Opinion – Page 91

Biggest improbability?

In September of 1978, U.S. president Jimmy Carter was at his wit’s end after 12 days of face-to-face negotiations between himself, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin.

Neither party was at all inclined to make peace, both had legitimate grievances with the other nation, advisors were telling them peace was not possible and that the leader and the nation each man represented could not be trusted. Things got so heated that all three parties had packed their bags and prepared statements that the talks had failed. Cars were idling in the Camp David driveway and Marine One, the presidential helicopter, was being readied to return Carter to Washington empty-handed.

Failure then, in the midst of the Cold War, would have meant an opening for the further arming of Egypt by the USSR and the nuclearization of the Middle East, where ultimately the fanatical forces that were then lurking in the shadows could very well force the Superpowers into a feared nuclear standoff. This was much like what was happening in East and West Germany at the time, only in the hot desert sands of the Middle East, it was far more likely that tempers would boil over.

These were the stakes at Camp David. The proposition was that Israel give back the Sinai Desert, land it had captured in the Six Day War, land that served as their saving buffer zone in the Yom Kippur War just five years earlier. Land that contained settlements of Israeli citizens that Begin had pledged on his life never to abandon. To do all of that in exchange for a piece of paper that promised peace, signed by three men who did not trust each other.

No one thought it probable or possible, not between these three men, Begin and Sadat, who had spent a lifetime fighting each other, and Carter, who lacked power at home and credibility abroad.

And, yet, they signed a lasting peace treaty. Israel had been at war with Egypt in one form or another for literally millennia, since the days of Pharaoh. They have not been at war since and, next to Jordan, Egypt is Israel’s closest ally in the region today.

Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” No two eras or events are the same, but many if not all have similarities.

Three years before Camp David, president Gerald Ford had announced that the United States would be reevaluating its relationship with Israel because of Israel’s power play, along with France, in the Suez Canal. A crisis, if you recall, that nearly, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, was only a series of missteps away from another nuclear confrontation between the United States and the USSR.

You could not have had Camp David if you had not also had the sobering realization of the Suez Canal Crisis. Carter could not have pressured Begin to do the good and hard thing for the future of Israel if Ford had not created enough daylight between the United States and Israel for Begin to see the light at the end of the endless wars with Egypt tunnel.

“History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” I am neither a politician, nor a political scientist – though in truth I have a degree in the latter and every rabbi must ultimately learn the skills of the former. I am a student and teacher of history, the history of our people both in the land and yearning for the Land of Israel – and in all that has happened in these past many years, really since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (alav ha’shalom), I hear the rhyme of history.

Call it “darkest before the dawn,” but while I am filled with worry, the seriousness of the matter gives me hope that it can no longer be ignored or put off. That the pressure of absolutes that made Camp David possible has returned to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians possible, though still improbable once again.

The region and its people are under near-bursting pressure. But pressure such as faces Israel also clarifies priorities. The greatest achievements of diplomacy have often come in the face of the most extreme pressure or, as Carl von Clausewitz wrote, “War is diplomacy by other means.”

Let’s examine the pressures in play.

In Israel, the status quo between Israelis and Palestinians is set to devolve into a third intifada. Meanwhile, there is a seismic schism between the Jews in Tel Aviv who voted overwhelmingly for the left and the Jews in Jerusalem who voted overwhelmingly for the right. Israelis on left and right are living two different realities, and they want two different futures for themselves and for the Palestinians.

In the Arab world, the forces of fundamentalism have shaken what little remains of the nation-states from their complacency with and tolerance for radicalization. Arab armies are mobilized against radicalism and terror. Yes, there is a vacuum of leadership throughout the Arab world, including among the Palestinians – but that also creates space for a leader to emerge.

Outside of the Middle East there is a fundamental disagreement between Western democracies that want Israel to act more like them, and Israel that wants the West to see that the terrorist threat confronting its democracy today is coming to their shores tomorrow. And for much of Europe tomorrow is today.

Jews are under attack around the globe. Antisemitism has come out of hiding once again. Much of antisemitism is ignorance and, yet, where do we find it? Most shockingly in our institutions of higher learning, where, in the most distorted and twisted forms, they equate Jews with Nazis. We see this happening particularly in the BDS campaigns that are sweeping across North American university campuses and right here at the University of British Columbia. These same antisemites defend terrorists as “heroes,” inviting them as speakers on campus. The Talmud says, “olam hafouch,” the world is upside down. Indeed, bigotry masquerades as fairness.

The pressure is not only external; it is internal, as well. The relationship between Jews in the Diaspora and Jews in Israel is becoming a dysfunctional marriage. It’s not headed for divorce but maybe separate bedrooms, as each tries to focus on things they love about the other, even when they are disappointed in the other.

It seems hopeless, I know, this election result whether you are left or right – the winner of the election was “hopelessness” itself. As Binyamin Netanyahu declared, in his view, there will never be a Palestinian state while he is prime minister. Those who voted for him believe that to be true and those who voted against him believe that to be true. That is the very definition of being without hope.

There is no solution to this conflict in this neighborhood, in this region, in this time. And, with no Palestinian leader who can do the same, it’s just not possible.

And, yet, we said the same before Camp David. We never thought Rabin would shake Arafat’s hand or make peace with Jordan. That Sharon, who built the settlements in Gaza would dismantle them, and that it didn’t lead to civil war.

Begin, Rabin, Sharon. These were not peace seekers, these were warriors, evolved Hawks.

We are not ready for another Camp David today; Netanyahu is not anywhere near ready, and there is no leader on the other side who can be a Sadat or a King Hussein of Jordan, a warrior who has the credibility to make peace.

By the same token, the only one in Israel right now who has the credibility to make peace with the Palestinians is Netanyahu. If he signs off on it, the people will believe it.

We are in a dark period and it may get darker. The pressure on Israel will only increase. The choices the country will have to make are impossible to understand right now. Our own solidarity both with Israel and with each other as fellow Jews will be tested, and there will be cracks. But that is nothing new for us, or for Israel. We don’t always agree, as Jews here or there, past or present, we seldom agree. In the end, however, what we have always done is survive. There’s the biggest improbability of all: that we are still here.

Israel is 67 years old. By comparison, it took the United States 150 years to reconcile slavery, a process that included a civil war, incomprehensible social disorder and civil unrest. And the United States, which is almost 200 years older than Israel, is still not yet resolved on the issue of race, as Ferguson – among many other events – reminds us.

Canada could say some of the same about true reconciliation with First Nations. We are not yet there.

This election was part of the growing pains of a nation and, in the age of nations, Israel is barely a teenager. Israel is the bat mitzvah girl who stands proudly, if not ironically, before the congregation and declares, “Today, I am a woman!” And we all smile and say to ourselves, “Not yet, but today you gave us a glimpse of the woman you will one day be. It would be more accurate to proclaim, “Today, I will no longer act like a child.”

“The arc of history is long,” Martin Luther King Jr. preached, “but it bends toward justice.” That’s the history of the world and it’s the story of our people, a story we are telling again around our seder tables this week.

What do you take away from the seder? That Pharaoh was cruel? That slavery was terrible? Yes, but also that we were redeemed; that the pressure on Pharaoh ultimately helped him see the light.

“La’yehudim hayta orah” we sang just recently on Purim and every week, as we end Shabbat with Havdalah. “The Jews enjoyed light and gladness, honor and joy. May we, too, experience these same blessings.” In another dark time, when all hope appeared lost, there was light. Let there be light once again!

Dan Moskovitz is senior rabbi of Temple Sholom in Vancouver.

Bibi’s self-made mess

Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated Canada’s support for a two-state solution in a conversation last week with Binyamin Netanyahu, the just-reelected prime minister of Israel.

The commitment to Palestinian self-determination was a subtle but clear message to the Israeli leader. Since Harper came to office, Canada has refrained from joining the global chorus of condemnation against Israel. Harper’s office issued a statement Sunday summarizing the remarks he shared with Netanyahu, which included congratulations on his success in the March 17 election.

Canada’s modest reminder to Netanyahu that the world expects a long-range resolution to the conflict that includes a Palestinian state reflects just one of the serious issues facing Netanyahu domestically and internationally.

The Israeli prime minister inherits – from himself – a political and diplomatic mess. In the last days of the election campaign, Netanyahu declared that a Palestinian state would not emerge on his watch. The context of the remarks may not have been quite as dramatic as media reports and global reaction suggest – he said they were premised on his assertion that the conditions were not ripe for a secure Palestinian state to emerge given the strength of adjacent Islamist regimes. And, in fact, immediately after the votes were counted, he began backpedalling.

But Netanyahu’s rhetoric is rarely subtle and he should not escape blame for his words and actions. On election day itself, Netanyahu sought to drive his supporters to the polls by warning of Arab-Israeli voters flocking to the polls in “droves” – a racist statement that pitted one group of Israeli citizens against another in ways utterly unbecoming the leader of a country.

Whatever it says about the Israeli electorate, these statements probably played a significant role in the surprise surge that delivered victory to Netanyahu’s Likud party.

Now that he is returning to office, Netanyahu has external as well as internal divisions to mend. Israel was already suffering from a lack of friends on the international stage before Netanyahu exacerbated already deeply strained relations with the American leader.

No one refutes the bad blood between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, and both men bear blame for behaving like brats, rather than leaders of crucial allied states. But while Obama’s behavior toward Israel has looked passive-aggressive, Netanyahu’s behavior has been just plain aggressive, showing up in the American legislature to school the superpower on the subject of global politics.

Netanyahu may have revelled in the adulation of Republican and some Democratic lawmakers, but he was used as an obliging dupe in a domestic American partisan smackdown that verged on a constitutional calamity.

Now returning to office, Netanyahu faces a world even less amenable to his approach and weary of his belligerent manner. In these critical days of negotiation with Iran, Netanyahu is now trying to build bridges to the French leadership because he has lost leverage with the Americans.

In less than two years, the United States will have a new president, which will possibly reset the dynamic in the relationship, but the damage goes beyond a personal relationship.

Now that Israeli elections are over to Netanyahu’s satisfaction, perhaps he will allow his more diplomatic side to temper his politically expedient nature. The creation of his new coalition and cabinet will be the first major opportunity to read the tea leaves of his approach post-victory. We hope it signals a fresh approach.

Over the years, we have contended that Israeli decisions must be made based on Israeli needs, not on what makes it easiest for Diaspora Zionists to advocate for or defend Israel. But Netanyahu’s behavior during the election campaign has created genuine, real, not insignificant rifts between Israel and the people, like us, who are among its staunchest friends in the world.

It is up to Netanyahu now to demonstrate maturity and openness abroad and to repair the damage he has done domestically by pitting groups of Israelis against one another, by preordaining the failure of a two-state solution and for poking the country’s once-greatest ally in the eye.

Positivity is vital to life

The 15th annual Chutzpah! Festival of the Jewish Performing Arts concluded on Sunday with the group Diwan Saz. Their main message: music has no borders. And, “Don’t believe the news,” i.e. Israel is more than a conflict zone.

Yet, our brains are hardwired to find the negative in life. As one neuropsychologist writes, “the brain is like Velcro for negative experiences but Teflon for positive ones.” It is no coincidence that the news the media mainly reports is bad. It not only titillates, but it sticks with us. However, there are good news stories, and they should not be dismissed as “fluff,” or as less significant than the “serious” news. On the contrary.

The arts are vital to our lives, as are sports and other cultural endeavors. They are not merely for entertainment or to escape from reality. Among other things, these pursuits encourage creativity and propel innovation, they nurture our souls and provide ways in which we can connect to each other. They can be catalysts for all types of change in the world, making people aware of issues they might not otherwise consider, bringing people together to speak out against injustice or in favor of peace, for example.

The multicultural Bedouin, Israeli Arab, Turkish, Jewish Israeli (Ashkenazi and Sephardi) group Diwan Saz, comprised of nine musicians, is a prime example of how people of different places, beliefs and backgrounds can live, play and travel together – by choice, and happily, enriched by one another’s friendship and musicianship.

Since its beginnings, Chutzpah! has shown how arts and culture can bring diverse people together. In recent years, Israeli performers have graced the cover of the Georgia Straight in its Chutzpah! coverage. What better ambassadors of Israeli and Jewish culture, and the cross-cultural possibilities of the Middle East?

This week’s JI cover stories provide another couple of examples.

Twenty kids from the Canada Israel Hockey School, a joint venture of the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver and the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, visited last week – Jewish Israeli, Arab Israeli, girls and boys, the hockey players see each other as teammates, playing for the love of the game. Not only are positive bonds and memories being formed among the players, but also between them and their coaches in Israel and in Vancouver, the local hockey players they met, both from the Jewish league and from the Canucks. Interviewed by CBC’s Shane Foxman, these kids were representing not just themselves, but the sport of hockey and their country of Israel – and they are cause for pride.

Sholom Scouts are also not “just” scouts. Not to put too much pressure on them, but they are Jewish ambassadors to the larger Scouts community as well as the general community. Within the Jewish community, they represent a spectrum of Jewish beliefs, all coming together to become good stewards of the land and good citizens.

It is healthy to see the negative: it helps us to be safe, to become aware of what isn’t quite right, what needs adjustment and what areas of justice still need to be pursued. As Leonard Cohen sings, “there is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.” But, focusing exclusively on the negative – the crack instead of the light – isn’t healthy, not for ourselves personally or for society at large. This does not imply blocking out the reality of the suffering that does exist, but instead recognizing that we ignore the beauty, loving kindness and bright spots of reality to our detriment.

Whether it’s by being more mindful, cultivating more loving kindness, reducing stress and anxiety, re-balancing our middot, being open to new and challenging experiences or learning more about something that interests or concerns us, we can find more good. It takes time and effort to “hardwire happiness” in our brains and in our lives, but it’s possible.

It helps when we consciously draw out the positive, such as the stories mentioned here, and engage in the positive cultural and social behaviors that make us more than mere human animals, and more fully and happily human.

Five things every kid needs

What do children require in order to thrive? Here are five vital things we must give to our children.

1. Self-worth

All children have the need to feel accepted. When we nurture our child’s feelings of self-worth, we create a sense of pride. There is an atmosphere of belonging so that the child does not feel the necessity to find acceptance elsewhere. We want our sons and daughters to know that we love them for who they are and that each child possesses a unique gift given by God. For each child, the gift is different. It can be brains, personality, sports, art, baking, music, friendship, even the ability to care for a baby. Our role as parents is to help the child discover the magic within instead of focusing on the perceived gifts that others possess.

Once we are able to do this, we can help each child feel stronger with who he is. Self-confident children can deal successfully with the ups and downs that life brings. Kids who possess self-worth will better navigate future relationships, feel resilient enough to try and risk failure, and become a source of strength to future generations.

I do not mean a child who is full of him or herself. Some children perceive themselves to be superior and knock others down. This type of self-esteem is superficial and creates an arrogant child in and out of the home. Instead, I am speaking about the unearthing of what lies beneath the soul. If we can then show our children that they can use their gift to make this world better, we transmit to each child a confident awareness that “I make a difference” and “I have value.” When a child feels inadequate, we hear lines like “I can’t,” “No one likes me” and “I’m not good enough, smart enough and popular or pretty enough.”

Parents who appreciate their children’s differences, interests and talents, encourage their children to grow confident and be happy with who they are.

2. Security

We live in a sometimes scary world. Our children are aware of current events, painful tragedies and images that boggle the mind. Words like kidnapping, missiles, terrorist attacks and killings are no longer scenes from Hollywood movies. A generation is growing up surrounded by loss. And it is not just grim world news that kids must confront. I have spoken to parents whose children are fearful of returning home from summer camp because each year there are couples who announce their pending divorce. Do you feel confident that you have given your child a sense of security?

We can help assure our children by creating an atmosphere of trust. Despite the difficult world out there, know, my child that you can always count on me.

Here are practical ways to make this happen: rid yourself of chaos and commit to routines and schedules that work. Try to de-clutter so that your home environment does not feel messy and overwhelming. Keep your word: when you say you will be there don’t disappoint, and honor your promises.

A lack of consistency in rules makes a child unsure of what to expect. Wishy-washy discipline does not allow a child to anticipate proper consequences, and strips away the security of knowing right from wrong.

Most of all, let us recognize the destructive power we possess when we scream at our children. All it takes is a few moments of outrage to cause a child to feel that he is living with a parent who is out of control. Anger, yelling, sarcastic put downs and belittling removes the inborn trust that a child had but is now lost. Why would I want to connect with you if I do not feel safe at your side? Once the bond between parent and child is destroyed, it becomes very difficult to rebuild. Even if you try afterwards to spend time together and offer soothing words, lose it often enough and the harsh image and tone simmer within your child’s heart. Your son or daughter is always second-guessing – will this be a safe conversation or will I feel too vulnerable? Creating a stable home instead will enable your child to grow knowing the definition of dependable, reliable and trustworthy.

3. Relationship skills

Our children need to learn how to deal with others. Too often parents make excuses for their child’s misbehavior or hurtful words. Instead, let us concentrate on helping our kids handle their encounters. A practical way for us to do this is to open our eyes to teaching moments where kids can learn about apologies, forgiveness, gratitude, sharing, not interrupting, allowing others to be in the limelight, listening skills, overcoming the desire to hit or scream, dealing successfully with tantrums and learning how to quell angry reactions.

At the same time, it is important to impart the deference required when encountering authority. Discuss the proper derech eretz – standard of respect – while speaking to rabbis, principals, teachers, parents, relatives and elders. Just as crucial is the knowledge of how to act in a synagogue, bar and bat mitzvah, airplane, restaurant, hotel and other people’s homes. I have seen children destroy hotel lobbies while parents watch and laugh that it is not their home. Lacking social skills produces children who either bully or withdraw into painful silence. Providing the proper relationship know-how gives children character traits like loyalty, respect, unselfishness and honesty.

4. Sensitivity

Teach your children to be considerate of other people’s feelings. When a sibling or classmate has been pained, it is OK and appropriate for a child to feel empathy. If possible, give your children opportunities to cultivate compassion. The unpopular kid in class who never gets invited – how do you think he is feeling? How can we try to make this better? There are many chesed (kindness) projects that our children can get involved in, instead of just focusing on themselves. This past year, a group of bat mitzvah-aged students whose mothers I teach collected hundreds of coats that we shipped off to Israel. We discussed how there are kids their age who are freezing during the winter months because they cannot afford a coat. It was an incredible day that opened up the eyes and hearts of these young girls to the suffering of other children. Compassion can be nurtured.

Children notice if their words bring a smile or a tear. They recognize from early on if they’ve brought pleasure or pain. We cannot afford to shy away from allowing them to confront their behavior and deal with poor decisions that they’ve made.

As parents, we must replace angry reactions with firm but loving discipline. We cannot expect to raise sensitive children if we, ourselves, are insensitive to our children’s needs.

5. Love

Of course, all this is not possible if we lack the ability to make our children feel loved. Be generous with your affection. Hug more, laugh more, say “I love you” more. Stop making your child feel as if he is never “good enough.” Allow your children to see that you appreciate and are affectionate with your spouse. Give words of gratitude and admiration.

When you have family time, don’t seem bored and uninterested. Turn off your devices and tune in to the ones who count on you most in this world. Watch that the pressures of school, homework, carpools, bedtime and daily life do not ruin the precious moments you have together. Our families are our greatest assets. Let us create homes filled with peace so that we can transmit our legacy to the next generation.

Slovie Jungreis-Wolff is a freelance writer, and a relationships and parenting instructor. Her book Raising A Child With Soul is published by St. Martin’s Press. This article was distributed by the Kaddish Connection Network and appeared on Aish HaTorah Resources.

Netanyahu lacks leadership

At a rally in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv on March 7, calling for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to be replaced in the upcoming elections, protesters held signs saying “Change Now.” (photo by Ashernet)

This week’s pre-election tempest is over whether Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu supports the concept of a two-state solution. Bibi’s ponderings on the subject led his own party to contradict him – days before the high-stakes Israeli general election.

On the subject of ceding land to Palestinians, a Likud party statement released Sunday read, “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that any evacuated territory would fall into the hands of Islamic extremism and terror organizations supported by Iran. Therefore, there will be no concessions and no withdrawals. It is simply irrelevant.”

It’s difficult to know what to make of Netanyahu’s words and actions lately, to determine how much is for consumption abroad, how much is ideological and how much is pure political expedience.

It was, for example, hard for some Israel watchers to disagree with anything he said to the U.S. Congress earlier this month, even if they disagreed with him speaking there. It was enough that he was showing “moral courage” and “true leadership.”

Of course, there were others who could find little right with what the prime minister said to Congress. Meir Dagan, for instance. Dagan, former head of Mossad, called Netanyahu’s congressional speech “bullshit.” Then, on Sunday, the outspoken Dagan addressed a rally in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square against Netanyahu’s policies, telling the thousands-large crowd, “I am frightened by our leadership. I am afraid because of the lack of vision and loss of direction. I am frightened by the hesitation and the stagnation. And I am frightened, above all else, from a crisis in leadership. It is the worst crisis that Israel has seen to this day.”

In Israel, Netanyahu has refused to participate in debates during the campaign. While he’s not alone in his refusal – Zionist Union leader Yitzhak Herzog, too, has been absent – some have questioned why Netanyahu is willing to speak to the American public but not to his own. They are concerned with what they see as a lack of leadership and statesmanship at home.

With Netanyahu describing his prior support for a two-state solution as no longer relevant, it is unclear whether he intends to prevent the creation of an independent Palestinian state ever, or whether he means only in the current climate of regional (and global) instability. It remains to be seen whether he is just grasping at political straws, trying to convince those on the right to vote for him, or he feels so confident that he can finally say what he truly believes.

No matter who is elected on March 17, the chance of a two-state solution emerging anytime soon is miniscule – neither Netanyahu, his contenders for prime minister, nor the current Palestinian leadership seem ready to take the necessary steps. So maybe his current views are also irrelevant?

Apology spoof short-sighted

As election season progresses in Israel, how Israelis are seeking to position themselves is becoming clearer than ever. In its attempt to unseat Bibi Netanyahu, the joint Labor-Hatnua slate is billing itself as the “Zionist Union,” a moniker that rankles many, including prominent Arab-Israeli writer Sayed Kashua in a recent piece in Haaretz. The left-wing Meretz slate, which features a young politico who happens to have proud cousins in the Ottawa Jewish community (disclosure: I am one of them), is taking a different tack, underscoring the degree to which its policies differ from what has come before. “Revolution with Meretz,” its campaign posters declare. Most fascinating to me, though, is one of the ads coming out of right-wing-nationalist Naftali Bennett’s campaign.

In it, Bennett, head of the Jewish Home (HaBayit HaYehudi) Party, is dressed as a bearded hipster. As he makes his way around Tel Aviv, he is afflicted by a comedic apology problem. In a café, the waitress spills coffee; he apologizes. On a narrow residential street, his car gets rear-ended; he apologizes. On Rothschild Boulevard, a fellow denizen makes her way to a rented bicycle after he’s claimed it; he anxiously backs away, apologizing. Finally, he is shown on a park bench, reading the liberal-leaning Israeli broadsheet Haaretz, where he is reading a reprinted column from the New York Times, headlined “Israel needs to apologize.”

“From now on, we’re going to stop apologizing,” Bennett tells the camera, removing his costume. “Join HaBayit HaYehudi now.”

It’s a bit of brilliant campaigning, the message is seeking to appeal to Israelis’ collective core sense of self. No one wants to feel that their very existence requires an apology.

The policy question, of course, lies in whether Israel’s ongoing conflict with the Palestinians entails giving up the country’s core identity, or whether there is something else going on, namely the occupation. It’s an ongoing tension in how we understand the situation. On one hand are contemporary depictions like those in the otherwise excellent series The Honorable Woman (now streaming on Netflix) that suggest that Israelis and Palestinians just need to leave each other alone and peace will prevail. The unspoken truth, though, is that there is a very real overlapping set of territorial claims being cruelly manifested not only by Hamas rockets from Gaza and terrorist attacks from east Jerusalem and the West Bank, but also by the Israeli occupation. There, in the West Bank, day-to-day Palestinian freedom of movement is curtailed by settler-only roads and staffed checkpoints.

As Bennett has made clear in his increasingly vocal policy pronouncements, under his rule, the occupation would not end – it would simply morph into a sort of apartheid-like area in which Israel annexes part of the West Bank, with Palestinians granted autonomy in the others. In other words, no Palestinian state.

Bennett’s ad suffers from another problem: a reluctance to consider the idea that so much mutual pain has been inflicted by both sides – whatever one thinks of his annexation plan – that some conflict resolution measures may need to include mutual apology, just as mutual recognition has been an important currency of Israeli-Palestinian relations.

There is one area where Bennett’s ad does contain some wisdom: in identity politics. But it’s really only half a serving of wisdom. The crux of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been that neither side has been willing to truly recognize the material and identity needs of the other. Through riffing on the idea of apology being absurd, for Bennett to imply that Israel has a right to exist, is fine. But unless Israel recognizes the right of the Palestinians to the same, Bennett’s platform will appear to exist in a moral, political and strategic vacuum.

Mira Sucharov is an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She blogs at Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward. This article was originally published in the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin.

Bipartisan support of Israel

The controversy around Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress this week was so fraught with partisan rancor – or at least with punditry alleging partisan rancor – that the theme at the AIPAC conference in Washington, which immediately preceded the prime minister’s address, was “all bipartisanship all the time.”

Democratic U.S. Senator Ben Cardin and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham opened the event Sunday morning with emphatic assertions that American support for Israel overrides all partisan politics. The message was repeated later in the day by top Democratic and Republican officials from the House of Representatives. Messages of cross-partisan rah-rah for Israel were featured in many of the conference speakers’ messages and on the massive 360-degree screens encircling the U.S. capital’s cavernous convention centre. The American ambassador to the United Nations made the same case.

As the country’s greatest ally in the raucous Middle East, Israel is somewhat akin in the American political culture to the U.S. military – one can criticize policies and politicians, but it is de rigueur to restate philosophical support for Israel as a great ally and for the right of Israel to defend its citizens.

This sort of bipartisanship has not always been the case in Canada, which has a very different perspective on foreign affairs and, sometimes, on Israel. But that has changed, according to a panel of Canadians who addressed the conference.

Shimon Fogel, chief executive officer of Canada’s Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, moderated a session featuring Jonathan Kay, editor of The Walrus magazine and former comment page editor of the National Post, and Terry Glavin, a Victoria-based commentator and author.

“Israel has won the battle of ideas in Canada,” Kay said.

While many credit Prime Minister Stephen Harper with leading the change, both men see a deeper shift in public opinion. Glavin called it “tectonic.”

The change is due to a few things, the two commentators agreed.

Anti-Zionism comes in a grab bag with anti-Americanism, Kay said, and Canadian anti-Americanism is in freefall since Barack Obama became U.S. president and Stephen Harper became Canadian prime minister. (It’s hard to condemn Americans over, say, environmental issues when Obama vetoes the pipeline Harper backs.)

The rise of social media has also played a back-door role. The CBC was routinely criticized for being anti-Israel a few years back, but the social media backlash every time biased reporting occurred – aided by groups like Honest Reporting – has led to fairer coverage.

“I actually find the CBC’s coverage of Israel pretty good,” said Kay.

The 9/11 terror attacks also provided a major impetus for changing Canadian views of friends and enemies. But the Canadian military engagement in Afghanistan perhaps drove the major shift of opinion, said Glavin. Two generations of Canadians had not seen active wartime mobilization. The fight against radical Islam, in the form of the Taliban, changed perceptions of global issues, including Israel’s struggle against nominally different but ideologically parallel enemies.

Where anti-Zionism was most successful – on university campuses – most students now roll their eyes at the “trite and ritualized” debate on both sides, said Kay. In terms of professors supporting the BDS movement, he added, it is the “least consequential” academic organizations making the case. And gay rights groups opposing Israel are “underemployed” activists who have won most of what they were demanding.

Significantly, he continued, at the national level, the elements of the Liberal and New Democratic parties that once condemned Israel for every imaginable crime have been reined in by their parties. Notoriously anti-Israel NDP MP Svend Robinson is gone from the scene. His ideological successor in anti-Zionism, Libby Davies, has announced she will not seek re-election in Vancouver East, although Kay said she has already been “defanged” by party leader Thomas Mulcair, who Kay said makes no apologies for his support for Israel.

Glavin noted that the Arab Spring, which represented the rising of 300 million more or less enslaved people, made it “difficult to make the case that Israel is the big problem in the Middle East.”

Both men noted that the shift began with Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, under whose leadership Canada changed its voting patterns at the United Nations. The pro-Israel position accelerated under Harper, particularly after the 2011 election when the Conservatives won a majority and John Baird was appointed foreign affairs minister. Baird, who left politics this year, was greeted with a hero’s welcome at the AIPAC conference.

While Canadians are proud to be different than Americans on many fronts, the consensus on Israel that has reigned in the United States is now dominant in Canada, as well.

The value of duty, empathy

When Vancouver-based philanthropists Rosalie and Joe Segal announced a lead gift of $12 million towards a new centre for mental health, I felt deeply moved. I had had occasion to visit a loved one at the old facility a few years ago. By any measure, it was a depressing, dilapidated and lifeless space. The new facility promises the kind of physical atmosphere of compassion and dignity so necessary to recovery.

The planned $82 million centre is slated to open in 2017. In recent Globe and Mail coverage, a reporter asked Joe Segal what brought them to this latest philanthropic decision.

I’ll depart here for a moment to mention that there is a common journalistic convention whereby the writer introduces a quote by paraphrasing. In this case, the reporter said that the Segals’ decision “came from a place of empathy.” Then came the actual quote from Joe Segal: “You have an obligation, if you live in the community, to be sure that you do your duty.”

Are empathy and duty the same thing?

The two vantage points at first seem quite different. Empathy is about actually experiencing the plight of another. There is clearly an affective component. Duty somehow feels more legalistic, perhaps even at odds with emotion. As philosopher Immanuel Kant famously said, “Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law.”

If empathy is more about feeling, experience and emotion, and if duty is more cognitive and legal, it seems we need to be concerned with how to summon both values across society. I turned to colleagues to help me better understand the relationship between the two concepts. For some, a viscerally emotional connection between the two is indeed present.

International theory scholar Daniel Levine points out that, for a sense of duty to function, citizens need to feel reverence for institutions, even those that we ourselves have created. Or, perhaps having created laws and ways of living for ourselves is precisely what motivates a sense of duty, “we revere it precisely because it’s ours; we are the sovereign,” Levine suggests. “We are free because we legislate and judge for ourselves.”

For professor of Jewish philosophy Zachary Braiterman, the cognitive and emotional elements are intertwined, “duty has an affective element, an excitement of the senses around a task at hand.”

And, for Jewish filmmaker Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, “duty flows from empathy, in that moment when I connect the suffering of another to my own experience and that touches a kind of primal anger which motivates action.”

In Jewish tradition, philanthropy – or tzedakah – is considered a legal imperative. The Hebrew word itself shares a root with righteousness and justice, and it does not contain the affective aspects that the Greek-based word philanthropy does, meaning love of humankind.

Empathy in general seems to be less obviously discussed in Judaism, until one realizes that the Torah’s golden rule – “Love your neighbor as yourself” – is ultimately an empathy imperative.

When it comes to mental illness, it’s especially important to keep both duty and empathy in mind. Empathy can be extra hard to summon towards those who are in the throes of the disease. Some forms of mental illness cause sufferers to refuse treatment. Some victims act socially or otherwise inappropriately. Sometimes the sufferer no longer even seems like the actual person.

The Segals are clearly aware of how insidious and invisible mental illness can be, and the challenges around recognizing it and treating it. As Joe Segal told the Globe and Mail, “Mental health was under the rug, and we tried to lift the rug so it can become visible.”

It’s a powerful reminder of how empathy and duty are important elements in building a better society – both for helping those in personal crisis and for enabling us all to live the values of kindness, generosity and compassion.

Mira Sucharov is an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She blogs at Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward. This article was originally published in the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin.

Concerns over Europe

The attack on a Copenhagen synagogue – and the public reaction to it – has been illuminating. It also raises echoes from Danish and Jewish history, in ways that are not encouraging.

Of all the many incidents during the Holocaust when non-Jews acted righteously, one of the most notable and successful was the evacuation of Denmark’s Jews in 1943. The Danish resistance, aided by throngs of ordinary Danes, mobilized a flotilla of fishing boats to convey Danish Jews to Sweden, thus saving 99 percent of Denmark’s Jewish population at a time when other Jewish communities in Europe were being annihilated.

This extraordinary example of dangerous sacrifice in defence of Jewish people and basic humanity has rightly given the Danish people a special place in the narrative of opposition to Nazism. The narrative, at times, has gotten out of hand, as with the debunked story that the Danish monarch, King Christian X, himself donned a yellow star as an act of solidarity when the Jews of his country were ordered to affix the signifying marker to their clothing. In fact, Denmark’s Jews were among the few in occupied Europe not required to wear the yellow star. This story may not have been true, but the underlying message of Danish solidarity with the Jewish people against the Final Solution is undeniable.

It might have been expected, therefore, that Denmark would live up to its reputation in the aftermath of the recent terror attacks that wounded five police officers and killed two civilians – Finn Norgaard, a 55-year-old filmmaker who was attending a free speech symposium that was the gunman’s first target, and Dan Uzan, a 37-year-old congregant serving as security at the city’s Grand Synagogue.

In a heartening show, 30,000 Danes gathered on Feb. 16 for a vigil to commemorate the two terror victims. The current monarch, Queen Margarethe II, expressed condolences and restated her country’s commitment to the values “that Denmark is based on.”

However, a number of concerning responses cast a shadow over the fine words and deeds of these Danes.

Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt called the murders a “cynical act of terror,” but then offered this ponderous and contradictory observation: “We don’t know the motive for the attacks but we know that there are forces that want to harm Denmark, that want to crush our freedom of expression, our belief in liberty. We are not facing a fight between Islam and the West, it is not a fight between Muslims and non-Muslims.”

The motive for the attack could hardly have been clearer. First, attempt mass murder at an event explicitly dedicated to free expression then, for good measure, head over to a synagogue to kill some Jews. The actions of the perpetrator betray the motives in the most obvious manner imaginable. It is baffling that the prime minister should have chosen to cast question on the motive. And while it is widely held that the actions of violent radical extremists do not represent a universal trait of Islam, it still rings odd to hear the leader of a country in such a situation tack on a declaration about what the incident is not, while offering no specifics about what is at the root of the attack.

Far more disturbing was the veneration given to the perpetrator. The funeral for Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, who police say was responsible for both attacks and who police shot and killed, was attended by an estimated 500 people. One organizer said the turnout was a sign of support for the family of the gunman, not an endorsement of his actions, but the crowd of hundreds at the funeral of a murderer of this sort is not a good sign.

Moreover, flowers were left at the scene of El-Hussein’s death, as is the mania these days anytime a tragedy strikes. These were later removed – by masked men chanting who said their actions were based on the fact that Muslims (like Jews) do not mark the passing of people with flowers.

These weird and disheartening reactions stand in contrast with the uplifting story of the moment – the “circle of peace” that took place last weekend in Oslo, Norway, in which 1,000 Norwegian Muslims and their allies encircled a synagogue in an act of solidarity and protection.

Similarly, the involvement of a Muslim figure with a history of antisemitic rhetoric drew some criticism, though organizers pointed to his participation as a sign of progress and that change is possible even among radical extremists and fundamentalists, and those who espouse hate.

Zionism’s meaning in Diaspora

After the attacks in Copenhagen, like after the violence and vandalisms that have rocked the French Jewish community, Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is urging the Jews of Europe to come to Israel as violence against Jews and Jewish institutions increases across that troubled continent.

This call for a new mass aliyah is being met with opposition by European leaders – including Jewish leaders. In Copenhagen, more than 30,000 people, led by their prime minister, commemorated the victims of the terror attacks. Copenhagen’s chief rabbi, Jair Melchior, told the Associated Press, “People from Denmark move to Israel because they love Israel, because of Zionism. But not because of terrorism. If the way we deal with terror is to run somewhere else, we should all run to a deserted island.”

Coincidentally, in preparation for our upcoming 85th anniversary issue, we were perusing old copies of this newspaper recently. We came across a commentary from July 1948 titled “Zionism should be wound up.” The author argued that the motive for Zionism – the creation of a Jewish state – had been realized and so the global enterprise should be concluded: even as Israel was literally fighting for its survival in the ongoing War of Independence, and so soon after the Holocaust.

Zionism had been a divisive force in the Diaspora Jewish community, including here in Canada. There were pro- and anti-Zionist Jews of left, right and centre politics, and of Orthodox and secular persuasion and everything in between. Some arguments against Zionism as a movement relied on religious foundations, contending that the ingathering of the exiles would coincide with the messianic era. Other arguments were emphatically secular with the left holding, for example, that it was incumbent upon Jews to remain where they are and fight for a better world for all, rather than retrenching to nationalistic or religious-based separations.

Reading the editorial from 1948, one particular sticking point was that community fundraising efforts had been overwhelmingly allocated to the Zionist effort. Now that the goal had been achieved, the author argued, it was time to redirect fundraising and spending inward, to individual Diaspora communities and to resurrect the “kehilla pattern” of community building and security, with each community taking care of its own needs.

Despite the writer’s conclusion, as successive wars and decades of terrorism confronted Israel, Zionism was not shelved. It morphed into a different type of movement. No longer mobilizing for the creation of a Jewish homeland, it became the overseas support group for the country. After 1967, when “the occupation” altered perceptions of Israel at home and abroad, Zionism again became a divisive cause. But for those two decades, the Jewish people were probably as united as they have ever been in support of Israel.

The lesson of the second half of the 20th century proved the lesson of the first half. Close to a million Jews across the Middle East and North Africa were forced, driven or encouraged by various means to leave their homelands. The difference for these people was that there was now a place where Jews control the immigration policy. Had such a place existed in the 1930s, the impact of the Holocaust may have been massively reduced. Nitpickers will contend that it was the creation of the state of Israel itself that led to the expulsion of Jews from the Arab world, but this equivalency, whatever its merits, does not distract from the underlying point: Jews have often lacked security and permanence in places where they are a permanent minority.

However, being a majority is no assurance of safety. Despite Netanyahu’s invitation, all is not nirvana for the Jews of Israel. Violence and terrorism are not unknown, and life is challenging in different ways than in Europe. It also needs mentioning that everything Netanyahu says and does right now must be seen through the prism of political expediency as the Israeli elections approach.

Nevertheless, these events raise a very serious question: What does Zionism mean today for people in the Diaspora?

There are probably more answers than there are Jews and, in a way, this is the question we grapple with, in one way or another, in these pages every week. But this conclusion may be safe to draw: it is not quite time for Zionism to wind up its affairs.