The Editorial Board

Confront racism

On Remembrance Day, pro-Nazi posters were discovered at War Memorial Gym on the University of British Columbia campus. The posters depicted Nazi soldiers with the words “Lest we forget / The true heroes of WWII.”

This incident followed the discovery earlier in the week of antisemitic drawings on a chalkboard in the forestry faculty. Rabbi Philip Bregman, executive director of Hillel BC, sent an email to the community thanking the Forestry Undergraduate Society for making a clear statement of solidarity. While this is the good news, he wrote, there is also bad news. Students are reporting that the latest incidents are a “tip of the iceberg” of similar expressions and depictions that go unreported.

Earlier this month, white supremacist and antisemitic posters also appeared at the University of Victoria. “(((Those))) who hate us / Will not replace us,” read a poster. The use of triple parentheses is a method used online to identify Jews. The fear of white people being “replaced” by non-white people is a recurring theme in the white supremacist movement.

These incidents are local iterations of a larger and obviously deeply troubling phenomenon occurring worldwide. In part a response to the movement of refugees from Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa, far-right groups in Europe have grown significantly in recent years. This is evident in the horrifying rally of an estimated 60,000 neo-Nazis, hyper-nationalists and racists in Warsaw, Poland, last weekend. And it is underscored by the neutrality or even affirming noises from those in positions of power at the sight of ralliers carrying signs urging “Clean blood,” “Pray for an Islamic holocaust” and “Jews out of Poland.”

Poland’s governing Law and Justice Party has informal connections with some of the extremist groups that organized Saturday’s rally. Poland’s foreign ministry, on the one hand, condemned the xenophobic, antisemitic and racist messaging, but, on the other hand, called the event “a great celebration of Poles.” The country’s interior minister called the rallying extremists “a beautiful sight.”

This sort of equivocation from leaders is perhaps as worrying, or more so, than the rallying mobs themselves. While the past year has seen numerous European far-right parties fail to live up to expectations in elections, their strength is nevertheless very concerning.

On the subject of elections … off-year elections in the United States last week delivered a strong rebuke to the U.S. president. Although polls indicate that 36% of American voters would vote for him again, no president in the history of polling has been this unpopular this early in his mandate. This is, perhaps, a sign that most Americans are turning against the divisiveness and xenophobia that this president advances.

Encouraging as that may be, possibly (wishfully) portending his defeat in 2020, the damage he is doing to the civil fabric of the country is incalculable. It is saddening to see the president of the United States overtly promote racism against Mexicans and people from Muslim-majority countries, threatening one group with a wall and the other with a travel ban that has been repeatedly deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Among his supporters are openly racist and white supremacist activists.

All of this is to say that the world is experiencing a time of extremism. Rather than throw up our hands in despair, this is a time to rededicate ourselves to the values that motivate us, the values for which Canadian and other Allied soldiers fought.

The posters at B.C. universities should be enough to sweep away any complacency we may have about our shores being free from this sort of racist ideology. This is a good thing. Canadians have a right to be proud of our comparatively decent record of multicultural harmony, but smugness is a blinder that can allow us to ignore very real undercurrents. We must be vigilant in calling out evil ideology when we see it at home and abroad.

And the JI’s 18 Under 36 are …

Congratulations to all of the JI’s 18 Under 36 awardees!

(in alphabetical order)

Rebecca Baron
Ezequiel Blumenkrans
Erin Brandt
Marcus Brandt
Ayelet Cohen Weil
Courtney Cohen
Aaron Friedland
Sam Heller
Talya Mallek
Ariel Martz-Oberlander
Logan Presch
Maya Rae
Mike Sachs
Allie Michelle Saks
David Schein
Rotem Tal
Carmel Tanaka
Rabbi Levi Varnai

Thank you to all of the people who submitted a nomination. We received so many incredible entries. There really are a lot of all-around awesome people under the age of 36 in our community. Choosing only 18 was a difficult task.

Special thanks to our external adjudicator Kara Mintzberg, B.C. Regional Director, Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC).

Now that the hard part is done, we hope you will come and help us celebrate these amazing young people and our community. Tickets are only $18 and the event is sure to sell out.

Trouble with the census

These are not easy days for print media, so it was with a bit of dark humour that your devoted scribes here at the Independent reacted to the latest tranche of Canadian census information released last week.

According to the census, the number of Jews in Canada fell to 143,665 in 2016 from 309,650 five years earlier – a precipitous decline of more than 50%. Looking on the bright side, we concluded that, by that measure, this newspaper’s circulation had just doubled based on the proportion of Canadian Jews who subscribe. Great news, right?

But the census figures are actually not a laughing matter. Governments at all levels rely on this information to make determinations about spending allocations, policy determinations and all manner of decisions. Likewise, nonprofit organizations, think tanks and academics base their research and outreach on the figures, providing Canadian society, decision-makers and legislators with evidence-based policy recommendations and solutions to tough problems.

The Jewish community in Canada faces a number of challenges, including assimilation, de-affiliation and low birth rates among most denominations. But a decline of 50% in five years does not reflect any or all of these issues. There is a larger structural concern. To have a population decline with such speed is clearly a sign of flawed science, an issue immediately identified by various experts when the numbers were released.

In 2011, during that census, Canadians were asked to identify their ethnicity and “Jewish” was among the 24 examples offered. More than 250 ethnic identities were reported, however, and the examples on the 2016 census form were determined based on the most prevalent responses from 2011. This did not include “Jewish.”

Without “Jewish” as a choice, some scholars and policy analysts suspect that many Jews selected “Canadian” as a response or may have entered their or their ancestors’ countries of origin, for example, “Russian” or “French.”

Calculating the number of Jews in North America has never been an exact science. A century ago, some jurisdictions estimated the number of Jews based on school absenteeism during the High Holidays.

But technology and systems for assembling and analyzing data have improved over time so that estimates of populations and identities should have become easier and more reliable. That said, we cannot expect to arrive at accurate answers if we do not ask the proper questions. No matter how advanced the systems, software or algorithms, bad data will result in bad analysis.

While it makes some sense that Statistics Canada failed to include “Jewish” as an example – given the reasonable explanation that the examples they chose were based on the most common responses from the previous census – the problem raises the issue of how much the prompts given, or the wording of the census questions in general, affect the results. It also raises concerns about the lack of understanding and consensus about Jewish identity. This confusion is not limited to government apparatchiks, but to many Jews ourselves.

Judaism is a religion. Jewish is an ethnic identity. There are Jews who are atheists and do not adhere to Judaism, but this does not negate their Jewish ethnicity. (This is additionally problematic, it should be noted, because identifying Jews – and using proscribed genealogical theorems to do so – has been a tool used to discriminate against us and in the service of genocide.) Even discussing ethnicity is a fraught topic today, with a hearty discussion taking place right now over the inclusion of Jews under the larger “white” umbrella.

If there is one thing we can perhaps agree on it is that ticking boxes on a form, by definition, literally forces people into figurative boxes. This may not raise difficulties if one identifies straightforwardly as, say, “French” and “Roman Catholic” or “Scottish” and “United Church.” It may be easy for an individual who is a religious Jew to identify themselves as Jewish both in religion and ethnicity. But those whose religious identity may not align precisely with their Jewish ethnicity can stare at a census form and choose an identity that does not entirely comport with their reality.

Even the foregoing statements, broad generalizations that they are, should raise some debate over the accuracy of self-definition and the meanings of the term “Jewish.” While we may not have captured everyone’s interpretation of what the term “Jewish” means to them, this is evidence of the larger case: that forcing people with complex identities to tick one box on a form is to force square pegs into round holes. It creates a challenge for Jewish Canadians. And, in a country that prides itself on encouraging self-expression and welcoming diversity, the census problem raises questions that go to the heart of multifaceted identities and Canada’s willingness to recognize them.

Before the next census, in 2021, Jewish Canadians should have a collective discussion that helps us clarify our own relationships with the terms “ethnicity” and “religion,” and then ensure that the government understands that counting populations accurately requires a recognition of the complexities.

Winning with grace

It was the model of dignity and decorum in a ludicrous situation. When Israeli judoka Tal Flicker won a gold medal last week at the Judo Grand Slam in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, his excitement was diminished by the Emirati host federation. Because of Flicker’s nationality, the UAE refused to play the winner’s national anthem or raise his nation’s flag. Instead, while the gold medal winner stood under a flag of the International Judo Federation and the federation’s theme song played, Flicker had to quietly sing his own private rendition of Hatikvah, the Israeli anthem.

Similarly, when Israel’s Tohar Butbul beat an Emirati judoka, the defeated competitor turned his back on Butbul’s extended hand, carrying through the tournament’s motif of betraying the values of judo in particular, and sports more generally.

Israel went on to win five medals in all at the tournament, with the rudeness by Emirati organizers repeated again and again. (The Israeli team was also forced to remove their nation’s flag from their uniforms.) Yet Flicker’s grace, and that of the other winners, was a model that Israelis and Jews worldwide – indeed, anyone with a smidgen of sportsmanship – should admire.

In what was a small consolation, two senior Emirati sports officials later apologized to the head of the Israeli judo delegation for the loser’s refusal to shake Butbul’s hand. But there has been no apology for the larger silliness around the Israelis’ participation in the competition.

In an ideal world, international sports federations and other bodies would reward behaviour like the UAE’s by preventing them from hosting major events for a specific period and demanding in advance that the most basic tenets of sportsmanship be respected by any country that hopes to host.

In the bigger picture, the incident demonstrates the absurd treatment Israel receives in the international community more broadly. The latest example, which also happens to involve the UAE, occurred on Monday in Paris at the 39th general conference of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The UAE struck a commemorative medal to mark the renovation of UNESCO’s conference room. The medals feature a portrait of Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the UAE’s finance minister (a keepsake for sure!) and one was left on the desk of every UNESCO member-state except … the Jewish one.

“The state of Israel has no need for gifts,” said Carmel Shama-Hacohen, Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO, “but this ugly and uncivilized step, here in the world’s organization for culture and education, which follows the outrageous treatment of our judokas during the tournament in the UAE’s capital, shows how much hatred, incitement and dark mentality surround these people.”

And so it seems.

Balfour after 100 years

Balfour Street in Jerusalem. (photo by Pat Johnson)

One hundred years ago, on Nov. 2, 1917, one of history’s most consequential letters was typed. Simple and short, the Balfour Declaration, as it would become known, is a central artifact in the history of Zionism, the state of Israel and the ongoing conflict over claims to the land on which Israelis and Palestinians reside.

The letter from the British foreign secretary, Lord Arthur Balfour, was addressed to Lord Walter Rothschild, a leader in the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It informed Rothschild that the British cabinet had approved this one-paragraph statement:

“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

The letter was enormously historic for a number of reasons, not least that the first Zionist Congress had taken place a mere 20 years earlier, the first tangible expression in two millennia that the Jewish people should reasonably anticipate self-determination in the land of Zion. And now one of the world’s great powers was on record as supporting the endeavour.

The letter was also hugely presumptuous because the area in question was still under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans would not be thoroughly vanquished by the British-French-Russian allies until 1918. Yet the allies were so confident of eventual victory that the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 was already (on paper) carving up the region between the European powers.

Nevertheless, the document stood as a testament to British allegiance to the Zionist ideal in the interwar period. That allegiance, of course, amounted to very little in practical terms. In response to Arab protests (including mass murder in Hebron in 1929), the British froze Jewish migration to Palestine at the very moment in history when it was more urgently necessary than ever. The Holocaust – which can be said to have begun in earnest on Kristallnacht, Nov. 9, 1938, 21 years to the day after the Balfour Declaration was made public – occurred, of course, because of the Nazis’ Final Solution. But it could only have occurred in the enormous extent that it did because no other nation on earth would welcome the imperiled Jews of Europe. Palestine was the most obvious place for them to go, but British resolve folded in the face of Arab protest and Jews were trapped in Europe, where six million would die.

Likewise, the British commitment to Zionism amounted to nothing when it mattered again after the Holocaust. Still preventing widespread Jewish migration to Palestine, the British eventually gave up on the entire enterprise and threw the troubled land into the lap of the newly founded United Nations. The UN, for its part, eventually passed the Partition Resolution that would have seen two states – one Jewish, one Arab – formed in Palestine.

The reality remains that one significant sub-clause of the Balfour Declaration stands out to the contemporary eye. The statement that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” would certainly be viewed by many as remaining unfulfilled. The civil rights of non-Jewish citizens of Israel are protected in law, but serious inequalities remain. More significantly, the statelessness and associated lack of civil rights experienced by Palestinians in the Israeli-controlled parts of the West Bank would certainly not live up to the well-intentioned words of Balfour.

Some say the British government should apologize for their role in advancing an independent Jewish state. British Prime Minister Theresa May batted that one back in a letter to her party’s Conservative Friends of Israel, saying, “We are proud of our role in creating the state of Israel.… The task now is to encourage moves toward peace.”

If apologies are in order, the British government might consider apologizing for giving little but lip-service to the Zionism enterprise throughout the 20th century.

The Balfour anniversary is an interesting time to reflect on history – and the past has an important role to play in informing us of the present. But, as always, we should keep our focus on the future.

America’s UNESCO exit

The United States and Israel will withdraw from UNESCO. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is one of the most impressive and vital global agencies addressing international cooperation on this range of human endeavours. Unfortunately, like the United Nations itself, which exemplifies unfulfilled promise, it has been coopted into the service of Israel-hating forces.

UNESCO does vitally important work advancing education as a basic human right, fostering cultural diversity and dialogue, and promoting heritage as “a bridge between generations and peoples.” It is also committed to “full freedom of expression; the basis of democracy, development and human dignity.”

The irony here is that, by succumbing to the influence of Israel-bashers, UNESCO is in cahoots with countries that betray the most basic concepts of free expression and democracy.

The U.S. State Department announced last week that it would quit UNESCO and, while insisting that Israel was unaware of the impending announcement and that the decision was uncoordinated between the two countries, Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would follow its ally and also leave the agency.

Coincidentally or deliberately, UNESCO elected its first Jewish director general just days after the United States’ announcement. France’s former minister of culture, Audrey Azoulay, was elected to the leadership role, outpolling the Qatari perceived frontrunner, in a vote by UNESCO’s executive last Friday.

The United States was in arrears to UNESCO to the tune of $550 million and even a U.S. State Department spokesperson didn’t deny that money figured into the calculation. The United States stopped paying its dues to UNESCO in 2011, when the agency admitted “Palestine” as a full member state.

In July, UNESCO declared Hebron an endangered World Heritage site, diminishing the Jewish people’s ancient and contemporary connections to the city, home to the tombs of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs.

UNESCO has also adopted resolutions that call Jerusalem “occupied” territory, acknowledge Muslim but not Jewish historical connections to the Temple Mount area and repeatedly reinforced a common Palestinian position that Jews have little or no historical connection to the land of Israel.

The question is, do you stay and fight or give up and decamp in protest? A similar paradox occurred at the United Nations-sponsored World Conference Against Racism, in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. When it became clear that the event had been commandeered not only by anti-Zionist elements, but by some of the most antisemitic forces in the world, the United States and Israel walked out. Canada stayed. The Liberal government of the time justified the decision by saying they could remain as a voice of critical reason. There are legitimate cases to be made for both positions.

In choosing to leave the organization as a member but remain as an observer state, the United States found the right balance. They can continue to make their opposition to UNESCO excesses heard, without countenancing them morally or financially.

At least, that is how it would work in a world in which Donald Trump was not president of the United States. In this, as in so much, Trump changes everything. While the administration’s decision on UNESCO may be a decent one, in context with other decisions of the Trump administration, it becomes part of a retraction of American influence in and engagement with the world. Trump is motivated by spite, not by principle. While another president could have made the same move and explained it as a principled defence of the country’s most important ally in the Middle East, this president’s lack of principle and surfeit of malevolence relocates even defensible positions into a constellation of petty pique. Despite its manipulation by anti-Zionist ideologues, UNESCO remains an invaluable institution, doing much good work in the world. Even while maintaining observer status, the U.S. decision is likely to be read by critics not as a repudiation of what UNESCO does wrong, but as part of an ongoing American trend against all that is good in culture, science and education.

Context matters. Like Richard Nixon in China – OK, perhaps not really like that, but at least in the respect that a president with some credibility in areas relevant to UNESCO could get away with repudiating it – a president Hillary Clinton (or Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama) could have withdrawn from UNESCO and not made their country look like a collection of petty Philistines. When a president who has little demonstrated respect for culture, education or science withdraws from a global organization dedicated to these pursuits, it probably legitimizes UNESCO more than it delegitimizes it.

Worse for Jews, this tight friendship between Trump and Netanyahu reinforces perceptions of the Jewish people – or, at the very least, the Jewish state – as ideologically entwined with a figure who seems destined to go down as the most ineffectual and destructive president in American history. Not an enviable place to find oneself.

Sukkah more than symbolic

As we celebrate Sukkot this week, we’ll be thinking about many things – notably, how lucky the vast majority of us are to have a solid roof over our heads. For most of us, the sukkah is but a symbol of our wandering in the desert all those years ago, a symbol to remind us to be humble, empathetic, grateful. However, for many living in Metro Vancouver, including members of our own community, homelessness is a reality.

Last week, we ran a good news story from Tikva Housing Society – residents were moving into the recently completed Storeys complex in Richmond. The Diamond Residences at the Storeys will house six singles (five of whom are seniors) and 12 families. Tikva Housing is also working with various partners on the development of 32 townhouses in Vancouver, and they anticipate accepting residency applications by early 2018. These new projects are in addition to Tikva’s Dany Guincher House, in Vancouver – which has 11 units for people with low-income, people with disabilities who are independent and families fleeing abuse – and the Esther Dayson Rent Subsidy Program.

There is a lot of which to be proud. However, there is much more to do. Last year, Tikva Housing reported a decrease in donations to its rent subsidy program of more than $15,000. As a result, the organization had to decrease the monthly subsidy it provided to singles, couples and families.

According to Tikva, more than 16% of Jewish Vancouver residents – more than 4,200 people – are low-income and at least 450 Jewish children under the age of 15 in Vancouver are “living in households that depend on income assistance.” Its 2015 report on housing in Metro Vancouver concluded a need for 1,827 affordable housing units in the Jewish community, including for “those under 65, low-income singles, couples and families.” Calling this “an unreachable goal,” the report nonetheless suggests some solutions, most of which the Jewish community is already pursuing, such as rent subsidies and partnering with other agencies to develop new projects.

Yet, the problem remains. And, of course, it is not a problem unique to the Jewish community. On Sept. 26, the final report on Metro Vancouver’s 2017 Homeless Count was released. On the night of March 7, more than 1,200 volunteers conducted surveys throughout the region, on the streets and at shelters, “to obtain a 24-hour snapshot” of the situation. The final report confirmed the preliminary results – 3,605 were homeless in the metro area.

While there were four percent fewer homeless youth in 2017 as compared to 2014, there were five percent more homeless 55 and older. Overall, there was a 30% increase in homeless since 2014, “and the highest number since 2002, when the first metro-wide count occurred.”

According to the report, “The three most cited barriers to finding housing were the high cost of rent (50%), a lack of income (49%) and the lack of availability of housing that suits their needs (30%).” More than 80% of respondents reported having “at least one health condition, including addiction, mental illness, physical disability or a medical condition/illness. More than half of the respondents (52%) have two or more health conditions.” More than 40% of respondents received income assistance, 28% a disability benefit; 22% were employed.

Following the local Walk for Reconciliation on Sept. 24, where some 50,000 people – including an organized Jewish contingent – gathered downtown to join in a “call to action,” it is sobering to learn that 34% of the respondents of the Homeless Count self-identified as indigenous/aboriginal. “Indigenous people continue to represent about one-third of the homeless population in the region,” states the report, noting that it’s the highest proportion found to date in a regional count and “constitutes a strong over-representation compared to the total population, where two percent identify as aboriginal as per the 2011 Census.”

In a statement of the obvious, Mike Clay, chair of the Metro Vancouver Housing Committee, said, “In order to stem growing homelessness, it is clear we need more affordable housing options.”

But additional solutions are also needed, given the systematic discrimination that still exists for First Nations people and the health conditions many of the homeless are facing – and not only the homeless. Just last week, the Independent ran an article on the impact of addiction in our community. Jewish Addiction Community Service (JACS) Vancouver estimates that as many as 5,000 Jews in our community need support, “whether grappling with their own addiction issues or the addiction of a loved one.”

The Homeless Count’s findings most likely underestimate the problem. The report references the “hidden” homeless, which includes people “who do not have a regular address of their own where they have security of tenure, and who may be staying temporarily in another household – often called ‘couch surfing.’” The Tikva Housing press release about the new tenants at Storeys noted, “One 83-year-old woman cried when she was told she would be moving into a studio unit, as she has not had a place to live for years and was sleeping on someone’s couch.”

Then there are the tens of thousands of people at risk of becoming homeless. Apparently, housing shouldn’t account for more than 30% of a person’s or family’s gross income, yet the Homeless Count report notes there were 56,000 Metro Vancouver households in 2006 that spent more than 50% of their income on shelter, and the number had increased to 62,355 by 2011. (More recent data weren’t available but, based on skyrocketing housing costs, we can guess that the number of households spending 50% or more of their income on shelter has also increased.)

There is much to contemplate as we gather in our sukkot this week. And, once the holidays are over, once we celebrate Simchat Torah, thankful for the Jewish texts and traditions that have shaped the moral compass of even the most secular of us in some way, there is a lot of work to be done.

Merkel’s election win

Angela Merkel was returned for a fourth term as Germany’s chancellor on Sunday, defeating her main Social Democrat opponent, as well as a seemingly global surge toward populism. However, while she succeeded, her vote share declined – and the footnote of the election turns out to be the bigger story.

The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party came third, taking about 13% of the vote and entering parliament for the first time. The result was as good as any polls had predicted, meaning that some people who voted for them probably didn’t feel comfortable sharing their voting intentions with pollsters. The party was formed just four years ago, amid an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee backlash in response to Merkel’s liberal approach to the crisis caused by the Syrian civil war. In response, Merkel reined in her liberal approach somewhat, possibly saving her party from defeat. Just a few months ago, Merkel’s reelection appeared to be in doubt.

The success of Merkel’s conservative bloc is a sign that, when push comes to shove, German voters trust her steady hand at a time when the European Union and the world is in upheaval. While immigration remained a central issue in the election, its potentially negative impact on Merkel’s chances may have been blunted by the overarching desire for stable government.

In the face of Brexit and various economic crises in EU member states over recent years, Merkel emerged as the unequivocal leader of the vision of European unity. German voters endorsed her overall approach. But the emergence of AfD is worrying, though not surprising. Extremist parties have been burgeoning all over Europe – and extremism is flourishing in the United States. It would have been stunning if Germany completely avoided this trend.

For their part, the Social Democrats had been in a governing agreement with Merkel’s conservatives and, as is often the case in such scenarios, found themselves at a disadvantage in differentiating themselves from the incumbent government when putting their case to voters. They may choose to rebuild their party from the opposition side, rather than form another coalition with Merkel. However, if they choose to cooperate with the conservatives, that will put the third-party AfD in the enviable position of official opposition. This would give the radical right grouping even greater prominence than their 13% vote share would seem to justify.

“We will change this country,” declared Alexander Gauland, a co-leader of the AfD, on Sunday night. These are eerie words coming from the leadership of a group that promises a return to traditional German “volk” values, glorifies the Nazis and has been accused of racism and antisemitism.

The extremists will have an unprecedented platform (at least in the postwar era) in German politics and, even lacking legislative power, will be able to give voice to ideas that have largely been taboo in the German body politic for the past 70 years.

Yet, we should not allow the dark lining to obliterate the silver cloud. The election secured a stable, reliable and moderate direction for Germany that is good for Europe, the world and, not incidentally, Israel.

In its manifesto, Merkel’s party acknowledged a “special responsibility of Germany toward Israel” and earlier equated the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction) movement with the Nazi campaign to boycott Jewish businesses. Under Merkel’s leadership, Germany has continued and strengthened its very close alliance with the Jewish state. The German government has been a bulwark, to the extent that a single government can be, against the anti-Israel movements at the EU and the United Nations.

In election after election in Europe over the past year, worst-case scenarios have been avoided. Extremist parties have made inroads, but generally less than anticipated. The AfD’s relative success may be seen as a protest vote, in which case we may be seeing its zenith. In any case, Germans will now get a clear view of what the party stands for – and will have the opportunity to stand up in opposition to the divisive and xenophobic policies the AfD promotes.

Trump-Bibi bromance

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.

Inspiration from home

A young Israeli-American entrepreneur has invented an app that people – of any age – can use to find a hookup. No, it’s not for romantic hookups, although it does involve love, in a sense. Deevee Kashi invented Deed, an app that allows people to hook up with one-off volunteer gigs, whether serving food at a soup kitchen, walking shelter dogs or providing social interaction for seniors.

The idea may be perfect for our time. The contemporary generation is plugged-in, highly scheduled and perpetually busy, but also deeply committed to making positive impacts on the world. Deed may be just the thing for someone with an unexpected hour or two on their hands to do something more than downing a mocha while waiting for their next meetup.

We’d like to think it is not a coincidence that the app was invented by a Jew. Tzedakah, as Rabbi Joseph Telushkin reminds us, is an obligation and an act of justice. Conversely, to refrain from tzedakah is an act of injustice.

As we spend time in reflection over the holidays, it would be good and rejuvenating to balance the news of natural and human-made disasters with the antidote of tzedakah we see in abundance around us. The Deed app is a high-tech example, but closer to home we have an uplifting richness of good deeds that should make us proud of our community.

This week, the community came together to officially launch the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver’s annual campaign. No single act of tzedakah does more than the annual gift that goes to support almost every philanthropic endeavour in this community. This is, rightly, a high-profile campaign, one that you will continue to read about in these pages as the campaign continues. (Interviews with the speakers at Wednesday night’s FEDtalks event are available at jewishindependent.ca.)

There are plenty of other good deeds taking place rather more quietly all year round.

In the past year, at least three synagogues – Temple Sholom, Or Shalom and Congregation Emanu-El – have sponsored Syrian refugees, and others are contemplating doing so or are in the process of making it happen. Such an act is a long-term commitment and a life-changing one not only for the refugees, but for all those whose lives are touched by the experience, and as true a demonstration of justice in action as we could hope to see.

Ensuring that the model of goodness is carried on l’dor v’dor, from generation to generation, is Marc’s Mensches, a new initiative by the Bayit that helps encourage young people in the Jewish community by rewarding them for good deeds. It is a wonderful venture, with nominations reportedly pouring in, which is no surprise, as we have seen some of the most innovative and ambitious tzedakah initiatives emerge from the youngest among us. Our community’s Jewish schools and, of course, parents, are doing a superb job of instilling this core Jewish value in successive generations.

The Independent is undertaking a fresh approach to recognize the power of tzedakah among younger generations through our “18 Under 36” celebration, which will coincide with the 18th anniversary of the current leadership of this almost-90-year-old newspaper. Nominations are open for people under 36 – who are Jewish or doing great things for the Jewish community – to be recognized at this very special event Dec. 6. Please consider nominating someone, then join us for the celebration!

Appropriately, volunteers of all ages have been acknowledged and appreciated recently by the Jewish Family Service Agency, Jewish Seniors Alliance and other organizations. There are few good things in our community that are not dependent on the golden touch of armies of volunteers.

The danger in enumerating a few of these great acts is that we miss countless more … so please be aware that those we have mentioned are truly the tip of an iceberg of tzedakah and this is more reason for great pride. After the holidays, we will return to the quotidian news that can bring down even the most optimistic among us, but let’s try to keep close in our hearts some of these acts of tzedakah and let us be inspired in the new year to add to them.

Shanah tovah.