I think the Financial Ethics Review Committee cares a lot about human rights, social justice, and environmental protection. I also think that the Israeli army and the Israeli government sometimes do things that are morally questionable, if not repugnant. However, I think that Wednesday’s motion is not primarily a function of anybody’s commitment to human rights, social justice, and environmental protection, but of condemning the State of Israel. I think the question of the morality of Israel’s actions is an important one which has its place in school newspapers, political discussion groups, and maybe even in politically-affiliated social action groups. It just upsets me when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is cloaked in the guise of a fervent commitment to human rights, social justice, and environmental protection. It is inarguably very clever to sneak the Middle East conflict into a motion about wonderful causes. It frames all students who are uncomfortable with the occupied territories clause as callous human beings with no morals. However, it is also an ignoble sham. I think it’s pretty darn bad to exploit such noble pursuits as human rights, social justice, and environmental protection and use them as political pork to smuggle a contentious issue into Shatner. Hell, I might even risk name calling to vote against that.
In his Nov. 28 article in The McGill Tribune, “Selective success: A