Allison Hanes reports in the National Post that Canadian universities condemn any Israeli ban. Allison’s choice of words demonstrates how deeply rooted the Palestinian narrative has become in the media and academia. First she misrepresents what the British union of university teachers has actually done.
During the normally quiet months of summer on campus, Canadian university presidents have been near unanimous in their denunciations of a call by Britain’s largest professors’ union to consider a boycott of Israel’s institutions of higher learning.
The British resolution, endorsed at the end of May by 150 of the University and College Union’s more than 120,000 members, suggests that locals consider a freeze on ties with Israeli universities including teacher and student exchanges, attendance at conferences and publication of research papers.
Based on the premise that Israeli universities are complicit in denying Palestinians the right to an education, the union’s proposal — at this point only to discuss such a possibility — has since drawn widespread international condemnation for violating the sacred tenets of academic freedom.
Note the softening of the union’s action through the insertion of the word ‘consider’. They voted to consider a boycott not to actually boycott. Also note that the condemnation is for violating academic freedoms, not for supporting Jew killers.
The National Post is frequently accused by Islamists of being too pro Israel (i.e. Jewish). Yet they run an article containing this:
The British union’s proposal follows a series of like-minded initiatives emerging from within the Canadian labor movement specifically taking issue with Israel over its mistreatment of Palestinians.
Shouldn’t the word ‘alleged’ precede the word ‘mistreatment’?
