Skip to content

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

Search

Follow @JewishIndie

Recent Posts

  • Jews support Filipinos
  • Chim’s photos at the Zack
  • Get involved to change
  • Shattering city’s rosy views
  • Jewish MPs headed to Parliament
  • A childhood spent on the run
  • Honouring Israel’s fallen
  • Deep belief in Courage
  • Emergency medicine at work
  • A funny look at death
  • OrSh open house
  • Theatre from a Jewish lens
  • Ancient as modern
  • Finding hope through science
  • Mastering menopause
  • Don’t miss Jewish film fest
  • A wordless language
  • It’s important to vote
  • Flying camels still don’t exist
  • Productive collaboration
  • Candidates share views
  • Art Vancouver underway
  • Guns & Moses to thrill at VJFF 
  • Spark honours Siegels
  • An almost great movie 
  • 20 years on Willow Street
  • Students are resilient
  • Reinvigorating Peretz
  • Different kind of seder
  • Beckman gets his third FU
  • הדמוקרטיה בישראל נחלשת בזמן שהציבור אדיש
  • Healing from trauma of Oct. 7
  • Film Fest starts soon
  • Test of Bill 22 a failure
  • War is also fought in words
  • Pondering peace post-Oct. 7

Archives

Tag: Terry Glavin

Spread of extremism

Spread of extremism

Terry Glavin, right, in conversation with Rabbi Dan Moskovitz Jan. 30, traces the evolution of anti-Israel extremism in Canada. (photo by Pat Johnson)

At times, the world seems to be going off the rails, with Canadian activists overtly cheering on terrorists and   celebrating the atrocities of Oct. 7. But Terry Glavin, a BC writer and thinker with a lifetime of experience on the ground as a journalist in the Middle East, thinks a reckoning is coming.

Speaking with Rabbi Dan Moskovitz at Temple Sholom Synagogue Jan. 30, Glavin, who says he comes from the political left, sees “a very, very disturbing and destructive phenomenon in all of the places where the left used to be.”

Part of that is a consequence of a change in global dynamics.

“Where there was once a fairly robust sort of proletariat internationalism on the left, there was something that was emerging by the ’60s and ’70s that was kind of a Third Worldist, anti-Western substitution for a genuinely progressive working-class internationalism,” he said. “That has had enormous implications in the trajectory of human history – very disturbing implications.”

The socialist or communist ideal never took hold in the West and that sent proponents seeking a spark that could catch fire.

“The working class simply didn’t take up the offer of overthrowing the state and seizing the means of production,” said Glavin, “so a lot of people on the European left went looking for a new proletariat and found it in Third World revolutionaries. Sometimes that was actually a legitimate thing to do. But, in the context of the so-called Arab world, what has often as not occurred is that bonds of solidarity would be forged with some of the most reactionary, anti-liberal, anti-progressive, theocratic, fascistic movements.”

Lacking a coherent political ideology, the movement coalesced around “anti-imperialism,” whose unifying principle was simply sharing the same enemies.

“All you have to basically do is say ‘I’m against the Americans, I’m anti-imperialist,’ and you’re in,” Glavin said.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was disorienting to the left, which then discovered the politics of anti-globalization. This created more strange bedfellows, Glavin said, because denouncing the International Monetary Fund and the World Economic Forum had once been the purview of the right.

Then, after the 9/11 terror attacks, anti-globalism took a backseat to what its adherents called an “antiwar” movement. Glavin takes exception to the term, because he said it was not an antiwar movement so much as a movement that sided with the West’s enemies in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“That’s a fairly serious charge to levy,” he said, “but organizationally and institutionally, that is actually a fact, in Canada particularly.”

A series of annual conferences in Cairo during the first decade of this century brought together global organizations including Canadian groups like Toronto Stop the War Coalition, the Canadian Peace Alliance, the Vancouver Coalition to Stop the War and others. In Cairo, they were joined by representatives of terror groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. These ostensible antiwar groups, and these decidedly violent groups, developed a program that opposed “imperialism.” And, vilified above every evil was the perceived imperialism of Zionism.

“At its very birthing, at its very centre, was anti-Zionism,” Glavin said.

While most of these Canadian activists probably self-identified as leftists, they had made common cause with the descendants of history’s most extreme right.

“We sort of imagine that there was this horrible phenomenon of Nazism that consumed millions and millions and millions of people in a world war and then we won and then it was over,” he said. “People forget that the same philosophy, the same ideology, the same antisemitic hatreds, were spreading throughout the so-called Arab world, throughout the Maghreb and the Levant, and Iran as well, in the 1920s and 1930s. It persisted.”

Glavin explained the direct line from the Nazi collaborationist Arab leaders of the 1940s and successive decades of forces in the region that translate and promulgate Mein Kampf and keep the flame of fascism alive.

Despite this seeming ideological incongruity, Canadian activists returning from Cairo found some receptive audiences for particularly Canadian reasons. Canada is a decentralized, multicultural constitutional monarchy, post-nationalistic and less driven by a cohesive patriotic impulse than some other states, according to Glavin. These fluidities caused Canadians to search for an identity.

“We needed to find a way to figure out our place in the world,” he said.

Canadians were very engaged with the creation of the United Nations, including its Declaration of Human Rights. “So, the United Nations and its protocols have always significantly informed Canadian foreign policy,” he said. “If you vest your foreign-policy principles in an institution that, without anybody noticing for some reason, became largely a function of the police-state bloc and the Organization for the Islamic Conference, you’re going to find yourself in a bit of a spot.”

This may have created fertile soil for the sorts of ideas that these activists brought back from Cairo, he said. It may also explain why “Israel Apartheid Week,” a global anti-Israel phenomenon, began at the University of Toronto and why an anti-Israel boycott movement began in Canada three years before the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement was originated by Palestinians.

Meanwhile, as activists claimed to be advocating for peace in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Glavin said they were instead often working at direct cross-purposes with those peoples’ self-defined interests. Such was the case, he argued, with those who opposed Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan.

“The Afghan left, the Afghan women’s movement, the Afghan student movement, Afghan intellectuals, poets, Afghan socialists, liberals, were all ‘troops in,’” he said. “All these white people in North America and Europe were all ‘troops out.’ Right away, that should tell you something. Something has been broken in the traditions of left-wing solidarity among and between working people around the world.”

Journalists Glavin knew in Afghanistan were baffled by Canadian activists.

“They would see another protest in Toronto,” he said, and they would ask: “Why would they do that to us?”

The left has to be held to account, Glavin said, naming the New Democratic Party specifically.

“Where the hell were you when this was happening? What were you saying when trade union leaders were meeting with Hezbollah, were meeting in Damascus with these blood-soaked tyrants? Where were you?” he asked. “The women of Afghanistan were begging – begging you – to stay with them, just hang on for a couple more years. [They were saying] ‘We’ve got an entire generation of young people coming up now, they’re graduating and they are going to be taking over, and you walk away from us? How could you do this?’”

All of these threads of ideological extremism came together with a particular fervour after Oct. 7, 2023, Glavin argued.

“Immediately, across this country, people were pouring into the streets celebrating the bloodiest pogrom since the time of the death camps,” he said. 

This was new, Glavin noted. A couple of decades earlier, at the height of the antiwar movement, activists were not overtly championing the terrorists.

“You didn’t have hundreds and hundreds of people in the streets saying, ‘We are Al Qaeda, we support Al Qaeda, yay Al Qaeda,’” he said. “You have that now – people who are openly, enthusiastically, deliriously, hysterically praising Hamas. That’s different. Something big has changed. Something very big has happened.”

This has affected Canadian Jews severely.

“On Oct. 8, Canadian Jews just didn’t wake up to find that the fabric of the country had been kind of torn by this, but rather that something had been woven into the very fabric of the country itself,” he said.

As things have deteriorated to the point where clusters of Canadians are literally celebrating the mass murder of Jews, Glavin sees a ray of hope. By showing their true colours, these activists have made it more difficult for aware Canadians to ignore the extremism that has consumed parts of our society, including the anti-Israel left. He foresees a reckoning.

“I am optimistic,” he said, “because I do think that most normal people, on any number of fronts, have simply had enough.” 

Format ImagePosted on February 14, 2025February 13, 2025Author Pat JohnsonCategories LocalTags antisemitism, extremisim, Oct. 7, politics, Terry Glavin
All ears on Netanyahu talk

All ears on Netanyahu talk

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addresses AIPAC. (photo by Amos Ben Gershom IGPO via Ashernet)

Washington, D.C.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the AIPAC Policy Conference Monday, presaging his address to the U.S. Congress Tuesday. “Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given,” he joked, referencing the controversy around his visit.

Netanyahu said the speech was not intended to show disrespect to U.S. President Barack Obama. “I deeply appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel: security cooperation, intelligence sharing, support at the UN, and much more, some things that I, as prime minister of Israel, cannot even divulge to you because it remains in the realm of the confidences that are kept between an American president and an Israeli prime minister,” he said. “I am deeply grateful for this support, and so should you be.”

He said his purpose in coming was to “speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel.”

As prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu said, he has a moral obligation to speak up. “For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless. We were utterly powerless against our enemies who swore to destroy us. We suffered relentless persecution and horrific attacks. We could never speak on our own behalf, and we could not defend ourselves.

“Well, no more, no more,” he said. “The days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over.”

Of the controversy that surrounds his visit, and the apparent rift it illuminates, Netanyahu took the opportunity to itemize a long list of historical disagreements between the two allies.

“In 1948, Secretary of State [George] Marshall opposed David Ben-Gurion’s intention to declare statehood. That’s an understatement. He vehemently opposed it. But Ben-Gurion, understanding what was at stake, went ahead and declared Israel’s independence,” said Netanyahu.

“In 1967, as an Arab noose was tightening around Israel’s neck, the United States warned prime minister Levi Eshkol that if Israel acted alone, it would be alone. But Israel did act – acted alone to defend itself.”

He noted, “In 1981, under the leadership of Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor at Osirak: the United States criticized Israel and suspended arms transfers for three months. And, in 2002, after the worst wave of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel’s history, Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon launched Operation Defensive Shield. The United States demanded that Israel withdraw its troops immediately, but Sharon continued until the operation was completed.”

The reason he mentioned all this history, he said, was to make a point. “Despite occasional disagreements, the friendship between America and Israel grew stronger and stronger, decade after decade. And our friendship will weather the current disagreement, as well, to grow even stronger in the future. And I’ll tell you why. Because we share the same dreams. Because we pray and hope and aspire for that same better world. Because the values that unite us are much stronger than the differences that divide us. Values like liberty, equality, justice, tolerance, compassion.”

On Tuesday, Netanyahu addressed Congress, thanking Obama and the United States for support. “This Capitol dome helped build our Iron Dome,” he said.

The day before Purim, he made a parallel between Haman and Ayatollah Khamenei and outlined a litany of Iran’s sins. He warned that the agreement being negotiated “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

If all else fails, the prime minister warned, Israel will do what it needs to do. “For the first time in 100 generations, we the Jewish people can defend ourselves,” he said. “Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.” However, he added that he knows Israel does not stand alone because it has the support of the United States, an assertion that received an ovation from the combined senators and congresspeople.

Top of agenda

Fears that the controversy over Netanyahu’s speech to Congress could fragment the historic support for Israel across Democratic and Republican members of Congress pushed bipartisanship up the agenda of the 16,000-delegate AIPAC conference, which ran Sunday to Tuesday.

Former CNN anchor Frank Sesno interviewed Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on stage at the conference, primarily about Iran’s nuclear program. Both politicians were emphatic that the pro-Israel consensus would withstand the tempest.

Cardin insisted that a final agreement must be transparent and allow inspectors on the ground throughout Iran. He favors increased sanctions on Iran if no deal is reached by the March 24 deadline. He said the only reason Iran is negotiating in the first place is because of sanctions and the economic isolation they have put on the country. “We’ve got to keep the heat on,” he said.

“Diplomacy would be the right answer, rather than war,” Graham said, adding that Congress should have the right to vote on the deal. “A bad deal is a nightmare for us, Israel and the world.” He warned that if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon it would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with the Sunni countries seeking the same weaponry.

On the reactions to Netanyahu’s visit, the men were unanimous.

“Don’t lose focus,” Cardin said. “The bad guy is Iran.” He urged AIPAC delegates to put pressure on their members of Congress to support proposed legislation that would make it difficult or impossible for countries that boycott Israel to do business with the United States.

Graham, who is chair of the Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, received an ovation when he threatened to cut off money to the UN if vilification of Israel in the General Assembly continues.

The bipartisanship flag was waved again later in the day when Representative Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives, and Representative Kevin McCarthy, the Republican majority leader in the house, spoke.

Lawfare not fair

The 1975 UN General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism is that body’s most notorious attack on Israel, said Brett Schaefer, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, but there have been 20 condemnatory resolutions against Israel just in this session of the GA alone, compared with three condemnatory resolutions for every other nation.

Likewise, the UN Human Rights Council, he said, has a disproportionate focus on Israel, while ignoring serious human rights abuses elsewhere. The council’s standing agenda has one permanent item on Israel and another item covering every other country on earth.

These institutional attacks on Israel began before the latest round of “lawfare,” Palestinian leaders’ attempts to gain international recognition without negotiating directly with Israel. Schaefer outlined a long list of successful and unsuccessful attempts by the Palestinians to gain legitimacy through the UN and its agencies. Yet such efforts are in direct violation of peace negotiations, which are premised on mutual recognition and negotiation, he said.

While Palestine has been recognized by UNESCO, the UN body on culture, education and science, Schaefer said Palestine is highly unlikely to be recognized as a full member of the GA because membership must be recommended by the Security Council to the assembly and the United States would likely veto such a move.

“What this is about is Palestinians getting what they want without compromise,” he said, noting that the Palestinian leadership has prepared their people to expect nothing less than complete victory and to view compromise as betrayal. However, Schaefer added, “They’ve been pretty successful so far.” The international community is “enabling Palestinians” in avoiding peace negotiations, he said. This includes the Obama administration, according to Schaefer, which puts pressure on Israel to compromise, but not on the Palestinians. “The Palestinians see no downside to what they’re doing right now,” he said, adding that there does not appear to be any reason to change course.

Gil Troy, a professor of history at McGill University, said the UN was founded as a great healing, redeeming instrument promoting the universality of human rights, but it is now a “Third World Dictators’ Debating Society.” A coalition of Soviet-led developing countries hijacked the UN from the democracies decades ago, he said.

With 193 member-states now, Troy said, the UN represents 193 forms of nationalism, but there is only one form of nationalism that is delegitimized by the GA – the Jewish nationalism called Zionism.

A conundrum for Israel in all of this is that the UN is widely respected worldwide. “The United Nations is the greatest social services agency the world has ever seen,” Troy said. For the overwhelming majority of the world, it is a great organization helping their daily lives, therefore, if the UN hates Israel, Israel must be evil.

Schaefer said Palestinian leaders have benefited from their position as something between a government and a figurehead. “Palestinians have achieved some aspects of self-government but they don’t have any of the responsibilities of government,” he said. UNRWA and other international agencies use foreign aid to run the health, education and civil infrastructure in Palestine, so the Palestinian leaders do not have to take responsibility for their people. He said the world should force the leaders to govern their people.

Schaefer suggested that the United States begin using its own power at the UN. “The United States needs to elevate awareness among other countries that their votes at the General Assembly matter,” he said. There used to be a rule about aid to countries that do not vote with the Americans consistently, but that has been rescinded, he said.

Canada, eh?

An AIPAC session on relations between Ottawa and Jerusalem drew a respectable audience – mostly Canadians but a significant number of Americans as well – and this itself is a sign of Canada’s changed roles in the world, said Jonathan Kay. “No one would have cared what Canada thought 10 years ago,” he said.

Kay, editor of The Walrus and former editor of the National Post’s comments section, was joined on a panel by B.C. author Terry Glavin.

While Prime Minister Stephen Harper is widely credited (or condemned) for shifting Canada’s position to be more pro-Israel, Kay noted it was former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin who changed Canada’s voting patterns at the UN. Kay said he sees this shift as one of the most abrupt changes in foreign policy he’s ever seen. Canadian voting policy had been in line with European nations, he said, which meant generally anti-Israel, but it is now the most “doctrinaire pro-Israel country in the world.”

Glavin said the shift did not come from the top down. Changes in the views of the Canadian general public have been seismic, he said. Canadians had clung to the idea that their country is one of “peacemakers, not warmongers,” an “honest broker” and “not those vulgar Americans.”

As well, the presence in the Liberal and New Democratic parties of a small group of vocal anti-Israel members went largely unchecked until after the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, when there was a significant shift in what Canadians were willing to accept in terms of radical foreign-policy views, Glavin said. “Most Canadians had enough by about 2006, 2007,” he added.

The Conservative party that Harper leads is technically less than 20 years old. When the Conservatives won a majority in 2011, Glavin said, some Canadians were waiting for the creation of a “Pentecostalist Taliban State.” Instead, he said, the country has accepted thousands of gay refugees, increased aid to Palestinians and focused on maternal health in the developing world.

Kay put it more succinctly, calling the Conservatives socially liberal on gay rights and abortion in a way that has no analogue in the United States. He characterized Canada for his American audience as “like one big Vermont,” and said the Conservative government accepts gay marriage as a given and, “cats aren’t marrying dogs or whatever.”

On the Israel front, Glavin said Harper has made clear that the struggle is between “free people and tyrants,” not between Israelis and Palestinians. The engagement in Afghanistan has also changed Canadians’ views of foreign affairs, he added.

Kay believes that the 1956 Canadian “invention” of peacekeeping was a stale dogma that Canadians cherished but were eventually prepared to abandon as the country became more confident. As the threats in the world, particularly radical Islam, increased, Canadians took a different view of their own role.

Will things change if this year’s election is won by Justin Trudeau, whom Glavin said some Canadians view as a “foppish drama teacher snowboarder”?

Kay predicts Trudeau would essentially ignore the Middle East. “To the extent that he knows about stuff, it’s domestic stuff,” Kay said.

Kay credits the CBC for moderating what was once a reliably anti-Israel bias, but Glavin raised a recent incident in which CBC television host Evan Solomon asked then foreign minister John Baird if he thought it was OK to appoint a Jewish person, Vivian Bercovici, as ambassador to Israel. Glavin said that the prime minister recently appointed Kevin Vickers, the heroic sergeant-at-arms who killed the terrorist on Parliament Hill last year, ambassador to Ireland and nobody questioned the fact that an Irish Catholic was being appointed to Canada’s highest office in Dublin.

Baird reflects

Recently resigned foreign affairs minister Baird rejected the idea that strong support for Israel has damaged Canadian relations with other countries, saying that Canada has better relations with the Arab world now than it has had in years.

As foreign affairs minister, he said, his job was to promote Canadian values and interests. Supporting Israel, he said, is where those two intersect.

On Iran, Baird said, history should provide an object lesson. Hitler published Mein Kampf years before he began the “Final Solution.” The world was warned. Now Iran is promising to wipe Israel off the map.

“We’ve got to take that incredibly seriously,” he said.

Pat Johnson is a Vancouver writer and principal in PRsuasiveMedia.com.

Format ImagePosted on March 6, 2015March 4, 2015Author Pat JohnsonCategories WorldTags AIPAC, Barack Obama, Ben Cardin, Binyamin Netanyahu, Brett Schaefer, Gil Troy, John Baird, Jonathan Kay, lawfare, Lindsey Graham, Pat Johnson, Terry Glavin, UN, United Nations

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.

Posted on March 6, 2015March 4, 2015Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags AIPAC, Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel, Jonathan Kay, Terry Glavin
Proudly powered by WordPress