תצפית אל דרום הכנרת מהכביש היורד מיבניאל. (צילום: אלה פאוסט)
ג’סטין טרודו: מברך את העם היהודי לחג הפורים, מתקומם על החרם נגד ישראל, אך מתנגד להתנחלויות בשטחים
ראש ממשלת קנדה מטעם המפלגה הליברלית, ג’סטין טרודו, מביע לאחרונה את דעתו בפומבי בנושאים שקשורים ליהודים ולישראל. שלא כמו קודמו בתפקיד, סטיבן הרפר, טרודו לא עומד אוטומטית מאוחרי ישראל בכל עניין ועניין והוא אינו חבר של ראש ממשלת ישראל, בנימין נתניהו, אבל עדיין נחשב לידיד קרוב של ישראל.
טרודו פרסם בשבוע שעבר אגרת ברכה לאזרחים היהודים בקנדה לקראת חג הפורים. בברכה נאמר: “חג הפורים מציין את סיפורה של אסתר המלכה והדוד שלה מרדכי, אשר הצילו את העם היהודי בתקופת פרס העתיקה. אירוע זה מזכיר לנו שוב את כוחו ועוצמתו של העם היהודי, אשר שרד וגבר על הרדיפה הבלתי הנתפסת הזו. בזמן שאנו קוראים את מגילת אסתר אנו מאשרים מחדש את המחויבות הקיימת שלנו לנקוט פעולה ולעמוד נגד האנטישמיות, נגד ביטויים אחרים של שנאה ואפליה בקנדה ומחוצה לה”.
רק לפני כחודש חזר טרודו על הבטחתו מקמפיין הבחירות שלו להתנגד לכל חרם על ישראל. טרודו ומרבית חברי המפלגה הליברלית שבראשותו תמכו ב-22 בפרואר בהצעת המפלגה הקונסרבטיבית מהאופוזיציה, לגנות את כל מי שמחרים את ישראל. הפרלמנט הקנדי אישר את ההחלטה הזו ברוב גדול של 229 מול 51 מתנגדים. לפי הצעת הקונסרבטיבים על הממשלה הקנדית לגנות כל ניסיון לקדם את תנועת החרם והסנקציות נגד ישראל בקנדה ומחוצה לה. עוד נאמר בהחלטה כי תנועת החרם הבינלאומית של ‘הבי.די.אס’ פועלת לעשות דה-לגיטימציה ודמוניזציה של מדינת ישראל. שר החוץ הקנדי, סטפן דיון, אמר מספר ימים קודם לכן בצורה ברורה כי העולם לא ירוויח דבר מהחרמת ישראל ויש להילחם באינטישמיות על כל צורותיה השונות.
לעומת כל זאת טרודו לא מהסס להעביר ביקורת פומבית של מדיניותה של ישראל בשטחים. הוא אמר לאחרונה כי ישראל עושה דברים מזיקים כמו למשל ההתנחלויות הבלתי חוקיות. טרודו: “יש זמנים שאנחנו לא מסכימים עם בעלי הברית שלנו, ואנחנו לא נהסס לומרת זאת בקול רם. זהו עניין שחברים צריכים לדעת לעשות. כמו למשל ההתנחלויות שהן בלתי חוקיות”. שר החוץ דיון אמר באותו נושא קודם לכן את הדברים הבאים: “ההתנחלויות פוגעות ביכולת להגיע לפתרון צודק באזור”.
בנושא טרודו והרפר כתב ניצן הורביץ בעיתון ‘הארץ’ בין היתר: “ראש הממשלה החדש הוא איש פתוח, מתקדם ובעל חוש הומור. תשע השנים הרפר היו די והותר לקנדים. הם הבינו שהמדיניות התקציבית המרסנת שלו וההסתמכות העיוורת על חברות אנרגיה הביאו אותם אל עברי פי פחת. לעומת זאת טרודו נמצא בצד הנכון של ההיסטוריה. הוא כבר הציג ממשלה שווה של נשים וגברים”.
האם פיצה גנובה טעימה יותר: שישה שליחי פיצה נשדדו בססקטון לאחרונה
שישה נהגים שמובילים פיצות בריכבם נשדדו החל מסוף פברואר ובמהלך מרץ בעיר ססקטון. באחד מסופי השבוע נשדדו ארבעה שליחים ולאחר מכן נשדדו עוד שניים. המשטרה המקומית מאמינה שיש קשר בין כל ששת המקרים בהם משתתפים שני שודדים. המשטרה קוראת לנהגים להגביר את הזהירות ואמצעי האבטחה. עדיין לא ידועה זהות השודדים שכנראה גם מכורים למגשי פיצות חמות וטריות.
השודדים כנראה ממוצא אינדיאני (בגילאי 18-20) לבושים בשחור ופניהם מכוסות במסכות, פועלים בשעות הבוקר המוקדמות וחמושים בשלל של כלים מאיימים: צמידים מברזל, מפתח צינורות, מוטות מברזל וסכינים. צמד השודדים מאיים על הנהגים המופתעים וגונב את הכסף שבידם עם חלק מהפיצות שברכבם.
Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union suffered dramatically in state elections in Germany last weekend. The German chancellor’s party received a brutal admonishment from voters, who concurrently gave startlingly strong support to a far-right, anti-immigrant party that is almost brand new to the scene.
The election was a referendum, to a large extent, on Merkel’s liberal approach to refugees from the Middle East. Last year, 1.1 million refugees streamed into Germany after often perilous journeys from the eastern Mediterranean. At the current rate, this year could see even more arrive unless, as some even in Merkel’s own coalition argue, border controls are imposed.
Still, there is no question that Germans – and everyone else on the continent – are confounded by the challenges created by refugees flowing in from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Merkel is in the process of negotiating with Turkey a cash deal that would see Turkey offer an alternative destination for those set on Europe. Yet even that would not allay all the concerns among Europeans and others in the West.
Are there potential terrorists among the millions of people on the move? It would be a foolhardy terror leader who would miss the opportunity to plant some agents in the West when an opportunity so ripe as the current porous borders presents itself, so almost certainly. But terrorists will find their marks even if it is not so convenient – and many of the perpetrators of European terror in recent years have legitimately been in the countries they attacked. Some were even citizens. The seriousness of this potential should not be diminished, but neither should we lull ourselves into believing that stanching the refugee flow would eliminate the terror problem.
As we have noted previously, more prevalent dangers may come in the form of some refugees’ attitudes and approaches to women and minorities. Violence (most notably a huge number of sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve) and other anti-social behaviors being reported suggest that there will be a serious challenge integrating some refugees into societies where expectations of women’s and men’s behaviors are radically different than in Syria and Iraq.
Then there are the economic realities, which have been remarkably glossed over. Before 9/11, opponents of admitting immigrants and refugees could be depended upon to raise fears of unemployment and abuse of social services. Thanks to the real or inflated threat of Islamist terror, economics seems to have been eclipsed. Even Donald Trump, whose campaign plays on every imaginable fear of difference or diversity, has limited his hate-fueled anti-Muslim rhetoric almost exclusively to the terror motif. In his mind, evidently, Mexicans take jobs, Muslims are terrorists.
Yet neither Trump’s xenophobia nor Merkel’s open-handedness will solve the underlying problems of war and despair that drive people to risk their lives to reach Europe or the Americas. And even if that crisis were to be solved which, despite U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts, seems remote, we need to remind ourselves of a larger issue still.
We are one world. A country may once have been able to close its borders and seal itself off from the rest of humankind. The 20th-century fate of the Jews of Europe is the most memorable reminder that this was once true. But no more. We can set policies and even build walls, but we are part of an irrevocably interconnected and interdependent world. Efforts to stop the advance of this reality will ultimately be futile, even if they were desirable.
We need to find a way to get along. There could hardly be a more simplistic statement, but it is nonetheless true. We need to find ways to coexist inter-culturally and intra-culturally. With those who are coming to Europe and North America, we need to engage in a deep and committed dialogue to find common ground and we must not be afraid, as Canadians so often are, of confronting cultural differences, because ignoring them will cause problems, not solve them.
Slovakia’s elections on the weekend ushered into parliament for the first time a far-right neo-Nazi party of the sort that have made inroads in various parts of Europe over recent years. About the same time this was making news, Donald Trump urged supporters at a rally in Florida to raise their right hands in a pledge to vote. The ensuing scene was – as any sensible person would have foreseen – eerily redolent of a Nazi rally.
Since the collapse of the bipolar Cold War-era status quo, global politics has been unstable. Common enemies make for strange bedfellows and temporary alliances have been the pragmatic responses to regional brushfires, such as the alignment of Shia and Sunni Muslim factions with, respectively, Russian and Western powers. Some Sunni Muslim powers have even been making pleasant noises toward Israel, seeing it as an ally, however unlikely, against the Iranian menace.
These tactical alliances are taking place at a molecular level, too, if we can put it that way. Not only are strange alliances forming between nation-states (and, in some cases, non-state players like Iranian-backed Hezbollah and the Western-backed Free Syrian Army), but ideologies are merging at the edges. The far-right and the far-left, in some instances, are almost indistinguishable.
In their historical forms, communism and fascism in the form of Stalinism and Hitlerism, were the most adamant of enemies. Until they weren’t, thanks to a non-aggression pact, and then they were again, thanks to Hitler’s abrogation of the pact. For the great majority of people in the West who are democrats (whether liberal, conservative, libertarian, social democratic or whatever) the two ends of the political spectrum can look very similar. Both have been responsible for genocides causing millions of deaths and neither respects the human being’s right to individual freedoms.
From a Canadian perspective, we have been blessedly free of anything more than weak startup movements of the far-left and the far-right. The communist party, under different names, had minimal electoral success in the 1930s and 1940s. When the antisemitic far-right permeated the Social Credit movement and later the Reform party, they were fairly successfully shut down. Canada is a place of moderation, a trait we bear smugly (and, therefore, without our alleged national humility) while watching the machinations of American politics today.
Today’s far-left and far-right, which are more recognizable in their traditional forms in Europe, nevertheless have traded off some characteristics. In some instances, European far-right parties, who are almost unanimously anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, have adopted a convenient philosemitism and pro-Zionism, seeing Israel as a bulwark against radical Islam. At the same time, we are witnessing a growth of not only anti-Zionism but overt antisemitism among components of the left. Notably, the Labor Club at Oxford University, the campus arm of Britain’s second-largest political party, has been recently criticized. According to reports, Oxford Laborites mocked Jewish victims of the Paris terror attacks, made light of Auschwitz, expressed solidarity with Hamas and defended the killing of Israeli civilians, routinely employ the term “Zio,” a slang for Zionist that is usually found only on the most extreme websites, and a former co-chair of the club has said that “most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf.” It is little solace that the antisemitism seems to have emanated from the Momentum movement, a hard-left stream within the Labor party headed by Jeremy Corbyn, the party leader.
The Oxford debacle is among the most public of countless incidents of Jew-baiting and Jew-hating on the left, but there is much cross-pollination between groups like those who hold Israel Apartheid Weeks and other groups that proudly march under the “progressive” standard.
Antisemitism, it is so often said, is an early symptom of a societal sickness, the first sign of crazy. This is a bit simplistic, though, because antisemitism is so unique, so capable of metastasizing into whatever form of scapegoat a society requires, so ubiquitous and yet still so fundamentally not understood, that blanket statements about it are a fool’s game.
Perhaps it is safe to say this: antisemitism exists in many places, but it is now and has perhaps always been most prevalent at the fringes of the political spectrum. No one should be surprised that it is a dominant characteristic of the far-right as well as the far-left, particularly when those terms themselves seem to have more overlap, or at least more fluidity, than perhaps ever before.
Extremists exist in Canada, as they do elsewhere in the world, and so, too, do inequality and other social issues that have the ability to polarize us, if we let them. But, extremism does not seem to be intrinsic to our land. This good fortune is something we must not take for granted. While people may joke – an example, Why did the Canadian cross the road? To get in the middle! – we have a lot of which to be proud, and something valuable worth protecting. We also, perhaps, have something to teach the world about tolerance and moderation.
The House of Commons this month voted overwhelmingly to condemn BDS, the movement that aims to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel.
The motion, put forward by Conservative members of Parliament Tony Clement and Michelle Rempel, reads fairly simply: “That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the BDS movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the state of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.”
The Liberal government backed the motion while the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois opposed it, leading to a lopsided 229-51 victory.
A handful of Liberal MPs abstained and two voted against, but the vast majority of government members backed the Conservative motion. Two NDP MPs abstained from their party’s otherwise monolithic opposition to the motion. Both are Vancouver-area MPs – Vancouver Kingsway’s Don Davies and Port Moody-Coquitlam’s Fin Donnelly.
Supporters of the motion expressed views that have been prominent in these pages in recent weeks: that BDS unfairly targets one side in a conflict, that it is counterproductive and possibly based on bigotry. Opponents of the motion took a more novel approach.
NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said, “This goes against the freedom of expression we hold so dear in our society … to call upon the government to condemn someone for having that opinion, that’s unheard of.” He said the motion “makes it a thought crime to express an opinion” and contended that it is fair to disagree with BDS and still debate its arguments.
We like to think that you would be hard-pressed to find a more thoroughgoing defence of free expression than has appeared in this space over the past 20 years, and even longer. We have routinely taken a stand for open expression when some readers and community leaders urged variations on censorship. Yet the NDP leader’s defence of free expression is confused at best.
The motion does not make it illegal to support BDS. If it did, we would be out with our figurative pitchforks and torches opposing it. What the motion does is condemn a despicable idea. And here is where so many people who claim to support free expression in principle actually screw it up in the execution.
Mulcair argued that we should be able to debate BDS. That is precisely what Parliament did through this motion. He argued that his party does not support BDS, merely free speech. Leaving aside that several unions that support the NDP also support BDS, and that the NDP is the natural home in Canadian politics for anyone else who believes in BDS, his circumlocution on our sacred freedoms provides a tidy cover for avoiding the real issue that could paint his party into a corner: some – a few? a lot? a majority? – of his party members and MPs do, in fact, support the BDS movement. So, to avoid condemning BDS and perhaps alienating party members and supporters, he cloaked himself in a non sequitur of free expression, debasing the very value he claimed to be defending.
Too often, when unpopular views are expressed, those who might be counted upon to contest them abdicate that responsibility, defaulting to the argument that bad ideas are protected by our values of free expression. Indeed, they are. But so, too, are good ideas!
Supporters of BDS absolutely have a right to express their views. And, although it seems difficult for Mulcair to comprehend, so do its opponents. Every Canadian has a right to express their opinion within limitations around which our society has largely developed a consensus. Elected officials not only have a right, but an obligation to do so. A parliamentary motion condemning a terrible idea does not detract from anyone’s right to express and support that bad idea. In fact, it is the embodiment of free speech in action.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers is again attacking Israel and urging its members to support the campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction the Jewish state. Last week, the union’s national president, Mike Palecek, sent a communiqué to members packed with boilerplate calls for attacking Israel economically and politically, including a call to end the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement.
The BDS movement lays bare a stark moral dissonance among so-called “progressives.” In confronting almost every other conflict and issue, these are people who urge discussion, negotiation, compromise, dialogue, conciliation. Except when it comes to Israel.
Why is Israel treated differently in this, as it is in so many other realms?
Obviously, Israel is held to a higher standard, as so many critics have noted, because it is a democracy, it prides itself on human rights and rule of law. However, the standards to which the world holds Israel are impossible ones that no country could measure up to when faced with the continual threats and violence that the country has endured for nearly seven decades.
The Jewish country – given the Bible, the Holocaust, the principles upon which it was founded – is expected to be the quintessence of morality and humanity. Which it might have been capable of, were it not for the fact that those who seek its destruction recognize no parallel standards of morality or humanity.
BDSers and other extreme critics of Israel shield themselves in a blanket rejection of the idea that their ideology could in any way be influenced by negative perceptions of Jews. Be that as it may, Donald Trump, of all people, may have illustrated the situation perfectly while speaking with Jewish Republicans last December.
“Look, I’m a negotiator like you folks; we’re negotiators.… This room negotiates perhaps more than any room I’ve spoken to, maybe more,” he said.
To Trump, being an expert negotiator is a compliment, though compliments often have double edges.
The stereotype of Jews as unconquerable negotiators is a driving force behind BDS. It is so universal a stereotype that Trump didn’t even realize it might be offensive, just as so many BDSers are blind to the bigotry inherent in their worldview.
Consider Sept. 28, 2000. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process was proceeding and an independent Palestinian state was in reach. Then Yasser Arafat left the negotiating table and began the Second Intifada. A decade and a half of continued statelessness for Palestinians has followed, as well as endless violence and thousands more deaths. World reaction should have been to rear up against Arafat’s rejection of negotiation and his return to violence. It wasn’t. Despite all reason, the world nearly unanimously empathized with Arafat’s actions. Why? Because many in the world, consciously or not, hold to ideas that let them believe the Palestinians were never going to get a fair shake. Despite all evidence suggesting that negotiation was leading to a two-state solution, violence was completely understandable because, you know, no one bests the Jews at negotiating.
Of course, there is the other factor – that Arafat seems to never have wanted a two-state solution, but this does not explain the reaction of erstwhile progressives and peace-seekers around the world.
Other stereotypes of Jews also drive the tactics of BDS. Note the two primary targets of the movement. First, it’s about attacking Israel economically. Secondly, it’s about academic boycotts. First, hit them where it hurts: in the pocketbook. Then sock it to them in the intellect.
It is hard not to draw the conclusion that, at its root, BDS is a movement steeped in racism.
There was a tempest recently when National Public Radio, the listener-funded American radio network, published a map on their website that erased Israel and called the region between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River “Palestine.”
There were other errors on the map – Turkey and Cyprus were also omitted as part of the Middle East and Afghanistan and Pakistan were included, despite not being considered part of Middle East. The map was removed from the website after complaints from HonestReporting.
It is good that watchdogs like HonestReporting exist and that media outlets that make errors – or deliberate misrepresentations – respond when challenged. However, there is a degree of irony in the fact that more attention is given to erasing Israel from the map on a relatively irrelevant webpage than there is to the near-universal erasure of Israel from the curricula and foreign policies of almost every country in the region.
In textbooks, including some funded by the United Nations, Israel is omitted from maps that teach children geography, replaced, as in the NPR case, with the word Palestine. This is by far the bigger concern.
The reality is that, from the foreign-policy perspective of most Arab and Muslim-majority countries, Israel doesn’t exist and never has. Foreign policy toward Israel among members of the Arab League is one of aggressive denial, in which Israel is referred to obliquely as “the Zionist entity,” or worse. In Iran, there is less denial that Israel exists and more overt determination to literally wipe it from the map.
Yet, all of these facts are effectively ignored by Western European foreign policies, like that of France recently. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has called for a peace conference “to preserve and achieve the two-state solution.” Fabius said that, if his plan for a negotiated settlement did not break the status quo, his government would unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, as Sweden did in 2014.
Rightly, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rejected the idea on Sunday. The French proposal, he correctly noted, provides the Palestinians with a disincentive to negotiate in good faith. Failure of a negotiated settlement is pretty much guaranteed by promises like that of France. Historically, the Palestinian leadership has rarely been willing to compromise, confident, correctly, that their Western allies would endorse their position without it – there has been no need to recognize Israel’s right to exist, to negotiate borders or other outstanding issues. From far too few countries has there been recognition that there are actually two legitimate sides with competing claims.
Aside from being a foreign policy of fools, the French proposal reflects the false narrative that is dominant in Western circles, one that sees Israel as the only obstacle to peace. If Israel does put roadblocks in the way of European proposals for a negotiated settlement, it is because European countries have shown too little concern, if any, to the very legitimate concerns Israel has about its security and indeed its continued existence with the very real potential for a terrorist state immediately abutting its tiny territory. If governments run by Hamas and Fatah are not worrisome enough, their stability in the face of threats from even worse terrorist organizations, namely ISIS, may be of no concern to the French, but it is a very serious concern for Israelis and those who care whether they live or die.
Alleged Israeli obstructionism, exemplified by the admittedly unhelpful expansion of settlements, is held up in the West as the main obstacle to peace, while the genocidal incitement that is rampant among Palestinians and in other parts of the region is dismissed as a temporary by-product of Israeli policies. In other words, as so often in history, Jews are blamed for bringing catastrophe upon themselves.
It is not a good thing that a news organization like NPR would redraw the boundaries of Israel and Palestine. Of far more concern should be efforts by the government of France and other Western powers to force such reconfigurations on a region they clearly do not understand.
פגישה נוספת בין ג’סטין טרודו לבנימין נתניהו: השניים נפגשו בשבוע שעבר בדאבוס
ראש ממשלת קנדה, ג’סטין טרודו וראש ממשלת ישראל, בנימין נתניהו, נפגשו בפעם השנייה. הפגישה הפעם ארעה במסגרת הפורום הכלכלי העולמי בדאבוס שהתקיים בשבוע שעבר בשוויץ. כנס דאבוס נחשב לאחד האירועים הכלכליים הבינלאומיים החשובים ביותר, ומשתתפים בו גורמים בכירים מכל העולם. בפעם הראשונה מאז טרודו מונה לראש ממשלה בחודש אוקטובר, נפגשו השניים בוועידת האקלים בפריז שנערכה בסוף חודש נובמבר.
נתניהו ציין כי הפגישה הנוכחית בינו ובין טרודו שנערכה בשבוע שעבר הייתה מצויינת “ויש לנו יחסים מאוד מאוד טובים”. כידוע לנתניהו וסטיבן הרפר, ראש הממשלת קנדה הקודם, היו יחסים מצויינים והם נחשבו למנהיגים מקורבים ביותר. עתה נתניהו משתדל לצייר תמונה של עסקים כרגיל וכי גם הוא וטרודו נמצאים במערכת יחסים טובה מאוד. זאת למרות שבממשלת ישראל חששו מאוד מהניצחון של המפלגה הליברלית בחירות הפדרליות האחרונות כאן ותבוסתו של הרפר שעמד בראש מפלגת השמרנים.
עם זאת נתניהו בוודאי לא אהב לשמוע את טרודו מצהיר שוב בנאומו בדאבוס כי הפתרון למשבר הגרעיני עם איראן הוא פוליטי ולא צבאי. וכן על הכרזתו של ראש ממשלת קנדה בתשובות לשאלות שהופנו אליו בכנס, שקנדה אכן מפסיקה להפציץ מטרות של דאע”ש במזרח התיכון.
ג’סטין טרודו צפוי ללכת בדרכו של אביו פייר טרודו ולהנהיג מדיניות מאוזנת במזרח התיכון
ראש ממשלת קנדה הנוכחי, ג’סטין טרודו , כמו אביו, פייר אליוט טרודו ששימש ראש ממשלת קנדה בשנים 1968-1979 ו1980-1984, צפוי להנהיג מערכת יחסים יותר מאוזנת עם ישראל, תוך ניסיון לחזק את הקשרים עם מדינות ערב, שנחלשו מאוד בתקופת ראש הממשלה הקודם, סטיבן הרפר. שר החוץ של טרודו הבן, סטפן דיון, הזדרז מייד אחרי הבחירות והודיע שקנדה מבקשת לחזור לתפקידה המסורתי (לפני עידן הרפר), ולהיות מתווך הוגן בין הצדדים במזרח התיכון. זאת תוך חיזוק הקשרים מחדש עם מדינות ערב השונות. לדעת פרשנים טרודו כמו אביו לא יעמוד מאחורי ישראל באופן אוטומטי (כמו הרפר) ויבדוק כל נושא לגופו. כאביו הוא כבר הודיע כי קנדה תתנגד לכל חרם על ישראל “שזה סוג חדש של אנטישמיות”.
פייר אליוט טרודו היה קשור וקשוב לקהילה היהודית. הוא מינה שר יהודי לממשלתו, החזיק ביועצים יהודים, והיה ראש הממשלה הראשון בקנדה שמינה שופט יהודי לבית המשפט העליון. הוא היה תומך נלהב של ישראל אך הבין שצריך גם לשמור על איזון עם הפלסטינים. האב כעס מאוד ששמע על החרם הערבי נגד חברות שסחרו עם ישראל. הוא גינה את פעולות הטרור נגד ישראל מצד הפלסטינים והבין את הדאגה הטבעית של ישראל לביטחון. במקביל התנגד לפלישת צה”ל ללבנון ב-1982. המלחמה ואירועי סברה ושתילה סימנו את תחילת התהליך התקררות היחסים בין קנדה לישראל, שהתחממו בעידן הרפר. פרופסור לפוליטיקה באוניברסיטת מקגיל שבמונטריאול, גיל טרוי, טוען שלטרודו הבן גם יש יועצים יהודים ורבים מאנשיו מכירים את ישראל. אביו הבין את ישראל ואין שום אינדיקציה שהבן יהיה שונה ממנו. ברני פרבר מבכירי הפעילים בקהילה היהודית אומר שלא יהיה הבדל המהותי בין הרפר לטרודו, אך טון הדברים יהיה שונה. לדבריו שלטונו של הרפר “הזיז” את הקהילה היהודית חזק ימינה, ומעולם לא היה קיטוב כה גדול בתוך הקהילה כמו היום. פרבר מקווה שקנדה של טרודו תחזור למדיניות יותר מאוזנת במזרח התיכון, כך שקולה ישמע שוב בזירה הבינלאומית וזה יהיה גם טוב יותר לישראל.
The pope visited a Rome synagogue Sunday – the first visit to a synagogue during his papacy and a significant event in the context of inter-religious friendship. Pope Francis condemned violence based on religion and called on Catholics to rediscover the Jewish roots of Christianity. During the past half-century, relations between the Catholic Church and the Jewish community have made historical and immensely positive advances. Out of a history of bleak victimization based on Catholic teachings, the modernization of Catholic doctrine in the early 1960s reversed the millennia-old accusation of deicide and began a process of reconciliation that has been largely genuine and welcomed.
But, sadly, antisemitism – religious or otherwise – remains.
Recently released statistics say 2015 saw more Jews make aliyah from Western Europe than in any year since the founding of the state. Nearly 10,000 Western European Jews – 8,000 of them from France – made the move to Israel. While this level of aliyah will be heralded by some as a positive milestone, it reflects a dismal trend for Jewish communities in France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Belgium which, in that order, saw the greatest number of emigrants.
And the trajectory seems unlikely to abate, with Jews in the southern French city of Marseille now being advised by the leader of their community not to be seen in public with a kippah after a brutal assault on an identifiable Jew in that city and several years of similar violence across France.
In response, two women have started a social media campaign using the hashtag TousAvecUneKippah – everyone with a kippah. The idea is for everyone to don the traditional Jewish headwear as a gesture of solidarity and to confound those who would no longer be able to identify Jews to attack. This has resulted in some fun viral photos, such as a kippah on the Mona Lisa and another atop a model of the Eiffel Tower.
The idea that “we are all Jews” is an effort at solidarity and is a heart-warming and obviously well-intentioned move. It has some history, too. There is an apocryphal (that is to say, in this case, pleasant but untrue) story of the Danish King Christian X wearing a yellow star in solidarity with his country’s Jewish population during the Nazi occupation of his country. It is the sort of story that we wish were true.
Even so, there is a potential downside to claiming membership in an oppressed or victimized group. Middle-class North American university students wrap themselves in Palestinian keffiyas, thinking they are showing solidarity when to some it can have a whiff of blackface, of usurping the history of another.
Cultural appropriation can cut both ways. The idea that “we are all Jews,” as the kippahs-for-all idea seems to advance, has a potential to damage as well as heal. The pretense that “we are all Jews” could provide a licence to critique Judaism and Jews in ways that people would never dare with other ethnic or religious groups. If we are all Jews, after all, then antisemitism is little more than self-criticism.
Another not insignificant consideration is the fact that the world is not all Jews. Neither are we all Muslims (or Parisians or Charlie Hebdo or anything else). While such efforts at solidarity and support are well-intended, they also, in their way, betray a proud tenet of Canadian and other pluralist societies, which is that we do not gloss over or erase these differences, but celebrate and defend them.
Similarly, the pope’s efforts to exalt the Jewish roots of Christianity, seemingly well-intentioned, could be problematic. The fact that Christianity emerged as a Jewish sect has been a point of contention for 2,000 years. That a small group of stiff-necked people has refused to accept Christianity as a successor religion has caused outrage that has led to literally countless deaths over centuries.
The idea that we are all Jews is a nice one in times like these, but we should remember that such ideas have a double edge.
In fall 2015, Yael Levin, third from the right, participated in the program Jewish Life in Germany – Past, Present and Future. (photo from Yael Levin)
Last year marked 50 years of diplomatic relations between Germany and Israel. To celebrate this milestone, events took place everywhere. The Canadian West Coast was no exception. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Pacific Region, was approached by the German Consulate in Vancouver to plan the celebrations locally.
I had the privilege of working with a fantastic team at the consulate. I was impressed by the fact that everyone, from the consul general himself to the person that welcomes visitors, was involved. Among other activities, we held a concert by operatic soprano Johanna Krumin and pianist Markus Zugehör performing pieces by Jewish and non-Jewish German composers.
Following months of hard work, it was not only a memorable celebration with the German and Jewish communities but also a strong relationship that led the consul general in Vancouver, Josef Beck, to invite me to participate in the program Jewish Life in Germany – Past, Present and Future. Put together by the Federal Foreign Office and the Goethe Institute, the fall program packed eight days of nonstop activities that allowed North American Jewish professionals and lay leaders to visit Germany and explore both the current reality of Jewish German life, as well as the Israel-Germany relationship.
Interior of Ohel Jakob, Munich’s main synagogue. (photo from Yael Levin)
My experiences on this trip could fill several pages so I will share just a few that left a special impression on me.
We began with a visit to Berlin’s historic Jewish Quarter, on the trail of Moses Mendelssohn. We visited the site of the first synagogue, the Centrum Judaicum, the old Jewish cemetery, the Jewish high school and the house of the world’s first female rabbi, Regina Jonas, ordained during the Nazi regime in 1935. Hers is a little-known and fascinating story that would be an inspiration for every Jewish woman (and man).
Following the theme of female leadership, we sat with Deidre Berger, managing director of the American Jewish Committee in Berlin to discuss their work lobbying the government on issues that affect the Jewish community and Israel, such as the European Union’s newly adopted guidelines for labeling goods from Israel’s disputed territories, combating the boycott, divestment and sanction movement, and antisemitism. Their work doesn’t stop there: they are actively engaged in Jewish interfaith dialogue, particularly with the Turkish community, and they work closely with the government helping develop civic education curricula in schools.
The next day, we moved to the subject of anti-terrorism at the Federal Ministry of the Interior, where we spoke with Richard Reinfeld, head of Division ÖS II 3, the office of terrorism and extremism by foreigners. Among other topics, we heard about the great cooperation between Israel and Germany in terms of intelligence exchange.
After the imperative, behind-the-scenes visit to the Jewish Museum of Berlin, the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe and the Topography of Terror Foundation, we had the opportunity to meet with Gerhard Friedrich Schlaudraff, head of the Near East division of the Federal Foreign Office, which covers Israel and all its neighbors. It was frustrating to confirm something that we all know: while there is always someone on the Israeli front to be held accountable for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, no reliable partner can be found on the PA side.
The “Corridor of Remembrance” inside Ohel Jakob commemorates the 4,587 Munich Jewish citizens murdered by the Nazis. (photo from Yael Levin)
We left Berlin after meeting with some of the many Israelis that continue to move to the city. More than 18,000 Israelis have made Berlin their home. Listening to their stories got me thinking about our homeland. Many leave Israel, we were told, because it has become hard to stay, a situation they described with words like “incredibly expensive,” “stressful,” “constant anxiety” and “hopelessness.” I still have mixed feelings about this. While I’m happy they are able to live in a situation that is better for them, I think about the irony: the very place where, years ago, life became absolutely unsustainable for Jews has today become a safe haven of sorts for many.
Our next stop was Munich, where we met with some outstanding people. Listening to Janne Weinzierl from the Stolpersteine Initiative was uplifting. This initiative is a whole topic on its own, but, for now, I will just say that this woman and her husband, neither of whom is Jewish, have volunteered tirelessly to keep the memory of thousands of Jews, and other minorities across Europe murdered during the Nazi regime, alive with a simple “stumbling stone.” To learn more, visit stolpersteine.eu/en/home.
From Dr. Charlotte Knobloch, we heard about the 200-year history of the Bavarian Jewish community and its 70th re-founding anniversary. Knobloch is a pillar of Jewish life in Munich, at 83 years old still actively working for the community.
I particularly enjoyed a conversation with Rabbi Steven Langnas, who is very involved in interfaith dialogue. At some point during lunch, he asked us to pass this message on to our communities: “Many people think that Jewish life has come to an end in Germany and practically in many places in Europe. We are showing that the Holocaust was a tragic pause but it wasn’t the end … the Chabad House now stands across from Hitler’s Munich residence. He’s not there anymore and we still are; just that, is a reason to go on….”
After a special and vibrant Shabbat service at Ohel Jakob synagogue, we headed to Dachau. Can you imagine how it felt after walking to shul to gather with another 300 or so Jews – including some survivors – in the middle of the city, praying the same prayers and singing the same songs that we have sung for hundreds of years (at least) and then proceeding to the sombre and moving visit to a concentration camp?
The memorial for the murdered athletes and coaches of the Israeli Olympic team at the 1972 Games in Munich. (photo from Yael Levin)
The entire trip, in fact, was so intense that, most nights, I could not sleep. There was so much to think about at the end of every day. We had sad moments, including our visit to the memorial for the victims of the 1972 terrorist attack on the Israeli Olympic team, and amazing, positive experiences that no one in the group will forget.
I rediscovered Germany on this trip, saw it as never before and, like many mission participants visiting Israel on CIJA trips, I changed many of my opinions about the country – one that marked our people in a very profound and complex way.
It is evident that there is still antisemitism in German society, though definitely not more than in other European countries. I also perceived ambiguity in some of our meetings with German government officials, especially with regard to Israel, but don’t get me wrong, I could see that Germany is one of Israel’s strongest and closest partners today.
It is also clear that Germany has completely changed for the better in relation to our community – not only acknowledging a heavy responsibility for the past but also honestly seeking to create a better future by supporting, protecting and fostering Jewish life and by educating the new generations against antisemitism and hatred.
This is important for us both as Jews and as advocates of justice and tikkun olam.
Yael Levinis manager, community relations, at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Pacific Region. This article was originally published by CIJA’s The Exchange.
Adolf Hitler’s manifesto of hatred against Jews, Mein Kampf, went on sale last week in Germany for the first time since 1945. The annotated edition proved a bestseller, we hope because people intend to take a critical look at the ideas that drove their country to apparent mass insanity.
The reissue has been controversial, not surprisingly, but, as a practical matter, banning material these days is impossible. Mein Kampf is available to anyone with an internet connection, so the act of banning it in recent years has been a statement of principle rather than an effective means of keeping it from interested eyes.
Nevertheless, the book is an historical document that should not be hidden away. The ideas it contains were the seeds of one of humankind’s greatest atrocities. This suggests it has a power that those who would ban it justifiably fear. Yet, again, since banning it is not feasible, better that the opportunity be welcomed to analyze it and try to understand, confront and negate the ideology it represents, which is clearly the intent of producing a heavily annotated edition.
In fact, news of the book’s reissue has already sparked some welcome, thoughtful reflections on the nature of antisemitism, ideological hatred and also the matter of free expression itself. One lesson is that words matter. They have power. This is certainly the undergirding reason the book has been banned in Germany for 70 years.
It may seem a conflicted philosophical principle we have taken on this page for many years to stand firmly in the court of free expression – the right of people to express themselves free of undue constraints by governments, mobs or the threat of violence – while contending at the same time that people should police their own self-expression. It is not conflicted; in fact, it is a primary tenet of democratic, pluralist societies. It is the axiomatic idea that with freedom comes responsibility.
The proof that words matter is evident every time a Jewish person is stabbed in Israel. Palestinian society is being saturated by calls to kill Jews, including publications that demonstrate the most effective means of stabbing a Jew. Of course, Palestine is not a democratic, pluralist society where freedom and responsibility are sides of a coin, so this may be one of the reasons Western voices have for decades given a pass to rampant incitement.
But, tragically, we see it far closer to home. Some of the language around the arrival of Syrian and Iraqi refugees to Canada has gone beyond the realm of what most Canadians probably like to imagine is our tolerant, liberal approach to “others.” At a welcoming event for Syrian refugees in Vancouver last week, an individual pepper-sprayed people milling about outside the venue. It seems an act of such deliberate cruelty to undermine the confidence and well-being of people seeking a better life. It is impossible to know the precise factors that motivated this attack, but we can be fairly certain that some of the language used recently about refugees and Muslims did little to dissuade a person inclined to violence that such behavior was unacceptable. Donald Trump, according to opinion polls one of the people most likely to be the next U.S. president, has made obscene, inexcusable statements about refugees and Muslims. Such words do not fall on deaf ears.
We are at a time in human history where the very nature of words seems to be changing. Everyone can send their opinions out into the world in ways never imaginable even two decades ago. At the same time, long-form reading seems to be declining precipitously and we, in Western societies at least, may be forming our opinions more on bite-sized slogans than on deep consideration.
It’s hard to pinpoint what it means that the erstwhile banned rantings of Mein Kampf flew off German bookshelves. Hopefully it means people aim to use this annotated version to critically assess their country’s history.
