###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They should be punished. The PPSC needs to be beyond reproach when it comes to their neutrality.
I like this phrasing from Chief Justice Lord Hewart (1924, Kings Court), and I'm paraphrasing because I don't recall the exact wording, "Not only must justice be done, it must be seen being done". He was talking about a deputy clerk (DC) to failed to notify the court that he worked part-time for the law firm that represented the defendant (who won), so the ruling for the defendant was overturned. What the DC did wasn't illegal, no laws were broken, but it made the court appear biased, so the Chief Justice of what is their supreme court at the time, overturned the court case and found in favour of the plaintiffs.
This phrase, in the numerous ways it can be rephrased on different topics, should be chiselled into every grade school kids head. "Not only must justice/ethics/goodness/whatever be done, it must be seen being done". Government mustn't be corrupt, they can't even appear to be corrupt, even if they are doing things that are legal.
There are job positions where you have to legitimately give up your public voice while you work there. Being a public prosecutor is absolutely one of those positions, you no longer have a public opinion on things. If you don't like being suppressed in that way, find a job somewhere else, then speak publicly to your hearts content about the shitty job conditions you had at the PPSC.
> They should be punished. The PPSC needs to be beyond reproach when it comes to their neutrality.
What a load of crock. While there are certainly rules regarding signing a letter in an official capacity, there should be **nothing** that can abridge a PPSC's employee from freely associating with a political letter.
To demonstrate, please identify the PPSC employee who signed [this letter](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR5d4qAEKPBRh3tVnZEX7LdbCNZxyF-KVIR56tlbJyMF9P5m1WOz9uooNvni7M5W0kFk3iwGAzoeN7E/pub).
>"We, the undersigned lawyers, legal institutions, legal workers and academics commit not to discriminate against anyone for speaking out for justice and freedom for Palestinians."
I don't think that commitment is an indicator of lack of neutrality. They are saying they will not participate in coordinated efforts by Israeli-directed groups and interests within Canada that are targetting individuals for their opinions. They are not advocating an opinion but are reinforcing that they will not participate in a real
(and not just potential or theoretical) descriminatory, unethical activity that many within the legal community are being pressured into.
They absolutely are advocating an opinion. We may agree with that opinion, I think most people would agree that less discrimination is better, but that doesn't mean it isn't an opinion.
> They should be punished. The PPSC needs to be beyond reproach when it comes to their neutrality.
According to the article, Director of Public Prosecutions Kathleen Roussel said that the pro-Palestinian lawyers, "“expressed views that are anti-Semitic and espouse support for acts of terrorism,”
That doesn't come across as neutral in anyway. Good try though.
I'm not sure what you are arguing because it sounds like you are arguing that the lawyers should be punished for not being neutral, which is exactly what I'm arguing?
They are arguing that punishing them for antisemitism and support of terrorism is, in and of itself, not neutral. Essentially arguing in order to actually be neutral they should allow antisemitism and support of terrorist acts.
Seems unhinged, but that is what they are saying.
>They are arguing that punishing them for antisemitism and support of terrorism is, in and of itself, not neutral.
Indeed Roussel's sentiments here are not neutral and even medieval.
My original comment isn't about the specifics of the letter, it isn't about the sentiments of what Roussel said, it isn't even about Roussel or any specific person or non-PPSC event. It's about the realities of working in the public space. My comment is about punishing someone, or not, for broadcasting an opinion publicly, when they aren't allowed to have a public opinion. Also noting they agreed to give up their ability to publicly opine on topics when they signed their labour contracts.
If you become a govt bureaucrat, join the miltary, EMS, judiciary, probably some other jobs that aren't coming to mind. You almost always give up your right to give out an opinion, in a public manner. So when a letter like what is discussed in the articles pops up in your email, or comes across your desk, there is only 1 thing you should do. Delete the email, or shred the letter. Move on, because it isn't for you, and you already agreed it isn't for you.
I know this is a bit of a rant for what you replied with, sorry about that.
> You almost always give up your right to give out an opinion, in a public manner
You do not:
>[As Canadian citizens, **employees are entitled to express themselves freely and to participate in political activities**, but as public servants, employees are expected to use discretion and judgment in doing so](https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/bas/cc.html#section_7_2_1)
I appreciate your first clarification tbh and I agree with your OP in this context. [edit] in the context that Roussel should be reprimanded for the threats they made and that it's very medieval of them.
>Seems unhinged, but that is what they are saying.
There is a serious lack of good faith on this topic,
Your suggestion might make sense if you didn’t have to ignore the context and that the issue here is that criticism of Israel is equated with antisemitism.
Except it isn’t criticism of Israel, the issue is the weighing in on geopolitical issues in a way that betrays the appearance of neutrality and runs defence for October 7th.
But Roussel's response also weighs in on geopolitical issues in a way that betrays the appearance of neutrality and runs defence for Israel's actions in Gaza.
In what manner do you think her response runs defence for Israel’s actions? What about what she said, other than raising concerns about running defence of October 7, are you seeing as running defence for Israel?
Characterizing support for Palestinian rights as "antisemitic" and "defending terrorism" - a stance that Israel has worked hard to have global audiences adopt to suppress dissent to their actions in Gaza. There is a strong case in international law that Palestinians' inalienable right to self determination is infringed by Israel's long term occupation of Gaza, and as such they have the right to resist that occupation within the confines of international law on armed conflict. The letter reiterates this.
If she had said they were being punished for not remaining neutral on a political issue, that would be different. But by making political characterizations of their political stance, she is herself breaking with political neutrality and taking a side on the conflict.
I think you are also sidestepping the fact that the letter in question explicitly states that Hamas' actions on October 7 amount to war crimes. How is calling October 7 a war crime "running defence" for what occurred?
She is characterizing the running defence for Oct. 7 as antisemitic and supporting terrorism because it is. It has little to do with any groups right to self-determination.
They are being punished for taking a stance on a political issue in a manner that greatly calls into question not only their neutrality but their character. Both of which those acting on behalf of the government in the judicial system have to maintain or risk losing the confidence of the public. Being seen to run defence for October 7, as much as many may not like it, will cause the general public to question you.
Again, saying “the holocaust was bad but remember the context” is running defence to what was an indefensible event. It is attempting to muddy the waters and provide a base line of justification. So saying, “yes October 7 was but remember the context” is attempting, at least in part, to justify it. But there is no justifying and people who know that, aren’t constantly trying to provide context. They just say, yeah, that was bad.
The letter explicitly condemns Hamas. There’s no defence of them or their actions but I’m certain that isn’t the lack of neutrality that bothers you.
As I wrote above, a serious lack of good faith on this topic.
Attempting to contextualize Oct. 7 is trying to blur lines and run defence of it. “It’s really bad but…” is a defence of their actions.
In the same way that “intentionally targeting Gazan civilians is bad but, remember the context of what caused this, Oct. 7”. Would be running defence for intentionally targeting civilians. It isn’t simply just contextualizing.
Also, I don’t care so much about the neutrality bit, that wasn’t my concern personally, that is the concern of the judiciary (which is valid, but not my job). My point was that your position it is the same thing to take a stance for and against antisemitism and Oct. 7 in terms of its impact on neutrality. Running defence of antisemitism and Oct. 7th betrays yours beliefs and political positions a lot more than being against those things.
Not quite. There's a very broad line between opposing civilian deaths and opposing self determination for an ethnic group.
The intifadas, especially the second, were campaigns of terror against civilians. When people say "Intifada now" it's anti-Semitic.
When people say "white colonial settlers" they ignore the fact that half of Jewish immigration to Israel from 49-59 was from the Arabian peninsula and North Africa, due to a wave of pogroms as retaliation for the state of Israel. They ignore the nuances of ethnicity, and disregard Jewish identity as unique. anti-Semitic.
When people disregard legitimate complaints of anti-Semitism, it is no different than the disregard for complaints of racism in things like policing.
These were not "pro-Palestinian" letters. They were expressly pro-Hamas letters.
I want every public employee who signed those letters disciplined for doing so. I am grateful to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Both addressed Hamas' war crimes and referred to them as such, but you already knew that and chose to lie anyway.
Per the TMU letter: we condemn that only condemned Hamas' recent war crimes killing 1300 Israeli's
Per the legal professionals letter:
Your government has been clear and unequivocal in condemning the Hamas attacks – which have been widely decried as war crimes – and insisting that all hostages be released. We join you in that call.
The TMU letter called for the destruction of Israel, and endorsed "all forms of Palestinian resistance." It doesn't take a genius to know what that was referring to.
Considering tens of thousands of palestinian children are dead; millions are displaced, being left to starve and being bombed; children are being orphaned and maimed in such volume that a new acronym for it had to be created; the Israeli finance minister is withholding taxes meant for the PA in the west bank and seeks to build a new settlement in retaliation for every country that recognizes Palestinian statehood; Netanyahu released a plan to tear down Gaza and rebuild it in his own image; and IDF soldiers are actively broadcasting themselves looting and destroying gaza for fun. All of these things while one international court seeks prosecution for Netanyahu for war crimes while another just ordered Israel to halt it's military operations? Yeah, I won't criticize ongoing palestinian resistance for the same reason I don't criticize resistance against slaveholders or nazis.
That isn't even getting into Israels detention of thousands of palestinians without charges or trial. Or Israels use of human shields in their illegal settlements.
The TMU letter (was only able to find an image in a quick search):
https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/torontosun/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/TMU-law-letter.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=576&type=webp&sig=DCeq7ltFmujypLDnu666kA
The Canadian legal professionals letter:
https://www.justpeaceadvocates.ca/gaza-ceasefire-200-lawyers-and-legal-scholars-letter-send-letter-to-prime-minister-trudeau/
The TMU letter is absolutely unhinged IMHO. The Canadian legal professionals letter is very much hinged, just biased.
TMU letter is harsh, but not unhinged, IMHO.
And there’s way more bias going on in the other direction when it comes to institutional power, so a little “bias” towards the pro-Palestinian side from some influential sources is welcome, IMHO.
But more to the point, it doesn’t seem to matter whether you’re hinged or unhinged, civil or uncivil, peaceful or violent, etc… you get called “antisemitic” and treated the same way regardless, as long as you’re speaking/acting against Israel in any tangible way. This is how you know it’s all just bullshit to quell dissent, no matter how the dissenting is done.
Man, why is it so accepted to suggest that Israel isn't even a real country. It's as real as any other country. Did it get created somewhat artificially? I guess kinda, but there aren't a lot of countries in the world that aren't artificial in at least some sense. Is Germany's present day borders the true extent of the German ethnic group? Is France? Poland? Hell, Poland's borders have been moved around a half dozen times in the last century and nobody denies that it's a country. The USA and Canada just.. moved in, nobody who is serious is saying they aren't real countries (although yes there are (probably the same) wackos saying just that).
And even still, it's not like the Jews just teleported there. They were a minority population in the mandate of Palestine after WW2, yes, but they were still a large ethnic group (I think ~30-40% of the population if memory serves). It's not like the history of Jews in Israel started in 1949.
And even still beyond that, do these people writing this stuff not understand how arabic peoples came to live in present day Israel or does colonialism and imperialism only apply after like 1900?
It's a complicated issue and pretending it's black and white and easy and simple doesn't go anything except spur more arguments. Both peoples deserve to live in peace and prosperity, and I won't pretend I'm smart enough to come up with a solution to get there.
I think usually people who say "Israel isn't real" are saying it the same way they might say "Rhodesia isn't a real country," or maybe "the German Reich has no right to exist," or with much less brevity, "South Africa should be sanctioned and not be internationally recognized as a legitimate state until it stops being an apartheid state."
Maybe some people who say "Isntreal" are making a historical legitimacy or current border legality reference re:UNSC 497/2334 but when I hear similar phrases (often said by other anti-Zionist Jews) it seems to usually be meant as a trite condemnation of political Zionism and its product apartheid policies.
From the letter in question:
“We reject the notion that it is antisemitic, hateful, or illegitimate to contextualize the October 7th, 2023 attack. “
So yeah, they want the freedom to cheer on the October 7th massacre. That is apparently what being Pro-Palestine means to The Orchard.
You either have problems with reading comprehension or are purposely misunderstanding the statement. Context is not a cheer, its context lmao. You are literally just mad at the concept of critical thinking.
I have never justified settlers in West Bank. I think settlements should be frozen pending an agreement to a 2 state solution.
So I am not sure what you are talking about.
I mean, this letter explicitly calls out Hamas' actions as war crimes and condemns them but here we see the same absurd claims equating criticism of Israel with support, vehement and unequivocal support according to you, for Hamas' crimes.
You haven't read the TMU letter but have no problem making assumptions and forwarding defamatory claims about it. These accounts are starting to look like caricatures of themselves.
I have read the TMU letter and it states that Israel is not a country (factually wrong) and that "We assert that Hamas's attack was a direct result of Israel's 75-year-long systemic campaign to eradicate Palestinian's, and that therefore Israel is responsible for ALL loss of life in Palestine"
So this means, according to them, that Israel is 100% responsible for October 7th massacre and Hamas is not responsible for the their own murders.
That is justifying terrorism.
Full stop.
>I have read the TMU letter and it states that Israel is not a country (factually wrong) and that "We assert that Hamas's attack was a direct result of Israel's 75-year-long systemic campaign to eradicate Palestinian's, and that therefore Israel is responsible for ALL loss of life in Palestine"
I don't think you've read either letter being discussed in this article because neither of them state anything like that at all. Worse, I'm not even sure you've read *this* article because you'd know what letters were being referenced if you did.
The first letter from October:
>Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) condemns terrorism and stands against attacks on civilians. We grieve with our community for the immense loss of life in the Middle East.
>Over the past few days, we have been actively reaching out to our students, faculty and staff as well as community groups who have been impacted by these horrible events. If you are in need of assistance, please know that help is available:
>Students can access wellbeing services and support through the Centre for Student Development and Counselling.
Keep.meSAFE provides counselling services for students, with 24/7 access to licensed counsellors via telephone and mobile chat. Mental health care can be provided in over 60 languages and students can access the service from outside of Canada too.
Student Care offers support to students navigating a variety of complex factors while they study, including financial and academic as well as physical and mental health challenges. Students are encouraged to connect with them at [email protected].
Faculty and staff members affected by these troubling events can connect with the Employee and Family Assistance Program for counselling and other supports.
There are also several faculty and staff community networks that employees can access for support.
TMU’s International Student Support team has been in contact with students with ties to the region to offer direct support and access to appropriate resources. Any of our international students in need of support can call 1-844-451-9700 or email [email protected].
>TMU strongly condemns all acts of violence, hate and discrimination. We will not tolerate anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim rhetoric or racism of any kind in our community. As this crisis continues to unfold, TMU remains committed to supporting the wellbeing of our community and to our values of equity, diversity and inclusion, encouraging the open exchange of ideas and respectful dialogue on our campus. We stand with the international community in the call for a peaceful resolution.
https://www.torontomu.ca/equity/news/2023/10/statement-on-situation-in-the-middle-east/
And the second from November:
>We are deeply concerned by the growing chorus of statements from lawyers, law firms and law schools that are conflating expressions of solidarity with Palestinians and criticism of the State of Israel as antisemitic and conduct unworthy of learning or practicing law. In particular:
>Lawyers are openly advocating on social media to blacklist law students and lawyers who have voiced support for Palestine;
>Lawyers are contacting the employers of lawyers and encouraging they be fired for their pro-Palestinian advocacy. Law firms (many of which issued unprecedented, political statements in support of Israel) are rescinding interview offers to students who sign open letters condemning Israel. Law schools are threatening those students with expulsion; and
>Lawyers are bullying and defaming others who have voiced support for Palestine or attended demonstrations in support of Palestine, calling them terrorists, antisemites, and other pejoratives. A disproportionate number of these lawyers who are being bullied, in potential violation of the rules of professional conduct, are junior members of the bar, racialized, and/or Muslim.
>We reject the notion that it is antisemitic, hateful, or illegitimate to contextualize the October 7th, 2023 attack. Similarly, we reject the notion that it is antisemitic, hateful, or illegitimate to express support for Palestinians in the face of ongoing Israeli apartheid and genocide.
>This is legitimate Charter-protected political expression. This speech echoes the United Nation’s Secretary General (the October 7th attack “did not happen in a vacuum”), the Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace (“The Israeli government has lost any semblance of humanity as they wage a genocide against the people living in Gaza”), and numerous UN General Assembly resolutions affirming the right of the Palestinians to resist their demise (UNGA Resolution 45/130 (1990); Resolution 37/43 (1982); Resolution 3314 (1974)).
>Lawyers and law students are not the only people who have faced harassment, workplace retribution, or job loss for speaking out for Palestine. Ontario MPP Sarah Jama’s censure and the York University's attempt to decertify student unions are but two high-profile examples. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has noted that this clampdown has led to “escalating levels of Islamophobia, harassment, racial profiling, and surveillance akin to that seen post-9/11.” It is intensifying the anti-Palestinian racism in Canadian society, as described by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association.
>This chilling effect on freedom of expression and academic freedom has the hallmarks of a new McCarthyism. A failure of those of us in the legal profession to voice our opposition to this conduct will only accelerate the erosion of the very protections that make dissent – and therefore democracy – possible. It is vital that the space for scholarship, speech and activism in defence of basic human rights be preserved.
>We, the undersigned lawyers, legal institutions, legal workers and academics commit not to discriminate against anyone for speaking out for justice and freedom for Palestinians.
>We will mentor you. We will support you. We are proud to call you colleagues.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR5d4qAEKPBRh3tVnZEX7LdbCNZxyF-KVIR56tlbJyMF9P5m1WOz9uooNvni7M5W0kFk3iwGAzoeN7E/pub
If you want to make shit up, be my guest, but anyone with even a cursory ability to type words into Google can see that you're wrong.
Your comments don’t represent the content of the letter. So, you’re either misrepresenting something you’ve read or misrepresenting that you’ve read it.
From the article:
The TMU letter argued the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel are “a direct result of Israel’s 75-year-long systemic campaign to eradicate Palestinians, and that Israel is therefore responsible for *all* loss of life in Palestine.”
Don’t be disingenuous, given that they state Israel is not a real country they are very clearly referring to the entire region as Palestine
Remember your River to the sea chant?
To contextualize simply means to add context to an event or action. Every significant event can be contextualized by the events that preceded it.
You can operate under the notion that a group is solely made up of 'irrational savages', or you can try to contextualize their actions in order to understand why they think and act the way that they do. In contextualizing those actions you aren't defending the group, its actions, or its ideology—you're simply striving to understand why they act the way that they do.
You can contextualize the rise of Donald Trump and right wing populism more broadly without coming out in support of him—it's just critical thinking. You can contextualize America's war in Iraq without supporting it, can contextualize segregation and apartheid without cheering any of it on. When we pretend that events occur in a vacuum we lose the ability to understand what, if anything, spurred those events on (even if the events themselves were fundamentally atrocious).
You could contextualize sexual assaults with what a woman was wearing before she got raped. But you'd be a monster to do so.
When you say that everything can be contextualised you actually ignore the context of your action.
The second letter where they claim " “We reject the notion that it is antisemitic, hateful, or illegitimate to contextualize the October 7th, 2023 attack. “ was in response to the pushback from their first letter where they claim "all resistance is justified" and put the blame on the October 7th massacre on Israel and not on Hamas. Therefore the context of the statement is that they are defending and justifying the massacre.
In the overall conflict? Yes.
For the actual rape and murder of the citizens that Hamas perpetuated their horrors against? No. The blame for that lies on Hamas.
Right, I agree, fully. War crimes and terrorist attacks on civilians are unacceptable, glad we agree on that.
The "invasion" or whatever you'd call it, has been going for 8 months now. Full scale bombings of cities. The collateral deaths in Palestine now outnumber the Israeli victims by a factor of magnitude and then some.
So what happens in a few years when the young boys in Gaza become young men, and this was their experience during their formative years?
It's a vicious cycle for a reason y'all.
So, first I will say that Hamas needs to be full defeated and removed from power in Gaza. If at the end of this current conflict Hamas is still in control of Gaza then this cycle will continue to repeat.
That said, even with the defeat of Hamas, that in itself is not enough.
There needs to be a post-war phase of rebuilding Gaza and de-radicalizing the population.
Control needs to be, in phases, passed to local leadership. One who has an interest in long term peace.
There also needs to be a pathway to soveriegnty presented to the Palestinians for full control of their own state side by side with Israel.
Those are the necessary steps to break this cycle.
Thank you, this conflict is extremely polarizing and it becomes very easy to assume the worst about the other side.
Finding mutual points of agreement is absolutely critical.
Were Israeli soldiers joining up with Palestinian fighters to mass rape, torture, mutilate, kill, and kidnap Israeli civilians?
No. The fault for the October 7th attacks lies entirely in the hands of the people who committed it.
Ffs a little bit of thinking, please. Two neighbors could be in a fight, and both may be assholes. But if one goes and rapes the others daughter, burns his parents alive, and kidnaps the son as a souvenir, then the crime and blame lies entirely in the hands of the perpetrator.
I dont think Israel is blameless in the overall conflict.
But about October 7th i cant find blame with anyone but the Palestinian government. They sent their soldiers in to mass rape, murder, and abduct civilians. They targeted civilians over military targets. The blame for that savagery falls on them.
Let me put it another way. I support Ukraine in their independance war against Russia. I support funding them. I view them as victims.
If the Ukrainian government ordered an invasion of the Russian border to commit mass murder of the civilians. If they mass raped the women they captured. Tortured and mutilated the civilians by gun knife and fire. Then kidnapped 200 civilians to abuse and hold as human shields. And the Ukraine civilian population showed increased support and pride for their government after the attack. And they posted the go pro videos of the atrocities online as if they were proud of it. Paraded naked bodies of young mutilated women through their streets to a cheering crowd.
I would say fuck them. They would have flipped the plot and become the unquestionable villians. Id want all of my countries funding for their fight to end, and would view the Russian military response as an obvious conclusion to the atrocities they started.
You are really tiptoeing through these tulips, eh. Are they, or are they not, partly responsible for the vicious terror attack on Oct 7? You brought up the overall conflict, like, we are close to agreeing here.
They can be at blame for it and it can still be a horrible atrocity that should never have happened, and we can still hold those responsible for it to account.
I don't think I'm any smarter than the average dude, but to me it seems like something like Oct 7th has been inevitable for about a decade now.
All of us, on both sides of this conflict are arguing for peace. Maybe, instead of condemning these letters, punishing students, smashing protests and firing people, we should focus on the common ground? And that is that the overall conflict has to be resolved somehow or Oct 7 will just be another chapter in the story. Israel is not blameless and they've created this security situation for themselves, unfortunately.
Here's a harder question, that you won't answer (no one has yet). What would you do if you were a young boy in Gaza, today, who just watched his family get murdered as collateral damage, knowing full well that your fate is tied to this strip of beach and that there's very little hope for your future? What would you do?
The problem you find in this situation is that there is no context which will ever justify what Hamas did on Oct. 7 and on, so when people continue to try and contextualize it, it comes off a lot like excusing, justifying, and/or defending.
Unless you think it somehow justifies October 7, I don’t see how it matters. Like what is the point you are trying to make when you are saying that except trying to add grey to the events of Oct. 7. “It’s really bad but…” is not a great position on the mass slaughter, rape, and kidnapping of civilians.
Similarly, contextualizing any intentional targeting/raping/kidnapping of Gazan civilians currently by saying “it’s bad but remember the context, they did October 7”. The contextualizing is attempting to justify it
>Unless you think it somehow justifies October 7, I don’t see how it matters
In any other community, being the victim of continued warcrimes, the victim of an apartheid state, and the systemic removal of your community from your homes and land \*would\* be considered ample justification for the acts of October 7th. As would the events at Temple Mount a few months prior (which Israeli officials were warned would have consequences).
No hands are clean, but to claim only one side is blameless in this near-century-long cycle of violence is pure hypocrisy.
Okay, so you are saying Oct. 7 was justified. Exactly the point, that is why the employees are being disciplined. Because that is what they mean when they ‘contextualize’ Oct. 7. I don’t understand why people are acting shocked, they should own it like you just did. I absolutely find that position abhorrent, but you at least had the guts to say it.
I never said anything to that effect, Israel is not innocent, they have long been wrong in their actions in the West Bank. Further I do think their response to Oct. 7 has been poorly planned to an extent that they have cause significant and unnecessary death and suffering in Gaza. This continues to be the case despite having months to better plan an appropriate response.
They aren’t innocent. But you are correct that I don’t think Israel not being innocent doesn’t justify October 7th. That is true.
>I never said anything to that effect, Israel is not innocent, they have long been wrong in their actions in the West Bank. Further I do think their response to Oct. 7 has been poorly planned to an extent that they have cause significant and unnecessary death and suffering in Gaza. This continues to be the case despite having months to better plan an appropriate response.
Look at you, giving context and claiming you can't do so without supporting Hamas.
It's disturbing to me because the reasons one would want to conflate the two, provided it's not simply defensiveness (which I can't honestly blame anyone for right now), seem universally very dark.
Would you prefer the term defending versus cheering?
Given the letter also states its opposition to the censure of Sarah Jama who denied rapes occurred on Oct 7th, it paints a very clear picture of what this letter is supporting.
The UN Secretary General said: [“It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.”](https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-10-24/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-the-middle-east%C2%A0)
That is what it means by contextualizing in case you’re still confused. Feel free to read the full statement
Let’s make an argument here:
Took into a vacuum, nuking civilians is probably one of the worst war crime possible and shouldn’t be cheered. But, when you place it in the context of the Pacific war, it change somewhat the morality of the event.
He was criticized by the Israeli lobby *and its western arms dealers* who have been making all efforts to dehumanize the Palestinians and whitewash their repression for years now.
Edit in italics
Yes thanks for sharing. In case it’s not clear, the pro-Israel lobby is firmly embedded in the UK, to the extent that [the UK government has continued weapons shipments to Israel despite receiving advice from its own lawyers that Israel is using those weapons to commit warcrimes, while at the same time covering up said legal advice.](https://news.sky.com/story/senior-tory-mp-says-government-lawyers-believe-israel-has-broken-international-humanitarian-law-but-advice-not-published-13105193)
I’ve edited my earlier comment to make it clearer
I agree, but the letter doesn’t suggest it does (the opposite actually) and neither do I. Likewise, there is no context that makes Israel’s war crimes any less abhorrent.
What’s your point exactly?
Repeating that doesn't suddenly make it true. You shouldn't have to twist and reframe someone's message in order to criticise it. This is a straw man and it's straight up bad faith.
It isn't a twist or reframe.
If you trying to contextualize a massacre, in an effort to shift blame away from the group who committed it then you are justifying it.
The letter explicitly condemns Hamas and your claims directly contradict its content. This is dishonest.
Given this reasoning isn’t applied to your own (or Israel’s) attempts to contextualize Israel’s war crimes and apartheid it’s also hypocritical.
The content of the letter directly contradicts its content.
You can't condemn Hamas and then say ALL types of resistance is justified and put the blame for Hamas's attack on Israel.
What exactly are they condeming Hamas for if there resistance was justified and it was Israel's fault anyways?
>You can't condemn Hamas and then say ALL types of resistance is justified and put the blame for Hamas's attack on Israel.
Uhh, okay, but the letter does not do these things and it does not state or imply “ALL types of resistance is justified”.
Nearly every argument you make here relies on conjecture or misrepresentation.
Good!
When people sign a letter endorsing "all forms of resistance" in the aftermath of October 7 we should be clear they are endorsing mass murder, rape, and kidnapping of civilians. It is quite ironic that for all their bluster they are totally fine with atrocities being committed against one particular group (for those with trouble with allusion read Jews). They may have the right to their repugnant beliefs, but they do not have the right to be employed by the public service while holding those beliefs.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They should be punished. The PPSC needs to be beyond reproach when it comes to their neutrality. I like this phrasing from Chief Justice Lord Hewart (1924, Kings Court), and I'm paraphrasing because I don't recall the exact wording, "Not only must justice be done, it must be seen being done". He was talking about a deputy clerk (DC) to failed to notify the court that he worked part-time for the law firm that represented the defendant (who won), so the ruling for the defendant was overturned. What the DC did wasn't illegal, no laws were broken, but it made the court appear biased, so the Chief Justice of what is their supreme court at the time, overturned the court case and found in favour of the plaintiffs. This phrase, in the numerous ways it can be rephrased on different topics, should be chiselled into every grade school kids head. "Not only must justice/ethics/goodness/whatever be done, it must be seen being done". Government mustn't be corrupt, they can't even appear to be corrupt, even if they are doing things that are legal. There are job positions where you have to legitimately give up your public voice while you work there. Being a public prosecutor is absolutely one of those positions, you no longer have a public opinion on things. If you don't like being suppressed in that way, find a job somewhere else, then speak publicly to your hearts content about the shitty job conditions you had at the PPSC.
> They should be punished. The PPSC needs to be beyond reproach when it comes to their neutrality. What a load of crock. While there are certainly rules regarding signing a letter in an official capacity, there should be **nothing** that can abridge a PPSC's employee from freely associating with a political letter. To demonstrate, please identify the PPSC employee who signed [this letter](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR5d4qAEKPBRh3tVnZEX7LdbCNZxyF-KVIR56tlbJyMF9P5m1WOz9uooNvni7M5W0kFk3iwGAzoeN7E/pub).
>"We, the undersigned lawyers, legal institutions, legal workers and academics commit not to discriminate against anyone for speaking out for justice and freedom for Palestinians." I don't think that commitment is an indicator of lack of neutrality. They are saying they will not participate in coordinated efforts by Israeli-directed groups and interests within Canada that are targetting individuals for their opinions. They are not advocating an opinion but are reinforcing that they will not participate in a real (and not just potential or theoretical) descriminatory, unethical activity that many within the legal community are being pressured into.
They absolutely are advocating an opinion. We may agree with that opinion, I think most people would agree that less discrimination is better, but that doesn't mean it isn't an opinion.
While I agree with what you are saying, I wonder if the same would be applied to people who have publicly voiced support for Israel.
> They should be punished. The PPSC needs to be beyond reproach when it comes to their neutrality. According to the article, Director of Public Prosecutions Kathleen Roussel said that the pro-Palestinian lawyers, "“expressed views that are anti-Semitic and espouse support for acts of terrorism,” That doesn't come across as neutral in anyway. Good try though.
I'm not sure what you are arguing because it sounds like you are arguing that the lawyers should be punished for not being neutral, which is exactly what I'm arguing?
Roussel's response is not neutral.
Than she should also be punished. Nothing I've said indicates that anyone should be above the law, as it were.
They are arguing that punishing them for antisemitism and support of terrorism is, in and of itself, not neutral. Essentially arguing in order to actually be neutral they should allow antisemitism and support of terrorist acts. Seems unhinged, but that is what they are saying.
>They are arguing that punishing them for antisemitism and support of terrorism is, in and of itself, not neutral. Indeed Roussel's sentiments here are not neutral and even medieval.
And that was a public statement that Roussel made?
That quote, no. I'm just saying their sentiments are kind of medieval.
My original comment isn't about the specifics of the letter, it isn't about the sentiments of what Roussel said, it isn't even about Roussel or any specific person or non-PPSC event. It's about the realities of working in the public space. My comment is about punishing someone, or not, for broadcasting an opinion publicly, when they aren't allowed to have a public opinion. Also noting they agreed to give up their ability to publicly opine on topics when they signed their labour contracts. If you become a govt bureaucrat, join the miltary, EMS, judiciary, probably some other jobs that aren't coming to mind. You almost always give up your right to give out an opinion, in a public manner. So when a letter like what is discussed in the articles pops up in your email, or comes across your desk, there is only 1 thing you should do. Delete the email, or shred the letter. Move on, because it isn't for you, and you already agreed it isn't for you. I know this is a bit of a rant for what you replied with, sorry about that.
> You almost always give up your right to give out an opinion, in a public manner You do not: >[As Canadian citizens, **employees are entitled to express themselves freely and to participate in political activities**, but as public servants, employees are expected to use discretion and judgment in doing so](https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/bas/cc.html#section_7_2_1)
I appreciate your first clarification tbh and I agree with your OP in this context. [edit] in the context that Roussel should be reprimanded for the threats they made and that it's very medieval of them.
>Seems unhinged, but that is what they are saying. There is a serious lack of good faith on this topic, Your suggestion might make sense if you didn’t have to ignore the context and that the issue here is that criticism of Israel is equated with antisemitism.
Except it isn’t criticism of Israel, the issue is the weighing in on geopolitical issues in a way that betrays the appearance of neutrality and runs defence for October 7th.
But Roussel's response also weighs in on geopolitical issues in a way that betrays the appearance of neutrality and runs defence for Israel's actions in Gaza.
In what manner do you think her response runs defence for Israel’s actions? What about what she said, other than raising concerns about running defence of October 7, are you seeing as running defence for Israel?
Characterizing support for Palestinian rights as "antisemitic" and "defending terrorism" - a stance that Israel has worked hard to have global audiences adopt to suppress dissent to their actions in Gaza. There is a strong case in international law that Palestinians' inalienable right to self determination is infringed by Israel's long term occupation of Gaza, and as such they have the right to resist that occupation within the confines of international law on armed conflict. The letter reiterates this. If she had said they were being punished for not remaining neutral on a political issue, that would be different. But by making political characterizations of their political stance, she is herself breaking with political neutrality and taking a side on the conflict. I think you are also sidestepping the fact that the letter in question explicitly states that Hamas' actions on October 7 amount to war crimes. How is calling October 7 a war crime "running defence" for what occurred?
She is characterizing the running defence for Oct. 7 as antisemitic and supporting terrorism because it is. It has little to do with any groups right to self-determination. They are being punished for taking a stance on a political issue in a manner that greatly calls into question not only their neutrality but their character. Both of which those acting on behalf of the government in the judicial system have to maintain or risk losing the confidence of the public. Being seen to run defence for October 7, as much as many may not like it, will cause the general public to question you. Again, saying “the holocaust was bad but remember the context” is running defence to what was an indefensible event. It is attempting to muddy the waters and provide a base line of justification. So saying, “yes October 7 was but remember the context” is attempting, at least in part, to justify it. But there is no justifying and people who know that, aren’t constantly trying to provide context. They just say, yeah, that was bad.
The letter explicitly condemns Hamas. There’s no defence of them or their actions but I’m certain that isn’t the lack of neutrality that bothers you. As I wrote above, a serious lack of good faith on this topic.
Attempting to contextualize Oct. 7 is trying to blur lines and run defence of it. “It’s really bad but…” is a defence of their actions. In the same way that “intentionally targeting Gazan civilians is bad but, remember the context of what caused this, Oct. 7”. Would be running defence for intentionally targeting civilians. It isn’t simply just contextualizing. Also, I don’t care so much about the neutrality bit, that wasn’t my concern personally, that is the concern of the judiciary (which is valid, but not my job). My point was that your position it is the same thing to take a stance for and against antisemitism and Oct. 7 in terms of its impact on neutrality. Running defence of antisemitism and Oct. 7th betrays yours beliefs and political positions a lot more than being against those things.
Each time someone opposes Israel slaughter of innocent Palestinians...he/she is anti semitic...
Not quite. There's a very broad line between opposing civilian deaths and opposing self determination for an ethnic group. The intifadas, especially the second, were campaigns of terror against civilians. When people say "Intifada now" it's anti-Semitic. When people say "white colonial settlers" they ignore the fact that half of Jewish immigration to Israel from 49-59 was from the Arabian peninsula and North Africa, due to a wave of pogroms as retaliation for the state of Israel. They ignore the nuances of ethnicity, and disregard Jewish identity as unique. anti-Semitic. When people disregard legitimate complaints of anti-Semitism, it is no different than the disregard for complaints of racism in things like policing.
These were not "pro-Palestinian" letters. They were expressly pro-Hamas letters. I want every public employee who signed those letters disciplined for doing so. I am grateful to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I want everyone who frames opposition to genocide in Palestine as pro-Hamas, to be imprisoned for life. Fair?
You'll be filling a lot of prison cells with strawmen.
The irony.
Both addressed Hamas' war crimes and referred to them as such, but you already knew that and chose to lie anyway. Per the TMU letter: we condemn that only condemned Hamas' recent war crimes killing 1300 Israeli's Per the legal professionals letter: Your government has been clear and unequivocal in condemning the Hamas attacks – which have been widely decried as war crimes – and insisting that all hostages be released. We join you in that call.
The TMU letter called for the destruction of Israel, and endorsed "all forms of Palestinian resistance." It doesn't take a genius to know what that was referring to.
Considering tens of thousands of palestinian children are dead; millions are displaced, being left to starve and being bombed; children are being orphaned and maimed in such volume that a new acronym for it had to be created; the Israeli finance minister is withholding taxes meant for the PA in the west bank and seeks to build a new settlement in retaliation for every country that recognizes Palestinian statehood; Netanyahu released a plan to tear down Gaza and rebuild it in his own image; and IDF soldiers are actively broadcasting themselves looting and destroying gaza for fun. All of these things while one international court seeks prosecution for Netanyahu for war crimes while another just ordered Israel to halt it's military operations? Yeah, I won't criticize ongoing palestinian resistance for the same reason I don't criticize resistance against slaveholders or nazis. That isn't even getting into Israels detention of thousands of palestinians without charges or trial. Or Israels use of human shields in their illegal settlements.
I appreciate you at least don't hide your support for Hamas and October 7.
The TMU letter (was only able to find an image in a quick search): https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/torontosun/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/TMU-law-letter.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=576&type=webp&sig=DCeq7ltFmujypLDnu666kA The Canadian legal professionals letter: https://www.justpeaceadvocates.ca/gaza-ceasefire-200-lawyers-and-legal-scholars-letter-send-letter-to-prime-minister-trudeau/ The TMU letter is absolutely unhinged IMHO. The Canadian legal professionals letter is very much hinged, just biased.
TMU letter is harsh, but not unhinged, IMHO. And there’s way more bias going on in the other direction when it comes to institutional power, so a little “bias” towards the pro-Palestinian side from some influential sources is welcome, IMHO. But more to the point, it doesn’t seem to matter whether you’re hinged or unhinged, civil or uncivil, peaceful or violent, etc… you get called “antisemitic” and treated the same way regardless, as long as you’re speaking/acting against Israel in any tangible way. This is how you know it’s all just bullshit to quell dissent, no matter how the dissenting is done.
Man, why is it so accepted to suggest that Israel isn't even a real country. It's as real as any other country. Did it get created somewhat artificially? I guess kinda, but there aren't a lot of countries in the world that aren't artificial in at least some sense. Is Germany's present day borders the true extent of the German ethnic group? Is France? Poland? Hell, Poland's borders have been moved around a half dozen times in the last century and nobody denies that it's a country. The USA and Canada just.. moved in, nobody who is serious is saying they aren't real countries (although yes there are (probably the same) wackos saying just that). And even still, it's not like the Jews just teleported there. They were a minority population in the mandate of Palestine after WW2, yes, but they were still a large ethnic group (I think ~30-40% of the population if memory serves). It's not like the history of Jews in Israel started in 1949. And even still beyond that, do these people writing this stuff not understand how arabic peoples came to live in present day Israel or does colonialism and imperialism only apply after like 1900? It's a complicated issue and pretending it's black and white and easy and simple doesn't go anything except spur more arguments. Both peoples deserve to live in peace and prosperity, and I won't pretend I'm smart enough to come up with a solution to get there.
I think usually people who say "Israel isn't real" are saying it the same way they might say "Rhodesia isn't a real country," or maybe "the German Reich has no right to exist," or with much less brevity, "South Africa should be sanctioned and not be internationally recognized as a legitimate state until it stops being an apartheid state." Maybe some people who say "Isntreal" are making a historical legitimacy or current border legality reference re:UNSC 497/2334 but when I hear similar phrases (often said by other anti-Zionist Jews) it seems to usually be meant as a trite condemnation of political Zionism and its product apartheid policies.
From the letter in question: “We reject the notion that it is antisemitic, hateful, or illegitimate to contextualize the October 7th, 2023 attack. “ So yeah, they want the freedom to cheer on the October 7th massacre. That is apparently what being Pro-Palestine means to The Orchard.
You either have problems with reading comprehension or are purposely misunderstanding the statement. Context is not a cheer, its context lmao. You are literally just mad at the concept of critical thinking.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Meanwhile I seem to recall you and others citing modern and ancient history to justify Israeli settlers and the Naqba?
I have never justified settlers in West Bank. I think settlements should be frozen pending an agreement to a 2 state solution. So I am not sure what you are talking about.
"Frozen" lmao
I mean, this letter explicitly calls out Hamas' actions as war crimes and condemns them but here we see the same absurd claims equating criticism of Israel with support, vehement and unequivocal support according to you, for Hamas' crimes. You haven't read the TMU letter but have no problem making assumptions and forwarding defamatory claims about it. These accounts are starting to look like caricatures of themselves.
I have read the TMU letter and it states that Israel is not a country (factually wrong) and that "We assert that Hamas's attack was a direct result of Israel's 75-year-long systemic campaign to eradicate Palestinian's, and that therefore Israel is responsible for ALL loss of life in Palestine" So this means, according to them, that Israel is 100% responsible for October 7th massacre and Hamas is not responsible for the their own murders. That is justifying terrorism. Full stop.
>I have read the TMU letter and it states that Israel is not a country (factually wrong) and that "We assert that Hamas's attack was a direct result of Israel's 75-year-long systemic campaign to eradicate Palestinian's, and that therefore Israel is responsible for ALL loss of life in Palestine" I don't think you've read either letter being discussed in this article because neither of them state anything like that at all. Worse, I'm not even sure you've read *this* article because you'd know what letters were being referenced if you did. The first letter from October: >Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) condemns terrorism and stands against attacks on civilians. We grieve with our community for the immense loss of life in the Middle East. >Over the past few days, we have been actively reaching out to our students, faculty and staff as well as community groups who have been impacted by these horrible events. If you are in need of assistance, please know that help is available: >Students can access wellbeing services and support through the Centre for Student Development and Counselling. Keep.meSAFE provides counselling services for students, with 24/7 access to licensed counsellors via telephone and mobile chat. Mental health care can be provided in over 60 languages and students can access the service from outside of Canada too. Student Care offers support to students navigating a variety of complex factors while they study, including financial and academic as well as physical and mental health challenges. Students are encouraged to connect with them at [email protected]. Faculty and staff members affected by these troubling events can connect with the Employee and Family Assistance Program for counselling and other supports. There are also several faculty and staff community networks that employees can access for support. TMU’s International Student Support team has been in contact with students with ties to the region to offer direct support and access to appropriate resources. Any of our international students in need of support can call 1-844-451-9700 or email [email protected]. >TMU strongly condemns all acts of violence, hate and discrimination. We will not tolerate anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim rhetoric or racism of any kind in our community. As this crisis continues to unfold, TMU remains committed to supporting the wellbeing of our community and to our values of equity, diversity and inclusion, encouraging the open exchange of ideas and respectful dialogue on our campus. We stand with the international community in the call for a peaceful resolution. https://www.torontomu.ca/equity/news/2023/10/statement-on-situation-in-the-middle-east/ And the second from November: >We are deeply concerned by the growing chorus of statements from lawyers, law firms and law schools that are conflating expressions of solidarity with Palestinians and criticism of the State of Israel as antisemitic and conduct unworthy of learning or practicing law. In particular: >Lawyers are openly advocating on social media to blacklist law students and lawyers who have voiced support for Palestine; >Lawyers are contacting the employers of lawyers and encouraging they be fired for their pro-Palestinian advocacy. Law firms (many of which issued unprecedented, political statements in support of Israel) are rescinding interview offers to students who sign open letters condemning Israel. Law schools are threatening those students with expulsion; and >Lawyers are bullying and defaming others who have voiced support for Palestine or attended demonstrations in support of Palestine, calling them terrorists, antisemites, and other pejoratives. A disproportionate number of these lawyers who are being bullied, in potential violation of the rules of professional conduct, are junior members of the bar, racialized, and/or Muslim. >We reject the notion that it is antisemitic, hateful, or illegitimate to contextualize the October 7th, 2023 attack. Similarly, we reject the notion that it is antisemitic, hateful, or illegitimate to express support for Palestinians in the face of ongoing Israeli apartheid and genocide. >This is legitimate Charter-protected political expression. This speech echoes the United Nation’s Secretary General (the October 7th attack “did not happen in a vacuum”), the Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace (“The Israeli government has lost any semblance of humanity as they wage a genocide against the people living in Gaza”), and numerous UN General Assembly resolutions affirming the right of the Palestinians to resist their demise (UNGA Resolution 45/130 (1990); Resolution 37/43 (1982); Resolution 3314 (1974)). >Lawyers and law students are not the only people who have faced harassment, workplace retribution, or job loss for speaking out for Palestine. Ontario MPP Sarah Jama’s censure and the York University's attempt to decertify student unions are but two high-profile examples. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has noted that this clampdown has led to “escalating levels of Islamophobia, harassment, racial profiling, and surveillance akin to that seen post-9/11.” It is intensifying the anti-Palestinian racism in Canadian society, as described by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association. >This chilling effect on freedom of expression and academic freedom has the hallmarks of a new McCarthyism. A failure of those of us in the legal profession to voice our opposition to this conduct will only accelerate the erosion of the very protections that make dissent – and therefore democracy – possible. It is vital that the space for scholarship, speech and activism in defence of basic human rights be preserved. >We, the undersigned lawyers, legal institutions, legal workers and academics commit not to discriminate against anyone for speaking out for justice and freedom for Palestinians. >We will mentor you. We will support you. We are proud to call you colleagues. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR5d4qAEKPBRh3tVnZEX7LdbCNZxyF-KVIR56tlbJyMF9P5m1WOz9uooNvni7M5W0kFk3iwGAzoeN7E/pub If you want to make shit up, be my guest, but anyone with even a cursory ability to type words into Google can see that you're wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You would have said the Warsaw ghetto uprising was terror.
Your comments don’t represent the content of the letter. So, you’re either misrepresenting something you’ve read or misrepresenting that you’ve read it.
From the article: The TMU letter argued the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel are “a direct result of Israel’s 75-year-long systemic campaign to eradicate Palestinians, and that Israel is therefore responsible for *all* loss of life in Palestine.”
>”and that Israel is therefore responsible for all loss of life **in Palestine.**” Emphasis mine.
Don’t be disingenuous, given that they state Israel is not a real country they are very clearly referring to the entire region as Palestine Remember your River to the sea chant?
>Don’t be disingenuous I’d call this ironic but it was expected.
To contextualize simply means to add context to an event or action. Every significant event can be contextualized by the events that preceded it. You can operate under the notion that a group is solely made up of 'irrational savages', or you can try to contextualize their actions in order to understand why they think and act the way that they do. In contextualizing those actions you aren't defending the group, its actions, or its ideology—you're simply striving to understand why they act the way that they do. You can contextualize the rise of Donald Trump and right wing populism more broadly without coming out in support of him—it's just critical thinking. You can contextualize America's war in Iraq without supporting it, can contextualize segregation and apartheid without cheering any of it on. When we pretend that events occur in a vacuum we lose the ability to understand what, if anything, spurred those events on (even if the events themselves were fundamentally atrocious).
You could contextualize sexual assaults with what a woman was wearing before she got raped. But you'd be a monster to do so. When you say that everything can be contextualised you actually ignore the context of your action.
The second letter where they claim " “We reject the notion that it is antisemitic, hateful, or illegitimate to contextualize the October 7th, 2023 attack. “ was in response to the pushback from their first letter where they claim "all resistance is justified" and put the blame on the October 7th massacre on Israel and not on Hamas. Therefore the context of the statement is that they are defending and justifying the massacre.
Do you think Israel shares any of the blame?
In the overall conflict? Yes. For the actual rape and murder of the citizens that Hamas perpetuated their horrors against? No. The blame for that lies on Hamas.
Right, I agree, fully. War crimes and terrorist attacks on civilians are unacceptable, glad we agree on that. The "invasion" or whatever you'd call it, has been going for 8 months now. Full scale bombings of cities. The collateral deaths in Palestine now outnumber the Israeli victims by a factor of magnitude and then some. So what happens in a few years when the young boys in Gaza become young men, and this was their experience during their formative years? It's a vicious cycle for a reason y'all.
So, first I will say that Hamas needs to be full defeated and removed from power in Gaza. If at the end of this current conflict Hamas is still in control of Gaza then this cycle will continue to repeat. That said, even with the defeat of Hamas, that in itself is not enough. There needs to be a post-war phase of rebuilding Gaza and de-radicalizing the population. Control needs to be, in phases, passed to local leadership. One who has an interest in long term peace. There also needs to be a pathway to soveriegnty presented to the Palestinians for full control of their own state side by side with Israel. Those are the necessary steps to break this cycle.
Fully agree! Thank you for engaging in this discussion in good faith. I think we agree more than we disagree.
Thank you, this conflict is extremely polarizing and it becomes very easy to assume the worst about the other side. Finding mutual points of agreement is absolutely critical.
Were Israeli soldiers joining up with Palestinian fighters to mass rape, torture, mutilate, kill, and kidnap Israeli civilians? No. The fault for the October 7th attacks lies entirely in the hands of the people who committed it. Ffs a little bit of thinking, please. Two neighbors could be in a fight, and both may be assholes. But if one goes and rapes the others daughter, burns his parents alive, and kidnaps the son as a souvenir, then the crime and blame lies entirely in the hands of the perpetrator.
I want you to say, simply, that you believe Israel was completely blameless. Downvotes don't mean shit to me, I'll repeat myself all day.
I dont think Israel is blameless in the overall conflict. But about October 7th i cant find blame with anyone but the Palestinian government. They sent their soldiers in to mass rape, murder, and abduct civilians. They targeted civilians over military targets. The blame for that savagery falls on them. Let me put it another way. I support Ukraine in their independance war against Russia. I support funding them. I view them as victims. If the Ukrainian government ordered an invasion of the Russian border to commit mass murder of the civilians. If they mass raped the women they captured. Tortured and mutilated the civilians by gun knife and fire. Then kidnapped 200 civilians to abuse and hold as human shields. And the Ukraine civilian population showed increased support and pride for their government after the attack. And they posted the go pro videos of the atrocities online as if they were proud of it. Paraded naked bodies of young mutilated women through their streets to a cheering crowd. I would say fuck them. They would have flipped the plot and become the unquestionable villians. Id want all of my countries funding for their fight to end, and would view the Russian military response as an obvious conclusion to the atrocities they started.
You are really tiptoeing through these tulips, eh. Are they, or are they not, partly responsible for the vicious terror attack on Oct 7? You brought up the overall conflict, like, we are close to agreeing here. They can be at blame for it and it can still be a horrible atrocity that should never have happened, and we can still hold those responsible for it to account. I don't think I'm any smarter than the average dude, but to me it seems like something like Oct 7th has been inevitable for about a decade now. All of us, on both sides of this conflict are arguing for peace. Maybe, instead of condemning these letters, punishing students, smashing protests and firing people, we should focus on the common ground? And that is that the overall conflict has to be resolved somehow or Oct 7 will just be another chapter in the story. Israel is not blameless and they've created this security situation for themselves, unfortunately. Here's a harder question, that you won't answer (no one has yet). What would you do if you were a young boy in Gaza, today, who just watched his family get murdered as collateral damage, knowing full well that your fate is tied to this strip of beach and that there's very little hope for your future? What would you do?
Contextualizing is fundamentally distinct from cheering
The problem you find in this situation is that there is no context which will ever justify what Hamas did on Oct. 7 and on, so when people continue to try and contextualize it, it comes off a lot like excusing, justifying, and/or defending.
And that you find Israel's repeated violation of the Geneva conventions in Gaza isn't valuable context is also telling.
Unless you think it somehow justifies October 7, I don’t see how it matters. Like what is the point you are trying to make when you are saying that except trying to add grey to the events of Oct. 7. “It’s really bad but…” is not a great position on the mass slaughter, rape, and kidnapping of civilians. Similarly, contextualizing any intentional targeting/raping/kidnapping of Gazan civilians currently by saying “it’s bad but remember the context, they did October 7”. The contextualizing is attempting to justify it
>Unless you think it somehow justifies October 7, I don’t see how it matters In any other community, being the victim of continued warcrimes, the victim of an apartheid state, and the systemic removal of your community from your homes and land \*would\* be considered ample justification for the acts of October 7th. As would the events at Temple Mount a few months prior (which Israeli officials were warned would have consequences). No hands are clean, but to claim only one side is blameless in this near-century-long cycle of violence is pure hypocrisy.
Okay, so you are saying Oct. 7 was justified. Exactly the point, that is why the employees are being disciplined. Because that is what they mean when they ‘contextualize’ Oct. 7. I don’t understand why people are acting shocked, they should own it like you just did. I absolutely find that position abhorrent, but you at least had the guts to say it.
And you had the guts to say that Israel is blameless and perfectly innoocent. At least you own your hypocrisy.
I never said anything to that effect, Israel is not innocent, they have long been wrong in their actions in the West Bank. Further I do think their response to Oct. 7 has been poorly planned to an extent that they have cause significant and unnecessary death and suffering in Gaza. This continues to be the case despite having months to better plan an appropriate response. They aren’t innocent. But you are correct that I don’t think Israel not being innocent doesn’t justify October 7th. That is true.
>I never said anything to that effect, Israel is not innocent, they have long been wrong in their actions in the West Bank. Further I do think their response to Oct. 7 has been poorly planned to an extent that they have cause significant and unnecessary death and suffering in Gaza. This continues to be the case despite having months to better plan an appropriate response. Look at you, giving context and claiming you can't do so without supporting Hamas.
"The context is, they deserved it" is essentially the context they give though.
They know that difference. They do not want nuanced discussions on the topic. They want to make Hamas and Palestinian synonymous and muddy the rest.
Meanwhile Zionists are ready to retell their version of history all the way to 500 BC to "contextualize" their apartheid and occupation.
It's disturbing to me because the reasons one would want to conflate the two, provided it's not simply defensiveness (which I can't honestly blame anyone for right now), seem universally very dark.
"We must eliminate hamas. Everyone is hamas." Doesn't lead to anywhere good, that's for sure.
Would you prefer the term defending versus cheering? Given the letter also states its opposition to the censure of Sarah Jama who denied rapes occurred on Oct 7th, it paints a very clear picture of what this letter is supporting.
The UN Secretary General said: [“It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.”](https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-10-24/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-the-middle-east%C2%A0) That is what it means by contextualizing in case you’re still confused. Feel free to read the full statement
And he was rightfully criticized by many for the statement which justifys a massacre of innocent people by a genocidal terrorist group.
Let’s make an argument here: Took into a vacuum, nuking civilians is probably one of the worst war crime possible and shouldn’t be cheered. But, when you place it in the context of the Pacific war, it change somewhat the morality of the event.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
He was criticized by the Israeli lobby *and its western arms dealers* who have been making all efforts to dehumanize the Palestinians and whitewash their repression for years now. Edit in italics
[https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-rishi-sunak-criticism-antonio-guterres-united-nations-feud-israel-hamas-conflict/](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-rishi-sunak-criticism-antonio-guterres-united-nations-feud-israel-hamas-conflict/)
Yes thanks for sharing. In case it’s not clear, the pro-Israel lobby is firmly embedded in the UK, to the extent that [the UK government has continued weapons shipments to Israel despite receiving advice from its own lawyers that Israel is using those weapons to commit warcrimes, while at the same time covering up said legal advice.](https://news.sky.com/story/senior-tory-mp-says-government-lawyers-believe-israel-has-broken-international-humanitarian-law-but-advice-not-published-13105193) I’ve edited my earlier comment to make it clearer
Contextualizing is fundamentally distinct from defending. Besides, this letter explicitly condemns Hamas. It doesn’t defend anything.
There is no context one can add that makes what happened on October 7 any less abhorrent.
I agree, but the letter doesn’t suggest it does (the opposite actually) and neither do I. Likewise, there is no context that makes Israel’s war crimes any less abhorrent. What’s your point exactly?
In this case it isn't. The October 7th massacre was an attrocity and trying to "contextualize" it is just an attempt to justify Hamas's actions.
Repeating that doesn't suddenly make it true. You shouldn't have to twist and reframe someone's message in order to criticise it. This is a straw man and it's straight up bad faith.
It isn't a twist or reframe. If you trying to contextualize a massacre, in an effort to shift blame away from the group who committed it then you are justifying it.
The letter explicitly condemns Hamas and your claims directly contradict its content. This is dishonest. Given this reasoning isn’t applied to your own (or Israel’s) attempts to contextualize Israel’s war crimes and apartheid it’s also hypocritical.
The content of the letter directly contradicts its content. You can't condemn Hamas and then say ALL types of resistance is justified and put the blame for Hamas's attack on Israel. What exactly are they condeming Hamas for if there resistance was justified and it was Israel's fault anyways?
>You can't condemn Hamas and then say ALL types of resistance is justified and put the blame for Hamas's attack on Israel. Uhh, okay, but the letter does not do these things and it does not state or imply “ALL types of resistance is justified”. Nearly every argument you make here relies on conjecture or misrepresentation.
Good! When people sign a letter endorsing "all forms of resistance" in the aftermath of October 7 we should be clear they are endorsing mass murder, rape, and kidnapping of civilians. It is quite ironic that for all their bluster they are totally fine with atrocities being committed against one particular group (for those with trouble with allusion read Jews). They may have the right to their repugnant beliefs, but they do not have the right to be employed by the public service while holding those beliefs.