From the JI – Page 36

Transit is a Jewish issue

For most Jewish-related services – cultural events, organizational meetings, day schools, high school, camps, Jewish social services – travel is required. (photo by Arnold C via commons.wikimedia.org)

Although there are multiple levels of government in Canada, it is often said, there is only one taxpayer. So it is frustrating to see necessary public policy delayed by intergovernmental squabbling.

This is what’s happening right now with plans for the future of transportation in Metro Vancouver. A year ago, area voters rejected a referendum proposal that would have seen increased taxes to fund better transit. Stagnation has been the status of transit policy since then.

In the budget tabled in March, the federal government ponied up $370 million for transit in the region.

Last week, the provincial government announced $246 million over a three-year period to improve bus and SeaBus service, purchase more SkyTrain cars and launch “initial work towards new major rapid transit in Vancouver and Surrey.”

The provincial minister in charge of TransLink, Peter Fassbender, said he expects Metro Vancouver municipalities to raise $124 million more, for a total of $740 million over three years.

Mayors of Metro municipalities have a grander scheme – to the tune of $7.5 billion over 10 years, which they would see funded through transit fare and property tax hikes, the sale of some TransLink property and more tolls on bridges and roads.

In this space, we are more accustomed to taking on manageable issues like Middle East peace rather than the seemingly intractable difficulties of moving residents of Metro Vancouver from one part of the region to another. But the issue of transportation is having serious ramification for Metro Vancouverites and things will only get worse if something nearly revolutionary doesn’t happen soon.

This has already had and will continue to have specific implications for ethnocultural communities, including the Jewish community. Real estate realities have driven successive generations of Jewish community members out of the erstwhile “Jewish neighborhood” of Oakridge, the heydays of which will be recalled in an upcoming exhibit of the Jewish Museum and Archives of British Columbia.

Reflecting trends that transcend cultural boundaries, home buyers have moved in concentric circles in recent decades, outward from the city proper, first across the bridges to Richmond and the North Shore, then further east and south. Nearly half – 46% – of Metro Vancouver’s Jews now live outside the city limits, with recent years having seen notable increases in the Jewish populations of Surrey/White Rock, the Tri-Cities and the areas of Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and Langley. While there are nodes of Jewish life in each of these locations, there is no doubt that, for most Jewish-related services – cultural events, organizational meetings, day schools, high school, camps, Jewish social services – travel is required.

The Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver has long recognized the particular challenges of providing services to and maintaining cohesion among a community spread across a large geographic space. A recent effort, Connect Me In, is surveying Jewish British Columbians who live outside Vancouver and asking how the communal umbrella agency can serve their needs.

Federation is trying to provide services to people where they live so that it is less necessary to come “into the city.” Yet even the best laid plans well executed cannot erase the barriers of time and space between, say, Squamish and 41st and Oak. Moreover, the delivery of services where Jewish people live will still require some movement … from the core outward.

Maintaining cohesion within our community in such a situation depends both on the ability of our community agencies to respond to the needs, as well as the desire of suburbanites to maintain connection to the Jewish community. It also depends, in ways we should not underestimate, on the simple ability to move from Point A to Point B in the Lower Mainland. Transit is a Jewish issue.

Be prepared to speak up

On Sunday, it appeared that Norbert Hofer had been elected president of Austria. By Monday, when absentee ballots were counted, he had lost by a mere 31,000 votes out of 4.6 million. The election captured worldwide attention because Hofer represents the Austrian Freedom Party, one of a string of extreme-right parties catching fire across Europe.

Hofer’s defeat was a relief to many, including Jewish organizations, but the narrowness of it is being declared a wake-up call. It wouldn’t be the first such warning. There have been multiple close calls, going as far back as 2002, when Jean-Marie Le Pen, the antisemitic founder of France’s Front National, made it to the presidential runoff. But never has any far-right figure come as close as Hofer to becoming head of state of a European country.

Hofer’s campaign of anxiety and scapegoating used Middle East immigration and associated (and unassociated) crime as an accelerant. As is happening in various places, including the “Brexit” referendum in the United Kingdom on June 23, countries are reconsidering their positions as part of the larger community of European nations. Part of this, again, goes back to the immigration issue, as some seek to bring immigration decision-making back to national capitals from the European Union.

While Europe appears a hotbed of emerging far-right parties, some Israelis are sounding the alarms over recent events there.

Over the past few days, Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has closed the door on a possible unity government with the left-leaning Zionist Union, setting the stage for an alliance with Yisrael Beitenu, and its leader, Avigdor Lieberman, to become defence minister, a position that Moshe Ya’alon abandoned in a flurry of disgust and condemnation of Netanyahu last week.

Some commentators say the result will be the most right-wing government Israel has ever seen. Ehud Barak, former Labor Party prime minister, said the developments amounted to “the seeds of fascism.” Three-time defence minister Moshe Arens predicts a “political earthquake.”

Lieberman, a settler himself and a leader in the movement representing Jews who live outside the Green Line, has a strong base among Russian immigrants, of which he is also one, and a reputation for antagonizing Palestinians and international diplomats. Originally a high-level member of Netanyahu’s Likud, Lieberman broke with Netanyahu over what he saw as Netanyahu’s overly conciliatory approach to the Palestinians during the 1997 negotiations that resulted in the Wye River Memorandum. Lieberman opposed Ariel Sharon’s Gaza disengagement and dismisses land for peace – the primary approach Israel has operated under for years in negotiations with its neighbors – as a “critical mistake” that will destroy Israel.

Suffice to say that politics is a vocation that invites hyperbole. Yet developments in many places – in Europe, in the United States, in Israel – invite strong reactions. The political spectrum has changed; terminology and policies differ with the times. While antisemitism has always been a defining characteristic of the far-right, some extreme-right European parties are now highly pro-Israel and eerily even philosemitic, seeing Israel as a bulwark against the “real” enemy – Islamism (or, less specifically, as is their wont: Islam). While the United States has seen its share of demagogues, it is equally true that, should fascism of some native form find root there, it would almost certainly be led by a buffoon who people underestimated for too long.

Canada sometimes seems like a blessed island in a roiling world – something we should never take for granted. It may be tempting to be smug, but instead Canadians should use our comfort and whatever influence we have to evangelize, to reclaim a phrase, for a world where moderation and tolerance prevail. While we might be more comfortable currently with politely withholding our opinions, the time may be upon us when we are truly called upon to register our disapproval of events – next door, in Israel or anywhere. We shouldn’t be afraid to speak up.

A healthy community

There are more than 26,000 Jews who live in Metro Vancouver. There is no possible way that a weekly newspaper can cover every event that happens, every milestone that is celebrated and every challenge that we face. But each week that we publish, we can provide a glimpse into the state of our community. And what we see is heartening.

Last week, for instance, our community hosted both Daniel Pipes and Achinoam Nini, two people firm and outspoken in their political beliefs. One could safely argue they represent near-opposite ends of the spectrum in this regard, and yet they both have a place and an audience in our community. This is healthy.

As well, while Nini’s Yom Ha’atzmaut concert sold out, there were some who chose not to attend because they disagreed with her politics. A handful of them protested peacefully outside of the concert; others chose to hold their own Israel Independence Day gathering. Our community can accommodate varied interests and opinions without coming apart at the seams. This is positive.

Currently on display at the Zack Gallery is a group exhibit inspired by Festival Ha’Rikud. The festival brought together dancers from Metro Vancouver, Miami and Kiryat Shmona to perform folk dances with elements from places such as Russia, Yemen, Georgia, Greece and Morocco. And the art exhibit, A Tapestry of Cultures, also celebrates “the diversity as well as commonality of the social groups and micro-societies that make up Israeli culture.” This is enriching.

With a strong understanding of their own culture and religion as their foundation, Vancouver Talmud Torah Grade 6 students have been exploring other faiths and spiritual practices. The students identified similarities and differences across the religions, and their essays show the breadth of what they’ve learned and the enthusiasm with which they have learned it. This is inspiring.

Tikkun olam even finds its way into the publication of a new novel for young adults, with the author donating 10% of the proceeds from sales to charity. And a high-tech entrepreneur is trying to save us from ourselves, and allow us to really – not just virtually – connect with each other via social media. These acts are motivating.

And these stories don’t even touch the surface. We are busy, engaging in the world around us, trying to make it a better place. When we do disagree, it is usually because we care so passionately about the same things. It’s worth stepping back now and then to acknowledge we are part of a community of which we should be deeply proud.

A people or a religion?

Ludicrous as it may sound, it is difficult for some people to understand what Jews are. To be Jewish is to be part of a peoplehood. To adhere to Judaism means one practises the religion of the Jewish people. Yet one can be Jewish and not practise Judaism. This may be called variously humanistic Judaism, cultural Judaism or any number of other imaginative descriptors.

At root, Jewishness is both a peoplehood and a religious identity, sometimes overlapping, sometimes not. This is problematic because it means Jews do not fit neatly into the categories the world likes to assign people. This becomes increasingly difficult as the world moves further toward communicating even complex ideas in 140 characters or less.

Writing in Haaretz Monday, Joel Braunold, executive director for the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance for Middle East Peace and a former leading member of Britain’s National Union of Students, says the antisemitism being exhibited by members of the U.K. Labor Party and the NUS stems at least in part from leftists’ refusal to see Jews as a national group and instead narrowly defining Jews as adherents of a religion.

Braunold makes some insightful observations about how self-identified anti-racism activists can treat Jews differently. In one instance, he writes, an ostensibly anti-racist group distributed flyers lamenting the Holocaust’s toll on Roma, homosexuals and members of other groups, while not mentioning the Shoah’s Jewish victims. They are doing Jews a favor, Braunold says some have told him, by not falling into the Hitlerian trap of defining Jews through racial categorization.

Dejudaizing the Holocaust, obviously, is appalling. Yet there is a far more common approach employed almost universally by people condemning antisemitism. It is the seemingly well-intentioned habit of condemning antisemitism and then carrying on to list many other forms of discrimination. In other words, while it is fully acceptable – as it should be – to condemn anti-black racism when it occurs in the United States or elsewhere without numerating a laundry list of other forms of racism that are unacceptable, it seems almost impossible for many people, including some elected officials, to condemn antisemitism without subsequently providing an exhaustive list of other bigotries that deserve denunciation.

It is hard to argue that this is a sign of ill will. After all, every opportunity to condemn discrimination of every kind is a good opportunity. But when it seems anti-Jewish animus is the only one that cannot be singularly condemned, it should raise questions. We can condemn Islamophobia, misogyny, historical and contemporary treatment of indigenous Canadians, inequality of minorities in Western societies, the historical wrongs perpetrated on Chinese and Indian immigrants (or would-be immigrants who were prevented from entry) to Canada and all range of other victims, yet condemnations of antisemitism seem to need qualifiers.

It may be precisely that Jewishness is confusing to some – is it a religion or is it a national identity? – that allows people to behave the way they do toward Jews. I can’t be racist, one might say, because Judaism is a religion and I should be free to criticize religion.

There is also, in contemporary Canada, a stream of anti-religiosity. “Imagine there’s no countries … and no religion too,” John Lennon sang in an anthem of a generation of dreamers.

In addition to antipathy toward religion, there is a stream of anti-nationalism at play. Some of the criticism of Israel stems from the dream of a post-national world, where, to quote Lennon again, there is “nothing to kill or die for.”

And yet, many who subscribe to some variation of this quest for an ideal post-nationalistic world by targeting for elimination the one state of the Jewish people, a people whose statelessness was the primary reason six million were able to be murdered seven decades ago, should be an obvious indicator of misplaced priorities. Especially when many of these same activists support Palestinian national self-determination, but not the Jewish version.

In his Haaretz piece, Braunold posits a unique motivator for some of the attitudes we see on the left toward Jews. It may not be the magic key that explains it all, but it is a part of the puzzle.

UNESCO a mockery

There are those who envision a future without Israel in it. No one knows what the future holds, yet there are some who, in their enthusiasm for a future without a Jewish state, are reinventing the past.

Last week, UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, passed a resolution that effectively negates millennia of Jewish history at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The holiest site in Judaism and the physical centre of the Jewish world, is the place where the first and second temples stood. The remnants of the Second Temple, the Western Wall, is the place on earth toward which Jews have prayed for 2,000 years when they have not been able to pray at the Wall itself.

The land is contested because, in the eighth century, Al-Aqsa Mosque was constructed on the site of the temples’ ruins. To be generous, the Jews may have been there first, but it is nevertheless a holy site for Muslims as well. Tell that to UNESCO. According to the wildly ahistorical resolution last week, Jewish claims of ancient connection to the place are bogus.

The resolution, which repeatedly refers to Israel as the “Occupying Power,” includes a litany of offenses allegedly perpetrated by Israel and Israelis, including “storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif by the Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces,” and accuses Israel of “planting Jewish fake graves.”

In addition to pages of condemnations of Israel, the resolution repeats familiar accusations that deny any Jewish connection to Judaism’s holiest site.

The resolution was submitted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar and Sudan, countries that each have their own unique challenges that nevertheless do not detract from their obsession with imagined Jewish slights against Islam.

But the resolution was supported by numerous ostensible allies of Israel, including France, Spain and Sweden, as well as Russia. The United States, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom voted against. (Canada is not on UNESCO’s executive board.)

This sort of nonsense spewed up from agencies of the UN, to say nothing of the General Assembly, further undermines the legitimacy of what could be the world’s most valuable international forum and makes a mockery of the vision of the UN’s founders. None of this matters, of course, to the inmates who are running the asylum.

Will the NDP survive?

While there were signs that the New Democratic Party’s rank and file were somewhat ambivalent about Thomas Mulcair’s leadership, the magnitude of the party’s rejection of him Sunday was stunning. Fully 52% of delegates to the party’s national convention in Edmonton voted for a leadership convention, in effect ousting Mulcair as leader.

The NDP, having almost never been a serious contender for government, has generally been accepting of a leader’s inability to win federal elections. But never had the party been so tantalizingly close to power as it was after Jack Layton’s 2011 result, which catapulted the party into official opposition for the first time. In last October’s election, under Mulcair’s leadership, the party returned to its historic levels: a poor third place.

Mulcair’s ability to remain as head of the party after that showing was destined to be a challenge. Many New Democrats never viewed Mulcair as ideologically pure, coming as he did from the Quebec Liberal party. He became leader in part because many believed he had the experience and capability to build on the Layton legacy and lead the NDP into government for the first time. His failure last October to realize that dream was, in retrospect, the end of the story.

The coup was fairly bloodless. There was little overt campaigning against his leadership and each delegate seems to have made their individual decision, which led to a collective rejection unprecedented in federal politics.

In his short speech to the delegates after the vote results were announced Sunday, Mulcair urged the party to come together in unity behind whoever is to replace him. Yet that seems like extraordinarily wishful thinking.

Mulcair, because he embodied the prospect of electoral success, was able to keep a lid on some of the most extreme elements in his party, including the far-left and the anti-Israel extremists (between which there is a great deal of overlap). At the convention that ousted him, the party gave a thumbs-up in principle to the so-called Leap Manifesto, a hard-left document that could probably guarantee electoral failure for a generation. The party also divided sharply between those who see climate change as a priority challenge and those who believe the party must continue to support workers above all, including those in the host province of Alberta whose industries often contribute to global warming.

So, the question may not be whether the party will now take a left-leaning lurch, as the U.K. Labor party has done, or whether it will pursue the more pragmatic path set by Layton and Mulcair, but rather whether the hard-core leftists and the pragmatic centrists can coexist at all. Especially with the Liberal party sucking the air from the centre-left of the political spectrum, whether the NDP can maintain any sort of cohesion is a bigger question than who will be the next leader.

Reflections on Pesach

Passover is coming next week, yet it seems to have been with us in spirit a great deal this year. Many Jewish individuals and congregations in Vancouver and elsewhere have been involved in welcoming Syrian and Iraqi refugees fleeing tyranny and violence. And, almost inevitably, part of the justification for helping has been the Exodus story.

Through our religious teachings and rituals, we are engaged in applying the experiences of the past to the events of the present. The Pesach story is certainly applicable when a people is in need of refuge. So is the more recent, and less triumphal, story of the Jewish experience in the 20th century, which saw every nation on earth shut its doors to desperate refugees until it was too late. (See “Refugee policy evolves.”)

As we join together at seder tables around the city and around the world, let us continue to invite the lessons of the past to illuminate our path to the future.

At moments during the holidays, we are encouraged to seek out the transcendent values in our traditions and integrate them into our lives so that we can make a better world. It is clear from the work being done to aid refugees that these values are already well entrenched in so many individuals and congregations. Let this Passover be a time of rededication for all of us to the values that welcome the stranger, show gratitude, celebrate freedom and hasten the world we seek.

Pragmatic, dirty choices

Franklin Roosevelt famously replied to his secretary of state’s assessment of the Nicaraguan strongman Anastasio Somoza Debayle – “Somoza’s a bastard!” – with the rejoinder “Yes, but he’s our bastard.”

Politics makes strange bedfellows. International relations perhaps even more so. The world today is an intricate puzzle of interlocking and disparate pieces. It was, frankly, cleaner and clearer in the days of FDR, when there was just “us” and “them.” Let it not be overlooked though, that when “them” meant the Nazis, Stalin was among those counted as “us.” Stalin was evil, but he helped defeat Nazism. Is the Western world soiled by our partnership with him? Certainly. Would we choose an alternative history had we the chance? What alternative?

The Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau inherited from the Conservative government of Stephen Harper (among other things) a hot potato in the form of an arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

The previous Conservative government facilitated what is the largest single Canadian manufacturing-export deal ever. General Dynamics Land Systems of London, Ont., will provide light armored vehicles to the Saudi military – a military that helped crush Arab Spring-related uprisings in neighboring Bahrain and in the Shiite areas of eastern Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are also accused of indiscriminate killings in Yemen, where they are fighting Iran-backed Islamists.

It deserves to be said that Saudi Arabia relies on trade with customers like Canada because, despite being the world’s second largest oil-producing nation, the Saudis have failed to parlay that windfall into anything lasting. Canada still exports too many raw materials that could be processed at home and sold abroad at added value but, compared with Saudi Arabia, we are the model of a diversified economy. Since the Saudi oil boom began, the country has invested nearly nothing in anything else, unless exporting Wahhabism is a tertiary industry, which, actually, it seems to be.

Famous for publicly scything off the heads of political dissidents, adulterers and others who in the West would be described as next-door neighbors, Saudi Arabia is now pushing to step up executions of gay people because social media is “making too many homosexuals.”

Despite the cuckoo United Nations logic that says Israel is the world’s top human rights violator, Saudi Arabia is actually a perpetrator of some of the world’s most atrocious abuses of human rights, from the extreme (public beheadings) to the mundane (if you consider the right of women to drive cars or show their faces in public mundane).

Paraphrasing FDR, Saudi Arabia is a bastard.

This seems to be the general consensus and helps explain why the (comparatively) new Liberal government is awkward in its defence of the $15 billion arms deal.

Trudeau has said that annulling the deal would hurt Canada’s reputation and, indeed, a democratic government that reneges on the deals made by its predecessors is treading on ice. Future potential customers could well think twice if Canada had a reputation for backing out of major trade deals when the government changes.

On this side of the pragmatic divide, the deal also means about 3,000 jobs for 15 years in southwestern Ontario. So, the Liberal government has made little defence of its decision other than relying on economics and the decency of sticking with a signed deal.

In the National Post last week, Lawrence Solomon made a different case – a moral case – for sticking with the deal. He argues that Saudi Arabia, however repugnant its internal policies may be, is on the frontlines of combating terror in the form of ISIS, Iran and associated menaces and, therefore, deserves our support.

This is a comparatively novel idea. The Canadian government is taking refuge in excuses that the previous government made a deal, that Canadian jobs are at stake and that it has no option. A cartoon in the Toronto Star depicted Trudeau declaring, “My hands are tied” next to a blindfolded victim being led to his beheading, saying, “I know how you feel.”

Yet maybe Trudeau’s argument should have been more along the lines of Solomon’s. It is not impossible, using some creative logic as Solomon did, to make the case that selling military equipment to the Saudis is in our national interest. Do we wish it were not so? In an ideal world, all our allies would be righteous and all our enemies defeated. But, in a real world as fractured and dangerous as ours, choosing to support unsavory allies to defeat unsavory enemies may be something we need to learn to swallow.

The legendary FDR quote is held up as a model of foreign policy pragmatism, if not ruthlessness. Canadians – especially this lily-white new government – like to think of ourselves as above such sullying choices. If we want to have the impact in the world that Trudeau seemed to be referencing with his “Canada is back” sloganeering, he may have to admit that sometimes we need to get our hands dirty.

At the very least, tough choices should be confronted, not shirked. If it is immoral and wrong to sell military equipment to the Saudis, we shouldn’t do it, and damn the consequences. If it is justifiable on the grounds that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then we should trade with the Saudis and make our moral case clearly. But we should not try to have it both ways, slapping down the Saudis with one hand while taking their money with the other.

In the UN, on campus

Canada’s foreign minister has called on the United Nations Human Rights Council to review the appointment of Canadian law professor Michael Lynk as its special rapporteur on human rights in Palestine.

Last week, Stéphane Dion tweeted (because that is how diplomacy happens these days): “We call on @UN_HRC President to review this appointment & ensure Special Rapporteur has track record that can advance peace in region #HRC.”

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs has denounced the appointment of the University of Western Ontario academic, who has been associated with anti-Israel activities in Canada. Lynk has said that Israel should be prosecuted for “war crimes,” he accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” has spoken at conferences that reject a two-state solution and serves as a leader in a group that promotes Israel Apartheid Week.

While Dion questioned the wisdom of appointing Lynk, CIJA went further, arguing that the position itself is illegitimate.

“It is ludicrous that this is the UN’s only special rapporteur focused on the human rights of a particular community,” said Shimon Koffler Fogel, CIJA’s chief executive officer. “It is likewise shameful that the special rapporteur refuses to investigate the abuse of Palestinian rights by the Palestinian leadership, particularly Hamas in Gaza. In so doing, the special rapporteur obscures genuine human rights violations in the Middle East and the underlying obstacles to Israeli-Palestinian peace.”

A related conflict blew up in academia last week. Just as the appointment of an avowed anti-Zionist as UN rapporteur surely will not advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the complete disavowal of the existence of antisemitism on campuses will not promote intellectual discourse or peace.

In the wake of ongoing efforts by the BDS movement to boycott Israeli academics and force universities to divest from Israeli holdings, while occasionally nastily intimidating Jewish students on campuses across North America, the University of California board of regents recently passed a statement condemning antisemitism, along with 10 principles against intolerance as a whole. It is the result of several months’ research and consultation.

The statement that introduces the principles is an amended version of an earlier expression that would have condemned anti-Zionism. Instead, it condemns “antisemitic forms of anti-Zionism.” If the only state in the world targeted for elimination is the only Jewish one, it should be an uphill battle to continue the charade that anti-Zionism is not equivalent to antisemitism, or at least driven by it to a large degree. Nevertheless, the regents’ statement is a starting point for increased civility on campuses that have seen, they note, “an increase in incidents reflecting antisemitism…. These reported incidents included vandalism targeting property associated with Jewish people or Judaism; challenges to the candidacies of Jewish students seeking to assume representative positions within student government; political, intellectual and social dialogue that is antisemitic; and social exclusion and stereotyping.”

Some critics say the statement is designed to stifle opposition to Israeli policies. Others say it could harm free speech. Yet others say it didn’t go far enough, in that it didn’t condemn bigotry against other specific groups.

None of these objections holds water. While the working group’s report might have been initiated by concerns over antisemitism, the document speaks to many other forms of intolerance: “University policy prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender expression, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), genetic information (including family medical history), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, service in the uniformed services, or the intersection of any of these factors.”

As for free speech, including, presumably, that about Israel, the document stresses the importance of freedom of expression and of inquiry: “The university will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them.” And, it notes: “Each member of the university community is entitled to speak, to be heard and to be engaged based on the merits of their views, and unburdened by historical biases, stereotypes and prejudices.”

But: “Regardless of whether one has a legal right to speak in a manner that reflects bias, stereotypes, prejudice and intolerance, each member of the university community is expected to consider his or her responsibilities as well as his or her rights … mutual respect and civility within debate and dialogue advance the mission of the university, advance each of us as learners and teachers, and advance a democratic society.”

The UN – and many others – could learn a thing or two from UC’s regents.

Trump at what cost?

“I didn’t come here tonight to pander to you about Israel,” Donald Trump told the AIPAC conference Monday evening, before proceeding to do exactly that.

In his unique rhetorical way, Trump ticked off every box on the AIPAC agenda, and then some. He also ticked off a number of rabbis and other delegates who condemned and protested his presence at the event. Trump’s history of making statements that are sexist and racist, his sluggishness at disavowing the support of neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klanners, his making fun of a disabled reporter and a litany of other offences convinced some AIPAC attendees that Trump should be either disinvited or boycotted.

They were wrong, because this was an opportunity for Trump to clarify or otherwise explain his behaviors. Of course, he didn’t, which was an opportunity missed. Trump came on – uncharacteristically – with a prepared text distributed in advance to media. What he read was a fulsome reversal of his statement just days earlier that he would be neutral between Israel and the Palestinians.

Trump’s repeated invocation of the term “believe me” is almost a verbal tic and it belies a tendency to express the unbelievable.

“Nobody respects women more than I do,” Trump told CNN Monday night. If we were to believe him, women would be among the only people Trump seems to respect. When any individual criticizes him, Trump lashes out with the most juvenile, personal and insulting terms, not least repeatedly referring to his fellow Republicans Cruz and Rubio as “Lying Ted” and “Little Marco.”

Within days, Trump pivoted from “neutrality” to a no-holds-barred defence of Israel that would make Binyamin Netanyahu (whom Trump calls “Bibby”) blush. The response he received from the AIPAC crowd verged on enthusiastic. Yet his conversion to Zionism may reflect little more than some good advice, a comparatively competent speechwriter and the ability to unabashedly pander.

Trump promised to dismantle the nuclear deal with Iran and he trashed the United Nations. “When I’m president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish state,” he said.

He condemned the Palestinian incitement of children to hate Israel and Jews. “In Palestinian textbooks and mosques, you’ve got a culture of hatred that has been fomenting there for years,” he said.

He promised to move the American embassy to Jerusalem.

In what amounted to his first significant expression of foreign policy, Trump waded in deep. He wants to reduce American commitments to NATO, specifically citing NATO’s obligation to defend Ukraine. What he doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about is that the United States and Britain made a deal with Ukraine – then the world’s third-largest nuclear power – to eliminate its arsenal in exchange for a promise of protection. Global reaction to Russian aggression betrayed that promise and Trump wants to rub salt in the wound.

This is an example of Trump’s lack of awareness on international affairs. Yet it is unlikely to hurt him with supporters, who forgive his every error and offence and who sometimes seem to idealize a world free of non-Americans.

On CNN after the speech, Trump was asked about the expressions of support he has received from neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klanners and antisemites. “I don’t want their support,” he said, adding: “I don’t need their support.”

Trump is indeed creaming his opponents in the primaries, and it may be a minor rhetorical thing, but would he take their support if he did need it?

Asked by Wolf Blitzer whether he would condemn violence by his supporters, Trump replied, “Of course I would, 100%, but … I have no control over the people.” Then he went on to note that “these people” have been disenfranchised – they lost their jobs and earn less money now than they did 12 years ago, as though this justified violence.

Had Trump’s AIPAC speech occurred in a vacuum – if he had just landed from the proverbial Mars and not for months been spouting hatred toward Muslims, Mexicans, women and anyone who opposes him – the speech might have deserved the applause it received.

Instead, his words were diametrically opposed to what he has said in the past and, even if they weren’t, they are coming from an individual who has done egregious harm to social relations and human decency in public discourse. Even if Trump said everything Jewish people and other friends of Israel wanted to hear, this would not detract from the other things he has said and the other people – including every Muslim in the world – he has deliberately and maliciously affronted.

“I’m going to be great for Israel,” Trump declared, and maybe he would be. But at what cost to the social fabric of his country and the place of the United States in the world?

“When I say something, I mean it, I mean it,” he crowed, despite his blatant reversals. “Believe me, believe me.”