B’nai Brith attacks 50 former Canadian diplomats as “hypocritical, prejudiced and biased” against Israel

On June 1, over 50 former Canadian diplomats sent an open letter to Prime Minister Trudeau urging him to take a firmer stand on the issue of Israel’s proposed annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. A few days later, they were attacked by B’nai Brith Canada as “hypocritical, prejudiced and biased”. Read more…

A pro-Israel lobby group has launched a fierce attack on the reputations of over 50 respected Canadian former diplomats accusing them of being “hypocritical, prejudiced and biased” against Israel. B’nai Brith Canada was reacting sharply to an open letter sent by the diplomats to Prime Minister Trudeau urging him to stand by international law and oppose Israel’s stated plans to take over more Occupied Palestinian territory in the West Bank.

The diplomats’ letter was noticed in several quarters. CBC’s Evan Dyer noted that the signatories included Canadian Ambassadors to Israel under both Chretien and Harper governments. An editorial signed by the whole Toronto Star editorial board cited the letter and urged the PM to “speak louder against Israel’s dangerous plan”. The attention caused by the letter seems to have had some effect on the Prime Minister who, in his press conference of June 2, spoke publicly for the first time of his opposition to the Israeli project.

All of this prompted B’nai Brith Canada, which appears to be politically aligned with Mr. Netanyahu’s right wing Likud party (although virtually all Israeli political parties support annexation of parts of the West Bank) to launch a counter attack against the letter signers.

“We are disgusted with the blatant hypocrisy and double standards of the international community constantly directed against Israel. This letter is just the latest example of it,” said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada.

The sharp tone of B’nai Brith’s attack is all the more surprising given the reputations of those who signed, which includes two former Canadian ambassadors to Israel, (one of whom is Jewish) and 4 former Cabinet ministers.

In support of his allegations, Mr. Mostyn went on to make a dubious legal argument.

The status of the territories in question is a subject of major debate in international law, and Israel’s claims are no less legitimate than anyone else’s,” he claimed.

No “international debate” – UN official

But according to Professor Michael Lynk, Professor of Law at Western University and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, there is no such “debate” in international law.

Reached by telephone, Professor Lynk told CTIP “The Palestinian territory is occupied by Israel. This is one of the most well-accepted legal facts in the modern world. A territory that comes under the control of another country through war is considered to be occupied, whether the conflict was a defensive war or a war of aggression. The United Nations Security Council has repeatedly reaffirmed this, most recently in December 2016 (UNSC Resolution 2334).”

In the past, Bnai Brith has frequently attacked pro-Palestinian human rights activists in the Green Party and the NDP as “anti-Semitic”. Bnai Brith did not quite use that language in attacking the diplomats. But accusing them of “hypocrisy”, “double standards”, “bias”, and “prejudice” against Israel is tantamount to the same thing.


Canada Talks Israel Palestine (CTIP) is the weekly newsletter of Peter Larson, Chair of the Ottawa Forum on Israel/Palestine (OFIP). It aims to promote a serious discussion in Canada about the complicated and emotional Israel/Palestine issue.

Want to learn more about what we do? Go to http://www.ottawaforumip.org.

Contact us at: ofip.chair@gmail.com.


  1. Did they rebuke the church leaders who made similar statements of condemnation??!!

    Sent from my iPhone

    1. Church leaders come to the issue from a religious point of view which has no validity when it comes to international law. When someone like Tutu comes out to criticize Israel, it is from his slanted morality. Therefore there is no reason to condemn church leaders.

      1. Mr. Sigman, you say “church leaders come to the issue from a religious point of view which has no validity when it comes to international law”. The thing is, so does Israel, which passes it’s laws and structures it’s society from an ethno-religious point of view. To use your words, it’s also from a slanted morality.

        To step back a moment, it is not hard for me to understand the sentiments of certain Jews whose forbearers for generations have lived with antisemitism whether de facto, or de jure – which has been shamefully frequent down the centuries. Reactive emotions like fear, isolation, anger and desire for retribution can become ingrained and passed down through generations. In that context yearning for a Jewish state is understandable.

        But international law and ethics are clear that human rights and dignity must apply equally for all in a modern democracy. Failures of the past have helped this notion evolve. Besides antisemitism – slavery, apartheid, and indigenous oppression are examples of egregious-state sanctioned behaviors that have peppered history around the world.

        There can be no officially favoured class or group in Israel or any other sustainable democracy. Oppressing those who used to be your oppressors foments anger at home and attracts increasing international opprobrium. (Not to mention the irony that the oppressors of Jews in recent centuries were chiefly Europeans and hardly at all Palestinians.)

        Anti-Palestiniansm is not a viable answer to antisemitism.

      2. Mr. Macintosh,

        Israel is a secular state governed under the principle of liberal democracy. the only laws dealing with religion are those under the purview of the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faith leaders, namely life cycle events. Therefore, your accusation, in dealing with international law, is baseless. leave that myth of yours for some other issue.

        The UNDHR has no enforcement power. Additionally, half are communal rights and not human rights. regardless, Israel is not guilty of systematic human rights abuse. Defense of its citizens is Israel’s right guaranteed by international law.

        Slavery, apartheid, and indigenous oppression are examples of egregious-state sanctioned behaviors, but Israel has no guilt associated with any of those practices. Your complaint lies with Islamist states and wannabe Islamist states, not Israel.

        Within the halls of Israel’s liberal democracy, the only one in the Middle East, there is no officially favoured class or group. Israel is not oppressing those who used to be its oppressors.

        Anti-Palestinianism may be a word used to describe Israel’s defense against the Palestinian Arabs who are attempting to destroy Israel, but it seems hardly useable. The Palestinian Arabs elected a government mainly comprised of a political terrorist group whose stated goal is genocide. The only worthwhile lesson learned from the Holocaust is that when a group of madmen state that their goal is genocide, believe them and act accordingly.

      3. Mr. Sigman,
        You wrote, “Israel is a secular state …..”. “Secular” is a very strange adjective to apply to a state that calls itself a “Jewish State”. Its laws distinguish on the basis of religious background. For example, its immigration and citizenship laws explicitly favour Jews. The state’s definition of “Jew” is more liberal than the strictest orthodox one but it is still based on religious background. One only has to spend 30 minutes in Ben Gurion airport to experience the emphasis on religious background. For example, I was given priority because I can recite some prayers in Hebrew.

        Israel does not force an individual to practice a religion but favouritism of Jews (whether religious or not) is everywhere.

      4. secular | ˈsekyələr |
        denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis:

        The basis of the Zionist claim to what was formerly called Palestine is that it is “the promised land”, i.e. the land promised by G-d to Abraham in the Bible.

        Part B of the first clause of the newish Jewish State Law is “The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.” Note the word “religious”.

        Note also clause 10 of that law “The Sabbath and the festivals of Israel are the established days of rest in the state” . This is based on the fourth of the Jewish 10 commandments,

        The symbols of the state of Israel (e.g. Mogen David) are the same symbols that have appeared on Synagogues and Jewish gravestones for time immemorial.

        Certain religious bodies play a major role in Israeli law.

        These are but a few of the ways that the Jewish religion has a special status in Israel.

        To its credit, the state of Israel does permit individuals to worship in their own way(or not to worship at all) but the basis of much of its law and practice is the Jewish religion. I note that even the Islamic State of Iran permits other religions but I would not call either Iran or Israel secular. Few would.

      5. I think a “lesson learned from the Holocaust” has to be what happens when a group of people is considered lesser than others, and ultimately treated as expendable. Black lives matter. Palestinian lives matter.

  2. Thanks for highlighting this. What “major debate in international law” is Mostyn referring to with regard to claim to the West Bank? Looks like BB is grasping at straws now.

    1. The major debate is between Israeli international law specialists and other international law specialists. An accurate reading of the law shows that Israel is occupying disputed territory, not “Palestinian” property. Lynk, who is noted to be prejudicial by the very office he holds, actually agrees that there is a debate when he states “This is one of the most well-accepted legal facts in the modern world.” That statement indicates that there are “legal facts” that are not accepted and that the very non-acceptance of Lynk’s “legal facts” indicates that Lynk’s fact is indeed opinion and not fact.

      The truth is that Lynk is deliberately confusing fact with opinion.

      1. No that is incorrect. The issue is that Israel refuses to accept the IV th Geneva Convention. The ICRC, high Contracting Parties, UNSC, UNGA, and ICC have all declared the settlements illegal. The issue is Israeli intransigence and refusal to accept accepted international legal norms. This is entirely consistent with the Zionist goal of eventually controlling ALL of historic Palestine. This is a matter easily seen in the historic record. Furthermore saying that the office that Michael Lynk holds automatically makes him prejudicial is simply disingenuous.

        For the life of me I cannot understand the Israeli motive for annexation since there is nothing to be gained and much to lose. Nothing will solidify resistance more than land and memory both of which the Palestinians have in abundance, and whose roots run deep.

      2. No , you are incorrect. Israel accepts the IVth Geneva Convention. There is only one high contracting party involved, and it is not the Palestinian Authority, which is not a high contracting party The ICRC, , UNSC, UNGA, and ICC have all declared THEIR OPINION that the settlements are illegal. The issue is Israeli intransigence and refusal to accept accepted their opinion. That is Israel’s right as a sovereign state.

        It is the Zionist goal to hold sovereignty over the entirety of the Palestinian region. “Historic Palestine” consists of at least ten miles of the east bank of the Jordan River. No reasonable Zionist has the goal of extending sovereignty over that area. This is a matter can easily be seen in the historic record. Furthermore, as Michael Lynk was appointed to the position precisely because of his bias, it is not disingenuous to point out that fact.

      3. Well, Mr. Sigman, Mr. Lynk has been appointed by the UN, and you haven’t. That doesn’t make him right of course. But the whole world, apart from a few ‘Israeli law specialists’ agree with him. You seem to be saying there is an ‘international debate’ but its only taking place inside Israel. Doesn’t that seem a bit odd to you?

      4. Mr. Larson, Mr. Lynk was appointed based on his bias. Two UN Gen. Sec’ies denounce the UN body precisely for its unmitigated bias. International law experts who happen to be Israeli are still international law experts. They are recognized scholars. Your parenthesis is just bias on your part. If you do not recognize the bias, you are not keeping your eyes open.

      5. The vast majority of scientists agree that human activities are primarily responsible for accelerating global climate change since the Industrial Revolution. I understand that there are also a few scientists (mainly sponsored by the fossil fuel industry) who disagree. So I guess it is just a difference of opinion, and we don’t need to do anything about climate change after all. What a relief!

  3. B’nai Brith Canada seem to be taking the Trump strategy: “Oh poor me – everyone is against me.” Add to that, lying about facts, “fake news” etc and you have their way of thinking. This has nothing to do with antisemitism, nor BDS for that matter. Annexation is wrong – both morally and under International Law. The state of Israel must realize this and act accordingly.

    1. Israel’s plan to extend sovereignty over land whose sovereignty is in dispute is neither immoral nor illegal. That IGOs and NGOs have a different opinion is just that, an opinion.

      1. I don’t understand how you can say that. The acquisition of land by force, whether in an offensive or defensive war, is illegal. Furthermore, populating territory acquired by force with other than the original inhabitants is also illegal.The Israeli argument that the territories are disputed and not occupied is based on the lack of “ownership” of the west bank, Gaza and east jerusalem. This is legalistic squirming inasmuch as this land ( and 50%more) was ceded to the Arab population by the UN partition plan. The fact that there was no “Palestinian state “is irrelevant. It is only Israel and the US that consider ” facts on the ground” to supercede international law and even then the US acknowledges the illegality of the settlements, but says it is essentially unimportant. The relevant international bodies that uphold the illegality of the settlements are voicing legal standards, not opinions that have no basis in fact.

        Furthermore the more egregious and illegal Israel’s behaviour becomes, the more it will suffer in the international sphere. Political leaders of western ” democracies” may cower and shrink from their own responsibility under international law vis a vis Palestinian rights, but their populace has different notions. No amount of hand wringing by Israel will prevent mass international protests against annexation and a two state solution, embargoes against Israeli goods, and shunning it as a pariah state as happened to South Africa. Popular pressure will force governments to deals with these issues domestically just as the US has now to deal with the pent up anger of racism and bad policing present in American society for decades. Denial and strong arm tactics from the Israeli leadership, whether Netanyahu or someone else will ultimately fail.

        This plan and its underlying racism are a recipe for a fractured country. Civil unrest within Israel as well as the OPT, possibly a 3rd intifada, and increasing regional tensions are all in the cards. It is mystifying why Netanyahu is pushing for this other than a a megalomaniacal plan to stay in power. But the tide will turn eventually, and the Zionist dream relegated to history as just another failed colonialist experiment. It doesn’t have to be this way of course but unless Israel stops it’s expansionist Zionism it will eventually be stopped by outside forces.

    1. Just as predictable that a police shooting of a black person will have protesters complaining of racism. It is predictable because it is so often true.

  4. Bnai Brith has long been hypocritical, prejudiced and biased. Now it sounds paranoid.

  5. It is very disappointing that BB is unable to achieve a balanced perspective, one that they constantly demand when it comes to Israel. Their view may hold sway with a segment of committed opinion, but certainly does nothing to bring me and many others outside their ken, closer to supporting what Intenational law prohibits, i.e., annexation of occupied territory.

    1. If you hold that what Netanyahu is illegal, how would you expect him to state a view that would bring you to support what international law supposedly prohibits? Regardless, while the territory is de facto occupied, de jure it is not.

      1. Mr. Sigman, I find your comment a little confusing. But I entirely agree with your last line ‘the territory is de facto occupied, while de jure (i,.e. legally) it is not.

      2. Absolutely legally incorrect. And anything Netanyahu says should be regarded as deeply suspect on any level

      3. Unfortunately for your point of view, Israel’s plan to extend sovereignty is quite legal. If there is an absolute to be noticed, that would apply to international opinion. But there is no reason the Israelis should care about international opinion given its track record.

        What is wrong is the plan not to give citizenship to all who fall within that sovereignty.

      4. Mr. Sigman,

        Please identify the law that makes such an act “legal”.

      5. Mr. Parnas, There is no law that makes it illegal. There is no requirement for a law to make something legal such as eating, sleeping, building homes on land that is in dispute when there is no other sovereign power with legal claim.

      6. Are you actually implying that inequality is acceptable?? By what criteria? That reeks of apartheid

      7. It is confusing in that a few words are missing. I question Mr. Durber’s prose. Exactly what did he think would sway him from accepting what he already mistakenly states is prohibited by international law?

  6. As far as I am aware, Canada is still in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 which inter alia calls on all states “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” Nevertheless, Canada is currently running in the UN General Assembly to be elected (vote imminent) to a two-year term as a member of the Security Council for the “Western European and Others” group. Shouldn’t a country that wants to be on the Security Council at least show some respect for Security Council resolutions?
    Say no to Canada on the Security Council:
    Support Ireland or Norway instead!

  7. Mr. Larsen states – “Bnai Brith did not quite use that language in attacking the diplomats. But accusing them of ‘hypocrisy’, “double standards”, “bias”, and “prejudice” against Israel is tantamount to the same thing.”

    Talk about a kettle searching for a pot!

    There are antisemites who claim that Israel attempts to shutdown the conversation by claiming all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Mr. Larsen attempts to shutdown the conversation by stating that criticism of anti-Zionist stands is always an accusation of antisemitism. How hypocritical.

    1. Hey Mr. Sigman, I believe in equality and democracy. I cannot agree with ANY state that gives some of its citizens more rights than others. On this basis, I am equally opposed to a Christian state, a Muslim State or a Jewish State. That means I am opposed to Zionism. If you, or others want to call that ‘anti-Semitism’, I am not going to cringe. Go ahead.!! Try to see how many will agree with you.

    2. I’m confused. Antisemites claim criticism of Israel is anti Semitic?? I don’t understand your point

      1. To defray your confusion; Antisemites often claim that supporters of Israel state that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. That is a canard and an attempt to allow criticism of Israel that is antisemitic.

      2. Hey Jack, liberal Zionists do criticize Israel. In fact, in light of the annexation project, many are doing so very loudly.

        But what no Zionist (whether right wing or left wing) will accept is any critique of the foundational notion of a “Jewish State”. They usually characterize that as “anti-Semitic”. But that is rubbish. No person attached to democracy can accept the notion of a state which gives legal preference to any group of people – whether based on race, religion or whatever.

  8. Same old tactic being used by BB: if you criticize Israël over its policies you are labelled anti-Semitic. Which is akin to saying that all Jews (there are many) who criticize those same policies are anti-Semitic. Traitors to their own ‘race’? Non-sense.

  9. Mr. Sigman
    To say Israel is not oppressing Palestinians is simply not accurate. Take these recent incidents for example:

    On 30 May, Israeli border policemen opened fire at, and killed, a 31-year-old autistic Palestinian man, who ran away after being ordered to stop in the Old City of Jerusalem. The Israeli authorities opened an investigation. Since the beginning of the year, 15 Palestinians and one Israeli soldier have been killed in various incidents across the West Bank.

    Two Palestinian were killed, and another two Palestinians, as well as one soldier, were injured in four separate Palestinian attacks against Israeli forces. Two of the fatalities, on 14 and 29 May, were the perpetrators of ramming attacks against Israeli soldiers on duty at checkpoints near Beit ‘Awwa (Hebron) and An Nabi Saleh (Ramallah) villages. One Israeli soldier was injured in the former incident. Another two Palestinians were shot and injured in two separate incidents in East Jerusalem, after they attempted to stab Israeli forces near a military tower in Jabal al Mukkabir neighbourhood and at the Qalandiya checkpoint; no Israeli injuries were reported.

    A Palestinian boy and an Israeli soldier were killed during two separate search-and-arrest operations, and another 18 Palestinians were injured. On 12 May, an Israeli soldier was killed during a search-and-arrest operation in Ya’bad village (Jenin), after Palestinians threw a stone from a roof, which hit him in the face. Another 14 Palestinians were injured during clashes that erupted in the same village in several follow-up operations. In clashes that erupted on 13 May, during a search-and-arrest operation in Al Fawwar refugee camp (Hebron), Israeli forces shot and killed a 15-year-old Palestinian boy and injured four Palestinians.

    Additional 45 Palestinians were injured in multiple incidents and clashes with Israeli forces across the West Bank. Twenty-three (23) were injured in a demonstration in As Sawiya village (Nablus), against the expropriation of land for the expansion of the nearby Rechalim settlement. Five Palestinians were injured in Turmus’ayya village, in clashes that erupted after an Israeli settler forced farmers working their land nearby to leave the area. Three Palestinians were injured by live ammunition in Abu Dis town (Jerusalem) and three others by physical assault in Huwwara (Nablus), in clashes with Israeli forces.

    Overall, Israeli forces carried out 145 search-and-arrest operations across the West Bank over the three-week reporting period and arrested around 199 Palestinians. Of these operations, 44 were recorded in East Jerusalem neighbourhoods, 28 in Hebron, 19 in the Ramallah governorate and 15 in Jenin, mainly in Ya’bad village.

    In the Gaza Strip, on at least 59 occasions, Israeli forces opened fire in the areas adjacent to Israel’s perimeter fence, and off the sea coast, while enforcing access restrictions. As a result, two fishermen were injured in two separate incidents and a boat and fishing equipment sustained damage. There has been a noticeable increase in the number of shooting incidents at the sea since April. On four occasions, Israeli forces entered Gaza and carried out land-levelling and excavation operations near the perimeter fence, east of Gaza, Beit Hanoun and Al Bureij camp.

    In Gaza, a 14-year-old boy died while mishandling an explosive remnant of war (ERW) he found near his house in Beit Lahiya.

    On 12 May, the Rafah Crossing with Egypt reopened in one direction for three consecutive days, to allow the return of 1,168 Palestinians into Gaza. The Crossing has been largely closed in both directions since 15 March to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

    Initial reports indicate that the Palestinian Authority’s suspension of all coordination with the Israeli authorities has significantly impacted the exit of Palestinians from Gaza. Holders of exit permits have faced difficulties leaving Gaza through Erez Crossing, while no new applications are being received by the Palestinian Authority. This measure has been adopted in response to the Israeli Government’s announcement of its intention to annex parts of the West Bank.

    Fifty-nine (59) Palestinian-owned structures were demolished, or seized, by the Israeli authorities in Area C and East Jerusalem, due to the lack of building permits, displacing 37 people and affecting over 260. In Area C, 45 structures were demolished in 16 communities, seven enacting Military Order 1797, which provides for the expedited removal of unlicensed structures deemed as “new”. Half of the 14 structures demolished in East Jerusalem were in Al Walaja village, located on the “Jerusalem side” of the Barrier. These were the first demolitions by the Israeli authorities recorded within the Jerusalem municipal area since 4 March. The remaining seven structures in East Jerusalem were demolished by their owners. During the month of Ramadan, which ended on 23 May, the Israeli authorities demolished or seized 42 structures, compared to 13 in the 2019 Ramadan, one in 2018 and zero in 2017.

    On 25 May, the Israeli High Court of Justice accepted a petition not to punitively demolish an apartment in Beit Kahil village in Hebron. The house, where a woman and three children live, belongs to the family of a Palestinian man accused of killing an Israeli near the Gush Etzion settlement bloc in August 2019. The court’s decision is the first of its kind since 2016.

    Thirteen (13) Palestinians were injured, and around 480 olive trees vandalized, by assailants believed to be Israeli settlers. Five of the injuries were children physically assaulted by settlers in the Israeli-controlled area of Hebron city (H2); six were injured, when settlers raided the villages of Huwwara and Yatma (Nablus); and two when attacked by settlers near a spring close to Deir Nidham village (Ramallah). Settlers raided Al Jab’a (Bethlehem) and Beitin (Ramallah) villages, and the Tel Rumeida neighbourhood in Hebron city, damaging houses, walls and cars. In two incidents, residents reported that settlers cut down over 50 olive trees belonging to Yatma and Nahhalin villages, respectively, while another 280 were vandalized near Shufa village (Tulkarm). Near Haris village (Salfit), settlers uprooted 150 olive trees. In three separate incidents in south Hebron, assailants believed to be settlers set fire to, or grazed their sheep on, Palestinian-owned land, causing damage to dozens of dunums planted with seasonal crops.

    Several incidents of stone, Molotov and paint bottle-throwing by Palestinians at Israeli-plated vehicles travelling on West Bank roads were reported. As a result, a five-year old child was lightly injured, and 18 vehicles sustained damage, according to an Israeli NGO.

    These are painful examples of oppressive state-sanctioned behavior focused on Palestinians. They are recent updates from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Jerusalem. This behaviour makes it difficult for informed people in liberal democracies of the world to see the government of Israel as anything but guilty of serious, ongoing human rights abuse.

    1. Is this from the UNHCR. Very well documented. Thank you and congratulations. BZ

      1. John: I’m not sure how the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Jerusalem relates to the UNHCR. The updates I referred to were recently drawn to my attention via the Ottawa Forum on Israel Palestine (website: http://www.ottawaforumip.org).

      2. Doug, How do the related Arab crimes committed against Jews, as you posted (Several incidents of stone, Molotov and paint bottle-throwing by Palestinians at Israeli-plated vehicles travelling on West Bank roads were reported. As a result, a five-year old child was lightly injured, and 18 vehicles sustained damage, according to an Israeli NGO.) is indicative of oppressive state-sanctioned behavior? Are you stating that the Palestinian Authority sanctions these crimes?

      3. Mr. Sigman:
        Including the whole report lets the gross imbalance speak for itself. Primitive retaliation (mostly by children) by throwing things and damaging cars is not at all proportionate to the acts of Israeli forces, demolishing homes and livelihoods (olive trees), forcing farmers off their lands, firing live ammunition on unarmed children and adults, and conducting forced search and arrest operations.

      4. Mr. Macintosh,

        There is a legal military occupation of land in which the residents are an enemy people. While the UN may designate anyone under 18 to be a “child,” the crimes they commit would cause any liberal democracy to charge them as adults. Your litany of the actions taken against a people who have elected a genocidal terrorist organization to lead them, if taken in context, would ease your mind.

      5. Mr. Sigman

        Again, I must ask you under which law this military occupation is legal?

        Your words about ignoring the many laws protecting children, libel some liberal democracies. Most respect those laws. Your country and Israel are exceptions.

        You also seem to believe in “collective guilt”, regarding all individuals in a group guilty for the actions of a few in that group. Most Palestinians do not want genocide ir terrorism; they want equality and freedom.

      6. Mr. Sigman,
        I see your point, but I think it might be a bit extreme for you to refer to the Government of Israel as a “genocidal terrorist organization”. Is this hyperbole really justified, or is it just a convenient pretext for continued occupation and expanding colonization?

Comments are closed.