THE COULON AFFAIR
Following Liberal leader’s Stephane Dion’s naming of candidate Jocelyn Coulon for the Outremont by-election B’nai Brith immediately demanded that the candidacy be revoked. The organization was not content with sharp criticism of Coulon but deemed his past words on the Middle East worthy of an over zealous response.
Coulon is a political scientist and former journalist who has expressed himself rather vigorously on Middle East issues. The essence of B’nai Brith’s case against him seems to be first that he has employed exaggerated rhetoric, linking Israel to the U.S. in “massacring Muslims”, “pulverizing Palestinian cities” and “murdering men, women and children.” Second, he has advocated talking to Hamas, a terrorist organization, third he has employed anti-U.S. rhetoric and finally that he labeled Israel’s actions in the second Lebanon War as “disproportionate”.
The basic question is not whether Coulon was right or wrong but rather does his record merit B’nai Brith’s exercise of its moral veto, which declares Coulon beyond the pale? That is,under what circumstances should a major organization of the Jewish community employ its maximum fire power, by not merely criticizing a candidate’s record but demanding his withdrawal from the race.
There are precedents for taking the extreme action which B’nai Brith has opted for, but they do not apply to this event. In the case of racist white supremacists and antisemites, both the American Anti Defamation League, the B’nai Brith and civil rights groups have acted against those bigots who have infiltrated the ranks of various parties in order to spread their vicious doctrines. Here in Quebec, Robert Libman and I, acting for B’nai Brith, made known the xenophobic record of PQ hard-liner Yves Michaud. It was not B’nai Brith but the entire National Assembly which then censured him. In other words, what I have termed the exercise of a moral veto was constrained to cases not of mere political differences but matters which impact on the very basis of a tolerant society.
Most of us in the Jewish community will take issue with Mr. Coulon on one or more or the issues that B.nai Brith has raised but they are points of debate rather than fundamental moral imperatives. I personally believe that some of Coulon’s rhetoric on Israel is “over the top” but it is hardly extraordinary. One can peruse the pages of newspapers from around the world, during the period of the second Lebanon War, and find many such expressions. Let’s face it, the dreadful television images of Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon provoked many reactions against Israel and some were not well balanced.
Mr. Coulon characterized Hamas as being also a social welfare organization and every student of Hamas understands that is an important foundation of its power. Coulon also advocated ending the isolation of Hamas whereas B’nai Brith, along with President Bush, holds that there should be no traffic with the axis of evil. I personally hold no brief for Coulon’s position but many thoughtful individuals, including leading Israelis, believe that it is unfortunately impossible, at least over the long run, to exclude Hamas from the political discourse. As for Coulon’s claim that the Israeli response in Lebanon was disproportionate, that is a matter hotly debated everywhere, including in Israel, where her own Winograd Commission has begun to voice similar sentiments.
My point, again, is not whether Coulon was right or wrong. His words show him to be a strong critic of Israel but he has maintained his support for Israel’s right to exist and in favor of the two state solution embraced by all Canadian political parties. B’nai Brith’s call on Dion to drop the Coulon candidacy was “disproportionate”. I believe B’nai Brith undercut its own credibility by employing a weapon which had previously been reserved for the most heinous cases or racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry. It would have been far better if B’nai Brith had tried to “engage” Coulon, rather than casting him as a major enemy, to be frontally attacked. Of course all of his views are subjects for debate and his opponents may see fit to do so. But the mass of the voters of Outremont, like most Canadians, will pay more attention to issues of the environment, health care and Afghanistan, and some, perhaps, ill chosen words on the Middle East will probably have no impact on the race
