Obligation to protect

Editorial

In one of its first acts in government, the new Conservative regime of Stephen Harper pleased many in the Jewish community with progress on Canada's votes at the United Nations and the decision to halt direct payments to the institutionalized terrorist government of the Palestinian Authority.

There is something else Jewish Canadians would like to see.

As a community that has been required to consider its physical security in a manner most Canadian multicultural groups have not, the Jewish community in Canada has expended substantial financial, human and emotional resources preparing for the worst. While the RCMP and community police across the country have been overwhelmingly co-operative and supportive in recent years, the reality is that security is a major expense and a major drain on resources for Jewish institutions of all kinds.

Last week, al-Qaeda threatened to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Beyond the threats to IDF soldiers, the terrorists have also threatened to target Diaspora Jews. This is somewhat novel. Jewish institutions have been attacked in the Diaspora before, in incidents both amateurish and extremely professional. But al-Qaeda's threat is a rare public warning against non-Israeli Jews.

While the threat should not send Jewish communities worldwide into a tizzy, it should be a sign that the precautions Jewish communities have traditionally taken should be reviewed for effectiveness.

But there should also be a new commitment from the governments of Canada – federal, provincial and municipal, as appropriate – to assist the Jewish community to protect itself against, God forbid, domestic incidents of violence.
This is an issue that Canadian Jewish Congress and others have raised over the years with government officials. Protection of individual citizens and property is one of the core responsibilities of a national government. When we have threats of this relatively specific nature, Canadian leaders (governmental and other) should be taking every available step to ensure that dire scenarios are not permitted to come to fruition.

While the crazed rantings of overseas terrorists should be placed in the context in which they exist, so should the sometimes careless words of Canadian activists and leaders. Repeatedly, anti-Israel activists in Canada have refused to acknowledge even the possibility that the extreme language employed in discussion of the Middle East conflict might unintentionally encourage individuals or groups for whom violence carries no stigma. It is simply not adequate to contend that any violence preceded by extreme language is an unintended consequence. Citizens in free societies are called upon to exercise a degree of sensitivity not only to the impact their words are meant to have, but the impact their comments might have unintentionally. Abdicating this core civic responsibility is a major failing of Israel's critics in Canada and elsewhere.

Now, when we have explicit, if vague, threats to the security of overseas Jews, Israel's critics must be held to a higher standard than before. The issue is not so much the veracity of the accusations – criticism of Israel, like certain accusations against Jews throughout the ages, are usually grounded in a seed of truth – but they have often been misused by malcontents to sway the ignorant.
The fear, of course, is that people who are inclined toward violence will be emboldened by the hateful imagery and language employed by otherwise peaceful anti-Israel activists. As unpleasant and unfair as this connection may seem, it is rejected only by people whose concern for the safety of Jews is eclipsed by their dislike of Israel.

Individuals and groups in a multicultural society have an obligation not only to choose their words and approaches respectfully, but to give some thought to the way their words could be interpreted by people whose intentions are less pure. This is the core failure of the anti-Zionist movement in Canada (as well as Europe and elsewhere). There is insouciance toward the presumably unintended consequences of their rhetoric. If this was ever forgivable, it is not anymore. Canadians of goodwill, critics of Israel and others, must temper their language in the context of the times. Meanwhile, Canadian governments should be playing a role in alleviating the financial and other burdens of protecting communities who are the subject of explicit threats.

^TOP