Israel Apartheid Week: A Tale of Two Brothers

Driving past the University of Toronto recently, I noticed a lone protestor on the perimeter of the campus carrying a sign objecting to Israel Apartheid Week. I was reminded that the University of Toronto was the first academic institution to host and promote the scandal of this event. Beginning in 2004 under the interim presidency of Frank Iacobucci, who does not seem to have realized the ignominy he had countenanced, the contagion spread to many other academic cesspools across Canada, the U.S. and Europe. The University of Toronto, however, is the revered patriarch of the movement. Iacobucci was succeeded in November 2005 by the current president, David Naylor, under whose administration this academic canard has persisted into the present moment—the festival of anti-Semitic hatred and anti-Zionist calumny will unfurl the Palestinian flag and welcome a contingent of bigoted speakers on March 4.

When questioned by the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies about his university’s compliance with so evidently corrupt and defamatory a spectacle, Naylor declared that “We do, in fact, recognize that the term Israeli Apartheid is upsetting to many people, [but] we also recognize that, in every society, universities have a unique role to provide a safe venue for highly charged discourse.” Naylor’s recognition that the term is “upsetting” is entirely frivolous, unbefitting a university president. The fact is that the term is totally false—a given that appears to have escaped Naylor’s attention rather conveniently, thus sparing him the moral duty to confront so spurious a conviction. Further, universities are not always—or even primarily—known for furnishing such “safe venues,” especially when the speakers are unpopular conservative figures.

A few typical episodes will suffice to corroborate the point. A riot incited by pro-Palestinian activists erupted when Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to speak at Concordia University in Montreal, causing extensive damage and injury and forcing cancelation of the event. Jewish students at York University in Toronto required police protection when threatened by a swarm of Muslim students. Ann Coulter’s talk at the University of Ottawa was shut down by a horde of howling students and a craven administration. Author Warren Farrell’s address on behalf of a men’s rights organization, the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), held at Naylor’s own university, proceeded amidst obscene verbal abuse and palpable menace while police stood idly around. Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, was disrupted and shouted down by unruly Muslim and left-wing students at the University of California at Irvine. David Horowitz, founder of the Freedom Center, is accompanied by a bodyguard when he lectures at American universities.  The beat—and the beating—goes on.

The disingenuousness of Naylor’s claim regarding “every society” is revealed if we glance at the Arab world, where no “safe venue” is remotely in evidence. Consider inviting a politically controversial or Jewish speaker to Al-Azhar University in Cairo, or Umm Al-Qura University in Mecca, or the Islamic University of Lebanon where the Academy’s  “unique role to provide a safe venue for highly charged discourse” is about as viable as, well, a Canadian or American university president showing a sliver of moral courage or cerebral acuity.

One does not like to cast disparaging phrases and sentiments around indiscriminately, but I cannot refrain from viewing David Naylor (no differently from his likeminded peers, as it should go without saying) as a disgrace to his calling. Nor can I help speculating that the refusal to intervene, or what amounts to the de facto advocacy we remark in the U of T president, runs in the family. His brother, R.T. Naylor, a professor at McGill University in Montreal, is the former director of the piquantly named American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the author of many tendentious books on political and economic subjects. The Naylors’ partiality to Islamic causes may be fractionally explained by a Middle Eastern genealogy, as M.J. Stone implies in a favorable review of the Montreal Naylor’s work in the pro-Nazi Vanguard News Network Forum, in which he does not fail to mention the Naylor “family roots in Lebanon.”

R. T. Naylor intrigues me not least because we shared a publisher for a time, McGill-Queen’s University Press, for which I no longer write. Naylor, I must confess, is one of the most turgid and clottingly indigestible writers I have ever suffered reading, but one book in particular merits investigating for the kind of anti-American, anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim bafflegab littering the Left/Islamic scene today, an illustration of what David Horowitz has aptly called “the unholy alliance” busy at its insidious work. I refer to Naylor’s Satanic Purses, a screed filled with reams of presumably hard economic data arguing that the war on terror is largely deceptive and feeds off a hoodwinked public in order to advance various entrenched interests. The atrocious titular pun on Salman Rushdie’s major novel, The Satanic Verses, is enough to extradite the author’s intellectual repute. Not only does the title betoken an adolescent attempt to seem clever and with-it, but ironically also recalls the fatwa on Rushdie issuing from the very Islamic world that Naylor extols and justifies.

Once inured to the battery of putative “information,” it requires only a few pages for the reader to recognize that the writing is vitiated by a sophomoric snideness, operating in the vein of pseudo-mockery and alluding tongue-in-cheek, to take just a couple of examples, to the presumed “regime of brooding Islamic fanatics” in Sudan or the “gang of misanthropic miscreants” in Taliban Afghanistan. These groups are meant to be understood as the inventions of unscrupulous neoconservative agents like George W. Bush and his Republican backers or of the “machinations of the pro-Israel lobby.” It is the latter, we are given to understand, who comprise the brooding fanatics and misanthropic miscreants.

But when Naylor goes on to define al-Qaeda as “largely a law-enforcement fable akin to the Mafia myth,” we know we are witnessing a slick polemical shell game, for the Mafia is no myth and its global reach has been amply documented. For Naylor, the United States is the real Evil Empire, Israel and its American-Jewish supporters are the devil’s deputies, Hamas is a world-class charity, the Oslo Accords were sabotaged by the Israelis, radical Islam is basically innocent and is only reacting to “Western meddling in the Islamic world,” jihad does not mean Holy War (shades of John Brennan), the American government seeks “to demonize Muslims worldwide,” (utter nonsense under Obama, but also under Bush), the international banking infrastructure is “a global espionage apparatus,” and so on ad vomitatum.

When, in an interview with Counterpunch, Naylor speaks of Jewish fundamentalist “charities” sponsoring terrorist groups and of Christian fundamentalist proselytizing which “may well provoke further acts of terrorism,” asserts that Israel is engaged in a “policy of mass murder,” torture and theft, and contends that the main resource of Middle Eastern countries “is not oil [but] their émigré population, well-educated and for the most part anxious to go home,” there can be little doubt that we are observing a polemical farce of histrionic proportions, turning reality upside-down, accusing a straw man of the crimes and transgressions committed by one’s own fraternal constituency, and whitewashing a frankly violent, parasitic and Caliphate-aspiring Islamic world.

As Stone put it in the above-cited puff job, “A culmination of thirty years’ work as a historian, criminologist and expert in international political economy, Naylor described Satanic Purses as counterpoint to post 9/11 propaganda. ‘It brings together my expertise in finance, politics, and both Middle Eastern and North American history as it relates to the deeply embedded prejudices against Muslims and Arabs that have existed in the West since the time of the crusades.’” Shades of the increasingly discredited Edward Said. Naylor then goes to bat for Hamas and Hezbollah, describing both terrorist organizations, according to Stone, as “having important social and humanitarian mandates” and being compelled to react “to Israeli atrocities.”

Candidly speaking, it isn’t far from one Naylor’s approval of Hamas and Hezbollah and condemnation of (fictive) Israeli iniquities to another Naylor’s seemingly serene acquiescence in eight years’ worth, now, of Israel Apartheid Week hate fests on the campus he oversees. There is nothing unique about the brothers’ species of advocacy, whether passive like the Toronto Naylor’s or aggressive like the Montreal Naylor’s. Together they offer a paradigm for the migration and sedimenting of radical ideas, via a composite passive-aggressive mentality indicated by a sibling dynamic of permission and attack. There is a symbiotic relation in play here, as one approach lends institutional respectability to the hypothetical scholarship of the other—and vice versa.

The brothers are therefore influential in different but kindred fashions, one through the latent concession of misconstrued authority and the other through the manifest thrust of false argumentation. Moreover, it clearly signals how academic elitism and ostensible intellectual sophistication have succeeded in skewing the genuine terms of debate and have reconditioned violent aggressors as plaintive belligerents. There is not much to choose between wrong thinking and abject pusillanimity.

The placard borne by the lone protestor on the University of Toronto campus read: Israeli Jihad Apartheid Week. No balls to flog. The second statement may be a trifle bizarre and ambiguous, but it is more easily understandable than the pliant and accommodationist positions adopted by the representative Naylors.

  • Chezwick

    DAVID NAYLOR: “We do, in fact, recognize that the term Israeli Apartheid is upsetting to many people, [but] we also recognize that, in every society, universities have a unique role to provide a safe venue for highly charged discourse.”

    Well then, no doubt Mr Naylor will provide a "safe venue" for 'Islamo-fascism Awareness Week'?….Why do I suspect not?

    • karpe diem 36

      i wonder on what basis did this man become a president of a university, did he have to prove himself as a competent, intelligent, knowledgeable leader?

      • Mary Sue

        Hell no he only had to demonstrate his Identity Politics street cred.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "i wonder on what basis did this man become a president of a university, did he have to prove himself as a competent, intelligent, knowledgeable leader?"

        Proof of CPUSA membership. Unless he had an Arabic name with the right jihadi credentials. That's how you get in. The exceptions to that are the Bill Ayers types. You must be a bona fide enemy of the USA.



      David Horowitz needs to hold an "Islamofascism Awareness Week" conference at the same school to test the university administration claim of open mindedness.

      • defcon 4

        That would be hilarious, wouldn't it? It would be interesting to see what kind of hypocritical BS the academia scumbags would come up with to deny it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      DAVID NAYLOR: “We do, in fact, recognize that the term Israeli Apartheid is upsetting to many people, [but] we also recognize that, in every society, universities have a unique role to provide a safe venue for highly charged discourse.”

      Sounds very similar to what some people call "hate speech." I call some of it incitement to murder. Where're the cops when you need them to arrest these people?

      "Well then, no doubt Mr Naylor will provide a "safe venue" for 'Islamo-fascism Awareness Week'?….Why do I suspect not?"

      No no no no!. Islam-o-phobes use HATE speech!! We can't have that.

  • AdinaK

    A very accurate rendition by David. Adding some meat and context, to the traveling anti-semitic hate-fest, we dare not forget this MAJOR player, and all her helpmates –

    Our struggle against the jihadists, and their leftist surrogates, is not new. It is ongoing and relentless. We will chase them, wherever they are.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel

  • Indioviejo

    This article is a reminder of the great service provided by this venue. MSM will never post anything like it. Although we know this has been the mode for quite some time, it is important to keep it in evidence just to show there is opposition to the madness. Rush Limbaugh said recently that we have lost the war to the leftist teachers and professors who indoctrinate our children. I know it is so, but I say, are we also to lose the war against Islam? If so we are headed for the new dark ages.


      We only "lose" if we give up.

      FIGHT Islamofascism and socialism.

    • defcon 4

      True, I only have admiration for the courage of the writers here. I'm certain they receive nothing but disdain from their mendacious leftist fellows in the enemedia and death threats from their islamofascist fanbase.

  • richard sherman

    Thee Naylors obviously revere Muhammad: a sociopath who personally decapitated 900 unarmed Jews at Quarayza….jusr two sociopaths who revere the murderous lust of another sociopath.


      Eternal Nakba for the false "prophet", the war criminal muhammed, pestilence be upon him, for all time!

  • EthanP

    Would Naylor defend the exact same wording aimed at Muslims, Arabs, Iranians? Of course not! He would fear for his life and those of his family! Academias double standard is sickening!


      One Standard of Justice.

      If Islamofascists have the approval to bash Israel.

      Anti-Islamofascist MUST also have the approval to bash pal-e-swine, al qada, hamass, hezbullah, syria, muslim brotherhood egypt, iraq, talibanistan, afghanistan, islamofascist regimes of iran and pakistan, sudan, mauritania…

  • Mary Sue

    Oh yes, the uniquely Western Marxist concept of "safe spaces" which are entirely alien to Palestinians…except for the fact that they understand it pretty well when they express their desire for Judenrein ("safe spaces" — away from teh j00s!)

  • JacksonPearson

    Slaves come from two sources at the time of Prophet Muhammad
    Slave markets: slave trade in slave markets was major source of economy, an immediate order of prohibition would have created immense social and economic problems. Such problems pose burdensome threat to society/state to cater the needs of a large number of slaves, who's dependence was on various families. Also, the national treasury was in no position to provide them all on a permanent basis. The old & the young ones were incapable of supporting themselves. The only alternative left for them, if they were instantly freed, would have been to turn to beggary and become an economic burden for the society. The question of slave girls and women was even more critical, keeping in view their own low moral standards. Freeing them, all of a sudden, would have only resulted in a tremendous increase in brothels.

    2. When it comes to war captives/slaves, releasing them would have made the purpose of war null & void. It would tear the spirit of muslims who willing fight at the risk of their lives. Allah subhanawatala says subdue them, by means of ransoming some ,killing some ,freeing some by favour & keeping some as slaves. Had they been completely freed, the evil minded people would have created further mischief by attacking again or employing other methods of mischief.

    In today's world both cases are still available…..
    Now what's this BS talk about Israeli apartheid???

    • defcon 4

      Tamerlane, the great muslim hero, at one point was told it was impossible to transport all his Indian kufr slaves across the Hindu Kush (due to supplies the number of men needed to guard the slave caravans etc.). His solution, behead them ALL, because they were kufrs and couldn't just merely be released.

      • JacksonPearson

        That wouldn't surprise in the least. Islam have no respect for life.
        For the sake of so-called honor, they even kill their own family members, mainly women. Something that any civilized persons wouldn't dream of doing.

        • defcon 4

          Tamerlane actually had TOWERS constructed of the beheaded skulls of the various kufrs/infidels he had slaughtered in the Indian sub-continent.

  • sima aronowicz

    It is absolutely outrageous that this all started with the approval of our jewish federation or jewish congress back then.

    This is the same outrageous scenario as happened in the past, when 6 million Jewish people were murdered.

    Where are the champions of Israel and the jewish people? Where are the Jabotinsky’s? The CIJA’s and Federation are nearsighted and do not have the toughness to fight the battles.

    It is up to each individual and activist groups to fight the battle.


  • objectivefactsmatter

    Israeli Apartheid in reality is the same kind of "apartheid" we have in the USA. We have selected victim classes that are elevated above the supposed offenders in the "establishment."

    Stop the race bating and jihadi appeasement everywhere.

  • Ben

    Academic leftism have got the contemporary colour of welfare state – the dependency, on hated capitalism,the dependency demand the other main enemy . The Jews appear in the new role (not the racial inferior one) as the cruel colonialists and exploiters of the oppressed.Welfare states of the Western world need Zionists and Zionist Israel.

  • Drakken

    Well it is about time to fight back, not just in words but deed as well, when the left/islamist assault you, give it back to them 10 fold, once they fear you, they will respect you.

    • defcon 4

      Personally, I'm beginning to think the only reason Israel has continued to exist is because the islamofascists in the Mid-East ultimately still fear Israel.

  • Imri Engels

    When is Leftist Treason Week?