of the Jordan River was set aside for the national home of the Jewish people.

  • David Northern

    So many people complain about the establishment of a “Jewish state”. They seem to have no problem, however, with 22 Arab Muslim states (and one Persian Muslim state) that take up the remaining 99+% of the Middle East.
    White Europeans stole an entire continent (North America) from the aboriginal peoples that would fit thousands of countries the size of postage stamp Israel. Why does no one complain about that? And the Europeans were not returning to their native homeland, unlike the Jews.

    As far as “occupation”; around 1900, there were about 550,000 Arabs in what is now Israel. Today, there are over 1,000,000 Arabs – they are citizens of Israel. So if there can be Arabs living in Israel, why should there be no Jews in Judea and Samaria? Wouldn’t moving Jews out of Judea and Samaria be ethnic cleansing?
    Circa 1947-1950, approximately 900,000 Jews were evicted from Muslim lands, many of them settling in Israel. To be fair here, shouldn’t we be insisting on a right of return for their descendents? Carving a nice chunk out of Jordan might do.

  • David Pinto

    For the benefit of Mel, who mentions Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” in 1967:
    Sorry to have to inform you that that letter is a hoax. Just google on the title of the letter, Mel. In fact, even CAMERA has posted a denial to its website.

  • Mel

    Thanks for the advice, David. Nevertheless, while the letter may be a hoax, the CAMERA ALERT goes on to say that “the basic message was indeed, without question, spoken by Martin Luther King Jr. in a 1968 appearance at Harvard when he said ‘When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism'(from the Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel by Seymour Martin Lipset.”

    In short, the message of the “letter” (anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism) was indeed articulated by Dr. King.

  • Doug

    I am profoundly disappointed to see this campaign to try to shut down an academic conference. This is part of an increasingly hysterical lobbying effort to shut down any and all debate and discussion that might negatively reflect on Israel. Of course the university should not and will not bow to this pressure from a lobby group. Your organizations are losing credibility.
    Regarding the comments by Dr. King, one could quote the comments by Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu but what is the point of starting to throw illustrious names into the fray.

  • Mel

    Frankly, I did not know that Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Tutu had contradicted Dr. King’s assertion that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Perhaps, Doug, you could identify where and when that happened.

  • Pingback: Defend academic conference on Israel/Palestine « PALESTINE SOLIDARITY NETWORK()

  • Deborah

    I’m going to the conference and look forward to the ability to listen and make up my own mind.

  • Rochelle Michaels

    A Short article written by Mordechai Kedar, July 28, 2009

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation-state, or as the rightful homeland of the Jewish People, is a necessary condition of any future Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty – according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Arab and Islamic leaders have rejected this demand. The reason for Arab inability and unwillingness to consider Netanyahu’s demand is the fact that the Islamic world is ideologically incapable of according legitimacy to the State of Israel, for deep-seated religious, nationalistic and historical reasons.


    To: “stevieb” , “Les Green”, “Alon Harel”, “David Enoch”, “Craig Scott”, “e flanders”, “Naftali Lavie” , “Steve Mennie”, “Prof. Alon Harel”, “Aeyal Gross” ,“David Webster”, “David Pinto”

    Muslim attitude toward “the KAFIR” is the same here as it is “there”.

    56 Islamic States…
    56 Intolerant States…
    56 Oppressive States…

    One tiny Jewish Democratic State… Israel.

    We have a choice. We oppose those who are intolerant and whose goal is to control … or… submit to their will.

© Copyright 2015 CIJA. All rights reserved.
Legal and Privacy Information