antisemitism – Page 33

Tweets raise questions

Dimitri Lascaris, chair of the board of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), last week tweeted what is being condemned as a blatantly antisemitic swipe at two Jewish members of Parliament.

Despite CJPME’s name, the messaging from the group doesn’t indicate that the “justice and peace” they seek will be particularly just or peaceful for Jewish residents of the Middle East. What happened last week should clarify where the group – or at least its leader – stands.

“Apparently,” Lascaris tweeted, “Liberal MPs Anthony Housefather and Michael Levitt are more devoted to apartheid Israel than to their own Prime Minister and their own colleagues in the Liberal caucus.” The tweet was a bit of a non sequitur. Lascaris had posted on a different platform about a B’nai Brith Canada rally in Toronto, after which two women who had attended the event posted a video saying that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should face the death penalty. Weirdness all around, certainly, but how Lascaris connected this incident with two Liberal MPs is an open question. Ultimately, whatever link there may be is irrelevant in the bigger context.

Accusing Jews of dual loyalties, of being “others” who are not fully of a society, is an age-old charge almost universally accepted as antisemitic at its core. Encouragingly, politicians of every stripe (as well as plenty of other Canadians) have tweeted or otherwise made clear their dismay at Lascaris’s comment.

The next move is up to members of the organization. If the members of CJPME reject their chair’s remarks and remove him from his role, they will have demonstrated that they understand something about justice. If not, Lascaris and the group he represents should be snubbed by elected officials and anyone with a genuine interest in peace and justice.

* * *

Another interesting tweet came from Tory Senator Linda Frum last week, in response to the announcement that Trudeau would issue an apology for the Canadian government’s refusal in 1939 to allow the MS St. Louis, carrying 907 Jewish refugees, to land in Canada. Forced to return to Europe, 254 of the passengers were murdered in the Holocaust.

“I’ve made this warning before: if Trudeau’s apology for Canada’s rejection of the ‘voyage of the damned’ compares Jews fleeing the Nazis to the contemporary crisis of illegal economic migrants, he will require an apology for his apology. Think carefully,” tweeted Frum.

Thinking carefully is indeed what everyone involved should do.

Leaving aside the criticism about the merits of historical apologies, which we have addressed in this space previously, Frum makes a useful point. To be heartfelt, the apology should stand on its own merits as the voice of a nation genuinely regretful about a scar on our national honour. The apology – scheduled for the week in November that marks the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht – should be about the St. Louis, its passengers, the victims of Canada’s decision and perhaps the broader lesson of what was not done to aid the mortally endangered Jews of Europe. It should not be taken out of context through the universalizing of the story. That the passengers on the ship were Jews is absolutely critical to understanding the history of the St. Louis and our country’s history of institutionalized antisemitism.

At the same time, what is the point of these apologies, or any commemoration of a past wrong, if we do not learn and apply the lessons to the choices we make in our world today? There is a fine line to walk in respecting the individuality of the St. Louis, on the one hand, and ensuring that the apology and associated discussion results in positive changes in our approach to current and future issues we must confront.

Regrettably, Frum threw an additional wrench in the works with her use of the term “illegal economic migrants.” This is apparently a reference to the concern that some in her party and elsewhere have that the migrants who are entering Canada via the United States from Latin America are not legitimate refugees fleeing persecution or danger, but rather people simply seeking to advance the wealth and condition of their families. While it is fair to bring attention to the illegal crossings, it seems odd for a Conservative (or a conservative) to imply that there is something particularly disagreeable about a person seeking economic advancement, either through migration or other means.

That aside, the apology will almost certainly be welcomed by most Jewish Canadians. It will be an opportunity for Canadians to remember – and, for those who do not yet know, to learn – this history. Once we as a country have made what small penance we possibly can for this tragedy, there will be time to consider how contemporary events can be informed by what we learn from thinking about the St. Louis and its passengers. That is part of the purpose of this entire exercise.

What does power mean?

Necessity is the mother of invention. Throughout Jewish history, whenever economic or social restrictions have been applied against Jewish populations, those same targeted Jews have responded by finding means to succeed despite the hurdles placed in their way.

In notable instances, the “invention” itself has become problematic. By excluding Jews from a range of guilds and thereby denying them the right to participate in the broader economic life of the community, medieval Europe pushed Jews into marginal occupations. One such occupation was moneylending, which created a dangerous dynamic that helped define European Jewish existence for hundreds of years. Existing in a bleak place between the power of the aristocrats and dukes, on the one hand, and the rage of the peasant mobs, on the other, Jews were forced from one place to another in part because of the economic role they were forced to play in society.

More cheerfully, our ancestors understood that learning was an intangible asset that no ducal dictator or antisemitic horde could take away. Continuing the tradition of study practised by for generations, the Haskalah, the Jewish enlightenment, saw Jews turn their minds to secular studies like sciences and the humanities. In a modernizing world, this proved a tremendous advantage. Much of the success enjoyed by Jews today is founded on the collective dedication to learning that began in ancient study halls and continues this very week as Jewish kids return to classrooms all over the world.

Zionism is a natural descendant of the theory of necessity and invention. For hundreds of generations, Jews prayed for a return to Zion and Jerusalem. But when, after the Middle Ages gave way to Enlightenment and emancipation, the place of Jews in Europe still proved precarious, as Theodor Herzl concluded during the Dreyfus Affair, the idea of Jewish self-determination as a national political movement took flight. Necessity increased in the first decades of the 20th century and Zionism went from a somewhat obscure idea to one almost universally accepted by Jews, though its realization would be too slow to save six million lives.

Attacked by its neighbours at the moment of its birth, Israel was forced to pull together a military defence. The alternative was unthinkable, and the generation faced with that reality during the War of Independence had learned just a few years earlier the danger of complacency and unpreparedness.

Facing existential threat once more in 1967 with the Six Day War, Israel again triumphed. The Eichmann trial, still fresh in the collective Jewish memory from earlier in the decade, created a stark awareness in Israeli and Diaspora minds about the precariousness of Jewish existence and the determination of those who would seek to destroy us.

Since 1967, there has been no doubt that Israel is a regional military powerhouse. This truth is axiomatic. If Israel were not a regional powerhouse, it’s likely Israel would not exist. This is what makes uncategorical criticism of Israel for its militarism so infuriating, as it fails to even acknowledge that the “invention” was made necessary by the world’s unquenchable antisemitism.

And so, it seemed, this was among the messages Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was trying to convey in a speech last week adjacent to Israel’s nuclear research centre, home of the country’s unacknowledged nuclear weapons program. He made some stark statements about the dangers of weakness.

“The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive,” he said. “The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and, in the end, peace is made with the strong.”

Some have made the case that Netanyahu’s bluster and warnings to enemies are un-Jewish, that acknowledging power, and reveling in the benefits it presents, is antithetical to Jewishness. Perhaps.

Yet, we should also realize that we are in a time of changing paradigms. In the vast scope of Jewish history, the decades since the establishment of the state of Israel are the blink of an eye. We are still recalibrating what it means to be Jewish in an age of Zionism. As Jews in the Diaspora and as Jews in the Jewish homeland, we are redefining our identities and connections in a time of incredible flux. What does Jewish mean now? How do we accommodate and respond to power? What measures must we take to redefine our relationships with non-Jews, including the leaders of other countries, in a time when we have the power to defend ourselves and no longer rely on the ephemeral kindness of strangers?

As Rabbi Irwin Kula (who will speak in Vancouver this month; see page 5) says, we who are alive in this time of extraordinary transition can be a part of “one of the great adventures in the human drama right now.”

Given an option, we may have chosen to live in duller times. But we are here now – and that necessitates us inventing ways to thrive in the world we have inherited.

BDS’s lacrosse to bear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redefining antisemitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neighbourly relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violence not solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

אירועים אנטישמיים בטורונטו

תלונות הועברו למשטרת טורונטו בנוגע לסיטקרים האנטישמיים והפוסטרים להחרמת ‘ארומה’ והמוצרים מישראל. (צילום: booledozer)

ארגון בני ברית בטורונטו מדווח על התגברות האנטישמיות בעיר, ובפעילות להחרים מוסדות ישראלים ומוצרים ישראלים. לדברי הארגון סיטקרים אנטישמיים עם צלבי קרס והסלוגן: “צעירים נאצים נמצאים כאן” הודבקו לאחרונה, ברחבי טורונטו על עמודים ברחובות ובמקומות נוספים, בהם במסעדה. במקביל הודבקו פוסטרים להחרים את רשת בתי הקפה הישראלית ‘ארומה” ומוצרים מתוצרת ישראל.

תלונות הועברו למשטרת טורונטו בנוגע לסיטקרים האנטישמיים והפוסטרים להחרמת ‘ארומה’ והמוצרים מישראל.

לדברי בני ברית בשנת 2017 אירעו 1,752 אירועים אנטישמיים בקנדה, לעומת 1,728 ב-2016. בחלוקה לאזורים להלן ארבעת המחוזות המובילים: במקום הראשון אונטריו עם 808 מקרים, במקום השני קוויבק עם 474 מקרים, במקום השלישי אלבטרה עם 206 מקרים ובמקום הרביעי בריטיש קולומביה עם 165 מקרים.

הערים הטובות למגורים: ונקובר, טורונטו וקלגרי בעשירייה הראשונה

שבועון החדשות הבריטי האקונומיסט מדרג כמדי שנה את הערים הטובות בעולם למגורים. מאה ארבעים ערים דורגו לשנת 2017 על פי הפרמטרים הבאים: היציבות הכלכלית, רמת שירותי הבריאות, התרבות והסביבה, החינוך והתשתיות. כרגיל בשנים האחרונות ערים מקנדה ואוסטרליה שולטות בעשירייה הראשונה של הערים הטובות בעולם לחיות בהן. זאת על פי מחלקת המחקר של האקונומיסט.

הנה הן עשר הערים הטובות בעולם למגורים:

ראשונה-מלבורן (מאוסטרליה): בולטת בתחומי החינוך (ציון 100), התשתיות (ציון 100), רמת שירותי הבריאות (ציון 100), התרבות והסביבה (ציון 95.1), היציבות הכלכלית (ציון 95). הציון הכולל של מלבורן הוא: 97.5.

שנייה-וינה (מאוסטריה): בולטת בתחומי החינוך (ציון 100), התשתיות (ציון 100), רמת שירותי הבריאות (ציון 100), היציבות הכלכלית (ציון 95), התרבות והסביבה (ציון 94.4). הציון הכולל של וינה הוא: 94.4.

שלישית-ונקובר (מקנדה): בולטת בתחומי החינוך (ציון 100), רמת שירותי הבריאות (ציון 100), התרבות והסביבה (ציון 100), היציבות הכלכלית (ציון 95), התשתיות (ציון 92.9). הציון הכולל של ונקובר הוא: 97.3.

רביעית- טורונטו (מקנדה): בולטת בתחומי החינוך (ציון 100), רמת שירותי הבריאות (ציון 100), היציבות הכלכלית (ציון 100), התרבות והסביבה (ציון 98.1), התשתיות (ציון 96.4). הציון הכולל של טורונטו הוא: 97.2.

חמישית- קלגרי (מקנדה): בולטת בתחומי החינוך (ציון 100), רמת שירותי הבריאות (ציון 100), היציבות הכלכלית (ציון 100), התשתיות (ציון 96.4), התרבות והסביבה (ציון 89.1). הציון הכולל של קלגרי הוא: 96.6.

שישית-אדלייד (מאוסטרליה): בולטת בתחומי החינוך (ציון 100), רמת שירותי הבריאות (ציון 100), התשתיות (ציון 96.4), היציבות הכלכלית (ציון 95), התרבות והסביבה (ציון 94.2). הציון הכולל של אדלייד הוא: 96.6.

שביעית- פרת’ (מאוסטרליה): בולטת בתחומי החינוך (ציון 100), רמת שירותי הבריאות (ציון 100), התשתיות (ציון 100), היציבות הכלכלית (ציון 95), התרבות והסביבה (ציון 88.7). הציון הכולל של פרת’ הוא: 95.9.

שמינית-אוקלנד (מניו זינלנד): בולטת בתחומי החינוך (ציון 100), התרבות והסביבה (ציון 97), רמת שירותי הבריאות (95.8), היציבות הכלכלית (ציון 95), התשתיות (ציון 92.9). הציון הכולל של אוקלנד הוא: 95.7.

תשיעית-הלסינקי (מפינלנד): בולטת בתחומי רמת שירות הבריאות (ציון 100), היציבות הכלכלית (ציון 100), התשתיות (ציון 96.4), החינוך (ציון 91.7), התרבות והסביבה (ציון 88.7). הציון הכולל של הלסינקי הוא: 95.6.

עשירית-המבורג (מגרמניה): בולטת בתחומי רמת שירותי הבריאות (ציון 100), התשתיות (ציון 100), התרבות והסביבה (ציון 93.5), החינוך (ציון 91.7), היציבות הכלכלית (ציון 90). הציון הכולל של המבורג הוא: 95.

Poll exposes confusion

A poll undertaken by the Union of Jewish Students in France returned some bizarre and seemingly contradictory ideas among the French public about Zionism, Israel and Jews.

More than half of the 1,007 respondents to the poll – 53% – viewed Zionism as a Jewish conspiracy aimed at manipulating the world to benefit Jews. Likewise, half of respondents said Zionism is a racist ideology.

Thirty-eight percent said Israel’s existence “feeds antisemitism” and 26% said that boycotting Israel is justified. Asked if Israel was a “threat to regional stability,” 57% said yes. More than half – 51% – called Israel a “theocracy.”

These are disturbing findings. Some of these are not matters of opinion – Israel is not a theocracy, no matter how many French people say it is. Other responses are deeply distressing. The assertions that Israel is a threat to regional stability – rather than being seen as a stabilizing force in a region roiling with instability – or that Israel’s very existence makes people hate Jews indicate a pattern of opinion that is seriously disordered.

But here’s where it gets really weird: 46% of respondents acknowledged that Israel is a democracy and 48% see it as a “normal country like all others.” A remarkable 54% of respondents view anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism and 59% correctly identify Zionism as a “movement of liberation and emancipation for the Jewish people.”

Together, these responses paint a picture of French confusion and contradiction – a picture that would probably be replicated to a degree in other European and North American polls, were we to undertake them. One might be tempted to critique the pollster and their methodology. After all, polling is suffering a crisis of credibility these days and this particular poll is so confounding in its contradictions that it simply can’t be right.

Or can it? Is it possible that the French (and others) are so baffled by the truths and fictions floating around that they could, as a community or as individuals, hold such cognitively dissonant ideas such as the acceptance that Zionism is a movement for the liberation and emancipation of the Jewish people and that it is a Jewish conspiracy to manipulate the world and that its fulfilment creates antisemitism? Could people believe both that Israel is a democracy and Israel is a theocracy? One could argue that different individuals responded differently to the questions, but with affirmative responses to all these questions ranging near or above majority levels, it is almost certain that some people responded affirmatively to contradictory positions.

In fact, this makes as much sense as any other explanation. The poll seems to suggest that the French (and we would extrapolate to most Western countries) hold very confused, bizarre and inconsistent views about Jews and Israel.

For all the work Zionists have done explaining ourselves for the past seven decades, we seem to have a long way to go.

Recognition withdrawn

B.C. Premier John Horgan has withdrawn a certificate of recognition sent to a controversial Vancouver imam, following a month-long advocacy campaign by B’nai Brith Canada. In an email sent to B’nai Brith supporters, the premier’s office confirmed it had rescinded the certificate bestowed upon Tarek Ramadan, while adding, “We strongly condemn any racist, antisemitic, homophobic or discriminatory language.” The email further asserted that the premier’s office was unaware of Ramadan’s “concerning statements” before issuing the certificate and reiterated that Ramadan had also “received certificates from previous governments in past years.”

B’nai Brith first publicly called on the premier to rescind the certificate on May 16, noting that Ramadan was exploiting the governmental plaudits to vindicate his chants against “malevolent Jews” and insistence that “all of Palestine should only be in the custody of the Muslims.”

B’nai Brith exposed further antisemitism and homophobia on Ramadan’s part and called on its followers to contact the premier’s office. Ramadan had publicly posted, then later deleted, a video on Facebook that accuses the Jewish Rothschild family of controling the world’s banks and media, while justifying the Holocaust on the basis that “the Jews sold Germany down the river.”

Another post by Ramadan, still visible on Facebook, describes Israeli soldiers as “fags,” a homophobic slur.

“We are relieved that the premier’s office has finally done the right thing,” said Michael Mostyn, chief executive officer of B’nai Brith Canada. “No one who has been exposed as a hatemonger should receive recognition from a high government official in any province.

“We look forward to working with all parties in B.C. and across the country to prevent similar situations from arising in the future.”

The Muslim Association of Canada, which runs the mosque where Ramadan preached, described his conduct as “inappropriate” in a November 2017 statement.

Blaming the victims

In a speech to the governing body of the Palestine Liberation Organization last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rambled off a host of textbook antisemitic myths. He reiterated the refrain that Jews have no historical connection to the land of Israel, unearthed a legendary trope about Ashkenazi Jews actually being descended from Khazars and accused European Zionists of collaborating with the Nazis.

Abbas went on to say that the tragedies of Jewish history were not a result of antisemitism, but of Jews’ own behaviours. “The Jewish question that was widespread throughout Europe was not against their religion,” he said, “but against their social function, which relates to usury and banking and such.”

One of the things Abbas has in common with other elected leaders is the willingness to try to get away with something and then to apologize when called out. Though his wasn’t much of an apology: “If people were offended by my statement … especially people of the Jewish faith, I apologize to them.”

The speech gave Israeli and other commentators the opportunity to once again insist that the Palestinian leader is no partner for peace, something that is no more or less true today than it was last month. Abbas has been saying things like this most of his adult life. His doctoral dissertation, which was later published as a book, quibbled over the number of Jewish victims of the Shoah and advanced the perverse conspiracy theory he returned to last week: that Zionists were Nazi collaborators for whom six million (or, on Abbas’s abacus, fewer) Jewish lives were a small price to pay for advancing the Zionist cause.

Inherent to most antisemitic suppositions is the defence that Jewish particularities, habits, traditions, identities – in other words, whatever stereotypes the purveyor is advancing – are the legitimate causes of Jewish woes. In Abbas’s telling, all European Jews were usurers and bankers. (Consider the corollary: That, if true, being bankers and usurers would seemingly justify genocide.)

It is appalling that a man who is accepted as a legitimate figure on the international stage can claim, with minimal consequence, that Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves. So, the most salient point from this terrible incident may be what it says about his audience.

Consider this in the context of the widespread global interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. One can disagree with the policies or approaches of an Israeli government or any number of historical and contemporary developments. But, by no fair reading of history can the full blame for 70 years of conflict be laid at the feet of Israelis. Yet, at almost every point in history – when a pizzeria blows up in Tel Aviv or Jews are stabbed walking down the street in Jerusalem or when Hamas sends thousands to the Israeli border and floats firebombs that set the Israeli landscape aflame – there will be a sizable number of people who will conclude that Jews brought it on themselves.

Whatever else his speech may have accomplished, and despite his apology, Abbas has succeeded in bolstering the stereotype that cunning Jews will sacrifice whatever is necessary to reach their devious aims, and that any horrors that befall them are their own fault. That suits the contemporary popular narrative neatly.