Simon Fraser University Student Newspaper Denies Israel’s Right To Exist & Rationalizes Hamas Terrorism

In a November 7 poll by Angus Reid, a vast majority of Canadians say that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and that Israel has a right to defend itself, showing support across ages, geography and even political identification.

Instead of representing the views of a clear consensus of Canadians, the November 6 edition of The Peak, a student newspaper at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, decided to platform some of Canada’s fringe anti-Israel voices, platforming their extremist views.

In one article entitled: “Teach-in event at SFU sheds light on Gaza crisis,” staff writer Sude Guvendik reported on a recent campus event, “Decolonise Palestine Teach-In: The Legalities and Illegalities of the Occupation of Palestine.”

In the article, Guvendik wrote that one speaker, Maya Mikdashi, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, “cautioned against viewing the crisis from a settler timeframe,” quoting her as saying “Anyone who starts their analysis on October 7 (Hamas’ terror attack) is inevitably operating within the settler epistemology of time and temporality.”

Beyond the faux academic gibberish, Mikdashi’s message was as clear as it was hateful: Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attack, where the Islamic group intentionally targeted innocent men, women and children for rape, torture and slaughter, should be understood in a wider context.

For Hamas, there is no context beyond a fanatical Islamic ideology which drives their ambition to destroy Israel through violent means, and replace it with a totalitarian Islamic regime. Claiming otherwise is to give credence to Hamas’ bloodlust and provide it with undeserved legitimacy and credibility.

In the article, Guvendik did more than quote extremist anti-Israel voices; she repeatedly expressed them in the article, as she has done in recent opinion columns elsewhere where she falsely accused Israel of being a “settler-colonial project”, Guvendik referred to Israel’s independence in 1948, writing that 750,000 Arabs were “forcibly uprooted from their homes,” failing to report that many, and perhaps most of Arabs who lived in pre-state Israel left not at Israel’s insistence, but as a result of threats from Arab leaders.

Click for larger image of each article

Guvendik’s article, which was little more than a half-baked pseudo-intellectual word salad, was not the only asinine anti-Israel article in that edition.

In an editorial two pages later purporting to be pro-peace, “We shouldn’t punish calls for ceasefires,” Editor-In-Chief Kelly Chia in fact denied Israel’s right to exist, falsely accusing the country of occupying Palestinian land “for the last 75 years,” i.e. since Israel’s very independence in 1948.

Chia wrote that “it should not be controversial to call for the immediate restoration of water, electricity, fuel – basic human needs – for Palestine,” apparently unaware that hundreds of trucks filled with humanitarian aid have indeed entered the Gaza Strip in recent days alone.

As for fuel, while Hamas baldly claims that the coastal enclave has no fuel, photographic evidence has shown that the terrorist group is in possession of literally hundreds of thousands of litres of fuel, clearly preferring to hoard it for its own terrorism rather than helping its people.

It may also interest Chia to know that in spite of claiming that there is no fuel in Gaza, Hamas terrorists have still fired countless rockets into Israeli towns and cities, showing unmistakeably that their priorities lie not with Gaza’s humanitarian needs, but with murdering as many Israelis as possible.

Hamas is a fanatical Islamic terrorist organization that is explicitly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Consequently, Israel has no choice but to defeat the terror group as comprehensively as it possibly can. Calling for a ceasefire without demanding Hamas return its hostages, or without an end to Hamas terrorism, isn’t simply misplaced or ignorant; at best, it represents intellectual rot, and at worst, is morally repugnant.

Comments

Send this to a friend