Socialist Worker 437, November 10, 2004 N www.socialist.ca
Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, the national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, has been the target of an intense and unrelenting media campaign calling for his resignation as head of the CIC and dismissal from his teaching post at the University of Waterloo.
What provoked such a reaction was the broadcast of a round-table discussion on The Michael Coren Show on October 19 during which Elmasry allegedly stated that all Israeli citizens over the age of eighteen are legitimate targets for acts of terrorism.
From Christie Blatchford of The Globe and Mail to Canadian Auto Workers’ president Buzz Hargrove to Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress, everyone seemed to be piling on the anti-Elmasry bandwagon.
As a result of pressure brought to bear — in large measure from the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith — police are weighing the possibility of laying hate crimes charges and the University of Waterloo has launched a formal investigation of Elmasry.
What exactly did Elmasry say and, even if he did say it, does it deserve this kind of response?
On the question of what exactly did Elmasry say: an eight-page transcript of the exchange is available at
www.montrealmuslimnews.net/fulltranscript.htm
Also available is the edited transcript that was initially circulated in the press before the full transcript was finally disclosed:
http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/transcript.htm
The topic of discussion on the show was "What is a terrorist?" The focus of the ‘debate’ has been Elmasry’s alleged assertion that all Israeli citizens over the age of eighteen are legitimate targets for terrorists. In addition to host Michael Coren, four guests participated in the discussion: Elmasry; Ifran Syed, a Toronto lawyer; Peter Merrifield, a former counter-terrorism officer with the RCMP; and Adam Aptowitzer, Ontario chairperson of B’nai Brith’s Institute for International Affairs.
Israel and Palestine
The context of the discussion was the on-going struggle of Palestinians against Israel’s illegal occupation of their land. The first part of the debate focussed on the use of terror by the state of Israel itself and whether or not this justified its ends of "achieving peace". The controversy only emerged when Elmasry attempted to explain the methods through which some Palestinians choose to resist the occupation — methods with which he clearly disagreed.
Elmasry began by referring to the experience of the French resistance which targeted German soldiers and collaborators under the Nazi occupation of France during World War Two. He argued that, in light of the thirty-seven year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinians are in the same position. They have targeted the forces, just like the French did, that carry out and sustain the illegal occupation of their land. The question then turned to who exactly those forces are.
Elmasry attempted to make the distinction between Israeli military personnel and ordinary civilians, to distinguish between those who are complicit in the illegal occupation and those who are innocent: "I am saying it has to be totally innocent. Okay. Totally innocent are the children, obviously. Okay. They are not innocent if they are military in civilian clothes. Okay…" Because Israel has a compulsory draft, Elmasry argued, Israeli citizens over the age of eighteen could technically be considered part of the Israeli army and, therefore, complicit in the illegal occupation. The thrust of his remarks were to explain a perspective that exists, whether some agree with it or not. His intention was clearly not to endorse it.
Throughout this entire discussion, Elmasry repeatedly made clear his opposition to the targeting of all innocent civilians, especially children. He also made clear that he doesn’t necessarily agree with the tactics some people use to resist the occupation but he understands why they do: "They [the Palestians] make mistakes, they make mistakes [in killing Israeli civilians]. Yes, and we have to condemn it."
He continued by saying he longs for an end to terrorism altogether: "I would like to, you know, wake up one day and there is no terror. Either by state [or group or individual]."
But even if Elmasry himself did believe that all draft-age Israelis are legitimate targets, and said so, he would not be alone. Such a perspective exists among some opponents of the occupation, especially with respect to illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Israeli settlers, while not always formally a part of the Israeli army, have organized their own paramilitary offensives against Palestinians to seize their land and terrorize local populations. These attacks have been well documented and explain why some — who do not have the full backing a militarized state or the most advanced military equipment in the world today — pursue the tactic of targeting those whom they see as advancing the occupation of their land.
In fact, the tactic of targeting civilians, even innocent civilians, is one supported by the Israeli state. One of the other guests on the show, Adam Aptowitzer of B’nai Brith, both articulated and defended this position. On the question of collective punishment through home demolitions of innocent civilians, Aptowitzer stated: "When Israel uses terror to go in and I say, it uses terror to destroy a home and convince people, you know, [to] be terrified of what the possible consequences are; I say that, that is an acceptable use of [it], to terrify someone."
When pressed by other guests on the issue, Aptowitzer responded: "I don’t know the facts of each specific case, obviously, and I am not going to suggest, I am not going to suggest in every case Israel’s use of the destruction of the homes was necessarily warranted. But I would say in the abstract to use a method such as, to terrify a population, instigating a war, is appropriate."
Aptowitzer made these comments before Elmasry made his; yet the reaction to each were a world part — both on the show itself and in the wider public days later. It wasn’t until Aptowitzer’s comments were made public, after a full transcript of the show had been disclosed, that they received any attention whatsoever. And the attention they did receive paled in comparison to the condemnation and abuse that was heaped on Elmasry.
Aptowitzer eventually resigned. There is nothing whatsoever on the website of B’nai Brith that makes any mention of this fact although their calls for Elmasry’s resignation and dismissal remain front and centre.
Islamophobia
To understand how such hypocrisy can pass as a rational, measured view, the debate must be situated within the broader context of Islamophobia. This phenomenon was well underway before September 11, 2001. However, the events of 9/11 sharpened those attacks and allowed the US government to wage a fear-mongering campaign against Arabs, Muslims, and people who ‘look’ Muslim.
The experiences of people from these communities are also well documented and not necessarily restricted to the US. In Canada, there has been a sharp increase in hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims. The Canadian state has only fuelled this climate through the systematic use of racial profiling, the introduction of so-called anti-terror legislation such as Bill C-36, and the use of "security certificates" to detain suspects indefinitely without informing why they’re being held.
The most notorious example is the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen deported to Syria from the US on information passed to American authorities by the RCMP. The arrest and detention last year of twenty-four young Pakistani men (who were never charged with any crimes) is another infamous case.
The consequences of Islamophobia are many. In the case of Mohamed Elmasry, the effect has been to marginalize and persecute a leading figure of the Muslim community in order to target the Muslim community as a whole.
The other consequence is to stifle any debate on the question of Palestine and Israel. Any criticism of the state of Israel is condemned as anti-Semitic. It also restricts freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas. Dr. Elmasry, whose history has been to identify and expose anti-Islam bias in the media, will now serve as an example to all those who dare to speak unapologetically in defense of Muslims and in defense of Palestine.
But perhaps the most significant consequence is to re-shape the way we understand conflict and resistance to it. Muslims and Islam in general have been depicted as a threatening, backward monolith that threatens everything we hold dear in the West. That perspective has been used by the state to justify its so-called "war on terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq and its war of terror against Muslims and Arabs at home. In the case of Palestine, an oppressed, stateless people who are mired in poverty suddenly become, through the logic of Islamophobia, an equal player to the massively subsidised Israeli state armed with the most sophisticated weaponry in the world. The threat of Palestinians, of Islamic terrorists in the eyes of some, justifies the overwhelmingly lopsided actions of the Israeli state.
Activists and socialists have a responsibility to respond to Islamophobia without hesitation. In the short term, offering messages of solidarity and support to Dr. Elmasry, and to his employer at the University of Waterloo, is a start. Writing letters to the editor also helps.
In the longer term, we need to be part of a broader campaign against Islamophobia in general. Opposing the racist ban on hijab in France, organizing against the racist hate crimes at Ryerson University, defending the right of Muslims to use third-party arbitration in Ontario the same way other religious groups have done for over ten years, and finding ways for Muslims and non-Muslims to work together in solidarity on common campaigns are all concrete tasks that face us in the weeks and months ahead.
This is not a question of endorsing one religion over another, or of endorsing religion in general. It is a basic question of solidarity to defend those most under attack and to prevent the attacks from spreading to other oppressed groups.
It is a question of recognizing where the greatest divisions and potential for division exist and finding ways to bridge them. It is a question of building a broad and inclusive movement–whether against Islamophobia, other forms of oppression, or the war in Iraq–that focuses on what we have in common but that also allows for debate and discussion to continue.
James Clark, Toronto
The other side of the Elmasry Affair
Saskatoon, Tuesday, December 7, 2004, by: Marjaleena Repo
http://ensign.ftlcomm.com/editorials/LTE/repo/repo002/elmasry.html
The Elmasry Affair has for over a month now produced a virulent crop of media frenzy. It could have been a tempest in a teapot were it not for the hurricane that was deliberately created, devastating the name and reputation of Dr. M. Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress and leading spokesperson on issues affecting the Canadian Muslims and casting a shadow on all Muslims in the country who are habitually blamed for actual and perceived misdeeds of their fellow religionists.
On October 19, Dr. Elmasry was one of four panelists on Michael Coren’s Toronto TV show, confronting the difficult task of defining terrorism. The one hour show, with its countless commercial interruptions, is by its choppy nature ill suited for complex and controversial matters, but the guests nevertheless wrestled with the topic, producing a fair amount of heat but, predictably, less light.
Early in the show, a panelist, Adam Aptowitzer, chair of B’nai Brith’s Institute for International Affairs, declared that the Israeli state is morally justified in using terror against Palestinians, such as razing of homes in payback for a family member’s suicide bombing mission:
“When Israel uses terror to go in and I say, it uses terror to destroy a home and convince people, you know, to be terrified of what the possible consequences are, I stay that that is an acceptable us of [terror], to terrify someone.”
He restated his position several times during the show.) Another panelist, “terrorism consultant” Peter Merrifield, likewise declared from “a tactical standpoint“ (his words) that
“by targeting their loved ones and their families, it is in essence a deterrent, I am not saying it is right, but I understand the concept behind it.”
All of this was received by the host with nary a lifting of an eyebrow. But when Dr. Elmasry attempted to differentiate between the aggressor and the victim, with examples of the illegal U.S, invasion of Iraq and the decades of lawless occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel, all hell broke loose. During his efforts to define terrorism as acts against “totally innocent” people (children and others not involved in the confrontation), he ended up stating that Palestinian 'terrorists’ would view all Israeli citizens over the age of 18 as part of the illegal occupation, and therefore “legitimate targets.” He did not endorse this view, in my opinion, but merely presented it in the same fashion Mr. Merrifield had done.
The host would have none of it, and losing all his charm and civility proceeded from then on to prevent Dr. Elmasry from elaborating and clarifying his position, interrupting, scowling and barking at him, and adding some gratuitous insults as well. Even the parallel Dr. Elmasry drew between the resistance to Nazi occupations in various European countries and the resistance by the Iraqis and Palestinians drew another loud dismissal from Mr. Coren.
In his post-debate column in the Toronto Sun the same Michael Coren who had slid by statements defending Israel’s state terrorism, continued his attack on Dr. Elmasry. Mr. Merrifield could say that he “understood the concept behind it” but Dr. Elmasry was not allowed such “understanding” when it came to Iraqis and Palestinians engaged in acts of resistance against illegal military invasions and occupations of their territory. To understand is not necessarily to endorse, except in Dr. Elmasry”s case. In an instant he had become an anti-Jewish, anti-semitic terrorism supporter, despite his track record and repeated statement during the show to the contrary.
The rest is history. Dr. Elmasry’s name was mud and major newspapers demanded his resignation at the head of the CIC, by Jewish and other organizations (including the Canadian Auto Workers). His job as a professor has been threatened and someone launched a complaint against him under Canada’s hate law. Columnists have had a heyday piling on Dr. Elmasry, with one vicious and derogatory article after another, all sounding as if they had been waiting for a long time for the opportunity to take him down. Perhaps the most outrageous were the two columns by Rosie DiManno of the Toronto Star who had just lost an Ontario Press Council case in which Dr. Elmasry had complained about her demeaning generalization of all things Muslim in an earlier column. Her columns now reeked of revenge. Christie Blatchford in the Globe and Mail and Diane Francis in the National Post were similarly merciless in their attacks Dr.Elmasry and the CIC, demanding severe consequences, and even, as in Francis’ column, projecting a deportation of Dr. Elmasry along the lines planned for holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel.
Oddly anti-climatic was the brief news item two weeks later on November 3 that Adam Aptowitzer had had to resign his position with the B’nai Brith for his statements on the show, which were brought to light in news releases by Arab Canadian organizations. Beyond a few news reports about Mr. Aptowitzer’s resignation (and a mild mea culpa by Toronto Star’s ombudsman), there has been complete silence: no apologies, no recanting and no corrective editorials and columns from those who previously rushed to judgment. (It is doubtful to me, after having viewed the tape half-a-dozen times, that any of the critics had actually seen and heard the debate, beyond reading a truncated transcript. Although Ms. Blatchford claims to have done so, she must have repeatedly fallen sleep during Mr. Aptowitzer’s and Mr. Merrifield’s statements, or simply chose to ignore them to suit her purposes.
A month later amid vociferous publicity Dr. Elmasry’s reputation is in shreds and his organization’s clouded, while Mr. Aptowitzer was able to quietly step down and his organization remain on its high horse as if their man’s utterances meant nothing. Should he also not be “investigated” and threatened with dire consequences and should the assorted Jewish organizations not be invited to eat some humble pie, too? (Michael Coren has yet to write a column about the pot calling the kettle black.)
There are some lessons here for all of us: Unlike the saying, what is sauce for the goose appears NOT to be sauce for the gander. Double standards and hypocrisy rule the media when it comes to the conflict in the Middle East. No one may entertain any ideas of “understanding” the reason and logic of Palestinian resistance (or Iraqi for that matter), including in their most terrible manifestations. There is no similarity, we are told, between the resistance in Palestine and Iraq and that in Europe during the Nazi occupation of various countries. The latter was good, honourable resistance to foreign aggression; the Iraqis and Palestinians are merely “extremists”, “rebels,” “insurgents” (in their own countries, yet!); and, of course, “terrorists” who should find better ways of resisting the violence directed against them by United States and Israel.
These are unacceptable lessons that thinking and fair-minded Canadians will have to challenge to the hilt .
