Zionism at Concordia

Dear Everyone,

This is very long, but it's really worth knowing.

I am writing to inform everybody of what has been happening to me with the Link, Concordia’s independent student paper.

After the protest of Netanyahu at Concordia on September 9 th, I was overwhelmed by the pro-Zionist material that appeared in the Link condemning the protest all together and deeming it as ‘anti-free speech’. Consequently, I wrote a piece for the Link, explaining why Netanyahu was protested; briefly citing his most prominent policies, and explaining what happened inside Concordia on the escalators that day.

My piece was ignored at first and when I followed up on it, I was asked to cut it into two for length. Both pieces were then ignored and after having gone into the office of the Link in person, I was asked to ‘edit’ for ‘liability’ concerns, where I could not put ‘Israel’ between inverted commas because the Zionist state does indeed exist and that a non-Arab audience would not understand why I would not acknowledge its existence. I took that as constructive criticism and removed the inverted commas. I was also asked not to use such terms as ‘war criminal’. I also took this as constructive criticism since name-calling would give the impression of a biased, angry writer. I removed such adverbs in conviction that my point would come across stronger if I allowed the reader to form a judgment without my having to spell it out for him.

Two months and a half have passed since the protest and neither of my articles saw print.

Below is a letter that I sent to Tina Christopoulos [the Link’s co-editor-in-chief] and Wendy Heitmann [opinions editor] upon the former’s request that I e-mail Wendy and CC a copy to Tina inquiring about my articles that she herself had passed on to Wendy a while ago:

I am writing concerning the two articles that I submitted October 13 th, after having reviewed them following a meeting with Tina Christopoulos.

First, I submitted one long article explaining why Netanyahu’s visit was protested and then clarifying what really happened on the escalators during the protest; in response to the distorted news given by the media as well as all the one-sided, monotonous ‘anti-freedom of speech, anti-democracy’, etc. dogma.

Some two weeks [September 27] after e-mailing my article and then inquiring about it, I received an e-mail from Wendy advising me to cut it into two pieces so as not to lose the audiences’ interest, as well as try to back up the information I stated. I did just that and asked Wendy for feedback but never heard anything from her so gave it two weeks and then went in to the office of the Link to see Wendy in person.

When she was called to see me, Wendy stared at me from a distance, and after having introduced myself, she said nothing at all and then screamed at some one to come into her office and then shut the door. The next thing I heard was a yell and the ‘f’ word! That was when Tina offered that she and I meet the following Wednesday and during the meeting, she explained several points that I had made in my article and helped give me a far better understanding of how op-eds [opinion editorials] ought to be.

I reviewed and resubmitted both articles to Tina on the following weekend [October 13] and asked her to confirm their reception; which she did. I wrote back a week later when neither pieces were printed, and only heard from Tina on Thursday, 31st , telling me that she had reviewed my articles and saw ‘improvement’ and that she had forwarded them to Wendy. She invited me in on Friday when both she and Wendy would be present, only I could not make it then and wrote back to Tina the following day and when I did not hear back from her, I went in to the Link and only got a hold of her on Wednesday November 6th . I demanded an explanation as to why none of my articles were published and stressed that it is certainly not due to ‘reserved’ space for older pieces, as many of the op-eds have been covering very recent and contemporary events.

My pieces are not merely opinion or view-points per se, but are rather based on actual events and facts. Below are the pieces that appeared under the ‘Zionism’ [that’s what the ‘ Middle East’ pieces are called] category in the opinions section of the Link, following the resubmission of both my articles.

The October 22 nd issue:

Fundamentalism shmundamentalism, Jews are right by Diane Hogan [self explanatory]

The boy who cried war criminal by Arye Weigensberg [Netanyahu is no war criminal, and look who’s calling him that; the Palestinians!]

Israelis are heros by Jason Portnoy [self explanatory]
From the soldier's view by Shaun Sacks [IDF person denying the massacre in Jenin and saying that they asked the people to leave so that their homes could be searched]

Self defence is not terrorism by Jason Portnoy [defence of the Israelis from the Palestinians]

Don't assume my politics by John David Ross [neutral]

Netanyahu speak? Like hell by John Dirlik [pro-protest]

Missing the point by Adam Spiro [war criminal or not, free speech is free speech!]

The October 29th issue:

Palestinians should be like Ghandi by Daniel Lewis Epstein [should be peaceful and not resist]

Looking beyond the scapegoat of Israel by Sharon Koifman [self-explanatory]

The November 5th issue:

Where is our humanity? by Ian Sternthal [had the Arabs accepted the rightful claim to the Jewish state from the beginning they would have been living in peace in Israel with the Jews]

[This is ONLY after the final re-submission of both my pieces, not since the protest]

Apart from a ‘neutral’ piece by John David Ross, and another anti-Netanyahu’s speaking-at-Concordia article, all the rest are pro-Israeli and/or anti-Palestinian, against the Intifada [which means uprising], pro-Netanyahu, pro-his speaking at Concordia, anti-protesting it, and showing the biased, and I should say distorted side of the protest.

Moreover, one of the pieces holds the view of a soldier in the IDF who denies the Israeli massacre in Jenin last April and states that the Palestinians [and falsely] the media have distorted the events… Spoken like an Israeli IDF soldier.

What if I send the Link photos of the massacre in Jenin as my response to that article published under the Link’s opinions section? Would Wendy publish the ‘other’ evidential ‘opinion’?

I not only have reason to believe that my articles and issue has, and is being discriminated against by the Link; but I am convinced that this is the case. It is obvious that Ms. Heitmann is clearly biased in what she chooses to publish, and that unfortunately, Ms. Christopoulos had not used her full authority in investigating or taking part in seeing justice to this matter.

I demand to personally attend and take my issue to the Link’s Board of Directors during their upcoming convention.

Sincerely,

Chadi Serhal,
Political Science.


Tina saw me on the street the following day and was scarily apologetic and asked me to come in to resolve the issue between her and Wendy and myself. She also told me that the Board of Directors had just convened and shall not be doing so again before January, so I redirected the above e-mail to the editorial board and board of directors at the Link requesting to meet with the Grievance Committee at the soonest time possible. I made the mistake of telling Tina that I would be leaving on the upcoming Friday.

Wendy promptly responded asking me to resubmit my pieces for printing. Tina then wrote back and asked me to come in to ‘edit’ my pieces [AGAIN] with Julia Cyboran [the other editor-in-chief]. I went in just to see what all that was about since my pieces were reviewed [from my part] and were exactly 700 words each so I do not risk their editing them as fits their pro-Zionist agenda.

Julia was very helpful and allowed me to add words to the articles, going against the word limit, in order to ‘perfect’ my pieces. I then spoke with her and Tina who told me that they were both okay with my pieces, which really means that it is Wendy with the problem. I was told that Wendy is not racist because she talks to [Palestinian activist] Samer [El-Atrash, who by the way attended my first 1hr 40 min meeting with Tina] and she published his articles. Some excuse! In any case, I insisted that I meet with the grievance committee.

I heard from the grievance committee headed by Steve Faguy [keep the secret… Wendy’s boyfriend] the next day. I was asked about my availabilities and chose afternoon and early evenings to ensure convenience for the committee members. I told you big mistake; I shouldn’t have told Tina when I was scheduled to depart. I was told that they shall not be free before Friday or the weekend. I arranged with a trusted person to represent me in the meeting but ended up postponing my trip and attended the meeting last Sunday, November 17.

The committee, I was told, would include representatives [editors] from each department in the Link as well as one of the two editors-in-chief, and someone from the Board of Directors. Conveniently enough, Julia and Tina who must have been caught having ‘friendly’ chit chats with me were missing. Wendy sat outside the room, I am sure confident that her boyfriend would head the meeting well.

There were seven people before me and my laptop. Steve Faguy asked me to start by telling my story, which lasted 45 minutes with the conclusion of the meeting. Really, what could he have said every time he breathed in to speak? The next thing I allowed him to say was ‘thank you for coming in to see us today.’ I was told that they needed to look at my articles to know what my claim is… I had my articles on my lap. I told them about the biased pieces printed. They said that they needed to see them. I had all the database of the ‘Zionism’ section on my lap.

The most important thing was to file a grievance against Wendy, the opinions editor. I resorted to a piece she printed in the September 17 th issue of the Link.

Here are some of the highlights of our discussion; what she wrote and what I argued:

René [Biberstein last year’s editor-in-chief of the Link] tolerated many hours of my whining "but why can't we just ban it? [‘ Middle East’-related issues] We're the editors; we can do whatever we want, right?" To my chagrin, no. We have this annoying constitution thing that's thrown in my face whenever I try to do something sensible. [Here is the editor of the opinions section calling for a ban on free-speech. But when the ‘annoying constitution is thrown in her face, she finds a moratorium or a ban on the ‘other opinion’ the best solution… Below is why I say the ‘other’ opinion].

I've had enough of hearing about how it's Hillel's fault this mess happened. I imagine it's also a woman's fault for walking down a dingy street should she be raped. After all there's a brightly lit one nearby. [Whatever this means]. This is ridiculous. Concordia is a university and speakers come here. If one doesn't like what Netanyahu (or Finkelstein for that matter) has to say, they've the option of not going to see him. [Another one in the room agreed and my response, a little loudly, was that Finkelstein who is a Jewish person adamant about the sufferings of the Jewish people and a critic of the ‘holocaust industry’ turning its sufferings into capital, cannot be equated with someone who [………] from whom people at Concordia suffered. Every one of us had a family member, friend, neighbour or father dispossessed or killed or tortured by Netanyahu’s policies. Two on the escalators have come from there and have suffered first hand. Do not equate that with a thinker].

The truth is that the CSU [Concordia Student Union] is nothing but the SPHR's [Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights] thug for battles with the administration. We all have an agenda, we all have an opinion. The overwhelming majority of CSU executives are also activists for the pro-Palestinian cause and are so embroiled in it that they are incapable of acting in any Zionist interest or watching out for Zionist rights. [She just created her own ideology. There is no such thing as ‘Zionist rights’. There are Palestinian rights, human rights, maybe Israeli rights, but Zionist rights?! There are no ‘ideology’ rights; that’s just like saying Marxist rights! Wendy just insinuated that she is Zionist, and therefore all the printing is now understood to be anything that’s the ‘other’ opinion].

[Wendy continues...]

I've had enough of hearing how the police and security were at fault for even being there. Or the administration for calling in the police. If they've any fault it is for not being there sooner. With the reputation this school has, I am shocked the army wasn't called in just in case. The Sept. 9 mess was no one's fault but the people who began to protest with violence. [Evidently, Wendy is re-affirming the mass media’s story and my piece; the only insider’s was not allowed to appear]. We got to have people raising hell, breaking windows, intimidating others and hellbent on shutting down the speech. [Breaking windows was done after the cops brutally beat the protestors with batons on their shoulders, heads and backs, causing some to faint. And intimidation? People sitting on the steps barred by riot cops in full gear and bomb-sniffing dogs before a crowd mostly pointing their middle fingers is not intimidating? Chris Shultz’s goofing inside like a monkey with piece signs at the protestors is not intimidating? Shultz is someone who can’t stop running in every CSU elections campaign and who was caught attempting to bribe another group member with B’nai Brith money – one of the most prominent Zionist organisations who called for a federal investigation of the CSU last year for alleged links to ‘terrorist organisations’]

Which ended up doing nothing but hurting their cause. [And here is someone trying to justify the cause, but Wendy doesn’t want the other side known]. Finally, I'm tired of hearing how everything from the crappy food to the escalators is Rector Lowy's fault. [None of the people in the room, and hardly did anyone who is not Muslim or Arab attend the General Assembly, at which footage of the protest captured by independent media and SPHR shows the escalators from a different angle that that of the riot police’s standing firm in front of those hooligans on the escalators. It shows what the heavy gear was concealing. It shows how the people outside were sitting chanting, speaking, talking, etc, while Patrick Ammar a prominent Hillel member [the Jewish students association] was screaming to the crowd waiting for Netanyahu that the people outside are ‘anti-Semites’ not knowing what Semitism is. Rector Lowy was standing right beside him condoning his speech. It shows how the protestors were then brutally beaten as those outside banged on the glass windows to distract the cops, eventually resorting to breaking the glass. The camera then shows how an old man inside the auditorium screamed that the people outside are against democracy and free speech and liberty, etc. Rector Lowy was right beside him condoning his speech. Finally, the camera shows how the people outside were sprayed with pepper spray and tear gassed. Then we see a woman telling the Zionists inside that the good news is that the people outside were tear-gassed. The crowd cheers. Rector Lowy was standing beside the woman, condoning her speech].

One of the editors [I think it was the sports or something] told me that he was asked to review my pieces and he found it problematic. I asked him how and he said that I refer to the KKK. Here is what I say in the article: Netanyahu managed to deliver his speech in other Canadian cities because he was invited to an auditorium not a university.

What if Milosevic or a member of the KKK were invited to Concordia, let alone any public place, as guest speakers?

His concern was that someone from Concordia who is a member of the KKK would object to my apparent demonizing of the KKK. My response was a question of whether or not the KKK was a recognised racist organisation; which of course was agreed upon. I told him that a member of the KKK would not stand up and say that he is offended. One of the other boys argued that Netanyahu was an elected ‘president’. The sports guy also said that my piece was not offering any different perspective, which is obviously not true.

Another man said that he was asked to compile a data base of the issues printed in the Link over the past couple of years and he found that the ‘Middle East’ dominated the scene while other pieces are always dismissed, which is why Wendy probably said that she wanted to ban these issues in the first place. I told him print the rest, who’s stopping you? He said there is a limited space. I said expand. He said we have no budget. I said instead of printing 10 issues under this issue, print 5 balanced ones and 5 others. I told them that I had a problem with Wendy or anyone in any position for that matter, being in such a position of absolute authority, where apparently, she may choose to publish whatever she wants, and is not obliged to justify or give reasons as to why she would object to printing something. I argued where is democracy basically. I also told them that the Link is supposed to represent Concordia’s student body, and I am a student, and I have a problem by being discriminated against obviously, and moreover, my bigger problem is that I pay the Link as a part of my tuition in every credit I take.

Clearly, they were trying to come up with anything just because they had nothing to say and no argument. Steve ended up thanking me for my time. I was them told that both my pieces would appear the Tuesday following that one since the upcoming issue had already been laid out.

I filed the grievance against Wendy for lack of professionalism and for discrimination. My pieces were not published and I was told will not be in the future.

This is the e-mail that I sent to absolutely everybody at the Link a couple of days ago:

Ms. Julia Cyboran told me that my articles would appear in the Nov. 19 issue of the Link. When my articles did not appear and I asked Ms. Cyboran, she wrote back saying: ‘ There are still some concerns with your articles and masthead came to the concensus late yesterday that we would prefer you come in for another editing session. I know that this process seems very long and drawn out but we are trying to maintain a certain level of writing in the paper… But seeing as the time relevance of the piece has shifted we want to guarantee that the pieces are well-written in order to justify the printing of them.’

This was followed by an e-mail from Ms. Wendy Heitmann saying ‘The staff of the Link wishes to inform you that contrary to a previous decision, your opinion pieces will not be published, nor will those specific pieces be accepted for consideration in the future.’ Then she adds, ‘Yesterday, our staff found these pieces were previously published elsewhere (http://www.freearabvoice.org/newsbytes/concordiaReport.htm). We had gone to the trouble we did in order to provide a voice which we agreed was important. Finding out this particular voice had been expressed elsewhere negated that reason for publishing in the Link.’

First off, regarding the ‘second hand’ and ‘unoriginal’ work, I DID tell the committee during Sunday’s meeting that I did publish my work on the Free Arab Voice which is a means of letting the alternative perspective out when Zionism [and other ideologies] obstruct the speaking of the truth. This was in response to Ms. Heitmann’s claim that my pieces were ‘poorly written’ to which I responded by saying that not only the FAV published me but four other sites used my pieces also.

This was not a search for ‘a voice’; what voice? It seems obviously a way to hunt my previous work which I myself have cited before the committee. Moreover, the time factor is a funny issue to bring up since it’s been two months now that the Link has played ball with me, which is why my original article [before breaking it into two, amending, adding and then editing with Ms. Cyboran] saw the cyber world first and hence my decision to file a grievance against Ms. Heitmann came about.

In her e-mail dated November 19, Ms. Heitmann said: ‘
In your piece "When freedom becomes a luxury" you stated that 400 were massacared at Jenin and dumped in mass graves. Such a gross factual error(as verified by Human Rights Watch International, Amnesty International,various Jenin Press, and the SPHR) puts us in a position to not trust your facts.’

First of all, what ‘various Jenin Press’ is she talking about?
I have a problem trusting the validity of half of the sources specified by Ms. Heitmann. Moreover, the figures related to ethnic cleansing are always disputed. Some dispute the 6 million Jews and 6 million ‘others’ of WWII, as well as the 20 million Russians; while some deny the figures of Sabra and Shatilla where some authorities speculate 700 and others 3500, whereas some say 2700.

The Jenin massacre has been denied by most non-Arab and non-Islamic authorities.

And how could it not have been denied with the mass graves that are documented with photos that I am very tempted to send to the Link at this point [I think I will drop by the office of the Link with a disc sometime this week so I can gather as many more pictures of the massacre as I could]. How could it not have been denied when activists, photographers and reporters were documented by eye witnesses and footage of those who managed to sneak in, to have been forced to keep out of there? How could it not have been denied when the UN intent to send a ‘fact finding mission’ in the aftermath was not allowed by the Zionist state? Why do you think Canadian MP Svend Robinson was protested last Friday by pro-Zionists at Concordia? Many have been buried under the rubbles and no one can tell for real but from the photos and from eye witness accounts and people we speak to from Jenin. Some Israeli sources state that 100 to 200 are dead, and others say 400.

By denying the massacre in Jenin, regardless the numbers, or by stating or relying on sources that [if some of them exist] would certainly not be able to know or provide any definitive statistics, it is Ms. Heitmann who is committing the ‘gross factual error’.

And about how ‘reliable’ my facts are, Ms. Heitmann wrote to me ‘Please feel free to submit original, previously unpublished opinion pieces in the future, and include sources for your facts.’

The sources are all stated Ms. Heitmann except for the number of lives massacred in Jenin. Just copy and paste each piece of fact into a search engine and you’ll see for yourselves. So please do not jump into conclusions based on uneducated judgements.

Concerning the issue of ‘reliability’, I wish to remind the committee of something that I mentioned during our meeting on Sunday 17; in a piece by Ian Sternthal entitled ‘free Concordia from racial ignorance’ that appeared in the Oct. 8 issue. Sternthal said: ‘Upon the legal creation of Israel and Palestine in 1948, Arab leaders such as Nassar [he means Nasser] of Egypt and King Abdallah of Jordan [he means Transjordan] urged the Palestinian Arabs to flee their homes…’

How reliable is that? Nasser [not Nassar which is a completely different name in Arabic; it’s not a matter of a vowel] was no where near leadership at the time, he was just a major in the Egyptian army. The ‘leader’ of Egypt was King Farouq.

According to Ms. Heitmann, ‘Even in the opinion section, facts must be reliable and verifiable.’
Regardless whether letters or opinions, all material published in the Link or any other publication for that matter must be reliable and verifiable. And since letters fall under ‘all material’ and since they are also reviewed to verify they are not ‘xenophobic, homophobic, racist’ etc, etc. then it is expected that such ‘gross factual errors’ be spotted and not printed.

Here is what I will do… I will reconstruct the parts that have appeared almost the same on the Free Arab Voice. Facts and numbers are not changeable; there is much more, and different information that that originally published on FAV and facts and quotes is just that; rewording and reconstructing quotes and cites is neither a reasonable nor a feasible proposition.

The segment on Jenin will be as follows: while exact figures cannot be determined since [the reasons mentioned above], some claim that there was less that 100 massacred, while other figures reach 400. Most human rights organizations however concur that serious human rights violations have been committed.

Ms. Cyboran also said ‘I understand that this seems like I am giving you the run around but I assure you it is only to make you (as a writer) look the best. We like to print pieces of the highest quality. I will give some specific points to look at in your work: The story about the escalators has a conflict of point of view - at some moments you write in first person at others in third person. This decreases the clarity of the piece. You either have to choose one p.o.v. or another.’

My response to this is that this specific part in which I referred to the protestors as ‘they’ and ‘them’ and then ‘us’ and ‘we’ was not bad English; I intentionally used this style.

Furthermore, the Link is not a referral on English literature. I would understand concerns about ‘quality’ but this issue has been ongoing for two months now and this ‘quality’ stunt has just been pulled as the last resort to hinder publication at the last minute. This is clearly not an ‘editorial’ matter; it is a blatantly political matter.

Now I have more reason to want to meet with the Board of Directors. This is a request. Also, be sure that this whole fiasco will be publicised.

Sincerely,

Chadi Serhal

Since then, Wendy Heitmann has become News Editor at the Link.

I am in the process of re-writing the articles about Netanyahu and the protest. As per the Jenin issue, I am collaborating with the team from www.beawitness.com and of course Ibrahim Alloush, editor of www.freearabvoice.org to continue this small scale battle with Zionism.

Thank you for reading this far and I cannot tell you how any ideas and/ or information are highly encouraged and appreciated.

Chadi Serhal