Canadian Jews condemn suppression of criticism of Israel

I have read the op and completely agree with the position taken by those who wrote and signed the letter. This is obviously a ham-fisted attempt to stiffle legitimate debate about the sins Israel is committing in Gaza. It's hard to stand against the tide and point out that Israel is wrong and committing war crimes. It's harder still if every time you open your mouth our government is going to lable you an anti-Semite. This is bullshit that must be opposed! Shame on both the Star and Globe for refusing to print this. I have written my letter of complaint to the Star & I hope many other babblers will do the same.

Done unionist!

Well, the Globe's refusal to run the statement sorts well with their decision to publish this piece by Yossi Klein Halevi, which concludes with this attack on unnamed "detractors":

Ironically, those among Israel's detractors who turn every Israeli act of war into a war crime and subject the Jewish state to a level of moral judgment not applied to any other nation are acting in the worst interests of the Palestinian people. For by deepening Israel's sense of siege, they help empower the same hard-line forces they deplore.

While I understand Zusken's points above, it is clear from Halevi's op-ed that "references" and "proof" are of little interest to the Globe's editorial board, since Halevi makes several claims that would not withstand five minutes of Googling, let alone a rigorous fact-check.

So, while one might wish for more specifics in any piece of writing, the lack of them in the text Unionist has provided is very unlikely to have been the reason for its rejection by the Globe.

Judaism ≠ Zionism

Though I oppose Zionism, I think there are approapriate ways of going about it, and publishing the statement above would be a wonderful way of doing to.

We do need to keep it clearly separated from anti-semitism. I remember reading one article recently of a protest in which one man was approached by a protestor and called a 'F***ing Jew.' He did support Zionism, but that's still not a reason to intimidate him and insult him as a Jew. Such actions only hurt the cause of justice in Israel, because then Zionists use such incidents to effect, make sure they get published, and thus can successfully portray the other side as anti-semite. Very effective PR on their side.

From a PR standpoint, I think it would make more sense, especially for non-Jews, to limit protests to petitions, letter-writing campaigns, and ideally even educational programmes, either at schools, in living-rooms, or in public libraries, but certainly not by intimidation and calling people 'F***ing Jew'. There are ways of doing it without attracting accusations of anti-semitism to ourselves, and I think publishing the statement above is definitely an effective way of doing so. It's conservative, in good taste, and yet gets the message across clearly while distancing itself emphatically from anti-Semitism at the same time.

http://www.nkusa.org/

Another organization worth working with.

Where were these people 20 years ago when I first tried to say that Israel's actions against Palestinians were criminal?

At the time was people tried to shut me up by calling me an anti-Semite. 

Naturei karta are a "shanda fur de goyim" and no serious Jewish group, religious or secular, takes them even remotely seriously.

Curiously, I used the exact same expression to describe Frank Dimant, leader for life of Bnai Brith Canada, to his face. 

Actually, I agree with those who say that the letter really isn't written in op-ed form.  It sounds more like a petition than an op-ed piece, and so I'm not surprised that the papers refused to print it in op-ed format.

The fact, though, that they're refusing to report on it, and reporting so one-sidedly (with the odd exception included merely to stoke the apartheid supporters' fire), and not covering Israeli Apartheid Week at all beyond statements from pro-Apartheid groups claiming it's a "hate fest", is disgusting. 

Generally, whenever anyone sort of "appoints' themself as the "representative" of any large, homogeneous group amd uses it to try to get media attention and push their personal agenda it ends up really poorly and they alienate a good chunk of the people on behlaf they claim to speak. Whenever I hear Dimant or any of these other "professional Jews" I get a feeling that i imagine must be similar to the one Barack Obama gets whenever he sees Al Sharpton on TV.

Sid Ryan doesn't seem to have any trouble getting his columns published in such anti-Zionist hotbeds (lol) as the Toronto Sun and the National Post and i have seen plenty of other articles critical of Israel as well. In fact the foreign affairs columnist of the Toronto Sun Eric Margolis is very pro-Palestinian (and a very good writer too).

I would like to see more publicity given to the views of Jewish-Canadians who are against the policies of the current Israeli government and in fact I would have no problem adding my name to the petition above. BUT, as i said above, if this group wants to get publicity for their case in the mainstream media - there is a way to do it and that way is NOT sending major daily newspapers a petition full of "be it resolved that" style clauses and expecting them to publish it. There are plenty of intelligent, talented writers among the signatories - let one of them write a well-reasoned op-ed column that synthesizes the views expressed in the petition and I would be surprised if the major papers don't run it.   

Naci_Sey, I sniffed around your blog a bit after following the link there. Wonderful! Don't know how I missed it before.

And thanks for helping this release go viral. I wish I knew more about blogbursts and reddit...

I'm a betting he meant "heterogeneous". Context and all that. Wouldn't want to get side-tracked with elitist, pedantry would we?

Not shofar, Unionist.

All right, Caissa and Mycroft, now you've got me giggling. Stop it right now.

What "repeated attacks"? The attack came from SSC. SSC has not hidden his sympathy for Zionism on this board. Nothing strange about him mocking anti-Zionist rabbis. He doesn't tend to acknowledge that besides this tiny fringe ultra-orthodox sect, there are vast numbers of Jews. religious and irreligious, orthodox and atheist, who are disgusted by Israel and its policies. Talking about Neturei Karta is a typical ploy (introduced here by Machjo, surprise surprise) to gloss over the widespread revulsion felt by the non-fringe.

Ah, ok, I got it - yes, he has.

Guys, if you look at anything I've said on this subject, I was very clear in acknowledging not only that there are vast numbers of orthodox Jews who vehemntly oppose zionism but ahve said that this was basically the norm among orthodoxy pre-1948. even since the establishment of the state of Israel, many in the orthodox camp (Chassidus Ger, for example) who participate in Israeli civic life still maintain an officially anti-Zionist theological position.

The founder of Satmar hasidism, rabbi Joel Teitelbaum (ZTL) was one of the great tzadikim of the last century. this is a man who survived Bergen Belsen eating nothing but raw potatoes because he refused to eat non-kosher food even in that situation. He survived, moved to brooklyn and rebuilt a shattered and decimated community into the biggest hasidic group in the world with a vast network of shuls, yeshivot and charitable organizations. Despite not being anything close to orthodox let alone hasidic, I can't walk through their neighbourhood in brooklyn without being overcome by a sense of civic/ethnic/fuck-the-nazis pride.

And the Satmar rebbe and his followers are as vehemently opposed to zionism as anyone out there (for theological reasons). But Naturei karta is a fringe splinter group that has, among other things, participated in an Iranian Holocaust denial conference where they embraced Ahmadinejad. The current Satmar leader (nephew of Rebbe Teitelbaum) has issued an edict banning them from Satmar synogogues and schools.

I mean, jsut google them or go to Wikipedia and see to what extent this group represents a compelte fringe even among the ultra-orthodox. Denouncing them and pointing that out doesn't equate to "mocking anti-zionist rabbis" - especially since these self-described "Ultra-orthodox" rabbis are willing to violate the Shabbos in order to participate in anti-Zionist initiatives.

Was that directed to me? What about those guys?

The distinction between being Jewish and supporting the Israeli government is, I think a very basic distinction.  It is unfortunate that it even needs to be asserted.  To equate a monolithic political view or the actions of a state apparatus with an entire ethnic group is racist.  It implies that "they all think alike."  To call criticism of Israeli policy anti-Semitic also implies that Israeli policy in the occupied territories benefits all Israelis equally.  As though wealthy land developers in the Knesset and privileged politicians with heavy investments in the arms industry have the same vested interests as everyday working Israeli's.  That is absurd.  Though the US government tries to pull the same tactic on it’s own population, people do not buy it. War always takes a greater toll on the poor than on the rich.  It is the poor who rely on the public services that are being curtailed now in Israel to pay for the bellicose policies of the government.There are layers of racism / anti-Semitism active in the notion that to be "Jewish" is to support the Israeli government.  For one thing, it blanches over a class analysis of how war-like policies affect Israelis differently on the basis of their economic background.  I can't help but wonder if this stems from the notion that Jewish people have money.  Well the ones in the Knesset sure do. Just like people in Congress do.  But that doesn't mean that the people they represent have the same privilege, or that the kids they send off to fight in Gaza are going to reap the same benefits from the spoils of war as the politicians they fight for. We have no problem identifying war profiteering when it happens in Congress but somehow people are blind to how this can happen in Israel. 

Have a link Stockholm?

Sorry Star Spangled. I was aware Naturei Karta was Orthodox, but never realized how much of a fringe they were. My only point was that I was aware that there were plenty of Jews that oppose Zionism and that was the one I'd heard of the most.

So what can you say about Neve Shalom? It's a group I'd heard about a few years ago and know a little about, but not too much.

And a side note to Unionist. You're not a very good clairoyant. Stick to the text and stop misreading between the lines.

 http://nswas.org/rubrique22.html

 And it's all in English too, if that helps at all? And here's how they describe themselves:

"Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam is a cooperative village of Jews and Palestinian Arabs of Israeli citizenship. The village is situated equidistant from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv-Jaffa."

From what I can see of their website, they're quite opposed to the Israeli occupation of Gaza. And no, that's not Esperanto up there (I have no idea why you always insist on bringing that topic up), but Hebrew and Arabic. Honestly, I can't see what it is exactly that's so dispicalbe about them in your mind.

What creeps me out most about the Jewish = Israeli Government equation is that it blames Jewish people for the actions of the Israeli government far more than it blames ethnic Christians for the actions of the US government.  Why should that be the case? Why do so many people assume that the Israeli government represents the wishes and interests of Jewish people more than the US government represents American people?  Americans take public international blame for the actions of their government but no where near to the degree that Jewish people are blamed for the actions of Israel. Or to the degree that Palestinians are blamed for the actions of Hamas I might add.

Now the argument is made, "But they are doing it.  They are saying that to criticise Israel is anti-Semitic."  It is the very notion of that “They” that worries me.  That “They” is a construction.  It is used to manipulate ideas about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable policy in the Middle East.  That "They" is not a Jewish construction.  It is a "Western" construction.  And it is Imperial.

Sorry about that. I'll start another thread then.

You can't be fucking serious? 

This reminds me of the guy that used to go "I AM WARNING YOU!"

"YOU ARE MAKING A BIG MISTAKE!"

"YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO YOURSELF"

Well, he got his wish; now, Anti-Semitism is such a common accusation nobody believes it.

Its not about money. When the most anyone can donate to a party is $1,000 a year - its not a factor.

Btw, no one said anything about newspaper being obligated to publish anything. I see you never miss a point, to miss the point. Typical Stockholm evasion and distraction. And look! It works some idiot has come along to agree with you even though its a straw man -- keep spinning, Stockybaba. What people noted was that newspapers are more than willing to pick up the offal offered up by right wing fringe Jewish organizations, even the JDL, which is on the FBI terror list, and treat it as serious commentary, but don't seem to find the time of day to publish views opposite to those, from respected persons. In other words the mainstream media has a bias.

Your trying to say that newspapers don't have bias? I'll be looking for your bitching and moaning about the "media bias" after the NDP loses yet another election.

I am always impressed with how well you absorb and then regurgitate reactionary tropes, when you find yourself on the "right" side of the line. The "no obligation to publish line" is exactly what we hear when the press is ignoring the moustache. ROFL.

Setting the petition aside, I believe the opinion piece written by Judy Rebick and Alan Sears a few weeks ago and published by rabble.ca was first offered to the Globe and Mail and, I assume, the Toronto Star who turned it down - and Judy certainly knows how to write publishable pieces so the problem wasn't with the quality of writing or format. I also know that past attempts to have actual op ed pieces (not petitions) published in the Star and Globe have been turned down - ACJC (IJV's predecessor) had it's main opinion piece turned down by the Globe and Star until the Winnipeg Free Press picked it up thanks to Cy Gonick's intervention.

Unionist: I presume this phenomenon is tied to the concept of Diaspora.

I will side with Stockholm on his comment. (#59)

In my opinion, there was a lot of great infomation in the petition.  Unfortunately, it was a petition and not a commentary even though the petition had commentary elements.  If people want petitions published in a newspaper, they will need to buy ad space.  It may not seem fair, but it's business.

Much of the cheap labour previously provided by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza has been provided since the early 90s by foreign workers on temporary work permits.

Newspapers are all in such dire financial straights that I think there is ZERO chance that they would refuse to run a PAID full page ad that consisted of the petition above. I think the only place they would draw the line would be if the ad called for more suicide bombings and was a clear incitement to violence 9which it obviously isn't) (and even then Can West is so close to bankruptcy, they might not even turn their nose up at that).

In the past the Toronto Star (which is extremely progressive on social issues like same sex marriage etc...) has run ads from evangelical Christian groups denouncing same sex marriage. I think that as long as an ad is in good taste (ie: nothing from Rev. Phelps) - if you want to pay for it - its yours.

Okay, let's deal with the substantive issue Unionist. I wonder if the concept of the Diaspora with the subtext that Jews outside of Israel are not in their natural place contributes to the phenomenon you are describing.

Any of that sort of financing of sectarian violence by emigres is deplorable, IMV.

I think the author is saying that it is more difficult as a Jew, to voice criticism of Israel now, than it used to be; that Jewish identity is much more closely identified with Israel now, than it was when the state was younger.

I wonder how much of this change in identity is due to pressure form corporate American Media?  The United States as we know, benefits from Israel's financial dependence on US money and armaments.  Basically, Israel has no choice but to represent American interests in that region of the world.  It works out very well for the United States.  Israel takes a lot of heat for US policies in the Middle East.  I can see why the American media would be very opposed to representations of Jewish identity that are independent of Israel; or worse, voices of Jewish people who are not supportive of Israel.  It would ring as un-American.

Caissa, I am convinced you have a point there. Listen to what the OP statement said:

What do the B'nai Brith and Jason Kenney / Stephen Harper have in common?

Harper and Kenney hate Jews. They would freak out and die if someone in their family married one. They publicly connect Jews with the crimes of Israel. They believe that the homeland of Jews is not Canada. They are antisemites.

All the above applies to B'nai Brith, except the marriage part. They also hate Jews who are non-Zionist or (like me) anti-Zionist. They (like JDL) would suppress Jews who tell the ugly truth about Israel. They, like Harper and Kenney, are ultra-right fanatics.

So Caissa, you may be right. The Jews who cherish the Diaspora - that is, who are and want to be one with the peoples of the world, rather than a species apart, spiritually, politically, or geographically - are the hated targets of the B'nai Brith and the Jason Kenneys. Yet the Diaspora Jews are the ones celebrated throughout history for contributing to the progress and enlightenment of humanity. This is what these forces of darkness fear the most.

It's no accident to see the names of Jews who sign statements like these in Canada, the U.K., and elsewhere. They are scientists and artists and musicians and progressive political figures. They are the "light unto the nations", the best that Judaism has had to offer over the centuries. They are not Frank Dimant or Ariel Sharon.

A sematnic point - the title of this thread should be "Jewish Canadians (as opposed to "Canadian Jews") condemn suppression of criticism of Israel.   Canadian Jews implies that they are Jews who just happen to live in Canada (but it's not their "homeland") while Jewish Canadians clearly implies a Canadian nationality with a Jewish ethnic identity.

No, but I haven't heard the term "Canadian-Italian" either.  I guess in the case of Jews it's more complicated because it's both an ethnic identity and a religion.

It seems to me that Jewish people suffer because of a political dynamic that oppresses Blacks and other marginalized groups.  When a group is marginalized, there is usually less political maneuverability.   Within a marginalized group there can be great pressure to conform to the most promising leaders and ideology at the time.  If you question them you are seen as betraying the cause, even if you are only trying to enrich the general critique and dialogue. You hear about this happening within the Black community.  Many people within the Black community feel pressured to blanketly support popular leaders whose ideas they may question because, for instance, they may be chauvinistic,  just as people in the Jewish community feel pressured to support Israel regardless of concerns they may have over the Palestinians or the wisdom of maintaining such a costly occupation. When Unionist talks about  B'nai Brith practicing a kind of and-Semitism because they are denying the right of other Jewish people to express their political views, he's got a point. Zionism is analogous to other liberation ideologies that can be very constraining and oppressive of the people identified with its cause.

Jews are viewed as foreigners, with a foreign "homeland", by the Canadian government. It is the oldest anti-Jewish canard in the world - the strange wandering folk of "divided loyalties". 

They are portrayed as agents and allies of Israel, which gives rise to criminal assaults, vandalism, and arson against Jewish sites.

They are no more and no less "marginalized" (whatever that term means) than Jews were in pre-1933 Germany.

LP, I think we have to start calling a spade a spade.

When Canadian politicians (or anyone else) identify Canadian Muslims (or Muslim Canadians, whatever) with beheading and al-Qaeda and 9/11, etc., what do we call them?

Correct, Islamophobes.

Does it make any difference how some, most, many, a few Muslims actually view these things?

No, it's still Islamophobia.

When Canadian politicians portray Jews as being connected with Israel, dependent on Israel's fate and success, supportive of Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories, supportive of its ethnocentric laws and practices - what do we call them?

Why would we not call them antisemites? I've been doing that for some time. As Jews, we must stand up and call these non-Jews antisemites, and explain why we are saying so.

As for the Jews that hold exactly the same positions, we should rally Jews to reject those organizations and "leaders" who sully our name daily by their crimes.

I'm not suggesting that it's easy. I am, however, suggesting that it is essential - because it is true.

"

When Canadian politicians (or anyone else) identify Canadian Muslims (or Muslim Canadians, whatever) with beheading and al-Qaeda and 9/11, etc., what do we call them?

Correct, Islamophobes."

That all depends. If they are identifying them in that way but with a negative slant - then I guess you could call it "islamophobic".

But what do you call people who actually support Al-Qaeda, beheadings, the 9/11 attacks etc... and actually do think that these were great things for Islam and think that all Muslims all over the world ought to be proud to be associated with such activities? I wouldn't call them anything nice - but i don't think "islamophobic" would be the right word either.

I'd call them excellent PR agents for the military-industrial complex, which is also part of Canada's shadow economy. As Dr Strangelove might have said, they help to create in the minds of an enemy the fear to attack.

Both Al and Qa'eda were supported by US and British governments throughout the decade of the 90's, so I'm not sure where the slander comes in.

What an "interesting" thought.

ETA: Cross-posted with Unionist's far less vague rebuttle

"Or, how can "those ghetto types have a great sense of rhythm and are just brilliant at B&E" be racist?"

I would call that misguided stereotyping. To me ANTI-semitism has the word "ANTI" as a prefix for a reason. Because it is a 100% negative antagonistic sentiment. If some says "Jews are evil Christ-killers who are responsible for all bad things in the world and deserve to be discriminated against and preferably killed" - THAT is anti-semitism. If on the other hand someone says "Jews make good lawyers and know how to manage their money" - I would call it stereotyping - but I wouldn't call it anti-semitic - because while it is an incorrect stereotype - it isn't being antagonist - just slightly naive and misguided. 

Do you mean complimentary, as in, "Hey, nice job those guys did on 9/11"?,

... or complementary, as in, "Hey, those guys who were trained in terrorism and guerilla warfare by the ISI, CIA and even SAS, did a nice job of things on 9/11"? 

Do you actually believe this? 

No kidding.  There are now three ultrarightwing Jewish organizations which take identical positions on pretty much everything - the CJC, Bnai Brith and the JDL.  What about an organization for mainstream Jews, as ohara fondly calls them?

Unionist: In case it has escaped you, your claims that "Jews are viewed as foreigners, etc etc" smack of a hoary old siege mentality that simply has no place in Canada. Nobody I know, and nobody I've seen in the media, says anything like that about Jewish people.

*I* certainly don't believe that sort of thing about Jewish people. People used to say exactly the same sort of crap about Catholics - that they took orders from the Vatican, and that they represented an unsafe fifth column of sinister intent within society.

Have you never heard anyone describe Israel as the Jewish homeland?

Have you never seen anyone suggest that some politicians side with Israel in order to secure Jewish votes or support?

I'm suggesting that those views are antisemitic, and that they call into question Jews' full membership within Canadian civil society. You may disagree with my interpretation. But you'll have to do better than that to convince me that Canada is a society which has overcome antisemitism (or racism or misogyny or homophobia or supremacy toward Aboriginal peoples etc.).

Who exactly accused you of that? No need to plead not guilty.

And Japanese and Ukrainians and Germans and Muslims and Sikhs... 

Too many ironies:
From one of the pro-Israel organizations frequently given op-ed space we have a direct response to the suppressed statement by a substantial sampling of respected Jews --a statement which was not permitted to be seen in any any of the main papers op-ed spaces.
The alluded to statement about suppressed expression was suppressed.

Some of the tactics  of vilification used against it can be found in the suppressed statement--not viewable in the major media.

etc.

=====

It reminds me of the case of early Roman critics of Christianity whose remarks only survive in the very short quotes attacked in Christian writing-- the main criticisms were burned by the triumphing Christians. 

Such is the state of the megamedia today.

Modern Canada is a secular society which has no need of stereotypes about Jewish people. That is why there is no place for such attitudes.

You know, Cueball, you're quite right that Jews in Canada today don't experience anything resembling the kind of "marginalization" that many other groups of Canadians do.

But don't you think that stereotyping is dangerous - because that's what Harper, Kenney, and Dimant do - and that's what Farber does by his creation of the "Mainstream Jew"?

And do you have any idea of how it felt, or what I faced on the street, growing up as a Jewish child of immigrants in a poor neighbourhood?

And just exactly how "marginalized" do you think German and French and Dutch Jews were before they were rounded up, overnight, and slaughtered - with limited resistance from their communities?

Having said that, I appreciate your point about the commonality of views between Zionists and Nazis that Jews don't fit in here among normal folks.

France was the first country in the world that accorded Jews equal rights as citizens - under Napoleon Bonaparte. I'd be fascinated to know what "specific laws restricting Jewish rights at one level or another" you think existed in France.

Anyway, if you think antisemitism is a joking matter in Canada today (as per your previous radiator post), enjoy a hearty chuckle. I would have preferred had you opened your discussion in this thread by supporting the statement in the OP instead of attacking its style.

France, Cueball. France. And "laws", Cueball. You said "laws".

No kidding about Dreyfus. The whole point of the story was that a non-marginalized Jewish community, free and equal before the law, suddenly came face to face with the ugly xenophobia of the most reactionary elements of the ruling clique. Reminds me of Harper and Kenney.

Having said that, I apologize about the radiator comment. But I thought we were talking about systemic racism. I and my parents faced that not just from children, but in the corner grocery store, from neighbours, and later by smirks and comments in the workplace. Your attempts to deny it (which is what I was reacting to in case you,ve forgotten) are offensive in the extreme.

But because I love you and we're allies, I'm going to laugh it off. One day you will as well. But not today, I fear.

Legal disabilities against Jews in metropolitan France continued into the the mid 19th century. Algerian Jews were not awarded French citzenship until 1870. A year later official emancipation was finally instituted in Germany. Ok, that's a half generation before Hitler was wetting his baby clothes, not precisely when he was wetting his baby clothes.

That is enough prevarication on point. Laws are only part of the process of social integration. Social prejudice and indeed persecution continued despite laws: your entire case for "marginalization" rests on this point. Your entire case for the exceptional "marginalization" of Jews in Canada rest upon factors other than legal grounds. For if it didn't then Dr Conway's point about Canada being a secular society would stand on the law alone.

Jews as an ethnic group are one of the better established minorities within the spectrum of the white Canadian rulling class. That is not evidence of marginalization. It is the opposite.

So, no your arguement is not about law but about social prejudice which results in marginalization. Jews are no more marginalized in Canadian society, either in law, or in practice than Italian Canadian Catholics, and in fact, in comparison some other communities, emphasizing the plight of Jews in Canada as if it is exceptionally arduous or comparable to that of 19th Century Europe is spurious to the point that it makes a mockery of what we mean when we say "marginalized".

Heh. Can't really argue this can you when the Aspers own Global TV and Can west? Marginalized as a community? My ass.

How many TV stations are owned by Native Canadians? How many by Black Canadians? Huh?

I would name it is an example of the real access to power and authority that some member of the Jewish community in Canada have access to based on established facts. What it establishes that there are few apparent extraordinary impediments for Jewish people in the mainstream of society.

What would you name it?

Upon what verifiable facts do you base your claim that Jews are particularly marginalized in comparisons to, say, Italian Canadian Catholics?

MODERATORS: Close this thread for length, please, and kindly monitor any continuations for thread drift. This is an important topic. It's not easy for Jews to publicly condemn Israel, and I think it should be encouraged - not what is happening here.

Thank you.

If Mr. Obama wants me to provide the economic source data, and line up comparisons of job status, income, and ownership of corporations in the USA and cross-reference that with ethnicities, in order to show there is indeed evidence to show that white persons do indeed seem to have more access to power and wealth in American society, than non-white people, I will be happy to do so.

In the mean time, since it is just you and me, I was hoping you could provide similar evidence that establishes that Jewish Canadians are more marginalized than Italian Catholic Canadians.

Long, and now off topic.