antizionism

Hateful messages intensify

The Douglas Park area is being covered with hateful chalk and stickers. (photo by Joshua)

A residential pocket near Vancouver’s Oak Street corridor has become the site of an increasingly bitter battle over political messaging, public space and antisemitism. At the centre of it is one Jewish resident who says his neighbourhood – and his sense of safety – has been upended by a neighbour’s anti-Israel graffiti campaign.

Joshua, who asked that his surname be omitted, said one particular individual began tearing down hostage posters shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. The same individual was filmed tearing posters down in front of a group of community members outside Schara Tzedeck before a commemorative event a year after 10/7.

The Vancouver Police Department’s diversity unit initially advised Joshua to stop putting up pro-Israel or hostage posters and allow the city to “neutralize” the space to de-escalate tensions. He complied for several months, he said, but anti-Israel messages only intensified. He has been in discussions with police since last June; he worries that the situation will escalate as the weather improves.

photo - Over the past six to seven months, chalked and adhesive messages have appeared across sidewalks, utility boxes, crosswalk placards and construction signage. — Over the past six to seven months, chalked and adhesive messages have appeared across sidewalks, utility boxes, crosswalk placards and construction signage. *(photo by Joshua)*

The same individual has become a near-constant presence in the area, waving a Palestinian flag at busy intersections such as Oak and 12th, usually at rush hour and sometimes for hours at a time. According to Joshua, who admits he has done his share of flag-waving as a regular participant at City Hall rallies for Israeli hostages, the anti-Israel activism has gone far beyond flag-waving.

Over the past six to seven months, chalked and adhesive messages have appeared across sidewalks, utility boxes, crosswalk placards and construction signage. While some read “Gaza” or “Free Gaza,” the messaging has grown more aggressive, including “Zionism is terrorism” and “Death to the IDF,” sometimes accompanied by an inverted triangle associated with Hamas imagery and implying terrorist targets.

The most recent messaging, Joshua said, is “Stop Israel Sadistic Cult” and equating the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with Israel – “ICErael.”

Joshua said he has documented the activity extensively, as well as the antisemitic rhetoric on the individual’s social media, and filed numerous 311 complaints with the City of Vancouver. If graffiti appears on city property, the city contracts a third-party removal company. But response times range from 48 hours to more than a week – sometimes longer, Joshua said. In one park, spray-painted slogans remained for more than three weeks before being removed.

Because chalk is temporary and easily reapplied, the individual can rewrite messages almost as soon as they are washed away.

Frustrated by what he sees as municipal inaction on targeted harassment and hate speech, Joshua has purchased an 11-litre backpack sprayer and walks the neighbourhood with water and scrub brushes to remove the chalk.

According to Joshua, the individual leaving the messages has “doxed” at least six area residents, sharing their personal information online, including their images and their licence plates. He posted Joshua’s first and last names and the cross street where he lives, with the comment, “Be sure to say hi and other things if you see him.”

Someone wrote Joshua’s full name on a public sign along with the words “IOF soldier” – IOF meaning “Israeli Occupying Forces” – and he has been accused online and in person of serving in the IDF, which he has not. In one incident, a woman confronted and filmed him at 7 a.m., shouting accusations and telling him, “We know where you live” and calling him an “IOF baby-killer.”

Joshua reported that encounter, as well as the doxing incidents, to police. Officers took a statement but indicated their options were limited, citing freedom of expression, Joshua told the Independent.

Meanwhile, the impact on the neighbourhood is tangible. A local rabbi told him that one Jewish family moved away because their children felt unsafe seeing hostile messages near their home and synagogue.

Joshua has removed his name from his building directory out of concern for his family’s safety. Confrontations and cleanup efforts are framed online as attempts by “Zionists” to silence dissent.

Within the Jewish community, there is debate about how to respond. Some have suggested stopping cleanup efforts in hopes that broader community frustration will grow. Joshua believes a coordinated, multi-block volunteer cleanup effort – involving Jews and non-Jews – is the only way to demonstrate that the issue is about shared civic space, not a private feud. He has set up an online group at facebook.com/groups/cleaningupdouglaspark.

photo - Because chalk is temporary and easily reapplied, the individual can rewrite messages almost as soon as they are washed away — Because chalk is temporary and easily reapplied, the individual can rewrite messages almost as soon as they are washed away. *(photo by Joshua)*

Residents should not have to navigate obscenities and hostile rhetoric on sidewalks and parks, said Joshua, and he questions whether the city would respond differently if racist or homophobic messages appeared in neighbourhoods with significant populations of the targeted communities.

This sort of conflict, in different permutations, is taking place in cities across Canada and worldwide. In Toronto, anti-Israel protesters have routinely set up demonstrations in areas with concentrations of Jewish residents and even marched through residential areas. Many Jews and their allies have repeatedly asked why there do not seem to be consequences for perpetrators of such deliberate harassment and intimidation.

That question was the subject of a Feb. 10 webinar with legal and policing experts, organized by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, titled Why Can’t There Be More Consequences?, which was moderated by Richard Marceau, CIJA’s senior vice-president and general counsel.

Mark Sandler, the chair of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, and Rochelle Direnfeld, that organization’s senior criminal counsel, have been delivering educational modules to police, making them aware of tools they have to enforce existing laws. Training for prosecutors is also necessary, Sandler noted.

Law enforcement and justice officials need to be able to recognize antisemitism and how it manifests, said Sandler.

Direnfeld provided examples, noting that average police officers cannot, for example, be expected to understand a sign that appeared at one rally: it read “Israel’s only friend is the Gharqad tree.” This is a reference to a Muslim religious verse about the only tree that would protect Jews from Muslims at the end-times.

Even the nuances of more seemingly straightforward messages – “From the river to the sea,” “Globalize the intifada” and “By any means necessary” – may not be immediately evident to those who are not engaged with the narrative, panelists said.

Sandler said police have been asking for sharper tools and the federal government is responding with Bill C-9. (See jewishindependent.ca/new-bill-targets-hate-crimes.) Panelists noted that existing laws against mischief, intimidation and unlawful assembly should suffice in cases where protesters are blocking roads or crowding into shopping malls.

Hank Idsinga, a retired inspector with the Toronto Police Service, said insufficient staffing can be used as an excuse for inaction, but this is not an appropriate response. “Police need to be prepared for various scenarios,” he said.

On the other hand, said Joseph Neuberger, chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association, Jewish community members need to know what is and is not acceptable within the bounds of the law. Chanting allegations of genocide is protected speech, he said, whether or not the allegations are false.

Neuberger is enthusiastic about components of C-9 that would criminalize intimidation around and obstruction of cultural and religious spaces. The bill is in committee stage.

The full webinar is available at youtube.com/watch?v=kAj_D0gREIM.

Wrong choice to host Piker

As a political science student at the University of British Columbia, I believe fiercely in free expression, open debate and intellectual diversity. I have defended the idea that universities should be places where ideas are rigorously challenged, interrogated and tested against competing visions of the world. But debating controversial ideas is not the same as giving a platform to only one side. It’s not the same as presenting individuals whose speech crosses the line into hate and dehumanization.

Universities are not neutral stages without consequence. They are institutions that make choices, and those choices carry weight. The people a university decides to platform is never incidental. It is a statement of values. It shapes the tone of campus discourse. It sends a message about whose voices are elevated and whose concerns are dismissed. And, in moments of deep political tension, it can determine whether students feel genuinely safe, respected and included, or alienated in their own community.

It is because of these reasons that I am deeply concerned that UBC decided to include Hasan Piker in its America First, America Alone? lecture series.

The Phil Lind Initiative claims to explore global politics in an age of uncertainty. That is an important and timely goal. But the credibility of such a series depends on the seriousness and integrity of its speakers. When a university invites someone whose public commentary has repeatedly included inflammatory, dehumanizing or violent remarks, it undermines the very academic rigour it claims to promote.

US Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres warned about the amplification of antisemitism on Twitch and specifically in reference to Piker: “Since October 7th, there has been an explosion of Jew-hatred on social media platforms,” Torres wrote. “Hasan Piker has emerged as the poster child for the post-October 7th outbreak of antisemitism in America.”

This is not about disagreement. Universities should host controversial thinkers. They should invite people whose views make us uncomfortable. But there is a difference between complex ideological debate and rhetoric that outright promotes violence, questions the suffering of victims and/or uses language that dehumanizes and endangers entire communities, including marginalized groups.

Piker is not merely a “polarizing” internet personality. He has built a brand around extremist commentary, from justifying 9/11 to repeated attacks on Israel and Zionism that go beyond policy criticism to attacking Jewish identity and calling for the destruction of Israel.

He has compared Zionism to Nazism, a comparison that is as morally distorted as it is historically indefensible. This kind of talk isn’t political critique, it’s erasure. Piker takes Zionism, a movement rooted in Jewish survival and self-determination, and distorts it into the Nazis’ attempt to annihilate us. These are not accidental slips of the tongue. They reflect a consistent pattern of language that crosses from criticism into dehumanization.

Piker has been temporarily suspended from Twitch multiple times for violating community guidelines related to hateful or abusive speech. That matters. Even if someone wants to defend his right to speak, we can’t pretend his public record reflects thoughtful, careful debate.

His style is built on provocation – on pushing buttons and escalating outrage – because that’s the business model of social media. The louder and more inflammatory the take, the more clicks, the more engagement, the more money. Academic spaces are supposed to prioritize nuance, depth and serious inquiry, not viral moments designed to generate cash and controversy.

For Jewish students on UBC’s campus, this isn’t some abstract political theory debate. Since Oct. 7, 2023, campus has felt different. Heavier. As antisemitism and openly hostile rhetoric have increased, many of us feel more exposed than we did before. I know I do. It has changed how openly we express our identity, how we participate in class discussions and how comfortable we feel in spaces that once felt safe. Friendships have been strained. Conversations are more tense.

So, when the university invites a speaker who has compared Zionism to Nazism, brushes aside concerns about antisemitism and treats Jewish self-determination as inherently illegitimate, it is difficult to believe this is simply about “intellectual curiosity.” It does not feel neutral. It feels dismissive. It feels like our fears and lived experiences are being minimized. More than anything, it feels like no one is listening.

UBC often speaks about inclusion, safety and belonging. Those commitments are not tested when we invite speakers everyone agrees with. They are tested when we decide whether “academic freedom” should be used as a shield for rhetoric that alienates vulnerable students.

To be clear: academic freedom protects speech from censorship, but it does not obligate a university to amplify any individual voice. Universities curate speakers all the time. They reject invitations. They choose who represents them.

Some will argue that silencing controversial figures sets a dangerous precedent. I agree that censorship is not the answer. But accountability is not censorship. Standards are not censorship. Students have every right to question whether this invitation reflects the kind of discourse a serious institution should highlight.

At the least, UBC has a responsibility to ensure ideological balance in the series. But where are the scholars who defend liberal democracy from the populist left and right? Where are the voices that articulate the Jewish experience of antisemitism in progressive spaces? Where is the intellectual diversity that the series claims to value?

Universities should be raising the nuance of conversation, not bringing the loudest parts of internet culture into serious academic spaces. Piker already has millions of followers. He did not need UBC to amplify him. The real question is whether our university’s stage should have been used to legitimize Piker’s approach – I don’t think it should have been.

As students, we deserve better.

We deserve debate that is rigorous, not reactionary. We deserve speakers who challenge our ideas without dehumanizing entire communities in the process. We deserve administrators who understand that inclusion cannot be selective.

Inclusion cannot mean protecting some students while asking others to tolerate hostility in the name of “dialogue.” If UBC is serious about equity, then protecting Jewish students from being dehumanized should not be controversial. It should be common practice.

If views like Piker’s were directed at almost any other marginalized group, there would have been immediate outrage, with statements, listening sessions and other institutional responses. There would have been no confusion about whether they crossed a line. So why was it different when it came to Jewish students?

UBC’s brand is built on excellence, inclusion and global leadership. Excellence requires discernment. Inclusion requires sensitivity. Leadership requires moral clarity.

The decision to host Hasan Piker fell short on all three values.

Avigail Feldman is a fourth-year student at the University of British Columbia, with a bachelor’s in political science and going into a master’s of management. She is also a StandWithUs Canada Emerson Fellow.

Attack on Jewish kids

Fresh red lines have been crossed by anti-Israel agitators in Canada. These developments should alarm everyone who cares about civil society, diversity and safe spaces for children.

A coalition of antizionist groups is pressuring provincial camping associations to strip accreditation from Jewish summer camps on the basis that the camps integrate Zionism into their programming.

These opponents accuse the camps of politicizing Jewish summer camps, but the irony here is that it is the activists who are doing the politicizing. The land and the state of Israel are integral to Jewish identity. They deserve to be part of a holistic Jewish experience – camping, or any other cultural undertaking – for Jews of any age.

A primary complaint, it seems, is that Jewish camps often employ young Israelis, including (as almost all Israelis are) veterans of the Israel Defence Forces. They take it a step further, though – and this is a lesson about the insidious strategy behind the “genocide” libel.

The term genocide, we should not need to note, carries a strict definition under international law and no competent international court has made such a finding against Israel. While the term is thrown about with abandon, including by erstwhile legitimate nongovernmental organizations, this is, at best, a contested area of discourse.

It might have seemed that the widespread use of the term “genocide” was a means to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state. It is much more than that.

Having planted the flag of “genocide,” antizionist groups are now moving from this presumed “fact” to employing it as a weapon on new fronts to attack Jewish identity, culture and security worldwide – the first, apparently, being Jewish kids’ summer camp experiences.

The activists targeting Jewish camps are accusing them of endorsing “genocide.” The campaign is part of a broader effort to cast Jewish institutions as unacceptable in public life if they are connected, even tangentially, to anything associated with Israel.

Jewish summer camps have nothing to do with military strategy in Gaza or legislative decisions in Jerusalem. They have everything to do with building community, preserving language and tradition, fostering positive identity and belongingness, and providing childhood experiences that many Canadian Jews cherish and remember fondly for decades. They are also sources of relationships – dating and marriages included – for many in the Jewish world.

And that, of course, may be the point.

The anti-Israel activists know the centrality of Israel to Jewish identity. To undermine Israel, they seem to have concluded, it is necessary to attack the foundations of Jewish identity in Canada and around the world. Starting with kids.

The attempt to weaponize accreditation – a marker of safety, quality and regulatory compliance – threatens to blur the boundary between political disputes and Canada’s multicultural harmony. Provincial camping associations are rightly focused on ensuring that camps meet health, safety and staffing standards. They are not forums for arbitrating geopolitical grievances.

What is most disturbing about this campaign is not merely its target, but its implications. If any cultural institution can be penalized because it maintains a connection to a nation or narrative that some (rightly or wrongly) find objectionable, then no group is safe from the imposition of political litmus tests in civic life. Imagine if every cultural organization that used Russian, Hausa, Arabic, Urdu or Mandarin were accused of endorsing every foreign government’s actions. The corrosive effect on Canadian pluralism would be profound.

To their credit, camping associations in Ontario and Manitoba have responded appropriately. We await similar expressions from the BC Camps Association.

Jewish camp leaders, Jewish federations and others have rightly pushed back, calling the campaign discriminatory and cautioning that it risks undermining the welfare and safety of Jewish children. Their voices deserve amplification. Protecting our children’s right to participate in enriching experiences free from political and antisemitic harassment is not a partisan concern. It is a foundational element of a just, inclusive society.

In defending Jewish summer camps, we are defending more than campfires and games. We are defending a principle: that identity – religious, cultural or ethnic – must not be a basis for discrimination in Canada.

To suggest that Jewish camps should lose their accreditation because they use Hebrew words around a campfire, celebrate Jewish holidays or employ staff who have served in the Israeli military is to redefine discrimination as activism.

Targeting Jewish summer camps for their cultural identity is an assault on the very foundations of multicultural community life.

Tackling antizionism head on

Adam Louis-Klein was deep in the Amazon on Oct. 7, 2023 – three months into fieldwork with an Indigenous community, living without any internet or phone contact. Two days later, in a local town, he reconnected with the outside world and saw the news. Then he saw something else: how people in his professional orbit were responding to the atrocities perpetrated against Israelis.

“I spoke up and said I stood in solidarity with Israelis, and spoke up against the bigotry I was already seeing, and I was quickly, basically purged,” he told the Independent.

photo - Adam Louis-Klein — Adam Louis-Klein *(photo by Adam Louis-Klein)*

Louis-Klein, a McGill University PhD candidate who now lives in New York state, describes a swift loss of “all my social and professional contacts.” But that didn’t stop him from expressing his views. He felt an obligation, he said, to offer a Jewish voice that speaks the same language as the academy and the left, especially in response to antizionism.

“As I wrote more about it, I think my understanding of antizionism got sharper and sharper,” he said. “I got more focused on antizionism itself as an ideology, not just antisemitism.”

That shift – treating antizionism as something that should be named and confronted directly, rather than in the context of its relationship with antisemitism – has become central to his work. In his view, focusing on antisemitism as the lens can become a rhetorical trap, positioning antizionism as a respectable political position.

His ideas went viral.

“I was posting on Facebook and people kind of liked the little mini-essays I wrote,” he said. He launched a blog at the Times of Israel, then began writing for other outlets. “One thing led to another.”

The visibility has accelerated in recent months, he said. Movement Against Antizionism (MAAZ), the organization he founded and leads, has also caught on rapidly.

People found his Times of Israel blog and were on the lookout for voices explicitly naming and confronting antizionism, he said. The people he works with have helped refine his language. Looking back at his writing over a short span, he said, “I already see a kind of progression whereby I get sharper at naming antizionism and making that the focus.”

The backlash was instantaneous.

“People tried to shut me down,” he said. “There were fake complaints against me … they would call my advisor, they would call the anthropology department to try and get me expelled.” He said he was removed from WhatsApp groups, a book club he organized collapsed, a presentation he organized on the Soviet roots of antizionist rhetoric was canceled without explanation.

He described a hardened ideological environment.

“I was told that no one would discuss with me whether it’s a genocide,” he said. “The genocide libel was not something that could be discussed.”

While the university environment may be a hotbed of antizionism generally, anthropology is particularly hostile, he said.

Early anthropology was connected to colonial infrastructures and later efforts to reckon with that legacy have put “settler-colonialism” at the centre of the discipline, Louis-Klein said. In his telling, the field has “swallowed wholesale” a narrative in which “Israelis are these evil white settlers.” He no longer sees a future in the discipline. “It’s not a field that Jews who do not profess loyalty to the antizionist movement … can exist in at this point,” he said.

Louis-Klein, who grew up mostly in Seattle and who spent time in Whistler growing up, holds a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Yale University, a master’s in philosophy from the New School, a master’s in anthropology from the University of Chicago, and is nearing completion of his PhD at McGill.

With academic doors closing in front of him, he sees a new possibility: the creation of a serious intellectual space for the study of antizionism itself.

“There is now a movement to try and create an academic space for critical studies of antizionism,” he said, adding that he wants to “provide an intellectual framework for treating antizionism as an objective study, as something that we can critically understand, break down, trace its genealogy, understand how it functions in the present as its own phenomenon.”

In his view, the public conversation must change for practical reasons, not just academic ones.

“We cannot fight anti-Jewish violence today without naming and opposing antizionism,” he said. “The vast majority of anti-Jewish violence is directly motivated by antizionism.”

Even attacks rooted in “more classical” right-wing antisemitism now unfold within “the overall hysteria that has been created by antizionism since Oct. 7 and the genocide libel,” he said. Besides, he argued, as a strategy, equating antizionism and antisemitism is failing.

“Calling antizionism antisemitism is also not working,” he said. “We’re assuming that if we just say it’s antisemitic, a number of institutional levers will set into place Holocaust memory, and it’ll shut it down.”

But that’s not happening, he said, “because antizionism doesn’t look like classical antisemitism.”

Instead, he thinks people need to be taught what antizionism is.

“You can’t just say it’s antisemitic,” he said. “You have to explain to people what antizionism is as an ideology, and you have to stop treating it as political critique.”

He draws a distinction between debating Zionism and describing antizionism as a social phenomenon.

“Talking about antizionism also doesn’t mean … explaining how Zionism is actually good. It goes far beyond that. It means explaining how antizionism is a hate movement,” he said.

“It’s a mob movement,” he added. “There are lynch mobs … people who hunt down Zionists and try and shame and humiliate them.… They vandalize buildings, they smash windows.”

MAAZ delivers training in different sectors, including education, business, arts and journalism, designed to help people understand antizionism and “to fight back and to give people a language.”

“We really think naming and labeling is the way to defeat it,” he said.

Louis-Klein described teaching people to “maintain boundaries,” and to label recurring accusations – “colonizer libel, apartheid libel, genocide libel” – as antizionist so that Jews and allies stop feeling obligated to defend their legitimacy and instead “hold antizionism to account.”

The organization also includes legal thinking, with scholar Rona Kaufman developing a legal concept of antizionist discrimination.

Beyond training, MAAZ emphasizes public education. Louis-Klein encourages people to explore the organization’s website (movementagainstantizionism.org), which he describes as “kind of like a museum … a curation where you enter inside of the whole history of antizionism and its different forms and the different libels.”

He emphasized a point he sees as essential for long-term success: expanding beyond the Jewish community.

“Having non-Jewish people who can get behind that … will just be the key,” he said. “That will be the thing that catapults it to the next stage.”