Trustees Misrepresent Minister’s Message
Trustees Misrepresent Minister’s Message
The April 28 letter from the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs to Islands Trust Council Chair Laura Patrick is being selectively interpreted to the public by some trustees. Minister Kahlon’s letter refused the Trust’s request for a review of the Islands Trust Act, governance and structure.
In her Gulf islands Driftwood article last week, Chair Patrick omits one of the Minister’s clearest statements – that the Trust has an “ecological mandate.” Trustee Lisa Gauvreau goes further in her Galiano Active Page report, claiming the Minister declined to review the Trust Act because “the Province is focused on current housing priorities.” No doubt he is occupied with the housing file but the Minister made no such statement in his letter.
Both Gauvreau and Patrick disregard key directives from the Minister, including:
“It is my expectation that the Trust Council recognizes that this (land use planning) requires careful deliberation and consideration of perspectives to manage expectations of growth, development and local economies without exceeding the carrying capacity of local ecosystems and preserving unspoiled natural amenities.”
And:
“I will need Trust Council to take particular care to ensure their engagement with the public and First Nations on the bylaws put before me for approval, including amendments to Official Community Plans and the Trust Policy Statement, are undertaken in a manner that demonstrates mutual respect and builds towards consensus.”
By cherry-picking and spinning the Minister’s message while downplaying the Trust’s essential environmental mandate, one that will protect people and their communities, Patrick, Gauvreau, and others are undermining public trust and misusing public resources.
The entire text of the Minister’s letter can be found under “New” on our website – friendsofthegulfislands.ca. Sign our petition to support strong environmental policies that will protect communities – https://chng.it/8Ds5RzHBFh
Jennifer Margison, Galiano
Friends of the Gulf Islands Society
250-539-2202
BOIL WATER METERS
BOIL WATER METERS
Hi folks.
Many thanks to those taxpayers and property owners (both in and outside of the Graham Lake subdivision) who remain interested, concerned and provide feedback and input. Well, it’s been seven years of uncertainty and another six months since the last instalment and another six months of nothing but Boil Water Notice and Out Of Service Fire Hydrants. CVRD CEO James Warren and our CVRD elected Representative Daniel Arbour have yet to honestly dialogue on these issues. Daniel’s last communique back in July 2024 was “awaiting the next report from staff…to put to residents”. Was there a first time report?
Some of you have approached me to table your concerns here and address some ridiculous outstanding falsehoods.
First to your concerns.
1. There’s a lack of honest transparency and accurate information.
Indeed. It’s been seven convoluted years; there’s still no project name, scope or budget. CVRD’s stated trajectory for your Water bill is $3,000/ year or more (toll&tax) and this comes with billing manipulation; You WILL pay regardless if you receive a compliant water product, a service or not. Where did our $250,000 capital fund go? Where is the $1.2 million grant at? Lacking is coherent, concise, consistent updates. For reference: Royston water is $265/ year, Union Bay water is $603/ year and Graham Lake $975/year (source: CVRD Service Tax only). Yes, troubling.
2. Installation of water meters?
Another neighbour asked, “Do water meters satisfy any of the Surface Water Treatment Objective’s (SWTO) five goals?”. Well? James or Daniel; Can the CVRD explain the financial model for our limited subdivision footprint that confirms the recovery of the $200,000 minimum installation cost, plus future operation & maintenance and revenue sustainability, while satisfying the SWTO goals? Will taxpayers foot the bill for an incompetent “Boil Water Meter” priority? Who’s dreaming this stuff up?
3. Water quality and cost.
A concerned taxpayer didn’t realize the water condition until they cleaned their water pik dental appliance. Others have installed, at our own expense, point of entry or use filters and know the degree of bio matter accumulation. The only constantly pushed narrative is a bureaucratic “fix” with a water treatment project cost “surprise” trajectory of 2, 4, 8 million dollars. Bureaucracies love to spend inordinate amounts of other people’s money, historically, little is received in return. Where is the steering committee oversight? Do we need an ego plated treatment project? What is the budget? What do we actually need to do to have compliant water? What treatment methods are there? What options do we want to pursue? Subdivision residents were sold on a $1,000/year (toll&tax) water bill and “All Free Today” CVRD water treatment project. What happened?
4. Out of Service Fire Hydrants
An engaged neighbour asked; “When will the required subdivision Fire Hydrant infrastructure, which already exists and remains out of service and with seemingly no immediate service plan, enter back into operation?”. Graham Lake offers (ONLY through its Fire Hydrants) 60 million gallons of water for subdivision Fire suppression. That’s why the subdivision was approved for development. It’s clear to many that a multi layer (all Fire suppression water sources & delivery) approach is prudent for our island’s Fire safety. Who exactly is saying otherwise? Who exactly authorized the removal of the emergency bypass in the pumphouse? Superior Tanker Shuttle (STS) creditation MUST deliver 200 imperial gallons per minute and when it can’t (as in the recent East Road house fire) another water/ delivery source layer should be there to support. STS is NOT designed for subdivision Fire suppression. Daniel stated in a July 2024 communique he has been “assured” Fire Hydrants are “…not a key concern at this time”. “At this time?”. Myself, others and industry Fire protection professionals have a hard time believing that any Regional or local Fire Chief would be foolish or conflicted enough to make such a statement. Can it be true? Again, We approach another summer with CVRD’s political incompetence as our safety factor?
The lessons of the recent LA Fire still seem unlearned. Water puts out fires, ask those who used pool water and sprinklers that saved homes. Fire insurance and political inconvenience was of little affect.
Now to some ridiculous falsehoods
1. Civil servants, elected representatives and bureaucracies are infallible experts that are never answerable to the taxpayer and property owner’s concerns and questions.
Newsflash: They work for us, the taxpayer and property owner. No? Honest dialogue is a critical element of transparency. That’s part of the job not just weeks of summer vacations. A lack of transparency is really a lack of respect for the taxpayer and property owner. Transparency results in accountability. Accountability results in better outcomes. Expectations are James and Daniel are here for us, nothing else.
2. Another bit of ridiculous nonsense is that the Union Bay Estates “unnecessarily” installed a subdivision Fire Hydrant system during COVID.
At a glance this is about a half million dollars worth of financial burden to carry regardless of COVID. Having successfully performed decades of estimating, specifying for project development and logistic coordination to completion of multi-million dollar mechanical/ water projects; no one estimates or installs any systems unless its specified. For those unaware, this would get you immediately sacked in the private/ corporate sector. Why would Graham Lake, KIRNEL, Ships Point, Union Bay and more have Fire Hydrants? And no, COVID can’t be blamed, Fire Hydrants were/ are a specified requirement for subdivisions. James believes Fire Hydrants are being installed “in the absence of regulatory requirement”. Make it make Fire standard, code and suppression sense because it doesn’t.
3. There’s also a foolish notion about CVRD being or accessing “resources”.
Having worked with some exemplary GVRD/ Metro Vancouver Engineers, none thought themselves as “resources”. I experienced quite the opposite. They cared about satisfying project scope , solving specification conflicts, adhering to standards & codes, meeting the budget and construction deadlines. Seven years has past; What’s the status of our water treatment compliance and Fire Hydrants again?
Additionally, CVRD is an ever expanding administrative bureaucratic machine. Left unchecked it will constantly consume an ever increasing demand of resources, your tax dollars. The CVRD is not an engineering, construction, fire protection or mechanical firm.
4. Have “Patience”.
A Guns n Roses song is irrelevant to the seven years of costly squander.
In closing; I’ve been told “the Graham Lake subdivision gets what it deserves”.
I don’t hold this nihilistic view. I do however believe the subdivision has been subject to some very bad faith and costly actors.
What further can be done? Continue to pay escalating prices for sub par service? Plenty of Grapevine instalments have been already written detailing multiple pathways to cost effective solutions and options. Your comments were gathered and a presentation was made with an accompanying binder submitted (at CVRD-EASC meeting). All was immediately dismissed (via email) by CVRD’s legal department. IF water cost, sustainability, quality and Fire suppression are important to you and your family’s life & safety; Become engaged, ask questions, do research and consider the validity of the above information. Your continued questions, input and support appreciated.
Have a great summer!
Shucking Oysters: Over the Hill
Shucking Oysters: Over the Hill
By Alex Allen
Hanging up your hat, put out to pasture, golden years. Merriam Webster defines retirement as the withdrawal from one’s position or active working life. For some it’s Freedom 55. For others, like me, it will be Freedom 99. What is retirement? Is it a state of stillness? A second childhood? A new chapter? Or the opportunity to live life rather than merely make a living?
Thirty-five years after her official retirement, Joyce Wilby is still the chief librarian in Alert Bay. Wilby celebrated her 100th birthday party last month at the local legion, with her two “kids,” age 70 and 73 and has no plans of quitting in the near future. In our neighbourhoods, we are surrounded by similar inspiring nonagenarians and centenarians.
Looking around it’s clear that retirement is not just one thing. It could be doing bugger all in between nursing a coffee. Cramming your days with yoga, Pilates, pickle ball, and committee memberships. Fulfilling your love for adventure by sailing off to Mexico, or buying an RV and vagabonding. Or maybe it’s an opportunity for reinvention or a new activity. Cutting the pony tail off and breeding glow worms. Winter vegetable carving, dryer lint macrame, competitive cat herding.
No matter what, retirement is a huge adjustment – sometimes painful and prolonged, but ultimately satisfying. Are you still ‘somebody’ once you no longer can answer what you do for a living? “The most challenging part was suddenly having no purpose anymore,” wrote one individual in a Reddit conversation, “You truly become irrelevant and it took me several years to find myself again.”
And then it can be the worst thing some have ever experienced. The emptiness drives many back to full- and part-time work because they simply want to; others because they simply have to. You’ve seen the folks, in their 70s working the till at retail outlets all over town. Imagine discovering in your late-70s that you don’t have enough money to retire on? It must be just as rude of an awakening as the proverbial alarm clock on a Monday morning.
Or if you are not forced back into the labour market, you are suddenly given the job description of parental caregiver. John Rowe, professor at Columbia University’s School of Public Health recalls meeting a healthy 65-year-old woman and telling her, “I’m a gerontologist.” “I should make an appointment to see you,” she replied. “I told her the average age of my patients is 89. If a 65-year-old woman comes into my office, it’s usually to discuss her mother.”
And now across the country, homeless shelters and services are seeing more elderly people turning up for help. Nick Wells, a spokesman for Union Gospel Mission in downtown Vancouver’s Eastside, cited so many examples of seniors’ going into hospital for a health issue, having an extended stay and then discovering that they’ve been evicted because they couldn’t pay the rent.
We’ve come along way from viewing retirement as the end of the road. Just look at the ads for retirement homes and communities. Instead of images of old people making crafts out of pipe cleaners, now we see grownups acting like teenagers. It’s not about counting the days. “Verve Senior Living celebrates residents’ individuality, encouraging them to embrace their authentic selves while living fully in a supportive, caring environment tailored to their unique needs.”
In his recent book Golden Years: How Americans Invented and Reinvented Old Age, James Chappel explores how ideals around old age have evolved in the US. From around 1930 to 1970, America (and Canada) faced vast social and economic challenges and government became the solution. With social security and medicare allowing millions of people for the first time, to actually look forward to a life of respite 10, 15, or 20 years after working, it was known as the era of “the senior citizen.” It was also the time – the 50s and 60s – where retirement communities and senior centres were popping up everywhere.
Then in the 70s, the US expanded benefits even further, but coupled with massive inflation, social security became extremely expensive. Followed by the austerity mindset of the 80s, older people were urged to solve problems for themselves. Neoliberalism reared its ugly head and never turned back.
When asked what’s his prediction for the next generation, Chappel stressed that there’s a difference between prediction and hope. Like many writers with depth, he feels quite pessimistic. “I think that population aging is a huge problem, but it doesn’t have to be a problem. I think it can be resolved, if there’s political energy to do so. But it’s not there right now.”
I read that mathematically, it doesn’t matter how long you live; if infinity is the denominator, any number in the numerator will equal zero. From that perspective, there is no difference in living 10 years or a 100. You may find comfort in this or get an immediate headache. And then there is “quantity” (long life) versus “quality” (significant life) – both can be equally remarkable achievements.
Palliative care physician, Sunita Puri, wrote that in our journey we need to “find freedom in the life the body offers, paying attention to the burn of grief and the pulse of joy, the intensity of an embrace or the taste of butter on toast.” The only given is that death will unravel our bodies in ways we cannot predict.
In the meantime, wouldn’t it be great if people celebrated your employment as much as your retirement?
Three delusions, and you graduated with honours from all three.
May 22nd, 2025. Dedicated to Michael Foucault.
Three delusions, and you graduated with honours from all three.
The late afternoon sun cast long shadows across the veranda of the Cultural Exchange Centre, a name so painfully ironic it almost physically ached. Amidst the wilting potted ferns and the lingering scent of stale coffee, the intellectual gladiators of the local arts scene gathered to… well, mostly to posture.
I watched, detached, as Barnaby Finch-Hatton, a man whose entire personality seemed to be constructed from salvaged bits of Michel Foucault quotes and a deeply misplaced sense of self-importance, held court. He was, as always, dressed in what I could only describe as ‘academic leisurewear’ – a tweed jacket that had probably seen better decades, paired with offensively bright, and undoubtedly cheap, trousers.
“To see this thing make its way around the readings…” Barnaby began, his voice a theatrical whisper, like he was sharing a state secret instead of complaining about a critic’s review. He paused, dramatically, pushing his glasses further up his nose. “An inner fight in the camp of your propaganda, twists your face to the left.” It was like watching a parody of intellectual discourse, an over-the-top performance that was almost comical.
He gestured vaguely with a hand that sported a frankly unsettling number of rings. Around him, a small gaggle of acolytes – mostly wide-eyed undergraduates and the occasional bored retiree, all eager to absorb his supposed wisdom – nodded with the appropriate level of solemnity.
My gaze drifted to Cynthia, a sculptor whose work consisted mainly of vaguely phallic clay figurines, and Gerald, a poet who specialized in haikus about urban decay. Both watched Barnaby with rapt attention, desperate for a crumb of his supposed wisdom.
“As you emerge with your pinned knee, your newest complaint,” Barnaby continued, his voice rising slightly, “As quick as you wake in the morning air near your TV IV.”
I raised an eyebrow. The man was stringing together phrases like a demented fortune cookie writer. I wondered if he even knew what he was talking about, or if he was relying solely on the sheer obscurity of his language to intimidate his audience.
“Three delusions and you graduated with honours from all three,” he declared, finally reaching the crescendo of his performance. “Brought out some overpriced honey and teas.”
A small, nervous-looking woman, presumably one of the undergraduates, scurried forward with a tray laden with exactly that: overpriced honey and teas, a symbol of the superficiality and excess that often permeated these gatherings. Barnaby took a delicate sip of Earl Grey, a smug expression on his face.
“Over each viewpoint, another cheap pair of pants,” he pronounced, seemingly at random. “Withered and smelly, airing laundry like one-upmanship is religion.” He tilted his head, as if considering the profound implications of his own words.
I sighed inwardly. This was the so-called ‘intellectual apex’ of my Tuesday afternoon, a term I used ironically to describe the self-indulgent and often nonsensical ramblings that passed for intellectual discourse in these circles. I longed to disappear, to melt into the wilting ferns and escape the suffocating air of pretension.
“Curious,” Barnaby announced abruptly, breaking my reverie. “I want not to hang and disappear, Rather than share the earth anymore with these things.”
He paused, his gaze sweeping over the group, landing momentarily on me. I quickly looked away, pretending to be engrossed in the intricate patterns of the veranda’s peeling paint.
“Who are you, light colour scheme pomp, leaning to one side only, like a tropical fish floating at the top of the tank with those dark circles under your eyes?” Barnaby asked, his voice dripping with mock disdain.
I winced. He mentioned that I tended to wear muted colours and looked perpetually exhausted. An observer’s life was not conducive to a radiant complexion.
“Who are you with subtle blood libel tales and the Danishes on the international gathering veranda?” he continued, his voice taking on an edge of genuine malice. “A mention of a second career – what was that lie you chased from the rear?”
This was a low blow. In a moment of weakness, I once confessed to him my secret ambition of becoming a pastry chef. The memory of my disastrous attempt to bake a soufflé was still a source of considerable shame.
“The same as the peace you sell to anyone who will give you a freebie ear,” Barnaby sneered. “A third of a slice, your gums dribble, and your teeth fall to the plate. Young men know you and run to at least the next chair with the women.”
He was spiralling, losing control, and it was almost fascinating to watch. This wasn’t intellectual discourse but a playground squabble dressed in borrowed philosophical jargon.
“Christ, is this all you can muster?” he finally exploded, his voice cracking. “Like him but overweight with a heart condition and a dead inkless pen to hang off of, pleading with the fairies, the conceited, the presumed connected… mercy on your angels, pretentious supposed lovers and only fan chapbooks, non-alcoholic tears!”
He stood there, panting, his face flushed. The overpriced honey and teas seemed to have lost their appeal. Cynthia and Gerald exchanged uneasy glances, their admiration replaced with a flicker of concern. The atmosphere had shifted from reverence to discomfort, and it was palpable.
I knew I should probably say something and try to diffuse the situation. But I couldn’t. I was too busy being entertained. This scene was like a slow-motion car crash; I had a front-row seat. The audience, too, seemed to
waking up to the situation’s absurdity, their admiration for Barnaby giving way to a dawning realization.
Finally, after an agonizing silence, Barnaby cleared his throat, attempting to regain his composure. He straightened his tweed jacket, adjusted his glasses, and delivered his closing statement with a forced smile.
“Search for what is good, strong, and beautiful in your society and elaborate. Push outward. Always create from what you already have.”
He paused, looking expectantly at his audience.
I couldn’t resist. I had to say something.
“Michel Foucault,” I said, loud enough for everyone to hear, “taught us that the point of living was to ‘live a beautiful life and to leave to others memories of a beautiful existence.’”
Barnaby’s face turned a shade of purple I didn’t think was humanly possible. I stood up, grabbed my bag, and walked away, leaving Barnaby Finch-Hatton speechless, surrounded by his overpriced honey, cheap trousers, and the shattered remnants of his fragile ego.
As I stepped out into the fading sunlight, I couldn’t help but smile. It wasn’t exactly a beautiful existence, but it was certainly memorable. And that, I thought, was something to be proud of. Perhaps Barnaby should consider that next time he was airing his laundry, literally or figuratively. Maybe then he’d leave a beautiful memory behind. Or, at the very least, a funnier one.
Economic Theology
Science has often been put forward as a secular religion, a replacement for the God that Time magazine pronounced dead on April 8, 1966. Belief is not the only necessary condition of religion; an ineffable supernatural element capable of being influenced by human agency is necessary as well. Science has nothing to do with the supernatural and consequently can never be a religion. But we have a secular institution which does partake of belief in the supernatural, is not fully understood, can be influenced by human behaviour, but cannot be changed or replaced by us. That institution is Economic Theory.
Markets capable of perfection are the supernatural aspect of economics; this perfection is akin to that of a deist God; it can ensure perfect relations among humans if we don’t interfere. But we do interfere. We blame many social disasters on our interference with the market (tribulations), we devise actions to push a market in one direction or another (prayers), and we promise a market Eden where all will be satisfied and our relationship with each other will be euphoric (afterlife). The economic base must be taken on faith; theologians from St. Augustine to Barth in dealing with the supernatural have attempted to square the faith/reason circle and always end up with faith trumping reason. We do the same for markets and what I call economic theology has today ousted all other possible forms of organizing a society; so much so that our economic theologians have us believing that cultures are entirely a product of economic relationships.
Just as a god’s motive can be named but is ineffable, so is the motivation of a market—efficiency. Efficiency can be assessed in dozens of different ways but for economic theologians there is only one—productivity. To assess the efficiency of any market one must measure productivity; if you suggest that certain types of productivity are not easily measured, say health outcomes for a certain population under a certain medical policy, then economic theologians ignore them by positing the ‘rational actor’, an imaginary being teetering on the unsupported idea that en masse human actions will cancel out every motivation but self-interest—more commonly called greed. No measurement, no actuality. And measurement is nearly always signified by a dollar amount; for a program based on a claim of social efficiency economic theologians will calculate a self-interest productivity figure in dollars and claim that it trumps your wishy-washy ‘externals’ claim.
There are various practical means of enforcing economic theology but the most effective one has been ‘austerity’. It replaces the inclusive term ‘citizen’ with exclusive ‘consumer’ or ‘taxpayer’. Citizen includes everyone in a defined geographical area; consumer and taxpayer exclude those without sufficient disposable income—nine million Canadians pay no income tax overwhelmingly because they don’t make enough income. Those with little or no money just don’t count and the onus is on every individual to make money. The wealthy cannot be expected to take care of failures. This is characterized as ‘individual responsibility’or failure to succeed; social responsibility is not entirely dismissed; the army, police and courts keep motivations other than self-interest under control and criticisms of their inefficiency are rarely acted upon.
The political economist Clara E. Mattei argues: ‘Mostly austerity serves to quash public outcry and worker strikes—not, as it is often advertised, to spontaneously improve a country’s economic indicators by practising greater economic discipline.’ Austerity is imposed as a social one designed to prevent the implementation of unmeasurable social programs on the part of the government receiving aid. This is achieved through such conditions as budget cuts, regressive taxation, deflation, privatization and wage repression on IMF loans; it means that the money eventually granted is largely diverted into the hands of a few. Elizabeth Popp Berman takes our economic theology to task for ‘The high value that the economic style placed on efficiency, incentives, choice, and competition frequently conflicted with competing political claims grounded in values of rights, universalism, equity, and limiting corporate power.’ Perry Anderson writes: ‘Mathematisation had long anaesthetised much of the discipline of economics against original thought of any kind.’ Most of us can’t escape the Procrustean bed of economic theology; it is so widespread today that we never really think of other ways of ordering culture; all our meditations and opinions on culture take this background as needing no justification or criticism. This is clearly revealed in current political ferment where the policies propounded by all party leaders promise to bring on the same economic heaven and where an economist as leader of the Liberals turned a assured rout into a marginal victory on the basis of unquestioned economic theology.
You don’t believe we can order the economy any other way? Mercantilism was the Western economic order from Elizabethan times to the end of the 18th Century. ‘Mercantilism is a nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports of an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade.’ (Wikipedia) It was achieved by monopolies granted by the state (East India Company, Hudson’s Bay Company, etc.), suppression of all competitors, high tariffs to prevent importation of goods and thus outflow of wealth and subsidies for exports among a host of other nativist policies. Mercantilist hell consists of free markets and competition. Beginning to sound familiar? Trump, Orban, Putin, etc. are our current ‘neo-mercantilists’ demonstrating the ambiguity in all human projects and affairs.
Further Reading:
Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. Public Policy / Elizabeth Popp Berman
The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism / Clara E. Mattei
Crack-up Capitalism: Market Radicals and the Dream of a World Without Democracy / Quinn Slobodian
Economics in America: An Immigrant Economist Explores the Land of Inequality / Angus Deaton
Regime Change in the West? / Perry Anderson. London Review of Books, April 3, 2025.
Letter to the Editor – Veronica Timmons and Alan Stoddart
Thank you Denman Community.
Alan and I have always known what a kind, caring and generous community we live in and it was proven last week when we lost Eric to a horrible fire. At 3a.m. 22 fire fighters showed up to fight it and an ambulance crew. We watched in horror as they efficiently put it out. Our heartfelt thanks go to Rob and the crew.
As we grappled with the horror, a friend asked us if he could coordinate the site clean up and we gladly said yes. The next day it was done and heartfelt thanks go to Dorian and Dave for their prompt response and expertise. Another dear friend organized a meal chain and again the community responded. Thanks go to everyone who showed their generosity and caring with delicious food.
We are recovering from the traumatic event and will be organizing a celebration of our dear friend,s life sometime soon.
Denman is a wonderful place to live!
Veronica and Alan
Sky News Smears Greta Thunberg As A Nazi To Justify IDF Attack
Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):
IDF troops have raided the Madleen, a sailboat that was carrying aid intended to break the Israeli siege on Gaza. Everyone onboard has reportedly been abducted by Israeli forces, including climate activist Greta Thunberg.
Ahead of the abduction, a senior Israeli official told Israel’s Channel 12 News that the decision had been made to stop the ship from reaching Gaza because if it was allowed through, a “wave of flotillas” would come to challenge the blockade.
This is a developing news story as of this writing with a lot more information yet to emerge. But one thing I’d like to quickly flag here is that shortly before the IDF raided the Madleen, Sky News host Jonathan Samuels strongly implied that the ship deserved to be attacked because it is full of antisemites and Hamas supporters.
During a contentious interview with Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, who voiced support for the Madleen, Samuels objected that Thunberg has been accused of antisemitism and her fellow passengers have been accused of being Hamas sympathizers, and are therefore not innocent.
“Are you sure, Jonathan, that Israel has the moral right to prevent Gaza from such a mission?” asked Levy. “I mean, from where do we take this chutzpah, as we say in Hebrew, to put this closure on Gaza even from innocent people like Greta Thunberg and her friends?”
“Yeah, perhaps the criticism is that she’s not as innocent as all that,” Samuels countered. “She’s been accused of being antisemitic hasn’t she? And there are others on board accused of being Hamas sympathizers. Therefore it could potentially be a very dangerous situation and they’re quite naive to get into it, aren’t they?”
By the way, the accusation of “being antisemitic” which Samuels appears to be referring to here is the single dumbest antisemitism smear that I have ever seen in my entire life.
Back in October 2023, Thunberg appeared in a photo holding a “Stand with Gaza” sign, causing furious backlash from the pro-Israel crowd. Eventually someone found an excuse to spin this as an anti-Jewish hate crime by pointing out that there was a small octopus plushie in the photo, claiming that the octopus is a some kind of antisemitic trope.
Thunberg, who has autism, then deleted the photo, saying, “It has come to my knowledge that the stuffed animal shown in my earlier post can be interpreted as a symbol for antisemitism, which I was completely unaware of. The toy in the picture is a tool often used by autistic people as a way to communicate feelings. We are of course against any type of discrimination, and condemn antisemitism in all forms and shapes. This is non-negotiable. That is why I deleted the last post.”
And it was THIS insanely absurd accusation that was the basis for Jonathan Samuels smearing Greta Thunberg to justify the Israeli military attacking the ship she was on.
To be clear, this demented Israel apologia was spouted before Israel took action against the aid ship. We didn’t know if Israel would raid the ship, bomb it right out of the water, or shoot everyone on board. Samuels was preemptively justifying whatever it was Israel was about to do, including mass murder on yet another Gaza aid ship.
Literally everyone who has ever publicly criticized Israel in the western world has been accused of antisemitism and being a Hamas sympathizer. If you have any kind of audience and criticize Israel’s mass atrocities in Gaza to any extent, it is absolutely inevitable that you will receive those accusations. The fact that a Sky News anchor would cite such accusations as justification for Israel attacking and potentially killing someone means that, at least in the eyes of Jonathan Samuels, anyone who criticizes Israel deserves to be murdered.
Israel apologists were already advocating an attack on the Madleen, and mass media spinmeisters were already smearing its passengers as deserving of an attack. And now that the attack has happened, the information ecosystem is being bombarded by Israel supporters trying to argue that it is actually good and normal to kidnap activists who are trying to bring aid to a starving and besieged civilian population.
This shows you that there is nothing Israel could do that these freaks would not defend. It shows you who these people are. It shows you that every argument you’ve ever heard in support of Israel is not based on facts or morality or logic, but solely on the desire to promote the information interests of a genocidal apartheid state. It tells you everything you need to know about Israel apologia in general.
Support for Israel has no basis in truth. It has no basis in ethics or rationality. It’s just a bunch of horrible people murdering, tyrannizing and stealing with the aim of conquest and domination, and then using words to justify those actions. Israel and its apologists will say whatever words they need to say in order to advance their goals of ethnic cleansing and expansionism, with no regard for what is right and what is true.
It’s just a bunch of noise. You could mentally translate every word of every Israel apologist into shrieking gibberish without missing anything meaningful, because there’s no actual content in it. It’s just people doing evil things and then making a bunch of mouth noises to stop anyone from opposing their actions.
________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my mailing list, social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.
Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
Feature image is a screen shot from Sky News (Fair Use).
