Media

US and Israeli media and politicians often speak as if Hamas carried out an unprovoked attack on October 7, which started the current round of hostilities. The reasoning goes that since Hamas started this round, it is responsible for its consequences, no matter how horrible. Israeli actions are seen as a “response”, and we are often asked “How else should Israel have responded? What would you have them do?”

But we first must ask: what was the situation on October 6?

On October 6, Gaza, a small area about 22 miles long and between 5 and 8 miles wide, was packed with 2.3 million Palestinians, two-thirds of whom were refugees and survivors of the 1948 Nakba. Israel was imposing a severe siege on the whole strip (with cooperation from Egypt on the southern border) whereby no people or goods could enter or leave the strip without Israeli approval.

Israel had managed to continue the occupation of Gaza after it withdrew its settlers in 2005, without being physically “on the ground,” except for occasional forays. It controlled the area from the air, sea, and by managing all entrances. This situation mirrored the West Bank, where Israel is still the occupier, but where it has subcontracted internal affairs of the major city centers to the Palestinian Authority, under severe restriction. So too had Israel “subcontracted” internal control of Gaza to Hamas while maintaining external control, frequently invading the area with bombardment and “mowing the lawn” operations.

On October 6, Israel continued to dominate the Gaza strip, with its currency, population register, customs controls, and regime of restrictions. Postal, communications, internet, and fuel services were also strictly under Israel’s control. It doled out permits for all services into and out of Gaza including fuel, medical supplies, entry and export of food materials, and all other needed goods and services through a system of extortionist Israeli middlemen.

The short list of goods that Israel permitted to enter Gaza excluded not only “dual function goods” that could serve military as well as civilian uses (such as steel bars and cement), but also innocuous materials such as glass, chocolate, all but one form of pasta and spaghetti, etc. Often the list showed caprice and nastiness, and it seemed to have no logic behind it other than Israel’s desire to assert power and control. Fishing, which the Oslo Agreement allowed up to 12 miles out, was also strictly restricted, usually to 6 or 3 miles, and it was often banned altogether.

The de-development of the Gaza strip was so severe that most of its residents were dependent on relief and supplies from UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency), whose supplies were also carefully monitored and often delayed or restricted at Israel’s whim. It was commonly known that Gaza was the world’s largest open-air prison, and in 2012 the United Nations announced that Gaza would be unlivable by 2020.

For its part, Hamas tried to join a political process. It changed its charter to be more moderate, announced repeatedly that it would be willing to accept a long-term “hudna” (ceasefire) with Israel, and expressed openness to accept a two-state solution accepted by the majority of Palestinians in an open election. It also supported the brave civil society initiative known as the March of Return, a nonviolent action that was met with brutal savagery as Israeli snipers killed and maimed hundreds of Palestinian unarmed protesters while the world stood silently by.

Attempts were also made to create a joint Fatah-Hamas front and to end the divisions preventing Palestinians from negotiating with one voice, but these efforts failed. Both Hamas and Fatah blamed each other for this, but the US and Israel made it clear they would not allow an end to the schism. Netanyahu openly told Mahmoud Abbas that there would be no relations and negotiations with them, if they made peace with Hamas.

As if all this was not enough, Netanyahu was continuously tightening the noose, placing more and more restrictions on Gaza, such as limiting the availability of electricity to a few hours a day through controlling the amount of fuel allowed into its one electricity company .

The Israeli government, dominated by right wing parties was also busy with its own problems from the corruption charges, to the unprecedented street protests, and was also infected with enormous hubris regarding its economic, political, and military superiority over its neighbors. It was not in any mood to offer anything but more restrictions to the people of Gaza. The Gaza strip was a pressure cooker, so it was no surprise that, eventually it exploded.

To understand what happened on October 7, we need to be cognizant of the reality that existed in Gaza on October 6. The prison camp of Gaza was totally unlivable and unacceptable, and it had to end. The world, however, including those concerned with peace and justice, had somehow forgotten about Gaza and neglected its people.

There is much to criticize about Hamas, but one cannot blame them for preparing to fight their enemies and tormentors, or for attempting to break out of their open-air prison. On October 6, the situation in Gaza was truly degrading and intolerable, and the world seemed not to listen or care. Something had to be done to bring the plight of Gaza back into consideration, and October 7 was Hamas’ answer. In many ways it was inevitable.

2. What really happened on Oct 7, 2023

When coming to an understanding of the events of October 7, we must ask: what actually happened on that fateful day?

This question is important because of the prevailing political and media narratives. These narratives claim that what Hamas did on that day, apart from being unprovoked, was so heinous and evil that it excused everything that happened next. This allows politicians to claim that the evil of Israel’s genocidal attacks were only a “response” and that blame should be laid squarely at the feet of Hamas. We hear frequently that Israel’s actions were an imperative needed to rid the world of the evil of Hamas.

Since so many of the myths perpetuated about October 7 have been debunked and proven untrue (40 decapitated babies, widespread systematic rapes, and the burning of babies) it is important that we know what actually did happen.

My own observations and research on that question run contrary to the popular narrative. It is important to start with the qualification that I am a pacifist and do not think violence is ever the proper response. However, under international law, an oppressed people has the right to resort to armed struggle, provided it is aimed at combatants, not civilians. However, I personally do not believe violence is the proper or effective way for Palestinians to resist, and I must insist that nonviolence is our best method.

Having said that, it needs to be stated that what happened on October 7 was first and foremost a brilliant military operation. On that day, the severely under-resourced forces of Hamas, using largely handheld weapons and homemade explosives, effectively penetrated the high tech walls and fences surrounding them. In over 40 places, Hamas fighters simultaneously breached the fence, attacked and captured two or three army bases, killed over 340 soldiers (by Israeli reports), captured over 40 additional soldiers, and took them to Gaza to use them for prisoner exchange. In addition, Hamas’ attacks caused the collapse of the entire Israeli security system surrounding Gaza, leaving its borders open for angry Palestinian mobs to attack the surrounding Israeli kibbutzim and communities.

In addition to the legal military actions, Hamas also attacked civilians at a music festival that was held about a mile from their enclave. They also overran a number of Israeli civilian settlements killing residents, and captured about 200 civilians as hostages. Such attacks on civilians and the taking of civilian hostages is clearly contrary to international law and cannot be justified, particularly since among the hostages were elderly people and children who could not be considered combatants under any circumstances. These civilians should have been immediately released without any conditions. In addition, it must be noted, Hamas fired a barrage of primitive rockets at primarily civilian targets, which is also illegal under international law. .

The stunned Israeli forces failed to provide protection to these communities or secure their borders. Instead, under the Hannibal Directive, in order to prevent the taking of hostages back into Gaza, they carried out numerous attacks, mostly by helicopters and tanks. These deadly attacks burned all vehicles moving back towards Gaza. Israel also carried out attacks in the kibbutzim where hostages were being held, killing both Palestinian attackers and Israeli hostages. These attacks killed so many people that the numbers of actual Israeli casualties had to be revised from 1400 to less than 1200, since many bodies had been burnt beyond recognition. It was later discovered that these victims were not in fact Israeli civilians or soldiers, but Palestinians. A recent report said that 28 Israeli helicopter gunships used up all their ammunition and had to return to reload that day.

Every person killed on that day is a universe unto themselves and such deaths are truly to be mourned, whether soldiers or civilians. Their deaths were the direct results of Hamas’ attack, even if it was Israeli soldiers who actually killed them under the Hannibal Directive. Likewise, the terrifying experience of being captured and held captive for political reasons is never acceptable or justifiable anywhere, anytime. However, I still believe these corrections to the popular narrative are necessary.

Although horrible and unspeakable, false narratives of exaggerated crimes by Hamas, and uncertainty about how many of the Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian mobs or Israeli forces needs to be further investigated. This is especially true since the behavior of Hamas has been viewed and condemned as barbaric, and is proclaimed to be integral to Hamas’ identity and character. These claims are aimed at justifying the demonization of, and subsequent attempts to destroy Hamas. Anything, including civilian structures, institutions, events, and people alleged to be associated with Hamas in any way were thus proclaimed to be legitimate targets for destruction and annihilation.

What also happened on October 7 was the traumatic collapse of Israel’s vaunted security arrangements, its intelligence apparatus, its constant surveillance, its military doctrine, and its deterrence. The attack triggered past traumas from centuries of antisemitic persecution and the Holocaust, evoking fears of the destruction of Jewish life in Palestine, akin to the destruction of the First and Second Temples. It also triggered fears akin to every settler-colonial movement of the “revolt of the natives.” All these fears and traumas were triggered by October 7, and in many ways enabled the massive and totally disproportionate genocidal response. October 7 was not viewed as another episode in the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, but as an existential event pertaining to the very survival of the state of Israel and the Jewish people as a whole.

3. What has been happening since that fateful day

Right after October 7, and under the intense trauma of that day which has not yet dissipated, Israel announced a number of fateful decisions that continue to govern its behavior to this day, a full year later:

Israel announced that there were no longer any restraints or red lines for military violence. If there was ever actually any respect for rules, standards, regulations, international law, or international public opinion, these were no longer operative. In light of what happened on October 7, everything was allowed, and in fact required, to avenge that defeat and “ensure it never happens again”.

Genocidal language and actions were now the order of the day. Gaza had to be “wiped out” and leveled to the ground. They were “Amalek” (a Biblical reference to a tribe King Saul was ordered to annihilate: men, women, children, and animals, without mercy.) They were announced to be “human animals” and would be treated as such. “They” clearly referred to all Gazans, (and subsequently, others as well). Israel justified cutting off their water, food, fuel, and medical supplies. These statements and actions were carried out at the very highest level and repeated by various officials and leaders: From the Prime Minister, the President of Israel, to the Defense Minister, to journalists and pundits. Violence against Palestinians in Gaza was, and is, celebrated by some Israeli soldiers proclaiming their crimes on their social media accounts. These statements seem to accurately reflect overwhelming sentiment in Jewish Israeli society.

The important distinctions between civilian and military, combatants and non-combatants, were completely erased. This was accomplished with a variety of excuses, first ignoring Hamas’ political and civil institutions and organizations, then making the claim that Hamas was embedded in the civilian population and used their own civilians as “human shields.” These excuses continued with bogus claims that military command centers were located under hospitals, universities, mosques, and other civilian structures. By always claiming, without proof, that they have accurate intelligence information, Israel totally erased the distinction between civilian life and military targets. Preventing access by independent foreign journalists while hunting down local journalists made the message clear: Israel’s version of events was not to be challenged or fact-checked. It should be noted that detailed investigations following the 2008-2009 and 2014 conflicts by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations Human Rights Council, have failed to find a single documented case of any civilian deaths caused by Hamas using human shields.

The full power of destructive weapons and advanced technology was used against the whole population in Gaza. 2000-pound bombs were dropped in the midst of a densely-populated area, and even on tent encampments, with horrendous results. Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) programs such as Lavender were used to provide algorithms that generated a bank of hundreds of “targets” daily which could be destroyed with missiles, artillery, armed drones, quad-copters, and tanks, usually from afar. They were enhanced by such cruel A.I. programs as Daddy’s Home to ensure that whole families of “targets” would also be wiped out.

Populations were ordered to move around, leave their homes en masse, on short notice, and be crowded into smaller and smaller “safe areas” which were in turn bombed and attacked. There seemed to be no limit or restraint on the violence used. This same tactic is now being used in Lebanon. On Wednesday, October 2nd, Israel “ordered” the evacuation of 30 towns and villages in Lebanon, including villages north of the Litani River and Nabatiyyah, the 6th largest city in Lebanon. Those who refused to move were told they would be presumed to be terrorists or sympathizers and risked being shot or bombed just for staying in their homes.

Powerful friends abroad, particularly politicians and media in the United States, were enlisted to support the Israeli narrative. These powerful figures sought to prevent and fight calls for ceasefire and de-escalation, protect and provide impunity against international accountability for Israel, and label all those who tried to challenge Israel and its actions as enemies and antisemites.

Goals were announced for the military campaign, such as “total victory” and the utter destruction of Hamas and its governing structures, that were impossible to realize and that ensured that the war would continue almost indefinitely. What Israel initially announced would last a few weeks has continued for one year, and there is no end in sight. Running out of ammunition, which occurred in the first few weeks, was remedied by an apparently limitless resupply from the United States, and a commitment to continue doing so.

Worst of all, the very thought of peace and resolution of the conflict with Palestinians was removed entirely from the conversation. A full year after October 7, there is no discussion of resolving the Palestinian Question. On July 18, the Israeli Knesset overwhelmingly rejected any possibility for a future Palestinian state. No peace process, no negotiations, no vision of anything other than continuing conflict and reliance on military power alone. The issue for Israel is no longer fear of expanding the conflict, but seeking ways to ensure that it expands and escalates further. Beginning on October, 8, the current government made a fatal choice for Israel: it will live by the sword, and it may end up dying by the sword.

On October 7, I thought naively that the horrible events of that day may offer an opening for direct negotiations between Hamas and Israel, where parties could exchange hostages and prisoners and begin a genuine conversation about a lasting, just peace. I also thought that the utter collapse of the High-Tech Wall and of Israel’s “security doctrine” could lead to a re-evaluation of militarism and a move towards diplomacy, and reconciliation. I was very wrong. Instead, we saw a doubling down on military solutions, a determination to use power and more power, a rejection of all calls for ceasefire, de-escalation, and negotiations, a shrinking of the Israeli “peace camp,” and a grim,vengeful determination to use overwhelming force and force alone. The principles established by Israel on October 8 are now the principles that guide it in Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, and perhaps also Iran and elsewhere.

The saddest thing about the current situation is that all parties are now thinking only in military terms. No one is thinking of “what makes for peace,” but only about how to inflict greater pain, loss and destruction on the other side.

Those of us who care about justice and peace, who care about Palestinians, Israelis, Lebanese, and other human beings need to break out of the paradigm being imposed on us by one interpretation of October 7, and return to basic principles: Justice, fairness, human rights, international law, and seeking that which makes for peace, rather than war. We must find a way, with a commitment to active nonviolence, to maintain our hope in a better future for all, rather than despair, despondency, and surrender to the dark logic of violence and hatred.

It looks as if there will finally be a ceasefire and hostage deal

Every decent person in the world, I am sure, is breathing a sigh of relief at the cessation—at least temporarily—of the horrible nightmare in Gaza that has been torturing us daily with news of 50-100 new victims every single day especially with our incapacity to do anything to truly stop it , In addition to the suffering of the captives on both sides, and of the entire Gazan population living under siege and bombardment. Apparently, the agreement is to be achieved in three stages. In the first stage, Hamas will release 33 hostages (both alive and dead) and Israel will release some prisoners and suspend bombing for 42 days, while arrangements are made for the next two phases. The population of Northern Gaza will be permitted to return to their destroyed homes and humanitarian aid allowed to enter.

Yet, we cannot help but make a number of crucial points, despite this momentary relief we may be feeling:

It is now clear that the basic terms of the deal are almost identical to the terms provided in the deal proposed last May. No significant changes have been made, so the momentous suffering and loss since that time seem especially unnecessary and tragic.

It is also clear that the primary obstacles to a ceasefire have not resulted from the intransigence of Hamas, but from the deliberate undermining of the deal by Israeli leadership. Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smootrich are openly taking credit for repeatedly sabotaging the deal in the past and continue to threaten to withdraw from the Netanyahu government if it goes forward. In Israel, contrary to the false protestations and lies of Secretary of State Blinken, it is well-known and acknowledged that resistance from the Israeli right wing and the desire of Netanyahu to maintain his government has always been the key obstacle to the signing of a deal.

It is indeed worrying that the first “stage” of the deal may very well be the last and that movement to the next stages and towards a true, permanent ceasefire is not assured. Those elements in Israel who sabotaged this deal in the past may still be actively seeking opportunities to prolonge the killing, bombing campains, forced starvation, and genocide, after securing the release of some or all of the hostages.

While we do not know the extent to which Trump’s threats of US pressure had to do with the “breakthrough,” or how much is just political theatre, the consensus among most Israeli analysts I hear indicates that Israel changed its mind and agreed to this deal directly as a result of US pressure. Past claims by the Biden administration that it could not pressure Israel or force its decisions seem to be false. Haaretz even carried a story that Trump’s representative, Steve Witcoff, wanted to meet with Netanyahu regarding the ceasefire/hostage deal. When politely reminded that Natanyahu could not meet him because of the Shabbat, Witcoff retorted sharply that “the Shabbat was of no interest to him.” The meeting did indeed take place and, after a difficult conversation with Netanyahu, an agreement was reached.

There seems to be no clear linkage between the first and remaining stages in the deal, which leaves it possible that “fighting” will resume after the 42 day pause and the genocide will continue. As with the Oslo Agreement itself, there are no enforcement mechanisms or consequences for the Israelis if they fail to live up to the agreements.

The entire deal, even if all stages are agreed upon and implemented faithfully, still leaves a number of important questions unanswered, including the mechanism for ruling the Gaza Strip after the deal, access to and the distribution of food, water, and other humanitarian assistance, the extent of the Israeli withdrawal, and whether any forces, other than Hamas, will be governing the civilian affairs of Gaza. Lifting the siege and allowing free access in and out of Gaza may not even be on the table.

In all cases, the underlying problem continues to be unaddressed. So long as the basic requirements of peace, equality and justice are not even dealt with, let alone discussed, such temporary security arrangements will always be inadequate, and the temptation to resort to power and violence remains.

This is why it is important for us to continue working for a just peace, to insist on respecting moral and legal principles, regardless of whether a deal is reached or breached. Meanwhile, we still need to address the following questions:

Will the siege be lifted so that Gazans can begin the process of rebuilding their hospitals, schools, universities, homes and lives?
Who will supply the food, water, medicines, electricity, and building materials needed to meet the immediate needs of the population for subsistence and shelter, as well as the monumental task of rebuilding what was destroyed?
Who will provide and maintain basic public services, not to mention law and order, in the immediate future?
Will international journalists be allowed into Gaza to narrate in their authoritative (read: “Western”) reporting what actually has been taking place in the last year or so? And, will the criminals responsible for genocide and war crimes be brought to justice?
What about the West Bank? The settlements? The Apartheid? Palestinian leadership?, Failing to address these issues will only increase the violence there..

In all cases, our work for peace and justice must go on. We continue to proclaim violence is not the answer. It will never provide Palestinians with the desired liberation nor Israelis their vaunted security. Violence not only includes guns and bombs but also bulldozers, walls, checkpoints, and all of the oppressive structures that make up Israeli apartheid, such as occupation, siege, and the denial of freedom.

We also reiterate that should violence erupt anyway, civilians must be spared as much as possible from the ravages of war. Measures which target civilians are never legitimate. That is why the taking of civilian (as opposed to military) hostages was never legitimate—and roundly condemned—yet neither are restrictions on access to food, water, medicine and fuel. Similarly, the targeting of hospitals, schools, bakeries, and other civilian structures is never legitimate.

Universal human rights and international law must always be respected. Every effort should be made to seek peaceful methods for resolving disputes and nonviolent means for resisting oppression. Promoting such universal values and respect for international institutions and principles is an important value for all of us, not only those caught up in conflict. The news of this ceasefire/hostage deal may indeed be very welcome, but it is hardly the end of the road.

Peace,
Jonathan Kuttab, Co-Founder
Nonviolence International https://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/

Iran and Palestine

With all the attention on Iran and the real fears of devastating wars, the situation in Palestine deteriorates with forced marches, humiliation, bombings, and deliberate starvation. The diabolical scheme of “food distribution centers-cum death traps” are the main if not only way Gazans can get food, yielding around 70 deaths among the food seekers at the distribution centers every single day. In the West Bank, assaults by settlers and land grabs accelerate as the Palestinians hunker down in fear for their lives. And, regardless of the outcome of the Iran war, the situation in Palestine still needs to be addressed. We cannot let the War on Iran be a distraction by Netanyahu from the situation in Gaza and from having him face the really serious questions that are threatening his coalition and his own hold on power.

Nonetheless, it is incumbent on us to address the Iran war, particularly since the US is on the verge of some drastic steps leading to a major escalation. In this regard we need to point out a few things, particularly as Americans consider this Iran situation:

1, The attack by Israel on Iran is an act of aggression and a direct violation of its sovereignty and of international law. Starting a war illegally is known as the crime of aggression, and it is one of the worst crimes under international law as it leads to untold suffering and destruction and invites retaliation, revenge, and a long list of subsequent violations. It is never allowed under international law except as an act of self defense.

2. “Preemptive self defense,” which was claimed by Israel, clearly does not apply in this case and would render the whole of international law meaningless if it were to be accepted. Self defense applies to defending against actual, not anticipated or hypothetical threats. Also, preemptive action, if it is considered at all, can only be arguably claimed if there was an imminent prospect of an attack by another country which could not be forestalled by any other means. It does not mean that a country can “preemptively” attack an enemy on the theoretical possibility that an enemy may consider attacking it in the future, nor to deprive the enemy of having potentially destructive weapons. Actually, Israel has already attacked and destroyed the navy and airforce of Syria and other military installations, invading its territory and setting up its own military bases further inside Syrian territory without even claiming that the new Syrian regime was about to attack it. Israel did so only in order to ensure that any future Syrian regime would not have the ability to attack (or defend against) the Israeli military. Regime change for hostile enemies is also not a legitimate war objective.

3. Preventing other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons is definitely a worthy objective. That is why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was created. Israel never signed it, while Iran not only signed but accepted the most rigorous inspection regime and was in the process of negotiating even more restrictions on enrichment (one element in a nuclear weapons program) when Israel attacked it. Tulsi Gabbard, US National Security Advisor, recently issued a statement that the CIA believes Iran is “NOT building a nuclear weapon,” and that the decision not to do so by Khamenei had not been changed.

4. Most analysts, including Israeli ones, agree that Israeli objectives were to safeguard its own nuclear monopoly and aspiring hegemony and to prevent the deterrence that comes from Mutual Assured Destruction (appropriately called MAD) rather than to forestall any existential threat. All the bluster about Iran posing an “existential threat” to Israel or that Iran should never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon hides the fact that such a weapon, were Iran ever to develop it, would be meant primarily as a deterrent and not intended in any way to attack or obliterate Israel as Netanyahu would have us believe.

5. The United States has no legitimate reason to attack or to harm Iran. The US is still engaging in a foreign policy of revenge for the fall of the Shah and the taking of US hostages 46 years ago! US sanctions must end. The US policy of regime change, because Iran is a theocracy and violates human rights, would mean that Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and all other countries in the region should also be targets. In fact, Iran and the US have many similar national interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Israel is a dominant military power and does not need nor deserve US military support to protect it from its enemies. Every US President, for all their unquestioning support of Israel, has resisted constant Israeli pleas for the US to attack Iran. It is certainly not in America’s interest to do so now. Joining the fight against Iran only benefits Israel at the expense of American interests, as well as American lives.

6. Whatever the arguments in favor of Israel attacking Iran or seeking to weaken it, we need to say that war is never a good option. It is an evil thing that must be avoided at all costs. Even those who are not pacifists and who believe in a “just war theory” must admit that the criteria and conditions for a just war do not exist here, that all diplomatic efforts must be exhausted first, and, even then, war needs to be purely defensive and the lesser of two evils. A lot of lies will need to be promulgated (as during the Iraq war) to justify a US attack on Iran. The recent forays of America in the area, from Afghanistan to Iraq and Libya should have taught us this lesson.

My own understanding of Christ’s teachings is that we cannot support war, in any case, regardless of which side may be right or wrong. We must particularly resist the temptation to be sucked into supporting or glorifying the attacks and the destruction by either side. We grieve over every life lost and challenge the billions being spent on weapons, which we hope will never be used but which are now being used daily. Weapons, wars and violence can never buy us security. Limited resources must be employed to improve the lives of many, to battle poverty and homelessness, to support those mental health issues, and to promote health and education rather than being squandered on the military.
In the meantime, the horrors of Gaza continue, the genocide is ongoing, and God’s children are being starved and slaughtered. I hope you will consider joining me and over 700 others who are fasting with Veterans for Peace and their Allies in fasting for Gaza and calling on the US government to make peace, not war with Palestinians and with Iran.

Jonathan Kuttab

Challenging IHRA

As a Palestinian Canadian I am equally shocked, as was Independent Jewish Voices Canada, by the high-handed move of Doug Ford’s Ontario government to ram through the flawed and widely-rejected International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) antisemitism definition.

Shockingly, the IHRA definition was passed on October 25 by an Order-In-Council before two deadlines, of October 26 and October 30 respectively, set by the Standing Committee on Justice Policy for submitting requests to participate in public hearings and to submit written material. Read more….

Why is the Mainstream Media Silent on Palestine?

An online webinar hosted by author and activist, Miko Peled, with alternative media journalists Mnar Muhawesh Adley (MintPress News), Rania Khalek (Unauthorized Disclosures), and Anya Parampil (The Grayzone) If you missed it, watch it now.

IHRA Definition of Anti-semitism Challanged

Sheryl Nestel of IJV-Toronto took on Richard Marceau of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and Bernie Farber in a thrilling debate on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Sheryl, along with York law professor Faisal Bhabha, passionately argued that the IHRA is absolutely designed to silence legitimate critique of Israel.

Watch the full video of the debate here!

Gaza’s Situation on October 6, 2023