Shimon Koffler Fogel

Can King Bibi hang on?

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, vote on March 23. While the prime minister’s party won the most number of seats in the Knesset, he will still struggle to form a government. (photo from IGPO)

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu makes a stunning deal with lawmakers to abandon his post and replace Reuven Rivlin as president of the country when the president’s term expires later this year. An agreement to pardon Netanyahu around corruption charges he currently faces is part of a deal that leads to Netanyahu ending his run as the country’s longest-serving leader. With “King Bibi” finally in a sinecure of symbolic eminence, the polarized Knesset manages to cobble together a coalition and stave off the fifth round of elections in two years.

This was one of the most fantastical possibilities mooted in a webinar presented by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) March 25, just two days after Israelis voted in the fourth of a series of elections during a two-year period of instability.

The panelists were CIJA’s chief executive officer Shimon Koffler Fogel and Adir Krafman, the agency’s associate director for communications and analytics. They sifted the entrails of the convoluted election outcome.

While ideological schisms divide Israeli politics, as does the secular-religious divide and other fractures, Fogel and Krafman concurred that the elephant in any discussion of the next Knesset is Netanyahu. CIJA is a nonpartisan organization and Fogel emphasized that the panelists, and moderator Tamara Fathi, were not advocating any outcomes, merely commenting on possibilities.

And the possibilities are almost endless. The vote sent 13 parties into the 120-seat Knesset. Some of these are not even parties, so much as umbrellas under which different factions coalesced for electoral purposes, so the mosaic of the chaotic chamber could refract in countless ways. But, while there are myriad permutations of possible coalitions and strange bedfellowships, Fogel, Krafman and most commentators in Israel and abroad think the most likely outcome is a fifth election. That is how difficult it would be for either side to patch together 61 members of the Knesset to govern.

Krafman presented graphic evidence of the challenges the pro- and anti-Netanyahu factions face in reaching that magic number. The pro-Bibi side likely has 52 dependable seats; his opponents probably have 57. That means an anti-Netanyahu coalition could form with the support of Naftali Bennett’s Yamina party, which holds seven seats. For Netanyahu to eke out 61 seats would require the backing not only of Bennett but also of the four seats won by the Arab party Ra’am. Such a partnership would be historic and would have been almost unthinkable in the recent past. But Netanyahu of late has been making amenable noises toward Arab Israelis in general and to the Arab parties in particular. However, even if the prime minister and his unlikely allies in the Arab sector made a deal, it could upend the consensus on the other side, as some on the right would probably balk at joining a coalition that includes Ra’am.

Ra’am is one of the big stories of the election. Exit polls indicated the party would not make it over the 3.25% threshold to win any Knesset seats. That created a scenario where Netanyahu and his probable allies were seen as almost certain to form a government.

But, as actual counting took place through the night and into the morning, it became clear that Ra’am would cross the minimum support for representation. Instantly, the calculations shifted.

If Ra’am were to enter a coalition government, or even if it merely supported a government from the sidelines, it would be a turning point in the role Arab parties play in Israeli politics. Ra’am has already upended conventional Arab approaches to politics. The umbrella of Arab parties, recently running under the banner of the Joint List, has always played a spoiler role. They are oppositionist and anti-Zionist groups that are as much protest movements as conventional political parties.

photo - Ra’am leader Mansour Abbas has put his party into a potentially advantageous position — Ra’am leader Mansour Abbas has put his party into a potentially advantageous position. *(photo from hamodia.com)*

Perhaps learning a lesson from the outsized power of small, right-wing and Jewish religious parties, Ra’am adopted a more pragmatic and transactional position than their former allies in the Arab bloc. The leader, Mansour Abbas, has not ruled out supporting a coalition or playing a role in government. Like smaller Jewish parties, he would be expected to come to coalition discussions with a shopping list of demands, such as more funding for projects and programs that benefit his constituents.

Ra’am’s success makes it an unqualified winner in the election sweepstakes. Fogel and Krafman discussed other winners and losers.

“The first loser, I think, is Netanyahu,” said Fogel. “Despite his party winning the most number of seats, 30 seats out of 120 in the Knesset, [he] is still not able to form a government.”

That might have been survivable if other parties that are Netanyahu’s likely backers did not also come up short.

“The other two losers are other right-wing parties,” Fogel added. Naftali Bennett, whose Yamina took seven seats, and Gideon Sa’ar, whose New Hope party took six, had hoped to siphon off a larger chunk of Likud’s votes.

“Both of them really failed to do that, winning only a handful of seats,” said Fogel.

It is a profound statement about tectonic changes in Israel’s ideological fault lines that the Labour party, which took seven seats, and another left-wing party, Meretz, which took six, are viewed as having had a good night. In the days leading up to the vote, there were questions whether either party would overcome the minimum threshold. The Labour party was the indomitable establishment political party for the first three decades of Israel’s existence.

Another loser, Fogel said, was Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu party. Lieberman is a right-wing but avowedly secularist politician. He ran a campaign promoting separation of religion and state and against Charedi privileges. His message may have backfired: while turnout was down overall from the last election, Charedi voters turned out in greater numbers, possibly in reaction to Lieberman’s message.

The discussion turned again to what may be the most likely path for a right-wing government, which could be the exit of Netanyahu. There are centrist parties, Fogel said, that do not have issues with Likud policies so much as they do with the prime minister personally. With him gone, a bloc of anti-Bibi members might engage with Likud under a new leader and form a centre-right coalition.

As unlikely as this scenario might be, it would stave off another unsavoury development.

Any hope of forming a Netanyahu-led coalition probably depends on support from the extremist grouping called Religious Zionism. This new umbrella of racist, misogynistic and homophobic extremists, which holds six seats, would taint any coalition as the most far-right government in Israel’s history. (Click here to read this week’s editorial.)

Whatever happens – whether someone can manage to hammer together a government, or whether exhausted Israelis will trudge to the polls for a fifth time – there are serious issues facing the country.

“There are some pretty daunting challenges out there,” Fogel said. “Most especially on the economic side. We see that some other countries have already begun to emerge [from the pandemic] with a fairly robust recovery. Israel isn’t there yet…. There is a sense of urgency that they do have to get an Israeli government in place that is going to be able to effectively address these issues and it’s not clear that the election result will offer that to Israelis, so I think it makes a situation, if anything, more desperate.”

Balfour is but one milestone

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, a cause for commemoration and even celebration on the part of Jewish activists worldwide.

The Balfour Declaration refers to a short letter from Lord (Arthur) Balfour, former U.K. prime minister and then-foreign secretary, to Lord (Lionel Walter) Rothschild. In it, Balfour declared that the British cabinet had approved a statement that the government favoured the establishment of a Jewish national home in what was soon to become the British Mandate of Palestine.

The implications of the declaration have been debated by pro- and anti-Israel activists for, well, an entire century. For many in the pro-Israel community, the declaration is akin to a Magna Carta for the Zionist movement: an affirmation – from the very authority that would oversee the territory – that Zionism was indeed a worthy enterprise.

Without diminishing this sentiment, I offer my interpretation of the Balfour Declaration and what it teaches us about pro-Israel advocacy today.

The Balfour Declaration was a strategically vital recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination – and one that clearly affected the course of history. But Balfour did not establish our national rights, which pre-existed the declaration. These rights have always been rooted in the natural right of every nation to shape its own identity and achieve self-determination in its ancestral land.

This is not a minor distinction. We dare not confuse the validation of our rights with the source of our rights. Indeed, our detractors falsely do so. In their minds, if the Balfour Declaration can be dismissed as a “colonial” statement, the rights of the Jewish people to which it speaks can be similarly undermined.

It’s this sort of nonsense that suggests Jewish history in the land began in 1917. To believe it, one would have to ignore the mountains – and caverns – of archeological and historical evidence that confirm a Jewish presence in the land for millennia. In addition to various non-biblical documents confirming Jewish indigenous roots in Israel, the Bible itself is widely recognized – even by ardent atheists – as a historical chronicle of a particular people in a particular land.

As Shimon Koffler Fogel, chief executive office of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), recently observed, the Balfour Declaration was “one milestone among many that confirm the moral, historic and legal right of the Jewish people to self-determination in our ancestral land. Just as many states endorsed the Balfour Declaration at the time, the international community’s support for the national liberation of the Jewish people after centuries of exile has been expressed time and again.”

Fogel further noted that, in a similar vein, November also marks “the 70th anniversary of the UN partition resolution of 1947, which expressly called for the creation of a Jewish state.”

The Balfour Declaration matters today precisely because it is more important than ever that we show how our fundamental rights as a people are backed by international consensus. The declaration is not the linchpin of this recognition but rather a signpost on the road to achieving widespread affirmation of our rights.

Every year, CIJA brings approximately 200 Canadian leaders and future leaders (almost all of whom are non-Jewish) on fact-finding missions to Israel. As someone who heads an annual trip of post-grad students, I can tell you that most Canadians – including those sympathetic to Israel – are not particularly interested in what a British lord had to say about the region a century ago.

But what they do care about, and what makes them more receptive to understanding the strong legal and moral foundation for Israel’s existence, is that many global figures and organizations (including the United Nations) have echoed these rights. In this regard, Balfour is an important thread of the historic fabric.

The importance of non-Jewish validators applies to many pro-Israel advocacy issues, such as Israel’s right to define itself as a Jewish homeland, the dangers of BDS (the movement to boycott, divestment from and sanction Israel) or the threat posed by Israel’s neighbours. On these and other topics, our target audience is generally more receptive to our perspective when we can demonstrate that it is one shared by others, including governments and leaders around the world.

Balfour matters, but we should remember why. The declaration serves not as the basis for modern Israel’s existence but as a key witness to the abundant evidence – irrefutable, millennia-old proof – of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.

Steve McDonald is deputy director, communications and public affairs, at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/koshermcdonald.

Jewish groups’ M-103 advice

Left to right, MP David Sweet, MP Michael Levitt, CIJA chief executive officer Shimon Koffler Fogel, MP Scott Reid and MP David Anderson pose for a photo during the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage hearings on M-103 on Oct. 18. (photo from CIJA)

Jewish groups were in Ottawa on Oct. 18 to testify in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which will make policy recommendations on M-103, a motion that condemns “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

Leaders of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and B’nai Brith Canada drew on the Jewish community’s experience with fighting antisemitism in their recommendations on how to maximize the motion’s efficacy.

In his testimony, CIJA chief executive officer Shimon Koffler Fogel pointed to statistics that showed Jews are the most targeted religious minority in the country.

“Nationally, there were 54 hate crimes targeting Jews per 100,000 individuals in 2015. While this number is relatively consistent with previous years, there was an increase in hate incidents targeting other minority communities, including the Muslim community. In fact, Muslims were the next most targeted group, with 15 incidents per 100,000 individuals,” Fogel said. “I mention these numbers not to showcase Jewish victimhood, but rather to demonstrate the very real experience our community has in grappling with the issues this committee is studying.”

B’nai Brith Canada chief executive officer Michael Mostyn recommended that the motion be constructed so that it will be “embraced broadly by all Canadians” and by “communities that are the targets of racism and discrimination, including Canadian Jews, who continue to be the target of antisemitism.”

Mostyn said the bill must not diminish “the threat to Canadians of all faith communities who face racism and religious discrimination and it must not suggest that one form of racism or religious discrimination is more threatening, or of greater priority, than another.”

Among Fogel’s recommendations was that the committee work to improve on the collection and publication of hate crime data, as it currently varies widely by police department.

He said statistics from the Greater Toronto Area – including Peel Region, Toronto and York Region – are readily available, “but even with these three neighbouring jurisdictions, each report provides different information, making direct comparisons sometimes difficult.”

He added that there are cities, such as Montreal, that don’t release data about which identifiable groups are being targeted, leaving policymakers with incomplete information.

Fogel said it’s important to properly define hate, as we “can’t effectively fight bigotry and hatred without precisely defining it. The term ‘Islamophobia’ has been defined in multiple ways, some effective and some problematic. Unfortunately, it has become a lightning rod for controversy, distracting from other important issues at hand.”

Fogel used the Islamic Heritage Month Guidebook, which was issued by the Toronto District School Board earlier this month and contains a definition of Islamophobia that includes “dislike toward Islamic politics or culture,” as an example.

“Muslims can be protected from hate without restricting critique of Islamist political ideologies,” Fogel said.

Mostyn agreed that the committee should “exercise great care in any definition of Islamophobia” because, if the definition is vague or imprecise, it can be “hijacked and only inflame tensions between and among faith communities in Canada.”

Mostyn said an imbalance can create “the impression that Canadian Muslims are the only victims of hate crimes. We are just as concerned with the source of hate crimes targeting Canadian Jews from within radical elements of the Muslim community.”

Fogel also recommended that greater and more consistent enforcement of existing laws is needed. “Recently, the attorney general of Quebec decided not to lay charges in a case of an imam in Montreal who had called for the murder of Jews. Quebec’s attorney general also declined to pursue a second charge of genocide promotion. This decision sent a message that someone can call for the death of an entire group of people without consequence,” he said, adding that the federal government should train police and prosecutors to better enforce the existing Criminal Code hate speech provisions and provide resources for the development of more local hate crime units.

In his testimony, David Matas, B’nai Brith Canada’s senior legal counsel, argued that some fear of radical Islam is rational.

“Adherents to some components of Islam preach hatred and terrorism, incite to hatred and terrorism and engage in hate-motivated acts and terrorist crimes,” Matas said. “What the committee, we suggest, can usefully do is propose criteria, with illustrative examples, which can guide those directly involved in the combat against the threat and acts of hatred and terror coming from Islamic radicals.”

Matas called on the committee to “focus both on those victimized by Islamophobia and on the incitement and acts of hatred and terrorism, which come from within elements of the Islamic community.”

In his remarks, Fogel also referred to the passing of Bill C-305 – a private member’s bill that would expand penalties for hate crimes against schools and community centres associated with identifiable groups – which had its third reading on Oct. 18.

“CIJA has long advocated for the changes contained in Bill C-305,” Fogel said. “C-305 is a clear example of how elected officials can work together, in a non-partisan spirit, to make a practical difference in protecting vulnerable minorities.”

CIJA chair David Cape said, “CIJA remains grateful for the tireless efforts of MP Chandra Arya, who has committed his time and energy to strengthening hate crime protections. As we celebrate Canada’s 150th anniversary, we’re reminded that the safety of at-risk communities is essential for a healthy, vibrant country. Criminals who target Jews or other minorities don’t distinguish between houses of worship, community centres and schools – neither should the law.”

– For more national Jewish news, visit cjnews.com

Giving back 150

Reflecting on Canada 150, Shimon Koffler Fogel, chief executive officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), recently wrote in the Globe and Mail, “Surely marking 150 years as a united confederation means more than just an extravagant party and a day off work?… Canada 150 is an opportunity to appreciate the privileges and benefits we enjoy in our great country. But these reflections risk becoming mere platitudes if they are not animated with positive action. With privilege comes responsibility. Canada 150 is a moment for each of us to consider how we can pay the great gift of being Canadian forward through tangible contributions that enhance the experience for all who call Canada home.”

As someone whose family has been in Canada since the late 1700s, these words resonated with me. Indeed, my own ancestors were among Canada’s first refugees: Loyalists who had supported and fought for the British in the American Revolution.

In my case, the Lyon family (my father’s mother’s family) were Connecticut Loyalists who lost everything because of their active service to the Crown. Passionate supporters of the British way of life and system of government, they fled to New Brunswick bereft of their possessions. In their new home, unfamiliar but welcoming, they turned their efforts to building the extraordinary country that would become Canada.

The legacy the Loyalists left – combined with the work of generations of Canadians from innumerable backgrounds – was poignantly felt on the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Today, Canada is the envy of much of the world. While Canada is not perfect (what nation is?), we enjoy greater freedom, security, social harmony and prosperity than perhaps any other country on the planet.

More than anything, our forebears taught us that, as with most good things in life, a remarkable country doesn’t just happen; it is the product of vision, values and hard work. This no less true today than it was in 1867. The country my children inherit will be made better or worse by the actions (or inaction) of my own generation.

It was in that vein that Shimon continued, in his Globe and Mail column, to present a Pledge 150 challenge to all faith communities:

“The challenge is straightforward. We ask every church, temple, mosque and synagogue to commit to undertaking 150 positive deeds that make Canada better tomorrow than it is today: 150 volunteer hours visiting the elderly, 150 new donations to community food banks, 150 new Canadian Blood Services donations, 150 hands extended to indigenous communities. The list of concrete opportunities is as limitless as the need for them.”

What better way to teach our children what it means to be Canadian than to do something tangible to make our country a better place?

At the same time, the Pledge 150 approach requires us to be thoughtful, organized and sustained in our contribution. Based on the premise that we are changed through repetition, the great Jewish philosopher-rabbi Maimonides noted that it is better to undertake many individual acts than one large act of giving. The process of giving not only benefits the recipient but, when adopted as a conscious habit, it also creates a mindset of generosity in the donor.

If you, your family or your synagogue are interested in taking part, I invite you to visit pledge150.ca for more details – and to connect with us to share your pledge ideas with others. As for me and my family, we have pledged to collect 150 items of clothing over the year to donate to those in need. By encouraging our young children to be part of the effort, we share with them the importance of helping those less fortunate – a value at the heart of Jewish tradition and Canadian civic values.

Steve McDonald is deputy director, communications and public affairs, at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agent of Canada’s Jewish federations.