August 20, 2010
To the Editor,
It seems on surface this controversy is like what Shakespeare would say, Much ado about Nothing. Was it politically motivated, well it would seem that way. However, Mr. Morantz states the Premier mentioned the word Palestine 3 times; it would very helpful to see what exactly was said in each of those comments in order to make a well informed opinion on the matter.
The use of the word Palestine can be inflammatory to the exclusion of mentioning Israel. This is a narrative that has been adopted by those that don’t accept Israel’s existence. Case in point. Ahmedinejad refers to the zionist regime in Palestine. Recently Helen Thomas, with her anti-Semtic slurs used the word Palestine in place of Israel. In these cases, the narrative is that all of Israel, and the Palestinian Territories belong to the Palestinian people. They refuse to accept Israel as the Jewish and legitimate State. Unfortunately even UNRWA school texts with maps have excluded the word Israel and replaced it with Palestine.
Most Palestinians already refer to West Bank and Gaza, as Palestine. This is primarily done for political reasons to criticize Israels policy’s in the area’s. Of course we know the Palestininas and Arab League did not accept the U.N. partiton plan of ’47 and Israel unilaterallery declared its Independence shortly after in 1948, while the Arab States decided to initiate a War of Genocide upon the nascent state of Israel. So technically Mr. Morantz is correct in saying Palestine does not exist.
The only example given in the article, is that Premier Selinger said something about wanting there to be peace between Israel and Palestine. It’s a goodwill gesture, at worst a political oversight. I can’t speak for Premier Selinger, but i highly doubt he would argue that Palestine is already an existing Soverign State.
Mark Kittner, Winnipeg