Jewish Canadians Concerned About Suppression of Criticism of Israel James Deutsch, M.D., Ph.D., Judith Deutsch, M.S.W., R.S.W., Miriam Garfinkle, M.D.

Over 150 Jewish Canadians signed a statement expressing their concerns about the campaign to suppress criticism of Israel that is being carried on within Canada. The signatories include many prominent Canadians, including Ursula Franklin O.C., Anton Kuerti O.C., Naomi Klein, Dr. Gabor Mate, and professors Meyer Brownstone (recipient of Pearson Peace Medal), Natalie Zemon Davis, Michael Neumann, and Judy Rebick.

The signatories are particularly concerned that unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism deflect attention from Israel's accountability for what many have called war crimes in Gaza. They state that B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress have led campaigns to silence criticism of Israel on university campuses, in labor unions and in other groups. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff unquestioningly echo the views of these particular Jewish organizations.

They strongly state that they are against all expressions of racism. While firmly committed to resisting any form of prejudice against Jewish people, their statement explicitly states that these spurious allegations of anti-Semitism bring the anti-Communist terror of the 1950s vividly to mind. The statement underlines the immeasurable suffering and injustice to the Palestinian people due to the severe poverty, daily humiliations, and military invasions inflicted by the State of Israel.

Statement: Jewish Canadians Concerned about Suppression of Criticism of Israel

We are Jewish Canadians concerned about all expressions of racism, anti-Semitism, and social injustice. We believe that the Holocaust legacy "Never again" means never again for all peoples. It is a tragic turn of history that the State of Israel, with its ideals of democracy and its dream of being a safe haven for Jewish people, causes immeasurable suffering and injustice to the Palestinian people.

We are appalled by recent attempts of prominent Jewish organizations and leading Canadian politicians to silence protest against the State of Israel. We are alarmed by the escalation of fear tactics. Charges that those organizing Israel Apartheid Week or supporting an academic boycott of Israel are anti-Semites promoting hatred bring the anti-Communist terror of the 1950s vividly to mind. We believe this serves to deflect attention from Israel's flagrant violations of international humanitarian law.

B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress have pressured university presidents and administrations to silence debate and discussion specifically regarding Palestine/Israel. In a full-page ad in a national newspaper, B'nai Brith urged donors to withhold funds from universities because "anti-Semitic hate fests" were being allowed on campuses. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff have echoed these arguments. While university administrators have resisted demands to shut down Israel Apartheid week, some Ontario university presidents have bowed to this disinformation campaign by suspending and fining students, confiscating posters, and infringing on free speech.

We do not believe that Israel acts in self-defense. Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid, receiving $3 million/day. It has the fourth strongest army in the world. Before the invasion of Gaza on 27 December 2008, Israel's siege had already created a humanitarian catastrophe there, with severe impoverishment, malnutrition, and destroyed infrastructure. It is crucial that forums for discussion of Israel's accountability to the international community for what many have called war crimes be allowed to proceed unrestricted by specious claims of anti-Semitism.

We recognize that anti-Semitism is a reality in Canada as elsewhere, and we are fully committed to resisting any act of hatred against Jews. At the same time, we condemn false charges of anti-Semitism against student organizations, unions, and other groups and people exercising their democratic right to freedom of speech and association regarding legitimate criticism of the State of Israel.

To view the list of signatories, please see the first post in this Rabble thread.

Are the Palestinians innocent? No, but it's preposterous to defend the claim that Israel's retailiation is merely self-defence. We need debate on this issue, not silence.

Now in class we figure that any "second chance" time travel is logically impossible (assuming one timeline) because it will create logical contradictions (the grandfather paradox), and that's just not cool.

This is disappointing though. I mean, what's the fun of time travel if you can't do it, or if you can that you can't change anything?

Now, I've also just finished Douglas Adams' (author of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. It starts a bit slow, but once you get past the second half stuff really picks up and ends amazingly.

Here's a quote from near the end:

"But that can't work, can it?" said Richard. "If we do that, then this won't have happened. Don't we generate all sorts of paradoxes?"

Reg stirred himself from thought. "No worse than many that exist already," he said. "If the Universe came to an end every time there was some uncertainty about what had happened in it, it would never have got beyond the first picosecond. And many of course don't. It's like a human body, you see. A few cuts and bruises here and there don't hurt it. Not even major surgery if it's done properly. Paradoxes are just the scar tissue. Time and space heal themselves up around them and people simply remember a version of events which makes as much sense as they require it to make.

"That isn't to say that if you get involved in a paradox a few things won't strike you as being very odd, but if you've got through life without that already happening to you, then I don't know which Universe you've been living in, but it isn't this one."

Now, Douglas Adams' work is known for its somewhat off-kilter philosophy (i.e. the God that vanished in a puff of logic) but I like the insight in this quote.

Imagine that you did go back in time and kill your own grandfather.

By this view of time, you'd still exist, and you'd remember killing your grandfather (hell, the whole world could know), but perhaps the rest of the world would convince themselves that either your grandma got around, your parent was actually conceived before he died (slow pregnancy maybe) or one of your parents were a modern Jesus (in terms of virgin births). The opinions of the events wouldn't have to overlap, but would all come to the conclusion that you exist and murdered your grandfather. They would also all make perfect sense to everyone who believed them.

And remember, people believe some pretty crazy things.

Now, a view that logical impossibilities are possible poses some odd realities, however, by assuming that all conscious beings automatically assume a belief that makes some sense, we've essentially made an untestable hypothesis and thus run counter to science. (Remember, scientists have a hard time publishing or even believing paradoxical data).

Interesting, and great for philosophy, but hardly useful for science (which relies on the fact the universe can be made sense of, which, according to its own data, generally does).

I used to get angry when people dismissed arguments that were poorly written "address the content!" I'd say. "sift through and try to ignore the illogic!" I'd say. You want to know what I say now?

"If you aren't paying attention to what you're writing, why should anyone else?"

Seriously buddy, its my fucking name.

Neglecting the fact that it required a rational argument to attempt that bit of deception, lets see what reason I can develop for rationalism.

When one person has an experience (lets say you) and wants to share it with someone else (say me) for the purposes of advancing our groups collective knowledge (for survival or increased advantage), you have only a few forms of communication with which to transfer that knowledge (language, interpretive dance, but no direct brain to brain communication).  So for you to pass that experience to me requires a way to make it sound convincing and plausible.  At the same time, I don't want to take in bunk knowledge from a kook (no offence intended), so I need a way of deciding whether or not the knowledge being passed is valid.  This is where logical reasoning comes in - you structure the argument in a way that is sound, and if I judge it to be sound and convincing I accept it.

So the way I see it, irregardless of if that initial claim of circular logic is true, there is still a good enough reason for me to live sceptically and to doubt claims of revelation.