You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Palestine’ tag.
In the world of advocacy and human rights, consistency is more than just a virtue—it’s what gives our principles real meaning. Recently, a comment on social media highlighted a familiar pattern: certain voices who are vocal about one cause may fall silent when similar struggles appear in a different context. It’s a reminder that if we want justice to truly be just, it must be blind to who is involved—applying the same standards to all people, regardless of race, creed, or background.
This isn’t about slamming any particular group; it’s about encouraging all of us to reflect on the importance of consistency. When we advocate for human rights, it’s crucial that we do so across the board. If a group of protesters in one country deserves our solidarity, then those in another country risking their lives for similar ideals deserve it too.
In short, “justice” in quotes should indeed be blind. Not in the sense of ignoring the nuances of each situation, but in the sense of applying our moral standards fairly and universally. By doing so, we strengthen the credibility of our advocacy and remind the world that human rights aren’t selective—they’re for everyone.
Find that tweet inspiration for this post here.
When Calgary City Hall raised the Palestinian flag on November 15, it wasn’t merely a ceremonial gesture. It instantly became a national controversy—one that shows why municipalities need a clearer, more restrained approach to foreign-flag displays.
The event, organized by the Palestinian Community Association to mark the 1988 Declaration of Independence, drew several hundred attendees who described the atmosphere as one of “pride and hope.” But the reaction was immediate and intense. The Calgary Jewish Federation called the raising “disappointing and alarming,” warning that it deepened “unprecedented levels of fear and antisemitism” among local Jews at a moment already charged with global tension. Mayor Jeromy Farkas quickly proposed changes to the city’s flag policy to prevent similar events, arguing they “unintentionally heighten tensions here at home.”
This dynamic—the celebratory intent and the equally real sense of threat—is exactly why public institutions need neutrality, not symbolism that comes preloaded with geopolitical baggage.
Public Institutions Aren’t Arenas for International Disputes
Canadian civic buildings exist to represent a shared political community. They are meant to be the places where everyone should be able to walk in and feel the institution belongs to them. When City Hall becomes a platform for international symbols representing deeply contested conflicts, that neutrality disappears.
People don’t see a gesture of cultural recognition; they see their city taking a side. And the effects go beyond feelings—these symbolic acts consistently spill into local tensions, protests, counter-protests, and strained inter-community relations. Calgary is not alone: Regina shelved a similar proposal last year, Toronto now faces more than 20,000 signatures against its own planned raising, and B’nai Brith Canada has condemned the practice nationwide.
The details of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict aren’t the point here. The point is that a municipal flagpole is too narrow and too prominent a place to plant the symbols of any conflict that divides Canadians at home.
The Palestinian Flag Carries Political Luggage That Can’t Be Wished Away
Supporters of the flag raising framed it as recognition of Palestinian peoplehood. Critics saw something entirely different: a symbol long tied to the Palestine Liberation Organization, whose founding charter called for the destruction of Israel as a Zionist entity. While amendments were pledged during the Oslo years, credible observers—including the Anti-Defamation League—argue that its core rejectionist elements were never formally removed.
That history is not merely historical; Hamas, which governs Gaza and uses the same colours and iconography, still explicitly calls for Israel’s eradication. You don’t need to subscribe to either side’s narrative to understand why many Canadians saw the raising as more than a cultural celebration.
Even if activists insist the flag “means something different” in a Canadian context, public institutions don’t operate on activist reinterpretations. They operate on widely understood meanings—and those meanings are contested, volatile, and inseparable from global politics.
Neutrality Isn’t Cowardice. It’s Civic Responsibility.
Some will argue that refusing foreign-flag raisings amounts to silencing communities. But this misunderstands what’s being protected.
People are free to wave any flag they like on private property, at rallies, or in public demonstrations. That freedom is intact.
What’s restricted is the official endorsement that comes from hoisting a flag on municipal grounds—a distinction our institutions must preserve if they’re to serve a pluralistic society.
Canada already recognizes this principle in its federal protocols: foreign flags may be flown with the Maple Leaf, but only in specific diplomatic or ceremonial contexts and only with the national flag taking precedence. These guidelines are narrow for a reason—they prevent exactly the sort of domestic polarization Calgary just lived through.
When municipalities improvise their own ad-hoc symbolism, they abandon that safeguard.
A Simple, Clear Standard
Calgary—and every municipality—would benefit from a straightforward rule:
On public buildings and grounds, fly only Canadian, provincial, and municipal flags.
That is not censorship. It is neutrality.
It is the institutional equivalent of staying out of a heated argument so you can continue serving everyone fairly.
This approach:
- avoids endless debates about which diaspora group gets access;
- eliminates the perception of favouritism;
- prevents local flare-ups rooted in global conflicts;
- reinforces shared civic identity.
Multiculturalism works only when no group feels the state is endorsing another’s cause at their expense. Sometimes the most inclusive action is restraint.
Calgary now has a chance to lead. Mayor Farkas’s proposed changes should be adopted quickly, and Ottawa should consider harmonizing national guidelines to end these high-risk symbolic battles across the country.
Canada has enough challenges at home. We don’t need to import more.
Quick Sources / References
- Calgary Jewish Federation statements on the flag raising (2025).
- City of Calgary Flag Protocol (2016).
- Government of Canada – Rules for Flying the National Flag (Federal Heritage).
- Anti-Defamation League assessments of PLO charter revisions.
- B’nai Brith Canada public statements on municipal flag raisings (2024–25).
- City of Toronto petition data (2025).
Being university educated used to mean something, no so much anymore.
The latest uproar from the Trumpian led Republican Administration down South:
” -Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on Wednesday and announced plans to relocate the US Embassy there, a move expected to inflame tensions in the region and unsettle the prospects for peace.
“Today, we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do,” Trump said from the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room.”
It is surprising to find nuggets of truth in what comes out of the current American Republican presidency. US policy has always been one of obstructionism toward any sort of reasonable peace between Palestine and Israel. Having this truth out in the open must be somewhat uncomfortable for many Americans and other supporters of the official historical narrative. Noam Chomsky has been reporting on the false “peace process” for decades:
“Many of the world’s problems are so intractable that it’s hard to think of ways even to take steps towards mitigating them. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not one of these. On the contrary, the general outlines of a diplomatic solution have been clear for at least 40 years. Not the end of the road—nothing ever is—but a significant step forward. And the obstacles to a resolution are also quite clear.
The basic outlines were presented here in a resolution brought to the U.N. Security Council in January 1976. It called for a two-state settlement on the internationally recognized border—and now I’m quoting—”with guarantees for the rights of both states to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized borders.” The resolution was brought by the three major Arab states: Egypt, Jordan, Syria—sometimes called the “confrontation states.” Israel refused to attend the session. The resolution was vetoed by the United States. A U.S. veto typically is a double veto: The veto, the resolution is not implemented, and the event is vetoed from history, so you have to look hard to find the record, but it is there. That has set the pattern that has continued since. The most recent U.S. veto was in February 2011—that’s President Obama—when his administration vetoed a resolution calling for implementation of official U.S. policy opposition to expansion of settlements. And it’s worth bearing in mind that expansion of settlements is not really the issue; it’s the settlements, unquestionably illegal, along with the infrastructure projects supporting them.
For a long time, there has been an overwhelming international consensus in support of a settlement along these general lines. The pattern that was set in January 1976 continues to the present. Israel rejects a settlement of these terms and for many years has been devoting extensive resources to ensuring that it will not be implemented, with the unremitting and decisive support of the United States—military, economic, diplomatic and indeed ideological—by establishing how the conflict is viewed and interpreted in the United States and within its broad sphere of influence.”
So really, this latest ham-handed announcement should not be a surprise when viewed in context of the historical precedents on record. So, what we are seeing is really the fruition of guided US policy in Israel regarding the one-state solution that moving the embassy to Jerusalem implies.
“Except in stages, the one-state option is an illusion. It has no international support, and there is no reason why Israel and its US sponsor would accept it, since they have a far preferable option, the one they are now implementing; with impunity, thanks to US power.
The US and Israel call for negotiations without preconditions. Commentary there and elsewhere in the West typically claims that the Palestinians are imposing such preconditions, hampering the “peace process.” In reality, the US-Israel insist upon crucial preconditions. The first is that negotiations must be mediated by the United States, which is not a neutral party but rather a participant in the conflict. It is as if one were to propose that Sunni-Shiite conflicts in Iraq be mediated by Iran. Authentic negotiations would be in the hands of some neutral state with a degree of international respect. The second precondition is that illegal settlement expansion must be allowed to continue, as it has done without a break during the 20 years of the Oslo Accord; predictably, given the terms of the Accord.
In the early years of the occupation the US joined the world in regarding the settlements as illegal, as confirmed by the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice. Since Reagan, their status has been downgraded to “a barrier to peace.” Obama weakened the designation further, to “not helpful to peace,” with gentle admonitions that are easily dismissed. Obama’s extreme rejectionism did arouse some attention in February 2011, when he vetoed a Security Council resolution supporting official US policy, ending of settlement expansion.
As long as these preconditions remain in force, diplomacy is likely to remain at a standstill. With brief and rare exceptions, that has been true since January 1976, when the US vetoed a Security Council resolution, brought by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, calling for a two-state settlement on the internationally recognized border, the Green Line, with guarantees for the security of all states within secure and recognized borders. That is essentially the international consensus that is by now universal, with the two usual exceptions – not just on Middle East issues, incidentally. The consensus has been modified to include “minor and mutual adjustments” on the Green Line, to borrow official US wording before it had broken with the rest of the world.”
The reason for this post is that I had to get some context out there as I’m hearing, even on my beloved CBC, about America’s “concern” over the what will become of the “peace process”. It is such a crock of shit. There has not been and nor will there be any sort of “peace process” with US acting as an “honest broker” in the proceedings.
Ah, the joy of the free press down in the US. Let’s catch up with Noam as takes us through some possible solutions to the Palestine/Israel conflict.
Gaza and the Threat of World War
“There is a taboo,” said the visionary Edward Said, “on telling the truth about Palestine and the great destructive force behind Israel. Only when this truth is out can any of us be free.”
For many people, the truth is out now. At last, they know. Those once intimidated into silence can’t look away now. Staring at them from their TV, laptop, phone, is proof of the barbarism of the Israeli state and the great destructive force of its mentor and provider, the United States, the cowardice of European governments, and the collusion of others, such as Canada and Australia, in this epic crime.
The attack on Gaza was an attack on all of us. The siege of Gaza is a siege of all of us. The denial of justice to Palestinians is a symptom of much of humanity under siege and a warning that the threat of a new world war is growing by the day.
When Nelson Mandela called the struggle of Palestine “the greatest moral issue of our time”, he spoke on behalf of true civilisation, not that which empires invent. In Latin America, the governments of Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, El Salvador, Peru and Ecuador have made their stand on Gaza. Each of these countries has known its own dark silence when immunity for mass murder was sponsored by the same godfather in Washington that answered the cries of children in Gaza with more ammunition to kill them.
[…]
Understanding the sophistry and power of liberal propaganda is key to understanding why Israel’s outrages endure; why the world looks on; why sanctions are never applied to Israel; and why nothing less than a total boycott of everything Israeli is now a measure of basic human decency.
The most incessant propaganda says Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel. Khaled Hroub, the Cambridge University scholar considered a world leading authority on Hamas, says this phrase is “never used or adopted by Hamas, even in its most radical statements”. The oft-quoted “anti-Jewish” 1988 Charter was the work of “one individual and made public without appropriate Hamas consensus …. The author was one of the ‘old guard’ “; the document is regarded as an embarrassment and never cited.
Hamas has repeatedly offered a 10-year truce with Israel and has long settled for a two-state solution. When Medea Benjamin, the fearless Jewish American activist, was in Gaza, she carried a letter from Hamas leaders to President Obama that made clear the government of Gaza wanted peace with Israel. It was ignored. I personally know of many such letters carried in good faith, ignored or dismissed.
The unforgivable crime of Hamas is a distinction almost never reported: it is the only Arab government to have been freely and democratically elected by its people. Worse, it has now formed a government of unity with the Palestinian Authority. A single, resolute Palestinian voice – in the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court – is the most feared threat.
[…]
Resistance is humanity at its bravest and most noble. The resistance in Gaza is rightly compared with the 1943 Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto – which also dug tunnels and deployed tactics of subterfuge and surprise against an overpowering military machine. The last surviving leader of the Warsaw uprising, Marek Edelman, wrote a letter of solidarity to the Palestinian resistance, comparing it with the ZOB, his ghetto fighters. The letter began: “Commanders of the Palestine military, paramilitary and partisan operations – and to all soldiers [of Palestine].”
Dr. Mads Gilbert is a Norwegian doctor renowned for his heroic work in Gaza. On 8 August, Dr. Gilbert returned to his hometown, Tronso in Norway which, as he pointed out, the Nazis had occupied for seven years. He said, “Imagine being back in 1945 and we in Norway did not win the liberation struggle, did not throw out the occupier. Imagine the occupier remaining in our country, taking it piece by piece, for decades upon decades, and banishing us to the leanest areas, and taking the fish in the sea and the water beneath us, then bombing our hospitals, our ambulance workers, our schools, our homes.
“Would we have given up and waved the white flag? No, we would not! And this is the situation in Gaza. This is not a battle between terrorism and democracy. Hamas is not the enemy Israel is fighting. Israel is waging a war against the Palestinian people’s will to resist. It is the Palestinian people’s dignity that they will not accept this.
“In 1938, the Nazis called the Jews Untermenschen – subhuman. Today, Palestinians are treated as a subhuman people who can be slaughtered without any in power reacting.
“So I have returned to Norway, a free country, and this country is free because we had a resistance movement, because occupied nations have the right to resist, even with weapons – it’s stated in international law. And the Palestinian people’s resistance in Gaza is admirable: a struggle for us all.”
[…]
The jargon is “controlling the narrative”. In his seminal Culture and Imperialism, Edward Said was more explicit: the western media machine was now capable of penetrating deep into the consciousness of much of humanity with a “wiring” as influential as that of the imperial navies of the 19th century. Gunboat journalism, in other words. Or war by media.
Yet, a critical public intelligence and resistance to propaganda does exist; and a second superpower is emerging – the power of public opinion, fuelled by the internet and social media.
The false reality created by false news delivered by media gatekeepers may prevent some of us knowing that this new superpower is stirring in country after country: from the Americas to Europe, Asia to Africa. It is a moral insurrection, exemplified by the whistleblowers Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange. The question begs: will we break our silence while there is time?
[Source:John Pilger’s Web Site]
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…