Category: From the JI

BDS’s lacrosse to bear

Before a soccer match with Maccabi Tel Aviv last week, the Hungarian football team Ferencváros Torna Club paid tribute to István Tóth in what is being heralded as a meaningful move against a creeping antisemitism that has permeated the European sporting world among other spheres.

Tóth was a Ferencváros Torna player and coach in the 1940s before joining the anti-Nazi resistance and saving hundreds of lives, including Jews who he helped escape detention and probable death. Tóth was captured and executed in 1945.

Last week’s game in Budapest was dedicated to Tóth’s memory.

North Americans who were swept up (or bemused) by global soccer mania at the height of the World Cup last weekend can almost appreciate the depths of feeling the sport evokes in much of the world. National feelings – and other high emotions – understandably permeate fan expressions. What is more baffling from afar is the manner in which antisemitism has seeped into the culture of European sport. Among other manifestations, fans from some teams will ridicule or intimidate those of opponents by implying the players or their supporters are Jews. In one instance, fans plastered a town with images of Anne Frank in the opposing team’s uniform. Elsewhere, fans suggested the opponents lacked foreskins. It’s difficult to wrap one’s mind around: that accusations of Jewishness have been used as a tool of intimidation on a playing field. The closest analogy, perhaps, might be the example more common in North American sports, in which opponents are accused of homosexuality. But, with Europe’s history of antisemitism, and the alarming growth of extremist politics across the continent, this hints at a deeper problem. This is why the Budapest event, which was coordinated with the assistance of World Jewish Congress, was as significant as it was. It was an official statement against antisemitism in sport and a testament to a hero of the Holocaust era.

Meanwhile, in a sports competition some distance away, a variant form of political activism, not unrelated to antisemitism, was playing out.

The BDS movement has been trying to isolate Israel in social, economic and cultural spheres. Athletes from Iran and countries with other Israel-hating governments have thrown matches rather than legitimize the Zionist entity, or athletes have refused to shake hands with Israeli competitors. There are even groups urging a boycott of the next Eurovision song contest because, as Israel’s Netta Barzilai was the 2018 victor, Israel will be the host country for next year’s round.

The latest attempt at a boycott, though, comes with a happy ending – and a Canadian twist.

The Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team recently arrived in Israel to participate in the World Men’s Lacrosse Championships. Soccer may be “the world’s game” and hockey may be where many Canadians’ invest our emotional energies, but lacrosse is, officially, our national game. (In a bow to popular demand, Parliament some time ago declared hockey our national “winter” sport and lacrosse our national “summer” sport, but details.) While many Canadians have an almost religious devotion to hockey, the Iroquois refer to lacrosse as “the Creator’s Game.”

The Iroquois team arrived at Ben-Gurion airport with indigenous passports. A few years ago, the team was forced to forfeit their games when the host country, the United Kingdom, refused to accept their travel documents. Israel, on the other hand, welcomed the Iroquois passports after interventions from the Government of Canada and the Canadian embassy in Israel.

While diplomats and respected figures like Irwin Cotler intervened to help, the BDS movement tried to prevent the team from attending. It was a particularly nasty effort, since the Iroquois invented the game. It may have been in this very fact that the BDSers smelled a potential symbolic victory, no matter how offensive the impact would have been on the individual players and the tournament more broadly had the First Nations team – one of the sport’s powerhouses – been excluded. And, as is often the case with the BDS movement, their success would have hurt Arabs as much as anyone. The Iroquois Nationals will lead a coexistence lacrosse clinic for Arab and Jewish young people.

There is a history of friendship, however unlikely, between the Iroquois and Israelis, both indigenous in their homelands. Earlier this year, the Seneca Nation, one of six groups that comprise the Iroquois Confederacy, celebrated Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel’s Independence Day, issuing a proclamation stating that “the Seneca Nation and the state of Israel share in common a passion for freedom and a willingness to fight for and defend our sovereignty and our shared right to be a free and independent people.”

The lacrosse tournament, which brings together 46 teams in the largest-ever such event, culminates this weekend. It may not elicit the rapturous fandom we saw last weekend in the World Cup. But we certainly have our sentimental favourites.

Redefining antisemitism

An Illinois congressional district leans so heavily Democratic that no serious figures contested the Republican nomination for this fall’s midterm elections. As a result, an avowed Nazi has become the official Republican standard bearer in the suburban Chicago area.

The issue is not that he stands a hope of winning. He doesn’t. The critical test is the degree of unanimity with which the mainstream body politic of the United States comes together to condemn the candidate and reject the normalization of his positions. So far, results are tepid.

Some GOP figures are advising voters not to cast a ballot in the race, which seems like bad advice in a democracy. Others are saying, simply, “Don’t vote for the Nazi,” without suggesting voters support the Democrat. When asked if he was urging Republicans to support the Democrat in the district, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner simply said, “No.”

We have been seeing far too many examples of Americans putting party over country and humanity recently. President Donald Trump has been able to get away with his worst excesses only through the support of a Republican Congress.

Nevertheless, for whatever limits partisanship puts on bulwarks to bad things, most Americans agree Nazism is bad and should be condemned.

A more ambivalent reaction is taking place in the United Kingdom. The British Labour party has been embroiled for some time in a very serious internal conflict around antisemitism. Senior party figures, including MPs, have uttered (or expressed on social media) things that any “woke” person would recognize as founded on antisemitic premises. In some cases – including in a “closed” Facebook discussion group of which party leader Jeremy Corbyn was a part – the most medieval and unequivocal stereotypes, accusations, conspiracies and Jew-hatred have gone unchallenged.

Members of the party have been kicked out after being subjected to internal party investigations for antisemitic rhetoric. But some have been allowed back in and others have been let off without any censure, even after expressing what the most casual observers would recognize as unacceptable attitudes toward a minority group.

A reckoning has been coming. So, in an effort to set some ground rules, a party committee adopted a definition of antisemitism last week that will serve as the measuring stick in upcoming investigations around whether party figures have or have not engaged in antisemitic rhetoric or behaviour.

The party based their new rules on the standards created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) – criteria that have attained a degree of consensus as perhaps the most conclusive definition we can hope to develop for something as amorphous as antisemitism. The guidelines have been adopted by governments and quasi-governmental agencies worldwide, including Britain’s, but the Labour party thought the guidelines could use some improvements – and so they made their own tidy edits.

The Labour party’s red pen took out references that assign antisemitic intent to the equation of Zionism with Nazism. They deleted the parts where the IHRA says that antisemitism includes accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country. Under the new Labour party rules, it’s OK to say that Israel’s very existence is racist. Holding Israel to a higher standard than any other countries is also fine with the party.

In short, the Labour party retrofitted the definition of antisemitism to comport with the attitudes and actions of their members, instead of forcing their members to adhere to international standards that reject antisemitism.

The new rules also put the onus on the victims to prove intent, which is almost unprovable. In effect, a Labour member can say whatever they wish – “ZioNazi” is a favourite, it seems – as long as they declare that their intent was not antisemitic. For whatever else this represents, it is a betrayal of a core tenet of the global progressive movement: that those who experience discrimination are the ones who get to define it.

As disturbing as the antisemitism crisis in U.K. Labour is – especially as Theresa May’s Conservative cabinet is imploding and a new election could come any day – it is an important moment for addressing left-wing antisemitism throughout the West.

It is one of the first formal, structured discussions we have seen in Western countries around the issue of defining, identifying and censuring antisemitism within mainstream political discourse. It is not a good thing that it is necessary, but it is good that the necessary discussion is taking place.

Of course, this could go (at least) two ways. Labour could experience a backlash over their efforts to redefine antisemitism to their political benefit, realize that they are far outside acceptable discourse and undertake a genuine correction. Alternatively, they could stick with their highly problematic definition of antisemitism, leave their substantial problem of institutional anti-Jewish bias in place and still win the next U.K election. In which case, they will have moved the goalposts of acceptable discourse in dangerous new directions, with implications that go far beyond Britain.

Neighbourly relations

The lineups at local border crossings to the United States over the Canada Day long weekend suggest rhetoric about Canadians avoiding visits to our neighbour have been largely overblown. We may be repulsed by the Trump administration’s treatment of would-be refugees, especially children, but cheap gas, cheese and milk – as well as the plethora of delights at Trader Joe’s – mean many of us just can’t stay away.

Ironically, it is partly because our dairy products are so expensive – because of our supply management system – that the U.S. president is raging at Canada in the first place and why we amped up our tariffs July 1 in a trade war Trump launched.

At the same time, most of us know that our immediate neighbours are much like ourselves. The places we are most likely to drive to – Bellingham, Seattle and smaller centres dotting the American Pacific coast – are inhabited by some of the most liberal voters in that country. These are not places where Trump bumper stickers or MAGA caps are widely prevalent.

Likewise, if we jump on a plane, the destinations we choose tend to be similar in attitudes: the beaches, amusement parks or golf resorts of Southern California, the wine country of Northern California, oases in Arizona that are likely to have as many Albertans as native-born Arizonans. Punishing businesses in these locations because their president has xenophobic views doesn’t seem particularly sensible.

On the other hand, we might have more reticence about stepping out of these familiar spots. We might rethink road-tripping across the country; that generations-tested means of memorable family bonding, backseat battles and boredom. Almost anyone who has traveled through rural America returns with stories of salt-of-the-earth kindness and folksy friendliness. Yet, knowing that some counties in the most picturesque parts of the United States voted for Trump – and still support him by huge margins – one might be forgiven for looking askance at the family in the next booth at the roadside diner. What is behind the smiles and extroverted affability that can turn so mean in the ballot box and when responding to public opinion polls about immigrants and minorities?

Leaving aside whether we would feel personally comfortable in some locations, there is the larger issue of whether Canadians should boycott American products. On social media this week, you can find suggested product choices that make it easier to buy Canadian instead. It’s a matter of individual choice whether this is a productive use of energy, but, if it makes people feel better and helps the Canadian economy in a time of challenge, it seems like a fine enough gesture.

It is notable, though, to compare the nascent cross-border boycott to the BDS movement against Israel. Admittedly, the U.S.-Canada clash is mere weeks old, while the Israeli-Arab conflict has been in high gear for seven decades, giving sides more time to organize. But, while a significant number of Canadians seem to think that a boycott of Israeli products, ideas and people is a legitimate tactic, it is doubtful that a similarly organized movement will coalesce around the idea of boycotting Americans.

Some BDS supporters have maintained that their boycott targets Israeli “policies,” although the founder of the movement, Omar Barghouti, has no qualms about his position that Israel should cease to exist as a Jewish state. In any event, how bad would American “policies” need to become before BDS advocates devoted their substantial energies to boycotting U.S. products? Certainly we are unlikely to see a Canadian consensus that suggests a total economic, cultural, academic and social boycott of America, as the BDS movement promotes with Israel. It would be impossible, of course, given the interconnectedness of our countries, but the question remains: Why do some take the hard line with Israel but not with other countries?

Indeed, consider the approach held by most people, even those who are likely to support BDS: with North Korea, Iran and anyone else with whom we have not insubstantial differences, the consensus approach is engage, mediate, negotiate. It’s the approach we are pursuing with the United States on one hand, while retaliating with tariffs on the other. Yet, when it comes to Israel, in economic matters, academic interactions, sporting competitions and every level of human interface, a sizeable group demands that we make Israel an international pariah, isolate it in every way, exclude it from the global community. What can that possibly be about?

The pot talk we need

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that marijuana would become legal in Canada on Oct. 17. He had intended that it should be legal this Sunday – Canada Day. But the Senate, rousing itself from obsolescence just long enough to throw a wrench in the plans, delayed passage of the pot legalization bill until this month, making implementation by Canada Day impossible.

This may not seem like a particularly relevant topic for a Jewish newspaper editorial, but substance use is just as relevant in our community as it is in any. A few years ago, a panel discussion took place at Schara Tzedeck Synagogue on the topic. Prof. Raphael Mechoulam, a chemist and expert on marijuana’s medicinal uses visiting from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Dr. Kathryn Selby, a University of British Columbia clinical professor in pediatric developmental neurosciences, took opposing sides.

Mechoulam said that cannabidiol (CBD), a component in marijuana, may have medical uses “in almost all diseases affecting humans.” However, little scientific research has been done.

Cannabinoid receptors are abundant in several regions of the brain, including those where movement control, learning and memory, stress, cognitive function and links between cerebral hemispheres occur. CBD can also impact appetite, blood pressure, cerebral blood flow, the immune system and inflammation. It can, in some cases, reduce or eliminate seizures and cancerous tumours.

But Selby raised an issue that has gone almost entirely ignored throughout Canada’s national discussion about marijuana legalization.

Marijuana can have deeply deleterious effects on the brains of adolescents and young adults, altering the brain’s structure and function in lifelong ways. The development of the human brain continues into the 20s, Selby said, and the prefrontal cortex, where judgment and executive functions occur, is the last to develop – thus the most likely to be affected by intensive marijuana use.

Longer-term impacts of marijuana use by adolescents have been shown to correlate with schizophrenia later in life and a 50% to 200% increase in psychoses among heavy users. Daily marijuana use during high school has been correlated with a 600% increase in depression and anxiety in later life.

Selby recommended that marijuana use, if undertaken at all, should be “as late and as little as possible.”

During the national discussion around this issue, much concern was expressed about the ability of law enforcement officials to identify and measure marijuana impairment among drivers. Almost no discussion was devoted to the effects of marijuana on developing brains.

Part of the reason for delaying legalization until October was to allow provincial and municipal governments to prepare for the related distribution, legal and other public policy issues legalization raises. While criminal law is a federal issue – marijuana legalization is on Ottawa’s plate – it is the provinces that determine where, how and to what consumers the “product” may be marketed. In Alberta and Quebec, the age will be 18; in the other provinces, 19. (Most provinces have made the decision to create equal ages of majority for alcohol and marijuana purchase.)

Alcohol has its own harmful impacts on the bodies of young (and older) people, but marijuana may have particular harms on the development of adolescent and young adult brains.

Once the brain is fully developed, by the mid-20s, the dangers of permanent damage by marijuana use are significantly reduced. This scientific evidence – not the fairly random legal decision to permit consumption at age 18 or 19 – should perhaps have received more attention than it has. Given that it did not, it now falls to parents, grandparents, trusted adults and educators to share with young people the potential harm heavy marijuana use has for adolescents and young adults.

It is time Canada moved away from prohibition and towards a compassionate model that reduces and minimizes the harm that stems from fear and a lack of evidence-based policies. Fear-mongering is a waste of time – and marijuana’s positive impacts can’t be denied.

However, for those of us with young people in our lives, a good approach is to model the moderate use of all substances, to leave open lines of nonjudgmental communication (however hard that is) and to demonstrate for one another how to make wise and healthy choices. Sharing information in a rational way and asking young people to avoid heavy use or to delay if possible is the least we can do. It is our hope, too, that pot companies will temper their impulses to capitalize on every opportunity and avoid marketing edibles made to appeal to children and teens so that we’re not fighting an uphill battle. Healthy communities with resilient kids are a group effort.

Stand up, be counted

Canada’s behaviour at the United Nations last week is being analyzed and found wanting by many Canadian Zionists. Canada abstained from a vote on a resolution that condemned Israel in a one-sided manner for the recent violence at the Gaza border.

The four-page resolution denounced the “excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force by the Israeli forces.” The resolution passed 120-8, with 45 countries, including Canada, abstaining.

An American amendment that would have condemned Hamas for sending rockets at Israeli targets was defeated 78-58, with 26 abstentions. Canada voted in favour of the failed amendment.

According to Canadian Jewish News, Canada’s ambassador to the UN, Marc-André Blanchard, said the abstention was due to the resolution’s failure to explicitly name Hamas.

“Hamas has been oppressing Palestinians. Hamas and other terrorist groups have been inciting violence and hatred and this should be clear in the resolution. The resolution explicitly names Israel, while failing to name any other groups involved,” Blanchard said.

The question, then, is why Canada did not vote against, rather than abstain, as Shimon Koffler Fogel noted.

“Ironically, Ambassador Blanchard’s explanation of the vote made the most compelling case for why Canada should have joined with the U.S., Australia and Israel in voting against the resolution,” said Koffler Fogel, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

The larger issue is that the United Nations, created with such idealism and optimism after the Holocaust and the Second World War, has become beholden to ideological blocs dominated by dictatorial regimes. In a world with no shortage of humanitarian catastrophes, the General Assembly’s time and resources are wasted with obsessive attention on Israel.

Additionally sad is that the superb, irreplaceable work done by so many subsidiary agencies of the UN suffers by association with the actions of the General Assembly.

Some have suggested, in light of the UNGA silliness, that democratic countries should withdraw and form their own alternative UN-type organization. Whatever value that might have, walking away is not the right choice. Canada and other countries with common sense foreign policies should remain as a voice of reason.

Which is all the more reason why our choice to remain silent on the latest anti-Israel resolution is the wrong one. If we are going to serve as best we can in a flawed assembly, the least we can do is stand up and be counted.

Horror at the border

While American elected officials posted pious family-friendly Father’s Day messages on social media Sunday, about 2,300 children remained incarcerated by the U.S. government’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch, stolen from their parents at the southern border with Mexico.

The families are migrants from throughout Central America and the idea of tearing children from their parents is dubbed the “nuclear option” for discouraging illegal migration into the United States. Once the families are divided, children and adults begin separate legal journeys. Some parents are being deported while their children remain behind. One infant was snatched from its mother while breastfeeding.

The boys are being held in a repurposed Walmart. No one outside government knows where the girls are.

President Donald Trump, whose administration implemented the inhumane policy, blames Democratic lawmakers for the situation, in keeping with his pathological dishonesty.

Inevitably, social media is making rampant comparisons with the Holocaust. In an age when the Nazi era is invoked just about every time a disagreement arises, this parallel remains troubling. As distasteful as the analogy is though, it does reflect a laudable desire to scream injustice in the loudest way.

“We are better than this,” critics say, or “This is not America,” both of which defy the evidence. As awareness increases about this horror, if Americans are not rallying on the streets in every city and town, we will know whether this is America or whether they are better than this.

Violence not solution

Last week, thousands were on the streets of Tehran for Al-Quds Day events, which consist of calling for the annihilation of Israel. Parallel events were held in other cities, including London, England, where Hezbollah flags flew amid posters bearing modern blood libels, and in Toronto, where a speaker called for the “eradication” of Israelis and Zionists.

Also difficult to ignore are the realities of the incendiary kites being sent over the border from Gaza affixed with flaming tails or petrol bombs. Some international observers have dismissed the incidents, contrasting the Gazans’ unsophisticated arsenal with Israel’s contingent of fighter jets and advanced weaponry. But Israeli firefighters report that 741 acres of forest and 4,500 acres of agricultural land have burned in the past two months thanks to at least 285 individual kite and helium balloon attacks. An estimated 500 kites have been intercepted before they could do damage. Experts say return of flora and fauna in affected areas will take years.

The ongoing hostilities at and near the Gaza border are the latest in the ongoing conflict that keeps the world’s attention focused on the region.

That attention turned to the world of soccer recently. A planned game between the Israeli and Argentine national teams was cancelled after pressure from the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel (BDS).

On social media, the BDS movement profusely thanked the Argentine team for cancelling the match. But the president of the team acknowledged it was not political considerations, but safety concerns, that led to the cancellation. The team – and specifically its megastar Lionel Messi – received threats of violence. As well, at the team’s practice facility in Barcelona, protesters waved Argentine soccer jerseys daubed with fake blood, and it wasn’t clear whether the blood was meant to symbolize Palestinians who have died or Argentine soccer players who might have been harmed if the game had been held as planned and the threats been realized.

There has been a shift from peaceful protest – that was the phrase repeatedly invoked about the conflagrations at the Gaza border – toward overtly violent rhetoric, threats and actions by Israel’s adversaries, who are both literally and figuratively “playing with fire.”

Nonviolent pressure, which is what BDS has claimed to advocate, is a tactic that could, one never knows, lead to some peaceful resolutions. But destroying farmland, endangering children, threatening people with harm and inciting genocide will only lead to more violence.

Summer Celebration 2018 cover

image - JI Summer Celebration 2018 coverPictured on the cover of this year’s Jewish Independent Summer Celebration issue is a great blue heron. Winnifred Tovey, who lives in Vancouver, shot the photograph in Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Park. The heron was a frequent visitor, and Tovey has taken scores of photos of him over the years. When she lived in Strathcona, Tovey would walk to the park and the gardens next door every day after work. The heron would usually hang out in a tree or elsewhere higher up, waiting for the gates to close and the tourists to clear out, but occasionally he’d pose for a picture. Tovey took up photography when she lived in New York City, 2000-2007. Perhaps because New York was such a city, Tovey took to hanging out in wildish places and photographing birds. She’s kept it up ever since.

Holocaust education needed

Common sense prevailed at a meeting of the Pittsburgh school board in the end, although two of nine board members voted against participation in a Holocaust education trip to Poland.

The educational program is funded by the nonprofit organization Classrooms Without Borders at no cost to the school district. Nevertheless, one board member insisted that Pittsburgh schools are doing enough Holocaust education and that the trip could be seen as taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She contended, despite the fact that the funds were granted specifically for the Holocaust education trip, that they should be reallocated to programs that focus on African-American topics, including slavery.

It’s sort of a tempest in a teapot – especially given all the other things going on in the United States and around the world right now – but it is illustrative. Pennsylvania has an excellent record on Holocaust and genocide education, especially since 2014, when the state passed a law to “strongly encourage school entities in this Commonwealth to offer instruction in the Holocaust, genocide and other human rights violations.” That’s a far more specific directive than the British Columbia curriculum requires.

A representative of the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh responded to the board member’s criticism of the Poland trip.

“The notion that a trip to Poland to enhance the quality of Holocaust education in Pittsburgh public schools somehow discriminates against the Palestinian people is incomprehensible at best,” John Sayles told the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle. “What’s more, the insinuation that in order to most effectively teach about slavery we must allocate resources away from Holocaust education, or vice versa, is disturbing, as teaching about these two very important histories are not and should never be mutually exclusive.”

Coincidentally, but not unrelated, educators in Florida made a dubious decision to provide parents with an opportunity to opt their children out of a presentation by a Holocaust survivor. Parents of students at St. James Middle School in Murrells Inlet, Fla., received a letter saying, “We understand that a firsthand account of the atrocities of the Holocaust may be sad or difficult for students to hear. Students may opt out of this assembly and complete an alternative activity. Students who opt out will watch [a] video about the Holocaust in the media centre as an alternative activity.”

The letter assumes that the survivor speaker would not present at a level appropriate to middle schoolers. Second, and more significantly, it implies that difficult aspects of history should be sugarcoated – that was the word used by the survivor.

No matter the topic – the Holocaust, slavery, current events, writing, reading or arithmetic – effective education is delivered at an age-appropriate level. Survivor speakers understand this as well as any teacher.

The opportunity for today’s young people to hear firsthand accounts from witnesses to the Holocaust is a benefit no future generations will receive. To do anything but try to maximize the number who experience this opportunity firsthand is a tremendous loss.

This is especially true when a recent poll commissioned by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany indicates that many Americans are unaware of the most basic facts of the Holocaust. (See jewishindependent.ca/basic-facts-not-known.)

This is fraught territory and headlines can be deceiving, such as the one in Newsweek, which declared: “One-third of Americans don’t believe six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust.” Contrary to the headline, the poll suggested not that these Americans have heard the truth and rejected it, but rather that they have not been educated enough in the topic to have the facts. The issue is not Holocaust denial, in this case, but plain ignorance.

Denial of the facts is one thing, ignorance of them is different and far less malignant. In both cases, the answer is more education, not less.