Tag: Canada

מאה ימים

דונלד טראמפ משנה דעתו כל הזמן: מתנגד להסכם הסחר עם קנדה ומקסיקו, תומך בו, מתנגד לו ותומך בו. (צילום: Gage Skidmore)

נשיא ארה”ב, דונלאד טראמפ, ממשיך לשנות את דעתו בכל נושא ונושא גם במלאת מאה ימים לכהונתו. אף אחד ממקורביו, בממשלו, ממשלתו ובקרב חברי הקונגרס מטעם מפלגתו, לא יודעים מה ילד יום וממה לצפות מטראפ שמעורר מבוכה רבה. לכן גם לא מפתיע במיוחד שטראמפ שהודיע כי הסכם הסחר הצפון אמריקני של ארה”ב עם קנדה ומקסיקו – נפט”א “הוא גרוע ביותר בהיסטוריה”, לאחר מכן אמר כי יוכנסו בו רק תיקונים קטנים בכל הנוגע לקנדה. אחרי כן הודיע טראמפ בשבוע שעבר כי הוא יבטל את הסכם נפט”א (ואף כבר הכין טיוטה של צו נשיאותי לסגת מההסכם), ולאחר יום חזר בו והודיע כי הוא כי ימשיך לתמוך בו, תוך הכנסת תיקונים מסויימים. זאת לאחר ששוחח בטלפון עם נשיא מקסיקו, אנריקה פנייה וראש ממשלת קנדה, ג’סטין טרודו, שביקשו ממנו להשאיר את הסכם הסחר על כנו, כי אחרת יגרם נזק גדול יותר לשלושת הצדדים, ולפעול במשותף במטרה לשפרו. טראמפ ציין כי אם הוא מסוגל לעשות עיסקה הוגנת עבור ארה”ב במקום לבטל את ההסכם המדובר, זה מה שהוא יעשה. נשיא ארה”ב הוסיף: “אנחנו מתכוונים לתת הזדמנות טובה למשא ומתן מחודש לשיפור תנאי ההסכם, שהתחיל ממש כבר בימים אלה”.

טרודו מצידו אמר לעיתונאים לאחר ששוחח עם טראמפ בטלפון, כי השיחה בין השניים הייתה מוצלחת. בשיחה הוא הבהיר לנשיא ארה”ב כי יציאת ארה”ב מההסכם תגרום כאב גדול לשתי המדינות. שני האישים סיכמו ביניהם לשפר את תנאי ההסכם לטובת שלוש המדינות השותפות בו. טראמפ אישר לאחר מכן כרגיל באמצעות טוויטר כי הסכים לבקשתם של טרודו לשנות את תנאי הסכם הסחר במקום לבטלו.

הסכם ליצירת אזור סחר חופשי של צפון אמריקהי בין ארה”ב, קנדה ומקסיקו – נפט”א – נולד בשנת 1994. אז חתמו עליו ראשי המדינות: נשיא ארה”ב ביל קלינטון, ראש ממשלת קנדה, בריאן מלרוני ונשיא מקסיקו קרלוס סאלינס. אגב מלרוני השמרני נחשב למקורב לטראמפ במשך שנים, ולכן הוא משמש כיום כיועץ לממשלת טרודו הליברלית שמנסה ללמוד כיצד לנהוג במגעים מול הנשיא האמריקני הבלתי צפוי לחלוטין.

נפט”א נועד לביטול רוב המכסים בין שלוש המדינות וכן להסדיר את מעבר כוח האדם והסחורות בין ארה”ב למקסיקו. ההסכם יועד בעיקר לשפר את מצבם של ענף החקלאות, ענף ייצור המכוניות וכן ענף הטקסטיל. ההסכם שנחשב למבורך בעיני רבים בהם גם מומחים בתחום הכלכלה, שילש את כמות המסחר וההשקעות בין ארה”ב, קנדה ומקסיקו. במונחי שווי כוח הקנייה של התוצר הלאומי הגולמי של החברות בהסכם, הוא יצר את גוש הסחר החופשי הגדול בעולם. ובמונחי תמ”ג נומינלי נחשב נפט”א להסכם הסחר השני לאחר הסכם איגוד הסחר החופשי של הגוש האירופאי המאוחד.

הסכם נפט”א הביא לכך שהתגבר סחר החוץ בין שלוש המדינות וכלכלן צמחו במהלך התקופה מאז נחתם. כלכלת קנדה צמחה בקצב הגבוה ביותר, אחריה כלכלת ארה”ב ואחרונה כלכלת מקסיקו. לפי משרד המסחר של ארה”ב: מאז חתימת ההסכם רמת האבטלה במשק האמריקני ירדה, בו בזמן שנרשם גידול מתמיד בשכר העובדים הריאלי לשעה. כן נרשם גידול בשכר העובדים של מקסיקו ואף גידול ביצוא החקלאי של ארה”ב לקנדה ומקסיקו. המומחים מציינים כי נפט”א הזיק לתעסוקה בארה”ב הרבה פחות מהתחרות עם סין ומדינות אחרות, ודווקא ביטולו עלול לפגוע בתעשיות האמריקניות.

Exhibit for the 150th

The ribbon-cutting at the launch of the Canadian Jewish Experience exhibit. From left to right: Dr. Mark Kristmanson of the National Capital Commission; Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Moldaver; Ottawa Police Chief Charles Bordeleau; Rabbi Reuven Bulka of Machzikei Hadas Synagogue; Catherine Bélanger, widow of the late member of Parliament Mauril Bélanger; Tova Lynch of CJE; Linda Kerzner of Jewish Federation of Ottawa; and Cantor Daniel Benlolo of Congregation Kehilat Beth Israel. (photo from CJE)

A new exhibit opened in Ottawa on April 2, to mark the contribution of Jews to Canada and to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation. The Canadian Jewish Experience: A Tribute to Canada 150 is on display in the lobby of 30 Metcalfe St., just two blocks from Parliament Hill, and is open to the public daily from 9 a.m.-6 p.m.

The Canadian Jewish Experience is composed of specially created, bilingual exhibit panels illustrating nine major themes, such as contributions in war and diplomacy, public service, human rights, business growth, arts, culture and sport. A traveling version of the CJE exhibit will be available for display in other cities in Canada.

A parallel website has also been created to present more detailed information about the CJE exhibit topics and about many extraordinary Canadians. The website will provide information about venues for the lecture series and locations where the traveling exhibit can be viewed.

The Canadian Jewish Experience will also present a speaker series to highlight the contributions of Jewish Canadians to the development of Canada.

CJE has produced a special exhibit panel called Remembering Louis Rasminsky, which describes the work of Rasminsky, who was the first-ever Jewish person to be governor of the Bank of Canada. This will be on display at the Bank of Canada headquarters in Ottawa.

At the exhibit opening, CJE committee head Tova Lynch thanked donors from across Canada for the financial assistance they provided. In particular, she acknowledged its major donors: the Asper Foundation and Bel-Fran Charitable Foundation (Samuel and Frances Belzberg) from Vancouver.

“The CJE is an example of the tremendous love which Canadians have for our country,” Lynch added, praising the National Capital Commission for its cooperation. “Through our partnership with the National Capital Commission, CJE has an excellent downtown facility at the centre of events celebrating Canada’s 150th birthday.”

Lynch also noted, “Excitement is building as we approach Canada Day 2017. CJE will tell Canada’s Jewish story to many thousands of visitors to Ottawa in 2017.”

She pointed out that “Jewish Canadians have played a key role in all facets of life in Canada. Their accomplishments reflect the challenges and successes experienced by Canada in its first 150 years.”

The Jewish connection to Canada dates back to the mid-1700s. “The first Jewish Canadians arrived more than 100 years before Confederation,” noted Senator Linda Frum. “We’ve been here for a quarter of a millennium, but many Canadians don’t know the role we’ve played to make our country strong and vibrant. The Canadian Jewish Experience will help to change that.”

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson said that the national capital is the appropriate home for the Canadian Jewish Experience. “In 2017, Ottawa will be at the centre of celebrating Canada’s 150th birthday and Jewish people have played a key role in all facets of life in the city. In fact, their accomplishments here reflect all the themes of the Canadian Jewish Experience, including being elected mayor.”

Other Jewish leaders and organizations who have assisted the Canadian Jewish Experience project include Victor Rabinovitch, former president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Museum of Civilization (now the Canadian Museum of History); the leaders of Jewish federations across Canada; and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. CJE is also supported by members of Parliament from all federal parties, Senator Frum, former senator Jerry Grafstein and Rabbi Dr. Reuven Bulka. Sandra Morton Weizman of Calgary is the curator of the CJE exhibit and virtual exhibit.

The CJE website is cje2017.com.

 

Some civil discourse basics

There should be a word for the phenomenon where an individual comes to mass public attention only when their reputations are imploding due to impolitic remarks on social media. Milo Yiannopoulos, a former editor of the far-right Breitbart news, was just cresting his 15 minutes of fame as a flamboyant right-wing provocateur when he discovered that words can still get one in hot water. Only as his credibility, such as it was, flamed out did his name become anything close to a household word.

Likewise, a Canadian figure few of our readers had probably heard of until he melted down in an online video is Gavin McInnes. A comedian, online commentator, co-founder of Vice Magazine and – here’s that term again – right-wing provocateur, McInnes is also a contributor to Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media.

On a trip to Israel with other members of the Rebel outfit, McInnes posted a lengthy spiel about his reaction to a visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust remembrance centre. He apparently felt the visit was an exercise in Jewish propaganda and declared that, far from making him sympathetic to Jewish history, it had the opposite effect.

The Israelis he met, he said, “assume we’re going to listen to all this s–t we get fed.… That’s having the reverse effect on me: I’m becoming antisemitic.”

He added: “I felt myself defending the super far-right Nazis just because I was sick of so much brainwashing.”

Israelis, he said, have “a whiny, paranoid fear of Nazis,” and “it’s a Jewish thing” to dwell on the past.

“This whole nation-state is talking about ‘Seventy-five years ago, my people were killed,’” McInnes said. “Always the Jews, always killing us, we are the scapegoats.… God, they’re so obsessed with the Holocaust. Yes, I know it was bad – don’t get me wrong, I’m not pro-Holocaust.”

He went on to accuse Jews of perpetrating the Holodomor, Stalin’s deliberate Ukrainian famine that killed between seven and 10 million people in the 1930s.

As McInnes was getting more than his share of attention, another Canadian was receiving a mixed reception from campus crowds in Ontario.

Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and a tenured professor at the University of Toronto, gained some notoriety last fall when he posted video reflections on aspects of human rights law that he said could potentially infringe on free speech. Most notably, he refuses to use non-gendered pronouns (such as zhe, instead of he or she) in his classroom. Peterson is a critic of what he calls “compelled speech.”

Peterson is hardly as inflammatory as Yiannopoulos or McInnes. Agree or disagree, his positions are intellectually rooted and debatable, not beyond the pale of civil discourse. Yet he never really got a chance to speak at McMaster University because he was drowned out by a chanting group of students who shut down his event. That his message was one of free speech is an irony, though one apparently lost on some university students these days.

In any event, he was met with a far more amenable crowd the next day at the University of Western Ontario. According to media reports, even some who came to protest were pleasantly surprised to find themselves agreeing with Peterson once they heard what he had to say.

Regardless of what these men had to say, though, the idea that their ideas should be silenced, rather than contested, is a societal problem in itself. Things would be different if we did not have a diffuse media universe; if every individual did not have more access than ever before to express themselves; if, as some conspiracists allege, the channels of communication were truly limited to a powerful few. But they’re not.

Every Canadian can participate in the national discussion. First, we can listen, like the students at Western and unlike those at McMaster last week. Second, we can express our own views when we hear ideas that challenge ours. (We have a right to do this as vociferously as we wish, but we have a complementary responsibility to do so civilly.) Third, we can defend the right of those with whom we disagree to speak and be heard – within the limitations Canadians have broadly consented to acknowledge as appropriate to peace, order and good government.

These three steps are about as simple a description of civil discourse as can be distilled. While there is much discussion about free speech, it is valuable to bear in mind that we, as Canadians, have it. This should not be taken for granted, of course, because these freedoms were hard won and should be defended. But rights must also be exercised to be valuable.

The response to disagreeable ideas is not less speech, but more speech. Listen, express, defend. Never in history has an individual had more accessible avenues to sharing their opinions and ideas. Free speech has never been freer. Please use it for good.

An opportunity lost

Mykhailo Chomiak edited a Ukrainian-language Nazi newspaper in occupied Poland. It happens that Chomiak was the maternal grandfather of Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s foreign minister.

This fact is a matter of historical record, but apparently Russian operatives were shopping the story around as if it were fresh – and as if they believe Canadians will hold Freeland, and perhaps by extension the Liberal government, responsible for Chomiak’s past.

A writer on the Canadian online media outlet rabble.ca went so far as to accuse Freeland of a cover-up, which is nonsense, since she was acknowledged for her help editing an article on the subject that was written 20 years ago by her uncle, John-Paul Himka, an historian.

Freeland called it “public knowledge that there have been efforts, as U.S. intelligence forces have said, by Russia to destabilize the U.S. political system.… I think that Canadians, and indeed other Western countries, should be prepared for similar efforts to be directed at us.” She is absolutely correct. Russia almost certainly was involved in the U.S. presidential election and may indeed be responsible for the fact that Donald Trump is now in the White House.

Nevertheless, it seemed like a missed opportunity for Freeland not to use the chance to acknowledge some of the complexities and complicities around her grandfather’s history.

Let’s step back for a moment and realize that Canadians are relatively fortunate that, whatever enormous sacrifices Canadian families made during the Second World War, the war itself never reached our shores. For families in Europe at the time, many of whose descendants are, through immigration, now Canadians, the war impacted every aspect of civilian life. Possibly millions of people are responsible for acts of heroism or betrayal that are lost to history. Had it not been for the writings of a member of her own family, Freeland’s grandfather’s story might have been another largely forgotten piece of that war’s far-encompassing awfulness.

Who can estimate how many Canadians have ancestors who engaged in complicity (or worse) with Hitler’s regime, or with Stalin’s, or with any number of less-renowned tyrants and bad ideologies worldwide? We do not rest from seeking redress for the worst crimes during history’s worst times, but behaviours that do not constitute war crimes have rarely received the full attention of the media and public that Chomiak’s case has garnered in the past days. And we certainly do not – and should not – place any blame at the feet of grandchildren for events that took place before they were born. Freeland has done absolutely nothing wrong.

Still … she could have done something better. She could have (and perhaps by the time you read this, she will have) turned this into a teaching moment for Canadians.

The parents or grandparents of some Canadians may have chosen to, or been forced to, engage in actions we see as abhorrent. We cannot change the past. But we can potentially make a better future by acknowledging it, openly identifying wrongs and committing ourselves to better actions than that exhibited by some of our forebears. As examples, present-day Canadians have begun a process of reconciliation around the genocide perpetrated against indigenous Canadians, and Canadian governments have apologized for actions against Japanese-Canadians and the passengers of the Komagata Maru and the MS St. Louis.

In Freeland’s case, she is right to warn Canadians that Russia is attempting to undermine the credibility of our country’s foreign minister. But she should go further and insist that no Canadian – whether the country’s top diplomat or a new Canadian who was sworn in as a citizen yesterday – is guilty of acts undertaken by their grandparents. A few words about the complexity of historical memory could also be helpful. And it would be valuable for the federal government to make a firm public declaration that blackmailing or smearing a Canadian based on the acts of an ancestor will fail in its mission.

These times call for solidarity

When a multicultural country like Canada faces a stark rise in hatred targeting one ethnic group, its social and ethical solidarity is put to the test. The question for Canada’s Jewish establishment is, how will it respond to the shocking spike in hatred targeting the Muslim community?

On the heels of the Quebec City mosque shooting, which left six worshippers dead, and then a hate-filled protest outside of a Toronto mosque, a private member’s motion to condemn Islamophobia was introduced in Parliament. Regrettably, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) is opposing the motion, at least in its current form.

Liberal MP Iqra Khalid introduced the non-binding motion (M-103) urging the government to “better reflect” the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by “quell[ing] the increasing public climate of hate and fear,” while “condemn[ing] Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” Her motion also asks Parliament to convene a study to address these issues and “to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities.”

As the motion – intended to express the will of Parliament but falling short of having any legal force – acknowledges, there are already Charter provisions for opposing racism and discrimination. And Section 319 of the Criminal Code already outlaws “communicating statements in any public place, incit[ing] hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” But, sometimes, the law is not enough to signal collective revulsion.

The demonstrators outside the downtown Toronto mosque held signs such as “Ban Islam” and “Muslims are terrorists.” Interviewed on camera, one of the protesters makes the following chilling observation: “They [she presumably means Muslims] start out friendly and, before you know it, they grow so much in population that they take over.” The interviewer challenges her: “This is sounding a lot like what people said about Jews at one time,” to which the protester replies: “There’s no comparison. Jews were not evil.”

For its part, CIJA calls M-103 “flawed.” As CIJA head Shimon Koffler Fogel writes, the motion “requires us to silence legitimate concerns or suppress a public conversation about those strains of Islam that pose a real and imminent threat to Jews around the world,” adding that the motion “denies space and opportunity within the Muslim community to confront those strains of Islam that do indeed exist and do indeed cause harm to the majority of Muslims who do not subscribe to an extremist ideology.” For these reasons, CIJA is urging lawmakers to oppose it.

It’s not the first time a private member’s motion has been introduced to focus Canada’s attention on a specific form of hatred. In 2015, Conservative MP James Bezan asked “all members [of Parliament] and all Canadians [to] join me in denouncing antisemitism.” In 2015, Liberal MP Irwin Cotler asked the “House [to] condemn the alarming development of a new antisemitism….” And then, of course, there’s the 2010 Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism, which convened parliamentary representatives from an array of countries to call out antisemitism.

CIJA director of communications Martin Sampson shared with me the amended text of the motion CIJA proposed to Khaled, including trying to add a clause that would “recognize that criticism and condemnation of any and all forms of extremism is not only acceptable but necessary in a free and democratic society; and tasking the proposed study to define ‘Islamophobia in Canada.’”

Bernie Farber, former head of Canadian Jewish Congress and now head of the Toronto-based Mosaic Institute, a diversity, peace and justice organization, said he is “baffled and stunned” by CIJA’s opposition to the motion.

Is the lack of explicit acknowledgment of the legitimacy of criticizing religion a problem, as CIJA is suggesting? No. Parliamentary motions have no legislative force. The existing Criminal Code – including laws governing freedom of expression – will remain unaffected. Fogel’s claim that the motion will silence criticism by force of law is simply wrong. It may serve to dampen enthusiasm for the kind of hateful anti-Muslim demonstrations we saw in Toronto, but that is the point.

Or perhaps the vagueness of the term Islamophobia is a problem. Sampson calls the word “politically charged and imprecise.” Cotler, for instance, is suggesting that M-103 be amended to say “anti-Muslim bigotry.”

But, like homophobia, Islamophobia is simply the term that exists to denote this form of bigotry. When I asked historian of language Liora Halperin why the term got saddled with the more clinical “phobia” suffix instead of acquiring the more straightforward “anti” prefix, she acknowledges that phobias are psychiatric diagnoses, not ideologies. But, she adds, “in practice, fear is indeed part of racism.”

The term antisemitism – which, ironically, was coined by a German antisemite – captures the unique phenomenon of Jew hatred. Similarly, Farber argues, “hatred of Muslims needs its own specific word to get people to understand the importance of what this kind of hatred of Muslims can do. And we’ve seen it, sadly, right here in Canada.”

These times call for solidarity in the face of rising tides of antisemitism, Islamophobia and all other forms of racism. In the wake of the mosque massacre and the hateful protests on Toronto’s usually peaceful streets, coupled with the shadow of U.S. President Donald Trump’s xenophobic policies, the time is now for Canadians to stand together against Islamophobia. That’s the word we have, that’s the member’s motion being proposed, and that’s the wave of hatred – one prominent wave among many, sadly – that we urgently need to address.

Mira Sucharov is an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She is a columnist for Canadian Jewish News and contributes to Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward, among other publications. A version of this article was originally published on haartez.com.

Guichon visit RJDS

The Hon. Judith Guichon with Richmond Jewish Day School students. (photo by Lauren Kramer)

Students at Richmond Jewish Day School were thrilled to receive a visit from the Hon. Judith Guichon, lieutenant governor of British Columbia, on Feb. 22. Guichon addressed students on her role in Canada’s constitutional monarchy and shared her ideas about a healthy, sustainable future. To mark the 150th anniversary of Canada’s Confederation, the lieutenant governor is visiting 150 schools across the province.

A swing and a hit play

Hasan (Nadeem Phillip) tells Haseena (Risha Nanda) about his dream of playing cricket in Canada. (photo by Emily Cooper)

I have to admit I’ve never seen a cricket match in all the years I’ve lived in Vancouver. I’ve seen games in other countries – but I never knew Stanley Park had a field for cricket going back to the 1890s and a clubhouse that just turned 100.

In fact, the pitch at Brockton Oval is considered rather hallowed ground by some and forms a focal point in The Men in White, the current production at the Arts Club Granville Island Stage.

Playwright Anosh Irani takes the audience from India, where dreamers see Canada as a land of refuge; to Canada, where dreams don’t always turn out the way people hope; to the world of cricket, where even a “duck” doesn’t hurt too badly as long as you don’t have to borrow a “box.”

Based partly on the author’s true experience at a chicken slaughterhouse, the play is set in two different locations – a chicken stand in Bombay and a cricket clubhouse in Vancouver.

In India, 18-year-old Hasan dreams of becoming a famous cricket player and playing in Vancouver with his brother. As he laments his lot in life, he admires a local girl from afar, trying to woo her, despite becoming tongue-tied and awkward whenever she comes by. His adoptive father, who owns the shop, looks after him, trying to impart wisdom about life, albeit in rather unorthodox ways.

In Vancouver, Hasan’s brother, Abdul, has been living and working in a restaurant illegally, after arriving on a tourist visa. He’s embarrassed to tell his brother of his circumstance, and the only thing that keeps his spirits up is to be able to play his favourite sport on a beautiful grass cricket field – a privilege for which he is immensely grateful. He’s particularly impressed because Don Bradman, a renowned cricket player, had said in 1948: “The Brockton Point ground is the prettiest upon which it has been my pleasure to play.”

In the clubhouse, Hasan and his teammates discuss the game, each other’s lives and the issues of the day, but come to blows when racist sentiment arises. A doctor who had emigrated from Bombay takes issue with Abdul. His angry outburst ends with him declaring, “I will not allow Muslims in this country!”

The scene is disturbing in its familiarity, given President Trump’s machinations, but also very touching, as the other team members rally around Abdul in support.

While thought-provoking, the play doesn’t offer up any answers. Its forte is in the writing and directing. The performance is jam-packed with witty repartee, sarcastic barbs and playful insults that are tossed at one another like verbal confetti.

Irani has a skill in wordplay and humour that leaves the audience feeling at once unsettled by some of what’s being said, while appreciating its delivery. With six of the cast members almost talking over one another at times, the outcome could have been rather messy, and the play needed the deft hand of Rachel Ditor at the helm to direct the characters in their split-second timing. The set design by Amir Ofek is minimalist, but in some ways reflects a cricket game. The two locations share one stage and action alternates between the two, as it would in a sporting match. Ofek’s design enables the sets to coexist, while still being visually separated by the few props and use of different lighting.

The Men in White runs at Granville Island Stage until March 11 (artsclub.com). Irani’s work – he is also an author – has gained national and international acclaim and honours. Take the opportunity to see it for yourself.

Baila Lazarus is a freelance writer and media strategist in Vancouver. Her consulting services are at phase2coaching.com.

The complexities of terrorism

Dr. Tami Jacoby, associate professor at the University of Manitoba, has been studying Middle East politics and international relations for nearly 20 years. (photo from Tami Jacoby)

Dr. Tami Jacoby, associate professor at the University of Manitoba, has been studying Middle East politics and international relations for nearly 20 years. She not only shares her expertise with students at the university, but the broader community as well, via books and lectures. She is currently teaching an eight-week class at Winnipeg’s Rady JCC called Terrorism and Political Violence.

After working toward her undergrad degree at the Hebrew University, Jacoby finished her studies at U of M. She then went back to Hebrew U for her master’s degree in political science and international relations. At that time, Jacoby made aliyah and started a family and life in Israel. Later, she moved to Toronto to do a doctorate in political science at York University. She eventually returned to Winnipeg, where she currently resides.

While doing her PhD, Jacoby traveled back and forth regularly between Canada and Israel, and did field work in Israel, conducting interviews and research on women’s protest movements.

Over the years, Jacoby has written several books, including Women in Zones of Conflict: Power and Resistance in Israel (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005). Using the framework of “a case study of three women’s political movements in Israel: Women in Green, the Jerusalem Link and the lobby for women’s right to fight in the Israel Defence Forces,” the book, according to the publisher’s description online, “challenges the traditional view, which suggests a natural connection between women and pacifism, based on the feminine qualities of caring, cooperation and empathy.”

“What I did was a number of years of interviews and research on women’s protest movements … and the book that came out was a book on the diversity of feminism in Israel, but as a level of extremism,” Jacoby told the Independent. “I was interested in how women in one national context could have such radically different views on the same things, like feminism, the Arab-Israeli conflict and just run-of-the-mill party politics.”

One of the interesting things Jacoby found was that many women on the left were interested in things like dialogue with the Palestinians about a two-state solution, and feminism. In contrast, right-wingers’ idea of dialogue with the Palestinians was through protest, the media and policy.

“They were very driven by their fear of not only losing the state of Israel, but of losing their identity as Jews, as Israelis,” said Jacoby. “And the left-wing portion of the Israeli women’s movement was very interested in dialogue with Palestinian women. They wanted to get together with them and have cultural programs and social events. They wanted to listen to and get to know the stories of Palestinian women, to be able to walk in their shoes and completely understand them.”

The class that Jacoby is teaching at the Rady JCC – which started last week and runs to March 21 – looks at terrorism in Canada and the legal and political/social aspects of it.

“This class I’m teaching at the JCC is, in a sense, piggybacking on other research and teaching that I’m doing right at the moment,” she told the Independent before the course began. “So, I’d assume the people in the class will be interested in the kind of terrorism that Canada and Israel deal with…. But the class takes a step back and looks at the phenomenon of terrorism as a philosophical and structural issue….”

While Jacoby is teaching the class, she is also a student of sorts, as she is interested in hearing what people have to say.

“People have a lot to say and it’s not just off the cuff; it’s substantiated by empirical evidence and anecdotes that are based on experience,” she said. “What I try to do is open a little window on something that I’ve been very heavily researching … and open a discussion about things that people may not have thought of before … so people can bring things to the table and we can work to enlighten ourselves about the topic.”

Touching a little on what will be examined in the course, Jacoby said, “One of the things I’ve come to realize about terrorism is that it has a particular dynamic to it, no matter where it is and what period of history it is in. And that is, you have a small group of people trying to terrorize, make afraid, a large group of people … so they start to feel their life is untenable and then pressure the government to act. That’s the case with literally every terrorist group, regardless of their philosophy, background or tactics. That’s the logic of terrorism. I’m interested in seeing how case studies fit into that logic.”

Another topic will be how to pair counterterrorism with policies like multiculturalism, democracy and liberalism.

“The human tendency is to look for people who might look like them, causing a whole range of Islamophobia, antisemitism, racism and xenophobia,” explained Jacoby. “These are the kinds of problems not specific to any one particular form of terrorism, but that fuel a broader understanding of terrorism in general.”

Jacoby sees political violence like terrorism as a way in which people express themselves at the extreme end of the spectrum. “Political violence is quite broad,” she said. “It could be something quite innocuous, like threatening someone or inciting someone to violence … or, it could be throwing a fist or a bomb, or using nuclear weapons as a scare tactic.”

The Middle East will likely be discussed in terms of the ongoing cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and their backers, as well as both American and Russian policies.

“One thing that people seem to not understand nowadays is that people may oppose a terrorist group’s tactics, but they may also support the underlying goals … which can be quite honourable,” said Jacoby. “For example, terrorists might use violence to press their point about Muslim victims in the Middle East, [while] a moderate person might say they are against and shocked by the high casualty rate of Muslim victims. There are a lot of divisions out there, of which terrorists only represent a very small group … [an] active, vocal, radical, but miniscule, minority. While we may not like the tactic, many people may support the ultimate goals, which include justice and peace. The reason we can’t see the ultimate goals is because terrorism destroyed them … [and] in the end, makes it worse.”

As for possible solutions to terrorism, Jacoby said it “is one of the most difficult tasks to respond to.”

She explained, “I would say this: the effect of terrorism is more psychological than anything else. Fewer people die from terrorist attacks every year than from faulty wiring or furniture falling on them when they sleep. But, because of the media and the dramatic nature of its coverage of terrorism (pervasiveness, images, taboos, fear), people spend more time worrying about terrorism than any other more concrete and actual danger to their lives. My suggestion is we, as a society, need to be more ‘comfortable’ with the psychological discomfort that comes with terrorism. We must continue to be vigilant, but also live our lives to the fullest so that the terrorists won’t ultimately win.”

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

הרפר יוצא נגד טראמפ

מצעד הנשים בוונקובר ,21 בינואר השנה. (צילום: Roni Rachmani)

ראש ממשלת קנדה לשעבר, סטיבן הרפר, יוצא במתקפה נגד הנשיא החדש של ארה”ב, דונלד טראמפ. עם זאת הרפר לא מגיב כלל ליחסים ההדוקים בין טראמפ ושר החוץ שלו, לבין רוסיה ומנהיגה ולדימיר פוטין. הרפר וממשלתו החרימו את רוסיה בעיקר בגלל פעילותיה באוקריאנה, והובילו את המאבק הנחרץ ביותר בקרב מחנה מדינות המערב נגד פוטין.

מעניין כיצד ראש ממשלת ישראל, בנימין נתניהו, היה מתייחס לדברי הרפר כנגד טראמפ. כזכור הרפר ונתניהו ניהלו מערכת יחסים הדוקה ביותר וראש ממשלת קנדה לשעבר נחשב לידיד הקרוב ביותר של ישראל. עתה נתניהו מרגיש שיש לו הרבה במשותף עם טראמפ שלא מפסיק להבטיח שיתמוך באופן משמעותי בישראל, ואף יעביר את שגרירות ארה”ב מתל אביב לירושלים.

הרפר דיבר ביום חמישי שעבר בניו דלהי וזו בעצם הפעם הראשונה שהוא מדבר ישירות על נושאים פוליטיים בינלאומיים, מאז הובס בבחירות הפדרליות בנובמבר 2015 על ידי הליברלים בראשות ג’סטין טרודו. נאומו החשוב (בן החצי שעה) של הרפר התקיים בפני הפורום של קרן המחקר אובזרוור, שדן בעתיד העולם בעידן טראמפ. הרפר התייחס בנאומו לסידרה של זעזועים פוליטיים המתרחשים בעולם כיום, בהם החלטת בריטניה לעזוב את אירופה ובחירתו של טראמפ לנשיאות בארה”ב.

הרפר קורא למדיניות החוץ של טראמפ חוסר ודאות גלובלית. לדבריו שלטונו הבדלני של טראמפ הוא המקור עיקרי לאי הוודאות הבינלאומית. מדיניותו החדשה של טראמפ היא ציון דרך של שינוי מדיניות החוץ של ארה”ב, לעומת שבעים השנים האחרונות. לדברי הרפר אין לנו מושג ברור מה מתכוון הנשיא החדש של ארה”ב לעשות, אך יש לנו מספר קווי מתאר רחבים, והמשמעותי שבהם כאמור הוא לחזור אחורה ולהפוך את אבני היסוד של מדיניות החוץ האמריקנית, שמתקיימת מאז מלחמת העולם השנייה.

הרפר אומר כי טראמפ מתכוון להפחית משמעותית את מעורבות ארה”ב בעניינים בינלאומיים עולמיים, והוא יהיה מונחה על ידי אינטרסים כלכליים צרים. והראשונה שעל הפרק היא סין, שנחשבת על ידיו בוחריו ליריב גיאופוליטי ולכן יש לנקוט במדיניות קשה נגדה. ראש ממשלת קנדה לשעבר חושב שהנשיא החדש של ארה”ב יעבוד עם דידים ובני ברית של ארה”ב, אך עתה הם יאלצו להביא נכסים אמיתיים לשולחן הדיונים עם השלטון האמריקני. הוא לא הזכיר את קנדה במפורש אך התכוון גם אליה. הרפר ציין עוד כי השינוי במדיניות עם מדיניות ידידותיות יבוא לביטוי בראש ובראשונה עם מדינות אירופה.

הרפר טען עוד כי טראמפ הוא נשיא חסר תקדים בהיסטוריה של ארה”ב, והוא דוחה את הרעיון שאמריקה לבד צריכה לקבל את האחריות על נושאים עולמיים. רבים ממנהיגים העולם לא יאהבו את השינוי במדיניות החוץ של ארה”ב, שתתבסס מעתה על אינטרסים לאומיים חיוניים של ארה”ב, המוגדרים באופן צר ובעיקר מתייחסים לאינטרסים הכלכליים. המדיניות הבינלאומית החדשה הזו של ארה”ב תיצור סיכונים משמעותיים לעולם.

הרפר מאמין שהשינוי המשמעותי הנוסף במדיניות הבינלאומית של ארה”ב תחת שלטונו של טראמפ, מתייחס כאמור לגבי סין. בעידנו ארה”ב תפסיק להתייחס לגידול של סין כדבר שפיר וחיובי, אלא שיש להפסיק ולממן את היריב הגיאופוליטי. זה הולך להדאיג מאוד בעיקר נוכח המאזן השלילי המאסיבי ביחסי הסחר בין שתי מדינות אלה. היחס של טראמפ לסין מתאים להשקפה בדעת הקהל האמריקנית שתמיד הייתה סקפטית בנוגע לגבי מדיניות החוץ של ארה”ב כלפי סין, והאם היא באמת יותר הזדמנות מאשר איום.

לאור נאום ג’ון קרי

ג’ון קרי בישראל בשנת 2013. (צילום: U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv via Wikimedia)

דוברת משרד החוץ של קנדה חוזרת על עמדתה הרשמית של ממשלת ג’סטין טרודו, שתומכת בהקמת מדינה פלסטינית לצד ישראל שתביא לסיומו של הסכסוך במזרח התיכון. דבריה נאמרו לאור נאומו של שר החוץ של ארה”ב, ג’ון קרי, שתקף בשבוע שעבר בנאום פרידה את ישראל, שלדבריו ממשיכה לבנות בשטחים ובכך מסכנת את אופציית הקמת המדינה הפלסטינית. לדברי מפלגת הירוקים הקנדית מדיניות נתניהו מהווה איום על השלום.

הדוברת של שר החוץ סטפן דיון, שנטל גניון, ציינה “שכתוצאה מהנחישות לבניית שלום קבוע בין ישראל והמדינה הפלסטינית, קנדה תתמוך במאמצים לקיים את פתרון שתי המדינות, וליצור את התנאים ששני הצדדים יחזרו לנהל משא ומתן ישיר למציאת שלום כולל, צודק ובר קיימא”.

חבר הפרלמנט מטעם המפלגה הקונסרבטיבית, פיטר קנט, תקף את ממשלת טרודו הליברלית לאור השתיקה שלה (אותה הגדיר “כמבישה אך לא מפתיעה”), על ההחלטה האנטי ישראלית שהתקבלה במועצת הביטחון של האו”ם. הוא הביע גם אכזבה מהממשל היוצא של אובמה בנושא. קנט ציין עוד כי עתה יותר מתמיד ישראל זקוקה לידידיה ולבני בריתה. לדבריו הדבר היחיד שמעניין את ממשלת טרודו הוא להיות שוב חברה במועצת הביטחון של האו”ם.

לעומתו חברת המפלגה הדמוקרטית החדשה, הלן לורדייר, וראש המפגלת הירוקים, אליזבט מאי, ציינו כי הן תומכות בדברי קרי לגבי ישראל והמזרח התיכון. לורדייר: “להתנחלויות הישראליות יש השפעה שלילית על הסיכויים לשלום. ומה שאנו רוצים באזור זה שלום לכולם”. ואילו מאי אמרה: “הייתי רוצה לראות שקנדה תנקוט עמדה תקיפה יותר. כמו שג’ון קרי אמר חברים הם שם גם כדי להגיד לך שמשהו אינו מתאים או אינו מקובל. המדיניות של נתניהו היא איום על תהליך השלום. אנשים צריכים להיות מסוגלים לומר את זה בכל רם מבלי שטון של לבנים ירדו עליהם”. מאי הוסיפה עוד כי חבל שארה”ב התמתינה כל כך הרבה זמן להפסיק עם החלטות הווטו שלה באו”ם.

יצויין כי מפלגת הירוקים הורידה מסדר היום את התמיכה בתנועת הבי.די.אס להחרמת ישראל, לאור איומיה של מאי לפרוש מההנהגה. המפלגה החליטה בראשית דצמבר לתמוך בהחרמת מוצרים ישראלים המיוצרים בשטחים.

כפי שפורסם בשבוע שעבר ראש ממשלת קנדה לשעבר, סטיבן הרפר, יצא נגד החלטת מועצת הביטחון של האומות המאוחדות שהכריזה לפני כשבועיים, כי ההתנחלויות של ישראל בשטחים אינן חוקיות ויש לפנותן. הרפר הגיב לתגובה של הנשיא הנבחר של ארה”ב, דונאלד טראמפ, שאמר: “בנוגע לאו”ם הדברים יראו אחרת אחרי העשרים בינואר”. הרפר בוודאי היה מסתדר עם טראמפ בכל הנוגע לסוגיית המזרח התיכון בכלל ולישראל בפרט. אך מעניין כיצד שני האישים היו מתנהלים אחד כלפי השני, בזמן שהרפר יצא נחרצות נגד פעילותה של רוסיה והעומד בראשה, הנשיא ולדימיר פוטין, והפעיל חרמות וסנקציות שונות, בעוד שטראמפ מסתדר עם רוסיה, מנהל מערכת יחסים די חברית עם פוטין והוא אף מינה לתפקיד שר החוץ אישיות מקורבת למנהיג הרוסי? הכל פוליטיקה.

ועוד בנושא ישראל: חברת הפרלמנט מטעם המפלגה הקונסרבטיבית שמנסה להתמודד על ראשות המפלגה, קלי ליץ’, והמכונה טראמפ של קנדה לאור ההתבטאיות החמורות שלה, ציינה כי אם תעמוד בראש המפלגה שגם תנצח בבחירות הכלליות ולכן תכהן כראש ממשלה, היא תעביר את שגרירות קנדה לירושלים. נוכח החלטת מועצת הביטחון ודברי קרי “על קנדה להפגין את תמיכתה בישראל” אמרה ליץ’.