The man behind the Libby Davies tape talks to Xtra
NEWS / 'I'm just a kid with a camera,' says blogger David Katz
Noreen Fagan / National / Monday, June 21, 2010
Share |

New Democrat MP Libby Davies is a lesbian with a long track record of supporting sexual freedom. She has endorsed the decriminalization of sex work and opposed raising the age of consent. As the MP who represents Vancouver’s Lower Eastside, she supports harm-reduction programs, including supervised injection sites.

Davies was interviewed at a rally in Vancouver on June 5 and asked if she believes the Israeli occupation began in 1948 or 1967.

"Forty-eight. I mean, it's the longest occupation in the world. But I mean, I'm not going to argue numbers. It's too long, right?" she said. "I mean, this is the longest occupation in the world. People are suffering. I've been to the West Bank in Gaza twice, so I've seen for myself what's going on."

Her comments sparked outrage from many including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Bob Rae, who called for Davies to step down as deputy leader of her party. What Harper, Rae and many others find so problematic about Davies' statement is that when the state of Israel was established in 1948, Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula were not within its territorial borders. Those areas were taken by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War against Egypt, Jordan and Syria. So, Davies' suggestion that the Israeli occupation began in 1948 implies a belief on her part that the entire state of modern Israel lies on occupied land. And that issue, in many ways, lies at the very heart of the conflict in that part of the Middle East.

Xtra contacted Davies for comment, but she declined to speak on the matter. But the other figure at the centre of the controversy is David Katz, a master’s student in physics, debater and freshly minted blogger for Comments from Left Field, a site dedicated to covering primarily American politics. It was Katz who asked Davies the question.

In an interview with Xtra, Katz referred to himself as "just a kid with a camera" — he is 26. He talked about his conversation with Davies and his personal views on the Israel-Palestine issue. He does not seem bent on tearing down an MP on camera; rather he seems well versed on the subject at issue.

Katz stresses that he has worked hard to see the struggle from a middle point of view, but that he became an Israeli activist after a debate at the University of British Columbia, where he is a student. It spurred him on to read deeply about the Israeli conflict and it is clear that he knows his stuff. Knowing her stuff is, in his opinion, where Davies failed.

The following are excerpts of Xtra’s hour-long interview with Katz.

Xtra: When you asked her about the year [1948 or 1967], she seemed pretty flustered.

DK: My issues with what her response was — and this is somewhat horrifying to me — unlike the gay rights movement, which is simply a matter of right and wrong, the Israeli-Palestine debate is about an extremely complex history…. it is not the simple black and white issue that people try and paint it as — Israel can do whatever it wants, the Palestinians are under the oppressive thumb of an imperialist power. It is a very complex issue and everything comes down to facts. The two most important dates in the entire conflict are 1948, which is the creation of the state of Israel and 1967, which is the Six-Day War.

In 1967, a conflict that had been brewing for a while came to a boil when Jordan or Syria began working to cut off the flow of tributary waters to the Sea of Galilee, which is Israel’s main supply of fresh water. In the Middle East, cutting off a country’s water supply is an act of war (as well a military back-up), so Israel responded with basically a missile attack, even though the historical view is that if they hadn’t attacked they would have been attacked the next day, and as a result of that Israel secured the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza strip. So when I asked her — these issues are the equivalent, this of 67 and 48 are the "one plus one equals a two" type thing — the most basic history of what was happening in the Middle East. For her to say 1948 and then talk about Gaza and the West Bank implies that she was thinking that was when Israel took over Gaza and the West Bank … without knowledge of these dates, a politician should not be allowed to lead — without an instinctive knowledge of these dates.

Xtra: Do you really think she is completely ignorant about the situation?

If I were to ask any Palestinian activist at UBC what year Israel invaded Gaza and the West Bank, they could be on their seventh beer and answer that one correctly…. I am not going to describe it as a legitimate view — but there are a substantial amount of people who do believe that Israel has been occupying since 1948. However, I don’t think that someone like Libby Davies thinking that is a big news-breaker, but I don’t think what she realizes is that belief itself is not actively anti-Semitic but passively.

Xtra: When she mentioned Gaza, she also mentioned human rights. Do you think that was where she was coming from — more from a compassionate view than political?

The situation on the West Bank and Gaza is complex. To criticize one side only is to inflame tensions in Canada and to not provide any help around the world. Since Israel has been created, I have some really close friends who are in the  peace movement there, and even they feel that Israel is constantly under attack by the world, so when countries threaten to sanction and boycott Israel, it strengthens their view that it is them against the rest of the world.

Xtra: Your interaction with Davies was pretty short. Do you think you were expecting too much of her in such a short time, especially since she had just spoken at a boycott rally?

I know my stuff, but I expect a member of parliament, who is vocal on the issue, to know her stuff as well… this is one of the highest officials in the land, in fact a leader in her party who has taken a very strong stand on something. It just makes me wonder if there are any other issues she has taken a strong stand on without having studied the issue in full.

Xtra: Obviously she has done some good…

She has done a tremendous amount of good. I don’t want to understate that she has done good in Canada, and I also don’t want people to think that I came in there hoping to destroy Libby Davies. That is not what I am about. But the problem is, that for a politician that has done good, should say something incredibly homophobic. [Xtra's note: Throughout the interview Katz used homophobia as an analogy to anti-Semitic comments.]

Xtra: But she didn’t say anything in the interview.

To be a person involved in it [the Israeli-Palestine conflict] — it even required me to learn a lot — to be ignorant in this issue is tantamount to hate…. ignorance of the basic facts is equivalent of the original sin. So speaking on the issue of Israel-Palestine without knowledge would be tantamount to racism or homophobia in other areas — that is the best comparison I could make for it.

Xtra: In the interview there were something like nine questions, and on, I think, four of them you concentrated on asking her about a boycott.

Yes, because the event she was at was a boycott Israel [event].

Xtra: Based on that, do you really think that Harper calling for her resignation is really worthy of it?

I don’t think her resignation from Parliament is called for, but I am not sure that going outside so far from what the NDP platform  — I do want to give her credit, her response was currently not to endorse the sanctions as a politician, but she does on a personal level — but even so, don’t we want our politicians to be not voting on what they believe in. A politician not voting on what they believe in seems disingenuous, it seems to be trying be on both sides of the line as a politician and not an intellectual and ethical level…

I should also say that I am just a kid who had a video camera who filmed something, but when I see a politician doing something that I don’t like — I hold my leaders to a high, if not unrealistic, standard…

Xtra: So do you think there should be repercussions?

I do. When I looked over the video, she talked about the new McCarthyism in Canada over this issue — since then it seems almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy — but I want to say it is not. In Canada, there have been people who have been defending, unapologetically, her original statement and we don’t see them being hauled off in front of a board in Canada. The McCarthy era was one of the darkest days in the history of America… even thinking something could get you in trouble. In comparing Canadian civil society, which is one of the freest in the world, that is a disservice to the freedom of speech.

Do I think she should resign from Parliament? No. Do I think there should be repercussions? Yes. Do I know what those repercussions should be? I am just a kid with a camera.

Xtra: You keep saying "kid with a camera" – how old are you?

Well, I still think I am a kid. I am 26. I guess I am not a kid anymore.

I think the reason why a lot of people have reacted like this is because this is what a lot of people suspected her beliefs were… I think that within the Jewish community, this is a sort of confirmation of our fear.

Xtra: What?

I am just explaining why I think there has been such a reaction.

Xtra: But if I am looking at the YouTube video, I don’t get it. What are you trying to say? Is she anti-Israel or anti-Semitic?

I think people are reacting to the 1948 comment and also the new McCarthyism comment as well. Partially the new McCarthyism comment implies some sort of Jewish conspiracy and you have to understand the Jewish community is extremely sensitive about certain things. First, with regards to the 1948 statement, Israel is the only country in the world where people feel they have to justify its existence. I am sure that many of you in the gay community can relate to — having to justify your existence, it’s not a fun thing.


Share |


Reader Comments


 
I wonder how is this even a gay issue?
Is this the same MP that's in bed with all those 9/11 conspiracy people? and even a certain group that thinks Hamas is the most gay friendly people in the world? or will a certain person or persons just say how everything they don't agree with is illogical and then label them as racist or the Israel Lobby and if they did really care then why can that certain group and Libby Davies just go to Gaza since they could get in there via Egypt?. To Xtra how is this even a Gay issue? or is this newspaper so in bed with the QuAIA that they can't even send reporters to Gaza or Israel to tell both sides of the story because a real newspaper will do that.
Peter From, Toronto ON
06/21/10 3:29 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
UN Resolution 181
UN Resolution 101 affirmed the creation of the state of Israel and the IDF immediately set to driving out the Palestinian people from their homes and villages in 1948 - why don't you ask them when they think the occupation started? Katz stated that if he asked any Palestinian activist at UBC when did Israel invade Gaza and the West Bank of course they would answer 1967 - BUT that is not what he asked Davies. He asked her when did the occuption begin. Besides Resolution 181 what other UN Resolution has Israel ever abided?
J Roman, Toronto ON
06/21/10 3:40 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
adendum
I meant UN Resolution 181. Also should add that that resolution was also supposed to create a seperate Palestinian state as well, but 63 years later that still hasn't happened ...
J Roman, Toronto ON
06/21/10 3:49 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
the parts that always get left out
Interesting but before 1967 those areas were apart of Egypt and Jordan and in 1979 Egypt did give up all claims to Gaza and in 1994 Jordan gave up all claims to the West Bank and Israel did offer to return both areas to Egypt and Jordan. What is left out of all this was the PLO was created in 1964 not to drive Israel out but the Jordanians out of the West Bank since they did not even wanted to create a independent Palestinian State. Also when Israel was created by the UN the same UN resolution created a Palestinian State along side Israel, but Arab Nations refused and invaded Israel. The Palestinians refuges went to neighboring countries. But the problem is that there are still Arabs that still live in Israel from the 1948 onwards. Today the Arabs community in Israel are divided on this issue of national identity some still view them selves as Palestinians but on the side some do view themselves as Israelis. The New York times says it better (http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008/05/07/world/1194817477388/israel-s-arabs.html) since they seem to have better coverage and less bias but this is really no different then how this country was establish even if the far left does not want to even admit this.
Peter From, Toronto ON
06/21/10 4:07 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Not so fast
Katz intentionally asked Davies a trick question and then exploited the ambiguity to persecute her. Many Palestinians were expelled from their homes to enable the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1947. The arguably constitutes occupation of Palestinian land. It is completely disingenuous for Katz to put the question the way he did, and then try and suggest this indicates Davies is not aware of the timing of the occupation specifically of the West Bank and Gaza.
SS, Toronto ON
06/21/10 4:23 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
@SS( rather odd user name)
She is in politics and they do have the right to ask a question (this is how democracy works and is not a one sided debate) and she did agree to be interviewed on camera and she did also agree to answer those questions so how was she even exploited the ambiguity to persecute her? If she did not want to face this kind of criticism then she should have simply decline a interview in the first place
Peter From, Toronto ON
06/21/10 4:33 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
oh brother
Peter from, those are my real initials. I didn't even think till afterward that someone would try to make that stupid connection. Anyway, I tried to explain my concern in a very straightforward way but I guess it didn't get through. My point is that based on the vague way he deliberately phrased the question, she gave an answer that is NOT WRONG and NOT INFLAMMATORY.
S, Toronto ON
06/21/10 4:57 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
@ S its called democracy
Again this is a democracy and she did agree to be interview on camera and the blogger does have the right to ask any questions he wants since this is a democracy and its not wrong and also she did go out of NDP policy since many in the party do think her actions were wrong. Interesting, The UN did created Israel in 1948 from the British Mandate of Palestine and the British who did control the region since World War One from the Ottomans. Also both the Ottomans and the British did allow Jewish Emigration to the Area and also the Ottomans did allow Jews to return under their rule. Also the UN did create a Palestinian State under the same resolution but the neighbors had different plans. Yes Jordan and Egypt did take Gaza and the West Bank and they even did not allow the Palestinians to create a state under their rule which they should have done but they choose not too. Funny the same can be said about Canada and the European Occupation of Native lands in the Americas and this is still considered ethic cleansing by many (note: Libby Davies lives in North America and lives it a European creation called Canada) but again the far left is also blinded from what happened here. Also for example Northern Cyprus was invaded by Turkey in the 1970s and they forced the natives out of there too and brought settlers there too and this is deem illegal by both the UN and the EU. Of Course I forgot just questioning this I must be the Israel Lobby or a racist. I think the far left just can't seem to accept fact and blaming Israel is just easier then accepting fact.
Peter From, Toronto ON
06/21/10 5:21 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Peter
This being a democracy has nothing to do with anything. That is, sweetie, slowly, being a democracy does not mean people can go ask whatever question, some democracies are horrible and repressive. Where did you get that MA again, Disneyland? But, of course it is ok for a silly brainwashed boy to ask questions of an MP. Whatever happened in 1967 does not justify occupying the West Bank and Gaza to date. It is that simply. When is Israel going to take up the Arab peace initiative?
Tam, Toronto Ontario
06/21/10 11:23 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Hugely unjustified statements from Katz
I think Katz's explanations are just "more of the same" from his not-very-middle-ground-at-all side. They attempt to discredit a set of questions about occupation which can be legitimately asked from an anti-racist, not-anti-Semitic position, and this point of view is increasingly seen as legitimate, not "black and white," and definitely *not* anti-Semitic.
Rob Butz, Edmonton AB
06/22/10 12:00 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
How could he have known?
It is ridiculous to say it was a "set-up". For it to have been that, he would have had to have known that Libby Davies is an idiot who makes pronouncements about things which she knows virtually nothing about. Libby davies is respoonsible for opening her mouth and exposing herself as a buffoon. No one else. And if these are her sincere beliefs, why are her supporters so upset that they are public? Did they want to keep her support of a boycott of Israel a secret?
Dieter, Toronto Ontario
06/22/10 1:17 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
re: I wonder how is this even a gay issue?
Peter from, try actually reading the article next time, the very first sentence describes why it is a LGBT issue. "New Democrat MP Libby Davies is a lesbian with a long track record of supporting sexual freedom."
Rich, Toronto Ontario
06/22/10 1:20 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
IJV's take on this affair
Check out Independent Jewish Voices take on this affair here, http://ijvcanada.org/uncategorized/jewish-group-condemns-%E2%80%9Cfeeding-frenzy%E2%80%9D-surrounding-libby-davies/ I found it informative and learned something I didn't know about Israel in 1948. I also liked what they had to say: "“What’s next?”asked IJV-C spokesperson Larry Haiven. “Will Canadian politicians have to take a loyalty oath to the State of Israel in order to hold office? The feeding frenzy is outrageous. Libby Davies is one the bravest and most honest politicians in Canada. She has done more for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians than any other Canadian politician. ”"
Rich, Toronto Ontario
06/22/10 1:24 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Well Well the same old censors strike again
@ Tam the problem is that in a democracy I could ask someone in politics anything I want it that how it works even if she did not like the outcome of the interview then she should have never to agree to it in the first place and as with Arab peace initiative I ask this why should they? In 2000, at Camp David, Israel did offer Arafat to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza( but did in 2005) and East Jerusalem as its capital, but what happen he walked, I wonder why? could you answer this? I really doubt you could. So Tam why did Arafat walked away from a deal of a life time was it because Israel would not be destroyed and he might have to recognize Israel Right to exist as a Jewish Nation and that is something United States and Middle east quartet wants but maybe you could answer why he walked from this it could have saved many lives in the process both Israeli and Palestinian. Answer why he walked? its another Million Dollar question I really doubt you could. @ Rich s did it come off the QuAIA website? or Rick's blog? and its very bias history even if they are Jews themselves, you might want to read a history book or something When Israel was created in 1948 by the UN they also did create a Palestinian one but their Neighbors did attack Israel and that is Historical fact and I really don't believe when you say that ill Canadian politicians have to take a loyalty oath to the State of Israel in order to hold office? I really doubt this but this does sound like it did come from the Learned Elders of the Protocols of Zion when it talks about how they (want to guess) control the government and I really don't care if Libby Davis is a lesbian but she has no right to say this since she does live on someone else land too (hit: "our home native land") and it was ethic cleansing and also she seems to be in bed with all those 9/11 deniers people too , this is too funny. Also don't believe everything you read did anyone ever tell you that?
Peter from, Toronto ON
06/22/10 2:22 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Davies is a DISGRACE
Davies is a fat stupid DISGRACE. Go live under Hamas are see how many days you survive until you're raped and murdered by the poor poor Islamics. Stupid fat socialist cunt.
ron, Vancouver Bc
06/22/10 2:45 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
What was David Katz after?
As some of the comments to this interview show, critics of Israel typically fall into two categories: those who feel that Israel's "occupation" began in 1967 with her gaining control of the West Bank and Gaza, and those who feel it began in 1948 with the creation of the state of Israel. The former may recognize the legitimacy of Israel in her pre 1967 boundaries, the latter reject Israel's legitimacy within any boundaries. What Katz seemed to be after was a way of pigeonholing Davis in one or the other of those categories. What he got instead was a confused response that indicated that she seemed to think that the events of 1967 took place in 1948. When he sought to place Davis on a political spectrum, I think Katz got way more than he was bargaining for with Davis' response. Davis is revealed, not so much as a Jew hater, but as an ill informed and shallow thinker on this issue. I'm sure many of us are ill informed and shallow on lots of issues, but for a public person to take a public stance on an issue that they are demonstrably ignorant of is to invite derision and critique.
David Olesker, Jerusalem Israel
06/22/10 6:31 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
offensive comments
Ron; Your misogyny is showing, Please stick to addressing the issue at hand. Making offensive statements just shows us all your intelligence. Brent
brent Southin, toronto ontario
06/22/10 10:27 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Actually Peter
Boundaries were left for after 3 years of self-governance which meant that no, they didn't offer to withdraw from the West Bank. No earlier than three years after the transitional period starts."The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements." The status of Gaza and the West Bank was not decided nor the issue of settlements. Peter, when you say something, I am going to look it up, and you are going to sound stupid again. http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/campdavid/accords.phtml
Tam, Toronto Ontario
06/22/10 10:47 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
HERE'S WHY IT'S A GLBTQ ISSUE ...
Fair question. Libby Davies is an out lesbian and one of Canada's foremost voices for gay equality. But leave the borders of Canada and her ideologically blinkered worldview puts her onside with the most homophobic, misogynist forces in the Middle East in opposition to the one single oasis of equality for GLBTQ people: Israel. Israel is about on par with Canada for GLBTQ rights, with the exception of marriage. Gay Palestinians, who face "honour" killings, police brutality, imprisonment and murder in Palestine (and the death penalty elsewhere in the Middle East) dream of making it to Tel-Aviv. Libby Davies claims to support all these good things in Canada, but put her on the international stage and she has nothing but condemnation for the only place in the entire Middle East where gays are relatively free and safe. Does she even know the hypocrisy of her position? Some GLBTQ rights advocate. And, frankly, the fact that a bunch of people in the GLBTQ community need to have this explained to us is a symptom of our own blinkered worldview that doesn't go far beyond Church and Wellesley or the Davie Village. Time we started caring about our sisters and brothers worldwide. Gay rights aren't for Developed World gays only. Or are they?
Pat Johnson, Delta BC
06/22/10 10:50 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Israel has not even bothered to take them up on
The Arab Peace Initiative The Council of the League of Arab States at the Summit Level, at its 14th Ordinary Session, Reaffirms the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo extraordinary Arab summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government. Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah Bin Abdullaziz, the crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in which his highness presented his initiative, calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land for peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel. Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council: 1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well. 2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm: a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon. b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194. c. The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with east Jerusa
Tam, Toronto Ontario
06/22/10 10:52 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
part 2
with east Jerusalem as its capital. 3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following: a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region. b. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace. 4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries. 5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab Countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability, and prosperity. 6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative. 7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the security council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim States and the European Union.
Tam, Toronto Ontario
06/22/10 10:56 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
re: Peter
Peter the article said the state of Israel was founded on some of the land that was meant for the Palestinian state and that many thousands of Palestininas were expelled from their homes in 1948, many would see that as occupation, some would not, but I do think its a stretch to say she doesn't support the right of Israel to exist because she considers 1948 to be the start of the occupation of Palestinian land. And as for their quote about the loyalty oath to Israel, have you never heard of a rhetorical question? because that was what that was, they weren't claiming that Canadian politicians do have to take a loyalty oath to Israel, they were saying that its not necessary for a politician in Canada to support Israel to be a good politican in Canada. Mind you I guess its not surprising you don't recognize a rhetorical question when you see one since you believe that you're being censored because people disagree with you. I'll never understand how in your mind debate, which most people understand as the hallmark of free speech, is in fact censorship because the two sides don't agree with each other. Yet you don't see actually banning the words Israeli apartheid in Pride as censorship at all. If I were you I'd try to get back the money you spent on your MA, you got ripped off.
Rich, Toronto Ontario
06/22/10 12:10 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Why bother?
Why is it that no one in this country can ever question anything to do with mid-east politics without being labelled anti-Jew or anti-Israel?
Steven M, Vancouver BC
06/22/10 12:26 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
they hate questions this is a Democracy, right?
@ Tam (Answer why Arafat walked back in 2000 and No answer) but Arafat did walk from camp David back in 2000 and he got everything he was looking for did but you did not even answer it, funny Israel even offered to compensate the Palestinian People for all there losses during the conflict too or but of course you want to blame Israel for almost anything.(http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php) As for the interview, its democracy if she did not like the out come then she should have decline to be interview, but in our mind democracy is a one way street we have to agree to agree and no questioning @ Rich still you don't have a good point Canada was founded by Europeans who kicked Natives off their lands in order to create it ( kind of what you day about Israel)and yes Rich its does sound like a page out of the Learned Elders of the Protocols of Zion when it comes to the loyalty oath thing and again this is still funny she is in bed with all those 9/11 conspiracy people too and they seem to blame the Jews for causing it and how is she a good in anyway? Funny Rich I could as the same question about freedom of speech since you seem to bash anyone that does not agree with you in every post in every story on Xtra website and you seem to be against almost everything.
Peter From, Toronto ON
06/22/10 1:57 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Too Funny
What an embarrassment to gays and NDP voters. Libby Davis is either a total dumbass or she is an anti-semite who doesn't think Israel should exist. Either is problematic for a Canadian politician. P.S. The Palestinians she champions would hang her fat lesbian ass on the first structure they found that could support her ample weight.
Soren, Toronto ON
06/22/10 3:10 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
No he didn't
http://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm Here the complete discussion of the Taba summit according to the EU Peter. It seems that they got really close to it and there were a few things left over and as Barak said, "nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon " and said that he could not commit a subsequent government to what he called the "ideas" coming out of the talks. With the election of Ariel Sharon in February 2001, time ran out. This from the BBC. I guess you haven't heard anything about biased sources in Disneyland University. It appears that the palestinian side was just as ready as the Israeli side to make concessions. If it failed because there was still a bit to discuss it was also because the Israeli government was changing. Either side could have taken that extra step. So to say that the palestinian side rejected it is one sided, don't you think? The Israeli side rejected the palestinians offer which allowed them to keep some of their settlements. This is the last time I speak to you... you are a one-sided individual who gets their info from propaganda sites.
Tam, Toronto Ontario
06/22/10 4:57 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
@ Peter
Peter here's another article I stumbled across that also says Israel captured and occupied more land than it was granted by the UN in 1948 http://www.flashpoints.info/CB-Israel-Palestine.htm you can go down to the section titled "History" for the relevant section. Libby Davis may know more than most of us about this, I had no idea personally but I generally try to ignore the region and its problems, well I used to anyways, I've become more interested in it since this whole censorship flap arose. if it hadn't been for the efforts to ban QuAIA I still wouldn't know much of what I learned recently about the conflict over there. I also learned that there are very many Jewish Israelis who feel much the same as QuAIA which in my book makes their message more respectable. Still I'd never join or march with them since I would take a different approach personally, for example if it were me I wouldn't use the word apartheid in the name of the group and would focus more on the individual problematic policies but I still support their right of free expression even if I disagree with them on their approach to the issue.
Rich, Toronto Ontario
06/22/10 9:09 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
@ tam mean the many Disneyland University
that you mostlike went to. I can only guess were you get your sources? I certian blog?( does the name start with a R?) funny how every source you give does come from there?
Peter From, Toronto ON
06/23/10 12:45 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Palestinian loss of land, 1946-2000
Map of Palestinian loss of land, 1946-2000: http://twitpic.com/1tcnd5
Rick, London Ontario
06/23/10 1:48 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
@ Rick just up to the old tricks again
Really, really funny how your history is really distorted. So who controlled the area at the time? It was the British and that area was acquired to them in 1917 after taking it from the Ottomans(modern day Turkey) who rule from 1520 to 1917. After World War One they area was known as the British Mandate of Palestine under the League of Nations trust. But of course that part is always left out. I find it interesting that you can leave nearly 400 years of history out of that picture. I bet if I went back far enough in historical mapping of the area of course you just use it as a rewrite history to suit your political agenda. Of course the your on a political agenda even a first year history student could even see how distorted it really is. Don't believe me the map says so (http://www.uoregon.edu/~mccole/303Spring2009/lecturenotes/week1class1and2.html)
Peter from, Toronto ON
06/23/10 2:07 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
How low can she go
This is the reason why I stop voting for the NDP and also why Xtra turn away from Gay Issues.
WTF, Toronto Ontario
06/23/10 3:38 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
the bbc is not a blog
Peter, my sources are the bbc and the bbc had a link to the EU statement, you can always take a line of the statement on that page, put it in quotation marks, and see where it comes out. There is another thing Peter, you can't quite tell us what the agreement was like since it wasn't formally presented by both sides. Some have argued that it would have meant 3% of non continuous land that would have been tied together by israeli-only highways in palestine. That would have made a significant part of the palestinian areas non usable and created a mess for any sovereign nation. Where then did you get the idea that Arafat got everything he wanted? Where is the full, detailed, proposal of where the land swaps were going to be, on how the the settlement territory was going to be annexed and connected? Of what land was going to be given to palestinians on exchange, on how big were the many outpots that Israel wanted in palestinian land, etc, etc. Yes Peter, you graduated from disneyland university.
Tam, Toronto Ontario
06/23/10 11:31 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Why is this on the Xtra agenda?
I understood Xtra's extensive coverage of the Pride/QUAIA as it spoke to a real divide in the community - and about censorship. Perfectly reasonable for you to be there. But do you now cover the Middle East conflict writ large? I'd rather read a more comprehensive story about the 'criminalization of HIV' issue about which I have conflicted views and could use some more information and would value Xtra's insight and reportage. But there are lots of Israel/Palestine websites. You don't need to be branching out this far beyond your focus area. No good will come of it.
Alex MacLean, Toronto ON
06/24/10 2:27 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
to Alex and others Questioning Xtra on this
to Alex and others questioning Xtra on this article. I guess you missed the opening paragraph. I believe there was also on article on Davies when she was fighting for safe injection sites, is xtra allowed to cover that? You are just uncomfortable with the whole notion of Palestinian rights. I think it has been proven over the course of the past several weeks how important it really is for xtra to do what it is doing by covering stories that may not be relating directly to "gay rights" as you see it. A little diversity please. Xtra's coverage of HIV criminalization has been pretty extensive as has it's coverage of Uganda. I guess you can write about protecting gay Ugandans but not queer Palestinians - and yes would you please get the concept through your head that fighting for a seperate Palestinian state goes hand in hand with fighting for it's queer citizens.
J Roman, Toronto ON
06/24/10 2:57 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.