Journalist shares fears

Itai Anghel, one of Israel’s most recognizable documentary reporters, was with his wife and toddler son in New York City, celebrating his Emmy nomination for Last Stop Before Kyiv, in which Anghel and cameraman Eddie Gerald reported from Ukraine during the early months of Russia’s invasion.

As the glitter of the celebratory excursion dissipated, Anghel began receiving news from home. Thousands of terrorists from Gaza had flooded into Israel, in a cataclysm that was only beginning to be understood.

Israeli airspace shut down on Oct. 7, 2023, but, leaving his family in the safety of the United States, Anghel managed to return, and focus his camera on the catastrophe.

photo - Itai Anghel, in Vancouver, provides bleak assessment of the future
Itai Anghel, in Vancouver, provides bleak assessment of the future. (photo by Pat Johnson)

Anghel shared his story here in a lunchtime event for business community members May 29 and that evening at Shabbat services at Congregation Schara Tzedeck.

Anghel is the recipient of the Sokolov Award, Israel’s highest award for journalism, and is a university lecturer in history and international relations. He is a correspondent for the television news program Uvda, sometimes referred to as Israel’s 60 Minutes.

On arriving back in Israel, Anghel received a call from a stranger at Kibbutz Nir Oz, in the Gaza Envelope, urging him to get to their village immediately and record the atrocities committed there.

Anghel told the caller that, as far as he understood, Israeli military officials were preventing outsiders from entering the region. The stranger insisted Anghel come, telling him that, if the military tried to prevent his visit, they would shoot the soldiers. The government, the stranger told the reporter, would seek to cover up the reality of what happened and the failure of the Israel Defence Forces to intervene, and getting the reality on video was of utmost importance.

The suspicion of a government coverup may not have been based in reality, but what Anghel saw at Nir Oz was like nothing he had witnessed in war zones in Bosnia or the killing fields of Rwanda.

The Nir Oz survivors took Anghel from home to home, where he filmed the aftermath of some of Oct. 7’s most grisly atrocities. More than 10% of the community’s residents were murdered and 76 residents, almost 20% of the population, were taken as hostages to Gaza.

“They set on fire whole families, whole communities, the terrorists were in Nir Oz for seven hours and not one Israeli soldier confronted them,” Anghel said.

At a home where a mother and child were shot point blank, Anghel reflected on their final seconds.

“The last thing that this boy saw before he was shot to death was someone shooting his mother to death,” he recalled. And, if that didn’t happen, the mother saw her son murdered before she was killed.

Anghel asked for a break, maybe to have a bottle of water, but the people of Nir Oz wouldn’t let him stop witnessing and recording, insisting that he continue his documentation.

As he moved through the kibbutz, he did not process what he was seeing. He admits that his camera is a shield between him and the world. Often, he said, it is later that he begins to process what he sees. 

“It was only when I got back to Tel Aviv that I understood what I saw and began reflecting,” he said. “For the first time, I was crying.… The reflecting would come later, when I’m in the editing room.”

He has harsh words for people sitting in comfortable TV studios opining on places they have never visited or who practise, as he acidly calls it, “hotel journalism,” rather than “field journalism.”

The latter, in which Anghel embeds himself among ordinary people and even terrorist fighters, is how journalism used to be done, he said, before the 24-hour news cycle created demand for semi-qualified talking heads to discuss things of which they have only surface knowledge. 

Anghel has an American passport – his parents were students in the States when he was born – so he can go places his Israeli passport would not permit. 

“People are so focused on ‘everyone’s an enemy,’” he said, but when he interviewed people in Damascus, Syria, Israelis couldn’t believe their openness to good relations with Israel.

Being relatively fluent in Arabic opens doors for Anghel. 

“I tell them I’m from the US, but I’m not a soldier, I’m not from the army,” he said. “They are in a state of shock because they have never heard an American speak Arabic.”

He tells them he studied the language so he could communicate with people like them and, from there, he almost always finds a willingness to open up.

Anghel took special aim at the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who last month published an at least partially fictionalized account of IDF atrocities, including attack dogs allegedly trained to rape Palestinians.

“It is so radical and parts so far-fetched,” said Anghel, noting that the organization Kristof cited as the source for some of his most incendiary allegations is Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, which Anghel and Israel’s diaspora affairs ministry characterize as a Hamas front organization in Europe.

“Anyone with very basic knowledge knows that Euro-Med is an affiliation of Hamas,” he said. “If you get information from there, at least be honest and say so.”

That the Kristof piece could pass the standards of the New York Times is, Anghel said, symptomatic of a decline in basic journalistic rigour, in which terms like “apartheid” and “genocide” are applied without qualification. 

“They know already, they’ve decided already and there is no openness to hear anything else,” he said.

On the other hand, Anghel admits to getting criticism from all sides. Some Israeli viewers condemn him for platforming anti-Israel terrorists. Israel’s government is no fan of Anghel or Uvda, either.

Anghel is blunt in his assessment of Israeli cabinet minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

“He’s a fanatic, a criminal, in charge of law enforcement in Israel,” Anghel said.

Anghel and his TV program have also been condemnatory toward what he calls Israel’s abandonment of the Kurdish people.

“We knew that jihadists in Syria would like to crush them and we did nothing,” he said.

The relations are complicated, he admitted, but Israel prevailed upon the new Syrian regime to protect the Druze people in the south of Syria, because Israel has a special relationship with the community because of the Druze population in Israel. The Kurds, in northern Syria, who Israel has allied with at times, were left to their own devices, Anghel said.

Of all the threats to Israel’s future, Anghel said, his greatest fear is internal strife.

“Israel is divided like it has never been,” he said. “The situation is awful. You cannot make it look nicer. It is awful.”

While some Canadian Jews are thinking about leaving, he noted, in the past two or three years, 10,000 Israelis came to live in Canada. 

The schism between ultra-Orthodox, who generally do not serve in the military, and the majority of Israelis, who have been carrying the burden of service, is a particular point of division. At the same time, the birth rate among ultra-Orthodox portends a country that is demographically shifting toward that group.

Many Israelis are concluding that the current government does not care about people like them.

“You make the calculation and you realize maybe it is not the place for you to live,” said Anghel.

“I’m not afraid of Hezbollah, I’m not afraid of Syria, I’m not afraid of Iraq, I’m not afraid of Yemen’s Houthis, I’m not afraid of nuclear weapons from Iran,” Anghel said. “I’m afraid of ourselves.”

Schara Tzedeck’s Rabbi Andrew Rosenblatt thanked the Diamond family for sponsoring the event in memory of the late Charles Diamond. Josh Pekarsky interviewed Anghel. 

Deceit, desire & the divine

In Seattle, hours after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, two FBI agents knock on Monty’s door, asking questions about his Afghan partner, who has seemingly disappeared. How much does Monty really know about Jamal? What does he know about himself?

image - Endless Blind Passions book coverVancouver writer Gareth Sirotnik’s Endless Blind Passions (Capsicum Press, 2025) jumps right into the chaos and uncertainty that 9/11 sparked in the United States, and beyond. The novel centres on the character of Monty, a Jewish, gay man in his mid-50s, who thought he had finally settled into himself and his life, yet is forced to reevaluate that thought when the FBI arrive.

Alternating between the repeated visits of the FBI agents and the memories their inquiries trigger for Monty, we witness the fragility of Monty’s contentment and the tumultuous paths that he has chosen. He has lived fully, most would say, experimenting sexually, spiritually, politically and morally. He is a seeker and his soul-searching is a work in progress, despite his initial belief that he had found himself – and peace – once he’d met Jamal.

Endless Blind Passions is a thriller-meets-coming-of-age story, unusual perhaps in its seriousness, which sometimes gets in the way (as does dialogue that doesn’t always sound natural), but it’s entertaining. Most of us don’t really “find” ourselves as teenagers – Monty certainly didn’t – but are continually discovering aspects of ourselves. In our lives, we do things that make us proud, and things that carry shame or regret. Hopefully, we learn from our experiences and become a better person, but who is even to say what that means.

Sirotnik’s personal journey inspires Monty’s, that’s for sure. Sirotnik grew up in Los Angeles, graduated from college in Portland, moved to Canada in 1971 (Monty’s brother lives in Canada) and, most notably, is gay, Jewish and a longtime practitioner of Zen Buddhism.

As the novel’s title implies, Zen is a vital component of the story. Monty’s spiritual awakening occurs alongside drug-fueled encounters and unconventional relationships. He works (both consciously and subconsciously) to strip away social personas and confront his “true self.” He lives intensely, even hedonistically, but not necessarily deeply in the introspective sense, or even in knowing his various romantic partners. His ego prevents him from seeing the reality of situations, including the impact of his own actions on others throughout his life.

That’s all on a personal level. Paralleling Monty’s understanding of his “blind passions” is the realization that American society is not what it was, let’s say, sold as being. Sept. 11, 2001, marked a significant increase in racism, xenophobia, paranoia, government surveillance – it did not create them. In the novel, Jamal represents “the other” that became society’s “blind passion” after the attacks that day on the United States, but Monty’s past – though only going back 50ish years – highlights that the concept of “the other” has existed as long as humanity.

Ultimately, the novel posits that true spiritual awakening only happens when we acknowledge our “endless blind passions,” drop our masks and face reality as our true selves. It does this in an engaging way, with readers learning a lot along the way, while rooting for love to win out. 

Wrong person rebuked

The City of Vancouver’s integrity commissioner this month declared that Mayor Ken Sim breached the city’s code of conduct by criticizing Councilor Sean Orr’s presence and comments at an anti-Israel rally last year.

The report concluded that Sim misused the influence of his office by holding a press conference to criticize Orr over inflammatory social media posts and his attendance at an anti-Israel protest alongside very problematic speakers and organizations. The report said Sim should apologize to Orr or face censure by council.

Ezra Shanken, chief executive officer of the Jewish Federation of British Columbia, said in a statement that the conflict commissioner’s report represented a double standard, and expressed gratitude to the mayor for raising our community’s concerns.

Nico Slobinsky, on behalf of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, criticized Orr for not showing accountability for past social media posts, including claiming that city planners were controlled by a “secret cabal of Jews,” and calling for the “destruction of both Israel and Canada.” While a city councilor, Orr spoke at the “Flood for Palestine” protest organized by Al-Awda, a group with links to the terrorist entity Samidoun.

The brouhaha at city hall is just one in a small avalanche of administrative, legal and political episodes in recent years that have left many Jews feeling abandoned and betrayed by the institutions and legal protections ostensibly in place to protect them and other minority communities.

Many Jews feel under attack and, despite pleasant words from some elected officials, actual tangible responses often seem weak or absent. For example, the flooding of a Vancouver neighbourhood with hate messages against Jews and Israel have been effectively ignored by city officials. Clearing them away has been left to local residents. Nothing, apparently, has been done to reprimand the individual known to be perpetrating the graffiti and vandalism, despite laws and bylaws against precisely this sort of behaviour.

In Ontario, some progress has been seen recently. Toronto authorities responded to demonstrations in Jewish neighbourhoods by tightening enforcement, restricting marches from entering residential streets, and arresting some participants and investigating alleged incidents of hate speech and public incitement. Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford has been vocal in defending Jewish communities and, no doubt, his unequivocal position gave some political cover to police and others to take action. 

No similar political leadership has been seen in British Columbia, where the unresolved case of Charlotte Kates remains a sore point for many in the Jewish community. Vancouver police arrested Kates in April 2024 after remarks at a Vancouver rally in which she praised the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks and venerated their perpetrators as heroic. Police recommended charges for public incitement and wilful promotion of hatred. Nearly two years later, Crown counsel has still not announced a charge decision. Pressed by the Independent, the premier’s office pointed to prosecutorial independence, arguing that charging decisions rest with the BC Prosecution Service, not elected officials.

This may be fair justification, but piled upon so many instances where words and actions that are perceived by Jews as hateful and inciting go officially unchallenged leave many Jewish people with an overall sense that they are being abandoned by those who should be enforcing anti-hate protections.

Parliament is now considering Bill C-9, a proposed online harms law that carries numerous provisions that Jewish leaders support. But many people are leery of more laws that likely will not be enforced, provisions intended to increase safety for minority communities – Jews, in particular – but that will not have their intended impact, whether because police do not enforce them, the Crown does not pursue charges or, if it reaches that level, courts do not convict. The proposed new federal law has much to recommend itself but, if it is just going to be another law on a dusty legal shelf, it will not change the situation we face.

The case of Vancouver’s mayor, who called out egregious incidents only to be called on the carpet himself – and ordered to apologize – portends a chilling on those who would stand up for the Jewish community.

We have laws in this country, but many of them are not being enforced. Very few Jews in this country, we confidently venture, believe the system is working as it should. 

Canada’s mixed messages

In mid-May, a Winnipeg Free Press article by John Longhurst announced a new online database for research. This open access resource lists the names of German Nazi party members. The article’s target audience: the Manitoba Mennonite community. 

As background: Many German Mennonites, previously pacifist, joined the Nazi party starting in the early 1930s. In the article, Arnold Neufeldt-Fast, a Toronto researcher, said the goal of researching and publicizing the records was not to condemn or shame anyone. “The point,” he said, “is to understand what made their choices feel plausible at the time, and what this means for us now in Canada and the US.” Aileen Friesen, who teaches Mennonite History at the University of Winnipeg, said it could serve “as a lesson for our current time.”  

I’m concerned about this “lesson.” Nazi membership before and during the Second World War is nothing to be proud about. Still, this does make it easier to understand the views of some Mennonites in 2026.

Some Winnipeg Mennonites often offer public opinions about Israel, Gaza and the war. They’re staunchly against war, but support Palestinian resistance and are against Israelis or Jews. This stance appears in local Mennonite gallery exhibits, fundraising, petitions and protests. It’s on stickers on lampposts near a neighbourhood Mennonite school. While out walking, I peel off “Free Palestine” stickers with cartoon characters doing a Sieg Heil and QR code stickers with “Boycott Israel.”

This “pacifism” chooses a side just like German Mennonites chose the Nazi party. This stance doesn’t examine what these choices mean to the safety of others, such as Jewish Canadians who live nearby. It doesn’t reflect a morality-based Christian religious tradition or teachings from a Jewish guy named Jesus, let alone Jewish texts or culture.

Actions have consequences. This failure to understand logical outcomes echoes throughout Canadian society. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos speech described Canada’s goals for trade alliances and Canada’s role as a “middle power.”  It’s easy to see that this dream is failing on a practical level.  

Canada, a “human rights champion,” has an uneven track record. According to United Nations Watch, on April 8, Canada, as part of the 54-nation United Nations Economic and Social Council, “participated in the consensus nomination of the Islamic Republic of Iran” to a committee responsible for funding women’s rights, human rights, and terrorism prevention. The United States was the only nation who objected to this nomination.

Previously, Canada objected in similar UN processes, but, this time, Canada supported the Iranian regime. Iran’s government has enforced a nearly complete internet blackout since Feb. 28. It kills protesters. The regime uses morality police to force women to cover their hair. Female “offenders” suffer arrests, assaults, rapes, torture and murder. Iran’s regime funds terror proxies, including in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen. Yet, Canada didn’t object to the UN nomination.

Canada also has problems fighting terrorism at home. In October 2024, Canada listed Samidoun, an organization supporting Palestinian terrorism, as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. Eventually, in March 2026, Canada revoked Samidoun’s nonprofit status. Based on federal anti-hate provisions, Vancouver police arrested Samidoun’s international coordinator, Charlotte Kates, for inciting hate and released her with conditions. Apparently, those conditions allow speaking on Iranian state television, attending the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon and continuing permission to live in Canada. (Kates is an American whose status in Canada is not publicly known.)  The same goes for her husband, Khaled Barakat, Samidoun’s founder, who was deported from the United States in 2003.

This spring, Canada welcomed international leaders for the FIFA Congress, including Palestine Football Association head Jibril Rajoub, who was previously convicted of throwing a grenade at an Israeli army bus. Israel later released Rajoub in a prisoner exchange, and he committed further offences. Once in Canada, Rajoub publicly refused to shake hands with the FIFA Arab-Israeli representative, Basim Sheikh Suliman. Meanwhile, Canada refused to let the Iranian FIFA representative into the country. These decisions were inconsistent, not the “pragmatic and principled” actions of a country committed to human rights.

If Canada wishes to be a human rights champion, it must work to stop terrorism at home. The government should protect Canadians from danger. Consistent law and immigration enforcement and UN decisions that support these rights would be a good start.

Education’s another way to be an effective middle power. Increase funding for teaching and researching social sciences, including international relations, political science, religious studies and history. These disciplines offer perspectives to better understand global issues and events. Canada must move beyond popular theories like the oppressor/oppressed model that doesn’t adequately explain conflicts beyond biased white/black racial narratives. This oppressor theory fails in Middle Eastern, African or Asian contexts where Western conceptions of colonization, race and power don’t easily apply.

With a broader social science approach, future Canadian leaders could better understand complicated global situations. Educated Canadians with these skills could better examine global economics, conflicts and the geographic strengths. 

For instance, our media and government often ascribe outsized power to Israel. This is a common antisemitic conspiracy theory. Israel’s a tiny democracy of 10 million people, with sizeable minority populations. Many also demonize Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. Canada, like many Israelis, may not agree with Netanyahu’s government’s policies, but no other Middle Eastern leaders were elected by functioning democracies. Further, media seldom hold any other Middle Eastern country responsible for its role in the conflict.

Canada’s resources, educated population and multicultural diversity could make it a powerhouse. Yet, its foreign policies don’t use intellectual rigour. Historically, Canada has offered up inconsistent international policies, and bias regarding many of its minorities. Past prime ministers have apologized, promising to forge a better Canada. Instead, Canada’s “oppressor” rhetoric poses as a “peaceful” bystander and blames Israel. 

Canada has a tradition of simplistic politics of blame like “war is bad.” Our geographic isolation protects us. It allows Canada to watch hate happen and reproach others without getting involved. Our country must accept that consistently being a bystander isn’t good enough. Failing to condemn or shame those who committed grievous wrongs isn’t good enough. It wasn’t OK to join the Nazi party 90 years ago. It wasn’t OK to reject Jewish refugees. We know where this kind of hatemongering leads. Canada, and Canadians, can do better than this.

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.

Making soccer political

Palestinian Football Association president Jibril Rajoub talks to reporters at the FIFA Congress, held in Vancouver on April 30. (Screenshot youtube.com/@thebreakernews)

While the World Cup doesn’t kick off until June 11 – at Mexico City’s Estadio Azteca when Selección de fútbol de México faces off against the South African squad, nicknamed Bafana Bafana (the Boys, in Zulu) – penalty cards have already been drawn. Palestinian Football Association (PFA) president Jibril Rajoub, general secretary Firas Abu Hilal and vice-president Susan Shalabi Molano were initially denied entry to Canada to attend the FIFA Congress on April 30, and the Asian Football Confederation confab two days earlier – both events were held at Vancouver Convention Centre.

Ultimately, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) allowed the three sports bureaucrats to attend, and Rajoub, 72, has made the Mondial into a political football. Since 2024, he has repeatedly raised the issue of Israeli football clubs allegedly playing illegal matches in what the PFA argues is occupied territory that Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War.

In March, FIFA (which stands for Fédération Internationale de Football Association) issued a report on the issue, ruling it would “take no action” over the PFA’s claim. The report noted that resolving “the final legal status of the West Bank remains an unresolved and highly complex matter under public international law.”

At the FIFA annual meeting in Vancouver, Rajoub – who also serves as secretary general of Fatah’s Central Committee – snubbed FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who attempted to orchestrate a handshake between the heads of the Palestinian and Israeli delegations. Following individual addresses toward the end of the assembly, both Rajoub and the Israel Football Association’s vice-president, Basim Sheikh Suliman, were summoned to the stage by the FIFA president.

“We will work together … let’s work together to give hope to the children. These are complex matters,” he said. But Rajoub refused to stand alongside Sheikh Suliman. Instead, he pledged to take his complaints to the Court of Arbitration in Sport, based in Lausanne, Switzerland. No date has been set for the hearing.

“I refused to shake hands. Sport is sport … for me that should be respected,” he told Reuters. “But, if the other side is representing a criminal like Bibi [Netanyahu] … how can I shake hands or have a photo with such a man?”

The PFA’s three-member delegation wasn’t the only one held up by the IRCC. Iranian soccer federation president Mehdi Taj said Canadian officials cleared him to enter the country for the FIFA Congress, but Iran’s delegation chose to turn back after being held for three hours and questioned at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, Iranian media reported on May 1.

Rajoub, also known by the nom de guerre Abu Rami, has long been connected to Palestinian terrorism. In September 1970, he was arrested for throwing a grenade at an Israel Defence Forces bus near Hebron. Tried and convicted of this attack and of membership in an armed group, he was sentenced to life in prison. Fifteen years later, he was one of 1,150 security prisoners Israel released in exchange for three hostages held by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command.

Re-arrested in 1987 for his activities during the First Intifada, Rajoub was deported to Lebanon in 1988. Relocating to Tunisia, he served as an advisor to Fatah deputy leader Khalil al-Wazir. After Wazir’s assassination by Israeli agents, he became a lieutenant of Yasser Arafat, then head of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and was allegedly behind a 1992 plot to assassinate Ariel Sharon.

Rajoub was allowed to return to the West Bank in 1994, following the signing of the Oslo Accords. He served as head of the PA’s Preventive Security Force until 2002. The following year, Arafat appointed him national security advisor.

The FIFA Congress was the 76th since FIFA was founded in 1904. It brought together more than 1,600 international delegates from 211 FIFA member associations.

This summer’s 48-team competition – the most widely watched sporting event in the world – takes place in multiple cities in Canada, the United States and Mexico from June 11 to July 19. Neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian team qualified for the tournament. 

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

The balancing of rights

Canada prides itself on being a country where free expression is a core value. We have always differed from our American cousins, though, in recognizing a balance between an “anything goes” right to speech and the contending right of individuals and groups to live free from fear and incitement.

Canadian law draws definite lines. Speech that incites violence against an identifiable group, that promotes hatred or that crosses into criminal harassment is not protected. Those limits are not theoretical – they exist precisely because history has shown what can happen when words move from expression into incitement.

Even as governments take steps towards legislation that would create “bubble zones” and strengthen hate crime laws, many Canadians Jews are concerned that limitations already set out in law, intended to protect minority communities, are not being enforced. Rhetoric like “Globalize the intifada,” which is heard as an overt call for violence against Jews by most Jews and other people who can hear clearly, is going uncontested by police and courts, for example.

The Criminal Code is clear: advocating or promoting violence against identifiable groups crosses a line. The question is no longer whether such limits exist. The question is whether they are being enforced. And, increasingly, the answer appears to be no.

What we are seeing is not simply robust debate. It is a climate in which harassment and intimidation are proliferating, often without legal consequence. 

There are, of course, consequences. Jewish institutions require heightened security after so many incidents that it is hard to keep up with the grim news. Students and faculty experience actively hostile campus environments. Public demonstrations brazenly cross the line between protest, provocation and hate.

There is no provable causal chain between rhetoric and violence. Democracies are right to err on the side of speech. But, when the same language, the same slogans and the same patterns of escalation appear alongside an unprecedented rise in hate incidents and targeted attacks, the correlation becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss – and demands attention.

Canada is not alone in confronting this tension. The British authorities have begun to draw firmer lines – distinguishing between lawful protest and language and conduct that threatens public safety or targets vulnerable communities.

The approach is not without controversy. It raises legitimate concerns about overreach and the risk of suppressing dissent. But it also reflects a recognition that inaction carries its own dangers.

Canada is facing a similar showdown.

The goal must not be to silence political views, however unpopular. Or to criminalize protest or suppress debate about complex international issues. Those must remain protected. The goal must be far narrower – to enforce the laws that already exist and to ensure that calls for violence, harassment and intimidation are treated as such, regardless of political context. To make clear that free expression does not extend to threatening the safety and dignity of others.

This is a position that seems simple enough, even unquestioned, when it comes to hateful language and physical intimidation against other vulnerable populations. The situation is serious and it demands the willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.

Canada should not abandon its commitment to free expression. But we must recognize, as we always have, that free expression has limits – and that those limits exist for a reason. In this instance, the reason is the evident correlation between rampant anti-Israel, antizionist and antisemitic rhetoric and the violence against Jews and Jewish institutions we are experiencing.

The government of the United Kingdom is now experimenting in enforcing limitations on hate expression. It is a courageous step. It could also be a turning point – in either direction. 

The inevitable pushback around “silencing” (itself often founded on antisemitic tropes of Jewish power) and the more legitimate concerns about free speech make this a fraught policy area. However, if the UK, which shares much of our political culture, can find a middle ground, we would be wise to pay attention.

If, on the other hand, more violent protests, adverse court decisions or – more damagingly – if the government suffers internal splits or popular disapproval over its approach to anti-Jewish harassment, it could set a precedent in which politicians in places like Canada learn that it is best not to provoke the harassers. If that happens, it will signal an open season for anti-Jewish agitation and an extraordinary abandonment of free speech’s twin core value of being able to live free from fear and incitement.

What is needed right now is political courage. Some of that exists, but it needs to exist in a sufficient number of decision-makers and in the places of power where it is most needed and can have the most effect. For better or worse, we will know if this is the case soon enough. 

Downhill after Trump?

Left to right: Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver chief executive officer Ezra Shanken, Temple Sholom Senior Rabbi Dan Moskovitz and commentator and author Yossi Klein Halevi. (photo by Pat Johnson)

The special relationship between the United States and Israel is at its greatest peak, according to American-Israeli thinker and commentator Yossi Klein Halevi. The bad news is, he predicts, it’s all downhill from here. 

In conversation with Temple Sholom’s Rabbi Dan Moskovitz, Klein Halevi warned that, whoever succeeds US President Donald Trump, it is almost inevitable that the next American leader will be less supportive of Israel.

“After Trump, the deluge,” said Klein Halevi. “There really is this sense of this moment as bittersweet. We have never been in a closer alignment with the United States than now.… This is really the culminating moment of the special relationship, that it doesn’t get any better than that.”

Were Vice-President J.D. Vance, a Republican, to become president, Klein Halevi warned, the US-Israeli relationship would almost certainly deteriorate.

“If it is just about any Democrat, it’s not going to be good,” he said. “In some cases, it would be extremely negative. So, there’s a sense that this is sort of the final play.”

Change is inevitable in Israeli politics, as well, he argued. Klein Halevi emphatically believes Netanyahu will not be reelected. The only question, he said, is whether someone else can cobble together a workable majority.

Klein Halevi is scholar-in-residence at Temple Sholom and the event April 23 was presented in cooperation with the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver.

Klein Halevi is a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, and one of Israel’s most influential and widely read public intellectuals, exploring Israeli identity, Jewish peoplehood, faith and the moral complexities of power. His books, including Letters to My Palestinian Neighbour and Like Dreamers, have shaped critical conversations across the Jewish world, according to Karen Kollins, the institute’s director of Canada, who introduced him. 

Kollins described her organization as a leading Jewish think tank and educational centre working in Israel and across North America to “help the Jewish people engage thoughtfully and courageously with the most complex moral, religious and political challenges of our time.”

Klein Halevi co-hosts, with the institute’s president, Donniel Hartman, the think tank’s award-winning weekly podcast For Heaven’s Sake, which focuses on the moral aspects of issues affecting Israel, world Jewry and Zionism.

The stresses of living in Israel, always intense, have been unprecedentedly exacerbated in recent years, said Klein Halevi in his conversation with Moskovitz.

“This has been Israel’s longest war,” he said, noting that reservists have been called up for very long tours, upending families, businesses and society at large. “I think that we’re going to start seeing the cracks in the next generation.”

Even as new olim (immigrants) are arriving from France and elsewhere, he said, more and more Israelis are questioning whether they and their children have a future in the country. 

“At what point do Israelis start to say, I – we – can’t do this anymore?” Klein Halevi asked. 

Disenchantment is further aggravated by widespread dissatisfaction with the government.

“We’ve never had a government in wartime that more than half the country doesn’t trust,” he said. “When you combine that with the endless pressure, there’s this sense that I think many young Israelis have of, What’s the future here right now?”

In contrast, the post-Oct. 7 societal unity, while fraying over time, remains a uniquely enveloping Israeli phenomenon. 

Moskovitz asked if the war with Iran has been successful.

“I think the question is, What were the realistic expectations going into this war?” Klein Halevi replied. 

He accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of prioritizing his own political interests ahead of those of the country, as well as raising expectations of not only eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat but deposing the Islamic regime.

“So, he was plugging this idea of total victory,” said Klein Halevi. “There’s not going to be a total victory.”

Setting back Iran’s nuclear ambitions has been successful, but regime change in Iran will come only from internal forces, he said.

From that perspective, he believes that, in the near to medium term, the Iranian regime is finished.

“When you lose the legitimacy of your people or, to put it more strongly, when you massacre tens of thousands of your own citizens, there’s no recovery from that,” he said. “You’ve decisively lost your legitimacy.”

Klein Halevi said that Israel, for decades, has fallen into Iran’s trap, engaging with Iran’s proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis – instead of confronting the source of the conflict, which is Iran. 

“This war will be resolved not in Lebanon, and not in Gaza,” he said. “It will be resolved in Tehran.”

Responding to critics of Israel, Klein Halevi said he has high standards for Israeli morality, but all things have context.

“[Israel] was never an exemplar of democracy in an absolute sense,” he said, “but it was very much an exemplar of a democracy in conditions of extremity. No democracy anywhere has experienced the kind of sustained opposition – war, terrorism, siege, diplomatic boycott – that Israel has known since literally the day of its birth. The fact that we have managed to sustain an imperfect democracy is extraordinary.… And then when you bring in wave after wave of traumatized refugees who themselves come from countries with no democratic [traditions] – 90% of Israelis do not come from the West; they come from the Middle East or Eastern Europe, and yet we have managed to sustain a credible democracy. That, to me, is really the glory of Israeli democracy.

“If you strip away the context, which is what the critics of Israel do … they just leave the fact that, well, Arab Israelis don’t have full rights – and that’s true. And, for me, that’s a scandal,” he said. “But it’s also a scandal that I understand, because I can’t think of another more complicated minority/majority dynamic than having as your main minority people who are culturally and even to some extent politically aligned with the enemy you’re fighting.”

Moskovitz asked how Israeli media covers antisemitism in the diaspora and whether Israelis are conscious of the extent of the crisis.

“It is reported the way the Israeli media would cover an Israeli crisis,” said Klein Halevi. “It’s very much seen as a major Israeli story. That’s good news and bad news. It’s good news that the Israeli public really cares about the diaspora more so than in the past.”

Conversely, he said, the traditional Zionist mindset toward the diaspora tends to assume that, if Jews around the world are not making aliyah en masse, the situation they are facing worldwide can’t be that bad.

Since Oct. 7, Klein Halevi said, there has been an upsurge of spirituality and Jewish observance, as well as a resurgence of creativity in music and art. He also noted a shift within some components of the ultra-Orthodox, with “a whole new ideological stream called Israeli Haredi,” that is, ultra-Orthodox who want to be more integrated into society while maintaining the differences that matter most to them. 

Amy Frankel, Temple Sholom president, welcomed the packed sanctuary and said that the program and others like it would not be possible without the generosity of the late Jack Lutsky, whose wife, Susan Mendelson, and brother, Peter Lutsky, recently established Temple Sholom’s scholar-in-residence endowment fund as a perpetual benefit to the congregation and the broader community.

Ezra Shanken, chief executive officer of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, thanked Klein Halevi.  

UBC needs a wake-up call

I am graduating and, somehow, my school, the University of British Columbia, feels more isolating than ever. This campus prides itself on the ideas of critical thinking and open dialogue. But, right now, it feels like neither is being practised. Instead, I see a culture where misinformation about Israel and the Jewish people spreads easily, where hateful slogans replace dialogue and where Jewish students are intimidated and harassed for expressing their Zionism and connection to Israel as an integral part of their Jewish identity. More than that, it feels like expressing these views comes with a social cost – one that many students quietly calculate before deciding whether it is even worth speaking at all.

I’m a Jewish student at UBC. And I’m done pretending this is normal.

Universities are supposed to be spaces where ideas are tested, challenged and debated openly. My four years at UBC have shown me that certain perspectives are treated as inherently unacceptable before the conversation even begins. If freedom means anything, it must include viewpoints that fall outside dominant campus narratives, including Zionist perspectives.

The role of campus groups and student politics cannot be ignored. UBC Staff for Palestine and the way BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction from Israel) is promoted within spaces like the Alma Mater Society elections are not just frustrating. They reflect a campus environment where hateful and discriminatory movements and campaigns are tolerated and normalized.

While BDS is framed as a progressive, justice-oriented movement, it seeks to end Israel’s existence and strip away Jewish rights to self-determination. If BDS were to achieve its political goals, Israeli Jews would either be killed, ethnically cleansed or forced to live as an oppressed minority. According to an official BDS handbook, campus divestment is merely a “stepping-stone” to larger-scale boycotts and other measures aimed at ending Israel’s existence. This hateful and destructive movement is experienced by most Jewish students as contributing to an environment that marginalizes and endangers the campus community.

At its core, this is where the disconnect becomes impossible to ignore. A movement presented as advancing human rights dismisses the legitimacy of a Jewish homeland altogether. When that position becomes the norm on campus without any serious scrutiny, it is not political activism but the legitimization of hate and exclusion.

It is also worth asking why this issue dominates student political spaces in the first place. In a world full of ongoing conflicts and humanitarian crises, Israel is consistently singled out in student government discourse with false and misleading accusations. It does not feel like a coincidence or a legitimate concern for human rights, but rather a pattern of disproportionate focus that shapes how we are perceived and treated on this campus.

These narratives often leave no room for nuance. There is no space to acknowledge complexity, no willingness to engage with perspectives that don’t fit a predetermined frame, and no recognition that calling for the dismantling of a Jewish homeland has real implications for Jewish students on this campus. BDS, for instance, actively tries to shut down Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and dialogue.

You cannot claim to advocate for justice while erasing the legitimacy of other people’s existence. And yet, that contradiction is increasingly accepted here at UBC.

Students like me are excluded from conversations that directly affect them. Discussions about our own homeland often unfold without any Zionist Jewish perspective present. And, many of us are hesitant to speak up, not because we lack arguments, but because we know how quickly disagreement is shut down or mischaracterized.

And there is one final point that cannot be ignored.

The rhetoric and imagery that have surfaced within anti-Israel activism on this campus go far beyond political critique and cross into something far more disturbing. Slogans, symbols and messaging that frame violence as “resistance” or elevate martyrdom are not abstract ideas. For Jewish students, they are not theoretical – they are deeply personal, and they create a real and growing sense of fear for our safety on campus.

When violence is normalized or even implicitly justified, it sends a message about whose lives are seen as expendable. That is not activism. That is not justice. And it has no place at a university that claims to value safety, inclusion and critical thought. UBC cannot continue to ignore this.

What kind of campus we are willing to accept? One where certain students feel unsafe, unheard and pushed to the margins, or one where difficult conversations happen without crossing the line into dehumanization? Right now, we are closer to the former.

A university should not act as an ideological gatekeeper. Its role is not to decide which perspectives are acceptable, but to ensure that all students can participate in good faith without fear of exclusion or intimidation.

UBC, it’s time to wake up. 

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

Is it the end of an era?

The landslide defeat of Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party in the recent Hungarian parliamentary elections could herald a seismic shift in European and global politics. Or not.

There were many issues at play in the election, obviously, including pocketbook economics and other domestic matters. Overseas observers have focused on Orbán’s “illiberal democracy” – his hacking away at free media and other institutions that tend to be measures of democratic health. It bears noting, to his credit, that as undemocratic as Orbán may have been in office, when he was defeated, he accepted the peaceful transition of power without apparent reservation.

The Hungarian election outcome is notable because of the era it could bring to a close. Orbán’s election in 2010 is viewed in retrospect as a major milestone in the advance of far-right politics in Europe.

Orbán did not invent European far-right politics, clearly. His election, though, was a major breakthrough and served as a model and inspiration for other movements, including those outside Europe, like figures in Latin America, as well as Donald Trump, who went so far as to send his vice-president to Hungary in an unashamed bid to shore up support for the Hungarian leader in the final hours of the campaign.

Something else Orbán may not have invented, but which he and his government exemplified and honed, was an ambiguous, somewhat cunning approach to Jews and the Jewish state. 

Jews, put mildly, have a history with European far-right politics. Even sensible non-Jews are conscious of this third rail. Neutralizing the echoes of that history – or at least casting its veracity in doubt – is essential to legitimizing contemporary far-right politics.

Being pro-Israel has been a calculated and expedient position for figures like Orbán. In the sense that support for Israel fits into a xenophobic European narrative that sees Israel as a bulwark of Western civilization, there is something more transactional going on. Far-right pro-Israel politicians are often militantly anti-Muslim, supporting Israel less because they endorse Jewish self-determination than because of the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Contemporary Israel is a model for them of defiant nationalism facing down (not coincidentally, Muslim) threats, which justifies some of their own domestic policies.

Support for Israel can also serve as a reputational shield. Supporting Israel in their foreign policy can deflect allegations of antisemitism – even in cases where leaders and grassroots supporters have deeply problematic records of antisemitic rhetoric. In many countries, Jews serve as a wedge in centre and left politics, pitting more vulnerable communities against one another as those in power deflect attention from charges of corruption or the results of bad policies and other inequalities that plague societies. 

Pro-Israel politicians who deny charges of antisemitism often engage in anti-Jewish dog whistles like conspiracy theories about “globalists,” “elites,” “the Epstein class” or George Soros, in which linguistic stand-ins for “Jews” allow just enough plausible deniability. Orbán perfected this strategy, using the Hungarian-born Jewish billionaire Soros as a scapegoat, with overtly antisemitic undertones.

In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally presents itself as pro-Israel and protective of French Jews. But many Jews and analysts question whether this is a tactical strategy to “mainstream” the party, which was founded on explicitly antisemitic premises by Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie Le Pen.

The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party routinely attacks the Holocaust memorialization culture in Germany and tolerates antisemitic rhetoric in its ranks, while its pro-Israel foreign policy puts a twist in its ideological pedigree. But the AfD’s commitment to Israel looks to many observers like a qualified alliance based on Jews fitting the party’s anti-Muslim civilizational story. 

Austria’s far-right Freedom Party, founded by former Nazis, has attempted to soften the hard edges of their anti-Muslim immigration policy with what some have termed a “charm offensive” toward Jews, especially relating to support for Israel.

The opacity of parties with problematic, antisemitic individuals taking actively pro-Israel stands has blurred conventional lines in politics and apparently created some confusion in the Jewish community. At a time when voices defending Israel are so rare, some Jews welcome anyone who expresses anything that can be construed as something like empathy.

Above all, foreign policy is a place where alliances are commonly as tactical as they are principled. Notably, the government of Israel plays this game, too. Last year, far-right European figures were invited to a conference on combating antisemitism. (Many mainstream Jewish leaders stayed away.)

Whether Orbán’s downfall is a Hungary-specific phenomenon or whether it might portend a waning of the European extreme right and those forces around the world will be known only over time. Either way, what will it mean for Jews and the Jewish state? That, too, remains an open question – one that Jewish communities need to keep trying to better understand and be more strategically positioned to respond to.

The only sure thing is that Jews and Israel will remain tools in the hands of self-interested politicians, one way or another. 

המלחמות של נתניהו וטראמפ

ראש ממשלת ישראל בנימין נתניהו ונשיא ארצות הברית דונלד טראמפ פתחו במלחמה נגד איראן, הנחשבת למסוכנת ביותר. לשני המנהיגים הללו לא הייתה תוכנית מסודרת לגבי המלחמה באיראן, והם כנראה לא חשבו מספיק על התוצאות ההרסניות שלה. הן מבחינת כמות הנפגעים הגדולה, הנזק לרכוש והנזק לכלכלה העולמית. ולא פחות הגרימה ללחץ נפשי גדול מאוד לאזרחי ישראל שצריכים כל העת לחפש מקלטים ומקומות להגן על עצמם, מפני הטילים מאיראן ושל החיזבאללה מלבנון – שהגיעו בכמויות עצומות. הקלישאה אומרת כי ידוע איך מלחמה מתחילה אך לא ידוע כיצד היא תסתיים. זה נכון מאוד לגבי המלחמה הנוכחית

המלחמה עם איראן משרתת בין היתר את הקברניטים שפתחו בה נתניהו טראמפ. נתניהו מחפש לבסס את עצמו כמנהיג ביטחוני ממעלה ראשונה שהרחיק את הסיכון האיראני, תוך שהוא מנצל את העליה בפופולריות שלו בישראל, לקראת הבחירות שאמורות להיערך בתוך מספר חודשים. יש שחושבים שהוא מסוגל להמשיך במלחמה עד הבחירות, או ליצור מלחמה אחרת, כדי לדחות אותן. ואילו טראמפ מבקש להשכיח מהציבור האמריקני את פרשת תיקי אפשטיין שכוללת מידע חדש גם עליו. במקביל הוא מבקש להציג את עצמו בתור הנשיא האמריקאי היחידי שביטל את הסכנה האיראנית. ובכך בעצם הוא בוגד בבוחריו הרבים שקיוו שהוא יעסוק בפתרון בעייות הפנים של ארה”ב והכלכלה בראשה, ולא בפתיחת מלחמות חדשות שעולות מיליארדי דולרים

בתקופת הנשיא ברק אובמה נחתם הסכם הגרעין בין מדינות המערב לאיראן שמנע ממנה להתקדם בפרויקט. הסכם זה כלל פיקוח הדוק על מה שאיראן עשתה בנושא הגרעין, אך טראמפ בקדנציה הראשונה שלו, שמע בעצת נתניהו וביטל את ההסכם. מרבית גורמי הביטחון בישראל טענו שזו הייתה טעות קשה לבטל את הסכם הגרעין עם איראן, אך זה לא הטריד ממש את שני מנהיגים אלה, שלאור כך, מנהלים עכשיו מלחמה קשה מול איראן. הפופולריות של נתניהו וטראמפ בעולם ממשיכה לרדת פלאים. נתניהו עדיין נחשב פופולרי יחסית בישראל, בקרב למעלה משלושים אחוז מהאוכלוסיה, אך מצבו של טראמפ בסקרים בארה”ב הולך ומחמיר. טראמפ שחושש שהמפלגה הרפובליקנית תאבד את הרוב שלה בסנאט ובקונגרס, ינסה בכל דרך לפגוע בתקינות בחירות האמצע של ארה”ב, שגם הן אמורות להיערך עד סוף השנה

כך או כך לאזרחים בארץ פשוט נמאס מהמלחמה הנוכחית כאשר כל העת עפים על המדינה עשרות טילים מאיראן ומלבנון. לא זכורה תקופה כזו בישראל מעולם. כבר כשנתיים וחצי שמתנהלת מלחמה בישראל, שהחלה לאחר הטבח של השבעה באוקטובר. מתי יהיה כבר הסוף לכך ונוכל לחזור למסגרת חיים נורמלית שואלים רבים בארץ. התקופה הקשה והבלתי נתפסת הזו גרמה לישראלים לא מעטים לעזוב את המדינה. גם האנטישמיות הגואה בעולם לא מרתיעה אותם

לפי נתוני מדינת ישראל לפני כשנתיים למעלה משמונים אלף ישראלים עזבו לחו”ל, ואילו אשתקד כשבעים אלף ישראלים עזבו לחו”ל. במקביל יש פיחות משמעותי במספר הישראלים החוזרים לגור במדינה. כצפוי הסיבות העיקריות לגידול המשמעותי בירידה הן המצב הבטחוני ולאחר מכן חוסר היציבות הפוליטית ובעיקר המהפכה המשפטית. גם לחוסר יציבות בכלכלה הישראלית יש משקל בהחלטה של הישראלים לעזוב. יצויין שחלק מהעוזבים הם עולים חדשים שהגיעו לישראל בשנים האחרונות ועזבו לאחר זמן קצר. במונחים כספיים מדובר בנזק של כמיליארד שקל בשנה לישראל

לא ברור מתי ישראל תחזור לתקופה שלפני המלחמה האחרונה והשקט יחזור על כנו. יתכן ומנהיגים חדשים בישראל ובארה”ב יעזרו בקידום היציבות באזור