Trump – Page 5

Embassy location secondary

When President Donald Trump heads to the Middle East, the world will be primarily watching closely to see if he makes any of his trademark gaffes that set off a cultural land mine in Saudi Arabia or Israel. But the more important question is whether he will use the trip to actually make policy.

The expectation is that, at some point during his visit, Trump will announce the convening of a new Middle East summit. Trump appears to believe in the “outside-in” approach to peace talks, in which Arab states like Saudi Arabia would play a role in trying to encourage and even muscle the Palestinians into negotiating in good faith with Israel at a peace conference. But whether or not that dubious plan is put into action, Trump’s presence in Jerusalem is also being scrutinized for any hint that the United States is prepared to acknowledge his stay at the King David Hotel will be time spent in Israel’s capital.

Though Trump repeatedly pledged during the 2016 campaign he would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, it hasn’t happened yet. It’s still possible he could do it, perhaps even when he’s there only a day before Israel celebrates Jerusalem Day – which this year marks the 50th anniversary of the city’s reunification during the Six Day War. But few in the know think this is going to happen.

In recent weeks, Trump has been listening to his more mainstream advisers, such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defence James Mattis. This has led him to take a more realistic attitude toward NATO and the conflict in Syria. It’s also likely to mean he will heed their warnings that an embassy move would set off riots in the Muslim world rivaling those occurring in reaction to a Danish newspaper publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. That’s a price that not even Trump may be willing to pay to keep a promise.

If so, then those pro-Israel activists who pushed hard to pin down Trump on the embassy issue last year will probably write it off as just a noble effort that failed. But by putting the question of Jerusalem’s status back on the national agenda and then failing, they will have made a mistake that could set back Israel’s cause and boost efforts to re-partition the capital.

Unnecessarily divisive

Donald Trump’s first international trip as president of the United States will include Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican. This breaks a longstanding tradition of a new U.S. president shuffling north or south to drop in on one of America’s nearest neighbours.

The snub of Mexico, if that’s what it is, is not surprising. Trump has built his political career on demonizing Mexicans. If his first official foreign visit is also a snub of Canada, that also should not surprise, given Trump’s recent extemporaneous attacks on our supply management system and his general beefs with NAFTA.

Trump’s choice of Israel and Saudi Arabia is strategic. He is signaling support for the countries he sees as America’s leading allies in the war on terror. Of course, while Saudi Arabia produces its share of terror (including most of the 9/11 perpetrators), it is officially a close ally of the West, in spite of its atrocious human rights record, in part because it is the regional bulwark against Iran. On Israel, Trump has been bombastic, insisting when he was still Candidate Trump: “I’m going to be great for Israel.” Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has hit it off better than most world leaders have with Trump, so the coming visit will probably cement that chummy relationship. (The Vatican? God only knows what that meeting will produce.)

Israel and Saudi Arabia, for their vast differences, are the most important allies of the United States in the Middle East. With Saudi Arabia, the friendship is certainly a matter of pragmatism over principle. The West needs their oil and the stability and counterbalance they provide in the region.

The Israeli relationship is quite different. While American politicians and diplomats will focus on military and intelligence cooperation, as with Saudi Arabia, they also salute Israel’s democracy and our shared values. The long history of friendship between the United States and Israel also frequently comes up. What is less prominent in words of friendship is Israel’s Jewishness. This is common even among pro-Israel voices. We extol Israel’s democracy, diversity, the immense contributions to science and medicine, technology, culture, foreign aid – even Tel Aviv’s funky nightlife. But we don’t always emphasize the foremost case for Israel’s existence: that the Jewish people deserve and require self-determination in our ancient and modern homeland.

This is an interesting tendency. Are we acknowledging that, perhaps, Israel’s democracy, scholarship, vibrancy and beaches are all great selling points, but its Jewishness is not? Maybe we are. And maybe we’re right. But, by not continually promoting Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish homeland, we undercut the most important case we can make and, in the process, probably bend our position somewhat to suit the tastes of casual antisemites.

We need to make the case forcefully that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and deserves to exist for that reason – first among the many reasons Israel deserves to exist and be respected. However, there is an effort afoot in Israel to affirm its Jewishness in a way that is divisive, exclusionary, even possibly racist.

On Monday, Netanyahu threw his support behind a so-called “nation-state” bill proposed by Likud Knesset member Avi Dichter that would enshrine Israel as “the national home of the Jewish people.” This statement is undeniable – or it should be. But the bill goes on to declare that “the right to realize self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people” and would revoke Arabic as an official language in Israel. These latter aspects of the bill deliberately insult and diminish the rights of non-Jewish citizens of Israel.

Here is the difference between the case we made about Israel’s Jewishness and the bill’s intent: Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people – but Israel is also the homeland of people who are not Jewish, up to one-quarter of the population. These two things need not be exclusive, but the bill would make it so and, in the process, expressly deny the equality of minority populations.

The prime minister called the bill “the clearest answer to all those who are trying to deny the deep connection between the People of Israel and its land.” This is a morsel of red meat for hungry Zionists because we are tired of people diminishing or outright denying the right of Jewish people to live in Israel. So, the bill might deliver a frisson of delight for those of us who bristle at the latest United Nations nonsense or campus apartheid week.

Yet, whatever the merits of such a bill, it is an unnecessary and intentional hot stick in the eye of Israeli minorities – and indeed those of us in the Diaspora who make the case for Israel as a diverse, welcoming, multicultural and multifaith place. Though the comfort of Diaspora Zionists should not direct Israeli policy, this example is merely harming Israel’s cause with no commensurate upside.

That said, one person who would see this kind of exclusionary, divisive, unnecessarily nasty bill as a good idea is going to be visiting there soon: the president of the United States.

מאה ימים

דונלד טראמפ משנה דעתו כל הזמן: מתנגד להסכם הסחר עם קנדה ומקסיקו, תומך בו, מתנגד לו ותומך בו. (צילום: Gage Skidmore)

נשיא ארה”ב, דונלאד טראמפ, ממשיך לשנות את דעתו בכל נושא ונושא גם במלאת מאה ימים לכהונתו. אף אחד ממקורביו, בממשלו, ממשלתו ובקרב חברי הקונגרס מטעם מפלגתו, לא יודעים מה ילד יום וממה לצפות מטראפ שמעורר מבוכה רבה. לכן גם לא מפתיע במיוחד שטראמפ שהודיע כי הסכם הסחר הצפון אמריקני של ארה”ב עם קנדה ומקסיקו – נפט”א “הוא גרוע ביותר בהיסטוריה”, לאחר מכן אמר כי יוכנסו בו רק תיקונים קטנים בכל הנוגע לקנדה. אחרי כן הודיע טראמפ בשבוע שעבר כי הוא יבטל את הסכם נפט”א (ואף כבר הכין טיוטה של צו נשיאותי לסגת מההסכם), ולאחר יום חזר בו והודיע כי הוא כי ימשיך לתמוך בו, תוך הכנסת תיקונים מסויימים. זאת לאחר ששוחח בטלפון עם נשיא מקסיקו, אנריקה פנייה וראש ממשלת קנדה, ג’סטין טרודו, שביקשו ממנו להשאיר את הסכם הסחר על כנו, כי אחרת יגרם נזק גדול יותר לשלושת הצדדים, ולפעול במשותף במטרה לשפרו. טראמפ ציין כי אם הוא מסוגל לעשות עיסקה הוגנת עבור ארה”ב במקום לבטל את ההסכם המדובר, זה מה שהוא יעשה. נשיא ארה”ב הוסיף: “אנחנו מתכוונים לתת הזדמנות טובה למשא ומתן מחודש לשיפור תנאי ההסכם, שהתחיל ממש כבר בימים אלה”.

טרודו מצידו אמר לעיתונאים לאחר ששוחח עם טראמפ בטלפון, כי השיחה בין השניים הייתה מוצלחת. בשיחה הוא הבהיר לנשיא ארה”ב כי יציאת ארה”ב מההסכם תגרום כאב גדול לשתי המדינות. שני האישים סיכמו ביניהם לשפר את תנאי ההסכם לטובת שלוש המדינות השותפות בו. טראמפ אישר לאחר מכן כרגיל באמצעות טוויטר כי הסכים לבקשתם של טרודו לשנות את תנאי הסכם הסחר במקום לבטלו.

הסכם ליצירת אזור סחר חופשי של צפון אמריקהי בין ארה”ב, קנדה ומקסיקו – נפט”א – נולד בשנת 1994. אז חתמו עליו ראשי המדינות: נשיא ארה”ב ביל קלינטון, ראש ממשלת קנדה, בריאן מלרוני ונשיא מקסיקו קרלוס סאלינס. אגב מלרוני השמרני נחשב למקורב לטראמפ במשך שנים, ולכן הוא משמש כיום כיועץ לממשלת טרודו הליברלית שמנסה ללמוד כיצד לנהוג במגעים מול הנשיא האמריקני הבלתי צפוי לחלוטין.

נפט”א נועד לביטול רוב המכסים בין שלוש המדינות וכן להסדיר את מעבר כוח האדם והסחורות בין ארה”ב למקסיקו. ההסכם יועד בעיקר לשפר את מצבם של ענף החקלאות, ענף ייצור המכוניות וכן ענף הטקסטיל. ההסכם שנחשב למבורך בעיני רבים בהם גם מומחים בתחום הכלכלה, שילש את כמות המסחר וההשקעות בין ארה”ב, קנדה ומקסיקו. במונחי שווי כוח הקנייה של התוצר הלאומי הגולמי של החברות בהסכם, הוא יצר את גוש הסחר החופשי הגדול בעולם. ובמונחי תמ”ג נומינלי נחשב נפט”א להסכם הסחר השני לאחר הסכם איגוד הסחר החופשי של הגוש האירופאי המאוחד.

הסכם נפט”א הביא לכך שהתגבר סחר החוץ בין שלוש המדינות וכלכלן צמחו במהלך התקופה מאז נחתם. כלכלת קנדה צמחה בקצב הגבוה ביותר, אחריה כלכלת ארה”ב ואחרונה כלכלת מקסיקו. לפי משרד המסחר של ארה”ב: מאז חתימת ההסכם רמת האבטלה במשק האמריקני ירדה, בו בזמן שנרשם גידול מתמיד בשכר העובדים הריאלי לשעה. כן נרשם גידול בשכר העובדים של מקסיקו ואף גידול ביצוא החקלאי של ארה”ב לקנדה ומקסיקו. המומחים מציינים כי נפט”א הזיק לתעסוקה בארה”ב הרבה פחות מהתחרות עם סין ומדינות אחרות, ודווקא ביטולו עלול לפגוע בתעשיות האמריקניות.

Feminism needs mentioning

While a recent panel called Israel, Canada and Me in the Age of Trump covered many topics well, there was a noticeable omission – feminism.

Three of the four panelists at the Peretz Centre on April 9 were women – Dr. Shayna Plaut, Ofira Roll and Rabbi Susan Shamash, with Eviatar Bach. But most participating audience members were male, with moderator Stephen Aberle having to solicit a question from a woman near the end to provide a semblance of balance. Perhaps the aggressive tone coming from the floor, not to mention the police protection, was stifling for some women.

The event sponsor, Independent Jewish Voices, Vancouver, requested the police presence because of a threat by another Jewish political group to disrupt the event. Thankfully, while some of the other group’s members were in the audience and were quite outspoken, a stimulating, heartfelt and combative exchange between the panel and an audience of about 40 people took place without incident. Unfortunately, the emotionally charged atmosphere shut down exploration of two pressing questions regarding the rights of Palestinians in Israel: the two-state solution and the ongoing Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the occupied territories.

It was noted that, at the core of the tensions for Jews is a fundamental contradiction: the injustices experienced by the Palestinians in Israel go against Jewish values and teachings. As well, while Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s support of President Donald Trump may be politically expedient, it is morally questionable. Separate from the panel discussion, an American news commentator caught my attention with the suggestion that German Chancellor Angela Merkel now stands as the most seasoned and capable leader among Western democratic nations. I would add a third adjective to describe her – compassionate.

Perhaps just as practising Christians who voted for Trump in the American election last November were able to close their eyes to the “unChristian” aspects of his words and actions, so too has a segment of Jewish people who support “part” of what Trump stands for. All these diverse outlooks and allegiances fit with Plaut’s assertion: despite our conflicted and incongruent ideas, it is important to wade in and “engage in the messy.”

As hard as this is to do within ourselves, the difficulty is magnified when we try to maintain or reach a respectful dialogue. Tolerance is all good and well, but what happens when some voices become intolerable – that is, in denial of the truth and in support of racism, bigotry, misogyny? What happens when power – even democratically elected power – is used to exploit and oppress?

The panel fully addressed the fears many of us are feeling, including the danger of making decisions based on this emotion and the fact that fear can lead to a “them versus us” mentality. Surprisingly fascism, rooted in this negative feeling, was only mentioned once during the afternoon talk, when Bach used it to describe his view of Israel’s body politic as the left becomes more “lethargic.”

On the whole, we can’t afford to become lethargic and we can’t exclude women’s voices in favour of a “muscular” political agenda. The Women’s March on Washington on Jan. 21, held in conjunction with hundreds of solidarity marches elsewhere, gave us a taste of our collective power, as I personally witnessed by participating with about 15,000 women and men in Vancouver. We garnered praise for a day that was peaceful, inclusive, positive – and global.

That historic action has since faded into a grim reality, as women (along with LGBTQ people and visible minorities) witness Trump, who has a lengthy record of misogyny, working alongside his almost exclusively white male cabinet, take backward steps on human rights. Government actions have included an executive order to block funding to organizations that support abortion services, a travel ban targeting some Muslim countries and the appointment of a Supreme Court justice that could lead to legal changes regarding women’s reproductive rights.

In contrast, Canadian feminists and their allies’ success in decriminalizing abortion remains uncontested. To his credit, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged $650 million in March for women’s sexual and reproductive health around the world, stating “a lack of choices in reproductive health mean that they [women] either are at risk of death, or simply cannot contribute and cannot achieve their potential.”

But, when Trump applauded Trudeau’s initiative to organize a joint women’s entrepreneur project in February, many questioned how sincere this “pro-women” gesture was. A diversity of board members not only benefits women, but expands business approaches and ideas. And women are underrepresented at this level, only holding 18.8% of Fortune 1000 company board seats in 2015 and 20.6% of the seats on Fortune 500 boards. The Trump-Trudeau roundtable with North American businesswomen may have raised awareness on women’s value in the workplace, but did the session result in a significant step toward equality or simply provide an image-boost for the male leaders involved?

Certainly in stark contrast to Trump’s male-dominated inner circle is Trudeau’s cabinet, with half of its members female, appointed from a caucus where women comprise 27% of Liberal members of Parliament. However, Canada only ranks 50th out of 190 countries on proportion of national-level female politicians. As well, five of the 15 women in Trudeau’s cabinet are in junior positions.

In Israel, women have also been elected in greater numbers over time but men are still at the helm. Economic equality also eludes Israeli women at every level. This appears to be the narrative for women in most democracies, Scandinavian nations providing some important exceptions.

Systemic, rather than cosmetic, changes need to be made within institutions – including provisions for harassment-free parliamentary debate so female politicians can thrive without being subject to intimidation and emotional abuse. Indeed, all forms of violence faced by women from all walks of life must be addressed, most urgently among indigenous women in Canada, a long-ignored and tragic reality.

When policies impacting the vast majority of women are implemented, the ramifications are significant. Consider that women continue to be the primary childcare provider: according to Statistics Canada, women comprise 80% of single parents with a child and three quarters of part-time workers are women.

So why, again using Statistics Canada figures, do women make 87 cents for every man’s dollar – a gap even wider for visible minorities and immigrant women? Pay equity legislation is a move in the right direction and provinces that do not have this, such as Alberta, are shown to have a wider gap.

The spread of part-time, precarious jobs affects all workers, but especially women, and has led to a groundswell of campaigns across North America to raise the minimum wage. In British Columbia, 63% of minimum wage earners are women, according to the B.C. Federation of Labour, and these are not only teenagers – 80% of all minimum wage earners are over 20 years old.

Malala Yousafzai was recently bestowed with an honorary Canadian citizenship by the Trudeau government, her bravery and powerful messages to girls and women inspiring global admiration. She would undoubtedly agree that, in these politically uncertain times, we must strive for a climate of respect and tolerance and ensure women are an integral part of dialogues and policies.

Janet Nicol is a teacher at Killarney Secondary School in Vancouver, freelance writer and local historian. She has written previously about an early-20th-century Jewish-Canadian human rights lawyer, Israel Rubinowitz, for the Jewish Independent.

Jewish values in Trump era

The April 9 panel discussion Israel, Canada and Me in the Age of Trump will feature, clockwise from top left, Dr. Shayna Plaut (photo from Shayna Plaut), Ofira Roll (photo from Ofira Roll), Rabbi Susan Shamash (photo by Robert Albanese) and Eviatar Bach (photo from Eviatar Bach).

Israel, Canada and Me in the Age of Trump will be the topic discussed by a panel of four Jewish speakers on April 9 at the Peretz Centre for Secular Jewish Culture.

“Trump’s election in the U.S. has shifted the relationship that Diaspora Jews in general, and progressive Jews in particular, have with Israel,” Yom-Tov Shamash, one of the organizers, told the Independent. “I believe that most Jews in Vancouver, young and old, Zionist or not, affiliated, religious or secular, feel uncomfortable with the Israel-Trump alliance. Bringing four progressive Jewish leaders from different walks of life provides an opportunity for all Jews supporting values of social justice to hear different points of view, to find common ground, to develop relationships and hopefully to get involved in common causes.”

One the participants, Dr. Shayna Plaut, is research manager of the Global Reporting Centre. She is currently teaching courses on migration and social inequalities at the University of British Columbia and is adjunct professor in international studies, Simon Fraser University.

“Ashkenazi Jews in Canada and the U.S. are in greater positions of safety than we have ever been,” two or three generations removed from the Holocaust, said Plaut. “Ashkenazi Jews can pass for white. We have a responsibility to do something with this privilege, [to uphold] the tradition of tikkun olam.

“As a descendant of refugees, I have always felt connected to refugees,” she continued. “I work to make my ancestors proud and, right now, that means standing in solidarity with this generation of refugees.

“We all have different strengths. And we have a responsibility to see, and use our strengths. My strengths are in education and connection.”

Plaut said, “The level of intolerance in Canada and the U.S. has increased. I was born and raised in the U.S. I became a Canadian because I was having a hard time recognizing my own country. It’s not like racism didn’t exist before – we are a country built on colonization and slavery – but we are also a country built on ideals and resistance. I have always worked in this positive vein of how to make things better. I view patriotism as a commitment to make my country better. It’s easier to talk about what’s wrong than to present alternatives to make things better and work together. It was in December 2015 when I [began to feel] that perhaps I was able to do this better from Canada … as a Jew, as a dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada, and as an educator and worker for human rights and social justice.”

Ofira Roll, another of the panelists, is a PhD candidate in education at UBC. Born and raised in Israel, she reflected on what is involved in activism in Israel as opposed to Canada or the United States.

“Our activism here has productive aspects. However, it feels as if we do it by remote control,” said Roll. “I truly miss the messiness in Israel – the messiness of communication, liveliness and opinions, of cultures and interests. People have opinions and they share them and embody them. I know the darker sides of living there – it’s a nationalistic state, undemocratic, racist, capitalist and anti-human rights – but it feels more real to me, where I feel pushed to the edge in all aspects of life. I am asked to speak up for what I truly care about and act on it. For me, being ‘pro-Israel’ means criticizing what’s wrong.”

Roll is critical of recent Israeli legislation excluding supporters of boycotts from entering Israel. “Personally, I don’t believe in boycotting countries. Still, I can’t accept the idea that if I came to Israel and had decided to boycott, I’m on this list. Friends of mine would be on this list. I don’t understand how a democratic country can pass such an undemocratic law. It’s not just stopping people who don’t support Israel – it stops more Palestinians than anyone else so, in a way, it really is a racist law.

“As several philosophers I am influenced by – Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt – say, engaging in dialogue doesn’t mean that we are in agreement. Dialogue is more about the process we go through in the search for new understandings. Now, when I see everyone coming together, it’s a strong moment for me. In the time of Trump, that’s what I’m happy about. People start understanding that all these divisions are fake. We are not different at the core. The women’s marches we had all over the world – for women’s rights, which are human rights – ironically, thanks to Trump.

“It’s not about convincing, but about sharing. It’s an invitation to talk, first of all, as humans. I don’t believe in all these divisions and borders. I have a hard time with flags, anthems. I think home is within you. Home is not something defined by others. It doesn’t need always to be in the name of a country.”

Roll has found the atmosphere in Vancouver’s Jewish community fairly open. “When [Israeli singer] Ahinoam Nini came here,” she noted, “people fought to bring her, with the support of the Jewish Federation, against groups who did not believe she should be invited because she supports Palestinians’ causes. I wrote a collective letter [to the Federation] on behalf of my Hebrew-speaking community theatre group. They read our letter at a Federation meeting, and they were brave enough to take a stand, and Nini was invited. In the end, they made an extra effort to bring us all together to meet Nini after the show. The Jewish community here includes many other voices, even among synagogues. There are many small groups, which don’t follow one way.”

Panelist Eviatar Bach is graduating from UBC in physics and computer science. He is involved with the Social Justice Centre at UBC, is a co-founder of the UBC Progressive Jewish Alliance and a founding editor of the Talon, a progressive online student magazine.

“With the Trump administration, it appears that the U.S. has abandoned the pretense of an ongoing ‘peace process,’ with Trump expressing indifference at the choice between a one-state and a two-state solution, and the appointment of settlement backer David Friedman as ambassador to Israel,” said Eviatar.

“At the same time,” he continued, “there is perhaps more disagreement between mainstream Jewish organizations, which tend to uncritically support Israeli actions, and young Jews in North America, than ever before. New groups such as IfNotNow, predominantly composed of young Jews, emerged during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, and have taken more confrontational stances than, say, J Street, by protesting Jewish organizations that defend occupation and killings directly.

“On university campuses, the Open Hillel movement has sought to challenge Hillel International’s guidelines, which narrowly constrain the range of views that speakers at Hillels around the world are allowed to express. Several Independent Jewish Voices chapters have started at university campuses in Canada, and the Progressive Jewish Alliance was started at the University of British Columbia.”

Rounding out the panelists is Rabbi Susan Shamash, who was recently ordained by ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal. She is a retired lawyer and an active member of Congregation Or Shalom.

“As a recently ordained, progressive rabbi, my focus is always on the Jewish values that propel me towards acts of social justice, including engagement in interfaith dialogue and commitment to family and community, which includes my Jewish family and my Jewish community.

“As a born and bred Canadian (like both my parents), my relationship with Canada is foundational to my identity,” she said. “I have a deep and abiding faith in our legal and judicial systems and in our system of government which, though imperfect, is based on values of inclusion, social welfare and multiculturalism.

“As a religious Jew, my relationship with the Jewish community in general and Israel in particular is complicated, varied and nuanced. I often find myself interceding on behalf of a different perspective, of more open thinking and understanding. There is much more to Israel than the occupation and conflict with the Palestinians, but, unfortunately, that is what defines its current reputation in the world community.

“We live in troubled and troubling times,” said Shamash. “U.S. President Trump has already changed the world order in unprecedented ways. More worrisome is that he has a lot of support both within and without the United States. This is not just an American phenomenon.

“How do my Jewish values help me to live, survive and even thrive in this new world order? There are many that we repeat over and over again: seek peace, pursue justice, love your neighbour, welcome the stranger, be a holy people, steward the earth, perform acts of loving-kindness, repair the world.”

The April 9 event is sponsored by Independent Jewish Voices, Vancouver. It begins at 1 p.m. and the suggested donation is $10.

Carl Rosenberg is a member of the United Jewish People’s Order and Independent Jewish Voices Canada. For many years, he edited Outlook: Canada’s Progressive Jewish Magazine.

Hard to find humour

Purim is a time of deception and inebriation. The story we commemorate in the reading of the Megillah is one of hidden identities and near catastrophe. As is often humorously pointed out, the Purim story ends as most Jewish holidays do, celebrating victory over oppressors and overindulging.

Purim is a fun holiday, with layers of meaning for people of different ages. The young (and many of their elders) enjoy the costuming and playacting, while we appreciate both the laughs and the historical and contemporary nuances of the shpiel perhaps more as we age.

The circularity of the Jewish calendar is both an indicator of consistency and of constant change. While the readings and rituals may stay more or less the same century after century, we as individuals and as a community are different than we were when we read the same verses last year, or the years before.

Certainly, much has changed since last Purim. We were keenly aware of this when we prepared this year’s Purim spoof page. Each year we have a few laughs (and try to bring some to readers) by making fun of current events. But it becomes exceedingly challenging to conjure witty parody when real-life events beggar belief and seem like bad TV comedy.

On Purim, we try to upend the truth or make fun of situations by taking them to their extremes. This takes special aplomb when upended truths and extreme situations are the apparent norm.

The parallels extend beyond the form, even mimicking substance. If the White House today is Ahasuerus’s castle, in this far-fetched narrative, there is even a Jewish consort credited for reining in the worst inclinations of the king.

George Orwell is invoked constantly these days, and rightly so. The fictional dystopia the author imagined in 1984 bears creepy similarities with current events.

The U.S. president habitually says (or, more frequently, tweets) outright falsehoods, either completely made up from within his own imagination or regurgitated from untrustworthy sources on the fringes of the internet. Then he repeatedly refers to legitimate media outlets as “fake news.”

The lies are so bald-faced and the accusations so exactly misdirected that we need to wonder if, rather than being the product of an unhinged loose cannon, they could conceivably be part of a genius strategy. Could it be that the president is inundating his constituents and the world with so many outlandish assertions and utter deceits that he is trying to inure us before laying on something he’s had in the works all along? If this sounds crazy or paranoid, well, we can review the facts, such as they are, next Purim.

We must be united

More than 100 headstones were vandalized at the Chesed Shel Emeth Society cemetery in University City, Missouri. (screenshot from cbc.ca video )

We do not need to delineate the full roster of antisemitic incidents that have made the news recently. Toppled headstones, bomb threats against Jewish institutions, spray-painted swastikas, defaced mezuzot, hate messages left on doors, physical assaults in France.

On the one hand, there is a necessity to catalogue and condemn each and every incident – and police and Jewish community organizations are doing this. On the other hand, for the sake of our own individual and collective sense of security and peace of mind, we must try to assimilate these incidents into some sort of coherent narrative that, hopefully, does not lead to panic.

For the sort of individual who would desecrate a cemetery after dark, there could be a perverse thrill in making global news for what may have been little more than a drunken act on a Saturday night. The fact is that these acts – in North America certainly – are perpetrated by a tiny number of individuals. A somewhat larger number of dedicated antisemites will take cruel pleasure in the grief and fear these acts instil in Jewish communities and individuals.

The most important thing is how the great majority of people react to such incidents. It is deeply heartening to see Muslim communities uniting with Jewish communities to make right as many of the toppled gravestones as possible in St. Louis and Philadelphia. This is a model of unity in the face of hatred.

It is also necessary for the broader public – those neither Jewish nor Muslim or having membership in other targeted groups – to express their outrage and opposition to such expressions.

The situations in which Jewish and Muslim Americans find themselves are different. Muslims are being specifically targeted not only by racist individuals and groups, but by agencies of the state. This is a particularly frightening scenario. Jews are being targeted by apparently random acts of desecration and hatred. This is frightening in a somewhat different way, in that government actions, ideally, are subject to the checks and balances set out in the U.S. Constitution and we hope that those safeguards survive and thrive in this era.

Imagine deplaning after a domestic flight in the United States and being met by security officials demanding to know “Are you a Jew?” This is an immensely chilling prospect. And this is precisely what some Muslim travelers have experienced in recent days: officials of the state demanding identification papers and inquiring as to whether travelers are Muslim. Additionally alarming is the fact that many people would probably never have heard about these incidents had one of those who experienced it not been Muhammad Ali Jr. Thank goodness, at least in this context, for America’s celebrity culture.

While there have been innumerable antisemitic incidents in recent years, those who are not immersed in such news are often only dimly aware of the frequency and increasing severity of these events. When a Jewish friend posts news of a new attack on social media, you will thankfully see condemnation from Jewish and non-Jewish friends alike. But you are as likely to see shock and disbelief.

More important than what Martin Luther King Jr. called the strident clamour of the bad people, in times like these, is the appalling silence of the good people. Part of this is caused by the refraction of media and the isolated silos of information in which we have surrounded ourselves, so that we do not encounter ideas or news from outside our respective bubbles. There are many people who simply do not yet know the extent of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim incidents taking place.

Those who do know are elected officials in positions of power. It is heartening to see Canadian leaders and many in the United States Congress expressing solidarity with the victims and condemning the perpetrators. U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence has been at the frontline of showing solidarity with targeted Jewish communities, at least. Getting appropriate remarks out of President Donald Trump has been troublingly difficult.

We may not be able to pre-empt the actions of individuals who are driven to topple gravestones or call in bomb threats. But the finest antidote to such incidents is for ordinary people to come together in condemning these acts and speaking out in favour of the values of respect and inclusiveness. As a targeted community, Jewish Canadians and Americans have a unique role in both making others aware of what is happening and showing our Muslim friends and fellow citizens that we stand with them, as they are standing with us in communities where desecrations have taken place.

Acknowledging – and demonstrating – that we are all in this together is our best hope for thriving in these times.

These times call for solidarity

When a multicultural country like Canada faces a stark rise in hatred targeting one ethnic group, its social and ethical solidarity is put to the test. The question for Canada’s Jewish establishment is, how will it respond to the shocking spike in hatred targeting the Muslim community?

On the heels of the Quebec City mosque shooting, which left six worshippers dead, and then a hate-filled protest outside of a Toronto mosque, a private member’s motion to condemn Islamophobia was introduced in Parliament. Regrettably, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) is opposing the motion, at least in its current form.

Liberal MP Iqra Khalid introduced the non-binding motion (M-103) urging the government to “better reflect” the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by “quell[ing] the increasing public climate of hate and fear,” while “condemn[ing] Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” Her motion also asks Parliament to convene a study to address these issues and “to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities.”

As the motion – intended to express the will of Parliament but falling short of having any legal force – acknowledges, there are already Charter provisions for opposing racism and discrimination. And Section 319 of the Criminal Code already outlaws “communicating statements in any public place, incit[ing] hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” But, sometimes, the law is not enough to signal collective revulsion.

The demonstrators outside the downtown Toronto mosque held signs such as “Ban Islam” and “Muslims are terrorists.” Interviewed on camera, one of the protesters makes the following chilling observation: “They [she presumably means Muslims] start out friendly and, before you know it, they grow so much in population that they take over.” The interviewer challenges her: “This is sounding a lot like what people said about Jews at one time,” to which the protester replies: “There’s no comparison. Jews were not evil.”

For its part, CIJA calls M-103 “flawed.” As CIJA head Shimon Koffler Fogel writes, the motion “requires us to silence legitimate concerns or suppress a public conversation about those strains of Islam that pose a real and imminent threat to Jews around the world,” adding that the motion “denies space and opportunity within the Muslim community to confront those strains of Islam that do indeed exist and do indeed cause harm to the majority of Muslims who do not subscribe to an extremist ideology.” For these reasons, CIJA is urging lawmakers to oppose it.

It’s not the first time a private member’s motion has been introduced to focus Canada’s attention on a specific form of hatred. In 2015, Conservative MP James Bezan asked “all members [of Parliament] and all Canadians [to] join me in denouncing antisemitism.” In 2015, Liberal MP Irwin Cotler asked the “House [to] condemn the alarming development of a new antisemitism….” And then, of course, there’s the 2010 Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism, which convened parliamentary representatives from an array of countries to call out antisemitism.

CIJA director of communications Martin Sampson shared with me the amended text of the motion CIJA proposed to Khaled, including trying to add a clause that would “recognize that criticism and condemnation of any and all forms of extremism is not only acceptable but necessary in a free and democratic society; and tasking the proposed study to define ‘Islamophobia in Canada.’”

Bernie Farber, former head of Canadian Jewish Congress and now head of the Toronto-based Mosaic Institute, a diversity, peace and justice organization, said he is “baffled and stunned” by CIJA’s opposition to the motion.

Is the lack of explicit acknowledgment of the legitimacy of criticizing religion a problem, as CIJA is suggesting? No. Parliamentary motions have no legislative force. The existing Criminal Code – including laws governing freedom of expression – will remain unaffected. Fogel’s claim that the motion will silence criticism by force of law is simply wrong. It may serve to dampen enthusiasm for the kind of hateful anti-Muslim demonstrations we saw in Toronto, but that is the point.

Or perhaps the vagueness of the term Islamophobia is a problem. Sampson calls the word “politically charged and imprecise.” Cotler, for instance, is suggesting that M-103 be amended to say “anti-Muslim bigotry.”

But, like homophobia, Islamophobia is simply the term that exists to denote this form of bigotry. When I asked historian of language Liora Halperin why the term got saddled with the more clinical “phobia” suffix instead of acquiring the more straightforward “anti” prefix, she acknowledges that phobias are psychiatric diagnoses, not ideologies. But, she adds, “in practice, fear is indeed part of racism.”

The term antisemitism – which, ironically, was coined by a German antisemite – captures the unique phenomenon of Jew hatred. Similarly, Farber argues, “hatred of Muslims needs its own specific word to get people to understand the importance of what this kind of hatred of Muslims can do. And we’ve seen it, sadly, right here in Canada.”

These times call for solidarity in the face of rising tides of antisemitism, Islamophobia and all other forms of racism. In the wake of the mosque massacre and the hateful protests on Toronto’s usually peaceful streets, coupled with the shadow of U.S. President Donald Trump’s xenophobic policies, the time is now for Canadians to stand together against Islamophobia. That’s the word we have, that’s the member’s motion being proposed, and that’s the wave of hatred – one prominent wave among many, sadly – that we urgently need to address.

Mira Sucharov is an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She is a columnist for Canadian Jewish News and contributes to Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward, among other publications. A version of this article was originally published on haartez.com.

Why not wait and see?

Things seem to be way out of control these days. So many of the things we used to take for granted in our lives now seem topsy-turvy. There used to be a right and a left, liberal, conservative, moral, immoral. Could it be really true that a rich guy with all the power in the world, who previously used his power to exploit the weak, rip off the powerless, abuse women, exploit racism, has become an upright guy? Maybe?

Witness U.S. President Donald Trump’s relentless focus on creating new jobs for those who have been displaced in their work by globalization, by robotization, by environmental imperatives. Witness a realpolitik that ignores political correctness and confronts fears we all have that we will be overwhelmed by an ideology of global supremacy that hides behind a religious façade.

What if Trump ignores the short-term advantage of going along with the power of oil and population numbers in the Middle East, trade interests in Europe, debt holdings of U.S. treasuries in China, and asserts support for a beleaguered Israel, gives notice that the United States is again prepared to fight robustly to maintain its international stature, and disarms Russia by seeking common cause in areas of common interest from a position of renewed military strength and commitment? What is wrong about making a serious effort to maintain the integrity and respect of America’s borders, and recognizing that international trading arrangements have ignored the reality that certain partners’ internal politics have undermined and eroded the supposed advantages of those arrangements? Perhaps his lack of ideology will overturn Republican extremism, make the United States a better place for millions of the country’s illegals, by finding some path for them to a legal presence there, and result in a replacement health program that is better for Americans than the one that has been dictated by gridlock and lobbyists.

We are seeing some of the power guys shaking in their boots about what Trump is going to do next, how he is going to shake up the country, and the world. Will he confront legislators who are lapdogs for lobbyists? Is he actually going to create jobs for those blue-collar guys who are having trouble adjusting to a changing world and are looking at a jobless future? Is he actually going to stop potential terrorists from getting into the United States? Will he confront cyber hackers, no matter what the cost to innocents, privacy concerns and the niceties of international relations?

There is that side of the coin. How many innocents will suffer in the process of getting the job done? How many in his base will presume a freedom for racism, misogyny and anarchy? Does our distaste for his past and some of his bedfellows mean we can’t trust him? Because the fact is that some of us just don’t trust the motives.

But are motives the be all and end all? What if he does actually tackle those countries that are abusing the rules set by trade agreements, like Mexico, China and some other countries? What if he actually is going to support a U.S. alliance with Israel? What if he calls Iran’s bluff or confronts Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Emirates, Iran, etc., on their policies that favour terrorism? What if he challenges the Palestinians on their refusal to recognize a Jewish state and a Jewish presence in the West Bank, which is legal and sanctioned by the Oslo Accords?

Surely we are overdue for a change from Barack Obama’s failed policies. Why shouldn’t we lean on some of these guys? Why shouldn’t we put the United Nations on the backburner where it belongs, because it caters to the worst actors in human rights? Shouldn’t we go for American energy independence and deal with the consequences of using new technology?

Aren’t there some things that need fixing? Could some of the things we hate be the price for better policies in other areas? Don’t we have to wait and see what we are really going to get before we push the panic button?

Max Roytenberg is a Vancouver-based poet, writer and blogger. His book Hero in My Own Eyes was recently published.

אפקט טראמפ

עשרות בורחים וארה”ב ועוברים את הגבול לקנדה בתקווה לזכות במקלט (צילום: Jimz47 via Wikimedia)

בחירתו של דונלד טראמפ לנשיאות ארצות הברית והכרזתו כי יאסור על כניסת מוסלמים ממספר מדינות וילחם במהגרים הלא חוקיים במדינה, הגדילה משמעותית את מספר אלה שעוברים לקנדה. לפי הערכה מראשית השנה מאות בני אדם עברו את הגבול לקנדה באמצעות נמלי האוור והיבשה, בתוך תקווה להינות ממעמד של פליטים ולזכות במקלט. המגיעים מארה”ב מתחלקים לשתי קבוצות עיקריות. אלה שנולדו במדינות ערב ויש להם מעמד חוקי בארה”ב, אך הם חוששים ממדיניות ההגירה החדשה של טראמפ. הם מגיעים לקנדה בעיקר בטיסות ומוכנים להליך קבלת מעמד של פליטים (הם מצויידים במסמכים ובכסף). על הקבוצה השנייה המסתננים – נמנים בעיקר מוסלמים מאפריקה שאין להם מעמד חוקי בארה”ב, וכצפוי גם הם חוששים לעתידם תחת שלטון טראמפ. הם חוצים את הגבול ושמחים להיתפס על ידי משטרה הפדרלית של קנדה שעוזרת להם. השוטרים בודקים את מצבם, מעניקים להם בגדים חמים ועוזרים להם לעלות את ילדיהם וחפציהם למכוניות המשטרה לאחר שקשרו את ידיהם. לאחר מכן הם מועברים לידי משטרת הגבולות של קנדה שעוזרת להם להתחיל בהליכי הבקשה לקבל מעמד של פליטים ולאחר מכן מקלט.

מרבית המסתננים מארה”ב חוצים את הגבול היבשתי לעבר מחוזות קוויבק ומניטובה (בעיקר לפנות בוקר), כיוון שאזורים אלה נחשבים לקלים “יחסית” למעבר רגלי. אך בגלל תנאי החורף הקשים ששוררים באזור המסתננים מסתכנים בחייהם, וחלקם אף מאבדים אצבעות לאחר צעידה של קילומטרים בקור העז. חלקם (בעיקר אלה שבאים עם בני משפחה וילדים) מצליחים למצוא מוניות, שיעזרו להם לחצות את הגבול, או שהם נעזרים במבריחים (ונאלצים לשלם אלפי דולרים). כל זאת עד לנקודות השיטור של המשטרה. כוחות הצלה קנדיים בהם אמבולנסים, פעילי הגירה ומתנדבים נמצאים באזורי הגבול, כדי לעזור למסתננים ולהעניק טיפול רפואי ראשוני לניזקקים.

לאור הגידול במספר המסתננים מארה”ב הוגדלו תקציבי הישובים הסמוכים לגבול המטפלים בהם. גם ראשי המחוזות נרתמים לעזור בתקציבים ואמצעים, וכן נעשתה פנייה לקבל עזרה מהממשלה הפדרלית. גם סוכנות האו”ם לפליטים החלה לבדוק את תופעת המסתננים לקנדה מקרוב. במשטרת הגבולות הקנדית מעריכים כי מאז נובמבר עת נבחר טראמפ לנשיא, מספר המבקשים לקבל מעמד של פליטים בקנדה עומד על כ-1,500 איש. ואילו בכל 2016 כשבעת אלפים איש עברו את הגבול היבשתי וביקשו מעמד של פליטים בקנדה. זהו גידול של כ-63 אחוזים לעומת שנת 2015. רק בינואר השנה כחמש מאות מסתננים הגיעו לקוויבק ולפחות כמאה וחמישים הגיעו למניטובה, וביקשו מעמד של פליטים בקנדה. לא ידוע על מספר המסתננים לקנדה שלא פונים לשלטונות והם פשוט נעלמים ברחבי המדינה הגדולה הזו.

להערכת גורמים מקצועיים עם השתפרות מזג האוויר ובוא האביב והגברת מדיניות ההגירה של טראמפ נגד פליטים וזרים, מספר המסתננים מארה”ב לקנדה יגדל משמעותית. לאור זאת מונטריאול הכריזה על עצמה בימים אלה כעיר מקלט לפליטים – שזה אומר להתחייב לעזור להם בהסדרת מעמדם החוקי ולא לגרש אותם. קדמו לה: טורונטו, המילטון ולונדון – כולן ממחוז אונטריו וונקובר שבבריטיש קולומביה. ערים נוספות בקנדה שוקלות להפוך לערי מקלט.

פליטים לא יכולים לעבור את הגבול מארה”ב לקנדה באופן חוקי כיוון, שלאור אמנה הבינלאומית בין שתי המדינות “הסכם המדינה השלישית הבטוחה”, עליהם לבקש מעמד של פליטים במדינה הראשונה אליה הגיעו (ארה”ב), לאחר שעזבו את מולדתם. אך אם הם מגיעים באופן לא חוקי הם כן יכולים לבקש מקלט.