Straight out of Der Sturmer and the antisemtiic Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Tony Burman, current Ryerson University journalism professor and former head of CBC and Al-Jazeera news, outrageously claimed that Benjamin Netanyahu is Prime Minister of Israel by day and "Canada's new foreign minister" at night as "the Harper government's outsourcing of Canada's Middle East policy to Jerusalem is now complete."
Throwing objective journalism out the window, Burman peddled this odious conspiracy theory that you'd expect to see in the annals of Holocaust denial websites, on the commentary pages of the Toronto Star on September 7.
Without even a modicum of evidence to support his allegation that Israel controls Canadian foreign policy, Burman used only conjecture and specious argumentation to smear Israel, instead of grounding his opinions in facts.
Is it any less far-fetched to suggest that Canada was thinking for itself? Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird proclaimed that Canada's decision to cut diplomatic ties with Iran, brand it a state-sponsor of terror, and to close its embassy in Tehran was a "made-in-Ottawa decision" saying that Canada acted alone in this regard.
Baird listed many reasons to explain what prompted Canada's move against Iran: the safety of Canadian diplomats, Iran's military assistance to Syria, its hateful antisemitic rhetoric, support for terror, deplorable human rights record, and its destructive pursuit of nuclear weapons. Importantly, Burman parroted the Iranian regime's party-line as Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast declared "The hostile behaviour of the current racist government in Canada in reality follows the policies dictated by the Zionists (Israel) and the British."
In an interview with Burman's former employer, the CBC on September 9, Netanyahu said: "I wasn't in consultation with Prime Minister Harper before he chose to do this courageous act in the diplomatic field..." Netanyahu's official statement described Canada as having made its own determinations, while his spokesperson described Canada's actions as being "their own, independent decision."
This isn't the first time that Burman's Toronto Star commentaries have come under the brunt of fierce criticism. In March, National Post columnist Robert Fulford wrote an eviscerating response to a column Burman authored which drew a moral equivalence between Iran's mullah's and the Tea Party. Fulford also observed that another Burman column had begun with an ironclad prophecy that "There will be a war in the Middle East within the next several months, triggered by an Israeli attack on Iran..." but as Fulford adroitly observed, "Before he (Burman) reached the end of the paragraph he confusingly reversed himself and began telling us that the time to prevent war is running out. So the war was, even for him, just a good opening line."
Burman's commentaries are just the tip of the iceberg evincing the kind of hostile anti-Israel commentaries that the Toronto Star elects to present to its readership. In the past few weeks alone, the Star published a commentary justifying terrorism against the Israeli Olympians murdered at the 1972 Munich games, an op-ed offering praise for a convicted Palestinian terrorist, and a letter calling for Jerusalem's destruction. The Star was also prompted by our organization to retract an anti-Israel organization's false claim that Israel has "Jewish-only" roads and settlements. The Star had published this bold lie which was intended to libel Israel as racist state.
The Toronto Star's historical contempt for Israel is well known, but there's an important line separating legitimate opinion that enhances the public discourse, from hateful rhetoric that interferes with constructive dialogue. While Burman has the right to offend, he crossed the line by saying that Canada's foreign policy is outsourced to Israel and that our Department of Foreign Affairs takes its marching orders from Jerusalem. In so doing, Tony Burman has single-handily tarnished the reputation of Ryerson University's School of Journalism abetted by the opinion pages of the Star.
Follow Mike Fegelman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HonestRepCanada
done purposely to get attention?
doesn't the Editor also bear responsibility for this?
After seeing this, should we subscribe to the Star now? Perhaps some community service at the home of one of Toronto's Rabbis would help so that the reporter could see for himself ....?
previously formed unjustified accusations. The terrible facts are that western people have just
been killed in U.S. embassies. Fortunate for us that Harper had the foresight to withdraw Canadians.
The next life he saves maybe yours! He saw the threat for what it is and acted bravely.
Burman's work reflects what must be on the minds of a great many Canadians - why on earth did our government make the counter-productive gesture of shutting down diplomatic relations with Iran? How does that benefit Canada and the 250,000 Iranians living here? What made Iran so special when there are so many other countries with terrible records? I somehow doubt that we will see a large spate of expulsions of those foreign diplomats from Canada; the reasons given by Minister John Baird for the move are insufficient.
There is no vocal international support for a strike on Iran and most Israelis also oppose a strike. Has Netanayu told Harper that he will strike Iran anyway and our embassy is being closed as a precaution against retaliation? It is hard to deduce any logical reason for Canada's move that does not involve support for Netanyu and it is pathetic of Fegelman to resort to comparing this logic to the Nazi persecution of Jews 70 years ago or the totally discredited Zion Protocols.
No Bibi, would not waste his time talking to Canadian politicians , he would have some underling do it for him thus giving himself plausible deniability.
Canada’s run of good governance - Conrad Black
The Canadian government’s shuttering of the embassy in Iran was an act of outstanding leadership, the more so because of its contrast with the hapless ambiguities of the current U.S. administration’s “engagement” with Iran, which chiefly translated itself as turning a blind eye to a brutally stolen election and the desertion of the Iranian forces of democracy; a demeaning and deceptive minuet over Iranian nuclear weapons designed to anaesthetize Israel during the U.S. election campaign while maintaining the notional possibility that the U.S. might actually do something; and the imposition of sanctions much less severe than the Congress unanimously called for.
Read it all:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/15/conrad-black-canadas-run-of-good-governance/
I'm certain, however, that most informed people will side with Canada's former ambassadors to Iran, e.g., James George, who served as Canada’s ambassador to Iran between 1972 and 1977:
"It’s stupid to close an embassy in these circumstances....We need to keep an ear open there – our own ear." And of course, Ken Taylor, Canada's ambassador to Iran in 1979/80 during the hostage crisis: Although couched in diplomatic jargon, he said he was "surprised" at the move, that "[Canada's] presence on the ground" is necessary, that "the U.S. welcomed our presence there."
How nice.
As long as the US is pleased Canada may do whatever it wants.
That makes me feel all warm and nauseous.
Part of the problem is, over the passed few years, Canadians have seen a dramatic shift in the position of their government vis-a-vis Middle Eastern politics, and it's clearly not based on our national interests, but on ideology.
In 2010, Join Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen received a bombshell briefing from senior military officers. The team was dispatched by Commander General David Petraeus to brief the Pentagon on intelligence that Israeli intransigence in the peace process was jeopardizing American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and America was perceived as weak, ineffectual, and unable to stand up to Israel.
“‘Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us,’ ” Foreign Policy quoted an [American] intelligence officer as saying. ‘If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours. You know, they’re supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don’t think that’s true.’” (Ha'aretz, Jan. 12/12)
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-u-s-officials-say-cia-considers-israel-to-be-mideast-s-biggest-spy-threat-1.454189
Ha'aretz, July 28/12
"Former U.S. officials say CIA considers Israel to be Mideast's biggest spy threat"
EXCERPT:
"The CIA considers Israel its No. 1 counterintelligence threat in the agency's Near East Division, the group that oversees spying across the Middle East, according to current and former officials."
Picking through a comment section on an online publication you despise, dubbing them "commentators" of said paper to find the few voices speaking not for the paper but themselves, and then not only blaming the paper for having the gall to actually publish an example what you deem an extreme position, but then interpreting the comment in the most vile light possible to bend it to your needs of finding fault in anyone not in lockstep with your naked idolization of the State of Israel is truly pathetic.
I applaud The Star for bringing to light ALL voices and opinions on a given topic from average Canadians. As opposed to those boring sites (hint hint) that can only dredge up the same angry right wing predictable blather daily.