Revolutionary Moderation

Another reason I preferred Stephane Dion

POGGe has been pointing out occasions when Israeli Apartheid Week, described as a "pro-Palestinian teach-in" on university campuses across the country and indeed around the world, has exposed several of our nation's leaders as anywhere between timid mouthers of platitudes to rabidly pro-Likud and pro-occupation and expansion.

Among the first set are people who are frightened by the use of the word "apartheid". Ontario legislators unanimously passed a resolution condemning IAW, claiming among other things that

The term "Israeli Apartheid Week" incites "hatred against Israel, a democratic state that respects the rule of law and human rights, and the use of the word 'apartheid' in this context diminishes the suffering of those who were victims of a true apartheid regime in South Africa," said [Ontario Tory MPP and resolution mover, Peter] Shurman.

Compare this to Desmond Tutu, who aparently is willing to diminish his own suffering, because he compares Israeli government policies to apartheid, arguing that they neither respect human rights nor the rule of law in their relationship with the Palestinian people, whatever the Ontario Legislature might say.

Which brings me to the title of my post. Micheal Ignatieff has condemned IAW, implying it is anti-Semetic, racist, and intolerant. Never mind that his earlier descriptions suggest he understands the situation on the ground just fine; this most recent statement regarding IAW shows he is willing to be cowed by a sufficiently strong lobby. At least our current government is honestly taking a side in the conflict, even if it is the side of the oppressing government.

Calling Israel's policy in the occupied territories "apartheid" is certainly tough language. But condemning that language serves to stifle the debate, to stifle criticism, not the other way around as Ignatieff claims.