Skip to content

  • Home
  • Subscribe / donate
  • Events calendar
  • News
    • Local
    • National
    • Israel
    • World
    • עניין בחדשות
      A roundup of news in Canada and further afield, in Hebrew.
  • Opinion
    • From the JI
    • Op-Ed
  • Arts & Culture
    • Performing Arts
    • Music
    • Books
    • Visual Arts
    • TV & Film
  • Life
    • Celebrating the Holidays
    • Travel
    • The Daily Snooze
      Cartoons by Jacob Samuel
    • Mystery Photo
      Help the JI and JMABC fill in the gaps in our archives.
  • Community Links
    • Organizations, Etc.
    • Other News Sources & Blogs
    • Business Directory
  • FAQ
  • JI Chai Celebration
  • JI@88! video

Search

Follow @JewishIndie
image - The CJN Magazine ad

Recent Posts

  • לאן נתניהו לוקח את ישראל
  • Enjoy the best of Broadway
  • Jewish students staying strong
  • An uplifting moment
  • Our Jewish-Canadian identity
  • Life amid 12-Day War
  • Trying to counter hate
  • Omnitsky’s new place
  • Two visions that complement
  • A melting pot of styles
  • Library a rare public space
  • TUTS debut for Newman
  • Harper to speak here
  • A night of impact, generosity
  • Event raises spirit, support
  • BC celebrates Shavuot
  • Ex-pats make good in Israel
  • Love and learning 
  • From the JI archives … yum
  • “Royal” mango avocado salsa
  • מחכים למשיח
  • Arab Zionist recalls journey
  • Bringing joy to people
  • Doing “the dirty work”
  • JI editorials win twice!
  • Workshops, shows & more
  • Jerusalem a multifaceted hub
  • Israel and international law
  • New tractor celebrated
  • Pacific JNF 2025 Negev Event
  • Putting allyship into action
  • Na’amat Canada marks 100
  • JWest questions answered
  • A family of storytellers
  • Parshat Shelach Lecha
  • Seeing the divine in others

Archives

Byline: The Editorial Board

Don’t leave. Engage!

Anthony Housefather has decided to remain in the federal Liberal caucus. Housefather, member of Parliament for the Quebec riding of Mount Royal, is one of only two Liberals to have voted against the NDP motion last month that called for a ceasefire, an end to Canadian military trade with Israel, as well as other positions about Israel and the current conflict.

As discussed in this space last issue, the New Democratic Party motion had some of its rough edges sanded down in order to make it palatable to almost all Liberal MPs. The rest of the House of Commons voted predictably. Conservatives unanimously opposed the motion, which they viewed as biased against Israel. The Bloc Québecois and the Green party sided with the NDP.

The daylong negotiations over amendments to the motion were a face-saving effort by the Liberal government to avoid the embarrassment of a serious schism in their caucus over foreign policy. In the end, a less inflammatory motion was passed.

Housefather, who is Jewish and represents a riding that has one of the largest concentrations of Jewish voters in Canada, was joined on the government side in opposing the motion only by Ontario Liberal MP Marco Mendocino.

Housefather was open about his frustration. Anyone who has found themselves in a place where they do not feel welcomed, based on their core identity, can certainly appreciate his feelings of isolation. However, we are pleased that he has decided to remain in the Liberal caucus.

Crossing the floor and joining the Conservatives, which he had said he was considering, would not have been advantageous to Jewish and pro-Israel voters. Since the administration of former prime minister Stephen Harper, at the latest, the Conservative party has been perceived as overwhelmingly pro-Israel. This approach has been welcomed by many Jewish Canadians.

However, this reality means that, were Housefather to switch parties, he would become just another pro-Israel voice in the Conservative caucus. By staying where he is, he will be a necessary voice for Israel and the Jewish community in the governing party. In an announcement a week ago, he said the prime minister has asked him to lead the government’s efforts in fighting antisemitism. This effort needs as much multi-partisan support as possible.

Anyone who has had difficult conversations with friends or family in recent months understands the emotional burden of being a voice for Israel in this challenging time. This, however, makes Housefather’s presence in the Liberal party that much more important.

We face a similar challenge at the provincial level. With the firing of Selina Robinson from cabinet, and her subsequent withdrawal from the governing New Democratic Party caucus, the Jewish community’s most outspoken ally, liaison and voice is gone from the government side of the legislature. Neither Robinson, who now sits as an independent, nor George Heyman, the other Jewish New Democrat in Victoria, are seeking reelection. It is entirely possible that the Jewish community will not have any community members in the next legislature.

This is not to say we do not have friends there.

Michael Lee, the MLA for Vancouver-Langara, has been a steadfast ally of the Jewish community and a stalwart presence at the weekly Sunday rallies for the Israeli hostages. Recently, when he addressed that audience, he went to lengths to warn against making Israel a political football. A community that can be taken for granted by one party and written off by another will find itself unrepresented in the halls of power. Lee reassured Jewish British Columbians that they not only have friends on the opposition side of the house, but in the governing NDP as well.

We know that there are allies for Israel and the Jewish people in the provincial NDP. It is a symptom of a larger concern that some of these people feel constrained around expressing that solidarity fully because of segments of their own party who would almost certainly single them out for that support.

As Robinson herself told the Independent last issue, she has friends and supporters in the caucus – but she wouldn’t mention them by name for fear of putting a target on their backs. This is a serious problem, of course. But it is better to have quiet allies than no allies at all. Their presence can potentially moderate extreme elements in their party. Were they not there, restraining impulses might be minimized.

As we approach a provincial election this fall, and a federal election at some unpredictable date (remember, there is a minority government in Ottawa) Jewish Canadians and allies of Israel should not abandon the parties that include voices with alternative views. We should, like Housefather has chosen to do, make sure our voices are heard in all of Canada’s diverse political venues. 

Posted on April 12, 2024April 10, 2024Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags allyship, Anthony Housefather, antisemitism, governance, House of Commons, Israel, Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Lee, NDP, politics

Using politics to divide

The House of Commons passed a watered-down motion about Israel and Palestine Monday night after a raucous day in Parliament. The compromise amendments on the New Democratic Party’s motion seemed as much about saving face for the governing Liberals as they did about doing what is right for Palestinians and Israelis.

The main takeaway from the compromise was the change from calling on the government to unilaterally recognize the “state of Palestine” to working toward “the establishment of the state of Palestine as part of a negotiated two-state solution,” which is essentially what Canadian foreign policy has said for years.

The rest of the motion was a laundry list of demands, some reasonable, some far out. There were mandatory expressions of concern for victims on both sides and platitudes about future coexistence. 

The clear sticking point was the unilateral recognition of Palestine as a state. The opposition Conservatives were unanimously opposed to the motion. The Bloc Québécois (which might hope other countries would someday recognize an independent Quebec), the Greens and, of course, the sponsoring NDP lined up in favour. The drama Monday was in the Liberal caucus.

Opposition parties have tried to use the conflict and the larger issues in the Middle East as a wedge between various factions in the governing Liberal caucus. While many Liberal MPs probably wish the unending bugbear of Mideast politics would stop filling their inboxes, small numbers of MPs on both sides of the issue are deeply committed to their respective positions. After the motion was amended, the most vocal pro-Israel Liberals – Anthony Housefather, Marco Mendocino and Ben Carr – voted against their caucus colleagues, leaving the decided impression that the Zionists were frozen out in a negotiation that most Liberals felt they could support without alienating too many of their voters. 

While everyone wishes the violence would end, the motion’s call for an immediate ceasefire is, speciously, a backdoor for continued Hamas rule. The call to end Canadian military trade with Israel is a largely hollow symbol – there is hardly any trade in military equipment and, of that, it is exclusively non-lethal material.

What many people found offensive in the motion was the idea that, in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 terror attacks, we should move in what is, in historical terms, the blink of an eye, to demanding Palestinian statehood. Most reasonable people imagine a two-state solution – but to prioritize that now sends a message, not only to Palestinian extremists, but to violent forces everywhere, that mass murder and kidnappings are the surest ways to advance your cause.

The NDP position is based on an assumption that Israel appears to have given up on the two-state solution – indeed, the prime minister of Israel has effectively said just that. And, yes, there are extremist voices within Israel’s government who are committed to denying Palestinian statehood. However, the continued terrorism and incitement to eradicate Israel that remains widespread, if not ubiquitous, in Palestinian politics and society is a major cause of the failure of a two-state solution. Israel may have an effective veto on Palestinian statehood, but it is Palestinian terrorists (and the failure of the, ahem, elected leaders to reign them in) that has put the two-state solution on a back burner. It is a challenge to understand how Oct. 7 reasonably moves that goal forward. To suggest that Canada should recognize a Palestinian state before the Palestinians have believably committed to living in coexistence is to demonstrate a profound nonchalance about the lives of Israelis. 

But, let’s be clear about a couple of things. No reasonable person is expecting a permanent peace between Israel and an eventual state of Palestine that looks like, say, the amity between Canada and the United States. We can hope for a cold peace like those between Israel and Egypt or Jordan. Anything beyond that is still in the realm of fantasy, though there are people on the ground, on both sides, who are working towards a warmer, more integrated and, frankly, safer reality.

Moreover, for all the nail-biting on Parliament Hill this week, in the greater scheme, the whole drama amounted to a hill of hummus. Let’s not overestimate the impact Canada can have. Whatever Canadian MPs say or do about the conflict, the Dead Sea remains salty. This does not mean, however, that Monday’s spectacle has no impacts. It has impacts – on Canadian Jews, Israelis, Palestinians, Muslims and others with a deep connection to these issues.

Heather McPherson, the NDP foreign affairs critics, acknowledged on CBC TV Monday that the motion was really about making a statement in support of Palestinians (as were, presumably, the numerous keffiyehs and fists of solidarity raised during the votes). Fine. As other MPs noted, though, the motion – whether passed or defeated – was destined to leave one community hurt. 

The final motion was better than the original one. Not by much, though. In the end, a compromise was attempted, but the voices of the Jewish and pro-Israel communities were the ones who still felt betrayed.

Pro-Israel organizations in Canada released condemnatory statements, with the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs scathingly declaring that the Liberal government has “chosen to effectively sub-contract Canadian foreign policy to anti-Israel radicals within the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.”

For all the fireworks and emotion, the entire fiasco was an example of multicultural communities being pitted against one another through wedge politics on a divisive issue that guaranteed one community in the country would feel abandoned. And, after political manoeuvring, backroom negotiations and 11th-hour compromises … surprise! It’s the Jews. 

Posted on March 22, 2024March 20, 2024Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags Canada, Israel-Hamas war, NDP, politics

Let’s talk about new bill

The federal Liberal government has introduced a new Online Harms Bill. The bill is intended to address two primary areas of concern – hate crimes against groups and posts that harm individuals, such as those that bully children – and recognizes a range of what are clearly serious problems.

If passed, the new law would require social media platforms and “user-uploaded adult content” websites to delete offending posts within 24 hours. These could include posts that encourage self-harm, target a child for bullying or are examples of “revenge porn” – the distribution of, for example, nude photos of a former partner.

The bill also proposes making hate-motivated crimes a separate offence. Hate motivation can currently be considered in the sentencing phase as an aggravating context. The bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to have the Canadian Human Rights Commission address some of these concerns.

Maximum penalties would be severely stiffened. For example, the maximum sentence for advocating genocide online would be life imprisonment, up from five years.

The law would also create a panel, a “digital safety commission,” to oversee online content and it would reclassify hate speech as discrimination under the Criminal Code. A digital safety ombudsperson would support victims and guide social media companies. Companies that break the rules could be fined up to $10 million or six percent of their global revenues. Private messages between individuals, like email, would not fall within the prohibitions.

Since Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed a decade ago, commentators and activists, including Jewish organizations, have been calling for something to address serious issues around online content. This is the government’s overdue response – overdue by its own admission, having promised during the last election campaign to advance such a bill in its first 100 days if reelected.

Opposition parties fell into sadly predictable lines. New Democrat leader Jagmeet Singh said his party will vote for the bill and condemned the government for waiting so long. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre turned his hyperbole hose on full force, calling the bill part of “Justin Trudeau’s woke authoritarian agenda.”

“What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the words ‘hate speech’? He means the speech he hates,” said Poilievre. “You can assume he will ban all of that.”

Surely parliamentary democracy can come up with something more nuanced between “Faster, faster! More, more!” and “We’re all headed for the gulags.”

The bill was tabled last week and will go through committee before coming back to the House of Commons. The committee phase is when elected officials examine the details of proposed legislation and we trust (despite the above caveats) that sober consideration will be given to balance the right to free expression and the legitimate need to protect individuals and groups from harm.

The experience of now-defunct Section 13 should be an object lesson for politicians considering the new law. The section was finally killed after showing itself to be both too weak to address the realities of an online world that didn’t exist when the law was originally drafted, yet strong enough to drag individuals and institutions with controversial but probably reasonable speech (for example, Maclean’s magazine and commentator Mark Steyn) before something resembling a Cold War show trial.

Justice Minister Arif Virani responded to concerns over free expression.

“It does not undermine freedom of speech. It enhances free expression by empowering all people to safely participate in online debate,” he said. This reflects an emerging approach to online dialogue, in which traditional ideas of free speech are balanced with the reality that some people are excluded from participation through harassment and threats, which may be a fair assessment. 

Outrage at hate speech is an appropriate response, but one aspect of the bill could have the effect of turning reasonable people off it. Few would seriously believe that a judge is going to send someone to prison for life (ie., 25 years) for a late night, drunken rant that the law characterizes as incitement to genocide. However, the fact that the law would permit precisely that outcome makes the whole exercise faintly preposterous, like the exasperated parent who shouts, “You’re grounded for life!” Appearance can be reality and that aspect of the bill looks ridiculous. Moreover, all of us should apply sober second thought when advocating for the expansion of the prison system – imprisonment is not a solution to hate.

Canada has always taken a different approach to expression than our First Amendment cousins in the United States. Absolutism, which is the American approach, is comparatively easy. The more nuanced approach of finding a balance is an organic, always shifting challenge.

Most Canadians do not pay a great deal of attention to the goings-on in parliamentary committees. This would be a good time to start. Last week’s tabling of the Online Harms Bill should be the beginning of a national conversation. 

Posted on March 8, 2024March 7, 2024Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags federal government, hate crimes, legislation, Online Harms Bill, politics

False binaries harmful

It is perhaps inevitable that, at a time of polarized thinking, many people seem incapable of holding two ideas in their minds at once.

Canadian politics has maybe not succumbed to the depths of entrenched division we see in our neighbours to the south, where Democrat-versus-Republican has taken on a tribal identification. However, almost every democratic society is experiencing intense divisions not only in opinion but in identification. That is, our identities, including political stands, are prioritized to represent core personal traits. If we identify less as, say “a Canadian who votes for the Purple Party,” but instead as “a Purple Canadian,” it can feel threatening to have a conversation with someone of different opinions.

Social media is a significant driver of this phenomenon. Not only do the algorithms embolden and reify extremism, but we are encouraged to share these extreme opinions. Inflammatory ideas that we once might have kept to ourselves are posted for all to see – and, if someone disagrees, we may perceive it as a personal attack and feel encouraged to carry out an online vendetta. In times past, we may have suspected that our neighbour or relative held ideas we disagreed with. Now, we may know what our friends and neighbours think and feel about myriad issues – and we might be motivated to take them on in a virtual slugfest over those differences.

In theory, this is a good thing – but only in theory. In a perfect world, social media gives us the opportunity to engage one another in informed, enriching dialogue. Clearly, the joke’s on us. 

In reality, social media reduces the quality of dialogue to a dismissive, insulting snapback. Moreover, the comparative anonymity of the platforms gives us licence to vent our worst impulses with few checks and balances embedded in the systems.

It is in this troubled online culture that the current war between Israel and Hamas is being addressed by Canadians.

The context is additionally challenged by recent changes to Canadian law. The federal government reasonably demanded that social media platforms pay news producers for the content shared on their platforms. In response, the platforms blocked the content rather than pay for it. A business can choose whether to retail what others are wholesaling, to use a clunky parallel. Of course, social media platforms are not just any business. It is fair to argue that they are a form of public utility and so should be governed by different standards. That, though, is a discussion for a different time. Bottom line is that Canadians are debating online over current events without the advantage of sharing professional news content, with predictable outcomes around reach and veracity.

Binary or polarized thinking plays another role. 

Antisemitism, as any reader knows, is at levels most of us have not seen in our living memories. This is not incidental to the current war but, crucially, neither is the war the cause. Antisemitism lies in wait, depending on an external spark to set it aflame. Nothing Israel does (or, for that matter, anything Hamas does) is the cause of antisemitism in Canada. We need to address domestic bigotry for what it is. The purest proof: other international disputes rarely, if ever, result in eruptions of racism in Canada … why does this one?

In response to concerns around antisemitism, we see – usually online, because that is where these sorts of “conversations” happen most visibly – many people responding predictably. If there is antisemitism in Canada, a common theme goes, blame Israel’s actions or existence. A slightly more extreme variation makes the case that, at a time when it is alleged that Palestinians are experiencing genocide or ethnic cleansing, why are we wasting time talking about (the presumably relatively inconsequential matter of) antisemitism?

At a minimum, the response to such ideas should be that two things can be true at the same time. There may be unfolding tragedies in the Middle East … but there is also racism at home that demands addressing. And, no, one cannot wait until the other is resolved. Just as we should be capable of holding two ideas at once, we must be able to condemn injustice at home and abroad. Why is this difficult?

Binary thinking implies that injustice abroad displaces injustice at home. The message many of us see on social media is, put bluntly, Canadian Jews should keep quiet about their problems, complaints or experiences while Palestinians are dying.

Something we can keep in mind when engaging online, in real time, or however we participate, is that our activism on global affairs, including those places in which we have a personal stake, is vital and necessary. But it also has very limited impacts globally. The Israeli government, Hamas and the international entities engaged in what negotiations exist are, frankly, not going to be moved much by marching Canadians or millions of memes on social media. Those who are going to be affected are our neighbours and family, who see often harmful, hateful and insensitive comments and feel bereft, anxious and alone. 

We need to keep in mind this: whatever we say about Israel-Palestine lands hardest on the ears, hearts and minds closest to us. Condemning Israelis or Palestinians (or anyone else) has minimal effect in Israel or Palestine. It causes plenty of pain right here at home. 

Posted on February 23, 2024February 22, 2024Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags binary thinking, critical thinking, Israel-Hamas war, polarization, social media

Anti-racism work at risk

Selina Robinson resigned Monday as British Columbia’s minister of post-secondary education and future skills. She also announced she would not seek reelection as the member of the Legislature for Coquitlam-Maillardville – though she said the latter was a decision she had made earlier.

The resignation Monday afternoon was the culmination of a remarkably speedy controversy that erupted late last week, after video circulated of Robinson, during a B’nai Brith Canada panel discussion, referring to pre-state Israel as a “crappy piece of land with nothing on it.” That she qualified the statement immediately, saying “there were several hundred thousand people, but, other than that, it didn’t produce an economy, it couldn’t grow things, it didn’t have anything on it,” is cut off from almost all the video clips.

The language choice was problematic and careless, no question. The Zionist movement has often been criticized for consciously or unconsciously overlooking the presence of existing populations in the land that became the modern state of Israel. One of the original slogans was: “A land without a people for a people without a land.” Robinson certainly knows this history.

What she meant – as she clarified again after the controversy erupted – was that the land had few if any natural resources or economic development. There is nothing historically inaccurate about that. Not only did Palestine not have an abundance of natural resources but, for hundreds of years, it had been an ignored piece of a failing Ottoman Empire, then, for two decades, an abused outpost of British colonialism. Regardless, the way in which Robinson spoke is not a fair or productive way to talk about a land that clearly (so clearly) means so much to so many people. Resources, economic or otherwise, are not the markers of the inherent value of a land or its significance to Indigenous peoples or anyone with a close relationship to place. That said, the feverish response to her words has been out of proportion. There is a world in which her clarification and apology would have sufficed. But, of course, this is politics.

And it is more than just politics. It is Israel and Palestine politics – and that is a particularly vicious game, even here in peaceable Canada. Annamie Paul, former head of the Green Party of Canada, learned tragically what can happen to a Jewish political leader who dares to take a nuanced position (or, really, anything but a wildly anti-Israel approach) to Middle East affairs. Some of us feared Robinson’s principles on this front put a similar target on her back. We’ve been proved right.

Robinson has been an outspoken pro-Israel voice, never more than since Oct. 7. There is no doubt that some were looking for an opportunity to knock her down – and she stumbled in a bad way, leaving her open to precisely the sort of attack some people were no doubt itching for. 

Protesters, who, since Oct. 7, have been ready to mobilize about Israel with any provocation, moved into action. Social media erupted in such performative ferocity one would think British Columbians had suddenly discovered one of our leaders was a member of the Klan. 

A major New Democratic Party fundraising gala Sunday night was canceled, apparently because they feared a protest that would distract from the party’s message in an election year. A news conference on Monday on a completely unrelated issue was also canceled, presumably for the same reason.

Groups accused Robinson of “blatant bigotry.” Anjali Appadurai, who ran against the current Premier David Eby for party leader, accused Robinson of “racist views.” Protesters Monday and people on social media accused her of “white supremacy.” After the controversy arose but before she resigned, Robinson had agreed to take anti-Islamophobia training.

It is perhaps most remarkable that the people most loudly condemning Robinson probably intersect significantly with the demographic that contests the widely accepted definition of antisemitism, contending, in effect, that Jews make up false “smears” about bigotry for political gain. This, of course, is precisely what happened to Robinson: an offhand (and, yes, offensive) remark is recast as “Islamophobia” by activists who have been waiting to pounce on precisely this sort of slipup. Not incidentally, it sidelines one of Canada’s few Jewish, pro-Israel elected officials.

The rhetoric being used around whiteness, settler colonialism and vulnerable communities also reinforces narratives about Israel that are deeply troubling and rooted in antisemitism and ignorance. Robinson’s comments, heard through an already flawed lens, produced a result that was all but predetermined by entrenched narratives. This is a disturbing reality, one that hurts more than Jews and their allies. Such abuse of terms like racism and white supremacy offend the serious work we must do as a society to confront these problems. Mobilizing these terms for crude political gain, as they have been against Robinson, undermines the fight against racism. 

Robinson, and many in the Jewish community, no doubt feel heartbroken this week. In the long run, though, it is the people of British Columbia who are the losers. They have lost the services of a committed public servant.

More than this, our political culture and the fight against racism in all its forms have been debased. 

Posted on February 9, 2024February 8, 2024Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags British Columbia, Israel, Palestine, politics, Selina Robinson

End the war: surrender

This week’s suggestion of a time-limited ceasefire that would free remaining hostages in Gaza and return the bodies of the dead to their families seems, in the context of a bleak historical moment, encouraging. The optics of bartering for the lives (and dead bodies) of Jews is something that should (but won’t) make the world recoil in revulsion. Nonetheless, anything that brings the hostages home is worthy of consideration. 

A comprehensive agreement brokered by third parties could have positive results, even as it includes the releasing of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, including those who are guilty of terrorism. At a minimum, it would not be the vague “ceasefire” some have been calling for, which others might view as letting Hamas off the hook for their atrocities. A blanket ceasefire without a release of hostages is, and should be, out of the question.

All this talk of ceasefire, though, should raise a question almost no one seems to be asking. With so many calls for Israel to declare a ceasefire, why is no one – seemingly no one, including Israel-supporting voices – calling for Hamas to surrender?

Conceivably, this particular war could end tomorrow if Hamas conceded. Why aren’t the voices who want to end this war now calling for the one step that could realize that goal?

Certainly, the idea of Hamas surrendering and their leaders facing justice is unpalatable to sympathizers in the West. There is a not-negligible number of activists and commentators who not only support the Palestinian “resistance” in theory, but support it at its most brutal, celebrating the kidnappings, rapes and murders as “amazing” and “brilliant” (in the words of just one college instructor on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery in October).

There is also the slightly more convincing idea that, while a democratic government like Israel’s may be swayed by overseas public opinion, a terror regime will not be. As fair as this assumption may seem on its face, evidence debunks it. Millions of people marching worldwide, dressings-down by the United States’ president and top diplomat, a show trial over “genocide” at the International Court of Justice and what seems like a world aligned against it seems to have altered the Israeli resolve not a gram. 

The inevitable fallback position in these discussions is that Israel is the powerful party here and so holds the cards. The power differential does not mean, though, that Israelis either are not vulnerable or that they are to blame for the war. For the families of those murdered on Oct. 7 and the Israeli soldiers killed in this conflict, power differentials are a pile of dirt next to empty chairs at their tables. For whatever power discrepancies might exist, Hamas has shown its ability to breech Israel’s defences, and its resolve to do so again, if it can. Hamas has the one card up its sleeve that could end this war: surrender.

Calls for a ceasefire imply that Israel should surrender itself to a future of perpetual terror, because Hamas has repeatedly expressed the determination to fight until Israel is eliminated – setting up a zero-sum situation in which anything short of the complete eradication of Hamas is a defeat for Israel. On the other hand, Israel has made unilateral moves in the past – disengaging from Gaza in 2005, for example – and will likely be forced to do so again as perpetual war is untenable on several levels.

As numerous commentators recently have suggested, total de-Hamas-ification of Gaza is probably unlikely. Perhaps the endpoint will be a situation in which Israel has achieved a position of unequivocal strength, with the likelihood of a repeat of Oct. 7 eliminated, and some as-yet-unimagined political structure in place in Gaza. While street activists and diplomats worldwide think they have all the answers to what Israel should do, not one group has stepped up to suggest they would serve as peacekeepers or otherwise oversee Gaza’s transition away from Hamas’s regime. There are, of course, larger geopolitical imperatives, including the maintenance and expansion of the Abraham Accords, which Saudi Arabia has said depend on a two-state solution. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, to the consternation of American and other officials, is insisting Palestinian statehood is off the table for now.

Another realistic reason why Western observers may not be calling on Hamas to give up is the understanding – intuitive, if not conscious – that Hamas will never surrender because it is determined to continue this fight regardless of cost and futility. Their stated goal is the eradication of Israel even if that takes generations. Hamas leaders have indicated that thousands upon thousands of dead Palestinians are a small price to pay for a centimetre’s advance toward that ultimate goal. The embedding of terror infrastructure in civilian areas, the use of human shields and child combatants are evidence that Hamas will fight to the last person.

In Jewish cyberspace and in Israel-minded media, there have been millions of words spilled in recent weeks about the necessity of victory, the justness of the war even in the face of the mounting casualties and much more. There also have been calls for a ceasefire as a way to get the beloved hostages back home with their families and their hurting nation.

Given what’s at stake, we hope and pray for what seems impossible, a Hamas surrender. We also hope and pray for the possible – that Israel will be victorious in achieving its security, that there will be a world in which both Israel and Palestine coexist in peace. And, more immediately, that the hostages will be returned. 

Posted on January 26, 2024January 24, 2024Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags ceasefire, Hamas, Israel, Israel-Hamas war
Mission endorses Canada’s Antiracism Strategy

Mission endorses Canada’s Antiracism Strategy

Left to right: Michael Sachs, director of JNF Pacific Region, with Mission Mayor Paul Horn and city councilor Mark Davies, councilor Danny Plecas, Mission resident Eitan Israelov, councilor Angel Elias, councilor Carol Hamilton (back) and councilor Jag Gill. (photo from Michael Sachs)

At its Jan. 22 meeting, Mission city councilors voted on a motion moved by Mayor Paul Horn: “That the City of Mission Council endorses Canada’s Antiracism Strategy and refers the strategy to the newly formed Accessibility, Inclusion and Diversity Committee as a tool in their work.” The motion passed unanimously. Canada’s Antiracism Strategy uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance “Working Definition of Antisemitism,” which defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 

Format ImagePosted on January 26, 2024January 24, 2024Author The Editorial BoardCategories LocalTags antiracism, IHRA, International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, mission

Poll addresses bigotry

For Jews around the world, 2023 was among the most traumatizing years in recent memory. The advent of a new secular year, the turning of the calendar page to 2024, presents a figurative new beginning, some optimism and hope for a potentially better time. These emotions do not come easily right now, which is why the results of a recently released opinion poll seem right for the times, reflecting a little darkness and a little light. 

An Angus Reid poll asked Canadians their opinions on the prevalence of antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred and prejudice in Canada.

Addressing both types of prejudice – toward Jews and Muslims – 11% of respondents say there is “not really a problem at all in Canada.” However, about one in 10 respondents viewed antisemitism as a “minor problem” (11%), while 14% said the same about anti-Muslim hatred. More than half of respondents described antisemitism (52%) and anti-Muslim hatred (53%) as “a problem, but one among many others.” And just over one-quarter of respondents, 26%, said antisemitism is “a major problem requiring serious attention,” while 22% said the same about anti-Muslim hatred.

The overall impression left by the poll is that, among Canadians, there is genuine concern and recognition of these bigotries as an issue. Where more worrying numbers arise is when results are teased out based on Jewish and Muslim survey respondents. In both instances, perhaps unsurprisingly, members of the affected groups express the belief that the problems are of much greater severity than the general population seems to think. On the issue of anti-Muslim hatred and prejudice, 48% of Muslim respondents say it is a major problem, while 38% of overall respondents say it’s a problem, but one among many. The first number – with almost half of Muslims saying it is a major problem – is double that of overall respondents. 

Meanwhile, 75% of Jewish respondents said antisemitism is a major problem – almost triple the number of overall respondents who thought so. While a vast majority of respondents see antisemitism as a problem, to varying degrees, Jewish respondents are far more likely to view the severity of antisemitism as greater. Conversely, Muslim respondents were almost three times as likely as overall respondents (32% versus 11%) to say antisemitism is “not really a problem at all in Canada.” Fully 49% of Muslim survey respondents said antisemitism is a minor problem or not really a problem, indicating a schism in appreciation of the problem between these communities. Jewish respondents were slightly more acknowledging than overall respondents toward anti-Muslim bias, with 26% calling it a serious problem (compared with 22% overall), 55% as a problem but one among many (versus 53%) and only 4% saying it is not really a problem at all (versus 11%).

Polling is an imperfect science and recent electoral surprises have indicated its shortcomings in dramatic ways. Nevertheless, a poll of this sort probably captures fairly effectively the zeitgeist of Canadian opinion.

One indication seems to be that members of groups affected by prejudice and discrimination view them as much more serious problems than people who are not directly affected. It is human nature to be more concerned about things that affect us directly. However, when there are significant divergences of opinion around the seriousness of a social problem between people who are directly affected and those who are not, it is, at a minimum, a sign of a communication issue and potentially signals a threat to multicultural cohesion.

One might wonder whether those who experience antisemitism and anti-Muslim bigotry are not doing an effective job of explaining their experiences to the larger community, or whether the larger community is not listening – or, perhaps, a combination of both circumstances is at play.

It is often said that the first step in confronting a problem is the simple acknowledgment of its existence. What is absolutely encouraging is the apparently overwhelming recognition that these are problems that need addressing. There has been, in human nature and across history, a tendency among many people who are not affected by racism to be oblivious to it or to actively deny that it exists. We are fortunate that, if this poll is to be believed, we do not need to convince our neighbours that bias and discrimination are issues.

As we look ahead to the rest of 2024, as Jews and Canadians, let’s dedicate ourselves to tangible solutions to these problems and to really listening to other communities when they tell us they are facing prejudice and discrimination. These are two of the challenges we need to rise to meet. 

Posted on January 12, 2024January 11, 2024Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags Angus Reid, anti-Muslim hatred, antisemitism, bigotry, Canada, poll, racism

Inspiration is nearby

Light amid darkness is a common theme in the winter festivals of many wisdom traditions. As befitting a Jewish holiday, the meanings of Hanukkah are many and varied, among these the resilience of the Jewish people and the imminence of miracles. These are welcome themes this year.

At vigil after rally after menorah lighting after social media post after dinner table conversations during Hanukkah, the theme has been reprised endlessly over the past days: in a world of darkness, we are called upon to generate light, even to be the light. 

Finding the light – let alone being the light – is not easy. It is understandable to respond to events in the world today with hopelessness. A dramatic spike in antisemitic incidents locally and internationally is only an iceberg’s tip. It does not require a physical assault or desecrated property to be victimized by the tsunami of hatred sweeping over the world.

In the face of this conflict and the ensuing uptick in hatred, what have Canadian Jews done? In British Columbia and across the country, we have joined with Jews around the world to volunteer, donate and do whatever is necessary to repair, as much as it can be, the brokenness that happened on Oct. 7 and since. 

This is the light we are called upon to be. This is the resilience that is not just a word, but an actualized embodiment of Jewish values.

It is worth remembering that the greatest period of growth and expansion of our own local community occurred in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Even as the magnitude of the unprecedented historic trauma was just beginning to be understood, new synagogues were constructed, new day schools opened, social service agencies launched, refugee aid groups mobilized. Hillel welcomed students for the first time at the University of British Columbia mere months after the end of the Second World War.

In the shadow of unfathomable darkness, Jews in Vancouver redoubled their commitment to nationhood. Similar epochs of regeneration took place worldwide, not least being the fulfilment of the ancient dream of Jewish self-determination as a free people in our own land. 

This extraordinary burst of collective local regeneration was, of course, due in part to the influx of refugees, as well as the greatest period of sustained economic growth in human history. But, it was, first and foremost, an expression of the determination of the surviving remnant to plant for the future generations even while mourning those who had planted for them.

The chalutzim, the pioneers, who built the foundations of the community we live in today remain with us – some only in spirit, some very much still with us at advanced ages. Likewise, the founders who built the state of Israel are present, some in body but all in spirit, as we rededicate ourselves to girding the defence, strength and future of that country. Together, the examples of these forces of resilience are models for us to emulate as we struggle in these dark times.

We do not need to search hard for inspiration to get us through and embolden our commitment to carry on, to be the light. It is in the example of our families, our community and millennia of being a people that the poet Yehuda Amichai called “infected with hope.” May we merit to grow in hope, compassion, resilience and light in the coming days and weeks. 

Posted on December 15, 2023December 14, 2023Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags Chanukah, community-building, Hanukkah, Israel, Judaism, Vancouver

Mental wellness focus

For Jews everywhere, including here in British Columbia, recent weeks have been among the most painful in most of our living memories. Not only are we in deep grief from the events of Oct. 7 and in fear for the well-being of the 240 hostages and those we know who are serving in the Israeli army, many feel abandoned by some of our erstwhile friends, whose silence has been deafening, or whose confident utterances, lacking compassion or knowledge, have been galling.

We have been stunned at not just the moral equivocation between Israeli military actions and the deliberate atrocities perpetrated by Hamas, but by the implicit and explicit celebration of those atrocities by people locally and worldwide. Many of us are struggling to reconcile the critical need to end the reign of Hamas, whose main mission is to kill all Jews, with the losses of thousands of innocent lives in Gaza. We have few safe spaces to share our grief, frustration, confusion, to discuss what possibilities might exist for a better future not only for Israelis and Palestinians, but for all of us who are facing the incredible amount of antisemitism that has, apparently, been waiting for an excuse to be unleashed.

Every day, there is news coverage or social media comments that jerk us into another paroxysm of shock and disgust, be it the insensitive, lopsided remarks by a political leader or the online rantings of antisemites and terror supporters. Faced with this deluge, it is understandable to want to commiserate with like-minded people. In our experience, there has been a vast amount of sharing on email, social media and WhatsApp groups of the most atrocious and often grisly imagery, posts and ideas. For our own sake, and the well-being of those we care about, let’s stop doing this.

It’s time to recognize and correct habits that harm our mental wellness and that of those around us. Avoiding the darkness of feeling alone at times like these is one of the most important pieces of advice, as each of us struggles individually with assimilating the new world we inhabit.

The Vancouver community came together on Nov. 7 to mark 30 days since the brutal murder of more than 1,200 Israelis, mostly Jews, including a local young man and other Canadians, and the kidnapping of 240 others. Weekly vigils are continuing – and attendance is not waning, presumably because hundreds of people feel the necessity to unite in shared pain and for the inherent strength of community. Attending a rally or vigil is one way to harness the social support that is so important in times of struggle.

There are other steps that many of us could take to heart.

It’s important, of course, to remain aware, to be engaged citizens and activists, to be informed of current events. But there is a line between being informed and being unable to look away. We need to recognize the limitations and consequences of consuming endless amounts of information. It is neither necessary nor healthy to ensure that we – and everyone around us – are aware of every single outrage each and every day. Set aside time to review the news, but do not hit “refresh” repeatedly. Set a timer, if you think it would be useful. Stay accountable to yourself or ask someone who cares about you to remind you to set down the phone or remote. And be that person for your loved ones, when asked to assist them in being less fixated on the news. A crucial antidote to hopelessness is action. Be involved, for sure, but forwarding distressing emails to people who share your views (or not) is likely not constructive involvement.

Likewise, social media. Contesting and correcting false and hateful information on social media can feel important, but we need to put our abilities in perspective. The impacts that an individual can have on social media are a tiny ripple in the ocean, while the impact that social media can have on an individual is like a tsunami. Being bombarded by messages that remind us that there are many in the world who hold despicable views or are gleeful at the destruction of Israel and/or the Jewish people predictably impacts our emotional, psychological and spiritual wellness. If you are tempted to share horrendous posts with family and friends, consider what is to be gained by doing so.

Also, let’s pick our fights. We have plenty to be concerned about close to home. We do not need an incessant barrage of calls to sign petitions against things that are happening at universities in another country, or in response to offensive comments by never-before-heard-of activist groups or D-list celebrities. If we want to have an impact and have the internal resources for the fight, devote those resources to where they are going to have the most impact. Get involved with organizations doing work you believe in, join the many events taking place, both addressing the issues at hand, but also just finding comfort and strength in such things as the social and cultural events offered by our community, which allow us to come together without being completely gripped by fear and despair.

On an individual level, take time for quiet contemplation. Take a walk around the neighbourhood or in the park without headphones. Consider what your deeply held values are and find strength in that foundation. Stay open to hope, to possibilities not yet discovered and to finding paths to more compassion for yourself, for your loved ones, for your community and for those who are different from you or hold views that challenge your own. Do not exclusively dwell on the tragedies of the past and present, but spend time and effort to envision a future that is better for Israelis, Palestinians and all peoples – and how your values and actions today can hasten that better world. This, at root, is the heart of what it means to be Jewish. It is, perhaps, the only path through this pain.

Posted on November 24, 2023November 23, 2023Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags Israel-Hamas war, mental health, wellness

Posts pagination

Previous page Page 1 … Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 … Page 47 Next page
Proudly powered by WordPress