Iran – Page 4

Trudeau talks with the JI

Liberal Party of Canada leader Justin Trudeau in an interview with Cynthia Ramsay of the Jewish Independent. (photo by Adam Scotti)

Justin Trudeau said he is cautiously optimistic about the Iran nuclear deal, insisted he is committed to fighting ISIS and reiterated his commitment to the environment and social fairness in an exclusive interview with the Jewish Independent.

The federal Liberal leader, who hopes to be prime minister after the Oct. 19 federal election, acknowledged the implications of Iran’s agreement with Western powers over its nuclear program, which the Tehran regime maintains is for energy purposes only.

“We all start from the same place on this – a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat not just to Israel, not just to the region, but to the entire world, and we have to make sure that Iran doesn’t achieve that,” Trudeau said.

There are only two ways to reach this objective, he said: direct military intervention on the ground against the Iranian regime or a diplomatic agreement. “We don’t have such a great record of military intervention in that part of the world,” he noted, stressing that the agreement is “not based on trust but on verification.”

“We are cautiously optimistic about the deal,” he said. “We’re not saying we should drop the sanctions today. Obviously, there are a lot of milestones to be addressed, but I think anything [is positive] that sets us down the path of both delaying the ability significantly of Iran to get the nuclear bomb and increases the ability of the Iranian people to put pressure on their regime to change – because we all know we can make a tremendous distinction between the Iranian citizens and their government that doesn’t represent them particularly well.”

Trudeau also advocated reopening diplomatic relations with Iran eventually. “I do feel that it would be very nice to hope to reopen that embassy at one point because you don’t have embassies with just your friends, you have your embassies with the people you disagree with,” he said. “However, on top of addressing the nuclear concerns, Iran has to do an awful lot to demonstrate that it’s no longer going to be a state sponsor of terrorism in the region, around the world, and they have to do an awful lot around human rights and repression of their own citizens and dissent within Iran before they can rejoin the community of nations. But I think we’re on a path that should be cause for at least a level of comfort that perhaps we’re in a positive direction now.”

In speaking with the JI after a speech to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce last Friday, Trudeau, in his second exclusive with the paper, clarified his stance around confronting ISIS.

“This is a great opportunity for me to spell out our position on this,” he said. “The Liberal party feels it is extremely important that Canada be a significant part in the effort against ISIS. We are absolutely supportive of being part of that coalition and, indeed, we feel there is a military role for Canada in the fight against ISIS that can make a very big difference. We disagree that bombing is the best way for Canada to do that. That’s why we voted against the mission and voted against the expansion of the mission into Syria, because it has a likely side effect of strengthening Bashar al-Assad’s grip on power and that we don’t necessarily want.”

“We are absolutely supportive of being part of that coalition and, indeed, we feel there is a military role for Canada in the fight against ISIS that can make a very big difference. We disagree that bombing is the best way for Canada to do that.”

What Trudeau would prefer, he said, is for Canada to provide more humanitarian aid, for example, and for this country’s military to provide the kind of role it does in Afghanistan. “We’ve developed tremendous expertise,” he said, “which is training the local troops to be able to take the fight more efficiently to ISIS. That would happen far from the frontlines because we don’t want Canadian troops to be involved [there] but also because we know that it is the local troops that are going to be effective at taking back their homes, their communities, and dropping in Western soldiers doesn’t make the situation better as, unfortunately, the Americans understood in Iraq awhile ago.”

He sees an opportunity for Canada to make an impact without being directly involved in the conflict. “We feel there’s a role for Canada to be a significant resource in training the local military, not in a direct combat role that Mr. Harper is proposing with the bombings,” he said.

Trudeau welcomed the opportunity to explain his support, with caveats, for the federal government’s anti-terrorism bill, C-51. “The Liberal party has always understood that we need to protect Canadian security and uphold our rights and freedoms – and you do them both together,” he said. “To our mind, Bill C-51, even though it has clear elements in it that increase the safety for Canadians – which is why we supported it – it doesn’t go far enough to uphold our rights and freedoms, which is why we’re committed to bringing in oversight, putting in a sunset and review clause onto our anti-terror legislation, and also narrowing and tightening some of the rules around what behavior CSIS [Canadian Security Intelligence Service] can have – warrantless searches and all those sorts of things.”

His political opponents, he said, go too far in each direction. “Mr. Harper thinks, ‘No, no, we don’t have to do anything more around rights and freedoms, we have enough, we’re just giving more power to our police,’” Trudeau said. “I think that’s a problem.

“Mr. Mulcair says, ‘No, we don’t need to do anything more on security. Even those things in C-51, we don’t need them, we’re fine the way it is.’” That is also a problem, according to Trudeau. “We have to do more,” he said. “But we have to do more on both sides.”

On other topics, the Liberal leader expressed support for increased trade with Israel. “We obviously support the latest announcement around Canada-Israel free trade,” he said. “I know it was a lot of agricultural stuff in this round, but it’s a very good thing. This was a deal that was signed by [Liberal prime minister] Jean Chrétien back in ’97 and the Liberal party believes in trade. We believe in free trade, and we’re happy to continue trade with Israel.”

Trudeau took the opportunity to reiterate his opposition to the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction (BDS) Israel.

“You can have all sorts of debates over positions, but when you’re engaged in demonization, delegitimization and double standards, that’s just not what we are as a country.”

“I think the BDS and anti-apartheid movement, as I’ve said many times, runs counter to Canadian values,” he said. “You can have all sorts of debates over positions, but when you’re engaged in demonization, delegitimization and double standards, that’s just not what we are as a country.”

The Independent also asked Trudeau about the Liberals’ approach to climate issues and social equality.

“At a very basic level, we get it, as Canadians, particularly here in B.C., that you cannot separate what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the economy anymore,” Trudeau said. “You have to do them both together, and you can’t get one without the other.

“You still have people saying, ‘Oh no, we have to work on the economy, so let’s forget about environmental oversight,’ or ‘We need to protect the environment, so, no, we can’t create jobs.’ Canadians know we need them both together,” he said. “One of the problems is we’ve had 10 years of such a lack of leadership on the environmental level that it’s hurting our economy. We need to get our resources to market in responsible, sustainable ways. We’re not able to do that right now because nobody trusts Mr. Harper to do it right. Restoring that sense of public trust, [so] that people know, we need jobs, we need economic growth … in a way that understands that it’s not just about governments granting permits, but about communities granting permission, as well.

“One of the things we’ve put forward in our environmental plan is that, in the 10 years of lack of leadership on the federal side, the provinces have moved forward,” Trudeau continued. “B.C. has a very successful carbon tax, Alberta put in a carbon levy-style tax, Ontario and Quebec are doing a cap-and-trade. What that means is that 86% of our economy has already put in a mechanism to put a price on carbon, so the federal government can’t suddenly say, ‘OK, we’re doing cap-and-trade. Sorry, B.C., you’re going to have to change your system,’ which would make no sense; or vice versa, ‘We’re doing a carbon tax.

Sorry, Ontario, you can’t do it.’ What we have to do is recognize that different jurisdictions will have different ways of reducing their emissions – the federal government has to be a partner, a supporter, an investor in our capacity to do that across the country, in order for us to reduce our emissions and be responsible about the environment.”

Trudeau acknowledged the solutions won’t be immediate. “We need to move beyond fossil fuels, but it’s not going to happen tomorrow,” he said. “Right now, a lot of people who are blocking and opposed to pipelines aren’t realizing that the alternative is a lot more oil by rail, which is really problematic – more expensive, more dangerous.” Under the circumstances, he said, people are just saying no: “No to everything, because we don’t trust the government in place.”

He said he hopes to form a government that addresses climate change, invests in clean technology, renewable resources and the kinds of jobs that advance beyond a fossil fuel economy. For now, “we have to make sure that our oil sands are developed going forward in a responsible, efficient way that doesn’t give us the black eye on the world stage and with our trading partners,” he said.

“The Liberal party believes in evidence-based policy and we believe in harm reduction. My own hometown, Montreal, is pushing hard to set up an Insite-type clinic. The Liberal party supports that. The Supreme Court supports that. This government, for ideological reasons, is pushing against it. I think that’s just wrong, and we’re happy to say that. ”

Vancouver has been the testing ground for new ways of dealing with addiction, particularly the Insite supervised drug injection clinic. “The Liberal party believes in evidence-based policy and we believe in harm reduction,” Trudeau said. “My own hometown, Montreal, is pushing hard to set up an Insite-type clinic. The Liberal party supports that. The Supreme Court supports that. This government, for ideological reasons, is pushing against it. I think that’s just wrong, and we’re happy to say that.”

In the same week that Canadian parents were receiving Universal Child Care Benefit [UCCB] cheques in the mail calibrated to the number of children in their home, Trudeau was promoting his party’s “fairness plan.”

“Mr. Harper’s child benefit, for example, goes to every family regardless of how wealthy they might be,” Trudeau said. “We, instead, decided, let’s make it means-tested so that people who need the help the most will get the best help. For a low-income family, it means up to $533 a month, tax-free, and then it grades down until someone making over $200,000 doesn’t get any child-care benefit at all. And the benefits that will go to the nine out of 10 Canadians will be tax-free, so the money you get is actually money you get to spend.”

The plan also proposes to lower the middle-class income bracket from 22 to 20.5, which will result in about $3 billion in lost revenue. “In order to get that $3 billion,” said Trudeau, “we’re bringing in a new tax bracket on the wealthiest Canadians, people who make over $200,000, to even things out. And it’s not just about redistribution, it’s also about growing the economy because we know, when middle-class families and the working poor have money in their pockets to spend, to grow, it stimulates the economy.

“Interestingly enough, the NDP is lined up with the Conservatives on those positions,” he added. “They support the Conservatives’ UCCB that gives big cheques, and they’re opposed to us bringing in a higher tax bracket for the wealthiest Canadians, which I don’t understand. They have their reasons for it but, for me, the NDP is supposed to be a party that stands up for the most vulnerable.”

Another option?

When the Iranian nuclear agreement was revealed recently, a former Swedish prime minister tweeted: “I think the work of the Nobel committee of the Norwegian Parliament this year just got much easier.”

The work of the Nobel committee has not been flawless overall. They bestowed the honor on Yasser Arafat before the world discovered that the old terrorist had not changed his spots. And, in 2009, they awarded it to a newly elected U.S. President Barack Obama, apparently as an aspirational move intended to recognize things the committee hoped he would do, rather than anything he had already done.

If the parties involved in the Iranian deal receive the Nobel, it will be no less aspirational, although we all hope for the best.

The amount of ink (or its digital equivalent) spilled on the subject of the Iranian nuclear deal possibly surpasses that associated with any diplomatic arrangement in history. The Treaty of Versailles, the Munich Agreement (“Peace in our time!”) and the Potsdam Agreement took place in times when not everyone had a squawking lectern, as we all now do in the digital world. The volume of opinions – in both the auditory and magnitudinal senses of the term – have been vast.

This is one of the reasons, as acknowledged in last week’s issue, that we have not devoted enormous space to the topic. One would need to be a hermit to have avoided the agitated attitudes on one side of the topic or the other.

Yet there has been very little nuance in this discussion. Either the agreement, as the American politician and cable news mouthpiece Mike Huckabee says, leads Israelis “to the door of the oven,” or it guarantees Iran, as the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization J Street posited in a big spread in the New York Times, “Zero pathways to the bomb.”

There is, frankly, no way to tell at this point whether the agreement augurs peace or disaster. Everything you hear about it is opinion, conjecture. It will take 20, 50, 100 years or more to know whether this was a good deal or a catastrophic one.

By this very statement, we acknowledge the significance of the issue. Whatever one thinks about the agreement, this is nothing less than an existential matter. Extreme comments may well be excused because the stakes are literally as high as they could possibly be for the Jewish people. The Western powers have made a deal with a theocracy that has sworn repeatedly, emphatically and unequivocally to eradicate Israel from the planet.

The agreement is intended to prevent that genocidally obsessed regime from obtaining nuclear weapons. If it succeeds, it will remove an unparalleled threat to the Jewish people. If it fails, the outcome is unthinkable. The problem we face as people living in the present is that we cannot foresee which outcome the agreement portends. But the question is, what’s the alternative?

There is a campaign afoot to convince members of the U.S. Congress to reject the deal, which would scupper it. (Iran’s “parliament” has also scheduled a vote – after the American vote, presumably so they don’t look like dupes should the legislators of the Great Satan reject it after they have endorsed it.)

But the alternative to an imperfect deal has been the issue from the start. According to experts, the Iranian nuclear infrastructure has been built specifically to protect it from most external military threats, developed in missile-proof bunkers and diverse locations that make military intervention exceedingly difficult.

In an ideal and less dangerous world, of course, the mass of Iranian people – whose grandparents and even parents recall life as part of the pre-revolution world – would rise up against their oppressors and demand a democratic society determined to live in peace with their neighbors and the world.

In the meantime, we are faced with this: a terrible, hateful Iranian regime that has made at least a kabuki of a diplomatic overture, which evokes the words of Moshe Dayan. “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”

What’s next with Iran deal

Given the copious amount that has been written on the Iran deal, we publish this summary of key points by American Jewish Congress to help readers wade through the various articles and blogs, and form their own opinion about the deal:

The historic deal with Iran intended to curb its nuclear weapons program will receive a full airing in the U.S. Congress in the next several weeks. The following is a short summary of key points to keep in mind as the debate unfolds:

Several steps must be taken before the Iran deal goes into effect. Congress has 60 days to review the deal’s terms, hold hearings, conduct a debate and take a vote in both the House and Senate.
If Congress passes a resolution of disapproval and sends it to President Barack Obama for his signature, he has 12 days to veto the resolution. The president has said already that he would take such action, if necessary.
Many members of both parties in Congress have expressed deep skepticism. Israel is lobbying hard against it; Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, also oppose the deal, but are conducting their lobbying efforts more quietly.
The deal also must be brought to the United Nations Security Council. It is unclear at this time if that will happen before or after a congressional vote.
No sanctions will be lifted before the end of this year. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) first must provide, by Dec. 15, a baseline assessment of Iran’s possible military activities relative to its past nuclear program.
The IAEA will be given “when necessary, where necessary” access to monitor Iranian compliance, with a mechanism that gives Iran up to 24 days before permitting inspectors to visit designated sites.
This “managed access” falls well short of the president’s earlier assertion that the IAEA must be allowed to have intrusive access on an “anytime, anywhere” basis.
The current UN arms embargo will remain in place for five years and UN ballistic missile sanctions will stay in place for eight years, though both time periods can be reduced if Iran is judged to be acting in full compliance with the deal.
The lifting of the arms embargo is outside the parameters set by President Obama, who repeatedly said during negotiations that only issues related to the nuclear file were legitimate subjects for compromise.
Economic sanctions against Iran will be removed in stages, with some frozen assets scheduled to be released when the deal moves to implementation by the end of the year, in which case Iran is expected to benefit from $100 billion to $150 billion in cash.
Many observers are concerned that Iran, whose current annual defence budget is approximately $30 billion, will use the influx of cash to support proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Houthi rebels in Yemen, and to foment instability throughout the region with greater funding to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the al-Quds force’s efforts in Iraq and Syria. This is on top of billions in expected oil revenues and the significant economic bump Iran is expected to enjoy through increased commerce with the international community.
Sanctions can be restored should Iran violate the deal, though most observers are highly dubious that so-called “snapback” provisions will be effective.
The deal will be terminated 10 years from the date of its adoption as long as Iran does not violate UN sanctions, though there are elements of it that have a 15-year life expectancy.

Perseverance, hope, faith

I was barely 18 when I found myself sitting in the airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, petrified that despite my false Turkish papers, I would be discovered, and returned to Iran to face execution. My forged Turkish passport had brought me to the airport in Saudi, but I spoke not a word of Turkish. I sat in the huge terminal in Riyadh, hungry, thirsty and terrified.

I had finally boarded the Montreal-bound Air Italia flight after three abortive efforts but fate had me in its thrall. One of the airhostesses was Turkish: I was terrified that she would realize that the thin girl masquerading as Turkish could speak not a word of her language, and then inform the captain of the ruse.

At age 13, my passion for social justice led me to defend a Baha’i schoolmate from a bully with Hezbollah connections. While I was surprised that my defence of a friend resulted in my suspension from school, I never dreamed that a spontaneous, spirited comment would lead to my flight.

I am a proud Shirazi woman, and my family can trace our roots back 2,500 years, back to the Babylonian exile. But in the late 1970s, when I was only 13, I joined university students as they protested for freedom: I desperately wanted to read books banned by the shah. I craved freedom as a bird craves flight, but after over a year hiding from Hezbollah, my mother made me realize that to find a life for myself, I first had to court death.

During my time in the desert, I experienced events that made me believe strongly in my faith. My flight was provoked by my defence of a Baha’i friend but it was a Muslim woman who informed my mother that I was blacklisted and a Pakistani border guard who saved me from the smugglers who were swindling me, and ensured that I did not die in the desert.

I had been told that the desert crossing would consist of a short walk and a five-hour journey by car. It turned out to be a forced march of 20 hours across the Kavir-e-Loot desert, and hours of terror as a dozen or more Afghani extremists passed inches away, on the other side of a small sand dune on their journey to join Hezbollah in Iran. They cried out, “Allahu akhbar!” God is great! I was 17, heartbroken at leaving my mother and home. I hope to never again experience the depth of despair that I knew that night as I lay, pressed into the sand beside the smugglers.

But if my desire for freedom and justice had led me into the desert, it was the contrast between the depth of my despair and the sight of the stars so far away that inspired me to this very day. I knew that my distant ancestors had crossed another desert under those same stars and I felt that if I fell down, I would just have to get back up. That philosophy helped me persevere through uneasy days in Pakistan, that terrible flight to Riyadh and further, into my life in Montreal.

I had to leave Iran because I wanted the taste of freedom on my lips, because a life lived in fear is not a life at all, and because only freedom allows the human being to carve out a life of meaning. I knew then and know now that my message of hope, faith and perseverance is important and compelling.

We are all sisters and brothers under our skin. Whether we cover our heads or whether our hair is loose, we are all God’s children and fate’s playthings.

Dr. Sima Goel is the author of Fleeing the Hijab: A Jewish Woman’s Escape from Iran.

Sephardi group in Ottawa

Rabbi Ilan Acoca, left, shakes hands with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Parliament Hill. (courtesy of Prime Minister’s Office)

Last month, a Jewish delegation paid a visit to Parliament Hill with two main items on the agenda – educating the Canadian government about Sephardi Jewry in Canada and discussing Iran’s aim to obtain nuclear weapons.

The delegation included Sephardi community leaders, activists, philanthropists and spiritual leaders from across Canada. They met with the prime minister, various ambassadors and other dignitaries. The delegation was led by Yehuda Azoulay and Vancouver’s Rabbi Ilan Acoca of Congregation Beth Hamidrash, the only Sephardi synagogue west of Toronto.

A scholar, educator, author, activist and entrepreneur, Azoulay established the Sephardic Legacy Series: Institute for Preserving Sephardic Heritage. He envisioned the series as helping ensure future Sephardi publications, articles, lecture series, documentary films and research on Sephardi topics, and other works geared toward the benefit of Sephardi communities worldwide. It was the lack of general knowledge concerning Sephardi history, culture, Jewish law and other facets of Sephardi Judaism that prompted him to establish the organization. To date, Azoulay has authored five books and published more than 30 articles on various topics. In November 2013, he initiated a tribute luncheon to honor the contributions of Sephardi Jewry in America for members of the U.S. Congress.

The recent Parliament Hill delegation had as its primary goal to “create more awareness about Sephardic Jews in Canada by educating them about our history and our contributions to Canadian society,” Acoca told the Independent. “There are currently 55,000 Sephardic Jews in Canada and the number is growing. This is something that we related to the government.”

Acoca was born in Israel to parents of Moroccan descent. “I grew up in a typical, traditional Sephardic home,” he said. “Sephardic Judaism was an integral part of my upbringing.”

When Acoca was 13 years old, his family moved to Montreal, where he attended a Jewish high school. Growing up in Montreal’s Sephardi community, Acoca said, “helped me deepen my appreciation for my rich Sephardic ancestry.” Acoca eventually become a rabbi, fulfilling his grandfather’s wish that one of his descendants follow in his footsteps to the rabbinate, he said. In November 1999, Acoca and his wife Dina took on the roles of rabbi and rabbanit at Beth Hamidrash.

“Getting this responsibility made me more aware and passionate about my ancestry,” said Acoca. “My job enabled me to learn more about various Sephardic traditions and communities.”

Over the years, Acoca has added other aspects to his rabbinical role, teaching online, writing a monthly column in the Canadian Jewish News, heading the Rabbinical Council Sephardic Affinity Group, being an official Sephardi representative in Western Canada, and being the region’s Sephardi halachic authority.

Canadian human rights lawyer David Matas joined the group in Ottawa. Acoca described the importance of having Matas present in front of the House of Commons SubCommittee on International Human Rights about Iran’s intent to develop nuclear capability. During the presentation, Matas and Azoulay also conveyed some of the hardships that Iranian Jews “have faced and continue to endure.” (The full hearing is available at cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/37646919.)

Matas gave six recommendations to the committee, which he shared with the Jewish Independent:

1. Expand the exceptions to sovereign immunity to catch Iranian human rights violations in a larger net. It should be possible for victims of the Iranian regime to sue in Canadian courts for the harm that the regime has done to them.

2. Ask for the extradition of Hassan el-Hajj Hassan, a Canadian citizen implicated in a Bulgarian bombing, from Lebanon to Canada. Under the Criminal Code, Canada has jurisdiction to prosecute him because he is a Canadian citizen, explained Matas. Canada does not have an extradition treaty with Lebanon, but the Extradition Act allows for extradition, even without a treaty, on a case-by-case basis by agreement with the state where the accused is found.

3. Support the suggestion that any arms agreement between Iran and foreign states include a human rights component parallel to that of the Helsinki Accord. “A regime hell bent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews should be kept as far away from weapons of mass destruction as possible,” said Matas. “A nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, if one can be reached, should not just prevent nuclear weapons capability. It should have a place for human rights.”

4. The European Union in July 2013 added the military wing of Hezbollah to its list of terrorist entities. Canada should urge the EU to list Hezbollah in its entirety, not just the military wing, as a terrorist entity.

5. As the lead sponsor to the United Nations General Assembly, Canada should strengthen the language of the resolution, even if it that means fewer votes. “While we would not suggest language so strong that the resolution would be lost, Canada today has some room for manoeuvre,” said Matas.

6. Encourage the Government of Canada to take into account all refugee populations as part of any just and comprehensive resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts. “That, of course, includes 55,000 Jewish refugees from Iran, driven out of Iran by the regime of the mullahs,” said Matas.

It is also important to confront the myth that Israel is a Western, imperial, colonial enterprise – a myth that holds particular sway with the mullahs of Iran, Matas said. The reality is that Israel is in large measure composed of Jews from the Middle East, including Iran. “Unless the Palestinians themselves accept the reality of dual victimization, a meaningful peace becomes impossible,” he said.

The delegation met with MPs Tim Uppal, Denis Lebel, Jason Kenney, Peter Kent, John Carmichael, Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman and Irwin Cotler. Other members of the delegation, including Acoca, met privately with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“The government officials were extremely supportive and promised they will assist,” said Acoca. “We were ecstatic, definitely.”

Acoca is eager to create more awareness of Sephardi Jewry, the community’s needs and cultural differences, and to promote understanding. He is also looking forward to following up on the event and meetings, and hopes this delegation will become an annual occurrence. “I would like the Sephardic way and philosophy to be preserved and am working hard, together with my colleagues, to ensure a thriving future,” said Acoca.

For a short video clip from the group’s Parliament Hill visit, see this link (at 0:26): youtube.com/watch?v=AiZ9_4O936Q.

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

Vancouver joins rallies

The Feb. 18 silent march in honor of Alberto Nisman began on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery. (photo by Cynthia Ramsay)

Approximately 75 members of the local Argentine community and their friends and supporters gathered at the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery on Feb. 18 in memory of Argentina’s federal prosecutor Alberto Nisman.

photo - Jewish community member Gabriel Patrich (left) was one of the Vancouver march organizers — Jewish community member Gabriel Patrich (left) was one of the Vancouver march organizers. *(photo by Cynthia Ramsay)*

A silent march, there were no speeches, but participants carried signs. They would like the government of Argentina to conduct a full investigation of the suspicious death of the 51-year-old Jewish lawyer who was found dead on Jan. 18 at his home in Buenos Aires. Nisman was investigating alleged Iranian involvement in the terror attack on the AMIA (Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina) Jewish community centre in 1994, which killed 85 people and injured hundreds of others. He was found dead the day before he was to appear before a congressional hearing to air his contention that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, among others, arranged a deal with Iran to cover up its involvement in the bombing in exchange for economic benefits.

Jewish community member Gabriel Patrich, one of the organizers of the march in Vancouver, was satisfied with the local support. “The main rally in Argentina drew [up to] half a million people, and there were big events in Miami, Australia, Spain, France and Israel. We are proud to take our part and demand a full investigation of Nisman’s murder and the truth he was about to bring to light.”

In addition to the call for justice, Patrich told the Independent, “we were also there … to honor a courageous man, who knew that his life was in danger – he said that his investigations might cost him his life.”

Reports are that some 400,000 people attended the Buenos Aires march alone. On her website, Kirchner criticized that event as being politically motivated and, “not at all an act of homage to the tragically deceased, with the obvious exception of their immediate families.” She said its one merit was that it showed “that in Argentina, your country, you can disagree, you can insult the government and the president, and can move freely. It was not always so, so do not speak of dictatorship.”

For those interested in more about the AMIA bombing, Argentine author Gustavo Perednik has written a “lightly veiled” fictional account based on documents provided him by Nisman. It has been translated into English – To Kill Without a Trace: A Prequel to 9/11, the 1994 Terrorist Bombing in Buenos Aires and the Iranian Connection (Mantua Books Ltd.) – and Perednik will be in Vancouver for the book’s launch at the Isaac Waldman Jewish Public Library on March 23, at 7 p.m. Also speaking will be Dr. Elena T. Feder, who wrote the introduction to the English translation. Anticipating a full house, the library requires an RSVP to 604-257-5111, ext. 248, or [email protected] by March 19.

Shahar Ben Halevi is a writer and filmmaker living in Vancouver.

Clues to the end game

On Jan. 28, Israeli soldiers in the northern Mount Dov region are pictured after an Israel Defence Forces patrol came under anti-tank fire from Hezbollah terrorist operatives. The Hezbollah attack killed two Israeli soldiers and injured seven others. (photo by Basal Awidat/Flash90)

Who was behind the Jan. 28 attack on northern Israel that killed two Israeli soldiers and wounded seven others? The easy answer is the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah, which claimed responsibility for the attack. But the wider view suggests Hezbollah’s state sponsor: Iran.

Dr. Ely Karmon, a senior research scholar at Israel’s International Institute for Counterterrorism, said that Hezbollah’s actions represent “an attempt to change the strategic rules of the game.” According to Karmon, Iran and Hezbollah have been working for months to take advantage of instability in Syria in order to create a forward military position against

Israel in Syria’s Quneitra region, close to the triple Syria-Lebanon-Israel border.

“This is actually an Iranian project,” Karmon told this reporter. “They have around 1,500 people on the ground in Syria, most of whom are counseling or training Syrian militias, and they have Hezbollah providing military support.”

On Jan. 28, Hezbollah fired five Kornet guided anti-tank missiles at an Israeli military convoy approximately 2.5 miles inside Israel’s border with Lebanon. A day earlier, less sophisticated mortars were fired from southern Syria into Israeli territory, with no damage reported.

In response to the Jan. 28 attack, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said, “Whoever is behind today’s attack will pay the full price.” Netanyahu – like Karmon – stressed that the attack points back to Iran, adding, “with the assistance of Hezbollah, Iran has been for some time trying to open another front against Israel on the Golan Heights. We are acting with force and determination against these attempts.”

“Because of the weakness of the Syrian regime, the Iranians are now permitted to have a foothold directly on Israel’s border, which until now they didn’t have,” Karmon explained.

Israel is widely believed to be responsible for a Jan. 18 airstrike against that foothold in southern Syria, which killed six Hezbollah operatives and six Iranians, including notorious Hezbollah commander Jihad Mughniyeh and Iranian general Mohammad Ali Allahdadi.

Karmon believes the airstrike “was a message sent by Israel” to forewarn Iran and Hezbollah not to continue their military efforts in Syrian territory.

The retaliatory attacks by Hezbollah following the deadly airstrike were widely expected. That the more sophisticated Kornet anti-tank missiles were fired from Lebanon and not Syria provides a strong indication that the Syrian position is not as well-stocked with weaponry as southern Lebanon – a zone that was supposed to remain completely demilitarized under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which arranged for the cessation of hostilities following the Second Lebanon War of 2006.

“Resolution 1701 calls for complete disarmament in southern Lebanon and, yet, Hezbollah, instead of disarming, they have amassed some 80,000-90,000 missiles,” Karmon said.

“Now, they want to achieve the same equation in southern Syria. If Israel does not stop them, and there are two to three years with relative quiet, with only occasional penetrations of our border and sometimes mortar fire and so on, a kind of ‘war of attrition,’ then all of a sudden we will find ourselves staring at 5,000-10,000 missiles,” he said.

Bibi, Obama: Grow up

Iran’s propaganda machine Press TV on Monday reported that U.S. President Barack Obama had “unfriended” Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Facebook.

Predictably, it turned out the report was a hoax. Iran’s humorless propagandists reported as fact a joke from an Israeli satire site. And yet, despite the big journalistic oops (as if they care), the Iranian voice box made a legitimate point. The two men, ostensibly leading figures in world diplomacy, have in recent weeks been behaving like sulky teenagers.

Netanyahu unwisely accepted an invitation from the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Boehner, to address Congress, specifically to pressure the Americans to increase sanctions on Iran. The fact that this visit would take place at the height of the Israeli election campaign has been criticized by some, with others noting that former president Bill Clinton hosted Shimon Peres during an election cycle. The fact that the invitation came from the speaker of the house, rather than from the president, whose responsibilities include being the country’s foremost voice on foreign affairs – and its head of state and commander in chief – is a significant protocol breech, but a deliberate one.

We are becoming almost inured to successive hyperbolic assertions that bilateral relations between the United States and Israel are at their lowest ebb. But this time, it seems true, although a result of such foolishness that it seems almost comical, as well as tragic. These two men, whose seeming dislike for each other they are not even mature enough to hide or deny, are submerging the best interests of the relationship, shootings spitballs at each another across the divide.

Critics of Obama’s motivations allege that he does not pass the “kishkes” question; that his commitment to Israel’s security, such as it may be, is based a political imperatives or strategic demands, rather than a personal commitment to the idea of the Jewish state. To many others, these criticisms don’t hold water.

But what of Netanyahu? What on earth is he thinking, deliberately provoking his country’s most important international ally by inserting himself squarely into a constitutional tight spot, pitting the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government against each other? Especially when Israel’s own intelligence service, the Mossad, has made clear that it is in Israel’s interest to allow negotiations with Iran to proceed, rather than to undermine them with additional immediate sanctions.

We are driven to ask, does Netanyahu know something we don’t? Does he know something the Mossad does not? Or is he driven merely by the hawkish demands of his domestic political constituency?

And why does he think that picking a fight – a very public, nasty and juvenile fight – with the president who was reelected with the support of 70 percent of American Jewish voters, would be a wise strategic or ideological move?

Greater minds can dissect the realpolitik motivations of these two strong figures. Wise figures in the think tanks of Washington and Tel Aviv are dissecting the nuance and nonsense the two leaders have displayed recently.

From where we sit, however, their behavior simply looks like they are putting their immature dislike for each other as individuals ahead of the interests of their countries. And, there is Speaker Boehner, ready to take political advantage.

Barrels of ink are being spilled this week on this topic, with the best minds of our generation advising both these men how to proceed. Our advice is simple, but it should be said: Just grow up.

Misdirecting attention

U.S. President Barack Obama has sent a letter to the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei requesting Iran’s support in the battle against ISIS. At a time when Israel’s relationship with the American administration is strained, the letter (which was apparently sent back in October and whose existence was recently reported by the Wall Street Journal) has sparked a great deal of reaction.

Stopping the Islamic State is and should be a global priority, but the softening of attitudes toward Iran’s regime is a concern. While there appears to be some progress in talks on Iran’s nuclear program – negotiations that are rapidly approaching a Nov. 24 deadline for an agreement – the hatred directed at Israel is as vibrant as ever. Just days ago, Khamenei tweeted an infographic titled “9 Key Questions About Elimination of Israel.”

The graphic design is better than the English grammar, but the message is unmistakable. No less than ever – and regardless of what we may read suggesting schisms in the highest reaches of the regime – the top leader is as committed as he ever was to the annihilation of Israel.

While insisting that, “of course, the elimination of Israel does not mean the massacre of Jewish people in the region,” the emphatic message is, put mildly, unwelcoming. Still, the world seems convinced that it’s a bluff. To see events at the United Nations, one would think it was Israel that was threatening to obliterate another member-state. Commentators dismiss destructive rhetoric like Khamenei’s as propaganda for domestic consumption, but most Jews, and anyone with a sense of history, take seriously threats like this at any time, but particularly in the week that we commemorate both the 76th anniversary of Kristallnacht and Remembrance Day.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry insists any Iran overture is unrelated to the broader issues of the Middle East, as if the interconnected web of intrigues, hatreds and alliances could be unraveled from one another. And then, as if there are not enough issues in the world with which to be concerned, European states are lining up to recognize the “state of Palestine.” These legally meaningless but symbolic votes by Britain and Sweden, with more legislatures intending to follow suit, are meant to force negotiations toward a two-state solution, with an underlying assumption that Israel is to blame for the lack of progress. All the incitement to violence by Palestinian leaders and the recent upsurge in vehicular murders and stabbings of Israelis are blamed on the Israelis themselves, who must somehow deserve what they get.

Often, commentators, including Kerry recently, state that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the lynchpin to resolving the broader conflict in the region. By obsessing about Israel, the UN, European powers and others are wasting their energies on a sideshow while the feature presentations get short shrift.