קנדהנאבקתעלעתידהשלבומברדייהמולבואינגהאמריקניתשמנסהלחסלה. (צילום: Jean Gagnon)
בעידן דונלד טראמפ קנדה נכנסת לכוננות כללית וממשלתה הליבראלית בראשות, ג’סטין טרודו, מנהלת בין היתר מאבק קשה למען עתידו של קונצרן התעופה בומברדייה איירוספייס מקוויבק, שהענקית האמריקנית בואינג מסיאטל מאיימת לחסלו. מאבק האיתנים הזה מתנהל בשולי הדיונים בשינויים בהסכמי הסחר החופשי של צפון אמריקה (נפטה) שהיקפם מוערך בלמעלה מטריליון דולר, המתנהלים בימים אלה בין ממשלות ארה”ב, קנדה ומקסיקו, לאור דרישותיו של הנשיא האמריקני. שלושה סבבים התקיימו כבר בין נציגי המדינות והדרך עוד ארוכה להגיע להסכמות אם בכלל, בזמן שהמשבר הגדול סביב פרשת בואינג-בומברדייה משאיר טעם מר אצל הקנדים, שחוששים מאוד מהתנהלותו המטורפת של טראמפ, המנהל מלחמות עם כול העולם ואשתו, ללא סימפטיה אפילו עם מדובר במדינה הקרובה ביותר לארה”ב בכל המובנים.
ועל מה נסוב המשבר בין שתי יצרניות המטוסים: בואינג טוענת כי בומברדייה קיבלה מענקי סובסידיה מהממשלה הקנדית (373 מיליון דולר) וממשלת קוויבק (מיליארד דולר), שמנוגדים להסכמי הסחר בין המדינות. גם ממשלת בריטניה העניקה סובסידיה לבומברדייה, כיוון שמפעל גדול שלה נמצא בצפון אירלנד ומעסיק כ-4,500 עובדים. כזכור ראש ממשלת בריטניה, תרזה מיי, הצליחה להקים שוב ממשלה, בזכות המפלגה היוניוניסטית הדמוקרטית מצפון אירלנד, והיא רוצה להראות להם שעושה היא הכל למען בומברדייה.
לטענת בואינג הסובסדיות עזרו רבות לבומרדייה להוריד את משמעותית את המחיר בעיסקה עם דלתא (חברת התעופה השנייה בגדולה בארה”ב) שנחתמה ב-2016, לרכישת 125 מטוסים מהסדרה סי שהיא מייצרת. מדובר במטוסים לא גדולים (עד 150 מקומות ישיבה) שמיועדים לטווחי טיסה קצרים ובינוניים בלבד והם נחשבים לחסכוניים בדלק.
בואינג הגישה תביעה כנגד החברה הקנדית למשרד הסחר האמריקני, שפתח בחקירה מואצת ועדיין לא הסתיימה. המשרד החליט עקרונית להטיל מכסים בשיעורים חסרי תקדים של 219% על מכירות מטוסי סדירה סי של בומברדייה, לדלתא ולחברות אמריקניות נוספות, דבר שיהפוך את העיסקות ללא כידאיות. אם באמת יוטל המס הזה יביא הדבר קרוב לוודאי לחיסולה של סדרת הסי, למעט אם בומברדייה תצליח למכור את מטוס הנוסעים החדיש שלה לחברות אירופאיות וסיניות. התאיד הקנדי גם כך מקרטע ולא ברור כלל אם הוא יצליח לשרוד בשנים הבאות, לאור תחרות הולכת וגוברת עם שתי יצרניות המטוסים הענקיות בואינג וארייבוס האירופאית, והיצרנית באותו גודל אמבראר הברזילאית. גם חטיבת הרכבות של התאגיד – בומברדייה טרנספורטיישן (שמספקת רכבות וקטרים לרכבת ישראל) מתקשה לעמוד בתחרות עם יצרניות רכבות שונות, בהן מסין ולאור המיזוג בין סימנס הגרמנית ואלסטום הצרפתית.
הממשלה הקנדית החליטה להשיב מלחמה לכוונות האמריקנים וטרודו לשם שינוי בנאום חריף לתקשורת, הודיע כי ממשלתו לא תדון עם בואינג שתובעת את הממשלה, על עיסקת רכישת שמונים ושמונה מטוסי קרב חדישים לחייל האוויר הקנדי, בהיקפים של בין 15 ל-19 מיליארד דולר. טרודו אף ציין כי ממשלתו נהגה כשורה ובסך הכל היא העניקה הלוואות לבומברדייה. כך טענה גם מיי. הפרמייר של קוויבק, פיליפה קולרד, יצא בחריפות גדולה נגד בואינג על הכוונה לפגוע בבומברדייה, שהמעסיקה אלפי עובדים במחוז. בצרוף כל ראשי האופוזיציה קולרד הודיע כי ינהל מאבק עיקש נגד הגזרות האמריקניות, ושום מטוס או אפילו חלק של בואינג לא יכנס לקנדה כל עוד לא יבוטל המכס הכבד נגד בומברדייה.
בינתיים מתברר כי גם ממשלת ברזיל החליטה לצאת למלחמה נגד בומברדייה באותו נושא שפוגע באמבראר, והיא פנתה כבר לארגון הסחר העולמי.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, left, with U.S. President Donald Trump in New York. (photo from Israel’s Government Press Office via Ashernet)
A great deal of diplomacy depends on intangibles like whether the parties involved like or dislike each other. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made little effort to hide his frustration with Barack Obama, the former U.S. president. The feeling was blatantly mutual, as even the most obtuse reader of body language could interpret from photographs of the two men together. Netanyahu and the current resident of the White House … this is whole new meeting of minds.
There are similarities and differences of style and substance between Bibi and Donald Trump. One thing worth noting is that each has their core of stalwart domestic supporters and another, possibly even more virulent, bloc of detesters.
Seeing the two leaders together in New York this week, present for the annual United Nations General Assembly, was a reminder of how big a role mutual affection or irritation between two leaders can affect international relations.
The Israeli prime minister engaged in a Trump-like tweetstorm Monday morning, including this one: “Under your leadership, @realDonaldTrump, the alliance between the United States and Israel has never been stronger.”
This may not be true – the relationship has always been extremely tight – but it is certainly true that the alliance between the two countries’ leaders is strong.
It’s always wise for Israeli leaders to seek good relations with the American president, but this particular relationship is double-edged. A recent poll indicated that 21% of American Jews view Trump favourably, while 77% view him unfavourably. This puts Netanyahu in a difficult position of his own choosing – hitching his wagon to a politician who is deeply distrusted by the largest population of Diaspora Jews.
There is also something odd about Netanyahu’s interpretation of the Israel-U.S. relationship. Just a couple of years ago, at the depths of the Netanyahu-Obama snit, commentators wondered if the bilateral relationship had ever been lower. (Calmer heads insisted that, despite the childishness at the top, on every issue of bilateral substance, everything remained tickety-boo.) Now, just 10 months into a new administration, the Israeli leader alleges that the alliance has never been better. Was a change in the White House all it took for things to go from bad to super-awesome? If so, upon what kind of a foundation does this relationship rest? And, what are the metrics?
The reality is that, for reasons pragmatic and ideological, the Israeli-American bond is strong and indivisible. What Netanyahu did in New York this week is simply the flip side of the coin he tossed when Obama was in office. Then, he betrayed diplomatic processes to accept an invitation from U.S. congressional leaders. Now he’s got a man he likes in the White House and he’s throwing bouquets at him. In both instances, he is crudely poking around in the internal politics of the United States, a strategy that has (in ordinary times) about a 50-50 chance of blowing up in a foreign leader’s face. And these are not ordinary times. Trump is a divisive and potentially dangerous figure who is supported by the worst elements in American society, including racists and antisemites. By wrapping himself in Trump’s flag, Netanyahu is playing a risky game.
Even so, coming just hours after the Emmy awards, the Donald and Bibi show had its fleeting moments of humour, if unintentional. To wit, Trump lent his inimitable erudition to the promise of Mideast peace.
“Most people would say there’s no chance whatsoever. I actually think with the capability of Bibi and frankly the other side, I really think we have a chance,” Trump said. “I think Israel would like to see it and I think the Palestinians would like to see it. And I can tell you that the Trump administration would like to see it.”
Apparently we’d all like to see it. Yet every administration since Truman has tried, to one extent or another, to facilitate peace between the Israelis and their neighbours. The best and brightest among the presidents have proved incapable of the task. Is it possible that this one will counterintuitively succeed? The definition of insanity is said to be doing the same thing again and again and anticipating a different outcome. President after president has taken a similar approach to this problem and failed. No one can accuse Trump of doing things the conventional way. And, he’s put his best man on the job – son-in-law Jared Kushner – whose qualifications appear to be, well, mostly matrimonial.
Trump, the self-proclaimed great deal-maker, has repeatedly failed to find any common ground with a House and Senate led by his own party and has so far been able to achieve none of his signature initiatives. A modest achievement like solving the Israeli-Arab conflict would be something worth bragging about. As Trump and Netanyahu plot that little rabbit trick, we will watch with interest or, if you’re a praying person, maybe do that.
Left to right, Lilia Apelbaum, Olga Livshin and Tanya Kogan, during their reunion in Vancouver. (photo by Tanya Kogan)
For two weeks this August, my apartment was unusually crowded. Friends from Haifa and Los Angeles were staying with me. We talked almost nonstop the entire time they were here. While they have already left for their respective homes, the memory of their presence still lingers in my house, in the photographs and in my fond recollections.
In 1973, the three of us, three Jewish girls, high school graduates from different Moscow schools, lived in the Soviet Union. We met for the first time when we enrolled in the Moscow Institute of Economics and Statistics. For five student years, we were inseparable. We studied in the same groups and partied with the same friends but, after graduation in 1978, we parted ways. This year, 39 years later, the three of us met for the first time since then, at my place in Vancouver.
Many things have changed in our lives, of course, but, despite the grown-up children, deteriorating health and multiple wrinkles, all three of us have stayed basically the same: the same personalities, the same interpersonal dynamics, the same feeling of closeness as friends. And our relationship with our Jewishness also has stayed basically the same.
At the time of our youth, all observance of Jewish traditions in the Soviet Union was suppressed. Not banned, per se, but not encouraged. There was one synagogue in Moscow and, I have to admit, I never visited it. My parents tried to blend in with mainstream society, so they never visited it either. We didn’t celebrate Jewish holidays, and I didn’t even know about most of them. Only my grandfather went to synagogue on most Saturdays and some Jewish holidays. He tried to instil some sense of Jewish identity in our household (as he lived with us) but, unsupported by my parents, he was unsuccessful. I was never interested in anything Jewish when I was young.
The situation was a bit different with my two friends. Tanya Kogan (née Schneiderman) lived in a similar household to mine. Her parents’ one ardent desire was to blend in. Being “the same,” not sticking out, was safer in Communist Russia but, after her high school graduation, Tanya broke away from the “blend-in” mold.
“I wanted to know who I was,” she told me. She immersed herself not only in her academic studies at the institute but also in Jewish customs and traditions, to the extent they existed in Moscow of that time.
“I tried to learn Yiddish from my grandmother, even though she was ashamed to speak it. I went to synagogue for some Jewish holidays and, every year, for Simchat Torah. It’s such a fun holiday. Lots of students from our institute were there. Not many colleges and universities in Russia accepted Jewish students, but ours did, and there were many of us. We danced in the streets together,” she remembered. “I bought matzos every year and fasted on Yom Kippur.”
Left to right, Tanya Kogan, Olga Livshin and Lilia Apelbaum – Class of 1978. (photo from Olga Livshin)
My other visiting friend, Lilia Apelbaum, was also part of the group of students that danced in the streets outside the Moscow synagogue on Simchat Torah. Her father came from a family where tradition was paramount.
“We bought matzos every year when I was a schoolgirl,” Lilia said. “We would travel on the Moscow Metro with the big packs of matzos wrapped in brown paper, to a seder in some relative’s home, and I would think: ‘I’m special. I’m better than all the people around me. I know something they don’t.’ I felt very proud.”
In 1996, Lilia, her parents and her young son immigrated to Israel. She still lives there, in Haifa.
“My father went to synagogue often when we lived in Moscow, but he stopped going after we immigrated,” said Lilia. “In Moscow, he needed it to prop his Jewish identity but, after we settled in Israel, he said he didn’t need it anymore. He felt Jewish and happy without the support of religion.”
Lilia herself doesn’t follow any Jewish tradition, doesn’t keep kosher and doesn’t attend synagogue, but she is still, as in her childhood, intensely proud to be a Jew and an Israeli. “I love Israel,” she said. “It’s a wonderful country, very humane.”
She told me a story about her neighbour and friend. “She is very sick. Once, we walked outside together, and she fell. Her legs wouldn’t support her and I couldn’t help her – she is a big woman, much bigger than myself. I panicked; didn’t know what to do. Suddenly, a couple cars passing along the street stopped. Totally unknown men climbed out of those cars, lifted her, helped her to a bench, and then drove away. Where else would a car stop just to help a strange woman on the sidewalk? Only in Israel.”
She talked about the urban improvements being undertaken in Haifa, about Israeli healthcare and technology, about her fellow Israelis, and her eyes shined with love for her country.
Tanya also left Russia. In 1996, she and her family immigrated to America and settled in Los Angeles. “I almost never go to a synagogue here,” she said. “But I do keep kosher. Mostly. In my own way. During Passover, we don’t eat bread. I make so many interesting dishes with matzos, my family always anticipates the holiday. They don’t want bread – they remember that torte and this pie for years after and always ask if I would make them again. It’s a game we play. It’s easy and fun to be a Jew in America.”
Like my friends, I left Russia, too, at about the same time. In 1994, I came to Vancouver. Unlike my friends, though, I didn’t get in touch with my Jewish roots right away. It took me some time to become a part of the Vancouver Jewish community. At first, I was busy with my computer programmer job, raising children as a single mother, and generally integrating into the Canadian society. But life has a wicked sense of humour. It pushed me toward my Jewishness in a roundabout way.
In 2002, I got very sick. My illness altered my worldview and induced me to change my priorities. In 2003, I started writing fiction. A few years later, I quit my computer job to dedicate myself fully to my writing career. At that time, I tried to find a writing gig. I took a course on a mentored job search, and one of the assignments was to find a mentor.
I scoured the internet for some Vancouver writing professional to approach, to ask to be my mentor, and came up with the name Katharine Hamer. At that time, she was the editor of the Jewish Independent, a newspaper I had never heard about before. I sent her an email and, to my amazement, she replied. She said she didn’t have time to mentor me, but she offered to add my name to the list of her newspaper contributors. I grabbed the opportunity.
My first article for the Jewish Independent was published 10 years ago, in July 2007. I write about Jewish artists and writers, teachers and musicians. I love my subjects, every one of them, but I have never written about myself before. This is the first time and my 301st article for the paper.
Three friends from Moscow, three Jewish women from around the world, spent a wonderful week together during their reunion in Vancouver. We are planning to meet again soon. We are not going to wait another 39 years.
Olga Livshin is a Vancouver freelance writer. She can be reached at [email protected].
Charleston, S.C., is one of the most popular travel destinations in the United States. With its perfectly preserved old mansions, Charleston has charm and grace, in addition to genuine human warmth. Just walk along any of its streets and the first person you meet will surely give you a friendly hello.
Jews have resided in Charleston since 1695, attracted by economic opportunities and its proclamation of religious liberty for all. In 1749, there were enough Jewish pioneers in town to organize a congregation, Beth Elohim, the second-oldest synagogue in the country (now Reform) and the oldest in continuous use. Its imposing colonnaded neo-classical structure on Hasell Street was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1980.
The congregation’s small museum features the historic 1790 letter that George Washington wrote in response to the synagogue’s good wishes upon his becoming president: “May the same temporal and eternal blessing which you implore for me rest upon your congregation.”
This letter is emblematic of the spirit of friendship between the gentile establishment and Jews – and the acceptance, even early on, of Jews into the American mainstream, especially in the South. (More than 20 Jews from Charleston fought in the American Revolution and one, Francis Salvador, was a delegate to several Provisional Congresses. This may explain the friendly link between George Washington and the Charleston Jewish community. And, besides, Washington was known as a decent and courtly man.)
During the first decade of the 1800s, Charleston, with its 500 Jews, almost all of them Sephardi, was considered the largest, most cultured and wealthiest Jewish community in America. But, because of the destruction of the city during the Civil War, the city and its Jews became impoverished, and the waves of Jewish immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries passed it by. However, after the Second World War, the city prospered, as did its Jews. Today, the nearly 2,000 Jews in the city are in the professions, trade and business, teaching, politics and the arts. In the 1920s through the early 1950s, the city’s main street, King Street, was virtually shut down on Saturday. Walk along King Street today and you will still see many Jewish names on the shops.
In addition to three synagogues, one each from the major branches of American Jewry, there are a number of Jewish philanthropic and communal organizations, a Jewish community centre and a well-established day school.
The College of Charleston, the oldest municipal college in the United States, also has a broad-ranging and ever-growing Jewish studies program under the devoted and imaginative direction of Prof. Martin Perlmutter – now with its own building, thanks to the generosity of Henry and Sylvia Yaschik. The 800 Jewish students make up a significant minority of the college population. In addition to an active Hillel, the array of courses includes Hebrew language, Jewish culture and history and Israel- and Holocaust-related courses.
What makes Charleston especially attractive is its visible Jewish history, coupled with the world-class arts festival Spoleto USA, which runs for about two-and-a-half weeks every year, from the end of May to early June. The festival is an all-encompassing cultural experience: opera, dance, theatre, jazz and classical music, popular music, even acrobatics. The twice-daily chamber concerts, at 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., hosted with humour and panache by first violinist of the St. Lawrence Quartet, Geoff Nuttall, are considered the musical anchor of the festival.
But there is more. The Piccolo Spoleto Festival, sponsored by the City of Charleston, which runs during the same two-and-a-half weeks, offers a dizzying array of classical music, plays, cabaret and comedy acts, jazz cruises and much, much more. The College of Charleston’s Jewish studies unit also sponsors several events during the festival, including A World of Jewish Culture.
This year, the Orthodox synagogue Brith Sholom Beth Israel, on Rutledge Avenue, hosted four evenings of chamber music, featuring Jewish composers like Kurt Weill, George Gershwin, Paul Ben-Haim, Ernest Bloch and Eric Korngold, and non-Jewish composers who wrote Jewish music, like Ravel’s “Kaddish” and Max Bruch’s “Kol Nidrei.”
In Charleston, too, lived the people who inspired Porgy and Bess, by George and Ira Gershwin. The Gershwins resided temporarily on James Island, just outside the city, while writing their opera. They purposely came to Charleston to get a feel of the city, its ambience and its people. One of the great tunes in Porgy, of course, is “Summertime,” with its Yiddish-sounding melody in a minor key.
Charleston also has a Conservative congregation, and the three Charleston congregations – Reform, Conservative and Orthodox – are unique in that their rabbis cooperate for the greater good of the community and even meet once a month for lunch and a study session. Another fascinating crossover is that many Jews in the community belong to more than one shul – a kind of anti to the old joke about the Jew on the desert island who builds two shuls. When asked why, he responds, “That one, I daven in; the other, I wouldn’t be seen dead in.”
One longtime Jewish resident, a spry and active octogenarian agnostic proudly and only half-facetiously remarked, “I belong to all three shuls, thank God, but you won’t catch me praying in any of them.” And when he was indeed caught one Sabbath morning davening in the Orthodox shul, one of his pals came up to him and joked, “What are you doing here? Today’s not Yom Kippur.” In response, the 80-year-old quipped in his slight Carolina drawl, “Well, then I hope God forgives me for coming today.”
At the College of Charleston during the academic year, there is a kosher dairy cafeteria, Marty’s Place. And Chabad has pre-packaged prepared meat meals that are available at the famous Hyman’s Fish Market on King Street. For delicious vegetarian meals at reasonable prices, go to Jon York’s Gnome Cafe, at 109 President St.
Be sure to also take a horse-and-buggy ride in the historic district. The knowledgeable guides will take you through the residential part of town, focusing on the homes and the history of their occupants. Then stroll along the quiet streets, in the famous covered market, and tour the nearby plantations.
Two useful telephone numbers are those of the Charleston Visitors Bureau, 1-800-774-0006, and Spoleto’s, 1-843-579-3100 or spoletousa.org.
Curt Leviant’s most recent books are the critically acclaimed novels King of Yiddish and Kafka’s Son.
בעידן טראמפ: האופציה הקנדית תופסת תאוצה אצל ישראלים ואמריקנים כאחד. (צילום: Cynthia Ramsay)
בעידן הנשיא האמריקני השערורייתי ביותר בתולדות המדינה, דונלד טראמפ, האופציה לעבור לקנדה תופסת תאוצה אצל אמריקנים וגם אצל ישראלים. כך מסתבר.
עיתונאית הארץ, נעמי דרום, שגרה עם משפחתה בקיימברידג’ מסצ’וסטס בשנתיים האחרונות, כותבת על האופציה הקנדית. הטור שלה שכותרתו “מתי קנדה נהיתה מגניבה בהרבה מאמריקה?” פורסם לאחרונה. דרום כותבת בכותרת המשנה כי “כמו הרבה ישראלים ולא מעט אמריקאים, גם אנחנו רואים בקנדה חוף מבטחים שאליו נוכל להיסחף כשהאפשרויות האחרות יאזלו. אבל איך קרה שאמריקה התחילה נושאת עיניים לחברה הצפונית אחרי שנים של זלזול?”
דרום אומרת כי עבור ישראלים רבים שגרים ביבשת, קנדה נמצאת שם כאופציה, פוטנציאל רומנטי בלתי ממומש. נראה שהכל שם הרבה יותר קל ושפוי: זכויות סוציאליות שזכאים אליהן כבר לאחר חודשים מועטים, ויזה קלת יחסית להשגה, קהילה יהודית נחמדה ועוזרת (היא מתכוונת לקהילה בטורונטו), הקנדים מדברים אנגלית, לא אוהבים רובים ולא אוחזים בטירוף באולטרה קפיטליזם של הדוד סם.
דרום מציינת כי מאז שטראמפ נבחר כמועמד המפלגה הרפובליקנית קנדה זוהרת כיהלום צפוני. מושב הסובלנות וביטוח הבריאות האוניברסלי, המקום שבו אוהבים מהגרים, מקבלים אותם, מאמצים פליטים סורים ומצטלמים איתם. עד הבחירות האחרונות משל בקנדה סטיב הרפר, פוליטיקאי שמרן, לא פופולרי ושנוי במחלוקת, בעוד ארצות הברית התגאתה בנשיא ליברלי, רהוט ורחום. אבל מאז התהפכו היוצרות וקנדה מתהדרת בטרודו הליברל, הפמיניסט והסובלני. האמריקנים לעומת זאת, נלכדו במערכת בחירות מכוערת
שהסתיימה בבחירתו של האיש שעוד לא פגש ניאו-נאצי שהוא לא מחבב. לאימתם גילו האמריקנים שהם פתאם פחות שווים מהשכנה המנומנמת שבה התרגלו לזלזל.
בתקופת הפריימריז לבחירות בארה”ב כותבת דרום, עיתונאי קנדי נסע לסקר את אספת הבחירות של ברני סנדרס, שהוא ותומכיו נחשבו לשמאלנים קיצוניים בין השאר בשל תמיכתם בביטוח הבריאות הציבורי. “אנחנו בסך הכל רוצים מה שיש לכם”, אמרו תומכי סנדרס לעיתונאי הקנדי, “מה כל כך קיצוני בזה?”.
אם פרסום התוצאות לבחירות בארה”ב יותר ויותר אנשים הכניסו לגוגל את המשפט “איך מהגרים לקנדה”, יותר מאשר אי פעם מאז נוסד מנוע החיפוש. בחדש שעבר פורסם כי מספר שיא של מהגרים בעיקר מהאיטי, התייאשו מארצות הברית ועברו את הגבול לקנדה.
הניו יורקר פרסם כתבה לפני מספר חודשים תחת הכותרת “הייינו יכולים להיות קנדה”. הכותב אדם גופניק, שגדל בשתי המדינות כתב בין היתר כי אמריקה תייחל, תרצה להיות קנדה, תקנא בקנדה, תכה על חטא ועוד על המהפכה האמריקנית, ערש הדמוקרטיה המודרנית?
דרום מסבירה כי גם היא ומשפחתה שקלו בשלבים מסויימים לוותר על סיבוכי הוויזה האמריקאיים ולהגר צפונה. היתרונות ידועים. אך מה אנו יודעים על קנדה? מה יש לנו בקנדה שלא גדלנו עליה, לא ראינו בטלוויזיה סדרות שלה, לא צרכנו סרטים קנדיים. מה אנו יודעים על הפוליטיקה שם? בעוד שאמריקה זורמת בעורקינו, קנדה היא טריטוריה זרה ומושלגת.
על הביקור בטורונטו היא אומרת: האנשים מנומסים אבל לא באופן מוגזם. טורונטו נראית נחמדה והחברים שלנו שגרים בה מרוצים מהחיים בה.
בין תגובות הקוראים של הרשימה: “קנדה נעימה מארה”ב, שלווה מארה”ב, אינה מושחתת כמו ארה”ב ויקרה ממנה. זו מדינה ענקית ומגוונת וכן יותר אירופאית, פחות רודפת בצע, מסודרת יותר. מס הכנסה גבוה יותר אך ביטוח הבריאות זול בהרבה. בקנדה האווירה רגועה יותר, פחות חומרנית. ארה”ב היא מדינה לעשירים ועם טראמפ הפער בין עשירים לעניים ילך ויגדל”.
Last weekend, in Charlottesville, Va., hundreds of white supremacists, Ku Klux Klanners, neo-Nazis and other racists and antisemites rallied and brought violence to the hometown of Thomas Jefferson.
The images that emerged are bone-chilling. Men (mostly) carrying torches, swastikas and Confederate flags, screaming the ugliest epithets imaginable against African-Americans, gays and Jews. When the city of Charlottesville eventually ordered the racists to disperse (the racists were authorized to rally until things got violent), one of them got in his car and rammed it through a crowd of counter-demonstrators, killing one young woman and injuring many. The violence could have been infinitely worse, it should be noted, as scores of racists in battle fatigues were seen carrying combat weapons on their way to the rally, as is their Second Amendment right in that open-carry state.
Anyone who spent any time on social media or watching cable news in the succeeding days knows that the events and the issues raised by the rally and the preceding march through the University of Virginia have been assessed from multiple angles. The delayed and impotent response of President Donald Trump has been singled out as among the more worrying aspects.
The president of the United States responded by blaming “many sides” for the violence, an appalling equivocation that diminishes the office even further than the depths to which he has debased it in the past eight months. Items of Trump paraphernalia, notably “Make America great again” caps, were prominent among the racist ralliers and some commentators think the president’s remarks were tempered so as not to upset a political base that includes the very worst elements in American society.
David Duke, the former head hood of the KKK, said the rally was a step toward fulfilling Trump’s promises and, after Trump’s bland statement on events, Duke crowed that, essentially, his guy is in the White House. Meanwhile, Maxine Waters, an African-American congresswoman and outspoken critic of Trump, dubbed it the White Supremacists’ House.
The American Civil Liberties Union advocated for the right of the racists to express themselves and, while Canada has different laws and customs around this, we would not contest the idea of racists expressing themselves peacefully, primarily because suppression can metastasize bad ideas the way mold grows in darkness. The answer to bad speech, we have been arguing in this space for decades, is not no speech, but more speech. Indeed, many Americans and others have been motivated by their revulsion at events in Charlottesville to recognize the racial and cultural problems it represents, and have engaged in the civil discourse on the side of good.
We admit, though, that free speech works best when decent people are in leadership. So, for instance, when white supremacists and neo-Nazis rally and murder, a U.S. president should arouse the country’s best instincts as the leading voice for unity in diversity and basic human decency. That didn’t happen after Charlottesville.
Also, police preparations may have been inadequate. When African-Americans have peacefully marched in recent years, militaristic counter-measures have been put in place, as in Ferguson, Mo., after the shooting death of Michael Brown. In Charlottesville, gun-swinging, fatigue-festooned, swastika-waving white people were met with limited police presence, to the extent that they were permitted to physically attack counter-protesters.
An additional factor – perhaps the only one not adequately hashed over – is the subdued reaction to the antisemitism permeating the event. The poster for the rally featured a Magen David about to be smashed by a sledgehammer. A recurring chant at the rally, premised on the idea of white culture being subsumed, was “You will not replace us … Jew will not replace us!” Seig heil salutes and chants of “blood and soil,” a Nazi slogan, were part of the show.
The president notwithstanding, most American leaders have condemned the racism of the event, but condemnations of antisemitism in particular have been far less prominent in the aftermath. Hopefully, people feel that their statements against bigotry encompass antisemitism; less optimistically, perhaps there is a feeling that, while other forms of hatred are anathema to American ideals, displays of antisemitism are less surprising and, therefore, less requiring of explicit denunciation. This is something that needs further consideration and discussion.
If, as former president Barack Obama was fond of saying (quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice,” Charlottesville may turn out to be a positive turning point in a long and tragic history of racism, antisemitism and xenophobia in America. Optimists among us hope that the political awareness of erstwhile apathetic Americans will be awakened by the sight of torch-wielding Nazis in American streets – and spurred to action by the fact that this reality doesn’t elicit swift and strong condemnation from the most powerful person in the country and, indeed, in the world.
As Canadians, we have our own shameful history of racism and antisemitism to reckon with and should not allow ourselves any smugness when assessing our neighbour’s current spasm of hate. The passing of German-Canadian Holocaust-denier and Nazi-sympathizer Ernst Zundel this month in Germany – to which he was extradited in 2005 and convicted for inciting racial hatred – and a scan of Canadian web commenters around these subjects remind us that we remain far from some bigotry-free beacon to the world.
Still, it is only when these things are out in the open that they can be challenged and debunked. So, as debilitating as it may be to see and hear these ugly ideas and actions, it gives us the opportunity to counter them – if, unlike the president of the United States, we choose to do so sincerely.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with David Malka, father of Border Police officer Hadas Malka, who was stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist outside Jerusalem’s Old City on June 16. (photo by Kobi Gideon / Israel Government Press Office via Ashernet)
Prime Minister Netanyahu and his wife Sara, with El Al’s first ultra-Orthodox female pilot, Nechama Spiegel Novak, as they set out to Salonika, Greece, on June 14. (photo from IGPO via Ashernet)More than 200,000 people attended the Tel Aviv Gay Pride Parade June 9. (photo by Guy Yechiely via Ashernet)Netanyahu in his office June 7 with U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. (photo by Amos Ben Gershom / IGPO via Ashernet)Netanyahu is welcomed to Monrovia by Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf on June 4. (photo by Kobi Gideon / IGPO via Ashernet)
Pierre Trudeau once compared living next to the United States to sleeping with an elephant. “No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt,” Trudeau told the Washington press in 1969.
The former PM’s son, current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seems to be recognizing that, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, the beast is as uneven-tempered as it has been in living memory.
The United States is currently led by a man whose foreign policy compass swings from tweet to tweet. There is no way to predict what position he will take next, having repeatedly besmirched NATO and other agencies of internationalism. The European powers have explicitly or implicitly taken the once-unthinkable position of deeming the United States no longer a dependable ally.
In successive major policy speeches last week, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan laid out somewhat new directions for the Canadian government, both seeming to concur, at least implicitly, that the United States is not the reliable ally it once was.
Sajjan promised a $62 billion boost to defence spending over 20 years, which would seem to be good news for Trump, who has criticized NATO member-nations for not pulling their weight. However, it came on the heels of Freeland’s speech a day earlier, in which she expressed concern that Americans seem prepared to “shrug off the burden of world leadership.”
It is easy to criticize American leadership – under any administration – and, admittedly, while the possibility of U.S. intervention might have given some dictators and oppressors cause for pause, American power has also strengthened dictators and oppressors when it has been in their interests. Nonetheless, the abdication of American leadership creates a frightening vacuum.
Jewish tradition includes the value of lo ta’amod al dam rei’echa, the prohibition against passivity in the face of violence to others. This rather universal concept seems likely to be diminished under the Trump presidency.
“The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership puts in sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course,” Freeland told MPs. “To say this is not controversial: it is a fact.” She added: “To put it plainly: Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes require the backing of hard power.”
This is a stark shift in Canadian policy of the past 40 or so years. Without openly saying so, Canadians have been happy to keep military budgets low, knowing that our neighbour would have our back if push came to shove. Canada has little to fear in the form of foreign invasion, although our sovereignty in the Arctic could come under threat by Russia (or even the United States) at almost anytime.
More immediately, what our deflection of military might has created is a limited ability to act in ways on the world stage that reflect Canada’s stated values, which include the pursuit of justice (in Jewish tradition, bakesh shalom v’rodfehu) and the protection of human dignity. Again, when faced with Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Middle East, or with the barbarity of ISIS, or civil war in Syria, or countless other tragic flashpoints globally, Canada has been satisfied to allow our closest ally to set the terms on the ground.
We have been able to have our cake and eat it, too, for many years, calling our approach “soft power,” which means moral suasion based on a degree of global respect Canada has achieved, while leaving “hard power” to our NATO allies. Our role in Afghanistan is an exception, and a source of pride for those who believe that the people of that country should live free from oppressive entities.
This is an imperfect example, of course, since Afghanistan remains riven by terrorism and political division. That average Afghanis, particularly women and minorities, are better off now than under the Taliban is unquestionable. While our presence there has had tangible results, in the global context, it is a somewhat symbolic engagement. Our military has limited capacity to engage similarly in another theatre and would certainly be stretched to the limit if we were to be called into two or more conflicts.
Canada does not – and should not – aspire to be a global military powerhouse. But to maintain self-defence capabilities and to act on our values in a difficult world – at a time when the great power we counted on to do this on our behalf is recanting – requires us to make financial commitments.
We must balance these commitments with our ability to fund social programs and other policies of national pride. Any increased international role should be focused on trying to prevent conflicts, supporting peace efforts and on providing humanitarian and other economic aid.
Left to right, Larry Elder, Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt at the Unite Inland Empire Conservative Conference on April 30. (photo by Dave Gordon)
Eight hundred supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump gathered in a Los Angeles-area venue recently – before the controversy this week over Trump’s sharing of classified information with Russia – to hear four major U.S. media figures discuss why, in their opinion, the president had thus far made impressive executive choices.
The April 30 event – the fourth annual Unite Inland Empire Conservative Conference – was entitled Trump’s First 100 Days.
Panelists were talk radio hosts Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager and senior editor-at-large of Breitbart News, Joel Pollak.
Trump was praised by all speakers for his Supreme Court choice of Neil Gorsuch, his strike on Syria, his efforts to overturn Obamacare and the newest Iran sanctions. The two Jewish speakers – Prager and Pollak – told the Independent that the president has, in a very short time, done much for Israel.
Appointing a U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is critical of the world body’s treatment of the Jewish state should be seen as significant in itself, Prager said. “Why isn’t Nikki Haley enough for a Jew?” he asked.
The author of seven books, including the recently released Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code, Prager said Trump should divest the United States entirely from the UN, however.
“It is a morally bad organization. It does more harm than good,” he said. “You can have aid agencies without the UN. Think we need UN peacekeepers? You can talk about Rwanda. What good has the Security Council done? It is the most anti-Jewish institution in the world. What more do you need to know? My whole life I have understood Jew-hatred as the barometer of the world’s health.”
In terms of reported rising Jew-hatred in the United States, Prager said some of it is fabricated and some is an imminent threat.
“All of the Jewish centres’ bomb threats – this was hysteria – all because of a black radical and a disturbed Jewish kid in Israel. It wasn’t 40 antisemitic incidents; but maybe one or two.”
To those who accuse the president of attracting those who bear ill will towards the Jews, Prager added, “It’s a world of lies that Trump has increased antisemitism and that he is an antisemite and that he has let antisemites in his administration.”
The true menace, he said, was “the transformation of the university to the most Israel-hating institution in America. Jews don’t want to acknowledge this because they adore the university.”
Antisemitism might be among the reasons Trump has waffled on his promise to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, Prager said, adding, “I 100% excuse him on it.”
It is Prager’s belief that Israel may be reticent, at this point, to deal with the potential blowback.
“The Arab world is a passion-based, hate-filled world,” he said. “The hatred of Israel is the food of the Arab world. There’s no joy in saying this.”
However, it was important that Trump said that while campaigning, argued Prager. “I believe [the promise] didn’t say, ‘I am going to open an embassy in Israel.’ It said, ‘I care about Israel,’ unlike the previous president.”
Joel Pollak, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News, addresses the conference. (photo by Dave Gordon)
Meanwhile, Pollak thinks that the president may follow through with moving the embassy to Jerusalem at some point in the future.
“I don’t see it as a back pedal,” said Pollak. “David Friedman [U.S. ambassador to Israel] is going to live in Jerusalem, even though the embassy is in Tel Aviv. It indicates which of the two cities the U.S. considers is Israel’s capital.”
In terms of the peace process, the new administration will not be mirroring that of Barack Obama, who “took the Palestinian side, and that was destabilizing,” said Pollak.
On the UN, Pollak said it was a forum for enemies to hash out their differences, but its Human Rights Council – where many dictatorships have representatives – should be dismantled.
In agreement with Prager, he said the pressing danger to U.S. Jews is the surge of university-based antisemitism.
“Students are being exposed to anti-Israel activities that they’re ill-equipped to counter,” said Pollak. “It has gotten so bad that now discrimination is happening on religion, not just for supporting Israel.”
Last year, U.S. campuses saw a 45% increase in anti-Jewish sentiments, according to Tel Aviv University researchers and the AMCHA Initiative, which investigates antisemitism on college campuses.
The issue will worsen, Pollak said, as more young people remain ignorant of the Holocaust – a tragedy all-too-often invoked and misused by those who compare the Final Solution to the Palestinian situation.
For attendee Evan Sayet, author of Kindergarten of Eden, the “single most important thing” for American Jews to do is to rebuke government-funded universities, “twisting the screws against the lies and antisemitism in the guise of academia.”
He said, “You might not think of American campuses, because it doesn’t seem like an existential threat. You might think academia is just a place of words. Obviously, this is the next generation who are infused with antisemitism. It bodes ill for the Jews. Antisemitism is an evil that is placated in the Arab world and, now, other places in the world, including Europe.”
Dave Gordonis a Toronto-based freelance writer whose work has appeared in more than 100 publications around the world.
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.
