From the JI – Page 30

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.

Not a voice for peace

The American organization Jewish Voice for Peace claims as its mission the achievement of “a lasting peace for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis based on equality, human rights and freedom.”

As anyone living in 2017 knows, words are occasionally empty vessels, and can at times even express the opposite of what they appear to convey. JVP’s mission is an example.

The JVP website equivocates on whether a one-state or two-state solution is desirable for Israelis and Palestinians. “We support any solution that is consistent with the full rights of both Palestinians and Israeli Jews, whether one binational state, two states, or some other solution. It is up to Israelis and Palestinians to reach a mutually agreed upon solution,” it reads. But a new campaign by the organization is making waves – and showing JVP’s true aims.

The group is calling on young Jews to reject the offer of a free trip to Israel through Birthright. The campaign’s hashtag – #ReturnTheBirthright – underscores JVP’s nonchalance about Jewish self-determination.

Posters for the campaign ask: “How was your trip to Israel? The 5,149,742 Palestinian refugees are curious.”

We could split hairs about the number 5,149,742. Palestinian refugees are defined unlike any other refugees in the world. Thanks to the perpetual Palestinian statelessness created and maintained by the Arab world since 1947-48, and a United Nations definition that makes refugee status an inherited Palestinian birthright, the number of Palestinian “refugees” grows larger by the year.

Explaining the campaign, the group’s website says, “we must acknowledge that the modern state of Israel is predicated on the ongoing erasure of Palestinians. Taking a Birthright trip today means playing an active role in helping the state promote Jewish ‘return’ while rejecting the Palestinian right of return. It is not enough to accept this offer from the Israeli government and maintain a critical perspective while on the trip. We reject the offer of a free trip to a state that does not represent us, a trip that is only ‘free’ because it has been paid for by the dispossession of Palestinians. And, as we reject this, we commit to promoting the right to return of Palestinian refugees.… There are other ways for us to strengthen our Jewish identities, in community with those who share our values. Israel is not our Birthright.”

The campaign invites young Jews to sign a promise declaring: “We are Birthright-eligible Jews between the ages of 18 and 26. We pledge that we will not go on a Birthright trip because it is fundamentally unjust that we are given a free trip to Israel, while Palestinian refugees are barred from returning to their homes.”

There is a host of problems with JVP’s approach. Almost everyone acknowledges that a final agreement between Israelis and Palestinians will include some accommodation for Palestinian refugees. But even top Palestinian officials have acknowledged this is likely to be some sort of compensation or exchange, not a literal and complete right of return that would effectively eliminate Israel’s Jewish majority. By demanding precisely that – a complete and literal right of return for Palestinians, ignoring all the nuance, history, practicalities and implications of such a move – JVP is calling for an end to Israel, despite talk about wanting Israelis and Palestinians to reach a mutually agreed upon solution.

Moreover, if “a lasting peace for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis based on equality, human rights and freedom” is JVP’s genuine objective, they are going about it all wrong. The inevitable outcome of the right of return that is endorsed by JVP would be a Palestinian-majority region between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

There is plenty to criticize in Israel’s approach to Palestinians, particularly by the current government. But, by polarizing the discussion, encouraging Palestinians to expect complete victory without compromise, groups like JVP make things worse, not better.

When both sides compromise and acknowledge that the other has rights, the potential for peaceful coexistence will emerge. Campaigns that deny the Jewish people’s right to sovereignty in their indigenous homeland do not advance a resolution to Palestinian statelessness; they prolong it.

In the meantime, as Jewish university students return to classes this month, we encourage them to travel to Israel, whether on Birthright or another program, and take the opportunity to open their eyes to the world, to look at it critically and refuse entreaties to bury their heads in the sand.

How we memorialize the past

The most recent racist conflagration in the United States was ignited, ostensibly, by the removal (or threatened removal) of Confederate commemorative statues and plaques. We say ostensibly because it seemed some people were just itching for a fight and this issue popped up.

Each community, or each society, must determine who and what it commemorates. It is understandable that African-Americans, among others, would be offended by statues and other historical monuments that adulate those who defended slavery in the U.S. Civil War. Those who decry their removal as an “erasing of history” seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of libraries and museums, which are among the foremost repositories of history. Remembering history is different from venerating it. For example, a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in front of a courthouse is an affront to equality before the law. The same statue in a museum could provide an opportunity for reflection and discussion.

Outside Budapest is a curious outdoor museum featuring dozens of statues and monuments from the communist era. It is a kitschy museum but it invites guests to ponder the propaganda of earlier eras, even admire some of it from a perspective of artwork, but it is decidedly not a place of veneration. It is a clear statement that such works, if they are to be publicly displayed, should be positioned in a way that does not esteem the ideas that inspired them, but instead invites observers to reflect on their meanings and the often catastrophic outcomes of their ideologies.

Similarly, the preservation of Auschwitz and other places of Nazi terror was not done in honour of that terrible time and the evil that defined it, but for the opposite reason: to ensure that future generations face the reality of that history and to inspire people to seek a better future. Context is crucial.

While Americans battle their demons, some Canadians have taken issue with our history and how it is commemorated. The government of Sir John A. MacDonald, Canada’s first prime minister, was responsible for implementing the residential schools system, a past with which most Canadians are only now beginning to grapple. Last month, the Ontario elementary teachers’ union said MacDonald’s name should be stripped from the nine schools in that province that are named for him. By that logic, we would eliminate his visage from our $10 bills and remove his statues and other likenesses from our public spaces.

Should we? Well, if Canadians had a thoroughgoing national discussion on the subject and a consensus clearly emerged that what was bad about MacDonald outweighs that which was good, then yes. But we should not jump in willy-nilly, thoughtlessly applying the values of today upon people of the past. To be clear: the residential schools system was an atrocity and a national disgrace; we know this now. How we attempt to rehabilitate our country and make amends for this awful history is a discussion in which we are immersed. The veneration of figures who were party to that history invites a legitimate and thoughtful reconsideration – neither those whose knee-jerk reaction is to tear down statues, nor those who reflexively balk at the very idea, are exhibiting the sort of approach we need. Ontario’s elementary school teachers, for example, may have missed the mark. If ever there were a teaching opportunity, it would be to engage young Canadians in critical thinking about why their school is named for the first prime minister, why some people think that’s problematic, and how empathy toward minorities is key to a better future.

But we should be careful in determining the measuring stick we apply. In considering the legacies of any public figure who lived more than a couple of decades ago, we would be hard-pressed to find one who would measure up to today’s standards on the rights and roles of Canadian indigenous peoples, Jews, women, gay people, or really any minorities. One might even argue: Who are we to judge? Are we assuming this generation has reached the moral summit of civilization? The state of the world today suggests we have much left to do to advance tikkun olam. Future generations will not likely give us any great kudos for perfecting humanity.

In the end, we cannot fathom how our descendants will view us and our behaviours. If, as now seems tragically inevitable, human-created climate change wreaks havoc on our world, future generations may look at our car driving, energy consumption and jet vacations as the direct cause and remove the names and likenesses of even the best of our generation from their schools and public squares.

By all means, we should consciously consider representations of our past and whether they are appropriate or inappropriate for our times. It is a discussion worth having, but we should have that discussion before we go racing around tearing down monuments and renaming schools.

Progress on anti-racist front

An estimated 4,000 to 5,000 people showed up at Vancouver City Hall Aug. 19 to protest a planned racist rally. (photo by Cynthia Ramsay)

A week after the tragedy in Charlottesville, Va., British Columbians faced the prospect of a clash between racist, anti-immigrant and neo-Nazi activists and their opponents.

An estimated 4,000 to 5,000 people showed up at Vancouver City Hall Aug. 19 to protest a planned racist rally. Among those at the counter-rally were members of the Jewish community, including several wearing kippot and at least one draped in an Israeli flag.

For those in attendance, it was an odd and strangely uplifting time. As it turned out, most attendees never came in contact with those they came to protest. Many left the event thinking that the other side never showed up. For all intents, they didn’t. Apparently, a couple of extremists appeared at one point but their voices were quickly drowned out. The counter-rally turned out to be the main event.

Since the sound system at the gathering was terrible, most of the crowd couldn’t hear the words of the pro-diversity speakers. For the record, the event was organized by an ad hoc group and the speakers included Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, Ravi Kahlon, the parliamentary secretary for sport and multiculturalism in the new B.C. government, several indigenous representatives and people from a range of faith and multicultural organizations, including Independent Jewish Voices. (Anyone complaining that their own particular views were not represented on the official roster of speakers should bear in mind that we are all free to organize our own rallies, as this ad hoc group did, and those who organize such events are free to invite whoever they like to speak.)

There were concerns by some that the sort of anti-Zionist (and arguably antisemitic) undertones that pervaded some “progressive” events in the United States recently might pop up here, but there appeared to be nothing of the sort. One speaker – one of the few who could be heard, because she led the group in a boisterous chant – specifically identified Jews as brothers and sisters. It was reassuring and welcome.

The crowd was wonderfully diverse, including people of apparently every culture, religion and identity, milling about enjoying witty and positive handmade signs and running into old and new friends. It is probably safe to say that those who attended left feeling encouraged by the show of solidarity in the face of hatred, while social media responses suggest those who did not attend believe the crowd of thousands made the province and the country proud.

A similar event – on an even grander scale – was taking place at roughly the same time in Boston, with roughly as positive an outcome. Elsewhere in America, however, wildfires of hatred fanned by winds directly from the West Wing of the White House continued to spread, with one incident of particular concern to Jews.

Richard Spencer, one of the emerging leaders of white supremacism in the United States, told an Israeli TV interviewer that his “white nationalism” is essentially the same as Zionism.

Jonathan A. Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League, writing online at the Forward, summarized the stupidity of this comparison.

“Richard Spencer’s movement is based on hate, racism, negativity and exclusion,” wrote Greenblatt. “Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people in the Jews’ historic homeland, is based on providing for equal opportunity for the Jewish people, like others, to have sovereignty in their land while still fully protecting the rights of minorities who live within Israel. At its core, Zionism is a positive movement and is not intended to be ‘against’ anyone.”

Of course, as Churchill said, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. The equation of Zionism with racism is an idea we have been battling for four decades. Originating from the Muslim bloc at the United Nations, it has been happily incorporated by many organizations of the left.

But things are changing quickly. In just the past week, while the U.S. president has effectively endorsed the Charlottesville racists (or, at the very least, equivocated between good and evil), a new urgency has emerged among anti-racist advocates.

Sometimes, something good comes out of something terrible and, as we said last week in this space, Charlottesville may be a turning point.

In another example, the March for Racial Justice – potentially one of the most significant such rallies in recent U.S. history – has been scheduled for Washington, D.C., on Yom Kippur. The sadness, disappointment and anger expressed by Jews over this timing resulted in what appears to be a deeply heartfelt, apologetic and, honestly, beautiful response from organizers, including the observation: “Our mistake highlights the need for our communities to form stronger relationships.”

This incident is a reminder, much needed, perhaps, not to write off potential allies. We are experiencing an unprecedented lack of moral leadership from what was once deemed the leadership of the free world. That moral vacuum will be filled. As the battle for space in this time of change proceeds, we must continue to make the case for our place in a multicultural society and for Israel’s place in the world.

Charlottesville a turning point?

(photo by Ryan M. Kelly via cbc.ca)

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.

Celebrating community

The Jewish Independent begins its three-week summer break now, and we wish you a relaxing and rejuvenating time in the sun. You can stay in touch by visiting our website and, if you do not already, please follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. While we are away, we have a favour to ask – we would love it if you would help us identify some of the young people in our community who are doing amazing things.

The Independent is planning a Chai Celebration on Dec. 6, marking the 18th year of the current era of the paper’s almost nine-decade history. It has been 18 years since Cynthia Ramsay became publisher of the paper, and we are marking the occasion by recognizing a new generation of community leaders, movers, shakers, thinkers, doers and all-around awesome people under the age of 36 who are contributing to the well-being and growth of our community, Israel and/or working toward making the world a better place.

A central component of the Chai Celebration is the 18 Under 36 awards, and we are asking you to help identify 18 young people who deserve recognition in a variety of endeavours. Nominations will be reviewed by a panel and 18 individuals will be selected in categories that include philanthropy and volunteering, business and technology, education and continuity, arts and culture, health and wellness. (Additional suggestions are welcome.) Nominees must be residents of British Columbia and either be Jewish or be making positive contributions to the Jewish community or Israel.

In addition to identifying excellent nominees, there are more ways for you to be involved in this exciting celebration. We are seeking sponsors for nomination categories and awards, and for other components of the event. We are requesting silent-auction, raffle and prize donations.

You know that this is a challenging time for print media. The Jewish Independent is a vital community forum, a place that reflects and represents the diverse identities, ideas, denominations and issues that make our community what it is. We are able to do this because we are not a nonprofit organization that represents one group’s particular interests. We are a small business that strives to serve each and every organization and member of the community, and we depend on readers and advertisers – and those who have generously answered our occasional calls for donations – to do so.

If there are times when what you read in these pages challenges your assumptions or expands your horizons, or even unsettles you from time to time, then part of our mandate has been fulfilled. But, in addition to challenging assumptions and encouraging new ways of thinking about ideas ancient and fresh, the paper is also, we hope, a community message board, a few minutes a week with a trusted friend, an entertainment guide, a neighbourhood chat and more. We hope that you regard the paper as an important institution in our community.

We sometimes hear you say that you wish there were more pages in a given week. We wish that, too. The number of pages reflects the revenue generated through advertising. We want to offer you the best product possible and want to partner with community businesses and organizations to bring you the best reporting and most informative community news. It is advertising revenue that allows us to pay writers, meet rent, buy equipment, print the paper, mail and distribute the issue, and develop the digital components that allow us to advance in a changing media landscape. When revenues are lower, we must reduce our costs, hence, those smaller-than-average issues.

This December’s celebration is an invitation for our community to come together and support independent Jewish media in British Columbia – as well as to celebrate our community, enjoy a great show and have some fun. We hope you will be a part of it.

For more information, email Ramsay at [email protected]. To nominate someone you know under the age of 36 (as of Dec. 7, 2016) who deserves recognition, email Ramsay or message the JI via one of our social media platforms and tell us a bit about your nominee and why they should be the winner. And please spread the word – #18under36 is underway!

On restitution

The government of Canada has apologized to Omar Khadr and awarded him $10.5 million in damages. Khadr is a Canadian citizen whose parents took him as a child to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Fifteen years ago, on July 27, 2002, a firefight took place in which Khadr, then 15, was wounded and a U.S. soldier, Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, was killed.

Khadr was arrested and incarcerated at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he pleaded guilty to throwing the grenade that killed Speer. Khadr later said he confessed falsely in the hope of returning to Canada. However, the facts of the firefight, whether Khadr was guilty or not guilty, whether he was a terrorist or a coerced child soldier-victim, are not relevant to the apology or the compensation.

The decision to apologize and pay Khadr millions of dollars is a result of a $20 million civil suit that Khadr launched after the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously determined that the Canadian government’s interrogation of Khadr while he was at Guantanamo “offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.” The civil suit claimed that Canadian officials violated his rights, interrogating him when he was a minor, in the absence of legal representation. He also claims to have been subjected to torture, which would be consistent with the history of Guantanamo and evidence in the public realm.

The decision to apologize and compensate turns on this point: even if Khadr were guilty, the government of Canada did not adequately protect the rights and well-being of one of its citizens; indeed, it was complicit in their violation and acted outside of the rule of our own nation’s laws.

We can all make our own assessment of right and wrong in this case. But the Supreme Court of Canada made the key judgment about the legal foundation of Khadr’s case and the federal government – facing the alternative of almost certain failure in defending itself in the civil case, resulting in a much greater cost to taxpayers – opted to pay Khadr $10.5 million.

Whether it is First Nations land claims and residential schools payouts, symbolic payment to the Chinese-Canadian community for the head tax on their ancestors or compensation to Japanese-Canadians who were deprived of their property and forcibly sent to internment camps during the Second World War, money and an apology are poor substitutes for justice.

Money and an apology will not return lost years or family members. They cannot heal physical or mental wounds, though the money can help pay for medical and psychological treatment. Apologies and reparations cannot undo the harm done. But they can help hold our government and society accountable and, ultimately, that serves us all well.

Express your opinion

The good news is we’re again debating “who is a Jew.” This is good news, of course, only because it’s a topic that divides Jews mostly when external threats abate enough to allow the luxury of pilpul around denominational rights and definitions.

We can only assume that the state of the world – the Iranian threat, the unhinged American administration, Syria in collapse – looks fine enough from the Israeli prime minister’s office that we have the freedom to indulge in family squabbles.

A year-and-a-half ago, the Israeli government finally agreed to create an egalitarian prayer space at the Western Wall. The Charedim who legally control Israel’s Jewish religious character, including practices at the Wall, have imposed a strict gender division on prayer and ritual at the holy site. This has sent the message to Conservative, Reform and other non-Orthodox Jews that the holy site is not wholly theirs and, by extension, that their forms of Judaism are not authentic or proper. The creation of an egalitarian section was hailed as putting an end to a painful and divisive aspect of Israeli-Diaspora relations.

An egalitarian space would permit families to visit the Kotel together, allow girls to read from the Torah during their bat mitzvahs and give women the right to pray out loud, rather than following the existing rules by which women must pray quietly so that their voices may not be heard by men on the other side of the divided plaza. The agreement for a new egalitarian space would not alter the existing men’s and women’s areas, but rather add a new, third space, south of the traditional prayer areas.

At the time the agreement was reached, Anat Hoffman, chair of the board of Women of the Wall, a group that has been at the fore in advancing the goal of an egalitarian space and whose members are routinely arrested for praying at the Kotel with prayer shawls, said the decision by Israel’s cabinet was an acknowledgment “that there is more than one way to be Jewish.”

Last week, the Netanyahu government changed its mind and decided there is not.

Bending to pressure from the ultra-Orthodox members of his coalition, the proverbial tail that so often wags the dog in Israel’s political system, Netanyahu called a snap vote on whether the decision taken in January 2016 to create the egalitarian space should indeed proceed. Ministers who last year voted in favour last week voted against.

In for a penny, in for a pound, the government at the same time advanced a bill that would reinstate the Orthodox monopoly on conversions and lifecycle events, including marriage and burials. Among the implications is that Jews not converted under the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate – in other words, by Conservative, Reform or other non-Orthodox rabbis – would not be recognized as Jews.

On most issues, Israel should take Diaspora concerns into consideration only secondarily to what is right for Israel. We have said in this space before, for instance, that Israeli defence policies should be determined with the security of Israelis as the priority, not the comfort of Diaspora Jews who have to live with the political consequences, but not the life-and-death consequences facing Israelis.

This is different. Rules regarding prayer at the Western Wall – who, where and how – should be made with the interests of the Jewish people – not just Israelis – foremost in mind. Of course, if the rules were made with the majority of Israelis in mind, they would reflect the diversity of religious observance both in Israel and in the Diaspora. Instead, what we have is a narrow reflection of ultra-Orthodox priorities that is more a result of political realities in the Knesset than religious reality anywhere outside that chamber.

Ultimately, these decisions are a result of political, not religious, considerations. The political needs of the Netanyahu government’s coalition appear to be superseding the Jewish state’s respect for diversity and pluralism within the global Jewish peoplehood.

“We believe in Jewish unity, not uniformity,” states a letter to Netanyahu signed by scores of Canadian rabbis. “The spectrum of Jewish practice is diverse, but it need not lead to divisiveness. Our differences are eclipsed by all that unites us: millennia of shared history and a shared future. What happens to Jews today – no matter where they live or where they attend synagogue – invariably affects us all.… We are an indivisible people, which is why we are deeply concerned by these and any other actions that unnecessarily foment division within amcha.”

Most of us do not have a vote in Israel, but each of us has a voice. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs is urging each of us to contact the Israeli embassy to express our views on this vital matter. Please do.