law – Page 3

CRA “blindsides” JNF

Lance Davis, chief executive officer of JNF Canada. (photo from JNF Canada)

The Jewish National Fund of Canada is fighting the Canada Revenue Agency over the revocation of the organization’s charitable status, accusing the federal taxation department of “blindsiding” them and treating them differently than other charities. The head of JNF Canada sees bias at play.

“Do we think the CRA is antisemitic?” asked Lance Davis, JNF Canada’s chief executive officer, in an interview with the Independent. “No. Do we think there is bias involved here? Yes. That’s actually part of our court application. We have said in writing that we believe there is bias.”

The difference, Davis explained, is that, while CRA officials may not carry prejudice toward Jewish people, their decision may have been influenced by a concerted, multi-year campaign attacking JNF – Independent Jewish Voices Canada has a website dedicated to the campaign.

Through a Freedom of Information Act request, JNF Canada obtained the files used by CRA to make their determination.

“So we know what was written in the file that the CRA is using with respect to JNF Canada and it is littered with complaints in an organized and systematic way from anti-Israel groups, unions, political parties, etc.,” he said. “After you read all of this material, one can reasonably say that bias may have come to play into the decision-making process.”

Davis is emphatic that media have so far got the story wrong. The revocation is not about JNF Canada’s support for projects on Israel Defence Forces bases or on the other side of the Green Line, outside of Israel proper. CRA expressed concerns about these projects several years ago and JNF Canada immediately ended those undertakings, he said.

“Yes, we have over the last number of decades built all sorts of public amenities on IDF bases,” he said. “Those amenities include swing sets, playgrounds, parks, play areas … shaded areas, rest areas, all that kind of stuff. We disagree that that is not charitable. Helping the children who have to live on a base … we believe is charitable.”

Moreover, the money for such past projects did not flow to Israel’s military, said Davis. It went to a charity that built the projects.

“Nevertheless, when it was brought to our attention that this is a problem according to the CRA, we stopped doing it in order to be cooperative and collaborative with the CRA,” he said. “That’s not what this revocation is about. It might be an interesting subject for the media or those outside parties to conflate, but this issue that we’re dealing with the CRA is fundamentally about our founding charitable object. They’ve come to the conclusion that it is not charitable.”

The issue, Davis said, is that CRA, after 57 years, has abruptly reversed the 1967 acceptance of the organization’s charitable objective.

In 1967, said Davis, CRA’s predecessor agency accepted JNF Canada’s purpose of funding projects in which economically disadvantaged individuals in Israel, especially new immigrants as well as Palestinians, are hired to complete projects like tree-planting and digging reservoirs, with the intention of keeping them off welfare rolls and combating poverty.

The current troubles between CRA and JNF Canada started during an audit that began in 2014. When the auditor cited the original objective as incompatible, Davis said, the organization immediately set out to negotiate new charitable purposes that would satisfy CRA.

“We presented 10 of them in writing and said, please work with us, let’s pick any or all of these and we’ll get to work,” said Davis. “CRA did not negotiate with us at all about any of those charitable objects.”

Those objectives, he noted, were replicated by JNF Canada from other recognized charities that had received approvals from CRA.

The organization’s leaders say they were “blindsided” by the decision, which was released Aug. 10, via the Canada Gazette, the federal government’s avenue for publicizing legislation and government decisions.

The revocation is the culmination of a crisis that began at the end of June, when JNF was notified that CRA intended to revoke their charitable status. Within weeks, the organization’s lawyers had filed suit with the Federal Court of Appeal.

In every similar instance JNF’s lawyers reviewed, Davis said, CRA refrained from revoking the status at least until the organization had their day in court.

“There is this idea of a presumption of innocence until you’ve exhausted all your appeals,” said Davis. “Why weren’t we given a presumption of innocence? Why weren’t we given a chance to say our piece before the judge? It’s a right that every Canadian business, individual, charity is entitled to.”

For now, JNF Canada is not permitted to provide charitable receipts.

“We are still a nonprofit, we still exist, we’re still an entity,” Davis said.

If the Federal Court of Appeal sides with CRA, JNF could take the matter to the Supreme Court, Davis said. Alternatively, they could potentially restructure the way they do their work.

“We are working through thoughts and plans with our legal counsel as to how we could best continue the work of JNF in a legal, charitable manner,” he said. “But we are confident in our case and we feel that it’s vitally important for us to challenge the CRA and the facts that they’ve presented.”

JNF Canada has not yet publicly released documents relating to the matter, as they await their lawyers’ annotations to provide both the CRA’s perspective and the JNF’s replies to the government agency’s concerns.

In dealing with JNF Canada, Davis contends, CRA has behaved differently than they routinely do with other charities. The due process they should expect has not been forthcoming and the government agency has leapfrogged several steps that charities are generally provided in the progression of an issue, he said.

Teachers file rights complaint

A screenshot of the Anti-Oppression Educators Collective’s resources page. The AOEC is a provincial specialist association of the BC Teachers’ Federation.

A group of BC teachers has filed a complaint against their union with the BC Human Rights Tribunal, alleging a culture of discrimination against Jews.

BC Teachers Against Antisemitism filed a complaint last week, after the BCTF rejected a proposal to create a provincial specialist association devoted to developing resources around antisemitism and Holocaust education.

The provincial government announced last year that Holocaust education would become mandatory in BC public schools for the first time in 2025. Provincial specialist associations within the BCTF develop and disseminate resources on areas of relevance, such as social studies, culinary arts and Aboriginal education. The proposal to create a PSA to develop the materials teachers will need when Holocaust education becomes a mandatory part of the Grade 10 social studies curriculum next year was rejected by the branch of the BCTF that vets the groups.

Paul Pulver, the lawyer representing the teachers, said this is only part of the complaint. He did not provide the text of the complaint to media, as he is adhering to the letter of the tribunal’s regulations and waiting for the quasi-judicial body to formally make the documents in the case public.

“There is a whole raft of allegations,” he said. “They involve the fact that pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel groups and members within the BCTF are able to, and encouraged to, state their position and lobby for their position and encourage change in support of their position, and those who do not agree with them are silenced and oppressed and discriminated against.”

The rejection of the PSA focused on antisemitism and Holocaust education is but one example, he said.

One PSA, called the Anti-Oppression Educators Collective (AOEC), with the imprimatur of the BCTF, is publishing and distributing and disseminating materials Pulver calls “quite anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, frankly anti-Jewish.”

“It publishes false accusations about occupation and genocide,” he said.

The TeachBC website, an official BCTF platform advertised as “your go-to site for free downloadable lesson plans, posters and classroom resources,” contains no materials about the Holocaust or about antisemitism, Pulver said, but includes “some really harsh anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish materials,” including a poster that says “Zionists, f*** off.” After controversy around some of these items, the BCTF appeared to remove some of the AOEC’s materials from the website.

“As a teacher who isn’t interested in putting on a keffiyeh and lobbying for pro-Palestinian goals and objectives, or pro-Hamas goals and objectives as the case may be, you’re persona non grata, you’re a second-class citizen,” Pulver said. “And they are sick of it,” he said of his clients.

Rich Overgaard, director of BCTF’s communications and campaigns division, told the Independent, would not comment on the substance of the complaint.

“The Federation values the critical role of the Human Rights Tribunal in upholding the BC Human Rights Code and, in respect for this process, as well as any members that may be involved, will not comment before the tribunal has reviewed the matter,” he said in an email.

Pulver does not expect a speedy resolution, although the BCTF could resolve the case by entering discussions to find a solution.

“But, if that doesn’t happen, it’s just like any other human rights complaint,” he said. “It goes to the Human Rights Tribunal and information is exchanged and, ultimately, there’s a hearing and they make a decision.”

If the complaint goes to a hearing, the process could stretch late into the year or further.

“Unfortunately, the wheels of justice within a number of administrative bodies in the province grind slowly and the Human Rights Tribunal is no exception,” he said. “We are looking at months, plural.”

The teachers’ complaint is a tip of the iceberg, in one professional area, of what Jews in British Columbia and beyond are experiencing today, said Pulver.

“This is a microcosm of what’s going on in our daily life and in the daily work life of people who are Jewish or have pro-Israel or pro-Zionist views,” said the lawyer, who is a partner with Pulver Crawford Munroe LLP. “They are facing discrimination, they’re facing oppression, intimidation, they are being ostracized. In this case, they are being prevented from exercising democratic rights that, as union members, they ought to have and be able to exercise. They are in fear on a regular basis because they hold views or have origins that are not well-received in the current climate. I think anybody who cares about that sort of thing – which should be everybody – would look at this and say they deserve to be treated fairly, and they are not right now.”

Legal helpline on call

Lawyer Erin Brandt founded the Antisemitism Legal Helpline to help connect people experiencing antisemitism with volunteer lawyers who could provide them with free, confidential legal advice. (photo from Erin Brandt)

After Oct. 7, Erin Brandt was angry. She decided to put that rage to constructive use. “I wanted to direct my anger towards something useful and the thing that I have that is useful is legal skills,” said Brandt, an employment lawyer and cofounder of PortaLaw. “My idea was to create a helpline that would help connect people experiencing antisemitism with volunteer lawyers who could provide them with free, confidential legal advice.”

The Antisemitism Legal Helpline is officially housed under the auspices of Access Pro Bono Society of British Columbia, a free lawyer referral agency serving people and nonprofit organizations across the province, and is supported by the Ronald S. Roadburg Foundation.

“It’s been described as building the airplane as it’s taking off from the ground,” Brandt said of the helpline. Getting it up and running as soon as possible was key.

The Antisemitism Legal Helpline helps resolve the ad hoc responses that had been happening since Oct. 7, when many Jewish organizations began receiving more inquiries from members of the public who were facing antisemitism. The helpline is a single designated referral destination to help those who need legal advice find a lawyer with appropriate cultural sensitivity.

The steering committee of three includes Brandt, Cindy Switzer, an immigration lawyer, and Jessica Forman who, like Brandt, is an employment lawyer. About 20 other lawyers have formally signed onto the project, but the network is much wider, Brandt said, since any lawyer might engage with another professional they know if they think their expertise is particularly relevant for a file.

Calls so far have involved employment issues, such as inappropriate comments during workplace training events, and a lot of campus incidents affecting students, staff and professors.

“There’s been a few things relating to social media, people who are receiving harassment for things that they posted online,” said Brandt. There have also been incidents involving strata law, including at least one incident involving a mezuzah.

The volunteer lawyers provide roughly half an hour of initial summary advice. Some incidents can be resolved in that period, Brandt said. If the caller seeks to pursue matters further, the lawyer may take on the case pro bono or for a fee, or the client may be referred to another professional.

Some lawyers are on the lookout for a test case, an incident that could go to court and set a precedent – both legally and socially – that lets the public know antisemitism will not be tolerated. However, most of the people looking for advice, Brandt said, are understandably not eager to take a leading role as plaintiff.

There is no standard response in these cases. Lawyers and callers may decide to pursue things further or they may not.

“Sometimes, something is the best thing to do and, sometimes, nothing is the best thing to do,” said Brandt. The purpose of the helpline is to allow individuals to get professional advice on what their options and possible best responses might be.

“We want people in British Columbia to know that we exist and that they should call us for help,” Brandt said. “If somebody is a lawyer and is looking for ways to give back and wants to volunteer, then they can sign up as a volunteer.”

The helpline can be reached at 778-800-8917 or alh@accessprobono.ca and response time is one to two days.

Online harms mooted

A federal bill to address online harassment, bullying and hate has aspects to admire and others to cause concern. What happens in the committee process will determine the success of the proposed law.

That is the take of two experts – including one who had a hand in drafting the legislation. The devil, as always, is in the details of balancing free expression with the right to be free from threats and harassment.

Dr. Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, who also serves on the advisory board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was joined in a recent online panel by Dr. Emily Laidlaw, Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law and associate professor in the faculty of law at the University of Calgary. Her recent work includes projects on online harms, misinformation and disinformation, and she co-chaired the expert group that advised the federal government on the development of the Online Harms Bill, which is known as Bill C-63. The virtual panel, on April 17, was presented by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and moderated by Richard Marceau, CIJA’s vice-president, external affairs, and general counsel. More than 850 people registered for the event, indicating what CIJA board chair Gail Adelson-Marcovitz indicated is a depth of interest, and perhaps concern, about the bill.

Geist explained that the new bill is a result of years of work, following the federal government’s withdrawal of an earlier attempt at addressing the problem of online harms.

Bill C-63 is really three separate concepts rolled into one. It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, as well as introduce a new Online Harms Bill. Together, the components would codify currently inconsistent approaches to the problems.

The bill would redefine “hatred” in the Criminal Code and define a new crime of “offence motivated by hatred.” That offence, as well as advocating or promoting genocide, could lead to life imprisonment.

Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act would add the “communication of hate speech” via the internet or other telecommunication technology as a discriminatory practice. Individuals would be empowered to bring a complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which could penalize offenders up to $50,000. The law, if passed, would affect public communications, like social media posts, not private messaging or emails.

Separate components of the bill would make it easier and quicker to address specific offensive content, such as “revenge porn” and posts that could harm children, encourage suicide or bullying or otherwise endanger young people.

A digital safety commissioner and ombudsperson would help guide individuals through the process of dealing with bullying or other issues related to the law.

image - On April 17, Dr. Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa spoke as part of a CIJA panel discussion on the Online Harms Bill — On April 17, Dr. Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa spoke as part of a CIJA panel discussion on the Online Harms Bill. *(screenshot)*

Geist said many legal experts who seek to balance freedom of speech with freedom from abuse “breathed a sigh of relief” after the federal government abandoned earlier efforts and relied for the new bill on expert advice.

“It’s a pretty good starting point,” Geist said. “We know the broad brushstrokes of what that might include but there is a lot of uncertainty still, so it’s easy to like it when we don’t know the specifics.”

Geist and Laidlaw agreed on most points but had some differences around oversight. Geist said the bill appears to grant enormous powers to a new digital safety commissioner. The idea of life imprisonment for an online comment, he added, may be a sticking point. “I find that hard to justify,” he said.

Laidlaw said the new office of ombudsperson is an important step in helping individuals navigate online hate and harassment. The ombudsperson would be able to pass specific information on to the digital safety commission, whose mandate includes education and research supported by a digital safety office.

The bill would also place new obligations on corporations that run online platforms, like social media companies. At present, Laidlaw said, some companies, notably X (Twitter), are not taking the problem very seriously.

While Jewish advocacy organizations have long advocated for legal responses to hate speech, Geist warned of a double-edge sword.

“Could somebody who is supportive of Israel will be accused of promoting genocide?” he asked.

Geist upended the binary assumption of harassment and free expression, noting that the idea that limits on hate speech could chill expression ignores the existing, difficult-to-measure effects of online (as well as offline) harassment and bullying.

“There is already a chilling effect for anyone in our community and, frankly, in a number of communities, that speaks out on these issues,” he said. “The backlash that you invariably face causes, I think, many people to [reconsider] whether they want to step out and comment, and it’s not just online. There’s a chilling effect offline as well. These issues are very real and many of them will not be solved by legislation no matter what the legislation says.”

He fears a barrage of complaints, many vexatious, from all sides of many contentious issues.

While there is a needle-in-a-haystack challenge in addressing online harms, Geist said, addressing the problematic major players could have a broad impact, though no one believes online hate and bullying can be completely eradicated.

“The legislation talks about mitigating these harms, it doesn’t talk about eliminating them,” he said. Social media platforms, he believes, are looking for guidance on these issues and will be amenable to adhering to legislation. Moreover, he said, Canada’s proposals are somewhat belated responses that would put us roughly in line with the European Union, Australia, the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions.

image - Dr. Emily Laidlaw of the University of Calgary, who joined the CIJA panel discussion on April 17 — Dr. Emily Laidlaw of the University of Calgary, who joined the CIJA panel discussion on April 17. (screenshot)

The inability to erase hate and harassment is not an excuse to do nothing, Laidlaw said.

“Enforcement has always been an issue,” she said. “But I don’t think it’s a reason not to pass laws.”

Laidlaw took exception to criticism that the new bill would represent government censorship. The proposed digital safety commissioner would be an independent body comparable with the existing privacy commissioner.

“Where there is some risk is in the fact that, in the end, government appoints the individuals,” she said. Still, the appointees would need to be approved by Parliament, not just the government in office.

“And remember,” she added, the commissioner’s “oversight is of companies, not of individuals. They’re not making individual content decisions or holding individuals accountable here.”

The commission would not be subject to legal rules of evidence, making it possible to immediately take down things such as child porn, encouraging suicide or other especially egregious posts.

Geist said this significant power demands that the government spell out more clearly the limitations of the commission.

“At a minimum, it seems to me that it is incumbent on the government to flesh out in far more detail where the limits, where the guardrails, are around the commission, so that we aren’t basically adopting a ‘trust us’ approach with respect to the commission,” said Geist.

Parliament is expected to take up consideration of the bill in committee soon and Laidlaw argued that some aspects deserve speedy passage while others require far more sober consideration.

“The Online Harms Bill could be passed with minor tinkering,” she said. The Criminal Code provisions, she said, give her serious concerns and deserve major revisions or complete scrapping. She also struggles with changing the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Geist agreed on taking the bill apart.

“I would separate out the bill,” he said. Criminal Code and Human Rights Act amendments deserve much deeper consideration, he said. The online harms piece, he said, could be tidied up and passed with tweaks.

Parade’s story remains relevant

Josh Epstein stars as Leo Frank in Raincity Theatre’s production of Parade, which runs until April 13. (photo by Nicol Spinola)

Raincity Theatre’s production of the musical Parade opened March 21 at 191 Alexander St., a heritage venue in Gastown. It runs until April 13.

The story of Leo Frank, who was kidnapped from the Georgia State Penitentiary by members of the Ku Klux Klan on Aug. 17, 1915, and lynched, might not seem the stuff of musicals. However, playwright Alfred Uhry and Broadway producer Hal Prince saw the potential of reaching new audiences with this important story that had already been told in novels, plays, film and television. With a book by Uhry and music and lyrics by Jason Robert Brown, the Prince-produced show opened on Broadway in 1998 – it won two Tony Awards. In 2023, Parade had a Broadway revival, again winning two Tonys.

Frank’s alleged crime was the rape and murder of a 13-year-old factory worker, Mary Phagan, but his real crime was being Jewish in the American South, which was, at the time, still feeling humiliation and anger over losing the Civil War.

Mary was last seen alive when she came to pick up her wages on the morning of April 26, 1913. Her body was found in the factory basement later that day. Frank was arrested and charged with the crime.

Several factors prevented a just trial, including a district attorney wanting a conviction to support his bid for governor, the antisemitism of a right-wing newspaper publisher, sloppy police work, the withholding of evidence, witness tampering, perjured testimony, and an all-white jury. This was America’s version of France’s Dreyfus Affair.

Frank’s wife, Lucille, lobbied everyone she could to intervene, and prominent newspapermen and others campaigned on Frank’s behalf. Finally, after two years in jail, Frank’s death sentence was reduced to life in prison, but the news was not welcomed by everyone. Mobs stormed the governor’s mansion and the National Guard was called out; martial law was declared. Frank was transferred into protective custody but the lynch mob – some of whom had been jurors in his trial – managed to kidnap and murder him.

“Our production will plunge our guests into the depths of human emotion, amidst the backdrop of a true historical event that still resonates today,” writes director Chris Adams in Raincity Theatre’s press material. “The passion and the tragedy of Leo and Lucille Frank’s story, enveloped in the haunting beauty of Jason Robert Brown’s score, will be simply unforgettable and I hope the undeniable resilience of the human spirit will deeply move audiences.”

Many Jewish community members are part of the show’s creative team, both on stage and off. Josh Epstein plays Frank. Warren Kimmel, Richard Newman, Stephen Aberle and Erin Aberle-Palm play various roles. Itai Erdal is the lighting designer, Michael Groberman the researcher and Kat Palmer, one of the producers. Rabbi Kylynn Cohen and Cantor Shani Cohen are consultants.

The Jewish Independent interviewed Epstein regarding his role.

JI: How did you get the part of Leo Frank?

JE: I was fortunate. I had it offered to me. I did not have to audition. I was asked to do this a year ago. I said yes immediately. Parade is my favourite piece of musical theatre. I am obsessed with it. I even went down to Seattle years ago to see it when the original Broadway cast toured it and got Jason Robert Brown’s autograph (my favourite composer) on the program, which I still have today. I remember just sitting there being gripped the entire show. The music is so gorgeous. However, it is not your typical Broadway production.

JI: The director said in an interview that you were born to play this part.

JE: I do feel like it is right for me. I have been waiting a long time to get a chance to play Frank and, when it was offered to me, I grabbed the opportunity. It was offered to me even before Oct. 7 and I knew it was an important role as, even then, there was a very antisemitic YouTube clip being circulated and, as a Jew, it was on the top of my mind with incidents happening and growing, and it is even more relevant today after Oct. 7.

JI: What research did you do to prepare for the role?

JE: I read what I could. The trial is a fascinating story that has everything in it, not just antisemitism but racism and women’s suffrage and children working in factories and people’s attitudes even 50 years after the Civil War is over. The parade was organized to honour the Confederate soldiers and then this explosion comes out of it with a resurgence of the KKK and the formation of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League. As far as the role goes, it is a deep acting role, but you also have to be able to sing. It has a lot of layers to it. I just read the script over and over to get some sense of the depth of Leo’s character.

JI: How would you classify the production?

JE: It is dark but there are moments of levity. It is the music that brings you joy. It will be an intense experience. It is such an incredible musical that you get swept away and it soaks into you. It is very visceral. People crave that. You won’t get that experience anywhere else.

JI: What can you tell us about the space and the cast?

JE: It is a gorgeous, intimate space with the audience close to the action and a really strong cast. The original production had a cast of 40. This one is pared down to 20. It is huge to have 20 people in a 70-seat space – it feels like a giant production yet there still is a sense of intimacy about it. Lucille is the real star in a way as she becomes the driving force behind Leo’s sentencing being reduced and the resurgence of their love.

JI: How has the experience of playing Frank been for you?

JE: This experience has been incredible. Sometimes, I can’t always speak about the experience but I feel it. When I am in the show, I trust it, the material is great. I don’t have to come up with any tricks or think of the next joke or push the drama, I just stay present in the scene and give my version of what Leo is going through.

JI: Why should people come and see it?

JE: People love true crime stories and it is one of the most interesting cases in history, still talked about today. The production takes everything interesting about the case and puts it to the most gorgeous music you will ever hear.

JI: What would you like to have the audience take away from the production?

JE: They don’t have to take any theatrical thing away. Just come and watch. The story is there. It is a true story. They should just come, watch and feel.

For more information and tickets, visit raincitytheatre.com.

Tova Kornfeld is a Vancouver freelance writer and lawyer.

Provincial campuses roiling

On Nov. 1, about 200 Jewish students and their supporters engaged in a low-key demonstration at the University of British Columbia, with many holding posters of kidnapped Israelis. Since the terror attacks of Oct. 7 and the start of the Israel-Hamas war, universities and colleges worldwide have been hotbeds of conflict. (photo by Pat Johnson)

Jewish students and their supporters at the University of British Columbia celebrated a victory last week after the student government overwhelmingly rejected motions that critics say were openly antisemitic.

The Alma Mater Society (AMS), which represents UBC students, voted in the early hours of Feb. 29 not to include a number of referendum questions on the ballot during upcoming student elections.

One proposed question accused Israel of genocide and called for an end to UBC’s exchanges with Israeli institutions. It would have also invited students to vote on whether they believe Hillel BC, the organization that has represented Jewish students, faculty and staff at the university since 1947, should be evicted from campus. (Hillel’s lease is with the university and the AMS has no jurisdiction over whether Hillel does or does not remain on campus.) This question was rejected by a vote of 23 to 2.

A second proposed referendum question would have asked students to massively revamp the governing structure of the AMS, adding dozens of additional elected representatives of marginalized groups. The change would have assigned designated groups representation on student government, including the Social Justice Centre, UBC Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, UBC Trans Coalition, Black Student Union, Indigenous students, and the Women’s Centre. Explicitly excluded from representation were Jewish students and groups that represent them. This proposal was rejected 25-0.

Referendum questions can be submitted anonymously, so it is not known from which individuals or groups these proposals emerged, though they had support from the Social Justice Centre, which calls itself “a resource group that works toward progressive social change, inclusivity and equity through a survivor-centric, harm-reduction, radical, feminist, decolonial, anti-oppression framework.”

“I was very pleased and relieved that the AMS leadership chose not to include what I would say are very antisemitic referendum questions on the student voting ballots,” Rob Philipp, executive director of Hillel BC, told the Independent. The intention of the proposed ballot question was to intimidate Jewish students and the vote is a reassurance to Jewish students, he said. “It’s surprising that it took them close to five hours to discuss this. But the vote, in the end, was pretty overwhelming to turn it down, so that was very heartening for us.”

A few hours later, across town at Simon Fraser University, referendum results were announced, with an anti-Israel ballot question receiving overwhelming support. The compendious policy, adopted by the Simon Fraser Student Society in 2022, was put to a vote by the broader student population, endorsing the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign and repeating the boilerplate condemnations of Zionism as “a colonial ideology” bent on “ethnically cleansing the Indigenous population.”

The referendum question passed 1,801-442 and, while the statement of results did not indicate percentage turnout, there are around 40,000 students at SFU. It appears perhaps one in 20 students voted in the elections, in which a new president was elected with a tally of 878 votes.

These are just two of the foremost fires the Jewish community has been attempting to put out on campuses across the province recently. Universities and colleges worldwide have been hotbeds of conflict since the atrocities of Oct. 7 and the beginning of the war between Israel and Hamas. Administrators have struggled to balance preservation of free speech with often dangerously inflammatory, sometimes clearly antisemitic expressions. The presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University were forced to resign after their remarks before a congressional hearing late last year were viewed as insufficiently condemnatory of overt calls for violence against Jews.

Philipp emphasized that postsecondary administrators in British Columbia have all been supportive of the Jewish community’s concerns – the administrations are not where the problems are coming from, although they are inevitably placed in the middle of these dramatic conflicts.

At Langara College, a months-long controversy over the fate of Natalie Knight, an English instructor who called the Oct. 7 mass murder of Israeli civilians “an amazing, brilliant offensive,” may not be over. Knight was put on leave while the college undertook an internal investigation. She returned to work, albeit in a non-instructional role, after the investigation determined her comments were “not clearly outside the bounds of protected expression.” She then spoke at a rally on campus, where she declared: “I’ve been reinstated as an instructor with no disciplinary actions, which means we won. It means we won. It means I did nothing wrong.”

Knight was then fired. While not mentioning her by name, the college said that an employee had engaged “in activities contrary to the expectations laid out by the college and as a result this employee is no longer an employee.” Her union has taken up her case.

Philipp commended Langara’s president, Dr. Paula Burns, for her leadership.

At Emily Carr University of Art and Design, some instructors have encouraged students to leave classes to attend pro-Palestinian rallies, and what Philipp calls “very, very aggressive posters” have appeared on campus. Hillel has been in conversation with administrators there.

“They understand the issue and they are in process right now of making changes to help protect the student body,” said Philipp.

“All our relationships are pretty strong,” he said of administrators at the many institutions at which Hillel BC has a presence, adding that he was recently in Victoria and had dinner with the president of the University of Victoria.

“These administrators,” he said, “are encountering very, very challenging situations that are really stressing their organizations at different levels. Nobody’s able to figure out exactly how to handle these very tricky situations.”

Hillel is also dealing with a lawsuit from the Social Justice Centre, about which they are unable to speak publicly except to say that an independent contractor, not acting on behalf of the organization, participated in the distribution of contentious stickers around the UBC campus. Hillel terminated its relationship with the contractor but is facing a case that attempts to hold the organization responsible.

These are not easy times for Jewish students, but, in some cases, individuals are finding resources they did not know they have.

Rachel Seguin, a graduate of Vancouver Talmud Torah elementary and King David High School and a second-year psychology student at UBC, has become an accidental activist.

“Since Oct. 7, I’ve seen a new part of me that I didn’t even know existed – neither did my parents, honestly,” she said. The anti-Israel actions of the Social Justice Centre and the repeated stonewalling by the AMS in response to her complaints have driven Seguin to become a public voice against antisemitism on campus, including addressing the council last week in opposition to the referendum proposals.

“I didn’t imagine myself doing something like that,” she said. The fact that the AMS did what Seguin believes is the right thing was, she said, “really refreshing and satisfying.”

Taking on care homes – Stolen Time screens in March 21

A still from the film Stolen Time: lawyer Melissa Miller reviews footage from a long-term-care room camera. (photo from National Film Board of Canada)

“I’m only at the beginning of this fight,” says lawyer Melissa Miller in the documentary Stolen Time, written and directed by Jewish community member Helene Klodawsky. Miller, of Toronto firm Howie, Sacks & Henry LLP, is lead counsel in mass tort claims against for-profit long-term-care corporations Extendicare, Revera Inc. and Sienna Senior Living.

Stolen Time will screen in Vancouver March 21 at VIFF Centre – Vancity Theatre, as part of a national release that includes Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal. The film is a joint production of Intuitive Pictures Inc. (with Jewish community member Ina Fichman at the helm) and the National Film Board of Canada (Ariel Nasr, producer).

To give readers an idea of what Miller is up against, there is a scene in the film where the private investigator she has hired, Brett Rigby, shares some financial data. According to Rigby’s documents, Extendicare had a revenue of $1.1 billion in 2019, $91 million in earnings and $42 million cash dividends declared – “and they’re locking up incontinence pads,” remarks Miller.

The film notes that “a few hundred family clients have grievances against these companies,” the most common complaints being serious dehydration, malnutrition, injuries and misdiagnoses. The homes apparently meet the requirements for staffing, but at least one person is off at any given time, so they are consistently understaffed. There seems to be no regulatory oversight, while the companies bring in record profits, the film contends.

Miller has been suing for-profit nursing home corporations in Canada and elsewhere for negligence since 2018, both in mass tort (class action) claims and independent cases against various facilities, one of which is featured in the documentary.

Video clips of residents experiencing abuse juxtaposed with family videos of the long-term-care residents when they were healthy allow viewers to see the people more fully and the depth of the injustices more clearly. Miller contends that it isn’t the staff who are to blame, generally, but rather that the staff aren’t given adequate resources by the companies, who could afford to do something but don’t.

A complicating factor in effecting change is that, for example, Revera is owned by a Canadian Crown corporation, ie. the federal government, notes the film. As COVID ravaged nursing homes in 2020, with thousands of residents dying, “governments across North America pass[ed] legislation to protect them from lawsuits.”

“Today, nursing home chains around the world have become sites for wealth extraction by investors and shareholders,” writes Klodawsky in her director’s statement. “At its core, such financialization of care ties frail elders to overworked, racialized and predominantly female staff. When public pension fund managers, private equity and real estate companies help set the rules, compassion and dignity fall by the wayside. Nonetheless, rapidly expanding populations of the frail elderly, combined with shrinking numbers of family caregivers, ensure a steady stream of residents.”

People interviewed in Stolen Time include Dr. Pat Armstrong, a sociologist and professor at York University; Lisa Alleyne, a personal support worker who has worked in for-profit nursing homes (she is also an artist and her illustrations of what some long-term-home residents face are powerful); Rai Reece, who writes and teaches on anti-Black racism; Jackie Brown, who researches how publicly traded companies make money for investors; Jason Ward, who investigates how public pension funds are invested in for-profit nursing homes globally; Katha Fortier, who has been fighting for the rights of care workers for decades; Ayesha Jabbar, a former social worker who became a union rep; and members of a couple of the families Miller is representing.

Stolen Time is an engaging film that raises a lot of important questions about how nursing homes are run. It is unfortunate that it doesn’t include any interviews or statements from company representatives or government officials.

The post-screening panel discussion in Vancouver will feature Sara Pon, staff lawyer and researcher at Seniors First BC, and co-chair of the BC Adult Abuse and Neglect Prevention Collaborative; Bruce Devereux, a recreation therapist with three-plus decades of experience in the not-for-profit aging care sector; and Julia Henderson, assistant professor in the department of occupational science and occupational therapy at the University of British Columbia, and chair of the North American Network in Aging Studies.

More information about the March 21 event and other screenings of the documentary at VIFF Centre will be posted at viff.org. A ticket link will also be posted at events.nfb.ca/events/vancouver-theatrical-special-panel-on-march-21.

Drama & more at film fest

Yoav Brill’s documentary Apples and Oranges, about a moment in the history of the kibbutz movement, is mesmerizing. (photo by Avraham Eilat)

The 2024 Vancouver Jewish Film Festival takes place in person April 4-14 and online April 15-19. As usual, a diversity of offerings is included in this year’s festival and the Independent will review several films in this and upcoming issues. The Vancouver Jewish Film Centre also sponsors events throughout the year and some screenings take place before the annual festival begins. Full festival details will be online at vjff.org as April approaches.

Idealism remembered

Amid the euphoric aftermath of the 1967 war and the enduring popularity of the 1958 Leon Uris book Exodus (and its 1960 film incarnation), thousands of Jews and non-Jews descended on Israel to volunteer on kibbutzim.

They came to experience and emulate “the embodiment of man’s highest ideals – the kibbutznik,” as an apparently promotional film clip declares in Yoav Brill’s mesmerizing documentary Apples and Oranges. In just one particular spurt, 7,000 volunteers arrived in Israel en masse from around the world.

Through the recollections of aging Scandinavians, Brits, South Africans and others, and with nostalgia-inducing archival footage, the documentary shines a light on the socialist idealism and hippie adventurism that motivated these people to travel to the farming communities of rural Israel. Many returned, to Sweden, Denmark, wherever, and formed associations to support the kibbutzim and drum up more volunteers. So successful were they that the supply exceeded the demand. One group chartered a jumbo jet to go from Stockholm to Tel Aviv but the Israelis had to admit they had no use for 340 volunteers.

Generally, the spirit of the overseas visitors was welcomed, though the social impacts were not negligible. The temporary nature of their visits was disrupting. A middle-aged man reflects on his perspective as a kid on a kibbutz, welcoming all the strangers who became like big brothers and sisters, only to have his heart broken every time the groups departed from what he calls “the kibbutz fantasy.”

Strangers from another world – blond, exotic, sophisticated and drinking milk with their meals – descended on a cloistered society where all the teens had been together since kindergarten, introducing predictable social and hormonal disruptions. For their parts, many of the volunteers soon discovered they had no aptitude for the tasks to which they were set, although at least one Brit made use of his talents performing Shakespeare for an audience of cattle.

Many of the overseas youngsters were unabashedly out for sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll. As one woman interviewed in the documentary says, “If there weren’t female volunteers at [Kibbutz] Mishmar HaSharon, many of our boys would still be virgins.”

In one incident that apparently caused national outrage, a group distributed hashish-laden brownies to an entire community, including at least one 8-year-old child, a crime that is not the least bit funny – but, of course, is hilarious when recounted by octogenarians who experienced it.

With their Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan LPs, the foreigners brought a little bit of Woodstock with them, and took away some Israeli dance routines. But the adventure, as the viewer knows more than do the figures in the old footage, would not end well. Terrorism, including a highly publicized attack in which a volunteer was murdered, would strangle the flow of future volunteers.

The documentary is a masterpiece of the genre, capturing the joy and exuberance of the experience for both Israelis and the visitors, but addressing the serious problems the interactions raised. The clash of cultures introduced existential issues, including around conversion, mixed marriages, secularization and, of course, the collapse of the traditional kibbutz.

The apples and oranges of the title, we are to understand, are the people who came together on the kibbutzim, as much as the produce they harvested.

Critics of the volunteer phenomenon seem to place some of the blame for the collapse of the kibbutz system on the labour underclass they represented, which undermined the egalitarian foundations of the movement.

The kibbutz network has largely petered out, almost entirely in spirit if not completely in form, and some of the Jews and non-Jews who came during the heyday have remained and integrated to varying degrees in the society that Israel has become. In one instance, an aging, bearded former volunteer actualizes his idealism by leading a ukulele orchestra.

The collapse of the idealistic experiment that the end of the film documents is expected but no less depressing for that. The slice of history and the magnificence of the story, so vividly told in the film, will stay with the viewer.

Transcendence of song

photo - In Less than Kosher, the real star is the voice of Shaina Silver-Baird as Viv, an atheist turned cantor — In Less than Kosher, the real star is the voice of Shaina Silver-Baird as Viv, an atheist turned cantor. *(photo from Menemsha Films)*

In Less than Kosher, a number of fairly two-dimensional character sketches come together – but with a redeeming twist.

A feature film that began its life as serialized online videos has the feel of excellent amateurism. Wayward Jewish girl meets rabbi’s bad boy son. Overbearing Jewish mother, well-intentioned buffoonish rabbi, go-along-to-get-along intermarried stepdad and hyper-chatty high school friend flesh out the cast.

Sitcom-like circumstances turn the atheist young woman into unlikely cantor. But the outstanding component of the film, the real star, is the voice of Shaina Silver-Baird, the lead actor and co-producer (with Michael Goldlist) of this cute confection.

The unlikely cantor Viv, whose once-promising pop music career is on the skids, has the voice of an angel and the story is less about her family or her romance with the (married) rabbi’s son than about the transcendent power of song. When she opens her lungs, Viv ushers in a changed world – and Silver-Baird’s voice invites the viewer into it. Music video-style segments, which Viv is dismayed to have dubbed “Judeopop,” raise the film to a different level. Liturgical music goes Broadway. Amy Winehouse does “Shalom Aleichem.”

A tiki-themed shiva is truly the icing on the sheet cake.

Mysterious case

photo - The Goldman Case is a dramatic reenactment of the case of Pierre Goldman — The Goldman Case is a dramatic reenactment of the case of Pierre Goldman. *(photo from Menemsha Films)*

He was guilty of much, but was he guilty of murder? Pierre Goldman maintained he was innocent of the latter charges and a based-on-a-true-story film explores not only a man’s possible guilt but the intergenerational impacts of Polish-French Jewish life in the mid-20th century and their potential explanations for some unusual behaviours.

The Goldman Case is a dramatic reenactment of a famous (in France, at least) case of the Jewish son of Polish resistance heroes, whose own life was impacted by an apparent need to fill the giant shoes of his parents. The son wanted to be “a Jewish warrior” and so became a communist revolutionary, traveling to Latin America, Prague and elsewhere in search of opportunities for valour.

Charged with a series of crimes, including the murder during a holdup of two pharmacists, Goldman was convicted in 1974 and sentenced to life imprisonment, though he maintained he was innocent in the two deaths. Following the 1975 publication of his memoirs, the judicial system reconsidered his case and major French voices, including Jean-Paul Sartre, took up his cause. This film is a (massively condensed) court procedural of that retrial.

Goldman’s Jewishness was not on trial but, interestingly, his defence team built their case partly around his family’s experiences.

The case – and the film – end with a new verdict. But the dramatic story would continue. Audiences will no doubt race to Google more about Goldman and his crimes and punishments. Enduring mysteries, though, will make the search necessarily unsatisfying. This cannot be said of the film, though, which is a gripping enactment, enlivened by the extremely animated courtroom drama, which suggests the French judicial system tolerates a great deal more outbursts than we expect in Hollywood depictions of North American judicial proceedings.

Law seminar on antisemitism

At the daylong legal seminar being held at Congregation Beth Israel on Feb. 15, Howard Mickelson, KC, and Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim discuss the legal implications of adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Mickelson, left, spearheaded the event.

Congregation Beth Israel will be holding a full-day seminar, titled The Legality of Combatting Antisemitism, on Feb. 15. Topics will include defining antisemitism, combatting and addressing antisemitism on campus and in the workplace, examining the Charter implications of fighting antisemitism and the constitutional implications.

“Attendees can expect a top-notch group of speakers providing legal insight on, and addressing, a critical issue of our current troubled times,” said Howard Mickelson, KC, of Gudmundseth Mickelson LLP, who is spearheading the seminar. Mickelson has been a lawyer for more than 30 years.

The daylong event takes place four months after the Hamas attacks on Israel that killed approximately 1,200 people and saw about 240 people taken hostage. More than 130 hostages are still in captivity, with at least 32 believed dead. Since Oct. 7, there has been a dramatic rise in hate crimes in Vancouver, as well as the rest of Canada. A disproportionate number of these crimes have targeted Jews.

According to information released by the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) on Jan. 16, tensions from the Israel-Hamas war have fueled increases in protest activity and hate crimes in the city. Of the 47 antisemitic hate incidents reported to VPD in 2023, 33 occurred after Oct.7. In all, antisemitic incidents increased 62% in 2023 compared to 2022, when there were 29 incidents reported.

“The topic of the seminar is a result of the rise after Oct. 7 of antisemitism,” Mickelson told the Independent.

Mickelson, along with Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim, will discuss the legal implications of adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Sim promised during his 2022 mayoral campaign to push for the adoption of the IHRA definition by the city and Vancouver city council voted for the definition shortly after he assumed office.

In 2016, the IHRA created a non-legally binding definition of antisemitism, which reads: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Jewish groups are hoping that other jurisdictions, such as the provincial government, will follow Vancouver’s lead. In June 2022, former British Columbia Premier John Horgan issued his support of the definition in a letter. His successor, David Eby, has made several statements confronting antisemitism but his government has yet to adopt the definition. The federal government has adopted it, as have the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Rob Phillip, executive director of Hillel BC, Beth Israel’s Rabbi Jonathan Infeld and Dr. Jay Eidelman, PhD, who is a professor in the history department at University of British Columbia, will present the seminar’s opening session, What is Antisemitism?

Russell Brown, who served on the Supreme Court of Canada from 2015 to 2023, will focus on the Charter implications of combating antisemitism. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, he was an associate professor and associate dean at the University of Alberta faculty of law and is the author or co-author of numerous legal works.

On the topic of Combating Antisemitism on Campus, one of the scheduled speakers is Prof. Cristie Ford of the Peter A. Allard School of Law at UBC. Colleges and universities across the province and the country have witnessed a sharp uptick in antisemitic incidents over the past four months. Jewish students have reported feeling unsafe on several campuses due to anti-Israel rhetoric and hostile behaviour from other students, as well as faculty.

The session Addressing Antisemitism in the Workplace is a roundtable moderated by Claire E. Hunter, KC. It features Reut Amit of Southern Butler Price LLP, Erin Brandt of PortaLaw and Abigail Cheung of Harris & Co.

The final topic, Mooting the Constitutional Implications, will be taken on by Marshall Rothstein, CC, KC, Osler Russell Brown; S. David Frankel, KC; Geoffrey Cowper, KC, Fasken; and Greg Allen, Allen/McMillan.

About the seminar as a whole, Mickelson said attendees can expect “legal guidance in a variety of areas, such as employment, campus life and criminal law, to deal with the heightened levels of antisemitism post-Oct 7.

“It is, of course, highly distressing to our community and especially our children,” he added. “As a lawyer, this is the best way I and the others assisting me on this, particularly Claire Hunter, KC, can do something constructive and educational to feel less helpless.”

Mickelson noted that Congregation Beth Israel has put on other topical daylong continuing legal education seminars, with assistance and insight from Infeld, including two separate trips to Israel with members of the bench and bar.

The cost for the Feb. 15 seminar, which runs 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., is $360 for professionals and $180 for students. Breakfast, snacks and lunch are included. The event is worth six continuing professional development (CPD) credits, including two ethics credits. For more information, visit bethisrael.ca or write info@bethisrael.ca.

Sam Margolis has written for the Globe and Mail, the National Post, UPI and MSNBC.

Judges slap down Knesset

Israel’s government pushed the country’s Supreme Court into a corner – but instead of weakening the judicial system and putting more power into the hands of the government, which was the aim of the coalition’s judicial reform package, the gambit incited a showdown that made the court stronger than it had been a year earlier.

That is the synopsis of a leading Israeli legal scholar. Yaniv Roznai, associate professor and vice-dean of the Reichman University’s law school and co-director at the Rubinstein Centre for Constitutional Challenges, was speaking virtually to North American audiences hours after Israel’s Supreme Court released a landmark decision Jan. 1. During the presentation, which was organized by UnXeptable, the international group that emerged in opposition to the judicial reforms, Roznai said the court also now has more legitimacy among the public, according to opinion surveys.

The 250,000-word written decision, with contributions from all 15 Supreme Court justices, represents the first time in Israeli history that the high court struck down a component of the Basic Law, which is effectively Israel’s constitution. The opinion overturned legislation the Knesset passed in July curbing the ability of judges to use “reasonableness” as a legal standard.

One justice wrote that Israel’s limited system of checks and balances means that the cancellation of the court’s ability to freely judge decisions by governments and ministers removed much of the ability of courts to defend individual and public interests.

While subjective, the idea of reasonableness has been a legal doctrine in Israel since the 1980s and was used a year ago to prevent Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from appointing Aryeh Deri, the leader of the Shas party, from serving in cabinet because Deri had been convicted of tax fraud and bribery. The court declared it was not reasonable to appoint a convicted felon to lead a government department. This was the apparent impetus for a significant raft of legislation intended to reform the judicial system – proposals critics have called a “judicial coup.”

The reasonableness doctrine is available to the court if judges believe that elected officials did not take into account all relevant considerations before making a decision, or that those considerations were not given appropriate weight. It has been invoked numerous times on significant and less momentous government decisions.

In response to mass protests throughout 2023, the government at least temporarily backtracked on some of its judicial reform proposals, including efforts that would allow the Knesset to overturn court decisions by a majority vote and to give the government more direct control over the appointment of judges. That left the reasonableness doctrine as the remaining portion of the broader judicial reform proposal – and its rejection by the court is a blow to Netanyahu’s government. It also reopens the divisive topic, which has been largely dormant since the terror attacks of Oct. 7, possibly inviting social division at a time of national trauma.

Critics of the legislation, which passed the Knesset in July, argued that eliminating the reasonableness doctrine would allow the government to fire senior civil servants such as the heads of law enforcement agencies, making it easier to subvert the rule of law. Israel’s attorney general, for example, oversees the public prosecution system and determines whether politicians can be indicted on alleged crimes.

Since Israel has no formal constitution, the Basic Law serves as an alternative. However, whereas the American, Canadian and most other national constitutions have complex, in some cases almost impossible, amending formulas, Israel’s Basic Law can be amended by the Knesset by a majority vote. Therefore, Roznai said, “The only real check on political power is the attorney general and the judiciary, and the [Netanyahu government’s] reasonableness amendment was aimed to weaken precisely those two bodies.”

While the decision to overturn the law was close, with eight of the 15 justices in favour and seven opposed, three additional judges agreed that the court has the authority to strike down basic laws, but argued the time was not right.

The government defended the legislation by arguing that the idea of reasonableness was too arbitrary and, therefore, gave the court too much scope to intervene in areas the government considered the purview of the legislative branch. Critics, including Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, responded that the law eliminated guardrails that protect Israeli democracy.

Roznai, speaking Jan. 2, expressed mixed emotions about the court’s decision.

“I’m happy but, on the other hand, I’m a bit sad,” he said, noting that the entire controversy could have been avoided, “if the government had only worked a bit more gently, in a more clever manner. They could have enacted a more balanced amendment and then the court would not interfere.… I do not object to a reform in the judicial system. I think that any governmental system needs reform. In the education system we need to reform, in the health system we need reform, and also in the judicial system we need reform. But we need good reform. We need balanced reform. We don’t want something that would completely destroy the judicial system. We want something that would improve our systems and our democracy.”

A process that engaged different sectors of the society and tried to find a consensus on some of these issues could have resulted in constructive reforms, he said. Instead, millions of people took to the streets and polls showed that 80% of Israelis were opposed to the proposed judicial changes and a political schism has wrenched Israeli society amid a war.

Two days after Roznai spoke, UnXeptable hosted another event for North American audiences, featuring Dr. Tomer Persico, a research fellow of the Shalom Hartman Institute and former Koret Visiting Assistant Professor of Jewish and Israel Studies at the University of California Berkeley, where he was also a senior research scholar in the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies. He is a social activist advocating for freedom of religion in Israel.

Persico warned of cataclysmic impacts on global perceptions not only of Israel but of Jews if the trajectory of Israeli politics does not change. The current Israeli government, he said, includes individuals who are expressing ideas about the treatment of the people of Gaza that advocate ethnic cleansing and even genocide. Amichai Eliyahu, who was Israel’s heritage minister, was suspended from cabinet after saying that dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip was “one of the possibilities” the government is considering.

While the pro-democracy groups and individuals who were rallying against the government before Oct. 7 have closed ranks in a show of unity and determination since the Hamas terror attacks, these recent statements – including reports that the government is considering moving Palestinians from Gaza to third countries and returning Israeli settlers to the enclave – make this fragile unity difficult, said Persico.

Most Israelis tell opinion pollsters they want new elections and a different government. Persico warned that approaches to internal and external affairs by the current government might not only further tarnish Israel’s reputation in the world, but Judaism’s. Former governments have failed to find common ground with Palestinians to create a two-state solution, he said, but even the hawkish past administrations publicly expressed support for the concept. With the current government seemingly giving up on the idea and some voices in the coalition speaking of expulsions of Palestinians, Israel is on a path to becoming more of an international pariah, he said.

“There will be a breaking point between Israel and the liberal West and that includes liberal Jews,” he said. “I really fear that Judaism itself is going to be stained by the mark of the occupation.… It might materialize that that Judaism itself will be stained in the same way as Christianity has been stained by the Crusades, the same way as Islam has been stained by Islamic terrorism and ISIS.”