The Canada-Israel “Public Security” Agreement ---- Ottawa & Tel Aviv Collaborate in Counter-Terrorism & Homeland security

In addition to the article below, please see here for an activist who reveals hidden military ties between Canada and Israel. See here for how the Canadian government is cracking down on criticism of Israel. See here for how Canada's RCMP in BC has a Hate Crime Division. See here for more about organized Stasi stalking and militant Zionism. See here for how the RCMP targets Muslim extremists but gives Zionist terrorists a free pass. 

Canada and Israel have signed a far-reaching public security cooperation agreement.  

The agreement, described as a “Partnership”, involves a “Declaration of Intent” by the two governments. The Declaration was signed in Tel Aviv on March 23, 2008: 

“Today, the Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety Canada and Avi Dicter, Minister of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel, signed a Declaration of Intent to enhance cooperation in the area of public safety.

“The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the security of Canadians – both through our actions at home and with our international partners.” said Minister Day. “Today’s declaration demonstrates the longstanding cooperation between Canada and Israel on public safety issues, and we welcome this increased cooperation in order to improve our countries’ capacity to protect our citizens.”

This declaration will allow Canada and Israel to better enhance cooperation in the areas of organized crime, emergency management, crime prevention, and other related public safety concerns. The declaration seeks to establish a more structured framework for the continued cooperation on public safety issues between Canada and Israel.

“The Declaration of Intent is an opportunity for Canada and Israel to strengthen their commitment to safeguarding their citizens and respective national interests from common-threats,”-said-Minister-Dicter.”

Stockwell Day and Avi Dichter shake hands upon signing the Declaration

Cheney Mission to the Middle East Shrouded in Secrecy

Canada’s Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day was in Israel on the same day as Vice Cheney Dick Cheney. 

Coincidentally, a US mission led by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was also in Israel on official business, as a guest of Israel’s Minister of Public Security, Avi Dichter. There are no reports on Canada-US-Israeli consultations during these official visits. In all likelihood, officials from the respective departments/ministries of US Homeland Security, Israel’s Public Security and Canada’s Public Safety had meetings behind closed doors.  

Dick Cheney in Tel Aviv, March 23 

Michael Chertoff and Avi Dichter

Terms of Reference of the Partnership

Israel’s Ministry of Public Security carries out public security, law enforcement activities. It is also in charge of the operation of Israel’s prisons, which are in large part used to detain Palestinians.  

Canada’s Ministry of Public Safety, established in 2003, is a copy and paste version of US Homeland Security. Public Safety Canada has a close bilateral relationship with US Homeland Security.

Public Safety Canada works closely with several government agencies including the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Officials from these agencies have no doubt been consulted regarding the terms of reference of the Israel-Canada declaration.  

The terms reference of the Canada-Israel Declaration is extremely broad. They include issues of immigration and ethnic profiling, the management of borders, intelligence and the exchange of information, emergency preparedness, correctional services, prisons, law enforcement and counter-terrorism. 

The Declaration of Intent involves the setting up of a close bilateral cooperation arrangement at the ministerial level. A management committee has been set up under the helm of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada, and the Director General of Public Security of the State of Israel.

Senior Israeli and Canadian officials respectively from Israel’s Ministry of Public Security and from various Canadian federal departments and agencies (including the RCMP, CSIS, and CBSA), which are under the jurisdiction of Stockwell Day’s ministry would carry out “an approved program of work”. 

The program would be implemented by a Senior Coordinator from each country, namely, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Strategic Policy) for Canada’s Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Deputy Director-General of Israel’s Ministry of Public Security of the State of Israel; 

Nature of the Agreement

The agreement requires the two countries to “[b]uild on their shared commitment to facilitate and enhance cooperation to protect their respective countries’ population, assets, and interests from common threats”. 

What type of border security and control of immigrants is involved? 

How does this impinge upon Canada’s immigration procedures?   

The agreement appears to be built upon a much broader agreement between Canada and the US in the area of Homeland Security.  However, it also replicates the pattern of a February 2006 agreement reached between US Homeland Security and Israel’s Ministry of Public Security  

The Israel-Canada agreement has been in the pipeline since Israel’s Public Security Minister Avi Dichter's October 2007 visit to the US and Canada. Avi Dichter met Stockwell Day last October in Toronto “with the intention of establishing cooperation on homeland security” and counter-terrorism. 

Israel is not part of North America. Canada and Israel do not share a common border. So what is the underlying agenda? 

Will Canada assist Israel in policing its border with Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories? 

Conversely, will Israeli officials assist Canada in ethnic profiling of people (including biometric applications, which is mentioned in the agreement) who visit Canada from the Middle East?

Will Israeli officials have access to confidential files of Canadians? 

What type of cooperation is envisaged in the areas of prisons and law enforcement? Interrogation techniques? Are Israeli consultants going to help us reorganize our correctional services? 

The agreement would allow officials from the State of Israel, a country on record for its numerous human rights violations acts directed against the people of Palestine and Lebanon, to play a role in Canadian public security. In this regard, will Israeli officials assist the RCMP and CSIS in the profiling of Canadians citizens who are Muslims? This ethnic profiling is already applied at Canadian airports.  

Will Israeli officials assist their Canadian counterparts in dealing with individuals and/or organizations in Canada involved in supporting the rights of Palestinians? Will Israeli officials assist their Canadian counterparts in the domestic “war on terrorism”, which in the post 9/11 period has led to numerous arbitrary detentions on trumped-up charges?

At the same time,  the Declaration establishes a de facto complicit relationship whereby Canadian officials (RCMP, etc) would contribute to assisting Israel in its domestic police and border activities (e.g. Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank), not under the auspices of the United Nations, but directly in cooperation with Israeli police and security officials.

In fact, Canada’s ”contribution” to the policing of Israel’s borders with Gaza and the West Bank is already part of a 300 million dollar aid package in support of the “peace process”. According to Public Safety Canada,  ”a significant component [of the 300 million will be] devoted to security, including policing and public order capacity-building. This five-year commitment will go towards the creation of a democratic, accountable, and a viable Palestinian state that lives in peace and security alongside Israel.” (Marketwire, Ottawa, March 24, 2008)

Following his meeting with his counterpart Avi Dichter, Stockwell Day had meetings on the 24th of March in the West Bank with President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, where issues pertaining to Canada’s peace package, including police training and capacity building were discussed. ”I was pleased to meet with Palestinian Authority President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad to discuss public safety issues of mutual interest,” said Minister Day. Stockwell Day also visited a West Bank prison as well as a police training center in Jericho. (Ibid)

Under the Declaration of Intent, Canada cannot exercise “neutrality” with regard to the Palestinian process. Canada would act as a partner of Israel in all issues of public security in the occupied territories. Moreover, Canadian support channeled to the US-Israeli sponsored Palestinian regime of Mahmoud Abbas will be used to repress Hamas, which is the duly elected government. It will contribute to worsening the situation in the occupied territories.

Counter-terrorism and Homeland Security

The issue of “counter-terrorism” is not mentioned explicitly in the Declaration of Intent. The terms of reference, however, suggest that the “war on terrorism” is an integral part of the agreement.  

In early February 2007, Minister Avi Dichter addressed the public security committee of the Canadian House of Commons:  ”Iran is the largest terrorist state in the world” Dichter said. In his discussion with Canadian MPs, Dichter “laid out what he believes to be the guidelines for Canadian-Israeli security cooperation in the future, possibly similar to the agreement that the minister signed a day later in Washington DC.” (Jerusalem Post, 7 February 2007) 

“The Canadian MPs echoed their American compatriots in addressing the former Shin Bet head as a world expert in the field of terror rather than as a visiting minister of a foreign government, asking him at one point what specific steps the parliament could take to prevent terror attacks on Canadian soil. In his answer, Dichter reiterated the importance of strengthening border security and use of proper investigative methods with suspects.” (ibid) 

During a follow-up official visit of Israel’s Minister of Public Security Avi Dichter to Canada in late October 2007,  meetings of Israeli and Canadian officials were held behind closed doors to discuss a blueprint for cooperation in the areas of homeland security and counter-terrorism. The meetings chaired by Stockwell Day were held in Toronto on October 29, 2007.  A so-called “Arrangement Paper” was to be drafted with a view to defining  “the actions of the competent structures at ministerial, central and subordinate/local levels for preventing and fighting homeland securities issues”:

“The parties have agreed to intensify future cooperation by identifying ways of direct communication in order to maximize the exchange of information, technology and operational activity. For the same reason it has been agreed to accelerate negotiations for the signing of an Arrangement Paper between the two Ministries on cooperation in home land security and counter terrorism issues which falls within the responsibility of the respective Ministries.
…
Negotiations on the arrangement paper mentioned above will take place as necessary. The signing of the arrangement paper will be held on an occasion and place coordinated in advance between the Ministries.

The two Ministers agreed that by early November three work teams will be established in order to promote the cooperation between the two ministries on the following subjects: • Counterterrorism and Crime • Emergency preparedness • Border crossing security, focusing on biometric identification”

(Official communique of Israel’s Ministry of Public Security,
http://www.mops.gov.il/BPEng/MOPS+News/DicterWithCanadianMinister_30_10_07.htm )

The “Arrangement paper” refers to the draft text of The Declaration of Intent, which was signed in Tel Aviv on March 23, 2008. The two governments chose to sign the agreement during a week of intense diplomatic activity in Tel Aviv, involving the concurrent visits of the Vice President of the US, the US Secretary of the Department Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and other senior officials.

The final text of the Declaration of Intent remains vague. “Counter-terrorism” and the “Homeland” are not explicitly mentioned in the final text of the Declaration signed on March 23.   

Legal Implications

The text of the Declaration of Intent states that “:{it] is not intended to create legally binding obligations, under either domestic or international law. Yet, at the outset, it violates several fundamental principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” 

The Canada-Israel Public Security agreement has barely been mentioned by the Canadian media.

It has not been the object of a debate in parliament. Why has this issue not been brought to the forefront of public debate?  Why has the parliamentary opposition remained mum on the subject?

It should be forcefully challenged in Canada’s courts.

ANNEX

FULL TEXT of AGREEMENT

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2008/nr20080323-1-eng.aspx

Public Safety Canada March 23, 2008

Declaration of Intent Between the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada and the Ministry of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel

The Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada and the Ministry of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel, declare their intent:

1. To prioritize and manage cooperation in the following areas within the responsibility of the Ministries:

1. Border management and security, including biometric applications;

2. Correctional services and prisons;

3. Crime prevention;

4. Critical infrastructure protection;

5. Emergency management;

6. Illegal immigration;

7. Law enforcement cooperation;

8. Money laundering;

9. Organized crime;

10. Terrorist financing; and

11. Trafficking in persons.

2. To achieve the following objectives:

1. Build on their shared commitment to facilitate and enhance cooperation to protect their respective countries’ population, assets, and interests from common threats;

2. Integrate and coordinate the identification, prioritization, and implementation of cooperative efforts between themselves in the area of public safety;

3. Manage the delivery of approved cooperative activities within the scope of this Declaration;

4. Establish of clear lines of communication and points of contact between themselves as part of an ongoing process of dialogue and partnership in pursuing common goals;

5. Share knowledge, experience, expertise, information, research, and best practices;

6. Identify and share public safety concerns on the basis of threats, risk assessments, priorities, vulnerabilities, and consequences; and

7. Facilitate technical exchange cooperation, including education, training, and exercises.

3. To establish a Management Committee that would:

1. Be comprised of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada, and the Director General of Public Security for the Government of the State of Israel;

2. Meet annually and as needed to develop and approve a program of work, consistent with the scope and objectives of this Declaration, for that upcoming year;

3. Evaluate and approve progress and results of activities carried out under this Declaration from the previous year;

4. Identify officials from the Ministry of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel and from the department and agencies for which the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada is responsible, to carry out, within specific timeframes, each of the items in the approved program of work;

5. Be supported by a Senior Coordinator, namely, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Strategic Policy) for the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada, and the Deputy Director General for the Ministry of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel; and

6. Have the Senior Coordinators ensure the delivery of the approved program of work and recommend new activities for the Committee’s approval.

4. To bear respectively the costs that they each incur for performing, managing, and administering its activities under this Declaration;

5. To ensure the appropriate protection of all information, knowledge, expertise, etc. that is exchanged between them against any unauthorized access, alteration, publication, or dissemination; and

6. To protect any information, knowledge, expertise, etc. that is exchanged between them against disclosure to any third party with the same degree of care as they each exercise with their own information, knowledge, expertise, etc. of a similar nature;

It is understood that:

This Declaration is not intended to duplicate or supersede any existing arrangements between any departments and/or agencies of the Government of Canada and the Government of Israel; and

This Declaration is not intended to create legally binding obligations, under either domestic or international law.

Signed in duplicate at Tel Aviv, this 23rd day of March, 2008, which corresponds to the 16th day of Adar b’5768, in the English, French, and Hebrew languages with all texts being equally valid.

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OF CANADA

FOR THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

Israel’s Apologists and the Martin Luther King Jr. Hoax

For more of the history of the so-called Jews role in the slave trade, please see here, for more articles about the ideology of Judaism and it's connection to racism and ethnocentrism, please see here.

By Fadi Kiblawi and Will Youmans

In formal logic, Argumentum Ad Verecundiam refers to arguing a point with an appeal to authority. This type is categorized as a logical fallacy. Citing one seemingly authoritative source is simply not conclusive evidence, even if the authority is seen as an expert on the given subject.

For the sake of clarity, there are three degradations of this maxim enumerated in this essay. First, it is especially fallacious as proof when the quoted authority demonstrates no special knowledge on the subject. Second, when the authority who is not an expert on the given subject is also quoted out of context, the argument is even weaker. Third, the lowest violation of this formal logic principle is when an advocate uses a false rendition, or a fabricated quote, by the same authority who can claim no expertise.

This is the best framework for understanding how various exponents of Israel have used Martin Luther King Jr. to promote their cause.

Dr. King’s expertise as a non-violent civil rights leader and visionary are unparalleled in U.S. history. However, that does not make him an informed commentator on Middle Eastern affairs or on the ideological facets of Zionism. As impressive as the references to his views on Israel may seem, this is a textbook example of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.

Finding direct and published utterances by Dr. King about the modern Middle East and Zionism is extremely rare. A cursory review of dozens of books on and by the civil rights leader turned up nothing.

Nonetheless, defenders of Israel often refer to a letter by Dr. King. This letter is reprinted in full on many web pages and in print. One example of a quotation derived from this letter is:

“… You declare, my friend; that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely ‘anti-Zionist’ … And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God’s green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews… Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so.”

Antiracism writer Tim Wise checked the citation, which claimed that it originated from a “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” in an August, 1967 edition of Saturday Review. In an article on January, 2003, essay he declared that he found no letters from Dr. King in any of the four August, 1967 editions. The authors of this essay verified Wise’s discovery. The letter was commonly cited to also have been published in a book by Dr. King entitled, “This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” No such book was listed in the bibliography provided by the King Center in Atlanta, nor in the catalogs of several large public and university libraries.

Soon afterwards, CAMERA, a rabidly pro-Israeli organization, published a statement declaring that the letter was “apparently” a hoax. CAMERA explained how it gained so much currency. The “letter” came from a “reputable” book, Shared Dreams, by Rabbi Marc Shneier. Martin Luther King III authored the preface for the book, giving the impression of familial approval. Also, the Anti-Defamation League’s Michael Salberg used the same quotes in his July 31st, 2001 testimony before the U.S. House of Representative’s International Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.

The bogus letter was further quoted by writers in prominent publications one would imagine armed with fact-checkers capable of spending the short amount of time needed to verify the primary source. Mort Zuckerman, the editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report quoted the letter in a column (17 September 2001). Warren Kinsella followed suit in an article for Maclean’s (20 January 2003). Commentary, which is known more for its ideological zeal than any appreciation for factual scruples, ran a piece by Natan Sharansky. He quoted the false passage as a block–some ten months after CAMERA declared it a hoax.

More recently, the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) featured excerpts from the letter prominently on its website. Despite its name, SPME is an advocacy group seeking to bolster Israel’s image on campus–a mission it claims promotes peace in the region. Ironically, right under the false Dr. King quotation is an announcement of the formation of a task force “dealing with academic integrity with respect to fabricating and falsifying data when discussing the Middle East.”

After one of the authors of this article informed SPME’s director of the quotation’s discredited status, he replied with hostility despite the simple verifiability of the claim that the citation is incorrect. After several exchanges he replaced it with another seemingly far-fetched quote:

Martin Luther King addressed the issue in 1968, in a speech at Harvard when he said: “.. You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely ‘anti-Zionist.’ …When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews… And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe…When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews–make no mistake about it.”

When a citation for this new quote was requested, he refused to provide one, leaving visitors only with its claim that Dr. King delivered it in a 1968 Harvard “speech.” However, the language of SPME’s new posting strongly resembles their original one – on account of the fact that it too comes from the same discredited “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend.”

The first time the fake letter was quoted, it could have been a mistake, but to draw on different lines from the same fictitious letter is strikingly unscholarly – as is the false citation of it to a 1968 “speech” at Harvard. Either this citation was invented or taken from another unspecified source–classic plagiarism, whether intentional or out of gross negligence.

SPME’s reference to a 1968 “speech” at Harvard mirrors the details from a published account that appeared in two sources: First, it was in right-wing and ardently pro-Israeli sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset’s 1969 article in Encounter. Second, it was in a January, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle op-ed by Congressman John Lewis, who knew Dr. King personally.

Lipset wrote in his essay “The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews & Israel” about a “dinner” for Dr. King he attended. When one black student made “some remark against the Zionists,” Dr. King “snapped” back, “ ‘When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism’.” The piece by Congressman Lewis also quotes this same remark though it is not clear if it is gathered from Lipset’s essay.

Congressman Lewis claims Dr. King made this comment “shortly before his death” during “an appearance at Harvard.” Lipset states it was “shortly before he was assassinated” at a “dinner given for him in Cambridge.” This quotation seems on its face much more credible. Yet, SPME presents snippets from the fake letter while apparently citing this statement (a 1968 “speech” at Harvard).

There are still, however, a few reasons for casting doubt on the authenticity of this statement. According to the Harvard Crimson, “The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago–April 23, 1967” (“While You Were Away” 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Lipset stated he was in the area for a “fund-raising mission,” which would seem to imply a high profile visit. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by Stanford University’s Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge or Boston.

While these points raise some doubt, let us assume that the quote is accurate.

This is where context comes in. One of the principal arguments of Lipset’s 1969 article is that the split between blacks and Jews “stems much more from the American situation than from the Middle East Conflict.” He identifies Jews as a dominating force within the civil rights movement. Black nationalist leadership wanted to distance themselves from Whites in the movement, Lipset argues. In Lipset’s own words, he summarized what Black nationalists were saying: “We don’t want whites, but we particularly don’t want Jews, and we are expressing antagonism to Jews in the form of opposition to Israel.”

Few of the articles that cite Lipset’s essay mention this crucial context. One individual who did explore this, albeit crudely, still managed to contrive another Dr. King quote unimaginatively. Dr. Andrew Bostom, a medical professor at Brown University, wrote an article for Front Page Magazine (20 January 2003) that was reprinted on former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s website. In it, he claimed that Dr. King had the “moral courage” to confront the anti-Jewish rhetoric of black left-wing and Muslim organizations. This is not to say that Dr. Bostom is a reliable source. Central to his article is a 347-word passage which he attributes to Dr. King. He fails to cite a source for the outlandish tirade. A quick google search determined it was lifted entirely from original material on the homepage of www.yahoodi.com (which has a copyright date of 2002), plus healthy portions of the fake “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend.” Dr. Bostom’s article featured the least creative and perhaps most fraudulent doctored script yet: a patchwork of plagiarism.

Taking the context described by Lipset and Dr. Bostom to be generally correct for the sake of argument would shed light on the credible Dr. King quotes. If the movement he figured so prominently in was facing such a rift, his response was only natural. To borrow Lipset’s analysis then, Dr. King’s statement also “stems much more from the American situation than from the Middle East Conflict.” Given his local political anxieties, Dr. King was hardly the kind of disinterested authority worth quoting on the subject.

As a note: the actual validity of Lipset and Dr. Bostom’s views of that context is beyond the scope of this essay. While it is true that black nationalists, such as SNCC’s leadership, became increasingly critical of Israel after 1967, it is not convincing that the motive was to alienate American Jews even if that was the foreseeable effect. An ardent internationalist for example would care more about linking oppressed people’s struggles across the globe than they would about the relatively mainstream political movement for equality in the American polity.

Back to the main point: if the forged quotes reflecting Dr. King’s views on Israel were accurate, citing him would still be classic Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. Where is the proof that Dr. King studied the region or its modern history? The dearth of then-publicized comments and writings on the region by Dr. King shows that it was probably not a subject he was well-versed on, nor did it appear to be a priority of his throughout his career.

Even the statements Congressman Lewis attributes to him are low in substance and high on flourishing rhetoric. For example, Dr. King stated that Israel is a “marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy.” Referring to it as “marvelous” and an “oasis” sounds rather uninformed given the realities of military occupation and the forced exile the Palestinians have witnessed since Israel’s foundation. They surely do not sound like the words of someone familiar with both sides of the story.

More significantly, as Tim Wise pointed out, Dr. King’s supposed statements on Zionism came before the more than three decades of crippling Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the 1987 intifada that grabbed the world’s attention. The Palestinian narrative was sparsely conveyed in the United States up to that point. There were few Arabs or Palestinians in the U.S. and fewer Arab academics, policymakers, and activists working with Dr. King. Wise also suggests that application of Dr. King’s principles logically give way to more sympathy to the Palestinian side given the systematic inequality it faces.

That advocates of Israel have relied on fabricated and out-of-context quotations from a leading moral figure of yesteryear only underscores the absurdity of the general point that all opposition to a Jewish state in a diverse land is anti-Semitic. There are obviously many legitimate ways to critique Zionism. One quite reasonable observation is that after more than a half-century of conflict, the Zionist project has failed to bring the Jews of Israel peace and security–its raison d’etre. One might counter that this is due to Arab intransigence; the Palestinians should accept their dispossession. However, Palestinian opposition to this fate is an indisputable fact, and security was and is Zionism’s key goal. This necessarily was an analytical failure on the part of the Zionists who assumed the Palestinians would blend in to other Arab countries while the later generations forget their past. To dismiss this argument–one that evaluates Zionism by its own goals–and every other critique of Zionism as anti-Semitism is not only dishonest but a cowardly evasion of meaningful debate.

The main reason why critique of Zionism persists is that whether Israeli officials like it or not, history as it is written and the actual land are still disputed by the millions of Palestinians who are refugees as a result of Israel’s birth, the 3.5 million Palestinians living under Israel’s direct military rule, and the Palestinians who compose twenty percent of Israel’s citizens in second class status. If Israel was founded and developed on uncontested terrain then arguments against its existence would more likely be out of hatred against the Jewish people. For supporters of Israel to wipe away all critics of the methods and outcomes of Israel’s foundation with the “anti-Semitic” label denies completely the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative–the experiences and perspectives that never show up in Dr. King’s imagined “oasis.”

Dr. King, though long-passed, is still monumental in the continuing movement for civil rights in the United States. His legacy should be celebrated, and also critiqued constructively; it should not be falsified or stretched to accommodate a different agenda today. The context behind Dr. King’s authentic statements on Zionism was unique to a particular domestic political moment in order to sustain a fragile political coalition. Beyond that, Dr. King never claimed any expertise on the subject, nor made it a frequent topic of his speeches or writings. Claiming that all critiques of Zionism are anti-Semitic based on the force Martin Luther King Jr.’s words on the matter fails as an argument on many different levels.

Fadi Kiblawi is a law student at George Washington University. Will Youmans is a contributor to The Politics of Anti-Semitism (AK Press, 2003).

Collection of Tweets About Glenn Greenwald & Edward Snowden Being Zionist Phonies

1. Glenn Greenwald is connected to the "Revelations" of Edward Snowden: Greenwald is a liar by omission for intelligence: http://glenngreenwald.net/

2. Below is his Twitter account picture: many of these "journalists" and writers work for intelligence, they are at war with the population because they are not telling you how bad the situation really is. Remember, the appearance of truth is more dangerous than lies.

3. THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU THE TRUTH of how bad the world is or how much you are under surveillance.

4. Edward Snowden is a phony, Glenn Greenwald is Jewish and a Zionist. If Edward Snowden was real he would tell you how bad it really is. Here is Edward Snowden's Twitter account picture:

5. Why doesn't he tell you the real truth? He has a Twitter account. Follow him here. Edward Snowden could tweet out the info that the newspapers fail to publish, just like I am doing.

6. Here is a joking post I did a while back about why Edward Snowden is a phony:  https://exposeintelligence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/edward-snowden-i-tell-you-this-go-here.html

7. Here is a non-joking real post about why he's a phony: Is Edward Snowden a Fake? Also, see this other post about classified technology.

8. Hey, Glenn- you know about space-based weaponry and everything I am talking about- right? So why shut up about it?

Collection of Tweets About When Insanity Becomes Mainstream

1. Look at this absurd sentence written in Richard Dawkins book- this tells you the crazy world you live in:

2. this is from The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

3. "The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust" (See here for a whole collection of interesting posts about the Holocaust, be sure to scroll down and see them all.)

4. Why would you make a comparison like this to back up your claim for evolution? I am not doubting evolution, but this is stupid.

5. The problem with the evolution/creation debate is that it's a false dichotomy where each will not acknowledge any truth from the other position. Why do they insist on doing this?

6. Creationism does not even have to be about the Bible. Look what we can do now in our day with science. On the other hand, anyone who denies any form of evolution is being foolish.

7. In the story of Prometheus, he goes from the Titans to the Olympians, then he defies the Olympians and takes his fire to man- it is a dialectic

8.  As far as the quote in Dawkin's book, it would not surprise me if his publisher made him put it in.

9. Just look this: https://exposeintelligence.blogspot.ca/2016/01/numerous-accounts-of-six-million-jews.html and this statement from Oliver Stone about how Jewish control of the media is preventing free debate about the Holocaust: https://exposeintelligence.blogspot.ca/2016/04/oliver-stone-jewish-control-of-media-is.html

10. For whatever reason, the push to make Israel and the Jews so important has become a religion. The new religion is the Holocaust. It is the new secular God that you cannot question. This is extremely sad. This means they have to hold the same narrative together or potentially the Jews will cease to exist as a united people.

11. See Norman Finkelstein's book here: https://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Industry-Reflections-Exploitation-Suffering/dp/1781685614/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477912888&sr=1-1&keywords=holocaust+industry

12. See here for an example of the problems of defending someone who questions the new secular God --- just amazing, the defendant's lawyer gets thrown in jail!

Collection of Tweets About Truth Seekers and Supposed "Conspiracy" Theorists Being Labeled As Potential Terrorists

Yes, it really is this crazy after September 11th and the advent of the new Homeland Security Laws in the United States and Bill C-51 or the "Anti-Terrorism Act" in Canada. 

1. 72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents

2. FBI Memo Labels Patriots, Truth-Seekers as Potential 'Terrorists

3. Look at what Cass Sunstein is saying about Conspiracies: or let us put this another way, freedom of thought

4. Look who Cass Sunstein's wife is: Samantha Power see her Twitter accounts here and here --- I promise you, these people know who I am. She is no Human Rights Defender. I am, not her.

5. Is this a joke to Americans and Canadians? Is everything just one big joke? How pathetic are our countries to allow this?

6. You have no rights anymore under the new laws in Canada and the United States- when they declare you a "terrorist," they can do this to anyone they want.

7. People should do research on Homeland Security and Bill C-51

8. Read here for Dennis Kucinich Attempted Ban of Space-Based Weapons. This new class of weapons is being used on unaware, not informed humans, who of course did not consent to such experimentation. The Nuremberg Code of Conduct for experimentation with human subjects, is part of the Customary Law and the UDHR. The Code lists ten points, which universally have been adopted after the Nuremberg trials of war criminals by the Nuremberg Military Tribunals. The secret technologies in question are covered by military/agency secrecy orders. The victims are not openly confronted as that would remove any feigned excuses and leave the perpetrators open to all manner of accusation. Instead, the methods used are covert; employing high-tech methods to remotely torture, torment and deceive victims without leaving evidence. 

9. Incidentally, Samantha Power is one of the names mentioned in this article about fighting "global anti-Semitism"

10. Go here to learn more about Homeland Security

11. You can see the articles I put up about James Altucher here and here. Isn't it interesting that Cass Sunstein was on his podcast show?

Connecting Brains and Reading Minds - Brain Synchronization

For more information on this topic, go here.

How Many Americans Knew That This Was a Policy Of The United States Government? How Sad Can The United States Get?

SEE BELOW!
VERY IMPORTANT...

Yes, this is how pathetic the United States government has become. 

Essentially it is enforcing Israel's campaign against global free speech, see here to read about it. Also see here for how Israel would like world internet censorship. See here for the origins of Homeland Security. See here for a collection of tweets about Homeland Security and its connections to Zionism. See here for the strong connections between Israel, Canada, and the United States. See here for the Canada-Israel “Public Security” Agreement for Counter-Terrorism & Homeland security. See here for how the Canadian government is cracking down on criticism of Israel.

See here for the corruption of the RCMP and how they work with organized crime, see here for a video of the head of Homeland Security at the ADL "Leadership" Conference, see here and here for how Jewish groups get most of the Homeland Security grants, see here for how the ADL works with the RCMP and the FBI and its ties to organized crime.

=============================================================================

Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism

---

The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Ira Forman, advances U.S. Foreign Policy on anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews. The Special Envoy develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

The Special Envoy was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) produces the State Department's annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and the Special Envoy provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.

The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism welcomes information on anti-Semitic incidents, including personal and property attacks; government policies, including judicial/prosecutorial decisions and educational programs on the issue; and press and mass media reports. The office can be contacted at: SEASinfo@state.gov.

Combating Global Anti-Semitism in 2016

Remarks

Ira N. Forman
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism 

Berlin, Germany

March 16, 2016

On January 27, 2016, President Barack Obama made a powerful statement on fighting anti-Semitism at the Embassy of Israel. “Anti-Semitism is a distillation,” he said, “[it is] an expression of an evil that runs through so much of human history, and if we do not answer that, we do not answer any other form of evil.” So how do governments effectively “answer” and strongly combat rising anti-Semitism?

The office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism at the U.S. Department of State has been tracking the rise of anti-Semitism around the world and witnessing its alarming presence and growth in Europe and beyond. We know Jewish communities in Europe have faced an upsurge of anti-Semitic incidents, including violence in Western Europe over the past few years. Jewish communities are anxious about their safety and future. 

Sadly, if present trends continue, the viability of some of the smaller European Jewish communities will come into question due to anticipated emigration and/or assimilation. To best protect Jewish communities and combat anti-Semitism, the U.S. Department of State has encouraged European states to appoint Special Envoys or other senior officials to focus on anti-Semitism.

In Berlin, in November 2014, at the 10th Anniversary of the OSCE's Conference on Anti-Semitism, Ambassador Samantha Power stated, “One way to ensure sustained attention to anti-Semitism is to appoint a high-level envoy… Governments who appoint high-level officials to coordinate whole-of-nation efforts to combat anti-Semitism, and give them the political backing and resources they need, will see the difference it makes.”

We all welcomed the appointment of an EU Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism, Katharina von Schnurbein, and we look forward to future collaboration. This position is an important first step. Ideally, individual European governments will establish a point person to combat anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is evolving into new, contemporary forms of hatred, racism, and political, social, and cultural discrimination against Jews. One virulent aspect is the relation of conflating Jewish communities with Israel, using criticism of Israel as a pretext for anti-Semitism. As government leaders we cannot ignore this phenomenon.

Being in Berlin, I am reminded of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recent statement urging the need to specifically address anti-Semitism among youth from countries where hatred of Israel and Jews is widespread.

We have witnessed instances where anti-Israel demonstrations have taken on anti-Semitic tones such as in Malmö, Sweden, when protestors shouted, “Slaughter the Jews!” And we have seen in Toulouse and Marseilles how Jews have been targeted by terrorists who reportedly said they were protesting the situation in Palestine.

In our work, we engage with Jewish community leaders in Europe. We have heard from the Dutch Jewish community that “any criticism toward Israel is considered ‘anti-Zionism’ [in the Netherlands], but people know this and they shout ‘Zionist!’ when they mean ‘Jew’ so they won't get in trouble.”

Jewish leaders from Sweden also noted how anti-Semitism can be covered by anti-Zionism. Recent graffiti with swastikas was not classified as 'anti-Semitism' by police in Stockholm, but as actions against Israel. And I quote, “If you are hurt wearing a kippa [in Sweden], it is classified as anti-Zionism, which is legal.”

And then there is an ongoing case in Germany, which many of us know of, when in the early morning hours of July 29, 2014, anti-Israel protestors in Wuppertal threw Molotov cocktails at the main synagogue. Last year, the judge determined these actions “anti-Israel” and not “anti-Semitic.” Although this decision has recently been challenged, we have to be aware of the correlation.

This is why it is especially important to define anti-Semitism clearly to more effectively combat it. My predecessor Special Envoy Hannah Rosenthal said it best, “Opposition to a policy by the State of Israel [can morph] into anti-Semitism …This form of anti-Semitism is more difficult for many to identify – but if all Jews are held responsible for the decisions of the sovereign State of Israel [or if] governments call upon and intimidate their Jewish communities to condemn Israeli actions…this is not objecting to a policy–this is anti-Semitism. Our State Department uses Natan Sharansky’s framework for identifying when someone or a government [can] cross the line – when Israel is demonized, when Israel is held to different standards than the rest of the countries, and when Israel is delegitimized.”

While we understand the complexities of this issue and the importance of context, we are concerned about those instances where the line is crossed between legitimate opposition of Israeli government policies into rhetoric that questions Israel’s right to exist and targets Jewish communities outside of Israel.

Thus we encourage European governments to adopt a working definition of anti-Semitism, ideally, one which would include a section on how anti-Semitism relates to Israel, to improve the safety and well-being of Jewish communities in Europe.

We should also note that we are very careful to use this definition appropriately and object to its misuse as part of efforts to silence the legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. It is important to be as accurate as possible and not overstate or understate the problem. Unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism motivated by ideological or political aims distract from and are counterproductive to good-faith efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

For example, when one of the strongest opponents of anti-Semitism today—Pope Francis— is accused of taking an anti-Semitic stance, those unsubstantiated accusations make it more difficult to identify and address actual incidents of anti-Semitism. The Catholic Church has made impressive strides in speaking out against anti-Semitism and condemning intolerance.

The United States government deeply appreciates the Church’s critical voice. In October 2015, our office had the opportunity to meet Pope Francis and Vatican officials and thank them for the Church’s continuing efforts to combat anti-Semitism, and encourage them to continue. Indeed, in 2015 Pope Francis told the media “anyone who does not recognize the Jewish people and the State of Israel — and their right to exist — is guilty of anti-Semitism.”

All of us are here because we believe that democratic governments should proactively combat anti-Semitism. But governments cannot combat anti-Semitism alone. If we are to beat back the tide of anti-Semitism, we need to strengthen and enable civil society, in Europe and wherever anti-Semitism arises, to raise its voice and speak out.

Everyone needs to understand that anti-Semitism is not just a “Jewish problem.” Anti-Semitism and religious intolerance are fundamental threats to democratic societies; religious intolerance leads to the loss of rights for other minority groups, threatening social cohesion and fundamental freedoms. Civil society, governments, and religious leaders all have a responsibility to act against all forms of intolerance, including against religious or ethnic minorities.

As many of you know, at the end of 2015, the U.S. State Department led an international effort that helped prevent a statue from being erected in Hungary to honor a notorious World War II-era anti-Semite, Balint Homan. We worked with members of Congress, U.S. and international NGOs, Hungarian groups, Jewish community leaders, and European government leaders—including several of you here –to send the message that anti-Semitic acts will be strenuously opposed.

We believe there is a significant role for legislators and parliamentarians to play in speaking out against anti-Semitism. The U.S. Congress, for instance, played an important role in our efforts in Hungary, and we are appreciative of their leadership in combating anti-Semitism.

We also believe governments should make it easier for civil society and religious leaders—who are often closer to the dynamics and issues on the ground and within their communities—to access their governmental leaders, meet with them, share information, and continue to receive funding for projects and programs that combat anti-Semitism and intolerance of any kind.

In Hungary, because Hungarian civil society—Jews and others—felt empowered after the success in December, plans to unveil another statue honoring another anti-Semite last month were foiled. Because we expect these issues to persist, civil society and governments must remain vigilant and continue to coordinate efforts to confront these anti-Semitic actions.

As parliamentarians we need to encourage civil society to speak out, to build coalitions and bridges with diverse communities, and to educate in terms of citizenship and democratic values.

With a robust civil society in Europe that is both encouraged and aided by governments, hopefully, together, we can turn down the faucet of anti-Semitism. I often use this metaphor of a faucet. We may not be able to turn it totally off, but we can certainly turn it down.

Thank you.