politics

Hamas a “net disaster”

Author and human rights advocate Raheel Raza spoke with Gaza-born American writer and peace advocate Ahmad Fouad Khatib in a June 28 online briefing presented by HR Canada Charitable Organization. (screenshot)

A Gaza-born American writer and peace advocate told a Canadian audience that Hamas has been a “net disaster” for Palestinians and that much of the Western pro-Palestinian movement has become detached from the needs of the people it claims to defend.

Ahmad Fouad Khatib, who was raised in Gaza and now lives in Washington, DC, said genuine advocacy for Palestinians must combine criticism of Israeli policies with an honest examination of Hamas, Palestinian political failures and an international aid system that has sustained Gaza without helping it develop accountable institutions.

Khatib spoke in a June 28 online briefing presented by HR Canada Charitable Organization, which carries out research and public education activities to combat antisemitism and anti-Jewish discrimination. HR Canada was founded in 2019, and is a separate legal entity from HonestReporting Canada, which operates as an independent, grassroots organization promoting fairness and accuracy in Canadian media coverage of Israel, the Middle East, and issues related to and affecting Canadian Jews. The discussion was moderated by author and human rights advocate Raheel Raza. It examined Hamas, Palestinian political culture, Western activism, antisemitism and the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Khatib said the central challenge facing Gaza is not simply reconstruction after the current conflict, but the creation of a political and economic future in which Hamas no longer controls the territory or its people.

“Hamas is mainly now holding two million Gazans hostage,” he said.

Khatib argued that Hamas’s remaining military infrastructure no longer represents the same immediate threat to Israel that it once did, but it continues to prevent meaningful recovery in Gaza. International donors, Arab governments and European states, he said, will be reluctant to invest seriously in rebuilding while Hamas retains its weapons, tunnels and political control.

Gaza, Khatib said, should not merely be rebuilt as it existed before the war. It must be “reimagined.”

“If we don’t solve Gaza, there’s no peace,” he said. “If Gaza doesn’t become a role model for effective Palestinian self-governance, if we don’t de-radicalize, if we don’t rejuvenate and reinvigorate Gaza to show what the West Bank can and should look like under Palestinian leadership, there’s no two-state solution.”

Khatib’s criticism of Hamas is rooted in both personal experience and profound loss. He said 34 members of his immediate and extended family have been killed in the war and both of his childhood homes have been destroyed. One of his brothers remains in Gaza and works with a major British medical and humanitarian organization.

He described conditions in the territory as catastrophic. Large portions of the population have been displaced, many people are living in tents or crowded into the homes of others, and residents face shortages of clean water, sanitation, privacy, education and medical care.

“No one is thriving, no one is healing, no one is recovering, no one is moving forward,” he said.

Khatib nevertheless rejected the contention that acknowledging Palestinian suffering requires silence about Hamas. Oct. 7, he said, was a choice, not an unavoidable response to Israeli policy. He argued that Hamas has repeatedly diverted Palestinian resources, undermined opportunities for state-building and used violence in ways that predictably brought further devastation upon Gaza.

“Any way you slice and dice Hamas, it has been a net disaster for the Palestinian people,” he said.

Khatib left Gaza in July 2005, about a month before Israel removed its settlements and military presence from inside the territory under the disengagement plan of then-prime minister Ariel Sharon. Khatib was 15 and traveled to the United States through a US State Department exchange program intended to build connections between Americans and young people from Muslim-majority countries after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

He lived with a host mother in the San Francisco Bay Area and attended an American high school. When he attempted to return to Gaza in 2006, Hamas’s abduction of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit contributed to border closures that left him stranded in Egypt for three months.

With assistance from American human rights activists, including Jewish supporters and a Holocaust survivor, he returned to the United States and applied for political asylum. His asylum interview took place on the day Hamas completed its violent takeover of Gaza.

Khatib said he grew up in a devout Muslim family and was exposed early to the terror organization’s efforts to shape Gaza’s religious and social culture. As a child, he attended part of a summer camp that he later recognized as being dominated by Hamas activists. Even then, he said, he was repelled by its propaganda. He argued that Hamas did not simply promote a political program. It reshaped language and social expectations, making resistance an unquestionable virtue while turning peace into a synonym for cowardice, surrender or betrayal.

The consequences, he said, extended beyond Gaza. Hamas attacks during the Oslo peace process and later from Gaza contributed to the rightward movement of Israeli politics and strengthened Israeli politicians who argued that Palestinian independence would create an additional security threat, he said.

Khatib characterized Israel’s 2005 withdrawal as a missed opportunity for Palestinians to demonstrate that Gaza could succeed without a permanent Israeli military presence. Instead, Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian election and seized exclusive control the following year.

Gaza received vast international humanitarian assistance over the next two decades, he said, but Hamas was able to govern without assuming normal responsibility for public services because the United Nations, foreign donors and humanitarian organizations took on much of the burden of caring for the population. This produced what Khatib called a perverse incentive system: Hamas could prioritize weapons and warfare while outsiders repeatedly paid to repair the damage after each conflict.

He criticized Western activists who reduce Palestinian advocacy to opposition to Israel and refuse to acknowledge Palestinian agency. A credible pro-Palestinian framework, he said, must define a positive political objective rather than rely on demands to destroy or dismantle Israel. Calls to eliminate the “Zionist entity,” he argued, are not policy proposals and offer Israelis no reason to engage.

“Destroying Israel is not a goal,” he said. “That’s rhetoric. That’s hate.”

Authentic Palestinian advocacy should promote governance, economic opportunity, institution-building and political renewal, he said. It must also recognize that approximately nine million Israelis regard the country as their home and are not going to disappear.

Khatib said there is little organized space in the Palestinian diaspora for people who support Palestinian rights while rejecting Hamas and seeking engagement with mainstream Israelis and Zionists. Palestinians who question dominant activist narratives may face social exclusion, accusations of betrayal and pressure from their families or communities. He said people frequently contact him privately to express support for his arguments but are afraid to state similar views publicly.

Criticism of Hamas, he added, remains taboo in parts of Arab, Muslim and Palestinian diaspora life. Since Oct. 7, he has seen some people move from a reluctance to condemn Hamas to open support for the organization.

“This is not a fringe position,” he said.

Khatib has also experienced hostility from pro-Palestinian activists at universities. Although he opposes West Bank settlements, supports Palestinian freedom and has condemned Israeli conduct in Gaza, he said activists have branded him a traitor because he also criticizes Hamas and supports dialogue with Zionists.

At one campus appearance, protesters followed him toward his vehicle and he required a police escort. At another, demonstrators depicted him as having been bought by Israel, using dollar signs in a manner he considered both anti-Palestinian and antisemitic.

The assumption that an independent-minded Palestinian must have been paid by Jews or Israel, he said, denies Palestinians intellectual diversity while reproducing traditional conspiracy theories about Jewish money and control.

Khatib said antizionism can, in theory, be distinguished from antisemitism as an intellectual position. In contemporary practice, however, it frequently serves as a shield for hostility toward Jews.

He drew a distinction between criticizing Israeli policies and demanding Israel’s elimination. Opposition to violent settlers or to statements by far-right Israeli ministers, he said, is legitimate political discourse. Holding Jewish communities abroad collectively responsible for Israeli actions is not.

He cited attacks on synagogues and Israeli diplomatic personnel, as well as rhetoric that treats such violence as an understandable consequence of events in the Middle East.

“That is antisemitic,” he said. “That is double standard. That is normalizing violence against Jewish communities because somehow what happened overseas, over there, 10,000 miles away, needs to come to our shores.”

Despite the obstacles, Khatib ended with a measure of optimism. He believes many Palestinians, freed from social pressure and fear of reprisal, would prefer peace, coexistence and economic security.

“The individual is smart, the group is dumb,” he said. “One-on-one, if left to their own devices, most Palestinians would choose peace.”

He said Gaza, the source of the Oct. 7 attacks and repeated regional conflict, could eventually become the place where a new political direction begins.

“I fully believe that Gaza can, and inshallah [God willing] will, be ground zero for the beginning of the end of the conflict and for true peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

Does Bill C-9 matter?

Canada’s new Combatting Hate Act, which has just come into force, says many of the right things. The question is whether anyone in the justice system will act on them.

The passage of Bill C-9 into law creates a distinct hate-motivated crime offence, defines hatred in the Criminal Code and prohibits intentionally intimidating or obstructing people trying to enter places of worship, schools, community centres, cultural facilities and other spaces used by identifiable groups. It also makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred through the public display of symbols principally associated with listed terrorist organizations, as well as specified Nazi symbols. The legislation removes the former defence based on good-faith expression of a religious opinion in certain hate-propaganda cases.

The law does not ban peaceful protest, political advocacy, religious teaching, disagreement or criticism. Its threshold remains high: expression must amount to the wilful promotion of hatred, which the Criminal Code now defines as an intense and extreme emotion associated with vilification and detestation. Merely offending, humiliating or discrediting someone is not enough.

Despite claims of threats to free expression, Canadians remain free to criticize governments, religions, ideologies and political movements. The law will (theoretically) intervene when protest becomes intimidation or when access to a synagogue or community centre is deliberately obstructed.

Of course, Canada already had laws against assault, threats, arson, vandalism, criminal harassment, intimidation and hate propaganda. Hatred was already an aggravating factor at sentencing. Yet, Jewish Canadians have watched an alarming procession of apparently serious incidents produce no charges, no convictions, no outcomes that reflect the gravity of the conduct.

In October 2023, in Montreal, Adil Charkaoui led a public prayer asking God to count the “enemies of the people of Gaza,” exterminate them and spare none. Prosecutors concluded that the evidence could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the words constituted incitement to hatred against an identifiable group. No charges were laid.

In Ontario, Waisuddin Akbari was convicted after threatening to plant bombs in every Toronto synagogue and kill as many Jews as possible. In July 2025, he received 60 days of house arrest, followed by probation and a weapons prohibition. The judge rejected a discharge, but a sentence served at home for threats of mass murder against Jewish worshippers hardly communicates the full force of public denunciation.

Here in Vancouver, more than two years ago, an unidentified attacker poured accelerant at the entrance of Vancouver’s Schara Tzedeck Synagogue and set it on fire. Police released surveillance footage, but no suspect has publicly been identified or charged. The inability to identify an offender is not the same as prosecutorial reluctance, of course, but, for the targeted community, the practical result is identical: an attack occurred and nobody was held accountable.

These cases reveal different failures at different stages. Police may not recognize the significance of antisemitic language or symbolism. Investigators may lack the resources or specialized knowledge required to build a case. Prosecutors may decide that the high legal threshold or limited prospect of conviction makes proceeding unwise. Courts may convict but impose nominal sentences.

As we have said before in this space, passing a law does not close any of these gaps.

Police officers need training in the legislation and more broadly in the contemporary forms antisemitism (and its sister scourge antizionism) takes, including violence-inciting slogans like “from the river to the sea” and “globalize the intifada.” Crown prosecutors need the expertise and institutional will and support to bring difficult cases forward. Attorneys general must provide timely consent where the Criminal Code requires it. Judges must apply the law in ways that recognize not only harm to an individual victim, but the broader intimidation inflicted on an entire community.

The Combatting Hate Act may help. A distinct hate-crime offence could make motivation central to a prosecution rather than an afterthought at sentencing. The access provisions respond directly to the intimidation that has increasingly surrounded synagogues, Jewish schools and community gatherings, and neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of Jewish residents. Clearer statutory language may also give police and prosecutors more confidence about where lawful protest ends and criminal conduct begins.

Still, legislation is mere paper until institutions give it life.

That said, laws do have a purpose beyond prosecution. They express the moral judgment of society. At a time when antisemitism and antizionism have become louder, more extreme, more brazen and more socially tolerated, Parliament has drawn a line.

That imprimatur is significant in itself. Enforcement will determine whether the Combatting Hate Act becomes an effective instrument or another unfulfilled promise. But, even before the first prosecution, the law sends a necessary message: hatred is not acceptable, intimidation is not activism and Canadians should not have to run a gauntlet of hostility and danger to worship, study, gather or just go about daily life in this country.

What belonging means

British Columbia has been home to Indigenous peoples since time immemorial, and shaped ever since by people who came from somewhere else. For generations, people have arrived here seeking opportunity, freedom, safety and the chance for a better future. They brought different languages, traditions, beliefs and experiences. Together, they helped create one of the most diverse and vibrant places anywhere in the world.

That diversity is one of British Columbia’s greatest strengths. But it also comes with a great responsibility. In a province where so many of us have roots elsewhere, belonging is not something we inherit. It is something we build.

As we prepare to celebrate BC Day, I find myself thinking about what that means. Not simply belonging within our own families or communities, but belonging to the broader story of British Columbia. For Jewish British Columbians, that story stretches back more than 160 years.

Like so many communities across this province, ours is an immigrant story. Families arrived from Eastern Europe, North Africa, Latin America, the former Soviet Union, Israel, South Africa and countless other places. Some came fleeing persecution. Others came searching for opportunity. Over generations, they contributed to the economic, cultural, civic and charitable life in our province. Along the way, they found something equally important: a place to belong.

That sense of belonging did not happen by chance. It was built by neighbours who welcomed newcomers, by community leaders who created opportunities to participate and by people willing to reach across cultural and religious differences to form lasting relationships.

Those relationships matter because no community succeeds in isolation. They matter because a healthy society depends on trust, and because our differences do not need to divide us. That lesson feels especially relevant today.

Over the past several years, difficult conversations have strained relationships in communities across Canada. Too often, polarization has overshadowed our shared humanity. Yet, some of the most encouraging moments have come from people choosing another path: dialogue instead of division, partnership instead of polarization, curiosity instead of suspicion.

Those choices rarely make headlines, but they are the choices that strengthen communities. They are the choices that define British Columbia at its best.

This belief in connection is reflected in the recent evolution of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver to the Jewish Federation of British Columbia. While it may appear to be a simple name change, it reflects a larger reality. Jewish life in this province is no longer centred in one city. Today, nearly 30 Jewish communities across British Columbia are helping shape a shared future, and our responsibility is to ensure that every community has the opportunity to thrive, and to support an increasingly connected province. The transformation reflects a belief that, despite differences in geography, background or experience, we are stronger when we remain connected.

That vision extends well beyond the Jewish community. British Columbia has always been strongest when people from different backgrounds choose to invest in one another. Guided by the enduring presence of Indigenous peoples and enriched by generations of newcomers and families who have called this province home, we continue to foster a shared future, one where people continue to build bridges rather than walls. Diversity is not simply something we celebrate. It is something we sustain through relationships, participation and a commitment to the common good.

For more than 160 years, Jewish British Columbians have sought to contribute to that vision. Philanthropy has long been one of the ways our community expresses its values, supporting not only Jewish organizations but also hospitals, universities, social service agencies, cultural institutions and countless initiatives that strengthen life across this province. This tradition reflects a simple belief: when one community succeeds, we all benefit.

The same spirit continues today through volunteerism, civic engagement and partnerships that bring people together across communities. BC Day reminds us that our lives are shaped by the people who show up for us. It is also a reminder that stronger communities are built by those who show up for one another. The neighbour who offers a welcome. The volunteer who lends a hand. The leader who creates opportunities for people to connect. The bridge-builders who choose understanding over division.

These acts may seem small, but, over time, they create something extraordinary. They create belonging.

In a world where it is often easier to focus on what separates us, there may be no greater gift we can give one another than the commitment to keep working toward making the province a place where everyone can belong – and there may be nothing more important than that.

Ezra Shanken is chief executive officer of Jewish Federation of British Columbia.

Rule of law broken: councilor

Panelists Rabbi Philip Bregman, left, and Aron Csaplaros. Toronto city councilor James Pasternak spoke via remote link. (photo by Pat Johnson)

A Toronto city councilor, speaking via remote link at an event at Richmond’s Beth Tikvah Synagogue, slammed Canadian society and leaders for permitting – even encouraging – antisemitism.

James Pasternak told the June 23 event that the rule of law has broken down in Canada.

“It’s mostly a result of timid policing, the refusal to physically engage protesters, spineless politicians who are either scraping the barrel for a few extra votes or simply afraid to speak out and, of course, a broken judiciary that has weak bail conditions and drops a lot of the charges,” said the councilor, who is Jewish and is seeking reelection this fall in the York Centre ward, which has a significant concentration of Jewish voters.

Pasternak said anti-Israel protests have cost Toronto police more than $50 million, and yet activists continue intimidating people in Jewish neighbourhoods, harassing shoppers, interfering with subway commuters, and blocking major thoroughfares and rail lines.

“We have seen attacks on synagogues and threats against Jewish daycares and schools, against summer camps. We have seen the shooting up of a Jewish girls’ school, the firebombing of a Jewish-owned grocery store and the arrival of hateful mobs coming up to the area I represent, at Bathurst and Sheppard, every Sunday to harass the Jewish community,” he said. “There are no embassies there. There are no consulates. There are no government buildings. There’s no town square. They are up there to harass the local Jewish community.”

Pasternak directed special condemnation at elected officials who exacerbate the situation by warning that Israel’s prime minister should be arrested if he came to Canada, by diplomatically recognizing Palestine, “and spreading the tropes that the war in Gaza was genocide.”

He named Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow as one who “spreads that same trope … making a bad situation worse.”

Chow has alienated the Jewish community, said Pasternak.

“She didn’t show up to the … anniversary of Oct. 7. She didn’t show up to Walk for Israel. She didn’t show up to the Israel flag-raising. Anything to do with Israel is like a no-go zone. And she’s pandering to these groups that she feels she needs to remain in office,” said Pasternak.

He said he had a conversation with the mayor in which she told him, according to Pasternak, “Any time I take a step to help the Jewish community speak up, I get clobbered.”

“So I said, ‘Oh, clobbered by the crazies?’” Pasternak recounted, “And her answer was, ‘Yeah. Yeah, clobbered by the crazies. The crazies vote for me.’”

A spokesperson for Chow told the Independent via email the mayor hosts an annual Passover reception at City Hall and attends several public menorah lightings and High Holidays receptions. They said Chow toured the Nova Exhibition, joined memorials for the Bibas family, and attended the opening of the Toronto Holocaust Museum and the Royal Ontario Museum’s recent Auschwitz Exhibit. She also visited Congregation Chasidei Bobov, a Toronto synagogue whose congregants were targeted in a hate-motivated assault.

Joining Pasternak on the panel was Aron Csaplaros, BC regional manager for B’nai Brith Canada, who referenced his organization’s most recent annual audit of antisemitic hate crimes.

According to the 2025 audit, Canadian Jews experienced a record 6,800 reported antisemitic incidents last year – an average of 18.6 per day – representing a 9.3% increase over 2024 and a 145.6% increase since 2022. Harassment accounted for 95% of incidents, the vast majority taking place online. There were 299 reported cases of vandalism and 10 violent attacks.

“The one main theme that I keep hearing again and again and again is that Jews feel excluded. They feel unwelcome. They feel unheard,” said Csaplaros, who shared an anecdote about a unionized work environment where coworkers spoke of Zionists stealing, lying and violently killing people. When a Jewish employee reported it to human resources, they were told it was merely a political disagreement.

“That’s just an example,” said Csaplaros, “but that’s something that we hear time and time again – or teachers not understanding what it means to collectively blame all Jews for the actions of a single government.”

He welcomed Bill C-9, which just received royal assent, creating a standalone hate crime offence, among other steps against hate. He also said Prime Minister Mark Carney’s statement that confronting antisemitism requires a “whole-of-government” approach is positive, but still may not reflect the breadth required. Csaplaros said the federal government makes the laws, the provinces oversee Crown prosecutions and municipalities run law enforcement.

“So you can see how there could very easily be a breakdown where maybe the laws exist on the federal level, but, if the province isn’t doing its job in charging these crimes, and if the city isn’t encouraging the local police to make these arrests in the first place, then we’re not going to get anywhere,” Csaplaros said.

Rabbi Philip Bregman, the third member of the panel, recounted experiencing antisemitism during childhood in rural Ontario and at university in Toronto, then, on Jan. 25, 1985, when his synagogue, Temple Sholom, here in Vancouver, was destroyed in a firebombing.

“Today, in the Lower Mainland, we are spending over $100,000 a month on security for our [Jewish] institutions,” Bregman said.

The rabbi reflected on things he’s experienced in the expansive interfaith work he has undertaken, especially since retiring from the pulpit at Temple Sholom. For example, a United Church of Canada minister told Bregman that he reviewed his notes from divinity school in Toronto.

“My God, the antisemitism was right below the surface, right there,” Bregman recalls the minister telling him.

The rabbi credited the Catholic archdiocese of Vancouver with developing very strong relations with the Jewish community, and also commended Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim.

“I may not necessarily agree with all of his policies, but Ken Sim has been there for us,” said Bregman.

Like the other panelists, Bregman did not identify a great many reasons for optimism. Jewish Canadians seeking a Plan B, a place to flee if the situation here gets intolerable, might consider Panama, which he has heard is very welcoming to Jews.

The event was co-hosted by Stan Goldman and Lonnie Belfer.

The burden of defence

Haredi demonstrators protesting the arrest of draft-dodgers block traffic in Bnei Brak on June 17. (photo by Eitan Elhadez-Barak/TPS-IL)

When I celebrated my bar mitzvah in Toronto in 1968 by reading parshat Shelach Lecha about the 12 spies Moses sent to scope out Canaan, my hometown was flooded with US draft-dodgers who had crossed from Buffalo, NY, to Fort Erie, Ont., to avoid being shipped off to Vietnam. As documented in John Hagan’s 2001 book Northern Passage, for those 50,000 Americans, Canada was the promised land of freedom. Most remained in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver even after Jan. 21, 1977, when President Jimmy Carter granted an unconditional amnesty to the young men who refused to fight in the Vietnam War.

Two things were furthest from my mind when I was 13 – that I should ever heed the age-old urging of Joshua bin Nun and Caleb ben Yefuneh to make aliyah, and that another flood of draft dodgers would arise in my new homeland.

Nearly daily this summer, clashes have taken place between Israel Police and some of the 80,000 Haredi men aged 18-24 who refuse to report to

Israel Defence Forces induction centres. Highways and tram routes are routinely blocked, causing massive traffic jams. In a riot on June 3, scores of ultra-Orthodox protesters stormed the home of Supreme Court Deputy President Noam Sohlberg and his wife Meira in Alon Shvut, a town in Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem. Sixty-two Torah students were arrested. Four were indicted on charges of rioting and trespassing with intent to commit an offence. According to the indictment, the rioters threw stones at the villa and tried to break in while the judge and his wife were at home; the rioters chanted slogans like “Nazi” and carried Israeli flags with the Star of David replaced by a swastika.

Police subsequently transferred 19 of those arrested into IDF custody after ascertaining they were draft dodgers. This triggered a new wave of violent protests outside Neve Tzedek Military Prison in the IDF’s Gur base, near the city of Kfar Yona.

As I write this article, the IDF is being crippled by a labour shortage. After three years of conflict in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran, reservists are carrying an impossible burden. The number of soldiers wounded or incapacitated by post-traumatic stress disorder is staggering. Suicide among the ranks is soaring. Even as soldiers have reached their breaking point, the yeshiva study halls are packed with those who have illegally ignored their call-up notice.

One needs some historical background to understand how Israel arrived at this situation.

Dov Yosef, the Montreal-born military commander of Jerusalem when the city was besieged by the Jordanian and Egyptian armies, wrote in his memoirs, The Faithful City, of a meeting in May 1948 with Rabbi Mordechai Weingarten and other Haredi leaders. The rabbis urged Yosef to surrender to avoid further hardship for civilians. Yosef responded, you do what you please and I’ll do what I wish, to which the rabbis asked, and what is it your excellency wishes to do? Yosef responded: to shoot deserters.

Indeed, Haredim participated in the War of Independence. Notably, Rabbi Shmuel Tukachinsky, a son of Haredi leader Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky, was killed by Arab Legion shellfire while fighting for Jerusalem in 1948.

As Israel absorbed more than one million Holocaust survivors and Jews from Arab lands, the labour shortage was somewhat alleviated. Thus, on Oct. 20, 1952, David Ben-Gurion, the founding prime minister of the Jewish state, held a meeting in the Haredi city of Bnei Barak with Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz (1878-1953). Known as the Chazon Ish, the Belarussia-born sage was one of the Jewish world’s foremost Haredi leaders. Settling in Mandate Palestine in 1933, he held no official post yet was a global address for guidance in Jewish law. While Ben-Gurion was a socialist and atheist, he had a deep if nostalgic sympathy for the lost world of the Eastern European shtetl he had left nearly half a century earlier.

A blog from the National Library of Israel’s The Librarians magazine (blog.nli.org.il) explains what happened, beginning with an entry from Ben-Gurion’s diary: “This morning I went to Bnei Brak for a meeting with the Chazon Ish…. I asked him the question to which I have yet to receive a sufficient answer from my observant friends. We are divided in different ways; in the matter at hand, we are divided by our views of religious tradition. There are Jews like you and like me, how do we live together? How will we become a unit?”

The Chazon Ish cited the talmudic parable (Sanhedrin 32b) about two camels traveling down a narrow path, one carrying a large burden and the other carrying nothing. The rabbi explained that the unburdened camel was to make way for the one carrying the burden. The Chazon Ish said the ultra-Orthodox community bears the burden of the Torah and its commandments; therefore, the non-religious Zionists must defer to them and move out of the way. Ben-Gurion replied: “And what of the absorption of immigrants? What of security? What of establishing the state? Are these not burdens?”

Though Ben-Gurion acknowledged the importance of Torah study, he wanted the ultra-Orthodox to become integrated with the modern state being forged. The Chazon Ish was appalled at what he saw as the desecration of the Sabbath and the Zionist rejection of the yoke of the commandments – a burden shared by every practising religious Jew. He believed that recreating the world of Torah that was annihilated in the Holocaust was the only way to save the Jewish people.

After that October 1952 meeting, the Prime Minister’s Office issued the following statement: “PM D. Ben-Gurion met privately with Rabbi A. Y. Karelitz (the Chazon Ish) in Bnei Brak yesterday. The purpose of the visit was to exchange general views regarding the following issue: How can observant and non-observant (Jews) live together harmoniously in the state of Israel? The question of recruiting women (to the army) was not discussed, and the visit had no relation to current political matters.”

According to the blog, “Contrary to the report, the meeting was much more than a ‘general exchange of views.’ The prime minister made a gesture towards the ultra-Orthodox community by agreeing to continue the exemption of a limited number of Torah scholars from military service. As early as February 1948, before the state of Israel had even been formally established, a limited number of young ultra-Orthodox men were exempted from being drafted into the armed forces, which were already fighting in what would come to be known as Israel’s War of Independence. On Jan. 9, 1951, the prime minister ordered the Israeli army’s chief of staff to exempt yeshiva students from regular service. Ben-Gurion’s meeting with the Chazon Ish did not set the ground for the current ultra-Orthodox exemption from military service, but it did give the controversial early arrangement a substantial political boost and, equally significant – symbolic support.”

When Ben-Gurion called for army exemptions for the 400 yeshiva students in 1949, he could not have known the number would grow to 80,000 by 2026, triggering resentment among their fellow citizens. Nor could he have envisioned that the detainment of even a token number of draft dodgers would set off rioting in the country’s Haredi enclaves.

The Haredi refusal to help relieve the burden of defence has resulted in the attorney-general and the courts reducing the financial benefits that ultra-Orthodox formerly received. In April, the High Court of Justice ordered the state to take concrete steps to revoke key financial benefits from draft dodgers and to move toward criminal enforcement against Haredi men who evade military service. In mid-July, the government’s subsidized national housing program restricted participation in the real estate lottery to those with IDF discharge papers.

A moment of truth is approaching with the Oct. 27 election. If Naftali Bennett forms a centrist coalition, his new government could revoke all benefits for draft dodgers. Short of jail time for 80,000 draft dodgers, these steps could include not issuing passports, driver’s licences and other government documents to those over the age of 18 who don’t have an IDF release form.

Gil Zohar is a journalist and tour guide who lives in Jerusalem.

Israel fighting for its existence

Pat Johnson, left, interviews Jonathan Conricus at the Friends of JNF Pacific Negev Event on June 7. (photo by Galit Lewinski)

On June 7, a full sanctuary at Beth Israel Synagogue gathered for the annual Friends of JNF Pacific Negev Event.

Howard Jampolsky, vice-president of Friends of JNF Canada Pacific Region, emceed. He spoke of the rise in antisemitism since Oct. 7, including in Canada, “a country that many Jews believed was among the safest and most tolerant countries in the world,” yet where Jewish schools have been shot at, synagogues vandalized, Jewish students intimidated, and Jewish businesses and individuals targeted.

“Antizionism that denies the Jewish people the right to self-determination is antisemitism,” he said. “Israel is not an abstract political issue to us. Israel is family. Israel is history. Israel is survival…. For 2,000 years, we have said, we have prayed, l’shana haba b’Yerushalayim, next year in Jerusalem. Today, there is a Jerusalem. Today, there is a Jewish state – and we will never apologize for defending it.”

Funds raised by this year’s Negev event will support the Beit Elkana Centre for Holistic Therapy, in the Lakhish region of Israel’s Negev. Established by Galit Wiesel in memory of her late husband, Elkana Wiesel, a reserve combat officer who was killed in battle in 2024, the centre will offer care to those suffering trauma-related conditions.

“Projects like Beit Elkana are about more than buildings,” said Jampolsky. “They are about resilience. They are about healing. They’re about ensuring that Israelis living in the south of Israel know that they are not alone – that Jewish communities around the world stand beside them and with them. That’s what Zionism looks like. Not slogans, not hashtags, certainly not hatred, but building, planting, healing, supporting, creating hope…. Because our answer to hatred cannot be silence. Our answer must be courage. Our answer must be pride, and our answer must be action. We must support Jewish institutions. We must educate the next generation.”

In that vein, Friends of JNF Canada presented Rabbi Stephen Berger, head of Judaic studies at King David High School, with its Education Award, “recognizing his tremendous contribution to Jewish learning, Jewish dignity, a Jewish identity, and the strength of our community.” The honour was presented by two of Jampolsky’s children, Elise and Jake.

Berger started his work in the community with NCSY more than 20 years ago, moving to KDHS about 18 years ago. He considers himself a resource for the Jewish community, not just the high school, and half-joked that he’d been teaching the same one idea in 25 different ways.

“The idea, very simply, is that we are souls…. We are spiritual in nature. We are not just super-smart animals…. [Rabbi Israel] Salanter says the big problem with the world is we’re always worried about our own physical needs and everybody else’s spiritual growth, [and] if we just flip that, if we could just worry about our own spiritual growth and everybody else’s physical needs, then the world will be a much better place.”

photo - Rabbi Stephen Berger holds the Friends of JNF Canada, Pacific Region, Education Award, presented to him by siblings Jake and Elise Jampolsky, whose father, Howard Jampolsky, emceed the event — Rabbi Stephen Berger holds the Friends of JNF Canada, Pacific Region, Education Award, presented to him by siblings Jake and Elise Jampolsky, whose father, Howard Jampolsky, emceed the event. *(photo by Galit Lewinski)*

Pat Johnson, who writes for and serves on the editorial board of the Jewish Independent, in addition to being the founder of Upstanders Canada, among other things, spoke about one of the main things he has learned in his 30-plus years of “hanging around” the Jewish community: “the depths of connection between Jewish people in Canada and the land, the state and the people of Israel.”

Engaged in political activism and progressive causes for decades, Johnson said that, during the Second Intifada, his communities diverged.

“Ostensibly, we were asked to choose to side either with Palestinians or with Israelis,” he said. “The real choice we faced, though, was between coexistence, peace and a negotiated settlement to conflict as characterized by the Oslo process, or supporting chauvinistic fanaticism, violence and the eradication from the Middle East of its only oasis of pluralism, democracy and equality.

“Why did I, and why did you, face that choice and make the right one, when so many others faced the same choice and opted to betray the values we thought we shared? Perhaps because we know Jewish history.

“People asked, ‘Could we be right and, seemingly, the entire world be wrong?’ Jewish history, for everything else it teaches us, reveals that the entire world can indeed be wrong – again and again,” said Johnson, who spoke about the inextricable links between Jews and Israel. He held up a JNF Blue Box, pushka, calling it “a tangible symbol of that bond.”

“In Jewish homes in Montreal and Minsk, in Vancouver and Vilnius, in Casablanca and Krakow, parents and grandparents dropped coins into boxes like this, demonstrating from generation to generation the centrality of this eternal connection.”

With Israel reestablished, the Zionist dream today, said Johnson, is “an Israel that is safe and indestructible. An Israel that exists in a changed region, where peace prevails. An Israel that is respected in a world without hatred.”

Jonathan Conricus believes Israel will have to continue fighting for its existence.

A retired lieutenant-colonel in the Israel Defence Forces, Conricus is a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, where he provides analysis and insight on Israel, the Middle East, and the challenges facing democratic societies worldwide. His Vancouver talk was part of a cross-country tour with Friends of JNF Canada.

Significant progress has been made in Gaza and Hamas has been diminished, Conricus said. “In terms of long-range weapons, far less, almost nothing; in terms of capital, far less, almost nothing; in terms of senior terrorists with decades of experience, almost nothing; and, in terms of an ability to project force and to threaten Israeli civilians, almost nothing. But you’ll notice that I said almost in each and every sentence – and almost is a temporary situation. The nucleus of Hamas remains.

“Nobody has disarmed,” he said. And anyone who thinks they will “see a jihadi fighter lay down their weapons, doesn’t know what a jihadi fighter is.”

Laying down weapons “is not in their DNA – they cannot do it,” he said, adding that, if they did, “they are dead men walking … not necessarily because Israel will kill them all … but because there are long lists of grievances within the population in Gaza with most of the thugs and terrorists of Hamas.”

Gaza will continue to challenge Israel, said Conricus, as the IDF continues to fight in Lebanon, “clearing away the last remains of Hezbollah: storage facilities, bunkers, sniper positions and many other things that Hezbollah had built underneath and within civilian homes in Lebanon.”

The goal is to create a cleared area, “where there’s no infrastructure that Hezbollah can use in order to attack Israeli civilians along the border,” he said.

“I believe that, currently, we’re in the best position that we’ve ever been … [to] help our neighbours to the north in being a sovereign state for the first time in their history,” Conricus said. “The Lebanese state was granted sovereignty in 1946 from the French colonial powers [when foreign troops finally left the country], and they haven’t enjoyed a day of sovereignty in their whole lives.”

On the Iranian front, the IDF is ready “to get going against Iran again, with the purpose of dealing much more severe blows against targets that, up until now, have not been engaged by the IDF,” said Conricus, but the Israeli government is holding back.

“Up until now, Israel has decided not to do so, whether independently or together with the US, mostly thinking about the future of the Iranian people and wanting to leave intact infrastructure for the people of Iran to continue with their lives.”

Before Oct. 7, Conricus said, “We were responding, but we weren’t really fighting strategically back.” Now, however, “all the Iranian proxies that the Iranian regime spent billions and billions of dollars building, arming, training and equipping – none of those are even half as strong as they were before Oct. 7. Most have been dealt significant blows by Israel. And Iran itself, the Islamic Republic, is the weakest that it has ever been in its 47 years of existence.”

While concerned about “the looming threat of an imperialistic Türkiye” and about unity within Israel and between Israeli and diaspora Jews, Conricus said people should take everything they see in international media “with many grains of salt.”

“Please know that the situation in Israel is much happier, stronger, more resolute, united, and better than it is portrayed in international media. Please know that Am Yisrael, in Israel, is strong, committed to prosperity, to life, to creation, to peace, to beautiful things, and that, despite two-and-a-half years, almost three years, of relentless attacks against the very basic legitimacy of the state of Israel to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people, we’re here, we’re fighting and, much to everybody else’s disapproval, we’re going to continue to be so.”

In the conversation between Johnson and Conricus that followed, several topics were covered. One of the last questions was about Malmo, Sweden, where Conricus, who was born in Jerusalem, partly grew up.

“For a lot of us, the word Malmo … is shorthand for European multiculturalism gone wrong,” said Johnson. “Is there something from that experience you would want Canadians to know?”

Malmo is “a cautionary tale,” said Conricus, noting that most young Jews have left the city.

“There’s not really a future,” he said. “Within a generation and a half, I think that the Jewish community won’t exist there.”

He encouraged the community to focus on Jewish education and fostering Jewish identity, “how we love each other, how we nurture the bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish state.”

During the event, David Greaves, executive director of Friends of JNF Western region, and Lance Davis, the organization’s chief executive officer, also offered remarks, and Ilene-Jo Bellas, board member and event chair, thanked the speakers.

Deal strengthens Iran

Many American Jews have given up on the Democratic Party. Seeing intractable opponents of Israel within its congressional ranks, many Jewish and pro-Israel voters decided that their best or only hope was within the Republican Party.

This trend was based partly on the seemingly knee-jerk antizionism of a chunk of the Democrats’ congressional caucus and by the oft-repeated idea that Donald Trump is the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House.

There are myriad problems with these assumptions.

First, abandoning one party in a two-party system is a high-risk strategy. Putting all eggs in one basket is not a wise approach in any scenario.

It is especially unwise in a scenario where the egg basket is controlled by a mercurial figure who has demonstrated no consistent loyalty to any person or idea, and whose fits of rage are directed at ostensible allies as often as they are at enemies.

The US-Israeli war with Iran earlier this year held the potential for a complete reshaping of the Middle East region. The defeat of the Islamic revolutionary regime in Iran would have tectonically altered the course of the region’s history, eliminating the greatest source of state-sponsored terror, massively (and further) reducing the capacity of Israel’s nearest enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Based at least partly on the idea that regime change must come from within Iran, the United States in particular (but Israel as a partner in the war) stopped short of pursuing regime change.

The resolution to that war – the memorandum of understanding and ongoing talks aimed at a lasting cessation of violence – is apparently intended to prevent Iran’s drive toward nuclear military capacity. Perhaps it will.

At the same time, however, although concrete details are suspiciously sketchy, indications suggest that Iran is likely to come out of the war not chastened, but strengthened.

What is known about the apparent accord drafted by the United States and Iran is that it will deluge the Islamic regime in hundreds of billions of dollars in “reconstruction and development” funds. Time was that the defeated in a war paid reparations. Under the Trump doctrine, it seems, the historical penance is reversed. The defeated now apparently receive unprecedented windfalls. And this reputed $300 billion avalanche of cash does not include the freeing up another colossal sum of currently frozen Iranian assets.

Many commentators had suggested that a debilitated and humiliated Iran, economically devastated by the war, would be weakened to the point where the Iranian people would be able to rise up and overthrow their oppressors.

Instead, it appears that the regime will see itself in an erstwhile unimagined place of wealth and triumph.

The widespread idea that a weakened Iranian regime would lead the populace to revolution based on continued and worsening daily economic realities seems likely to be averted by a cash bonanza that will allow the ayatollahs to bribe their populace into complacency.

Worse for everyone, the flush regime will be able to rearm Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and its broader network of evildoers.

What several weeks ago looked like the potential for the greatest realignment for the better in regional history now appears like the worst possible outcome. Iran seems to be given a free hand to pursue its darkest agendas, bankrolled by the “peace agreement” improbably crafted by the author of the 1980s bestseller The Art of the Deal.

If there is a single lesson here for Canadians and citizens in other democracies, it is that we must not allow the well-being of the bilateral relationship with Israel to become politicized. Party regulars in challenging environments must remain and fight, rather than abandon the traditional multipartisan approach to Israeli security.

There can be no denying that, at present, one party in Canada has a near-monopoly on pro-Israel policy. This appeared to be the case in the United States until a few hours ago. We can see how quickly things can change, leaving Israel effectively friendless at the highest levels.

Defending Israel in centrist and leftist political environments may seem challenging if not futile. But abandoning those spaces to haters because a mouthy carpetbagger comes along saying the right things until he turns like a mad dog on those who thought they were his friends leaves us in the worst imaginable spot.

Patriotic belonging diminishes

(photo by Cynthia Ramsay)

When I was a kid, living near Washington, DC, my dad would hang an American flag up out in front of our house on US holidays. We’d all go outside for Memorial Day or 4th of July and raise the flag together. It was a solemn ritual. It was uncomplicated and patriotic.

As my understanding of US history and geopolitical actions changed, I still remember feeling a sense of awe as we sat on a blanket under the night sky, celebrating Independence Day with fireworks and Sousa marches. I carried that mostly uncomplicated feeling with me when we moved to Canada in 2009, the feeling of pride in where I lived. I became a dual citizen, believing I could hold that feeling for two nations at once.

A few years ago, Winnipeg changed its celebrations around Canada Day. Some of the huge gatherings resulted in spikes in crime. Many events also didn’t properly acknowledge Indigenous peoples’ roles in this country. We found, with younger kids, that the crowds, loud noises and late nights required to celebrate with others became too hard.

The choice to downplay some aspects of Canada Day reflected a new understanding. Manitoba’s Indigenous population is 18.1%, larger than any other province. Winnipeg is home to the largest urban Canadian Indigenous population. Our kids attend public school in a division where the student population is approximately 30% Indigenous. Indigenous peoples have complex relationship with patriotism for many valid reasons.

I felt this nuanced understanding of patriotism and how it related to my country was only fair as a critical thinker who reads the news. Little of it had to do with my Jewish identity, I thought. Since Oct. 7, I realized that was incorrect.

On June 1, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that “Canada’s civic compact is failing Jewish Canadians.” This speech was, unfortunately, too little, and too late. While he did this, there were more incidents of hate, and little done to enforce the laws to stop it. Carney has created a new advisory council to combat hate, which has only one Jewish person on it. While one of their tasks is to tackle antisemitism, the council has a participant who supports Palestinian resistance via Iranian proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. Another member is a lawyer who represented Palestinian protesters in a university encampment. This doesn’t strike anyone in the Jewish community as an unbiased or safe environment to combat Canadian antisemitism.

Sorting through my feelings, I found a strange parallel in the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Chullin, which I am studying as part of Daf Yomi (a page of Talmud a day). This tractate, about kosher slaughter, is technical but contains insights that have broader implications. On page 44, there’s a discussion of treifa and how to detect it. In this situation, treifa refers to an animal that has a physical defect and will likely die soon. This type of animal isn’t kosher.

Sometimes, this is discovered only after slaughter. For the animal’s owner, this is a financial loss, too. In Dr. Sara Ronis’ essay on My Jewish Learning on Chullin 44, she highlights Rav Hisda, “who says: Who is a Torah scholar? This is one who sees his own treifa.” This is someone who sees his animal’s status, takes the financial loss and keeps potentially non-kosher meat out of the food supply. This person thinks critically enough to recognize when something might be harmful even when it’s difficult and the outcome doesn’t benefit them.

All my thoughts about patriotism felt emotional but abstract until October 2023. Then it became personal. The following situation is one I had but illustrates multiple Jewish Canadian experiences.

Someone I knew posted on social media. I’d sat on a committee with her. I visited her farm. I supported her business. Right after Oct. 7, this person cheered “resistance.” She promoted a “walkout for Palestine” at an urban high school near me. This person lived out in the country, not in the city. Still, she had lots of followers and this reaction to the Oct. 7 attack contributed to the antisemitism in Winnipeg.

When I asked her why she did this, I heard that this non-Jewish, leftwing Canadian once dated a leftwing Israeli. She believed in “one state” for Israelis and Palestinians. She’d once raised money to visit the West Bank but hadn’t managed the trip. She then defined antisemitism for me. After this online confrontation continued, I broke off contact, but this person still follows me on Instagram. It feels like I’m being stalked by someone who wants to monitor my minority identity.

My kids now attend that public high school, and I imagine how dangerous it could be if they were there during a “walkout for Palestine.” There’s a straight line from having a leftwing non-Jew feel confident enough to define Jew-hate to me, a Jewish person, and the hate we’re dealing with now. If a walkout happens at school, do my Jewish kids stay in the building, thus getting singled out as targets? My kids’ choice to side with Israeli friends and family and the Jewish state means they could be endangered at school by such “resistance” activism.

When I moved to Canada, I reveled in how safe and public Jews felt in Winnipeg. It was a novelty after moving from Kentucky, where I’d often felt worried about my safety. When someone recognized me on a Winnipeg street and called out to me from her bicycle, yelling that she knew me from synagogue, I felt unsettled. Six months later, I too felt safe enough to put my menorah in the dining room window during Hanukkah.

Sadly, that first Hanukkah in Canada, in 2009, is when my house got egged. It felt safe to be Jewish here, but we still couldn’t be that public about who we were.

When my twins were preschoolers, they walked to synagogue with us, wearing kippahs, because they felt proud of their identity. It was also easier than getting the kippahs on just outside the shul. We’re now in a situation where everyone’s toque, sun hat or ball cap comes off and the kippah comes on – sometimes even inside the building. We’ve had to change. It wasn’t safe.

Like many in Canada and the United States, I am now significantly less trusting of government and our country’s actions. I wonder if I will know when it’s time to move, when things are too unsafe. The older me sees value in the ways of Rav Hisda. It’s a sign of wisdom and maturity when we can identify and predict a loss or risk before it happens, and even cut our losses.

Part of me wishes for that uncomplicated time when I could lay back on my blanket, watch the fireworks and feel soaring pride. I’m sad to have lost that pride and the easy feeling of belonging I had in the past. Now, I wonder if I ever really belonged then, either.

Joanne Seiff has written regularly for the Winnipeg Free Press and various Jewish publications. She is the author of three books, including From the Outside In: Jewish Post Columns 2015-2016, a collection of essays available for digital download or as a paperback from Amazon. Check her out on Instagram @yrnspinner or at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.

Responding to Carney

Panelists at the event Faith Not Fear: Building Jewish Leadership for a New Era in Canada, left to right: Ben Mulroney (broadcaster), Natasha Pein (researcher), Simon Wolle (B’nai Brith Canada), Matthew Taub (Unapologetically Jewish) and Amir Epstein (Tafsik). (photo by Dave Gordon)

Two weeks after Mark Carney’s address on antisemitism at Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple, Jewish community members offered a counterweight – a gathering led by grassroots activists, journalists and elected officials, both Jewish and non-Jewish.

Called Faith Not Fear: Building Jewish Leadership for a New Era in Canada, the nearly four-hour meeting drew roughly 600 people to the city’s Chabad Flamingo synagogue on June 14. Organizers described it as an unprecedented gathering of local pro-Israel groups – many sharing a stage for the first time – aimed at confronting the question of what kind of leadership this moment demands, and what concrete steps the community must take.

Organized by Yalla, partner groups included Canadian Women Against Antisemitism, B’nai Brith Canada, Chai Tech and Tafsik. Jewish panelists included Matthew Taub of Unapologetically Jewish, Amir Epstein of Tafsik, Jesse Brown of Canadaland and Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman. Non-Jewish allies who spoke included broadcaster Ben Mulroney, educator Ali Siadatan, Juno News reporter Melanie Bennet, former MP Kevin Vuong and Vaughan Mayor Steven Del Duca.

The central message was that the community can no longer rely on vague reassurances, symbolic gestures or reactive fundraising alone. Speakers argued that the real work now must be proactive: building stronger Jewish identity, demanding governmental accountability, creating civic pressure and abandoning what several described as a culture of managed decline.

photo - MP Melissa Lantsman (Conservative, Thornhill) addresses a June 14 gathering in Toronto that was held in response to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s June 1 speech on antisemitism — MP Melissa Lantsman (Conservative, Thornhill) addresses a June 14 gathering in Toronto that was held in response to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s June 1 speech on antisemitism. *(photo by Dave Gordon)*

For Lantsman, the answer begins outside politics. She argued that what this moment demands is “a renewed Jewish identity,” adding that “before lobbying, before the press releases, before the next emergency appeal or the fundraising, more Jewish life is actually what’s necessary.” In her telling, public advocacy will only be durable if it is rooted in private conviction, education and continuity.

She also urged the audience to move outward, into politics and public life, “not as a supplicant” but as citizens who vote, donate, organize and remember. Politicians who abandon the Jewish community, she said, should feel it “at the ballot box,” because “this isn’t a Jewish problem, it’s a Canada problem.”

The insistence on moving from rhetoric to measurable action was sharpened by strategy consultant Maureen Leshem in her remarks. Drawing on conversations with intelligence officials, police, community leaders and counterterrorism experts, she said she had concluded that the community is “dangerously unprepared for what’s currently happening, and even less prepared for what lies ahead.”

Leshem argued that the community must rethink “everything, from our leadership choices, to how we spend our money, to how we work together.” Too often, she said, Jewish institutions and donors are stuck in “reaction mode,” raising funds to mitigate threats rather than forcing governments and public agencies to do the jobs they are already obligated to do.

A shooting at a Jewish institution, she said, is not mere vandalism or mischief but “targeted, potentially lethal violence against the Jewish community that demands the full weight of a national security response.” When Jewish families and institutions are expected to fund their own protection, she warned, the result is “a private tax on Jewish existence,” which risks normalizing public failure.

Leshem’s call to action was blunt: enough slogans. “Do not get up here and tell us that antisemitism is unacceptable. We know,” she said. Instead, leaders should explain what they are going to do, what laws they are demanding, what institutions they are pressuring and what risks they are willing to take.

Daniel Warner, co-founder of Yalla, said that, after Carney’s speech and subsequent committee appointments, it “became pretty clear that we’re going to have to take this into our own hands,” both as individuals and as organizations.

Warner said too many people he knows have already left Canada, but he rejected emigration as an answer. “Plan B is not leaving. Plan B is fighting back,” he said, urging attendees to stand up for themselves in new ways and to use their voices “as if their future here depended on it.”

The point, he said, is not simply to denounce antisemitism but to demonstrate Jewish life confidently and publicly in places where falsehoods about Jews are spreading most effectively.

Unapologetically Jewish’s Taub observed that, since Oct. 7, dozens of Jewish organizations have sprung up, but real coordination remains uneven. “Suppressing what others have to say is not unity, that is division,” he said, arguing that calling out institutional mistakes should be understood as honesty rather than disloyalty.

Taub accused parts of the organized community of applying temporary remedies to a crisis. “They are throwing Tylenol at cancer, and it’s not working,” he said, after arguing that some Jewish organizations have spent more energy lobbying internal critics than lobbying governments on behalf of the community.

Bennet addressed what she sees as the nature of the threat itself. Discussing themes she observed at a Muslim Association of Canada convention, she warned of a “destructive anti-Western ideology” in which Jews are often the first target but not the only one. “You guys feel it the strongest,” she said, but the larger struggle, in her view, is the attempt to reshape institutions and public life more broadly. Beware, she said, of “jihadis in Armani suits,” referring to the public propaganda face of Islamist terrorists.

Vuong, another ally, framed the issue in similarly expansive terms. He said his support was motivated not only by solidarity but by “self-preservation,” because “the people who hate you hate me as well,” adding that the old warning holds: what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews.

Independent of the conference, several of Canada’s national Jewish organizations also have responded to Carney’s remarks.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and Jewish federations across Canada, for example, issued an open letter reading, in part: “Instead of urgent, concrete measures, the government announced an advisory council, tasked first with further evaluating a crisis that has already been studied extensively, and which includes individuals who are not suited to lead government action on antisemitism. For many Jewish Canadians, this felt like the rug being pulled out from under us.”

“This was an opportunity for the prime minister to meet the moment,” said Simon Wolle, B’nai Brith Canada’s chief executive officer, in a release. (Wolle also spoke at the Toronto gathering.) “Instead, Canadians heard a speech that described the problem more than it confronted it. The Jewish community did not require another acknowledgment that antisemitism is raging across the country, we needed a plan proportional to the scale of the crisis.

“Canada is not facing an antisemitism awareness problem. Canada has an antisemitism problem,” he said. “The country has been poisoned with Jew-hatred and we need a remedy.”

The Jewish Independent reached out to other national Jewish organizations, as well.

“Carney is correct to note the rise of antisemitism is tied to larger trends of conspiracism, polarization and hate worldwide,” said Vancouver-based Maytal Kowalski, JSpace Canada’s executive director. “It is important to recognize this, not to universalize or trivialize antisemitism, but, in fact, the opposite – to fight it at its root and along with allies.” She said including “allies and leaders from different minority communities” is important if the work is to happen “holistically.”

Gabriella Goliger, national chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now, said “Israel” was missing from the prime minister’s remarks. “He could have emphasized that he recognizes diaspora Jews’ emotional ties to Israel, that Canada is a friend to Israel,” she said, while also stressing that Canadian Jews “must not be held accountable for Israeli policy” and that there is “a huge difference between legitimate peaceful protest against Israeli actions, and using protest as a smokescreen for antisemitism.”

For the full reactions and recommendations of CIJA, B’nai Brith and JSpace, visit their respective websites.

Dave Gordon is a Toronto-based freelance writer whose work has appeared in more than 100 publications around the world. His website is davegordonwrites.com.

Need holistic approach

Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a much-vaunted statement on Canada’s antisemitism crisis last week. It was unlikely to satisfy everyone – partly because there is only so much a single government can do about a global social phenomenon like escalating Jew-hatred.

Even by the standards of that acknowledgement, the address, delivered in Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple, seemed like a significant missed opportunity.

Some might have expected Canada to appoint a Royal Commission that would investigate the problem of antisemitism in this country, as Australia has done. That, too, likely would have been criticized as kicking the problem down the road.

Instead, Carney announced something called the Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion, under the stewardship of Marc Miller, the minister of Canadian identity and culture. The council’s mission seems reasonable enough: analyzing “the nature, scale and drivers of antisemitism in Canada – including across our public institutions, workplaces, campuses, public services, professional bodies and online spaces”; coordinating a “whole-of-federal-government approach”; improving research and the collection of data on hate incidents; and “measure[ing] the impact of our efforts, to reinforce those investments in education, prevention, training and community safety that are delivering real results and helping to build a safer, more inclusive Canada for all.”

Lovely enough, though Carney’s speech seemed defensive on at least two fronts. First, he insisted none of this would impinge free expression, which came across as a bit of a sop to those who insist that there should be no limits to the Jew-hatred and anti-Israel bombast on Canadian streets, in classrooms and at workplaces. Further, while insisting that antisemitism is a top priority and that it would be moved to the top of the new council’s agenda, the council is, in the end, a broadly mandated body with a massive jurisdictional swath including, as its name states, amorphous “rights, equality and inclusion.” At a time when many Jews feel like their interests cannot be addressed without an addendum acknowledging the concerns of a laundry list of other equity-seeking peoples, the assignment of antisemitism to this omnibus-type council seems as much an insult as a salve.

What most people did not know during Carney’s speech were the names of the members of the new council. Among them is a lawyer behind a Charter of Rights challenge in defence of anti-Israel encampments. More galling to many is the inclusion of former Liberal MP Omar Alghabra, who has been head of the Canadian Arab Federation, is an admirer of Yasser Arafat, and lobbied to keep Hamas and Hezbollah off Canada’s list of proscribed terrorist entities.

It is an understatement to say that this news undermines the confidence of Jewish (and most reasonable) Canadians that the council will be anything like a panacea for the antisemitism problem. One could hardly conjure council members more likely to raise distrust among Jewish Canadians, no matter how respected any of the other members may be.

Carney also outlined not insignificant steps the government has taken, including funding for programs against radicalization and for Jewish community security. The latter funding is, of course, deeply necessary and appreciated, but also a symptom, rather than a treatment, of the issue.

Rich on bromides and with a requisite quote from Elie Wiesel, the prime minister’s speech probably struck most Canadian Jews as bland and empty. Carney uttered not a word about Israel or antizionism. More than this, the role of Islamic extremism as a major source of antisemitism in Canada was addressed only indirectly. As many commentators have noted, if we are too afraid to even acknowledge and name a main driver of the problem, the likelihood of taking steps that will resolve it seems very remote.

At a minimum, the PM’s address gives a benchmark with which to measure success or failure in the next few years. Any progress brought about by the work of the council and the other steps Carney noted, including Bill C-9 regarding hate propaganda, hate crimes and access to religious or cultural places, will be welcomed. The government should be held to account for any shortcomings.

As important as government action is, that alone will not have the impact necessary if there is not a significant upswell in public demand for change. While Carney called for a “whole-of-federal-government approach,” we need an all-of-society approach, with civic groups, media, the corporate sector and, especially, individual Canadians, speaking up against antisemitism.