The Editorial Board

Democracy in danger

There has been a trend among some pro-Israel people and others to depict the U.S. Democratic party as having fallen prey to a far-left agenda, a wolf of extremism seeking to reinvent the social fabric of the country in the sheep’s clothing of “progressive” values.

There are indeed some voices in the Democratic party that press the party to views that are less mainstream – as there are in the Republican party. There is no Democratic equivalent to the radical Republican misanthropes like Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who have plumbed the depths of dark web conspiracies. Yet members of the so-called “Squad,” a group of Democrats, have taken positions on Israel and Palestine that reject the traditional bilateral American support for Israel’s security. This was never starker than during the recent vote to fund Israel’s Iron Dome defensive anti-missile shield. Members of the Squad, and a handful of other members of Congress, held up a vote on a massive budget bill until American support for Israel’s defence was removed.

The capitulation by senior Democrats was condemned by many, but the victory of the anti-Israel voices was short-lived. The next day, the House voted by a 420-9 landslide to provide the very funds that had been excised from the bigger bill the day before. The numbers could not be clearer. American leaders remain overwhelmingly committed to the bilateral relationship and to Israel’s defence.

The Iron Dome was depicted by some of the dissenting members of Congress as a tool of Israeli oppression. It is, however, a defensive technological wonder whose sole purpose is to save lives. Opposing American support for the program based on economic concerns could be justifiable – a billion dollars is no small change. But those who voted against it have given no indication of thriftiness. Interested in raising taxes on the wealthiest and spending more on domestic programs, as well as passing the Build Back Better Act, which would increase spending on social programs and infrastructure, lower spending does not seem to be a defining motivation for these congresspeople. President Joe Biden has already said he will approve the funding.

We see plenty of Republicans condemning the more extreme members of the Democratic caucus. And we see Democrats condemning the members of the opposition that the late senator John McCain memorably dubbed “whackadoodles.” But perhaps we should all be looking in our own backyards to get our own houses in order.

Speaking of which, Canada is not immune to offside officials. Jenica Atwin was a Green MP who accused Israel of apartheid before huffing across the floor from the Green party to the governing Liberals, where she was quickly forced to retract her earlier comments. The People’s Party of Canada, while not gaining a seat in the recent election, nevertheless significantly expanded their support base across the country, while advancing intolerant, often conspiratorial ideas. Still, Canadian extremists look like small potatoes next to the American examples.

When winning at any cost becomes seen as crucial – because the other side has been demonized to such a degree that their victory is seen as an existential threat – it is easier to accept the unacceptable if it comes from “our” side and to condemn it with self-righteous indignation when it appears on the other side.

Partisanship is too often preventing us from doing the right thing. This behaviour is self-defeating, put mildly. Ignoring inherent malevolence for immediate gain is a recipe for long-term failure, not only for a party’s political fortunes but, far more gravely, for our democratic, pluralistic society as a whole.

Election about nothing

Justin Trudeau’s gamble on winning a majority backfired. Still, whatever outrage Canadians felt about marching to the polls amid a pandemic didn’t cost him much (beyond the $600 million expense of the election itself). The Liberal party returned with an almost identical seat count as the one they started with. All the other parties had an equally uneventful night. In 338 ridings, of course, there were plenty of individual surprises – candidates expected to win lost and longshots saw victories – but it all amounted to a wash in the big picture.

Aside from Trudeau’s personal ambition to turn a minority government into a majority, the election turned out to be about not much. The handling of the pandemic, the economy, the environment, foreign affairs – all the usual topics got their time in the limelight but none captured the passion of voters. The ballot question, if there was one, turned out to be, quite simply, more of the same, yes or no? And Canadians responded: meh.

The campaign began inauspiciously, with a split screen showing Trudeau visiting Rideau Hall at the very moment all hell broke loose in Afghanistan. Foreign affairs are rarely a defining factor in Canadian elections, and this one was no different. Canada’s sometimes wishy-washy foreign policy will likely be unaltered. Barring some dramatic shift, Canada will probably continue to placate the Chinese government rather than confront them, go along to get along at the United Nations and walk a mushy middle ground on Israel and Palestine.

Equally unchanged, presumably, will be Canada’s domestic policies. The economy is doing well, especially given the challenges of the pandemic, and voters seemed to neither reward nor punish the governing party.

On the campaign trail, we saw alarming images of vitriol and even some violence. Voices of rage drove some of the fringe movements, like the People’s Party, to surprising levels of support, but gratefully their xenophobia and base hatreds will not be represented in the House of Commons. That particular incarnation of far-right extremism will ideally dissipate in the aftermath of their electoral failure.

Yet, voters who before thought that a prime minister dissolving Parliament to seek a majority mandate is hardly an unknown phenomenon in our system may now look at the status quo that resulted from the 36-day campaign with even more cynicism. As it stands, Trudeau survived. But, in the end, what was the election about? The answer appears to be … nothing.

Green party reckonings

During the election campaign, Green leader Annamie Paul was surprisingly candid about her precarious position at the helm of her party. She acknowledged that she spent almost all the campaign in her home riding of Toronto Centre because she might not be welcomed by Green candidates across the country. She suffered a near-defenestration just before the election and the simmering internal strife the Greens barely managed to conceal through the campaign will inevitably boil over now, especially after her own poor results in Toronto Centre.

Paul faced horrific online racism and antisemitism during and after her campaign for the party leadership. We trust that she will share more of her experiences without reservation now that her tenure is almost certainly at an end. Rarely has so talented and qualified an individual offered themselves for public office – and even more infrequently has any political figure been so ill-treated by their own party.

Canadians, but especially Green party regulars, must examine what happened. Paul and other members of the party owe it to Canadians to examine the entrails of this affair and determine what roles racism, misogyny and antisemitism played in the matter. If there are Green activists who have legitimate grievances against Paul, they should be transparent and demonstrate that their extraordinary treatment of their leader was based on policy or strategic differences and not on her innate identities.

Heroic work continues

An important – and surprising – court decision in Poland last month is a small victory in a longer battle over the history of Polish behaviour during the Second World War.

On appeal, two Holocaust scholars had an earlier decision reversed. University of Ottawa professor Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking, a Polish historian of the Holocaust, had earlier been ordered to apologize to a Polish woman who brought a suit against the two, arguing that her family’s name had been tarnished by the historians’ depictions of her uncle’s actions during the war. The case was watched closely, and its appeal is significant, as it could portend how Poland’s judiciary approaches a comparatively new law that proscribes negative depictions of Polish complicity during the war.

Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party is a right-wing nationalist movement that seeks to glorify Polish heroism during that era and erase – indeed, outlaw – records that demonstrate the complicity in atrocities by individual Poles and segments of that society during the Holocaust.

Grabowski and Engelking are on the frontlines of that conflict. They head a team of researchers that produced Night Without End: The Fate of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland, a compendious 1,700-page documentation of Polish atrocities during the war. The researchers, at risk to themselves, delved into often-untouched archival records in small and remote communities across Poland. In a presentation in Vancouver three years ago, Grabowski explained that, after the war, a surprising number of Poles felt no obligation to hide or embroider their activities during that period, content that their neighbours, if not history, would judge them kindly. The researchers plumbed files that had not been opened since 1945 and discovered harrowing tales of neighbour turning on neighbour, of Jews in hiding listening as their former friends pointed out their whereabouts to the Nazis and their collaborators.

The work is monumental and is being translated into English. It also indicates the breadth and depth of Holocaust history that has yet to be even remotely explored. The big picture, certainly, is well known – to the extent that plenty of people complain that it is time to move on from the topic. But the work of Grabowski et al reminds us that, in terms of millions of stories of individuals, heroic and wicked, we have hardly scratched the surface.

This is why the Polish law, and the intent behind it, is so dangerous. The problem is not merely the suppression of what we already know to be true, it is the very tangible possibility that current scholarship will be curtailed and that potential future scholars will choose less arduous fields of study. In either case, the crucial primary research still underway could be squelched.

This urgency was underscored by the publication Tuesday of a new book, Into the Forest: A Holocaust Story of Survival, Triumph and Love by Rebecca Frankel, former executive editor of Foreign Policy magazine. Writing in the New York Times Sunday, Frankel shared the story of one family who survived the war in Poland by hiding in the forests. The “Jews of the forest,” as she calls them, are an example of a massively underexplored facet of Holocaust history. The narratives of these Jews – some of whom survived the war, many or most of whom apparently did not – are absent from most chronologies because, by definition, those who survived (or did not) by disappearing into the forests were not included in the record-keeping of the Nazis and their collaborators.

We know from opinion surveys that there is an enormous amount of ignorance, particularly among the young in North America and Europe, about the Holocaust. In a notable irony, a major survey of European societies discovered that the countries where the largest number of people believes that there is too much emphasis on the Holocaust are the same countries where ignorance of the facts is greatest. In other words, it seems that those who know the least about that history are the ones most determined to close their ears to it.

Prof. Grabowski, who was born in Poland, was evasive in his visit to Vancouver in 2018, deflecting assertions that his work is heroic. Instead, he credited the courage of the on-the-ground researchers in Poland. There should be enough admiration to go around for the researchers, historians, writers and teachers who continue the necessary work of studying and sharing knowledge of that time.

As we have seen from the past seven decades, knowledge of the past does not preclude repetitions of genocide. But ignorance will almost certainly hasten its frequency and severity.

A tragedy in progress

(photo from internationalaffairs.org.au)

The interview was a moment of clarity and despondency. A cable news anchor asked an Afghan-Canadian activist what the West should do to save the Afghan people, especially women and girls, from the Taliban.

The hesitation by the interviewee probably conveyed the hopelessness so many feel in direct proportion to their geographic or familial proximity to the crisis. The most powerful, heavily resourced military the world has ever known left Afghanistan this month after almost 20 years. Instantaneously, it seems, all the work of nation-building, developing security capacity and attempting to instil the structures of civil society, evaporated. If that force, backed by other Western powers, including Canada until 2014, could not hold back the tide of the Taliban, what can ordinary Canadians possibly do?

Based on the lessons of history, and the comparatively recent invention of the concept of “responsibility to protect,” the world, by any measure, should be coming to the aid of the Afghan people. But U.S. President Joe Biden is also correct, declaring, “American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves.” U.S. leaders faced an impossible choice, probably with no possible good outcome.

It is unquestionably inhumane for the world to leave the Afghan people to the whims of tyrants. But the American people, particularly military families, have understandably had enough of “endless wars.” Who will step up to fill that vacuum? The United Nations was created, in part, for precisely this sort of moment but it has been, in many ways, corrupted and deracinated from the humanitarian foundations on which it was created.

If there were an easy solution to this quagmire, you wouldn’t be reading it in the pages of a small Jewish newspaper on the Pacific fringe of the continent. We have little beyond hopes and prayers to offer the Afghan people.

The fall of Kabul almost certainly represents something enormous, although we may not understand yet the full implications.

The beginnings and ends of historical eras are not always visible to those who live through them. Our current era, which began almost exactly 20 years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001, in some respects, came to an end this month with the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan.

Many observers have compared the chaos at Kabul airport with the Saigon airlift in 1975, when America fled, as some put it, with its tail between its legs. Forty-five years later, America remains a force not to be trifled with. But neither is it the undisputed powerhouse it was since the Second World War. Whether it remains a recognized (and feared and respected) superpower – or whether the fall of Kabul is a bookend to the fall of Saigon in the longer fall of America – remains to be seen. Whatever eventuality, America is no doubt diminished.

This comes, not coincidentally, as central Asia and the Middle East roil with instability and the broader troubles of that part of the world will certainly present problems for Israel. But Israel has faced existential threats throughout its history and will most likely adapt to the new reality.

The events of recent weeks will have many consequences we cannot yet foresee. One thing is particularly notable, however. Hamas, who control Gaza, sent a message of congratulations to the Taliban for “defeating” the United States.

With thankfully few exceptions, no one believes the Taliban to be a force for any sort of good. When people who for decades have defended or apologized for Hamas violence against Israel are faced with the realization that Hamas and the Taliban are ideologically adjacent, will that alter the attitudes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

We won’t be holding our breath.

About the Rosh Hashanah cover art

Deborah Shapiro is a self-taught, award-winning artist from Akron, Ohio, who creates collages from bits of magazine paper – no paint is used. Her subjects include nature scenes, animals and still life images. Many of her pieces have words and added meaning, as with the apple collage that graces the cover of this special issue of the Jewish Independent. You will find parts of apple pie recipes within the cut part of the apple. Apples, of course, are one of the symbols of Rosh Hashanah, representing, as we dip them in honey, our wishes for a sweet new year.

Shapiro began her art career later in life, after the age of 50, following a jaw surgery. Her mother gave her magazines as she recovered and Shapiro used them as paint to create paper paintings. Prior to that, she was a videographer for more than 35 years. To see more of her creations, visit deborahshapiroart.com or facebook.com/deborahshapiroart.

Get involved in election

Canadian elections do not generally pivot on issues of foreign affairs. Yet, the split screen image Sunday of Justin Trudeau calling a federal election juxtaposed with images of the Taliban seizing control of Afghanistan was a stark one. Canada left Afghanistan in 2014, having joined an international coalition after 9/11 to attempt to bring the terrorists who found free rein in that country to heel.

The remaining American forces were slated to leave this month, with U.S. military officials candidly acknowledging that their departure would almost certainly result in a Taliban revival. They were wrong only about the timing. Estimates were that it might take the fundamentalist Islamist sect weeks to take back the country. It took mere days.

The implications for Afghan citizens are bleak. Desperate Afghans were hopelessly clinging to U.S. military aircraft taxiing on the runway at Kabul airport. Afghan women will, based on prior experience under the Taliban, become some of the most oppressed in the world. There are also expectations of violent retaliation against anyone and everyone who, in the past two decades, “collaborated” with Western forces. The possible scenarios for Afghan people are horrible to envision.

And the implications go beyond the borders of that country. Optimists, such as they may be on this subject, say that the 20-year Western engagement in Afghanistan has not been for naught. The United States captured Osama Bin Laden and has not experienced another 9/11-type terror attack in that period, though whether Americans are actually safer, with other forms of domestic extremism and violence on the rise, is another question. Regardless, in a region with so much instability and contending factions, the Afghan situation further disrupts an already deeply troubled part of the world.

We may not immediately see the consequences of what is happening halfway around the world, but already domestic politics are being affected by the developments. Canadian military planes are rescuing interpreters and others who assisted our forces when they were in Afghanistan. There are calls for Canada and other Western places of refuge to accept more refugees from what seems destined to become a theocratic dystopia. But we cannot, apparently, save the entirety of the Afghan people and their country from the grips of their oppressors. Western powers held the Taliban at bay for 20 years but understandable domestic pressures to put a halt to “endless wars” inevitably brought us to this point.

This week’s election call comes amid a conflagration much closer to home as well. British Columbia is seeing wildfires and weather events unlike anything we have witnessed before. The hypothetical impacts of the climate emergency have gotten very, very real for Canadians with any sense of cause and effect. Appropriately, opinion polls suggest that Canadians view climate and the environment as a top – if not the top – issue as they ponder for whom to cast their ballots.

One problem with democracy is that those who seek public approval are disinclined to tell voters things they do not want to hear. Canadians (and other earthlings) need to understand that this crisis demands that our leaders impose potentially painful policies that will impact our emissions-producing lifestyles. We say we need to address the climate emergency, but will we be so enthusiastic when it impacts our own pocketbooks and comfortable routines?

One might imagine that scenes of the province on fire might make voters look seriously, finally, at a political party with the climate as its No. 1 priority. But the Green Party of Canada has been in turmoil since the Israel-Hamas conflict last spring. Annamie Paul, the Jewish, Black leader of the party, has been fighting an internal battle against insurgents in her own ranks. We hope that her voice will be heard and that all parties will take this existential issue with utmost seriousness.

The continuing pandemic will play a role in this campaign as well – both as Canadians assess the achievements of our government during the crisis and, more immediately, in the way candidates and campaigns pursue votes while adhering to safety protocols. The parties should be judged on what kind of COVID recovery plan they propose, and how they intend to follow through on supporting the most vulnerable Canadians through this health, economic and social crisis.

Whatever issues are important to you, this is the time to make your voice heard. Consider reaching out to your local candidates. Discuss your concerns with them. Volunteer for or contribute to their campaign if you like what you hear – consider connecting through the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs distils information about various party platforms and policies. Our country and our world face urgent issues. An informed, active electorate is the key to ensuring that our elected officials reflect the concerns that matter most to us.

Lessons of Greens’ row

The ongoing squabbles in the Green Party of Canada stopped short of a bloodbath Monday, after opponents of leader Annamie Paul abruptly holstered their figurative weapons.

A litany of threats against the leader was dropped that day. These included a non-confidence vote by the party’s national governing body, which was to take place Tuesday. But the vendetta against Paul went further, with one faction on the national board taking steps to strip Paul of her membership in the party. Also, a $250,000 fund that had been allocated for Paul’s campaign in the Toronto Centre riding, where she hopes to gain a seat in the House of Commons, was apparently withheld.

Ostensibly, the turmoil was a result of Paul’s reaction to the conflict between Israel and Hamas last spring. At the time, the leader posted an innocuous message on Twitter calling for de-escalation and a return to dialogue. This was met with an outraged retort from Jenica Atwin who was, at the time, one of the Green party’s three MPs. Apparently not a big fan of de-escalation and dialogue, Atwin called Paul’s statement “totally inadequate.”

Matters escalated after Paul’s senior advisor responded with an impolitic rant of his own, accusing MPs of antisemitism and threatening to eject sitting Green MPs and replace them with Zionists.

At this, Atwin crossed the floor, joining the Liberal party. Within days, her new political masters had apparently read her the riot act and she recanted her words. The principles that led her to cross the floor could not, evidently, withstand the pressure from the prime minister’s office.

There is a great deal that this quick synopsis overlooks. Paul has been accused of being uncommunicative with Green MPs and other officials. In response, she has said that she is a victim of racism and sexism.

None of this should be a surprise, perhaps. Paul was always going to have an uphill battle. During the leadership contest when she was elected, less than a year ago, Paul was the subject of horrific racist online attacks based on her identity as a Jewish Black woman. During that campaign and since, she has walked a moderate line on foreign policy and her statement during the Gaza conflict was in keeping with a reasonable, balanced approach to the issue.

But there are people in the Green party for whom reason and balance on this issue are unwelcome. The candidate who Paul defeated narrowly on the final ballot is one of Canada’s most vocal anti-Israel campaigners. One almost suspects some members were merely waiting for an opportunity to pounce.

While the members of the party’s national council did not explain their actions in apparently backing down from the fight, it is likely that at least a modicum of common sense prevailed, with activists realizing that they were preparing to defenestrate their leader weeks, or even days, before a possible federal election call.

The whole fiasco has been disturbing. A leader with superb credentials in international affairs is thrown into turmoil because she refused to take a one-sided approach to a significant issue. To suggest Paul has been anything like a Zionist firebrand is nonsense. Her “crime” was not jumping on a bandwagon on to which too many of her grassroots members (and perhaps a couple of her MPs) have jumped.

She got a reprieve this week. Depending on how she does in the expected federal election, she may face the same opponents again afterward. On the other hand, could this represent a turning point?

Whatever your politics, Paul is an impressive individual. Her voice – especially on the never-more-relevant issues of environment and climate change – is needed in our politics. Whatever her gut views about Israel and Palestine, Paul is smart enough to know that a party that subscribes to an anti-Israel line is going nowhere fast.

Arguably the most successful Green party in the world is that in Germany. Annalena Baerbock, its candidate for chancellor in September’s election, is aiming to replace Angela Merkel and some opinion polls say she will win. Put mildly, Germany and its politicians have a unique appreciation of issues involving Jews and the Jewish state. But it is likely significant that, of all the world’s Green parties, Germany’s is perhaps the most open to Israel, in all its complexities. Thoughtful voters recognize that a reasoned approach to the Israel-Palestine issue is a sign of a party that is ready for prime time.

Advocating for Palestinian human rights is important and admirable – assuming it is genuine and not merely an excuse to excoriate Israel with no constructive impact on actual Palestinians. But spouting hateful slogans and libels about Israel does not instil confidence in ordinary voters. Annamie Paul knows this. It could save her party – if they let her.

Taming online world

Two bills recently introduced by the federal government are aimed at reducing online hate and putting some controls on the anarchic world of online commentary. Some, like Jewish community organizations, have been calling for stronger rules to deal with rampant online vitriol. Others, like civil liberties groups, balk at any incursions into unfettered expression. It might not matter anyway.

Bill C-36 is intended to crack down on online hate, something Jewish community advocates and many others have been supporting since a similar section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed in 2013 over concerns around free expression. Groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have expressed apprehensions over the new bill, as they had over the repealed section.

The bill would make it an offence to make statements on the internet that are “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” It would target commentary that is “motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.”

The bill defines hate as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain,” and is not merely language that “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”

A different piece of legislation, Bill C-10, is also aimed at online content. In this case, the government would require platforms, such as social media and video streaming sites, to enforce guidelines that extend Canadian content rules, which have long governed radio and TV, to the internet. Again, critics say this is an infringement on the freedom of expression.

Both bills attempt to walk a line between free speech and the government’s attempts to encourage particular outcomes. They are likely to please some and they are likely to offend many. Both are probably founded on the best intentions, but, as critics have pointed out, Canada already has hate-speech laws that apply online and off.

Given the chaotic efforts of social media companies themselves to enforce guidelines for conduct and to curtail hate speech, it is difficult to imagine how legislation would provide a clearer guide to online etiquette. More worrying is the possible chaos that human rights tribunals and courts might have thrust upon them if Canadians begin reporting thousands or millions of problematic online statements.

We should be wary of heavy-handedness not only because the proposed laws hand a lot of arbitrary decision-making power to government or judicial overseers, but also because it is unwise to bury hateful ideas. The best way to confront hate and extremism is to shine a light on it, not to force it onto emerging platforms created specifically to give shelter to the most extreme people and ideas.

However, this all might be moot because Parliament has recessed for the summer. If, as many speculate, a federal election is called before Parliament resumes, these pieces of legislation would die. If the Liberals were to be reelected, they could reintroduce the bills. Conservatives have charged that the two proposed laws are “virtue signaling,” as much about campaign fodder as substantive change. The NDP and Bloc voted in favour of Bill C-10, with the NDP asserting that the “modernization of the law is necessary for [the] cultural ecosystem.”

Whatever the fate of these two bills, the fight against hate (online and off) will continue. We have long contended that the most powerful response to hateful words is more words – words that heal and educate. The online world is a jungle of facts and fictions, wonder and woe, insights and insanity. It is, perhaps, like the larger world, only condensed onto a small screen that amplifies the most fringe and sensational voices. Criminalizing those voices may or may not bring the result most of us seek, which is a kinder world. That said, contesting the worst of the online world is a Sisyphean task that we cannot abandon.

The medium is the message, said Marshall McLuhan, who died long before ordinary people heard the word “internet.” The anonymity and unruliness of the internet has no doubt helped to create a toxicity in our culture. But, while we should take seriously dangerous ideas online, we should remember that these are symptoms of strains in society and not solely products of the technology. Addressing online hate demands returning to first things and addressing all forms of hatred and division in our society. Fixing the online dialogue demands changing minds – and that has been the challenge since long before the advent of the internet.

Extremism will not win

The latest explosion of terrorism from Gaza, the reaction from Israel, the violence in and around Jerusalem and the international response to these events continues to reverberate. Things have calmed somewhat in Israel, although violence continues, but a second, related front continues to rage in the public dialogue.

Anti-Israel rallies worldwide have seen explicit antisemitic imagery and threats openly and prominently exhibited. Such expressions are now commonplace at protests, in online spaces and in public squares. Anyone who insists there is some sort of hermetically sealed wall between anti-Zionism and antisemitism needs to explain why bands of thugs in London drove through Jewish neighbourhoods screaming “F**k the Jews, rape their daughters.” Social media has logged millions of overtly Jew-hating statements and images, including thousands of instances of the phrase #Hitlerwasright.

These examples are obviously extreme. Far more common, even from ostensibly mainstream voices, including elected officials in Canada, the United States and Europe, is language employing the apartheid libel or that Israel is a “settler-colonial” regime.

The settler-colonial motif is particularly effective in the Americas because we, unlike Israel, are actual settler-colonial societies. The assertion that Jews are, basically, an invasive species in the Land of Israel meets fertile soil just as global attention again focuses on the situation of Palestinians.

While the antisemitic language and violence is deeply worrisome, it raises a secondary issue about the motivations of anti-Israel voices. Villainizing, isolating and denouncing Israel seems to fulfil some primal urge in a great number of people. What it does not do is hasten Palestinian self-determination.

Any resolution to the conflict and, therefore, Palestinian statelessness, will come from the rejection of this approach. Put plainly: one cannot be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel at the same time. If you seek the destruction of Israel, you reject compromise, coexistence and peace – the only things that will ever bring about an independent Palestine.

The binary that defines the Israeli-Palestinian situation is a false one. Being pro-Israel demands being pro-Palestinian – seeking a compromise in which both peoples live in peaceful coexistence. Being pro-Palestinian requires being pro-Israeli because only when the Palestinians, the region and the world accept Israel’s right to exist will we have a scenario where coexistence and a Palestinian state will emerge.

People overseas, many with no personal stakes in the conflict, prolong the problem. Among self-defined “pro-Palestinians” are many who seem content to fight for Palestine to the last Palestinian. Evidence of this macabre attitude can be seen every time overseas “allies” revel in the supposed moral victory of Palestinian victims exceeding Jewish victims when conflict erupts.

Similarly, too common among our own folks are rantings on social media along the lines that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people.” Call them what you will (decent people refer to others by the terms they prefer), there are people who call themselves Palestinians and semantic arguments will not change that. We win no awards or disagreements by proving that the people who call themselves Palestinian are something other than what they say – just as those who subscribe to the kooky Khazar conspiracy of Jewish origin to refute Jewish indigeneity to the Holy Land deflect from the issue at hand. In both cases, it does not negate the core issue: both peoples – and many more whose identity gets short shrift in the binary – exist and live there now. That will not change.

Israel is not going anywhere and Israelis are not going, as the late American political reporter Helen Thomas suggested, “back to Poland.” Neither are Palestinians. The first step – it seems ludicrous that it needs to be said – is acknowledging that both peoples (and others!) are there now and deserve to be.

There are countless complexities in the Israeli-Palestinian mess. But there is one certainty that is not the least bit complicated: Palestinian self-determination will come and Israel’s right to exist will be secured because of coexistence and compromise. Neither side’s extremists will ever win.