anti-Zionism

Israel and its neighbours at an inflection point: Wilf

Rabbi Andrew Rosenblatt speaks with Einat Wilf, Israeli author and thinker, who shared her views on the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (photo by Adele Lewin)

Israel and its region are in a moment of danger and opportunity, according to Einat Wilf, who spoke in Vancouver April 25.

The Israeli author, commentator and former Labour Party member of the Knesset, said Israel and those who wish to destroy it have been locked in a repetitive series of disasters for almost 80 years. The current moment could alter – or enforce – that dynamic.

“This is a moment when, if we do not do the right things, we will remain stuck in a loop,” she said at Schara Tzedeck Synagogue.

The cycle of conflict has dragged on because of a scenario in which, she said, “the Jews are never allowed to win, the Arabs are never allowed to lose – or at least are never allowed to acknowledge defeat.”

Wilf calls this the “tragedy of ceasefires.”

The Arab world tried to prevent the creation of a Jewish state and then, since 1948, has attempted to undo the existence of that state. This is the core of the conflict, she argued.

“When it becomes clear that they are about to fail, what people call for is a ceasefire,” she said. “But what would actually help us is not a ceasefire. What would help us is to bring back the great ideas of victory and defeat, because those are actually necessary for us to get to peace.”

Instead, the world demands that the parties go back to the negotiating table, as if nothing had happened, she said.

“People talk about the conflict constantly going on, as if it’s by some bizarre coincidence,” she said. “It’s not. It’s because the Arab side for decades has been constantly told, try again, try again. If you haven’t succeeded this time, try again.”

One of the ruptures in the dialogue, Wilf said, is the idea that the only thing standing between

Israelis and peace is the establishment of a Palestinian state. This has been the driving force in decades of peace efforts, “only to realize that this is not what the Palestinians had ever wanted.”

The problem, she said, is that many Jews and others refuse to take the plainly stated Palestinian and Arab message at face value. Many Jews on her social media feed disagree with her, she said. Many Arabs, by contrast, are up-front.

“The Arabs on my feed would write this: ‘You are settler-colonialist, white Europeans. Get out.’ I love that,” she said. “They’re saying there shouldn’t be a Jewish state.” And yet, the Jews who comment, she said, keep coming back to settlements, the occupation and other issues that ignore that the root of the problem is a Palestinian and larger Arab refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state in any part of the region, said Wilf.

Two Israeli prime ministers, Ehud Barack in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008, tried to negotiate a resolution, only to find that two different Palestinian leaders, Yasser Arafat in 2000 and Mahmoud Abbas in 2008, walked away and reverted to violence, she said. Between those two administrations, a different prime minister, Ariel Sharon, decided that, if the Palestinians would not sign an agreement, he would just give them land.

“He gets out of the Gaza Strip to the last square inch, and we know what they did with that control of the territory,” said Wilf.

The devastation experienced by Gaza and its people in the current war is a tragic moment, but also a possible turning point.

“Moments of ruin and destruction, both in personal as in collective lives, can be moments of growth and transformation,” she said. “But only if you acknowledge the possibility.”

Wilf admits that people say she speaks harshly.

“I do,” she agreed. “Because we have not benefited from people who soften the message. We try to cut corners, we don’t go to touch the molten lava that is at the core of our conflict.”

For years, long before Oct. 7, European capitals have been sending money to Palestinian regimes to feel good about themselves, she said. “But it does no good. It just extends the conflict.”

She tells European audiences to change their approach. “You want to do good?” she asks. “You need to tell the Palestinians, given that your goal in the last century was to prevent and then to undo the existence of a Jewish state: you lost, and it’s over. You can find a dignified life next to a Jewish state but not instead of it.”

Hard truths are difficult to dislodge, said Wilf, and they can be perpetuated at the highest levels. When Joe Biden, then the US president, visited Israel after Oct. 7, Wilf said, he went out of his way to argue that Hamas does not represent ordinary Palestinians.

“It’s a lie that we often tell to comfort ourselves,” argued Wilf. “Hamas is merely the most brutal and successful executor of the ideology that we’ve come to call Palestinianism.”

The ideology, she said, does not hide its goal of eradicating the existence of Israel “from the river to the sea.”

Terms like “right of return” hold equally brutal meanings.

“You look at Palestinian Arab texts from the ’50s, the ’60s, they are very clear about the term,” she said. “They talk about ‘We will tear their hearts out of their bodies, their fingernails from their limbs.’ That’s why you have euphoria on Oct. 7 – euphoria across the people of Gaza, euphoria across the people of the West Bank, Palestinians and their collaborators around the world. The euphoria was not [because Palestinians were] breaking out of some open-air prison…. The euphoria was that they finally saw the moment that they had been groomed for, for decades.… Hamas executed Oct. 7 on behalf of Palestinianism, on behalf of the Palestinian people – for them and of them.”

That is the only way to understand what happened, she argued, or to understand how billions of dollars in international aid have resulted not in social progress but in a militarized terror regime with hundreds of kilometres of tunnels under schools, mosques, homes and kindergartens.

“You can only do something like that among a supportive population, when you are intent on carrying out the vision of that population,” she said. “So, the enemy is not just Hamas. That’s too easy. The enemy is Palestinianism. And that ideology has to die so that Jews and Arabs can finally live.”

An ideology can indeed be killed, she argued. “In fact, it happens all the time. We all live in a world where ideologies are constantly killed and dying and replaced by others.”

A first step, Wilf contended, is rejecting what she calls “trauma determinism” – the idea that people who are collectively traumatized can only respond with violence and stubborn resistance. This manifests in the idea that Israel’s actions will only further radicalize Palestinians. “I don’t know that there is much further to radicalize,” she noted.

Trauma determinism is not real, she said – or, at least, it need not be. “Exhibit A: the Jewish people,” she said. But she also raised the examples of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. “They suffered violence. The issue is not the violence,” she said. “The issue is what is the story that gets told. That’s why this moment is so important. Because, just like nothing succeeds like success, nothing fails like failure. People begin to run away from failure.”

To move on and embrace peace, she said, Palestinians, like Germans and Japanese before them, have to acknowledge defeat.

“Embracing defeat is not necessarily a bad thing,” she said. “And that process needs to happen. I’m not denying that there is ruin and devastation in Gaza. The question is, how is that ruin and devastation understood? Because, if the story is big, bad evil Israel did that to you and you are just innocent Gazan victims of Israel’s evil nature, then nothing will change. What needs to happen is something that has never happened in the last century of the conflict, which is a connection between cause and effect, action and consequences.”

Palestinians, the broader Arab polity and the world need to understand that the ruin and devastation inflicted upon Gaza is the outcome of their ideology. Some other peoples in the region have awakened to this idea and begun to give up their fruitless hostility to Israel, Wilf said.

“It is always the mark of failed societies in crisis, looking to scapegoat, looking to find someone to blame, looking to divert attention from their failures,” she said. “It’s not a coincidence, therefore, that those countries in the Arab world who are trying to forge a modern vision, a forward-looking vision of what it means to be an Arab and Muslim, are the ones that are letting go of anti-Zionism and normalizing relations with Israel. This is the only vision forward. And I’m under no illusions. It remains a minority view in the Arab and Islamic world. But, for the first time ever, it exists, vocally.”

photo - Israeli commentator and former member of the Knesset Einat Wilf, right, was thanked after her presentation by Tracy Ames — Israeli commentator and former member of the Knesset Einat Wilf, right, was thanked after her presentation by Tracy Ames. (photo by Adele Lewin)

While they might not embrace the term themselves, Wilf suggests these parties are exhibiting what she calls “Arab Zionism” – the simple acknowledgement that Israel exists and has a right to do so.

It is voices in the West who are most resistant to change, she said.

“The tragedy of this moment is that some in the Arab world are waking up from decades of anti-Zionism as a waste and a ruin, and seeking to have a different vision,” said Wilf. “You have so many here in the West rushing to fill the void and to essentially keep fueling the conflict so that the erasure of Israel can finally be achieved. That is the tragedy. It is also, of course, remarkably dangerous. Because what’s happening now in the West, as much as it pretends to be about the conflict, it’s not.”

It’s about something more insidious, she contended. What is portrayed as anti-Zionism has historically shown itself to be something baser.

“What happens to Jews when societies allow anti-Zionism to become institutionalized?” she asked. Everywhere that anti-Zionism rises to the level of being institutionalized or legislated, the environment turns hostile to Jewish life, she said.

“In the Arab world, how did they get rid of their Jews in the two decades when anti-Zionism was at its height? They never legislated against the Jews. They legislated against Zionists. Iraq, Egypt – the legislation was against Zionists,” she said. “But the way it works is that the Jews are charged with Zionism and no Jew – I know some really try hard but no Jew – will ever be able to disavow Zionism because, heaven forbid, they just celebrated Passover and said, ‘Next year in Jerusalem.’ And that’s how it works.” If such actions are not stopped, she said, “ultimately, no Jews are left.”

“This is what happened in the Arab world, in Iran, in the history of Europe, in the Soviet Union, in Venezuela and it’s happening on American campuses as we speak,” she contended.

Now, efforts are underway in Canada and elsewhere to codify “anti-Palestinian racism,” which Wilf dismisses as a prohibition against Zionism.

On the other hand, there is, she clarified, genuine anti-Palestinian racism. “It is the racism of refusing to listen to Palestinians and take them at their word,” she said. “There is a refusal to really acknowledge them as agents in history who know what they are doing and who actually have their own rational vision of no Jewish state.”

The future depends on how Palestinians and the world interpret the destruction that has taken place in Gaza.

“We are facing a moment that has at once great peril but also great hope,” said Wilf. “Amazingly, so much rides on whether we will ensure that the ruin and destruction in Gaza will finally be associated as the consequence, the outcome, the effect of the Palestinian choice to pursue the always-destructive vision of no Jewish state, because, if they can finally be made to embrace defeat, and to begin the slow process [toward peace] then, at the end of the day, I can assure you that, if they become Arab Zionists, it would be better for everyone.”

Rabbi Andrew Rosenblatt welcomed the audience and thanked the Hayes Family Israel Initiative for funding Wilf’s visit, in memory of Dr. Arthur and Arlene Hayes z”l.

Isolated, tired, disappointed

A “Toronto for Palestine” protest Oct. 28, 2023. In the last six months, across Canada, such protests have often featured calls for violence against or the death of Jews. (photo by Sikander Iqbal)

In the past six months, protesters have targeted Jewish community buildings and synagogues in Montreal and the Toronto area. Jewish student group Hillel has also been a prime target for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment at Canadian universities, including in Vancouver. Similar protests caused the Art Gallery of Ontario to cancel an event with the Canadian and Italian prime ministers over security concerns. A man in Vancouver was charged with hate-related crimes over the defacing of Israeli hostage posters.

These are just a few examples of organized anti-Israel protests, often with calls for violence against or the death of Jews, on the streets and campuses across the country. Much of this activity is met with silence or borderline anti-Jewish remarks from many elected officials and leaders.

Trans and queer rights are also under attack in Canada with the premier of Alberta’s recent announcement of sweeping new anti-trans policies and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s use last year of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter to push through a law requiring parental consent for children under 16 who want to change their names or pronouns at school.

The confluence of these events and the ongoing need to carefully navigate the intersectionality of their identities has left many queer Jews feeling isolated, tired and disappointed.

Queer communities in Canada have long trended toward a pro-Palestinian point of view, often reflected in clashes over whether certain Jewish groups should be allowed to march in pride parades, Aviva Rathbone, board chair of JQT, a Vancouver-based Jewish queer and trans organization, told the Independent.

“Right now, what it means is that many of the Jews in the queer community, especially Israelis, but also Jews who would maybe call themselves Zionists or who feel complex about the situation in Israel and Gaza, are not welcome in queer communities,” she said.

“I did not know there was such thing as an anti-Zionist Jew until I moved to Canada,” said Ari Fremder, a 33-year-old who works in Vancouver’s animation industry. Fremder is originally from Zimbabwe.

As a trans person who is also autistic and introverted, Fremder said, they don’t leave their house very often anymore because of the anti-Jewish protests, posters and stickers – that frequently incite violence against Jews – in their neighbourhood.

They used to go to local queer events but said they don’t feel safe anymore, as many groups are pro-Palestinian and openly state Zionists are not welcome.

“I feel a lot safer being queer in the Jewish community than I feel safe being Jewish in the queer community,” said Jessie, a 21-year-old student and environmental activist in Ontario, who asked not to use their real name.

As one of few Jewish queer people in Halifax, Schuyler H. Smith said they are facing “more hate” than they’ve ever faced in that city.

The 33-year-old diversity consultant agreed that it’s more comfortable to be part of a Jewish than a queer community right now. They will, often with trepidation, reach out privately when they see antisemitic comments and remarks from queer community members, to try to dispel myths about Jews as white colonialists or as non-indigenous to Israel, for example.

Smith hopes one-on-ones can make people think twice before posting negative comments or memes about Jews.

Anti-trans policies in Alberta and Saskatchewan, attacks and protests at drag queen story times and other “parental rights” actions across the country are also taking a toll on members of the LGBTQ2S+ community.

“I’m scared, honestly, for young trans people who need this care and are being interfered with by politicians,” said Cas Allen, a 21-year-old university student in Victoria who says access to hormone blockers changed his life when he was 15.

Ezra, a 39-year-old trans teacher in Calgary, who prefers not to use his real name, said the government is pushing a lot of misinformation, but he’s heartened by the pushback from the queer community.

He’s committed to being a visible queer influence in his school, which has a high number of new Canadian immigrants.

“If there were any queer kids in the class, they could see themselves reflected,” he said, “and [I can give] them a safe adult to confide in [while] they decided who they are.”

Allen, who grew up in a religious Jewish family in Alberta, said since he transitioned, he has “recreated” his queer Jewish identity “from the ground up” but he’s once again finding it “complicated and messy” to reconcile both those parts of himself.

He said he feels isolated and unable to talk about his feelings regarding Israel and his Jewishness to the LGBTQ2S+ people he knows. He said the only person he can really confide in is his twin sister.

Queer spaces on university campuses tend to be very pro-Palestinian and are forcing students to choose between their Jewishness and being queer, said Rabbi Seth Goren, executive director of Jewish student group Hillel Ontario, which has a presence at nine universities in the province.

“I think that’s a choice that queer Jewish students shouldn’t have to make,” he said.

Many Jewish students feel like there is no place where the conflict isn’t swirling around them, added Rabbi Kylynn Cohen of Hillel BC. She said she’s had to help students who, after Oct. 7, couldn’t go to classes because of the anti-Jewish rhetoric, both from student groups and in classrooms.

Cohen said she sees more Jewish students hanging out in the Hillel building on the University of British Columbia campus, seeing it as a safe space. Many queer students have told her they go to straight bars to unwind now rather than congregating in gay spaces.

photo - Vancouver skyline at night — From Vancouver to Halifax, many queer Jews are feeling unsafe and isolated because of the increase in anti-Jewish and anti-trans sentiment since the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel and the ensuing Israel-Hamas war. *(photo by Maximilian Ruther / Pexels)*

Many student-run groups and education-related unions have come out with strong anti-Israel statements. Six Canadian universities are facing class action lawsuits over anti-Jewish hate speech, threats against Jewish students on campus, and the silencing of Jewish voices.

There are also dozens of reports of Jewish students being shouted at, punched and spat on by anti-Israel protesters at universities across the country. Ontario student Jessie said, even though they’re at a university with a large Jewish population, there is constantly an “uncomfortableness” between their two intersecting identities.

Like many LGBTQ2S+ Jews, their stance on Israel is multi-faceted but they said they’re frustrated and have lost friends in the queer community who aren’t open to the nuances of how different Jewish people are feeling or to seeing the Jewish community as anything other than homogenous “white settler colonialist[s].”

Jessie wears a Star of David necklace but said they now often hide or remove it, including during their local drag king performances at which other performers have made pro-Palestinian tributes. They say they’d be “canceled” if they shared their support for the hostages or Israeli citizens during a show.

“There’s no space even for me to mourn or to acknowledge my feelings and what’s happening,” said Jessie.

There are, however, some Jewish queers for whom the past few months have been a time of solidarity and community building.

Non-binary Toronto artist Sadie Epstein-Fine said they are Jewish but were raised as an anti-Zionist. They’re a member of a group called Jews Say No to Genocide, whose membership is almost all queer Jews. Since Oct. 7, they say they’ve been “entirely surrounded by queer Jews” in a busy, activist environment.

They admit to looking white and acknowledge the privilege that brings, also recognizing that antisemitism is on the rise but saying they’ve been fortunate not to have felt it personally.

“We’re more concerned about Palestinian safety than we are about our safety,” Epstein-Fine said of their group members.

Beyond campuses, the past six months have seen bomb threats and attacks against Jewish schools and businesses, as well antisemitic graffiti and a rising number of other hate crimes aimed at Jews across the country. Police forces in some cities have enlarged their hate crimes units and set up hate-crime reporting centres in Jewish areas.

Darren Sukonick, 53, a Toronto businessman who has been involved with Jewish charities and community groups for decades, said he was surprised and disappointed at how widespread and swift anti-Jewish sentiment was across Canada after Oct. 7. He said he never thought he’d ever experience levels of hate like he’s seeing now.

“It was like being on a hike, turning over a log and seeing all this vermin crawling out from under it. That’s what it felt like,” he said.

On the other hand, Sukonick said many non-Jewish friends have reached out and shown support.

Calgary teacher Ezra said he frequently hears racist and hate speech about Jews, but not aimed at him, from his Grade 7 students. When he hears it, he addresses it with the kids in an effort to get them to see different points of view.

Sometimes, it’s easier to get out of bed and deal with all the negativity being hurled at both the trans and Jewish communities, said Ezra. Other days, he said, it takes a greater toll on his mental health.

Gail J. Cohen is an award-winning Toronto-based writer, editor and communicator.

SFU students vote BDS

On April 20, the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) voted in favour of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The motion is in support of Palestinian liberation, which it defines as resistance against Israeli “settler-colonialism” and the occupation of historic Palestine – including the West Bank, Gaza and the present-day state of Israel.

The Hillel chapter at SFU issued a statement on April 20 denouncing the motion.

“Evidently, this motion, and the student council standing in support of it are not concerned with the safety of Jewish students on SFU campus,” reads the statement. “The adoption of the policy, which passed unanimously this evening, and which violates SFU, provincial and federal law, sets a dangerous precedent for Jewish safety, freedom of association and political mobilization on campus.”

The day after the SFSS vote, another campus group also voted on a motion related to debates over Israel.

On April 21, more than 60% of the Queen’s University Faculty Association (QUFA) voted in favour of a motion that opposed the adoption of the working definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

The IHRA working definition of antisemitism was adopted in May 2016, and states that antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The document also lists many examples that could fall into the broader definition of antisemitism. Among the examples are statements about Jewish people and Israel, including “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour.”

According to the QUFA motion, this definition threatens academic freedom and intersectional anti-racist and decolonial initiatives.

“The IHRA deﬁnition of antisemitism misconstrues antisemitism to include a broad range of criticism of the state of Israel, particularly targeting

decolonial and anti-racist critiques of the policies, structures and practices of Israel,” the motion reads. “Such targeted attacks, which primarily impact racialized faculty and students, will have a negative effect on the academic freedom of our members in the classroom, in their research and in campus politics more broadly.”

Jordan Morelli, QUFA president, said in an email that the motion was brought forward by individual members of the association, as is their right according to the association’s democratic processes. He also said the vote itself was preceded by a balanced discussion in which everybody who wanted to speak was given the opportunity to do so. Morelli further added that Queen’s recently revised policy on harassment and discrimination defines antisemitism in a manner consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code policies, and that other faculty organizations at other schools, as well as at federal and provincial levels, have expressed similar concerns with the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Before the vote, Queen’s Hillel published an open letter signed by more than 1,600 people – current Jewish and non-Jewish students, alumni, family members and community members – asking the faculty to vote against the motion.

“This statement contributes to the erasure of Jewish history, religiosity and values. To exclude the Jewish community from impacted ‘racialized faculty and students’ does harm to multi-racial, long-established Jewish communities. It overwrites our lived reality of centuries of constant displacement, colonization, conquest and migration,” the letter reads.

The letter also says that the fears about restricting criticism of Israel and academic freedom do not follow from a “fair” reading of the definition, as Israel is not mentioned in the definition itself, but only in the follow-up examples of what may constitute antisemitism. The letter also questioned why it does not fall to Jewish groups to define their own oppression.

“It is our understanding that a fundamental principle of anti-oppression work is allowing affected communities to define their own oppression,” reads the letter. “It is not the place of any organization external to our community…. It is the Jewish community, and the Jewish community alone, who get to decide this. This double-standard is antisemitic.”

The Hillel letter did note that some of the faculty who proposed the motion are Jewish, but said their views are out-of-sync with the vast majority of Canadian Jews.

After the motion passed, Queen’s Hillel published a statement that said they were “deeply saddened,” called the vote “an utter disgrace,” especially because no actionable steps were suggested in the motion to combat growing antisemitism on campus. However, the statement also said they were “immensely proud” of the support shown across the community.

At McGill, a similar motion in support of Palestinian solidarity that was passed by more than 70% of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) was not ratified by SSMU’s board of governors. In a statement published on April 22, the board said they could not adopt the policy because it contravened numerous SSMU governing documents, including its constitution, equity policy and Quebec law.

The original version of this article was published by The CJN. For more national Jewish news, visit thecjn.ca.

StandWithUs Canada course

Hussein Mansour Aboubakr (PR photo)

After an almost three-year hiatus due to the pandemic, StandWithUs Canada is again holding events. On May 15, StandWithUs Canada and the Diamond Foundation are presenting the crash course Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism Today: What to Expect on Campus.

The course is a chance for high school (grades 11 and 12) and first-year university students to attend interactive sessions, hear from speakers, meet like-minded students and enjoy a free kosher dinner. Students who register and attend can also receive community service hours and a gift card.

Speakers include Penina Edery, high school director, StandWithUs Canada, and Aviv Attia, StandWithUs educator and Israeli speaker. Special guest speaker Hussein Mansour Aboubakr was a dissident imprisoned in his home of Cairo, Egypt, for the crime of wanting to learn more about the country and the people he was raised to hate – Israel and Jews. One of the course sessions will be Aboubakr speaking about his journey. Other sessions will include a panel of students speaking about their experiences with antisemitism and anti-Zionism in high school and university.

The Diamond Foundation is sponsoring this crash course to reach out to Vancouver high school students and their families, to help them learn the skills, get the knowledge and find out about the resources available to support Israel and fight antisemitism. Also involved in presenting the event with StandWithUs Canada are Camp Hatikvah, Masa Israel Journey, King David High School and the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver.

The May 15 crash course will take place at KDHS from 4 to 8 p.m. Registration is required to attend. Students can register at forms.gle/hPncontVmAC4Jfor6.

– Courtesy StandWithUs Canada

Antisemitism unleashed

As Israel announced a ceasefire in its latest conflagration with Hamas in Gaza, the world sifted through the entrails to declare victors. In reality, neither “side” has won. Both “sides” have lost a great deal. There are, of course, implications for domestic politics on both sides, with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu apparently benefitting politically from the conflict and Hamas achieving their goal of seizing the Palestinian narrative from the Palestinian Authority. These factors aside, this conflict was avoidable and, when civilians die, it is morally dubious to discuss “winners.” We are deeply distressed by this latest round of hostilities and the loss of life and security experienced by all the people of Israel and Palestine.

We also note, once again, that the conflict between Israel and its neighbours seems to attract global interest that eclipses any other issue on earth – demonstrated, among other things, by the litany of United Nations General Assembly resolutions that single out the Jewish state while ignoring or giving short shrift to victimized populations everywhere else on the planet. Indeed, the overseas reactions to the events in Israel and Palestine over recent weeks are illuminating, as “pro-Palestinian” activists have taken to the streets in cities around the world, in large numbers.

Not unrelated, in recent days, there has been a horrific spike in antisemitic incidents around the world, including in Canada. Identifiably Jewish people, businesses and institutions have been attacked. Pro-Israeli demonstrators in Toronto have been physically assaulted, and rocks have been thrown at them in Montreal; there have been reports of people seeking out Jews to harass in cities across our country. Jews walking in New York City and dining in Los Angeles have been assaulted, synagogues have been defaced in Chicago, Skokie and Tucson.

Then there are those like the BBC journalist who posted “Hitler was right” or the CNN contributor who posted “the world today needs a Hitler.” Members of groups who invaded a pro-Israel rally in Chicago a few days ago chanted, “Kill the Jews.” The Anti-Defamation League said there were more than 17,000 tweets using variations of the phrase “Hitler was right.”

There is a phrase that Israel’s critics repeat like a mantra: anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. This supposed tautology, uttered as though the speakers can make something true simply through repetition, has always been problematic. Some anti-Zionism is absolutely and undeniably antisemitic, such as when it veers into blood libels, Holocaust analogies and stereotypical representations of Jews and power. Part of the reason that a large number of people are able to spout such words is that they lack knowledge or understanding of the expressions and permutations of antisemitism in previous eras and don’t have the self-awareness to see the bigotry they are obliviously replicating. That’s to say nothing of their complete lack of any awareness or knowledge of Jewish history, cultural and religious traditions, scholarship, heritage or epistemology.

Are these people anti-Zionists? Who knows. Are they “pro-Palestinian”? Well, if scaring Jews is pro-Palestinian, then sure. But there is no doubt about the other part. This is antisemitism, in its most recognizable form.

In the past days, we have seen more overt Jew-hatred and incitement to harm and kill Jews, from more sources, than most of us have seen in our lifetimes. Not criticism of Israel, mind you. Outright, murderous Jew-hatred. A number of Canadian Jewish leaders have said this time feels different.

Here is the bigger problem: while far too many people are screaming, tweeting or otherwise expressing explicitly antisemitic hatred, far more appear to be sitting on the sidelines, somehow convinced that there are complexities around the subject.

There are deep complexities in Israel-Palestine, yes. But, when Jewish people and institutions are targeted around the world because of a conflagration in Israel and Gaza, that conflict is not a cause; it’s an excuse.

Good people of the world should be coming to the aid of Jewish people. In a conflict with a genocidal terrorist entity that launches thousands of rockets at civilians, the world should stand with Israel, too, but let’s leave that aside for today. Some political leaders, religious figures and others have expressed disgust with the antisemitism and expressed solidarity with Jewish people. But we should be seeing a global grassroots uprising in defence of Jews – and we’re not.

We hope that the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas holds. We hope for a return to negotiations that will result in a just two-state solution with Israelis and Palestinians in their own respective homelands. We hope, as always, for lasting peace. And we should all commit to doing our part to end the occupation and secure a democratic Jewish homeland. But, in the aftermath of this latest “round” in the conflict, we have learned another lesson. There are many people in the world who look at explicit calls for the murder of Jews, the annihilation of Israel, assaults on individuals and institutions and conclude there are better things to devote their energies to fighting.

Of course, there are well-informed critics of Israel who are not motivated by anti-Jewish animus. But these people – whatever their numbers are – seem untroubled to be part of a larger movement that is absolutely fueled by the worst impulses. They have, almost to a person, chosen to welcome support for their cause whatever hateful strings are attached.

Recent events have shown how easy it is still – despite all our advances in the area of human rights – for so many people to slide right into antisemitism, whether from anti-Zionism or other perhaps not even conscious feelings about Jews.

CIJA calls on feds to act now

Signs shown at a recent rally in support of Palestine. (screenshot from cija.ca)

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs is calling on the federal government to expand supports for Jewish communal security after a surge of antisemitic violence and vandalism in Canada, and to launch an emergency summit on antisemitism.

Shimon Koffler Fogel, CIJA’s chief executive officer, made the request in a meeting with senior staff from the prime minister’s office and Liberal cabinet ministers and members of Parliament May 20. Later that day, he spoke at a virtual event billed as a national Canadian Jewish community briefing, called Learn, Mobilize, Act: Keep the Conflict Out of Canada.

“We are calling on the prime minister to convene an emergency summit on antisemitism that will include the political leadership at both the provincial and municipal levels, a true all-of-government effort, and establish a comprehensive program to combat Jew-hatred, the oldest and most enduring hate the world has ever experienced,” he said.

CIJA also wants a complementary program to the Security Infrastructure Program, “that enhances the capacity of our community to take ownership of our own security.”

He spoke just hours after Israel announced a ceasefire in its most recent battle with Hamas.

“As we express hope for a durable ceasefire to take hold and an end to the conflict there, we are painfully aware that the battle has moved to our country, to our communities from coast to coast,” Fogel said. “It’s been frightening but we dare not cower and hide. It’s been disturbing, but we dare not be intimidated from asserting our identity, who we are and what we are, and in doing so with pride…. Our adversaries seek not only to erase our ties to the land and history of Israel, they seek to erase the presence of Jews altogether.”

He lauded the additional attention to racial justice that has emerged in recent years. “But, along with the good of that movement has come a contaminated strain that reduces everything to a simple equation of the oppressed and the oppressor, and Jews have been declared the poster child of the oppressors, so they must be rejected and vilified,” said Fogel.

Joel Reitman, co-chair of CIJA, opened the event.

“Over the past two weeks, we have watched with shock as our fellow Jews in Israel have been subjected to attack at the hands of Hamas, a terrorist organization bent on the destruction and the obliteration of the Jewish state of Israel and the murder of Israelis,” said Reitman. “Our sorrow and compassion is extended also to Hamas victims in Gaza, where Hamas has embedded its terrorist infrastructure within densely populated areas, deliberately putting the people of Gaza in harm’s way and where one-third of Hamas missiles have fallen, taking many innocent lives.

“Our outrage has deepened as the violence on our television screens has spilled over into violence and threats of violence directed against the Jews in our streets, in our communities, online and in our places of business, our schools and our houses of worship,” continued Reitman. “Never has it been more clear that Jewish people, whether we live in Canada or in Israel, must stand as one. Never has it been more clear that the ancient hatred of antisemitism does not distinguish between a Jew in Tel Aviv at or a Jew in Toronto. We are all targets…. We will not be intimidated. We will not be discouraged. We will call out the perpetrators of violence and we will call on our many friends to stand with us and we will act together. Together with our fellow Canadians right across this country, we say, enough. We know where antisemitism leads if left unchecked. We know what must be done to stop it. And, together, stop it we will.”

Naomi Rosenfeld, executive director of the Atlantic Jewish Council, said it has been a scary few weeks to be a Jew.

“With all this hatred and fear,” she said, “I hope that we all remember three things. One, it has never been more apparent why we need Israel and why we need a strong Jewish state. Two, if any of you have been going through any of the things that I’ve mentioned, please know that you are not alone. We stand together, a community here to support one another through each of these events. And, finally, as a national Canadian Jewish community, we must remain strong and resilient. We will not cower to fear and we will not hide our true identities and who we are.”

Dr. Gil Troy, professor of history at McGill University and an author of several books on Zionism, spoke of being a parent of two members of the Israel Defence Forces and the betrayal he felt to read a letter signed by 180 rabbinical students comparing the racial reckoning in the United States in recent years directly to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“We’re told again and again, especially by my friends in the United States, too many of my Jewish friends in the United States, that this is a racial issue between the white Israelis, the white privileged Israelis, and the brown Palestinians,” said Troy. “And we are told that the cause of this latest conflict is Israeli provocations.… We all know that the underlying cause of this is the refusal of Hamas, the refusal of Islamic Jihad, the refusal of the so-called moderate Palestinian Authority to accept the fact, 73 years after the establishment of the state of Israel, that the state of Israel exists.”

Jeff Rosenthal, the other co-chair of CIJA, asserted that “Jews and only Jews have the right to define what constitutes antisemitism.” He said, “We’ve always known that there is no distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Our lived experiences and the experiences of our forefathers and ancestors confer a unique alertness to this threat.”

He called on viewers to mobilize and directed people to the Action Centre on the website cija.ca.

Tragedy and cruelty

Reports from eyewitnesses to the catastrophe at Mount Meron last week, on Lag b’Omer, recount a horrifying crush of humanity propelled as if by an external force. The tragedy of 45 lives lost and scores of seriously injured will be investigated by authorities after allegations that the potential for such a disaster had been foretold.

The investigation into Israel’s worst civilian disaster will likely look at structural factors that led to the stampede and the inability of attendees to escape as the throng converged into a choke point at the site.

A small silver lining in the horrific incident was the mobilization of Arab Israelis in villages near the mountain, who set up help stations to provide water and food to attendees as they gathered in the aftermath.

But the tragedy itself was exacerbated when some among the survivors turned on female Israel Defence Forces soldiers arriving to help. The event was attended almost exclusively by religious men and boys. When female soldiers arrived to deliver first aid and evacuation assistance, some were spit on, kicked and punched as they attempted to help the wounded and remove the bodies of the deceased.

Such misogynistic extremism will probably not be within the parameters of a government inquiry. And perhaps that is fine, because this is a symptom of a much larger societal problem and one that should be confronted thoroughly by the entire country. Interfering in the life-saving work of first responders is not only reprehensible, it is an abrogation of a foremost tenet of Judaism, pikuach nefesh, the saving of life. Most of the victims and survivors are shomer negiah, adhering to a religious principle that restricts or forbids contact between members of the opposite sex. In a deeply distorted interpretation, a number of men in the situation chose to elevate shomer negiah above pikuach nefesh. By spitting on rescue workers, the perpetrators were spitting on the very sacredness they imagined themselves to be defending. That is something that deserves serious consideration by religious people and by secular authorities as the country – and Jews worldwide – grapple with the aftermath of the entire incident.

Another tragic byproduct of the disaster has been reactions to the news among people who gravely lack humanity. Within hours of being posted, a story on Al Jazeera’s website about the tragedy was met with more than 10,000 comments celebrating the deaths. Among the representative comments: “Drinks on me, y’all,” “about time we got some good news on our media,” “I feel so happy, actually” and “May God ensure the bodies pile high.”

It is difficult to fathom that we live in a world where people would respond to a mass casualty event in this manner. It is also nearly impossible to imagine such a response if the tragedy had happened to anyone other than Jews.

For years, a robust discussion has occurred around whether, if or when anti-Zionism crosses a line into antisemitism. Did the callous, sadistic comments reflect a political statement about the right of Israel to exist? Were they even more base, a celebration of dead Jews just because they were Jews? Was it anti-Zionism that drove these depraved commenters, or was it antisemitism?

These questions throw a spotlight on the fundamental foolishness of the dichotomy. A semantic discussion about the motivations of people who would behave in this way gives far too much credence to their actions, as if there could, in some convoluted moral universe, be a justification for their cruelty.

Was it anti-Zionism? Was it antisemitism? At this point, does it really matter what we call it?

Antisemites amid JVP

Jewish Voice for Peace, an American organization that has been highly critical of Israel, announced recently that it is “anti-Zionist.” It is certainly a matter of semantics, as the group’s own executive director acknowledged.

“This doesn’t change anything about our focus or our political analysis,” said Rebecca Vilkomerson. “It just names something that hasn’t been named before.”

On the one hand, at least the group is being honest and not hiding behind the ambiguity they had adhered to until now. On the other hand, it represents a progression in the evolution of the anti-Israel movement.

Until just a few years ago, it was rare for people like those in JVP to say they opposed Israel’s existence. They would claim they were merely opposed to a specific policy or direction of the Israeli government. Now, they admit, they don’t think there should be an Israeli government.

In the same interview in which Vilkomerson made the announcement, she also repeated that “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.” Again, a few years ago, people said “criticism of Israel is not antisemitism.” This appears to be an evolution.

In what intellectual framework is it acceptable to make a statement like “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism”? The undercurrent of the sentence is that, under no circumstances, by any measure, in no way, is anti-Zionism connected with or affected by antisemitism. Progressive people – which is how JVP and many of Israel’s other critics define themselves – would never dream of dismissing the potential of bigotry toward any other ethnic or cultural group.

More egregiously, Vilkomerson overtly contradicts her very words, acknowledging that there are, indeed, antisemites in the movement.

“Obviously, there are people who are antisemitic or anti-Zionist and there are people who mask their antisemitism with anti-Zionist language. That’s a given,” she says, “but that doesn’t paint anti-Zionism as concept.”

Here is what does paint anti-Zionism as concept: it is a movement utterly unconcerned that there is antisemitism and that there are antisemites within it. The leader of JVP admits that her movement attracts antisemites but expresses not a whiff of displeasure or concern. It is what it is.

“Ever since [the advent of] Zionism there has been anti-Zionism within Jewish communities,” she goes on. This is true. Zionism did not reach a consensus point among European and North American Jews until sometime around the Holocaust. When the implications of Jewish statelessness became the gravest in 2,000 years, a massive majority of Jews worldwide abandoned whatever ambivalent positions they had held and (almost entirely) united to create and support Israel.

There is no false corollary here: the state of Israel was not a “consolation prize” for the Holocaust, as has been suggested on more than one occasion. No one gave the state of Israel to the Jewish people; our ancient homeland was won back through a bloody defensive war and has survived and thrived despite massive external opposition.

We will see if other organizations, including similar Jewish groups in Canada, follow JVP’s suit. We will also continue to see primarily non-Jewish groups argue against Israel’s existence based on an anti-nationalist idealism or more nefarious interests. As we watch these developments, it is worth wondering why, as the first target of a battle against the concept of nationalism, “progressive” activists target Israel. Why not France? Why do Hungarians deserve their own country? What makes Norwegians so special that their nationhood is not called into question?

Closer to the point, Why do the Palestinian people deserve a homeland, which is the stated motivating purpose of JVP and so many other groups, while Israelis do not? Can people who declare “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” see how these inconsistencies, including the indifference to Jewish statelessness, might make their protests seem hollow?

Airing, rejecting bad ideas

Hundreds of thousands of women and allies marched in cities all over North America Saturday, bringing people from across the spectrum together to stand for equality and justice. It was the third annual network of women’s marches that sprang out of the shock and alarm after the election of U.S. President Donald Trump.

To ensure that the nearly spontaneous eruption of resistance to the direction of American (and world) politics was more than lightning in a bottle, a movement was solidified in the form of Women’s March Inc. This body, led by a small group of activists who quickly gained international fame and recognition, not only came to helm one of the most remarkable new grassroots movements in American history, they also became central figures in the cadre of leftist, socialist and progressive political activists that is loosely defined as “the resistance.”

Unfortunately – or, perhaps, fortunately, for reasons we’ll explain – the small group of Women’s March leaders has recently been beset by controversy. In a book-length analysis last month, Tablet magazine reconstructed accounts of the earliest hours of the march movement – including the marginalization of Jewish women who were there at the start and the assertion, apparently made in one of the earliest meetings, that “white Jews” were partly responsible for “white supremacy.”

Additionally, some of the leaders of Women’s March Inc. are associated with Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam and an unrepentant Jew-hater and Hitler admirer who last month capped a career of antisemitic rhetoric by declaring Jews “satanic.” Tamika Mallory, one of the most visible faces of the march movement, has referred to Farrakhan as “the GOAT” – the greatest of all time.

These developments led march organizers in various cities to disassociate their marches from Women’s March Inc. While some figures tried to patch over or reconcile divergences within the movement, such efforts were undermined by top leaders, including Mallory, who appeared on national TV the Monday before Saturday’s marches. She defended her position on Israel and Palestine. She declared “the Palestinians are native to the land,” and that “there are people who have a number of sort of ideologies around why the Jewish people feel this should be their land. I’m not Jewish. So for me to speak to that is not fair.” She’s not Palestinian, either, her interviewer noted, yet she had no qualms defending Palestinians’ right to national self-determination.

At a time when another organization might aim for conciliation, Women’s March Inc. leaders seemed to double down on their troubles. In her keynote speech to the march in Washington Saturday, Linda Sarsour, another leading figure, expressed support for the BDS movement. While she had, earlier, finally rejected Farrakhan’s antisemitism and homophobia, her decision to use her limited time on stage to focus on BDS – an issue peripheral at best to the women’s movement – suggests she is not finished enflaming tensions with Jewish people.

Notably, attendance was down at rallies across the continent, including here in Vancouver. There could be a range of explanations – Trump-fatigue, weather – but certainly some Jewish and non-Jewish women were motivated to stay away because of the association of march leaders with bad ideas.

Within the loose affiliation of “resistance” figures, several of the individuals elected to the U.S. Congress in November’s midterm elections have made themselves known for statements about Israel and Palestine. One of the freshmen, Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, came under criticism for a 2012 social media post in which she wrote: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” She has since said that she didn’t understand the implications in her choice of words.

Another new legislator, Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, made her entry into Washington known by displaying a map of the world with a Post-it note with the word “Palestine” covering Israel.

These examples – and there are more – are disheartening. That these ideas have moved from the recesses of crackpot online discussion forums and into Congress, into one of the most significant grassroots organizations and, apparently, into a significant swath of the Democratic party, is certainly concerning. But there is a silver lining: it also allows us to openly confront the trend and, perhaps, to gain allies in opposing it.

When we talk about the need to shine light on dark crevices of bigotry, this is exactly what we mean. Social media has, for better or worse, allowed anyone with any views to broadcast them. In the chaotic network of the internet, there is no practical, central force for contesting bigotry and other bad ideas. When those ideas and expressions seep into institutions like Women’s March Inc., Congress or, even more noticeably, the U.K. Labour party, this presents an opportunity unavailable elsewhere. It is a chance to bring these issues out in the open and contest them in the light of day. Among other things, it forces people with power and influence to make a choice.

Among those who made choices in recent weeks – the choice to withdraw as sponsors of Women’s March Inc. – are prominent individuals and organizations, including the Democratic National Committee, the Southern Poverty Law Centre, the women’s political action group EMILY’s List, the LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, the pro-choice organization NARAL, the Centre for American Progress, and Amnesty International.

This is the kind of unified voice we need: a concerted rejection of antisemitism or Jew-baiting or Israel-bashing that has emerged as a force in important places.

What is anti-Zionism?

Last year, the Students’ Society of McGill University, in Montreal, barred the reelection of three Jewish members of the board of directors. The issue, according to a report undertaken on behalf of the university, was not the students’ Jewishness, but their Zionism. It was, the report concluded, a political issue, not one of discrimination against Jews. There is a great deal to unpack in this story.

B’nai Brith Canada has launched a petition calling for a comprehensive investigation into antisemitism on the campus, noting that the SSMU incident was far from the only concerning episode in recent years.

Sometimes, antisemitism is unequivocal. Swastika graffiti and statements that overtly target Jews for condemnation or murder are uncontestable. But, in many cases, unwitting perpetrators are so unaware of the history of antisemitism and its associated symbols and tropes that they employ antisemitic concepts without consciously knowing it. For example, many images and much of the language of the anti-Zionist movement dovetails with traditional images of scheming Jews merely recast as scheming Zionists or Israelis. Note the term “Israel lobby,” which does not imply a legitimate political position but rather suspect coercion.

With the McGill situation, part of the problem is that “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” is often stated as a self-evident truth. A more accurate statement would be “anti-Zionism is not necessarily antisemitism.” Because, sometimes it is. For example, the most casual perusal of online discussions about Israel turns up volumes of images evoking blood libels of the Middle Ages. And the equation of Zionism with Nazism, which can plausibly be denied as explicitly antisemitic, intentionally rubs salt in the most painful of Jewish historical memories. Label such comments as one will, they have the very deliberate effect of inflicting pain on Jews.

And this is the important point here. People can defend their positions by saying that their criticisms are of Israel, not of Jews; that their positions are political, not based on ethnicity or religion. But, as we have said in this space before, outcome matters as well as intent. Israel may be the intended target but Jews feel the effects.

It doesn’t matter that not all Jews are Zionists. It would not matter even if most Jews opposed Zionism. The fact is that opposition to the existence of a Jewish state – which is the definition of “anti-Zionism” – is arguably de facto antisemitic. There are all sorts of defences, of course. Some people claim to oppose all forms of nationalism, yet the practical application of their ideology is to start by boycotting the Jewish state rather than, say, the Mexican, Malaysian or Dutch nations. As well, opposing Zionism, while knowing the historical impacts of Jewish statelessness, including history that took place in the memory of living generations, could be viewed as such disregard for Jewish individual and collective security as to be antisemitic.

Others claim they support Israel’s right to exist, but then take positions that defy these words, such as denying Israel’s right to defend itself, which in effect is a denial of, if not statehood outright, the right of Israeli citizens to live free from terrorist murder and missiles. What name should we give that?

When Jews say they feel singled out because of their Jewish identity or because of their support for a Jewish state, they are met with responses ranging from outright denial of the legitimacy of their experiences to accusations that they are fabricating their concerns as a political weapon. The idea that anti-Zionism is not rife with antisemitism would be more believable if its purveyors acknowledged that such a thing does exist, and condemned it.