The Feb. 18 silent march in honor of Alberto Nisman began on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery. (photo by Cynthia Ramsay)
Approximately 75 members of the local Argentine community and their friends and supporters gathered at the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery on Feb. 18 in memory of Argentina’s federal prosecutor Alberto Nisman.
Jewish community member Gabriel Patrich (left) was one of the Vancouver march organizers. (photo by Cynthia Ramsay)
A silent march, there were no speeches, but participants carried signs. They would like the government of Argentina to conduct a full investigation of the suspicious death of the 51-year-old Jewish lawyer who was found dead on Jan. 18 at his home in Buenos Aires. Nisman was investigating alleged Iranian involvement in the terror attack on the AMIA (Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina) Jewish community centre in 1994, which killed 85 people and injured hundreds of others. He was found dead the day before he was to appear before a congressional hearing to air his contention that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, among others, arranged a deal with Iran to cover up its involvement in the bombing in exchange for economic benefits.
Jewish community member Gabriel Patrich, one of the organizers of the march in Vancouver, was satisfied with the local support. “The main rally in Argentina drew [up to] half a million people, and there were big events in Miami, Australia, Spain, France and Israel. We are proud to take our part and demand a full investigation of Nisman’s murder and the truth he was about to bring to light.”
In addition to the call for justice, Patrich told the Independent, “we were also there … to honor a courageous man, who knew that his life was in danger – he said that his investigations might cost him his life.”
Reports are that some 400,000 people attended the Buenos Aires march alone. On her website, Kirchner criticized that event as being politically motivated and, “not at all an act of homage to the tragically deceased, with the obvious exception of their immediate families.” She said its one merit was that it showed “that in Argentina, your country, you can disagree, you can insult the government and the president, and can move freely. It was not always so, so do not speak of dictatorship.”
For those interested in more about the AMIA bombing, Argentine author Gustavo Perednik has written a “lightly veiled” fictional account based on documents provided him by Nisman. It has been translated into English – To Kill Without a Trace: A Prequel to 9/11, the 1994 Terrorist Bombing in Buenos Aires and the Iranian Connection (Mantua Books Ltd.) – and Perednik will be in Vancouver for the book’s launch at the Isaac Waldman Jewish Public Library on March 23, at 7 p.m. Also speaking will be Dr. Elena T. Feder, who wrote the introduction to the English translation. Anticipating a full house, the library requires an RSVP to 604-257-5111, ext. 248, or [email protected] by March 19.
Shahar Ben Haleviis a writer and filmmaker living in Vancouver.
The attack on a Copenhagen synagogue – and the public reaction to it – has been illuminating. It also raises echoes from Danish and Jewish history, in ways that are not encouraging.
Of all the many incidents during the Holocaust when non-Jews acted righteously, one of the most notable and successful was the evacuation of Denmark’s Jews in 1943. The Danish resistance, aided by throngs of ordinary Danes, mobilized a flotilla of fishing boats to convey Danish Jews to Sweden, thus saving 99 percent of Denmark’s Jewish population at a time when other Jewish communities in Europe were being annihilated.
This extraordinary example of dangerous sacrifice in defence of Jewish people and basic humanity has rightly given the Danish people a special place in the narrative of opposition to Nazism. The narrative, at times, has gotten out of hand, as with the debunked story that the Danish monarch, King Christian X, himself donned a yellow star as an act of solidarity when the Jews of his country were ordered to affix the signifying marker to their clothing. In fact, Denmark’s Jews were among the few in occupied Europe not required to wear the yellow star. This story may not have been true, but the underlying message of Danish solidarity with the Jewish people against the Final Solution is undeniable.
It might have been expected, therefore, that Denmark would live up to its reputation in the aftermath of the recent terror attacks that wounded five police officers and killed two civilians – Finn Norgaard, a 55-year-old filmmaker who was attending a free speech symposium that was the gunman’s first target, and Dan Uzan, a 37-year-old congregant serving as security at the city’s Grand Synagogue.
In a heartening show, 30,000 Danes gathered on Feb. 16 for a vigil to commemorate the two terror victims. The current monarch, Queen Margarethe II, expressed condolences and restated her country’s commitment to the values “that Denmark is based on.”
However, a number of concerning responses cast a shadow over the fine words and deeds of these Danes.
Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt called the murders a “cynical act of terror,” but then offered this ponderous and contradictory observation: “We don’t know the motive for the attacks but we know that there are forces that want to harm Denmark, that want to crush our freedom of expression, our belief in liberty. We are not facing a fight between Islam and the West, it is not a fight between Muslims and non-Muslims.”
The motive for the attack could hardly have been clearer. First, attempt mass murder at an event explicitly dedicated to free expression then, for good measure, head over to a synagogue to kill some Jews. The actions of the perpetrator betray the motives in the most obvious manner imaginable. It is baffling that the prime minister should have chosen to cast question on the motive. And while it is widely held that the actions of violent radical extremists do not represent a universal trait of Islam, it still rings odd to hear the leader of a country in such a situation tack on a declaration about what the incident is not, while offering no specifics about what is at the root of the attack.
Far more disturbing was the veneration given to the perpetrator. The funeral for Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, who police say was responsible for both attacks and who police shot and killed, was attended by an estimated 500 people. One organizer said the turnout was a sign of support for the family of the gunman, not an endorsement of his actions, but the crowd of hundreds at the funeral of a murderer of this sort is not a good sign.
Moreover, flowers were left at the scene of El-Hussein’s death, as is the mania these days anytime a tragedy strikes. These were later removed – by masked men chanting who said their actions were based on the fact that Muslims (like Jews) do not mark the passing of people with flowers.
These weird and disheartening reactions stand in contrast with the uplifting story of the moment – the “circle of peace” that took place last weekend in Oslo, Norway, in which 1,000 Norwegian Muslims and their allies encircled a synagogue in an act of solidarity and protection.
Similarly, the involvement of a Muslim figure with a history of antisemitic rhetoric drew some criticism, though organizers pointed to his participation as a sign of progress and that change is possible even among radical extremists and fundamentalists, and those who espouse hate.
Bodies are taken away following an explosion at the cafeteria of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University on July 31, 2002. Hamas took responsibility for the bombing, which killed seven people and wounded 70, but a new U.S. federal court ruling found the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority liable for that attack and other committed during the second intifada. (photo from Flash90)
A New York City-based federal jury on Monday ordered the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to pay $218.5 million in reparations to American citizens who were targeted by terror attacks in Jerusalem, and to the victims’ families. The ruling is seen as a major victory for those seeking to hold so-called moderate Palestinian factions accountable for terrorism.
The court ruled in favor of 10 American families who sued the PLO and PA for six different terrorist attacks that were linked to those groups during the second Palestinian intifada. Thirty-three people were killed in those six attacks between 2002 and 2004, and 450 were injured. Since the lawsuit was filed in a U.S. court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the reparation amount is expected to triple to $655.5 million.
Among the families involved in the landmark ruling were representatives of four victims of a Hebrew University cafeteria attack in 2002, in addition to Palestinian shooting attacks and suicide bombings that took place between 2002 and 2004 in Jerusalem.
The plaintiffs won the case after a 10-year legal battle in which the defence claimed that the PLO and the PA were not directly responsible for the attacks, which were carried out by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Hamas. The verdict is likely to bolster Israel’s longstanding claim that Palestinian factions such as Mahmoud Abbas’ PA – which many in the West consider to be more moderate than Hamas – support terrorism.
“The PA and the PLO and the Fatah faction were all involved in terrorism during the second intifada,” said Jonathan Schanzer, vice-president for research at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies and a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. “Abbas reined in those groups and has done a reasonably good job of preventing their resurgence. But the sins of his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, continue to haunt him. And now it looks as if it will cost him, as well.”
After the attacks in Copenhagen, like after the violence and vandalisms that have rocked the French Jewish community, Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is urging the Jews of Europe to come to Israel as violence against Jews and Jewish institutions increases across that troubled continent.
This call for a new mass aliyah is being met with opposition by European leaders – including Jewish leaders. In Copenhagen, more than 30,000 people, led by their prime minister, commemorated the victims of the terror attacks. Copenhagen’s chief rabbi, Jair Melchior, told the Associated Press, “People from Denmark move to Israel because they love Israel, because of Zionism. But not because of terrorism. If the way we deal with terror is to run somewhere else, we should all run to a deserted island.”
Coincidentally, in preparation for our upcoming 85th anniversary issue, we were perusing old copies of this newspaper recently. We came across a commentary from July 1948 titled “Zionism should be wound up.” The author argued that the motive for Zionism – the creation of a Jewish state – had been realized and so the global enterprise should be concluded: even as Israel was literally fighting for its survival in the ongoing War of Independence, and so soon after the Holocaust.
Zionism had been a divisive force in the Diaspora Jewish community, including here in Canada. There were pro- and anti-Zionist Jews of left, right and centre politics, and of Orthodox and secular persuasion and everything in between. Some arguments against Zionism as a movement relied on religious foundations, contending that the ingathering of the exiles would coincide with the messianic era. Other arguments were emphatically secular with the left holding, for example, that it was incumbent upon Jews to remain where they are and fight for a better world for all, rather than retrenching to nationalistic or religious-based separations.
Reading the editorial from 1948, one particular sticking point was that community fundraising efforts had been overwhelmingly allocated to the Zionist effort. Now that the goal had been achieved, the author argued, it was time to redirect fundraising and spending inward, to individual Diaspora communities and to resurrect the “kehilla pattern” of community building and security, with each community taking care of its own needs.
Despite the writer’s conclusion, as successive wars and decades of terrorism confronted Israel, Zionism was not shelved. It morphed into a different type of movement. No longer mobilizing for the creation of a Jewish homeland, it became the overseas support group for the country. After 1967, when “the occupation” altered perceptions of Israel at home and abroad, Zionism again became a divisive cause. But for those two decades, the Jewish people were probably as united as they have ever been in support of Israel.
The lesson of the second half of the 20th century proved the lesson of the first half. Close to a million Jews across the Middle East and North Africa were forced, driven or encouraged by various means to leave their homelands. The difference for these people was that there was now a place where Jews control the immigration policy. Had such a place existed in the 1930s, the impact of the Holocaust may have been massively reduced. Nitpickers will contend that it was the creation of the state of Israel itself that led to the expulsion of Jews from the Arab world, but this equivalency, whatever its merits, does not distract from the underlying point: Jews have often lacked security and permanence in places where they are a permanent minority.
However, being a majority is no assurance of safety. Despite Netanyahu’s invitation, all is not nirvana for the Jews of Israel. Violence and terrorism are not unknown, and life is challenging in different ways than in Europe. It also needs mentioning that everything Netanyahu says and does right now must be seen through the prism of political expediency as the Israeli elections approach.
Nevertheless, these events raise a very serious question: What does Zionism mean today for people in the Diaspora?
There are probably more answers than there are Jews and, in a way, this is the question we grapple with, in one way or another, in these pages every week. But this conclusion may be safe to draw: it is not quite time for Zionism to wind up its affairs.
Dan Gillerman addresses the audience at Jewish National Fund Pacific Region’s Tu b’Shevat event Feb. 3 as emcee Geoffrey Druker looks on. (photo by Robert Albanese)
A former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations heaped praise on Canada and excoriated the United States during a candid speech here last week.
Left to right, former ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman, Mayor of Victoria Lisa Helps and JNF Pacific Region shaliach Ilan Pilo. (photo by Julie Elizabeth)
Dan Gillerman, who led the Israeli delegation at the UN from 2003 to 2008, was filling in for current Ambassador Ron Prosor, whose obligations kept him in New York. The occasion was the Jewish National Fund of Canada’s Tu b’Shevat event at Beth Israel on Feb. 3. He also spoke in Victoria at Emanu-El for JNF the next day.
Gillerman, who acknowledges that he has a penchant for political incorrectness and is now a private citizen free to speak his mind without the constraints of a diplomatic post, received a strong ovation when he called Canada “by far, the greatest friend Israel has in the world” and when he heaped praise on Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper as “probably the greatest leader in the world.”
His perspective on the United States was not nearly as positive.
“I think that what we are witnessing today is at least a perception, hopefully a wrong perception, of a weak America and a weak American president,” Gillerman said. Even a whiff of American weakness is a dangerous thing in the world, he said, with America’s enemies feeling that they can get away with murder and America’s allies believing that they cannot rely on the superpower.
Gillerman equates the contemporary situation of the United States with the advent of the First World War a century ago, which he says was due in part to perceptions of British weakness under Prime Minister H.H. Asquith. Gillerman contended that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin would not do what he did in Ukraine and other countries would not do what they are doing elsewhere if they thought the United States would intervene.
On dangers facing Israel, Gillerman said that the most serious threats are not Hamas or Hezbollah, and not even Iran, which is pushing for nuclear capability. “They are not our most dangerous threats, because we can take care of them,” he said. “The two most dangerous phenomena we face today are appeasement and being politically correct.”
Trying to appease terror and the Iranian regime, as the world is doing today, Gillerman said, is very dangerous.
About political correctness, he said the world is “trying to find other words to explain what is happening,” other than identifying it as Islamic extremism and terrorism. “We have to call a spade a spade,” he said. “There is evil in this world. There is terror in this world. It threatens your country and every country in the world.”
On Iran, Gillerman characterized nuclear negotiations as “a weak America and a weak American president who wants an agreement at any cost.”
Gillerman said he had a conversation with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who is South Korean. Gillerman said that the global powers dithered while North Korea prepared for nuclear weaponry then one day the world woke up to a nuclear North Korea. Gillerman said Ban told him that Iran is much more dangerous than North Korea.
“North Korea sought nuclear weapons out of desperation,” Gillerman quoted Ban as telling him. “While Iran is seeking them out of aspiration.”
Gillerman spoke of his close relationship with the late former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, who appointed him ambassador to the UN. Gillerman’s background is not in politics or diplomacy, but business, and he was chairman of the Israeli Chamber of Commerce before his ambassadorial appointment.
He said Sharon warned him that the appointment to the UN would leave him lonely and facing hostility, but Gillerman said he later told the prime minister that he had been wrong. As Israel’s representative at the world body, Gillerman said, he operated on the knowledge that he represented a country that “is far, far better than most other member countries of the United Nations.”
Despite Israel’s isolation at the UN, one of Gillerman’s achievements during his time as ambassador was the proclamation of International Holocaust Remembrance Day every January. It was the first time that an Israeli-sponsored resolution was passed by the General Assembly.
Gillerman was speaking on the day that Canadian foreign minister John Baird announced his resignation from cabinet and politics. Gillerman said that he had spent several days with Baird recently in Davos, Switzerland, and had no indication that Baird was planning a major change.
“I think it’s a loss for Canada and a loss for Israel, but I wish him well,” Gillerman said, before once again praising Canada’s leaders.
“I think you have in Stephen Harper one of the greatest leaders in the world. Probably the greatest leader in the world and definitely the best friend Israel has in the world,” he said.
While the bulk of the former ambassador’s speech was ominous and pessimistic, it didn’t conclude that way.
“Despite all that, I am optimistic about the future of Israel,” he said near the end of his remarks. “I believe that the world is waking up.”
In the Arab world, he said, the fight between extremists and moderates will lead moderates to recognize that Israel is not the enemy. Comparatively moderate Arab states are as afraid of Iranian extremism and nuclear capability as Israel is – possibly more afraid – he said, and a regional agreement will emerge from shared interests.
“I believe we can reach a fair and lasting settlement with the Palestinians,” he said, adding that leadership is needed on both sides, and in the world, and that it must go beyond bilateralism. He predicted what he calls a “23-state solution,” an agreement between Israel and Arab countries that leads to lasting peace.
He went on to say that if the Palestinian issue were settled, Arab states could calm their streets and become partners with Israel.
To those who say that the United Nations is a failed, useless organization, Gillerman described it as simply a building on First Avenue in Manhattan that is only as good as its tenants. Blaming the UN for the faults of its member-states is like blaming Madison Square Garden when the Knicks lose, he said. “It’s not the UN as an organization, it’s the world we live in.” The UN General Assembly has a “built-in immoral majority,” he said.
Left to right, Frank Sirlin, president of Jewish National Fund Pacific Region, former ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman and JNF Pacific Region shaliach Ilan Pilo. (photo by Robert Albanese)
Prosor, the ambassador who was originally slated to attend, provided a video message that was screened at the beginning of the event. Singers from Vancouver Talmud Torah sang a song for Tu b’Shevat and King David High School students sang the national anthems. The event was emceed by Geoffrey Druker, Rabbi Jonathan Infeld welcomed visitors to the new Beth Israel building and Diane Switzer, board chair of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, introduced Gillerman. Frank Sirlin, president of JNF Canada Pacific Region, spoke about this year’s Tu b’Shevat campaign, which will see trees planted along roads in Israel that are within range of gunfire from the Gaza Strip. The “green barrier” will help green the desert while shielding drivers and passengers from sniper fire. The JNF campaign includes two telethon sessions, on Feb. 15 and 22.
Last week, the federal government introduced proposed legislation intended to strengthen anti-terror powers of police, the intelligence service and the military.
The legislation would make it illegal to advocate or promote terrorism, would allow courts to remove terrorist propaganda from the internet, and make it easier for authorities to apprehend suspected terrorists before they act.
Civil libertarians waded in immediately. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which is already engaged in litigation against the federal government over allegations of electronic surveillance without warrants, warned that the legislation would give new powers to security agencies that have “shamefully inadequate oversight and are hostile to accountability.”
The proposed legislation comes on the heels of two terror attacks in Canada last year by apparent lone wolves in Ottawa and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que. In its press release announcing the measures, the government pronounced the world “a dangerous place” and reminded us that “Canada is not immune to the threat of terrorism.” Fair enough.
But Canada is also not immune from the threat of government overreach. There is a very critical line and a democracy needs to struggle to find precisely the right balance around these issues. While a terror attack can come out of the blue and kill, threats to individual liberties tend to emerge more slowly and the harm they do is not as immediately clear.
Israel is probably the most illustrative example of a democratic society trying to balance individual rights with protection of civilians from determined terrorists.
The balance that Israel has struggled to find between the rule of law, protection of civilians and the preservation of core civil liberties has been one of the defining and divisive characteristics of Israeli life for decades.
Balancing the physical safety of civilians with the preservation of the freedoms that define that country invigorates a vibrant public discourse, an ongoing, hand-wringing, conscience-challenging debate that carries on with extraordinary passion in a vibrant political ferment.
Among the problems with applying the Israeli model to Canada’s is that, put simply, Canada is not Israel. Canada has had nothing even remotely comparable to the onslaught of terror attacks Israel has endured. Nothing should diminish the grief and determination we felt collectively after the two incidents last year in this country, but neither should we pretend that our society is under imminent threat of sustained, existential violence from ideological forces. That is simply not the case. Proponents of the legislation might say that we need to make sure that things do not get out of hand by getting ahead of it early. Perhaps. But then a wiser solution still would be to work with and support communities where radicalization is taking place, or threatens to take place, and empower the moderates and reformers to identify and help those at risk of succumbing to ideological extremism. There are other approaches as well.
We should not be lulled into any sense of complacency about the sort of world in which we live. But neither should we succumb to hysteria and assume that the sky is falling. Neither should we pretend that this is all white hat/black hat drama. In Canada and, especially, in the United States, in recent months, we have seen those in authority – police – shoot several innocent civilians. And we have plenty of examples of overreach by intelligence and security agencies that seem to view their constitutional limitations as mere suggestions. This may be a time to strengthen laws that protect our civilian populations from terrorists, but citizens should likewise ask when we will see legislation that ensures our civil liberties are as secure as our physical well-being.
Underpinning all of this discussion, though, is a problem far more immediate to Canadians: political polarization. Would it be too much to ask that, on an issue the federal government rhetorically insists is so extraordinarily urgent as protecting Canadians from terrorism, that they might reach across the aisle and work with opposition members, rising above partisanship to develop responses to genuine national security threats?
Imagine if, instead of a government-initiated security bill pushed through by a majority government, we engaged opposition parties and Canadian citizens to discuss and propose a consensus around these issues that balances the demand between our freedoms and our personal and collective security. That would be an exercise in democracy that would truly define the difference between the enemies who seek to destroy us and the values we cherish.
Perhaps it’s too much to expect in an election year.
On Jan. 27, commemorations were held worldwide in remembrance of the Holocaust. Seventy years after the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp, these remembrances are as necessary as ever, as evidenced by the past year’s rising tide of antisemitic attacks the world over. And while it may be impossible to stop every terrorist attack everywhere in the world, the manner in which societies and individuals react to such atrocities is just as important as “killing the bad guys.”
A case in point would be the terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in early January. In the aftermath, a massive two million-strong march was held in the heart of Paris in support of freedom of expression. The phrase #JeSuisCharlie became the most widely used hashtag in Twitter’s history. To meet the increased demand from multitudes of first-time readers seemingly eager on making a statement against extremism, the publication run for the magazine’s Jan. 12 issue was increased from 60,000 copies to three million, and increased again to five million, and, again, to seven million copies.
Marches, Twitter campaigns and a massive surge in readership. Yet, largely relegated to the background was the fact that Jews were specifically targeted during those three terrible days in Paris. Indeed, for months before the Paris terrorist atrocities, Jews in much of Europe had been subjected to a relentless wave of vicious antisemitic attacks. An atmosphere of raw, unchallenged hatred for all things Jewish preceded the events in Paris, and the warning signs were there for anyone who cared to pay attention. When Jews in Denmark trying to hold an event calling for religious coexistence are chased off the streets by “Allahu akbar”-screaming, black-banner-waving thugs, then very soon someone will get it into their head to try to kill Jews in Paris.
Marches, Twitter campaigns and millions of new readers. Momentary, short-term reactions to a very long-term problem, one that has been building up for years. In the wake of such atrocities, it is natural for individuals to feel a strong need to act. And nothing reputes terrorism as effectively as making a stand with its intended targets and victims: by making a stand with the Jewish communities of Europe and the world over.
One effective, long-term method of displaying solidarity with Jewish communities worldwide is to show the same enthusiasm for their publications as the world has displayed for scooping up issues of Charlie Hebdo. To repudiate global extremism, one only needs to act on a very local level.
Salom, the Turkish Jewish weekly tabloid, isn’t exactly an easy publication to find in Istanbul unless you know where to look. But with a circulation of just a few thousand, it has for almost seven decades managed to put out a highly professional and relevant newspaper (far more substantial and better produced than the hopeless Syrian regime mouthpieces Al-Baath or Al-Thawra, even with the resources of the state), and over the years some of Turkey’s most prominent writers and journalists have written for it. Over the years: over the span of no less than 68 years.
A community, any community’s, newspaper is a chronology and journal of the times and events of that community’s history and its place in the world, the events that they were affected by or had an effect on, the opinions, hopes, dreams and fears of that community’s individuals. As a source for a history of the times, websites don’t come close.
And few things strike at the heart of a community’s sense of safety or belonging as attacking or intimidating its publications. For a community to lose its publication would be a devastating blow to its sense of identity, history and continuity within the larger society it inhabits.
And so, when a community is under sustained attack from fringe extremist elements, one of the best long-term demonstrations of solidarity is to adopt that community’s publications. And it was in this spirit that millions of people around the world suddenly felt a compulsion to own a copy of Charlie Hebdo, regardless of their opinions on the merits (or lack thereof) of the paper’s contents over the years. In the aftermath of a terrorist event, ordinary people are driven to respond with an act that loudly and clearly expresses their rejection of and revulsion at the attack.
Marches are all very well and good, but it is highly unlikely that the scale of the January Paris march will ever be repeated for years to come. Twitter hashtags? Very fleeting and very much of the moment. A long-term response is necessary to support a community under long-term threat.
And, while Jews in one’s local community may not face the same level of violence and intimidation as Jews in other parts of the world, the nature of global antisemitism is such that Jews anywhere can, at anytime, become targets from any source, no matter how distant or remote the threat may seem, as evidenced, to take a recent example, by the Hezbollah terrorist organization’s threats to strike Jews anywhere in the world in retaliation for its recent high-level losses in Syria.
Not everyone can be a Lassana Bathily, the Mali-born employee of the Hyper Cacher, the targeted Paris kosher supermarket, who saved countless lives by hiding customers during the attack. Individuals can still achieve a great deal by standing with those whom extremists would target, however. Heaven forbid that anyone should ever suffer a terrorist attack ever again, but let’s not wait until after an atrocity to express “Je suis (insert latest victims here).” Society’s embrace and acceptance of its minorities are the surest shield and protection against opportunistic acts of hate against those minorities. Terrorism thrives in an atmosphere and environment of unchallenged and unchecked hatred.
Holocaust commemorations are held just once a year, and by the time a society feels compelled to respond to atrocities in its midst with million-person marches, it is probably too late, extremism has already dug its roots deep into that society. Extremism is more effectively fought on the individual level, with small, daily acts of kindness towards those that may be vulnerable, and the ostracizing of those groups and individuals who are hateful in their speech and behavior (I’m looking at you George Galloway, you shameful carpetbagger). Global extremism is most effectively fought by very local acts of consideration.
In this day and age, fighting extremism can be as simple as buying a newspaper. Salom.
Aboud Dandachiis a Syrian blogger based in Turkey. He has been cited on issues relating to the Syrian conflict on the BBC, NPR, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian, Al-Arabiya and Turkiye Gazetesi. This article originally appeared on his blog From Homs to Istanbul, which can be found at abouddandachi.com. It is reprinted with permission.
On Jan. 28, Israeli soldiers in the northern Mount Dov region are pictured after an Israel Defence Forces patrol came under anti-tank fire from Hezbollah terrorist operatives. The Hezbollah attack killed two Israeli soldiers and injured seven others. (photo by Basal Awidat/Flash90)
Who was behind the Jan. 28 attack on northern Israel that killed two Israeli soldiers and wounded seven others? The easy answer is the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah, which claimed responsibility for the attack. But the wider view suggests Hezbollah’s state sponsor: Iran.
Dr. Ely Karmon, a senior research scholar at Israel’s International Institute for Counterterrorism, said that Hezbollah’s actions represent “an attempt to change the strategic rules of the game.” According to Karmon, Iran and Hezbollah have been working for months to take advantage of instability in Syria in order to create a forward military position against
Israel in Syria’s Quneitra region, close to the triple Syria-Lebanon-Israel border.
“This is actually an Iranian project,” Karmon told this reporter. “They have around 1,500 people on the ground in Syria, most of whom are counseling or training Syrian militias, and they have Hezbollah providing military support.”
On Jan. 28, Hezbollah fired five Kornet guided anti-tank missiles at an Israeli military convoy approximately 2.5 miles inside Israel’s border with Lebanon. A day earlier, less sophisticated mortars were fired from southern Syria into Israeli territory, with no damage reported.
In response to the Jan. 28 attack, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said, “Whoever is behind today’s attack will pay the full price.” Netanyahu – like Karmon – stressed that the attack points back to Iran, adding, “with the assistance of Hezbollah, Iran has been for some time trying to open another front against Israel on the Golan Heights. We are acting with force and determination against these attempts.”
“Because of the weakness of the Syrian regime, the Iranians are now permitted to have a foothold directly on Israel’s border, which until now they didn’t have,” Karmon explained.
Israel is widely believed to be responsible for a Jan. 18 airstrike against that foothold in southern Syria, which killed six Hezbollah operatives and six Iranians, including notorious Hezbollah commander Jihad Mughniyeh and Iranian general Mohammad Ali Allahdadi.
Karmon believes the airstrike “was a message sent by Israel” to forewarn Iran and Hezbollah not to continue their military efforts in Syrian territory.
The retaliatory attacks by Hezbollah following the deadly airstrike were widely expected. That the more sophisticated Kornet anti-tank missiles were fired from Lebanon and not Syria provides a strong indication that the Syrian position is not as well-stocked with weaponry as southern Lebanon – a zone that was supposed to remain completely demilitarized under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which arranged for the cessation of hostilities following the Second Lebanon War of 2006.
“Resolution 1701 calls for complete disarmament in southern Lebanon and, yet, Hezbollah, instead of disarming, they have amassed some 80,000-90,000 missiles,” Karmon said.
“Now, they want to achieve the same equation in southern Syria. If Israel does not stop them, and there are two to three years with relative quiet, with only occasional penetrations of our border and sometimes mortar fire and so on, a kind of ‘war of attrition,’ then all of a sudden we will find ourselves staring at 5,000-10,000 missiles,” he said.
Paris terror suspect Hayat Boumedienne’s recent escape from France to Syria has renewed concern about Turkey’s ability and willingness to prevent terrorists from transiting through its territory.
Boumedienne is the romantic partner and alleged accomplice of Amedy Coulibaly, who was shot dead by police after killing four people in a kosher supermarket and shooting a police officer in Paris on Jan. 9. Airport footage shows Boumedienne’s arrival from Madrid to Istanbul on Jan. 2, and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavusoglu said she crossed the border to Syria six days later.
Turkey has been the subject of intense criticism from Western governments and commentators over its perceived lack of effort in stemming the flow of foreign fighters crossing its borders. However, some think this isn’t quite fair.
“I think it’s somewhat of a misplaced criticism,” said Sinan Ülgen, a scholar at Carnegie Europe. Though the Turkish government may have formerly looked the other way at the activities of Islamist groups because of a desire to bring down the Assad regime at any cost, “that policy by and large had changed by April 2014,” according to Ülgen.
At that time, Interior Minister Efkan Ala made an effort to enhance border security, “having realized the risks of getting into that sort of relationship with extremist groups,” said Ülgen. However, researcher Gareth Jenkins says it’s still very easy for foreign fighters to cross through Turkey.
“When you look at the ease with which [terrorists and would-be fighters] are able to go back and forth across the border, there still isn’t a full clampdown,” Jenkins said. “It’s not as easy as it used to be, but it’s still pretty easy.” He said he recently personally witnessed fighters in a Turkish village near the Syrian border. “There were jihadists sitting around waiting to go across.”
With some 40 million tourists visiting Turkey every year, border security is no easy task, but Jenkins says security forces could be doing a lot more. He claimed that difficulty over border security isn’t the only reason for Turkey’s failure at curbing the flow of foreign citizens seeking to join the ranks of ISIS and other groups.
After the murders in Paris this month, it did not take long for the forces of conspiracy to switch into high gear.
Among those in the anti-Israel movement were people who suggested that the murders had been perpetrated by Israeli agents and that it was a frame up to besmirch Muslims. Greta Berlin, a leader in the Free Gaza movement and one of the most prominent anti-Israel campaigners, posted a statement on her Facebook page shortly after the murders at the French satirical magazine: “Mossad just hit the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo in a clumsy false flag designed to damage the accord between Palestine and France…. Here’s hoping the French police will be able to tell a well-executed hit by a well-trained Israeli intelligence service and not assume the Muslims would be likely to attack France when France is their friend. Israel did tell France there would be grave consequences if they voted with Palestine. A four-year-old could see who is responsible for this terrible attack.”
Such comments should exclude people like this from legitimate dialogue on the issues, yet the world continues to grant them impunity to spread their theories. And, as perverse and disturbing as the conspiracies from such anti-Israel activists are, there are more absurd and apparently common views expressed on the street in the Paris suburbs where large populations of immigrants from Muslim countries live in economic stagnation. It took an American reporter no time at all to find more fantastical theories; for example, that the attacks were carried out by magical, shape-shifting Jews who morphed themselves into figures resembling Arab terrorists and perpetrated the evil acts.
As extraordinarily outlandish as the latter allegation is, it is no more removed from reality than the former. And both represent a somewhat alarming reality in contemporary discourse. There are conspiracy theories with some traction that say “the Jews” invented ISIS, perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and are in cahoots with the Freemasons to control the media and levers of power. Moowahahaha.
We should be cognizant that these ideas exist and pay attention to the impact they may play in the global dialogue about Israel (and anything else involving Jews). And, we should be vigilant and thankful for the organizations that monitor and condemn these notions. At the same time, we need to maintain perspective. While these ideas may seem widespread, they are generally (though not always) held by the ignorant, the ill-informed and the undereducated. Notably, these ideas seem most prominent in places where democracy has not been permitted to flourish, and autocrats will – and do – exploit these sorts of things for their purposes. Most of the people who carry these poisonous thoughts, however, cannot even exert their influence at the ballot box.
We return to comments by Jonathan Kay when he visited here more than a year ago now. Kay, then the editorial page editor of the National Post and now editor of The Walrus magazine, insisted that these voices have been marginalized. In the halls of power – or even of country clubs and polite society – where antisemitism once held sway – these ideas are dismissed along with the people who espouse them. To subscribe to them is to relegate oneself to the D-list of civil dialogue.
It is important to acknowledge, on the one hand, guttersnipe who purvey ludicrous, hateful ideas and, on the other, the progress that has been made against bigotry among the people who determine policy in our country and among our democratic allies. Outside these circles are all sorts of ideas that are beyond the realm, but in the places where bizarre anti-Jewish conspiracies still hold sway, antisemitism is merely one among a disturbing host of societal ailments.
There is a quote that seems appropriate here, and it is doubly attributed – to the American presidential confidant Bernard Baruch and children’s writer Dr. Seuss. Whichever man originated it, the sentiment applies: “Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.”
