From the JI – Page 5

Kind of a miracle

King Charles was in Canada this week, delivering the Speech from the Throne. It was a monumental moment in many ways, not least because it was the first official visit by the monarch since he ascended to the throne. For those of us whose entire lives have been lived under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, it remains a fascinating and jarring challenge to the tongue to hear the phrase “the King of Canada.”

Paging through back issues of the Jewish Western Bulletin, which preceded the Jewish Independent, one of many striking things is the efforts that Jewish individuals, businesses and other advertisers have taken, over the decades, to express loyalty to king (or queen, as the case more commonly has been) and country.

Knowing what we know of antisemitic tropes, we suspect that this had more than a little to do with the stereotype of “dual loyalty.” Throughout history, Jews have been accused of being more loyal to their “tribe” than to their countries of domicile. Since 1948, this antisemitic idea has been applied to Israel, whose interests Jews today are often accused of prioritizing above the interests of their own countries, like Canada.

The sort of hyper-patriotic and monarchist messages we saw in the pages of this paper in decades past have largely disappeared. The trope of dual loyalty is not the most prevalent or dangerous threat to Jewish security in Canada or most other Western countries at the moment. Put succinctly, those who want to take offence with Jewish Canadians are less likely to go the extra step and accuse us of dual loyalty. They just cut to the chase and contend that any support for Israel at all is evidence of ill-will or immorality.

As we have turned the pages of the past in preparing for this special anniversary issue, that is just one small example of social change reflected from issue to issue in 95 years as an institution in this community.

As much as things have changed, so a great deal has remained the same. It is amusing, heartening and sometimes frustrating to see the repetitive nature of (we suppose) humankind in general and Jewishkind in particular across 10 decades. So many of the same discussions and arguments that our people were engaged in locally and globally 60 or 70 years ago remain on our lips today. More encouragingly, the leaders, activists and influencers (we certainly didn’t use that latter word until far more recent issues) of our community have often shared the same surnames, from the 1930s through to today, and so many new surnames – Jews from myriad different backgrounds – have joined the list of community contributors. The continuity combined with the growth in number and diversity is reassuring.

So much has changed in 95 years, such that the originators of the newspaper you hold in your hands (or, by a previously unimaginable magic of futuristic wonder, are reading on some whirring space-age illuminated rectangle) could not have foreseen.

These are not easy days for print media or, really, legacy media of any variety. We believe, and we hope you share our certainty, that the product we put out, as the latest iteration of a 95-year commitment to informing and reflecting our community, has value today, as it has across most of the past century.

As attention spans have shortened and the media landscape has refracted, keeping eyes on these pages is a challenge. At times, we content ourselves with the belief that the stories we write today will only increase in value as, at some unimaginable future time, and perhaps using some heretofore unimagined technological phenomenon, researchers or people with an avocational curiosity about the past, will finger through what we have written to understand better who we were and, therefore, how the Jewish community of the future became what it is, just as a review of our archives helps us understand how we came to be who we are today.

That a small, plucky newspaper operating on a shoestring at the remote edges of the Jewish universe could survive, and occasionally thrive, across 95 years is, even in the context of the much longer, always extraordinary, history of the Jews, something of a miracle.

This is a moment for us to thank everyone who made this possible, many of whose names have appeared in these pages across the years and many who have not. As a reader and supporter of the Jewish Independent, you are now part of that long legacy of people who have made this moment happen. Thank you for making this milestone possible. More importantly, thank you for making possible our present and our future.

Get involved to change

In the closing days of the recent federal election campaign, CBC’s flagship news program, The National, found it newsworthy enough to run a segment about how many Canadian Jews were supporting the Conservative party, many for the first time. Concerned about the security of Israel and of Jewish communities here in Canada, these voters were attracted by the Conservative party’s pro-Israel expressions and concern for Jewish security domestically.

From this news report, and anecdotally, we know that among those first-time Conservative voters were traditional Liberal and New Democratic party supporters. Canadian Jews have generally leaned more progressive than the general population and, in the 20th century, were far more associated with the Liberal party. This election, however, there was a large number of Jews who made the choice to prioritize the security of our community and support for Israel above some of the other things that might generally determine their ballot choices. This is understandable – but it should never have come to this.

Traditionally, in the United States and Canada, there was a multi-partisan consensus that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. More than this, certainly, Canada’s very identity is founded on the idea that cultural communities feel welcomed and included. But both of these assumptions have frayed, and Jewish voters responded to this changed reality.

The New Democratic and Green parties contain individuals who are highly critical of Israel, including many even high-profile candidates who contest the country’s very right to exist. It is not a surprise that Jews would perceive this opposition to Jewish self-determination in Israel as indifference to the security of Jewish people everywhere.

Meanwhile, as the Conservative party has become even more entrenched as a pro-Israel party, the Liberal party has taken a range of sometimes contradictory positions.

On social media and in a flurry of emails throughout the election campaign, Jewish community members at times accused the Liberal party of being irredeemably antisemitic. But middle-of-the-road political parties tend to be big-tent affairs and this creates tensions. Within the Liberal party, both its parliamentary caucus and its grassroots membership, there are pro-Israel and anti-Israel voices, as well as, we would venture to guess, a large number of people who wish this no-win issue would just go away.

It should never be the responsibility of a Canadian cultural community to beg, plead or lobby for respect for their personal and collective security. Any party that aspires to government should guarantee this as a matter of course. Even so, a political party is, in the end, nothing more than the people who make it up.

Admittedly, our parliamentary system and traditions place a great deal of authority in the prime minister’s office, with power trickling down to cabinet ministers, caucus members, party officers, activists and eventually to grassroots members. Without being too idealistic or delusional about the ability to alter the trajectory of a large ship, the most effective way to influence a party’s policy is still to get involved in it.

It is sometimes said that, if you don’t vote, you can’t complain about the government. This is facile and simply untrue – everyone, in a democracy, is free to both skip the election and kvetch about the outcome. The point, though, is that, small-l liberal Canadian Jews who cast a vote that didn’t align with their values except on Israel and Jewish security might solve their ideological dissonance by getting involved in the party that best represents them on issues other than Israel and Jewish security. If they were able to drag those parties back into a multi-partisan consensus around Israel’s right to defend itself and about the full inclusion of Jews in Canadian multiculturalism, they might not be forced to make such a difficult ballot choice in future elections.

We are all busy. Asking people to take time out to attend often-dull local meetings of federal political parties is kind of a big ask. But those people who felt a moral tug at being “forced” to vote against their social and economic views have an opportunity and a challenge – as does anyone who seeks to influence a party’s policy, either to change it or to support it.

If Jews have been made to feel unwelcome in some political parties, that is the fault of the parties themselves and it is victim-blaming to suggest that a lack of Jewish engagement justifies policies that isolate Jews. Still, changing, or supporting, parties’ policies will be best achieved by more Jews and allies engaging at the grassroots level. If successful, Jews will be able to vote their consciences knowing that their security as Jewish citizens of Canada – and our country’s commitment to the security of the state of Israel – is safe no matter which party wins.

It’s important to vote

You may have received anxious emails or other messages from friends in the last few days. Throughout the community, there is concern about a Vote Palestine campaign for Monday’s federal election. Emails and social media posts are flying.

However wrongheaded you may think this advocacy campaign is, its proponents are doing exactly what they should be doing during an election campaign. They are highlighting the issues that are important to them and encouraging others to support them. You may disagree with the approach and policies, but there is nothing fundamentally different in what they are doing from what plenty of Jews and community organizations are doing right now.

The Vote Palestine campaign is an initiative of several groups of usual suspects, including Independent Jewish Voices and other anti-Israel groups. The platform, which federal election candidates can choose to endorse, calls for a two-way arms embargo on Israel; ending Canadian support for settlements (whatever that means); combating anti-Palestinian racism and protecting pro-Palestine speech; recognizing the state of Palestine; and funding Gaza relief efforts, including through UNRWA, the controversial UN body that has been at the centre of this conflict for almost 80 years.

By press time, 124 New Democrats, 44 Greens and 13 Liberals had endorsed this platform. Given that there are 343 electoral districts in the country and the three largest parties are running candidates in almost every seat, the number of endorsers should be, frankly, a bit of an embarrassment for the campaign’s organizers. Almost all the endorsers are candidates for the New Democratic and Green parties. Of the Liberals who have signed on, just one is in British Columbia: West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country incumbent MP Patrick Weiler.

Most of the candidates who have endorsed the campaign and its platform are unlikely to be elected. That, though, is largely beside the point. The issue, we believe, is not the Vote Palestine campaign, but our community’s overwrought reaction. It is a symptom of a particular sort of impulse that seems to believe people do not have a right to raise issues in an election campaign in the manner that the Vote Palestine organizers are doing.

Though they may not have come across your social media feeds or in other ways to capture your attention, there are probably scores of organizations right now campaigning for or against policies that are important to you. Many organizations are encouraging Canadians to vote based on candidates’ positions on such things as the climate crisis, taxes, housing, and the cost-of-living. Agree or disagree with the positions, many of these campaigns fulfil an important civic purpose, assuming they comply with our country’s election laws around third-party advocacy spending.

The next time you receive an email or catch wind of some sort of advocacy campaign that you disagree with, here is how you should respond: take the anger and energy that you would otherwise direct into sharing your outrage with your friends and family and redirect it instead to something positive, a result you desire and hope to achieve.

Here are a few ideas …

Find out which of your local candidates share your values on the issues most important to you. If you find one that suits you, express your support. Get a lawn sign to let your neighbours know who you support. Donate to their campaign.

Offer to volunteer – it’s not too late! Election day is the most intense time in a campaign. You can drive voters to the polls or otherwise help your preferred candidate. (Check out cjpac.ca for more info.)

Ensure that friends and family go out to vote. Contact them over the weekend to make sure they plan to cast a ballot.

On Monday, message or telephone everyone you know who agrees with you on the issues most important to you and make sure they have voted. Suggest they block out at least an hour or maybe two or even three – advance voting statistics tell us Canadians are deeply engaged this election, so high turnout is expected. Prepare for lineups. Bring water and snacks for yourself and your neighbours in line.

Check the voting card you received in the mail to confirm your polling place so you know where to go on election day. If you did not receive a card in the mail, go to elections.ca right now and ensure you are registered to vote.

Democracy is threatened in countless places around the world. Voting is a right and a privilege we should never take for granted.

Meanwhile, as we know from the flurry of messages making their way around the community in the past few days, people who may disagree with you are planning to vote. They are organized and ready to mobilize. The most important thing you can do in response is to make the trek to your polling place and mark a single X on a ballot.

Test of Bill 22 a failure

A small cluster of anti-Israel activists protested outside the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver last week, apparently assuming incorrectly that an Israeli diplomat was in the building. Regardless of the motivations, the protest was against the law. And police did not enforce the law.

In May of last year, the provincial government passed Bill 22, the Safe Access to Schools Act, which includes provisions known as “bubble zone” legislation. The law prohibits protests that could interfere with or threaten students in schools or engaged in formal school activities off school premises. In other words, if there is a class field trip, say, to the Vancouver Aquarium, it would be illegal for protesters against cetacean captivity to protest there.

Students from King David High School routinely use the gymnasium and other facilities at the JCC. They were there when the protesters were outside. And there was another formal program taking place in the building involving elementary school students. In other words, the law set out under Bill 22 was undeniably broken. (The existing legislation affects only public and private elementary and secondary schools, so the fact that there is a permanent childcare facility in the JCC does not mean protests of the premises are universally prohibited.)

This is a relatively new law, less than a year old, but, of course, police are required to be aware of legislation as it emerges or is amended. It was not, for example, the responsibility of the JCC or others in the building to notify the police that the law was being broken.

At a minimum, police should have ascertained whether there were school programs happening at the JCC and, discovering that there were, informed the protesters that they were in contravention of Bill 22 and ordered them to disperse.

One can agree or disagree with the law, based on free expression. But the law exists and the protesters were breaking it.

This incident speaks to a larger problem.

In recent years, there has been discussion about the need to address online hatred and harassment. Last year, a federal online harms proposal, known as Bill C-63, met with concerns on civil liberties grounds and underwent significant amendments, including being broken into two separate bills. Both bills died on the order paper when the federal election was called last month.

As commentators pointed out during that debate, Canada already has laws prohibiting expressions of hatred and harassment. Should it matter whether those expressions happen online or in person? And, while elected officials are busy passing new laws, existing laws that might remedy the problems they are trying to address are going unenforced.

There are problems in our legal system. Occasionally, police will defend their actions (or inaction, as the current case may be), complaining that when they recommend charges to the prosecution service, the prosecution service does not pursue them.

In turn, prosecutors sometimes contend that courts, too often, do not convict. In each case, it is an example of one level of the system blaming the one above for inaction.

While governments need to step gently and seriously around the danger of political interference in policing, prosecution and the judiciary, it is unequivocally governments – primarily provincial and federal – who have the responsibility for setting guidelines around things like hate speech and harassment. Governments need to send a message to police, prosecutors and courts that we, as a society, take these issues seriously. We do not send that message when a clear breach of the law results in no consequences whatsoever.

From the perspective of the Jewish community, what happened at the JCC last week may have been the first test of Bill 22’s efficacy. It was a failure.

Considering that clear violation of provincial law, British Columbia’s Attorney General Niki Sharma has an obligation to explain what went wrong. She would also do well to reiterate (or iterate) that the government takes seriously harassment of Jewish students. (Harassment of the broader Jewish community is also a serious concern, but there seems to be a societal consensus that young people deserve greater protections from this sort of behaviour.)

If police will not enforce the law because they do not believe prosecutors will press charges, we need to address, as a society, this problem in the system. If prosecutors will not act because they have been dissuaded by courts that won’t convict, then we need to educate the judiciary or amend the laws.

Work still left to finish

Last week, the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, in conjunction with the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, released the results of a community survey on antisemitism. There were, perhaps, few surprises.

Of those surveyed, 85% said that antisemitism has “increased a lot” since Oct. 7, 2023. More than 60% of respondents said they avoid displaying items that would identify them publicly as Jewish and almost two in three said they avoid particular places and events out of concern for their safety.

A public opinion poll released around the same time indicated that the often-discussed “silent majority” is on our side – most British Columbians are concerned about antisemitism. More than three-quarters of respondents to a Research Co. poll said they are concerned about “aggressive behaviour by pro-Palestinian protesters,” “protesters targeting Jewish neighbourhoods and Jewish-owned businesses” and “rising prejudice against Jewish Canadians.”

While we would appreciate if the solidarity expressed in this survey were articulated more vocally and visually, it is reassuring to know that the targeting of our community is not unnoticed or uncontested. The survey is, in any event, a rare encouraging sign.

It may seem delusional to seek rays of light amid reports of unabating antisemitism. But is one narrative of Passover not precisely to remind us that we have met and overcome suffering and subjugation in the past? When we celebrate the holiday, we are reanimating our collective experience of resistance to tyranny and oppression, the birth pangs of our peoplehood, and the victory over apathy and forgetting. An unequivocal through-line across Jewish history is resilience.

We retell the story of Exodus every year during the seder not as history but as a living, spiritual framework for Jewish identity and values.

While this is a very difficult time, it also has the capacity to bring out tenacity, determination and unity among the Jewish people.

Difficulty can also create cracks in unity. This is the night when, more than other nights, we reflect on liberation from literal or figurative slavery – in today’s situation, perhaps, freedom from violence and discrimination – and the imperative of Jews to protect and advocate for liberation. So, as we witness growing fissures in the Jewish world, let us rededicate ourselves to the project of liberation and peoplehood based on fundamental values of freedom, love, unity and community.

On Passover, we are reminded that there are pharaohs in every generation who seek to destroy and oppress. We utter the words “You shall tell your children,” because a vivid memory of the past is central to facing our present and creating our future. Every generation faces its own “Egypt.” The work of liberation is not yet finished.

May those who are held captive in Gaza, those who are fighting to defend Israel, those experiencing violence and discrimination, or seeking freedom in any form, be redeemed.

Watching with concern

There has been a great deal of handwringing about antisemitism on campuses in North America in recent years. Since Oct. 7, 2023, with protests against Israel, some of which have turned violent and many of which have been condemned for making Jewish and Israeli students targets, the problem has intensified.

It is often said that politicians do not see the light until they feel the heat. University administrators are politicians in a broad sense, and the withdrawal of funds from donors may be among the reasons (ethics and decency being among other conceivable explanations) why some university administrators have tried to find a balance between the rights of free expression and the safety and security of Jews on campuses across North America. Criticism from government has also been a factor in pushing college leadership to address, to varying degrees, the problems faced by Jewish students, faculty and staff.

A notorious US government hearing – and the perceived weakness of college presidents to respond adequately to the problem – led to the resignations of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.

Now, the US government, under the leadership of the reelected President Donald Trump, has summarily cut off a chunk of funding to Columbia University, with threats of more such punishments to come unless institutions of higher learning get their perceived issues with antisemitism under control.

“Since Oct. 7, Jewish students have faced relentless violence, intimidation and antisemitic harassment on their campuses – only to be ignored by those who are supposed to protect them,” US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in announcing the funding freeze. “Universities must comply with all federal anti-discrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding. For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus. Today, we demonstrate to Columbia and other universities that we will not tolerate their appalling inaction any longer.”

Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, called this a “time of great risk to our university” and said that the loss of funds would be felt in “nearly every corner” of the institution.

“There is no question that the cancellation of these funds will immediately impact research and other critical functions of the university, impacting students, faculty, staff, research and patient care,” Armstrong wrote in a statement.

A sum of $400 million is an almost inconceivable number to most ordinary people, so to put it in some context, Columbia has an annual operating budget of $6.6 billion, of which more than one-quarter comes from federal sources. Unlike most Canadian universities and the American state college systems, Columbia is a private institution – and an elite, Ivy League one at that. In other words, that is a massive amount of public money flowing into a private institution, though that is a topic perhaps for another day.

Columbia was an epicentre of last year’s campus protests and the genesis of a network of encampments against Israel and its war against Hamas, encampments that spread to campuses here in British Columbia, to consternation from Jewish students, their parents and communal organizations.

With the withholding of $400 million from Columbia, which is promised as a first major salvo in what could become a larger battle between the US government and higher education, the preponderance of handwringing may have shifted from Jews and their allies to the figures responsible for higher education.

Among Jews – in the United States, Canada, Israel and elsewhere – there are massively polarized opinions about Trump. But, whatever your position, it is true that something needs to be done to force universities to address the undeniable crisis facing Jewish students and faculty.

That said, this recent move against higher education is part of a larger effort to discredit liberal institutions, attack expertise and dismantle government programs designed to buttress democracy, liberty and the global order. Legitimate criticism of campus antisemitism is being weaponized by an increasingly cynical US government to stifle and punish speech and threaten the academy and its sources of knowledge production, including scientific discovery and advancement. We should be wary of aligning with these forces and their attempts to cover up their real agenda.

This move – and possible additional ones that seemed implied threats in McMahon’s announcement – will force a showdown. Jews likely will become a bargaining chip in this coming confrontation and that is deeply concerning for Jews of all political and ideological persuasions.

Elected officials and university administrators in Canada – where the vast majority of students attend public institutions – will no doubt be watching very closely to see what changes the financial penalty has on American institutions’ approaches to the problem. So will Jewish students and faculty, their families and others who care about them.

Interesting time to live

It is said that a week is a lifetime in politics and – well, would you look at that? – it is almost exactly a week before the Liberal Party of Canada selects its new leader to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Conventional wisdom says that leader will be Mark Carney. Of course, if conventional wisdom were dependable, prime ministers John Turner and Kim Campbell would have gone down in history as figures in the biggest landslides in electoral history. Of course, those “fresh faces” were indeed involved in two of Canada’s most decisive electoral sweeps – just not in the ways they had hoped. Both had taken what appeared to be their respective parties’ hopeless chances and revived their fortunes temporarily before being devastated in their parties’ worst showings to date when the votes came in.

Both Campbell and Turner were, to an extent, known quantities, though Turner had been out of the political scene for close to a decade and Campbell was a single-term cabinet minister without the deepest roots in federal politics when she became the country’s first (and, to date, only) female prime minister.

So, while conventional wisdom tells us that Carney will be the next Liberal leader – and, by convention, as leader of the governing party, prime minister – conventional wisdom can be bubkes, as Turner and Campbell learned.

Carney, former head of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, has never held elective office. Many Canadians wouldn’t recognize him in the lineup at Tim Horton’s. In a time of economic anxiety, Carney’s undeniable credibility on that topic is the selling point that has brought members of the Liberal caucus to his campaign by an almost four-to-one margin over presumed second-place candidate Chrystia Freeland, whose shock resignation led to Trudeau’s retirement in the first place.

In any event, surveys suggest that, under Carney, the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre would go from shoo-ins to a neck-and-neck race. One poll suggests that, given Anyone-But-Trudeau, centre-left voters would rally around Carney to keep the Conservatives out, with New Democratic Party support crashing to half of what it gained in the last election.

Whoever wins the probably-almost-immediate general election after the leadership vote will inherit one of the most unenviable scenarios. With the once and once again US President Donald Trump reprising his role as global disruptor, threatening the Canadian (and global) economy with tariffs, aggression and assorted chaos, the new Canadian leader will walk a tightrope of defending Canadian interests while not unnecessarily rattling the cage of the Most Powerful Man in the World ™. Trump injects variables into politics that can never be accurately predicted – and Canadian leaders will be forced to react.

It is almost inevitable that everything will be seen through a prism of Trumpism, including the flashpoint issue of the Middle East conflict. With the US president repeatedly promising variations on the theme of “all hell” if developments do not go in Israel’s favour, fragile diplomacy, such as it ever has been between Israel and its neighbours, seems to be a thing of the past – particularly with Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu largely echoing Trump’s sociopathic scheme for some sort of Las Vegas in the Gaza Strip.

Canadian voters tend to make electoral decisions on domestic issues, not foreign policy. Nevertheless, there is another variable that could play a sleeper in the coming election. It’s something few people seem to have on the radar but that may emerge as things unfold.

Anti-Israel activists (call them “pro-Palestinian” if you will, though it is hard to see how stopping traffic, chanting slogans, burning flags, etc., are aiding Palestinians) are no doubt planning to continue disrupting any public event where they can make their case against Israel. While justifying the atrocities of Oct. 7 as “brilliant” and justifiable, for example, is probably a bridge too far even for those most sympathetic to the Palestinian people and those who desire peace, depend on these extremists to nonetheless disrupt political events across the country – and do not expect them to do so in stereotypically polite Canadian style.

There are a lot of external variables facing Canadian politicians in the coming weeks. Responding to harangues from Washington by an unprecedented leader will force our own leaders to respond. Closer to home, expect disruptions and pandemonium from so-called “pro-Palestinian” activists. How politicians react to these unpredictable interventions could change the trajectory of the race. How Canadians, in turn, respond to the politicians’ reactions could prove one of the most volatile variables in the unsettled political firmament.

A profoundly false (we think) assumption says that Canadian politics and history are boring. In this era, a more ancient dictum – the curse “May you live in interesting times” – seems more apt.

Start of a bumpy ride

A clip from the vintage TV show Golden Girls has been making the rounds recently, in which the adorable dolt Rose Nylund, played by Betty White, champions the idea of solving the Middle East conflict by moving the Palestinians to Greenland.

Fast forward to the 47th president of the United States, who last week stunned the world with a proposal that he take over the Gaza Strip and, apparently viewing the war-ravaged territory as a real estate opportunity, promised to turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

Trump said Israel would hand over the Gaza Strip to the United States, the two million Palestinians there would be relocated, and the US would then “level the site” before presumably constructing a sort of Levant Vegas. Some have begun referring to the enclave as the MAGA Strip.

Donald Trump is a grifter whose lengthy CV is filled mostly with hucksterism and bankruptcy. In so far as he has intellectual tricks up his sleeve, his modus operandi is to distract his patsies with one hand while snatching their valuables with the other and offering spoils to his sycophantic gaggle of oligarchs.

This is to take nothing away from his skill. He is, it seems, outstanding at grifting. For his audience, however, the current reboot of the Trump show has the potential for less reality TV circus fun than train wreck tragedy.

Having dabbled with daddy’s money in the suburban New York real estate market and a few adventures into higher stakes insolvency – even successfully bankrupting a casino, which seems a feat of special skill – he is now (again) gambling at the highest levels imaginable. Only this time, he is gambling with the lives of Palestinians and Israelis, and possibly with the safety and security of people (including Jews) around the world.

The line between maniac and genius often seems perilously trifling, something we are reminded of not only watching the president, but also his newest billionaire tech bro sidekick (or is that side-president?) Elon Musk. Both share the habit of making wildly impolitic remarks (or gestures) that leave observers arguing over whether they have witnessed a policy balloon, the start of Nazi-style fascism, or some sort of sophomoric trolling. Are they serious, we ask ourselves, or is this another bait-and-switch in which one of them pulls a rabbit out of the hat over here so you don’t see the other one pilfering through pockets over there? More likely, it is both.

In other words, is this bizarre Gazababble a serious proposition? And, if not, what is he trying to distract us from?

Among the eye-popping phenomena we’ve seen in the days since the president’s remarks during his visit with Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu have been the reactions from media and other public figures. The guy is, after all, the president of the United States. Media have to report his ramblings as though they are serious ideas to be weighed against alternative options like, say, not annexing one of the world’s most troubled strips of land and evicting (aka ethnically cleansing) the millions of people who live there, causing upheaval in a region already in turmoil, alongside increasing global hostility and potential for danger for the world’s only Jewish state and the world’s Jews.

Global media have reported Saudi, Jordanian and Egyptian leaders declaring Trump’s idea out-of-bounds which, by their very seriousness in rejecting it, seems to grant it some in-bounds validity.

Democrats in the United States and other observers are still poking through the entrails of last November’s election to understand why Americans rejected Kamala Harris’s mantra about “not going back.” There may be a million reasons why Trump won but high among them is the determination by many voters that they didn’t like the status quo. Trump is a disrupter. Whether you like or dislike disruption is irrelevant – no one, regardless of political persuasion, can deny this fact.

If you subscribe to the definition of insanity as repetition while anticipating a different outcome, the world’s approach to the conflict seems kooky. What we’ve been doing hasn’t brought peace closer but has seemed to push it further away. Peace and coexistence have rarely seemed so remote.

But, while doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome may be the definition of insanity, inverting the equation to its exact opposite does not guarantee success. Disruptive ideas are not in and of themselves dangerous, but what are the disruptive ideas that would bring both Israelis and Palestinians peace, security and dignity?

Clearly, something needs to change and fresh ideas are needed. Those are the ideas we should be considering. It is, presumably, possible to redirect a wayward train onto a different siding without derailing it entirely. How much more true when the disruption impacts millions of people’s lives, destroys communities, and would be a moral stain.

To carry on the metaphor, we are only days into the (presumably) four-year journey on this Trump train. The only thing that seems predictable is that it is going to be a bumpy ride. We must consider what each of us will do to ensure the bumps are not catastrophic.

Choose your next PM

By the time Justin Trudeau emerged from the front door of Rideau Cottage last week to announce his intention to end almost a decade as Canada’s prime minister, any element of surprise had evaporated. His future was sealed – and not by his choice.

As is so typical in our polarized times, Trudeau’s reign has been neither as masterful as his PR flaks suggest nor as disastrous as the monster truck crowds with their “[Expletive] Trudeau” stickers would have us believe. The truth lies somewhere in between. Despite the apocalyptic rhetoric of some opposition figures depicting Canada as a failed state in line with Somalia or Haiti, we remain arguably the most fortunate people on the planet and any commentary to the contrary is either self-serving propaganda or the worst example of First World ingratitude.

Among those who are glad to see Trudeau go there is a prevailing crankiness that he waited too long. True, abandoning ship days before our greatest trading partner and rather obtrusive (at the best of times) neighbour is set to (re)inaugurate an unpredictable kook as their head of state does raise some concerns. But let’s get some perspective.

Canadians are sleeping with an elephant, as the current prime minister’s late father, Pierre Trudeau, famously quipped. “No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” Under the incoming US president, that country seems destined to become twitchier and gruntier.

Trump is proposing an Anschluss in which Canada becomes the 51st state. Why 51st, we have to wonder? Why not the 51st to, at a minimum, the 61st? How do Lilliputian Vermont and Rhode Island and the practically unpeopled Wyoming justify statehood, two senators each and the assorted benefits of statehood but our 3.8 million square miles is mooted to get a single state and a measly two senators? Canada’s 40 million people exceed the combined populations of the 21 smallest US states so excuse us for being a little miffed at the idea that our landmass and people deserve an American presence equivalent to Arkansas or New Mexico. But perhaps we’re getting ahead of negotiations here.

We josh, of course. But this much is deadly serious: were an American president to genuinely promote annexation – either militarily or through the economic bullying Trump suggested last week – Canadians would have little defence but throwing Timbits and snowballs at the invading forces. There is plenty of comedic fodder around this subject but laughing has a tendency to stop abruptly when an underestimated madman gets his hands on the levers of power.

The idea that who occupies 24 Sussex Drive makes a whit of difference in the circumstance is an exercise in national self-delusion. In the event of an American invasion of Canada, Greenland or Panama, who ya gonna call for backup? Perhaps China or Russia might be willing to come to our aid. There’s a cheery idea – although not entirely out of the realm, given evidence that both these countries have already had their fingers in our democratic processes, and geopolitical and economic interests in the Arctic landmass.

The Liberal party is now charged with finding a new leader to pull it back from an apparent electoral abyss. In most instances, we would argue that this is an internal party matter for partisans to decide. The added wrinkle of our constitutional conventions, in which the leader of the party in power effectively automatically becomes PM, adds gravitas to the current situation.

Whether or not one is a Liberal partisan, it may be worth participating in the process. In the last bun toss, in which Trudeau was selected, it was an effective free-for-all in which, without even coughing up a membership fee, anyone was pretty much welcome to cast a vote – sort of like a “no purchase necessary” cereal box contest for a balsa-wood airplane.

We are in a challenging political environment right now, where single-interest groups are flexing their disruptive muscles – anti-Israel activists, for example, are trying to cancel Christmas, they are disrupting public events, have shut down theatre performances and generally are making their small numbers have outsized impacts. While there is not on the horizon, at this point, a standard-bearer for the hate-Israel demographic, count on the myopic activists to inject this issue into the contest, likely to the detriment of the Jewish community’s safety and interests and, we would argue, to Israelis and Palestinians.

Those who believe in a multiculturalism where Jews are welcome, a world where both Israelis and Palestinians are safe, and a body politic where dialogue trumps flag-burning should really pay attention to the process the Liberal party is about to adopt to select their next leader – who will be our next prime minister – and ensure that our views and interests are at least as well represented as the regressive mobs, be they on one side or the other of the issues we care most deeply about.

Coffee and sympathy

In Startup Nation, Dan Senor and Saul Singer’s 2009 book about Israel’s successes in innovation and entrepreneurship, the authors credit the hothouse environment created by the country’s many challenges not as a barrier but as a catapult to its accomplishments.

For example, mandatory military service, made necessary by Israel’s tough neighbourhood, has helped cultivate leadership, teamwork, technical skills and adaptability under pressure. Put simply, young people who have made life-and-death decisions for themselves and their unit while still in their teens may be less daunted than other people when confronted with the risks required to succeed in business or other life challenges.

In what may be an unanticipated twist on this resilience and adaptability, a chain of cafés has emerged in Israel with a very specific clientele. Restaurateur Tamir Barelko launched Café Otef, a chain with two outlets and plans for more. Otef refers to the Gaza “envelope” area where the Oct. 7 invasion took place.

A Jewish Telegraphic Agency article last week on the coffee shops tells the story of Israelis’ sometimes unconventional approaches to resilience and recovery.

The cafés, staffed entirely by survivors of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on southern kibbutzim, feature products from affected communities: cheeses from Kibbutz Be’eri, honey from Kibbutz Erez and other foods and products, like T-shirts, aprons and water bottles, sourced from entrepreneurs affected by the tragedy.

The first such storefront, Café Otef-Re’im, named after the kibbutz adjacent to the Nova festival site and where seven residents were murdered and four taken hostage, is owned and run by Reut Karp. Her former husband, Dvir Karp, was murdered in front of their three children. Dvir was a chocolatier and his recipes are enjoyed by café customers.

Karp and other staff credit the cafés with getting them out of bed in the mornings. One displaced kibbutznik who experienced culture shock in Tel Aviv finds the clientele can appreciate his dark humour in ways locals cannot.

Karp emphasizes that the café’s association with the tragedy is not a “gimmick.” While Tel Aviv is sometimes derided as a “bubble” removed from the realities faced by Israelis in other parts of the country, the central location, she explains, is a benefit that allows displaced residents from the country’s north and south to meet and share experiences.

Comfortable Canadians can hardly imagine either the inescapable grief of Israelis directly affected by Oct. 7 or the daily challenges of living with the memories. Enjoying coffee and chocolate in an environment explicitly created for working through the pain of that day and its aftermath might seem counterintuitive to those who have never experienced anything remotely similar. It may be a distinctly Israeli response to face the realities head-on.

At the same time, Karp acknowledges that her café does not push the tragedy in customers’ faces. One could drop in, stay awhile and leave without ever knowing the motive behind the place. One unavoidable sign, however, is a work of art made up of text messages sent on the tragic day.

Two new cafés are planned for the near future, including Café Otef-Sderot, named for the southern town that has always been on the frontline of Gaza rockets, and Café Otef-Kiryat Shmona, honouring evacuees from the northern town, which is in the Vancouver Jewish community’s partnership region. Barelko, the café’s founder, aims to recruit wounded soldiers from the ongoing war as the chain expands.

Canadian Jews, like Jews worldwide, are confronting a changed environment. Having the good fortune of comparative comfort for generations, we have not had to develop the mechanisms for coping with disasters like our Israeli cousins have been forced to cultivate. Of course, history has always presented Jews with challenges and Israelis, we might say, are a concentrated embodiment of Jewish resilience and constructive response to challenges. Café Otef is one small example of that response and an example for others facing challenges. As we conclude 2024, a year of continuing tests for our people, we should take a moment of reflection and pride in how we have adapted and responded since Oct. 7, 2023.

Many Canadian Jews feel overwhelmed and struggle to find positivity in the current moment. This is completely understandable. Nevertheless, our community has responded to changed circumstances with determination and toughness. This should be a source of immense pride. We should also focus on the extraordinary strength of Israelis as a model for facing our own difficult moments. The potent unity of Jews worldwide in the past year is a testament to kol Yisrael arevim zeh bazeh, all Jews are responsible for one another. The solidarity showed by diaspora communities has inspired and strengthened Israelis. We should not miss the opportunity to be inspired by their resolve as we confront on own very different but related troubles.