In his weekly Canadian Jewish News media analysis column “According to Reports,†Paul Michaels, CIC Director of Communications, looks at a distorted view of Resolution 242, and the hypocritical views of Naomi Klein.
A recent New York Times op-ed by Turki al-Faisal, former Saudi ambassador to the United States, highlights why there has been no progress toward Middle East peace by Saudi Arabia.
In“Land First, Then Peace,” (Sept. 13), al-Faisal referred to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which has been the guiding principle of the Middle East peace process since 1967, but he badly distorted its intent.
Resolution 242 calls for Israel’s withdrawal from land acquired in the 1967 war, but only in the context of peace and security guarantees from its Arab neighbours, as happened in the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Al-Faisal omitted the essential Arab obligation to the peace-making process, accurately conveyed by the familiar phrase “land for peace.” But this logically means “if peace, then land,” not, as al-Faisal would have it, “land first, then peace.” It’s a crucial – not merely semantic – distinction.
This widespread and persistent distortion has spread far beyond the Saudis and other Arab and Palestinian communities, and is tenaciously held by Western groups who support the Palestinian cause. The result is a setback for the peace process.
* * *
You might expect activist Naomi Klein to at least know where she stands on the issues she advocates most stridently about. Apparently not. As noted in last week’s column, Klein freely admitted not long ago in the Nation that she and her crowd deliberately “single out” Israel among all countries in the world for boycott, divestment and sanction (BDS) because, as a “tactic,” it’s easy to pick on a “small” and economically vulnerable country where such a campaign “could actually work.”
Yet when she appeared on CBC Radio’s Q (Sept. 11), while defending her decision to protest against the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) spotlight on Tel Aviv, she told host Jian Ghomeshi that she’s not picking on Tel Aviv or Israel. Flatly contradicting what she wrote in the Nation she said: “The idea that I single out Israel is completely untrue.”
That’s not her only self-contradiction.
While insisting that she wasn’t calling for a boycott of the Israeli films at TIFF, Klein nonetheless admitted she wants the protest to have “an effect” on film festivals – to send “a message” to festival programmers to not get involved “in conflict areas like the Middle East” where one side (the side she disdains, Israel) is showcased.
Klein’s intent is clear – to send a chill to festival heads. Don’t highlight countries which meet with her disapproval, or she will embark on a similar campaign to damage the reputation of your event.
Klein’s hypocrisy on the subject of Israel extends further. For example, she depicts Israel’s January 2009 military operation against Hamas in Gaza as a bombardment of innocent Palestinians, done without provocation. (This is equivalent to saying the Second World War began with the allies’ invasion of France on D-Day in 1944.) Anything Klein can say to demonize and delegitimize Israel, including the “apartheid” slander is apparently fair in her eyes.
Yet Klein, who never seems to shy away from boldly expressing her political views, was uncharacteristically evasive when questioned about whether, in effect, she supports Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
In an article for the Globe and Mail (Oscar-winning rabbi stokes TIFF tiff, Sept. 11), Michael Posner asked Klein whether, as final resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, she favours a one-state (i.e. no Jewish state) or two-state solution. Klein said, basically, that she has no opinion: “It should be up to Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to decide what kind of states or state they want. I have never advocated for any position on it and am not about to start.”
Given her actions, one would have to be incredibly generous, to say the least, to take Klein at her word.
/cijainfo
@CIJAinfo