IHRA Definition & Apartheid, Hypocrisy at its Finest
On January 12, 2021, B’Tselem issued a report obliterating the popular and fallacious notion that Israel is a democracy. The report debunks many common, dangerous myths established by the pro-Israeli lobby and mainstream media. It exposes Israel’s narrative as a righteous victim defending against Palestinian aggression and barbarism as a lie. B’Tselem, an Israeli-based NGO, has turned its focus inward, dug deep into the state, and had the courage to call out the Israeli regime for what it is: violent, supremacist and Apartheid.
“In the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the Israeli regime implements laws, practices and state violence designed to cement the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians.”
It’s a bold statement, but the only just position to take, and irrefutable as well. It is unexceptionally immoral to confer superior rights to 7 million Jews over 7 million Palestinians – or any one people over all others – inhabiting lands in which they are born. B’Tselem reminds us to “call this by its proper name”, in accordance with international law: Apartheid.
The crime of apartheid is defined as a crime against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”
B’Tselem isn’t the first or only to report that Israel commits apartheid. Palestinian and third-party organizations have made similar claims for decades. Whistle-blowers are accused of bias, anti-Semitism, or even worse, completely ignored. But these tactics used to muzzle dissenting voices cannot be used against B’Tselem.
The Israel lobby has been working feverishly to recruit all levels of government and public institutions to help promote the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It’s approach has been effective, and reminiscent of a “best defence is a good offence” strategy. The IHRA definition condemns anyone who alleges apartheid by Israel and effectively suppresses free speech. Perhaps this is why the Canadian government has opted to look the other way, avoiding the issue altogether, refusing to so much as comment on the B’Tselem findings and report.
The IHRA definition creates conflict and fear by conflating valid criticism of Israel with a deplorable hatred for Jews. Such conflation implies that all Jews are to be held responsible for any crimes against humanity committed by the state that B’Tselem has described as an apartheid regime.
Six of the twelve illustrative examples of the misleading IHRA definition deal with criticism of Israel directly. One example states “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” is antisemitic. So begs the question, how does the IHRA definition, founded in Sweden no less, have the right to tell Israeli Jews in Israel that they are anti-Semites for criticizing, or even naming, the illegal actions of their own government?
The idea behind the misleading IHRA definition is that Israel represents the world Jewry and that anyone who criticizes Israel is thus criticizing the Jews. Only racists would blame Jews for the crime of apartheid for which Israel has been accused by B’Tselem. It’s all completely circular, nonsensical and unfounded, not to mention dangerous.
The October 2020 published results from a survey conducted by EKOS Research Associates show that a majority of Canadians would support a call for a boycott of Israel because of alleged human rights abuses. The Canadian government’s diplomatic and business support for apartheid Israel clearly does not reflect the views of most Canadians.
The Israel lobby has been able to clinch Canada’s support for Israel by claiming that Israel is a democracy that shares Canadian values; that Canada can profit from Israel’s “battle proven” advanced weapons, cyberwarfare industry, intelligence network, surveillance, and specialized policing; and Israel being the strongest and most reliable state in the Middle East in the fight against “Islamic terrorists”.
But how ethical can it be to align with a weaponized, police state, using apartheid to maintain its control over a region? Canada began to distance from South Africa when we could no longer deny what was happening there. At no time did we consider that naming the apartheid in South Africa could be an incitement to hatred against whites. Why should it be viewed that way for Israel?
Israel seems to be on the same path as South Africa in the years leading up to the dismantlement of apartheid. Free-thinking Canadian politicians will soon begin to pull away from close relations with Israel as the crimes can no longer be concealed, explained away or ignored.
Anticipating such a shift, the Israel lobby will need to find new allies in Canada to protect Israel from punitive diplomatic and economic measures – possibly Islamophobes, or perhaps white supremacists aspiring to mimic the Jewish supremacy model for themselves, or maybe the Christian Zionists who believe that the gathering of the Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus.
These are not the most noble allies, nor representative of Canadians as a whole, but certainly these groups can be found in our country. And if the Israel lobby tries to join sides with them, to mobilize the right-wing politicians and extremists in order to bolster ties for Israel, Canada will likely suffer the same tensions and divisions experienced in the US under the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump fanned racism against religious and racial minorities, fuelled white supremacy, ignored international law by recognizing Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and supported the annexation of most of the West Bank. Yet, he was strongly backed by white supremacists, the religious right and the Israel lobby, even though most Jews opposed his policies.
As Canadians we must prevent the Israel lobby from resorting to the same tactics to immorally maintain Canada’s support for an apartheid regime.
One Democratic State 