United Nations

Definition of insanity

In a rare venture into current events, the head of Yad Vashem has spoken out about the urgency of humanitarian disaster in Syria. After the forces backing Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad succeeded in taking the rebel-controlled areas of Aleppo last week, murderous retribution unfolded and terrified residents fled for their lives.

Avner Shalev, chair of Yad Vashem, said “the global community must put a stop to these atrocities and avert further suffering, as well as provide humanitarian assistance to the victims seeking safe haven.”

It is not insignificant that the head of the world’s leading Holocaust museum and memorial would be moved to speak out on the subject. The atrocities the world is seeing stir memories of the past. No history is precisely like other history, obviously, and making direct comparisons can be unhelpful. Yet, after the Second World War, as the extent of the Holocaust became understood, international agencies, nations and individuals committed to a future free of those sorts of atrocities. Those promises have been betrayed too many times in the seven decades since, most recently in Syria.

When we look back in history, we ask, why didn’t this party or that country do more? Why was this or that allowed to happen? How did the world not step in sooner, when evidence began to mount about the rising danger of authoritarianism? Questions and answers are easier in hindsight. Yet there can be no doubt that Syria has presented especially difficult choices, even for actors who want to do the right thing.

U.S. President Barack Obama has insisted through the years of the Syrian civil war, which began at the time of the Arab Spring in 2011, that there was no military solution to the problem; that diplomacy had to prevail. He may have been correct that there was no military resolution. There are multiple bad guys in this fight – Assad’s regime, backed by Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, on one side, and al-Qaeda and ISIS on the other. And, on the third side – because this is, vexingly, a multiple-sided conflict – is an amalgam of defectors from the Syrian military, Kurdish militias, and other anti-Assad forces who may have democratic and pluralist intents. Or, were they to be victorious – which now seems unlikely in the extreme – they could split among themselves, their only cohesion perhaps being the glue of opposition to Assad. By one count, what we call the Syrian civil war is as many as 10 separate conflicts. The United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar have provided some support to the rebels, but it has been unreliable and uncoordinated. Estimates of the number of civilians and fighters killed range from 312,000 to more than 400,000.

Civilians casualties have been enormous, with all sides indiscriminately attacking civilian targets. Torture and extrajudicial killings typify the regime’s approach to war. Assad’s forces have also been accused of deliberately targeting medical installations and personnel. When the United Nations was able to secure humanitarian aid routes within Syria to provide food and medicine, the regime ensured that aid reached government-controlled areas and prevented aid from reaching rebel-controlled areas.

Negotiations have gone nowhere, because Assad is determined to hold on to power no matter how much of his population dies in the process, and he has powerful military friends in Russia and Iran who back his iron fist. The opposition is unequivocal that Assad must be deposed. There is no room for negotiation.

And so, the matter has come down to military might, with the last stronghold of the opposition crushed in recent days. Assad has now regained control of almost all the population centres of the country, with the rebels limited to peripheral enclaves.

In the process of the civil war, half of Syria’s population has been uprooted – six million people are displaced internally and another six million have been made refugees, with global implications, as European, American and other politicians have exploited fears of radicalization among refugees to advance their own xenophobic agendas. The effect may ultimately unravel the entire European Union.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has been significantly strengthened and ISIS, which has suffered in Syria, will likely turn its attentions to more fertile ground elsewhere. The murderous Assad regime is more secure than it has been in years. Russia is ascendant in the region and globally. The United States has been chastened, and the incoming president is, characteristically, belligerent in rhetoric but anti-interventionist in expressed policy, which indicates nothing if not pandemonium in future U.S. approaches.

The world has failed the people of Syria – and, as a result, the world is a far more dangerous place.

Significant blame for this disaster must be placed on the United Nations, the primary bodies of which are hobbled by the control of despots who owe more to Assad’s governance style than to the vision of the idealists who founded the organization. While there are agencies under the UN umbrella that do superb work, its governance structures are so dysfunctional that talk of a replacement body must continue in earnest.

The least the world should be able to do now is pressure the emboldened government of Assad to allow humanitarian aid to reach those who need it and allow his citizens to move to places of safety. Then, the world should reflect on the lessons of this catastrophic experience and promise, yet again, not to let such a thing recur. What we’re doing isn’t working. To prevent recurrence, we need to stop pursuing the definition of insanity, which involves doing the same things and expecting a different result.

Where will the money go?

The Canadian government has announced that it will resume funding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The government made the announcement last week, allocating $20 million to UNRWA’s budget and an additional $5 million to support the emergency appeal issued by the organization in order to aid Palestinian refugees affected by the catastrophic war in Syria.

In a statement, the government said, “with this funding, Canada joins all other G7 countries in supporting UNRWA’s efforts to meet the ever-increasing needs of Palestinian refugees, assists in providing basic services for vulnerable people, and contributes to some stability in the region.”

Canada’s previous Conservative government backed away from supporting UNRWA, reducing funding from $32 million in 2007 to $19 million in 2009 and, in 2010, cutting funding entirely. The justification at that time was that UNRWA has ties to the terrorist group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip.

The $20 million just announced is expected to support health, social services and education “for millions of vulnerable Palestinian refugees,” according to Ottawa. But the announcement comes just days after renewed reports that raise concerns about the more than 200 Palestinian schools sponsored by UNRWA, which teach students between first and ninth grade.

One expert on the subject told a conference organized by the Centre for Near East Policy Research (CNEPR) this month that the textbooks reflect the educational principles introduced by Yasser Arafat when the Palestinian authority gained control over the education system in the West Bank and Gaza, and have not been cleansed of hate, antisemitism and incitement. Participants in the conference obtained textbooks from the warehouse that supplies Palestinian schools and they claim the books still encourage a violent struggle for the liberation of “Palestine,” which is defined to include all of present-day Israel, the rejection of historical facts about Jewish holy places and the demonization of both Israel and of Jews.

A spokesperson for UNRWA outright rejects the accusations, saying that two significant analyses of textbooks, including one by the U.S. Department of State, debunked the assertions of incitement in the curriculum. However, David Bedein, director of CNEPR, said he was prepared to present the U.S. government with evidence that contradicts the state department’s findings but told the Jerusalem Post he was rebuffed by the White House.

These conflicting reports are disconcerting. It should be possible for funders who send hundreds of millions of aid dollars to find out for sure whether their money is funding genocidal incitement. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs is certainly correct in declaring that donor countries “have a responsibility to ensure that aid is used for the purpose for which it is given, and we are pleased Canada has taken the lead in establishing a robust accountability protocol.”

In announcing the renewed funding, the federal government promised “there will be enhanced due diligence applied to UNRWA funding … accompanied by a very robust oversight and reporting framework, which includes regular site visits and strong antiterrorism provisions.”

This would be a positive step, to say the least. It would also be a positive step if these Canadian funds do actually provide health, education and social services to people who need them. But this, too, will be difficult to discern. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that an analysis by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicates that the Palestinian Authority budgets about $75 million a year to support Palestinian terrorists – about 16% of foreign donations the PA receives. A lack of transparency about where the rest of the money goes means the world has been unable to determine how much money is lining the pockets of cronies of the dictatorship and what proportion is making positive social and economic contributions in the lives of Palestinians. Notably, the Palestinians receive more international aid per capita than any other people in the world – by far. Even as the catastrophe in neighboring Syria has seen 250,000 killed and 6.5 million refugees displaced, Syrians receive $106 per capita in international aid, while Palestinians receive $176.

One could argue whether Canadian funds are needed by the Palestinian Authority at all. And, clearly, we cannot be entirely confident that funds are going to the places they are intended. But, if the Canadian government does indeed follow the money, as promised, and determines whether it is making life better for Palestinians or is instead inciting terrorism, this might finally answer some questions that today seem subject to accusations and denials. That would be money well spent.

Whose holy site?

When organizers of the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival select the films they will screen, timeliness is probably among the considerations. They could hardly have known they would hit the nail on the head so perfectly with One Rock Three Religions. The film explores the contending claims for the world’s most in-demand religious real estate: that which Jews call the Temple Mount.

The site of the First and Second Temples, the latter destroyed by the Romans after 70 CE, is also the location of al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, holy sites for Muslims. The Western Wall, adjacent to the Temple Mount, known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, is the holiest site on earth for the Jewish people. The Temple Mount also holds significance for Christians. This is not breaking news.

But the 58-member executive board of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, earlier this month passed a resolution – with 24 countries in favor, 32 against or abstaining and two absent – that uses language that exclusively recognizes the Muslim history of the area, implicitly erasing Jewish and Christian claims to the space. (Canada is not part of the board.)

Denying Jewish claims to the Temple Mount is not breaking news, either. This form of historical erasure has been going on for decades.

In the film, Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles and a rabbi emeritus of Vancouver’s Schara Tzedeck, notes that the supreme Muslim authority in Jerusalem published for decades a visitor’s guide to the site. From 1924 until 1953, the guidebook made clear that the location was indisputably the site of Jewish temples. The 1954 iteration of the guide omitted the Jewish connection to the holy place for the first time. Some Arab and Palestinian figures, including Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, have made it their business to deny the historical and archeological truth ever since. The denial of a Jewish connection to Jerusalem has come to coexist with the denial of Jews to a right to self-determination in our unceded ancestral territory, as part of a global phenomenon of denying Jewish history.

It may be naïve to get on our high horses and pretend that UNESCO’s appalling denial of Jewish (and Christian) connections to the Temple Mount is some new low in global attitudes toward Israel. This is nonsense, certainly, but only on a continuum of nonsense that defines the anti-Israel movement globally.

We can take some solace in the fact that the vote was not passed by a majority. As well, on the positive side, this “theatre of the absurd,” as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called it, at least forced the hands of a few leaders, including Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who promised to find out why his country’s representative abstained from the vote. Even UNESCO’s own director-general, Irina Bokova, said: “Jerusalem is the sacred city of the three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.… To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.”

In the end, it all amounts to bubkes for Israel. Israel will continue to provide, as the VJFF film demonstrated, access to all religious sites for all peoples, to say nothing of continuing to be the educational, scientific and cultural exemplar it is. If only UNESCO contributed as much.

UNESCO a mockery

There are those who envision a future without Israel in it. No one knows what the future holds, yet there are some who, in their enthusiasm for a future without a Jewish state, are reinventing the past.

Last week, UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, passed a resolution that effectively negates millennia of Jewish history at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The holiest site in Judaism and the physical centre of the Jewish world, is the place where the first and second temples stood. The remnants of the Second Temple, the Western Wall, is the place on earth toward which Jews have prayed for 2,000 years when they have not been able to pray at the Wall itself.

The land is contested because, in the eighth century, Al-Aqsa Mosque was constructed on the site of the temples’ ruins. To be generous, the Jews may have been there first, but it is nevertheless a holy site for Muslims as well. Tell that to UNESCO. According to the wildly ahistorical resolution last week, Jewish claims of ancient connection to the place are bogus.

The resolution, which repeatedly refers to Israel as the “Occupying Power,” includes a litany of offenses allegedly perpetrated by Israel and Israelis, including “storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif by the Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces,” and accuses Israel of “planting Jewish fake graves.”

In addition to pages of condemnations of Israel, the resolution repeats familiar accusations that deny any Jewish connection to Judaism’s holiest site.

The resolution was submitted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar and Sudan, countries that each have their own unique challenges that nevertheless do not detract from their obsession with imagined Jewish slights against Islam.

But the resolution was supported by numerous ostensible allies of Israel, including France, Spain and Sweden, as well as Russia. The United States, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom voted against. (Canada is not on UNESCO’s executive board.)

This sort of nonsense spewed up from agencies of the UN, to say nothing of the General Assembly, further undermines the legitimacy of what could be the world’s most valuable international forum and makes a mockery of the vision of the UN’s founders. None of this matters, of course, to the inmates who are running the asylum.

In the UN, on campus

Canada’s foreign minister has called on the United Nations Human Rights Council to review the appointment of Canadian law professor Michael Lynk as its special rapporteur on human rights in Palestine.

Last week, Stéphane Dion tweeted (because that is how diplomacy happens these days): “We call on @UN_HRC President to review this appointment & ensure Special Rapporteur has track record that can advance peace in region #HRC.”

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs has denounced the appointment of the University of Western Ontario academic, who has been associated with anti-Israel activities in Canada. Lynk has said that Israel should be prosecuted for “war crimes,” he accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” has spoken at conferences that reject a two-state solution and serves as a leader in a group that promotes Israel Apartheid Week.

While Dion questioned the wisdom of appointing Lynk, CIJA went further, arguing that the position itself is illegitimate.

“It is ludicrous that this is the UN’s only special rapporteur focused on the human rights of a particular community,” said Shimon Koffler Fogel, CIJA’s chief executive officer. “It is likewise shameful that the special rapporteur refuses to investigate the abuse of Palestinian rights by the Palestinian leadership, particularly Hamas in Gaza. In so doing, the special rapporteur obscures genuine human rights violations in the Middle East and the underlying obstacles to Israeli-Palestinian peace.”

A related conflict blew up in academia last week. Just as the appointment of an avowed anti-Zionist as UN rapporteur surely will not advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the complete disavowal of the existence of antisemitism on campuses will not promote intellectual discourse or peace.

In the wake of ongoing efforts by the BDS movement to boycott Israeli academics and force universities to divest from Israeli holdings, while occasionally nastily intimidating Jewish students on campuses across North America, the University of California board of regents recently passed a statement condemning antisemitism, along with 10 principles against intolerance as a whole. It is the result of several months’ research and consultation.

The statement that introduces the principles is an amended version of an earlier expression that would have condemned anti-Zionism. Instead, it condemns “antisemitic forms of anti-Zionism.” If the only state in the world targeted for elimination is the only Jewish one, it should be an uphill battle to continue the charade that anti-Zionism is not equivalent to antisemitism, or at least driven by it to a large degree. Nevertheless, the regents’ statement is a starting point for increased civility on campuses that have seen, they note, “an increase in incidents reflecting antisemitism…. These reported incidents included vandalism targeting property associated with Jewish people or Judaism; challenges to the candidacies of Jewish students seeking to assume representative positions within student government; political, intellectual and social dialogue that is antisemitic; and social exclusion and stereotyping.”

Some critics say the statement is designed to stifle opposition to Israeli policies. Others say it could harm free speech. Yet others say it didn’t go far enough, in that it didn’t condemn bigotry against other specific groups.

None of these objections holds water. While the working group’s report might have been initiated by concerns over antisemitism, the document speaks to many other forms of intolerance: “University policy prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender expression, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), genetic information (including family medical history), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, service in the uniformed services, or the intersection of any of these factors.”

As for free speech, including, presumably, that about Israel, the document stresses the importance of freedom of expression and of inquiry: “The university will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them.” And, it notes: “Each member of the university community is entitled to speak, to be heard and to be engaged based on the merits of their views, and unburdened by historical biases, stereotypes and prejudices.”

But: “Regardless of whether one has a legal right to speak in a manner that reflects bias, stereotypes, prejudice and intolerance, each member of the university community is expected to consider his or her responsibilities as well as his or her rights … mutual respect and civility within debate and dialogue advance the mission of the university, advance each of us as learners and teachers, and advance a democratic society.”

The UN – and many others – could learn a thing or two from UC’s regents.

Proud of Canada votes

The last time there was a Liberal government in Canada, this country took a “go along to get along” approach to the annual Israel-bashing at the United Nations each autumn. Government officials offered excuses, but still our representatives at the General Assembly voted in favor of most of the one-sided attacks on the Jewish state.

Things changed when the Harper Conservatives came to office. They set Canada apart as a moral, often-isolated voice of reason in the bastion of anti-Zionists.

During the federal election this year, the Liberals promised that they would continue Canada’s support of Israel if they won the election. In their first significant test, they came through. This year’s General Assembly saw the usual raft of resolutions condemning Israel, while completely or largely ignoring the worst offenders of human rights in the world.

Proudly, Canada voted against them.

This is a very positive development, indicating that we will not slip into the ways of the past. As we had hoped, support for Israel – the only democratic regime in its region, a light to the nations in so many ways and, not insignificantly, the world’s only Jewish state – is not a partisan position, but a Canadian value.

OK to disagree

Last week, at the annual parade of speeches by world leaders at the United Nations, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas were among those using the General Assembly podium as a pulpit for their respective cases. To say there is disagreement between these two individuals is an understatement. Netanyahu rightly condemned the hypocrisy of the world, and its ostensible parliament in which he was speaking, for its ludicrous obsession with the Jewish state while parts of the Middle East literally burn. Abbas offered the “laugh line” that the Palestinians no longer need to be bound by the terms of the Oslo process. The humor, such as it is, comes from the fact that the Palestinians never bound themselves to Oslo. While Israel had a long list of obligations under the peace process, the Palestinians effectively had only one, which they have ignored: stop inciting your people to genocide and prepare them to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors. To come to the UN and make the case that they have been forced by circumstances to abandon principles they never accepted in the first place is typical of the made-for-TV claptrap this annual performance has become.

In Canada, though, we have a different problem. While others in the world find it impossible to agree on much of anything, our political leaders are finding it tough to find much of substance upon which to disagree. Oh yes, when you watch the debates and the bombardment of partisan ads, it seems like there are chasms between the parties. There really are not. Some of the differences – the number of refugees we should take in, the recipe for economic advancement, approaches to social issues – mostly come down to nuance and decimal points.

There is such a thing as too much agreement. Is it a distinctively Canadian characteristic that our politicians should careen so insipidly to the middle of the road? An election campaign is the time when parties should be ferociously demonstrating their differences. Yet when we delve into the actual policies and plans, one potential government looks much like another. This may be, thankfully, due to the fact that we are among the most fortunate people in the world, blessed with natural resources, human wealth, economic and political stability and relative peace. That’s great.

But when we do see genuine differences of policy and approach, we also see a disparaging of exactly the phenomenon we should be encouraging. It emerges in the use of the term “wedge issue.”

We have heard this a lot in recent weeks. The Conservatives are accused of using issues like the niqab and Canada’s support for Israel as wedge issues. The implication is that the very discussion of these topics divides Canada in an unwholesome manner, that the issues are being raised solely for political gain.

Well, any issue raised in an election is raised for political gain. If opposition parties think the Conservative approach to Israel or the niqab or anything else is off base, they should advance their own case and let voters decide. That’s how election campaigns are supposed to work. It is a cop-out to deflect an issue outright by dismissing it as a wedge. If anything, an election campaign is precisely the time to accentuate differences. In a little more than a week, voters can decide who is right and who is wrong.

What’s next with Iran deal

Given the copious amount that has been written on the Iran deal, we publish this summary of key points by American Jewish Congress to help readers wade through the various articles and blogs, and form their own opinion about the deal:

The historic deal with Iran intended to curb its nuclear weapons program will receive a full airing in the U.S. Congress in the next several weeks. The following is a short summary of key points to keep in mind as the debate unfolds:

Several steps must be taken before the Iran deal goes into effect. Congress has 60 days to review the deal’s terms, hold hearings, conduct a debate and take a vote in both the House and Senate.
If Congress passes a resolution of disapproval and sends it to President Barack Obama for his signature, he has 12 days to veto the resolution. The president has said already that he would take such action, if necessary.
Many members of both parties in Congress have expressed deep skepticism. Israel is lobbying hard against it; Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, also oppose the deal, but are conducting their lobbying efforts more quietly.
The deal also must be brought to the United Nations Security Council. It is unclear at this time if that will happen before or after a congressional vote.
No sanctions will be lifted before the end of this year. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) first must provide, by Dec. 15, a baseline assessment of Iran’s possible military activities relative to its past nuclear program.
The IAEA will be given “when necessary, where necessary” access to monitor Iranian compliance, with a mechanism that gives Iran up to 24 days before permitting inspectors to visit designated sites.
This “managed access” falls well short of the president’s earlier assertion that the IAEA must be allowed to have intrusive access on an “anytime, anywhere” basis.
The current UN arms embargo will remain in place for five years and UN ballistic missile sanctions will stay in place for eight years, though both time periods can be reduced if Iran is judged to be acting in full compliance with the deal.
The lifting of the arms embargo is outside the parameters set by President Obama, who repeatedly said during negotiations that only issues related to the nuclear file were legitimate subjects for compromise.
Economic sanctions against Iran will be removed in stages, with some frozen assets scheduled to be released when the deal moves to implementation by the end of the year, in which case Iran is expected to benefit from $100 billion to $150 billion in cash.
Many observers are concerned that Iran, whose current annual defence budget is approximately $30 billion, will use the influx of cash to support proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Houthi rebels in Yemen, and to foment instability throughout the region with greater funding to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the al-Quds force’s efforts in Iraq and Syria. This is on top of billions in expected oil revenues and the significant economic bump Iran is expected to enjoy through increased commerce with the international community.
Sanctions can be restored should Iran violate the deal, though most observers are highly dubious that so-called “snapback” provisions will be effective.
The deal will be terminated 10 years from the date of its adoption as long as Iran does not violate UN sanctions, though there are elements of it that have a 15-year life expectancy.

All ears on Netanyahu talk

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addresses AIPAC. (photo by Amos Ben Gershom IGPO via Ashernet)

Washington, D.C.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the AIPAC Policy Conference Monday, presaging his address to the U.S. Congress Tuesday. “Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given,” he joked, referencing the controversy around his visit.

Netanyahu said the speech was not intended to show disrespect to U.S. President Barack Obama. “I deeply appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel: security cooperation, intelligence sharing, support at the UN, and much more, some things that I, as prime minister of Israel, cannot even divulge to you because it remains in the realm of the confidences that are kept between an American president and an Israeli prime minister,” he said. “I am deeply grateful for this support, and so should you be.”

He said his purpose in coming was to “speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel.”

As prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu said, he has a moral obligation to speak up. “For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless. We were utterly powerless against our enemies who swore to destroy us. We suffered relentless persecution and horrific attacks. We could never speak on our own behalf, and we could not defend ourselves.

“Well, no more, no more,” he said. “The days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over.”

Of the controversy that surrounds his visit, and the apparent rift it illuminates, Netanyahu took the opportunity to itemize a long list of historical disagreements between the two allies.

“In 1948, Secretary of State [George] Marshall opposed David Ben-Gurion’s intention to declare statehood. That’s an understatement. He vehemently opposed it. But Ben-Gurion, understanding what was at stake, went ahead and declared Israel’s independence,” said Netanyahu.

“In 1967, as an Arab noose was tightening around Israel’s neck, the United States warned prime minister Levi Eshkol that if Israel acted alone, it would be alone. But Israel did act – acted alone to defend itself.”

He noted, “In 1981, under the leadership of Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor at Osirak: the United States criticized Israel and suspended arms transfers for three months. And, in 2002, after the worst wave of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel’s history, Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon launched Operation Defensive Shield. The United States demanded that Israel withdraw its troops immediately, but Sharon continued until the operation was completed.”

The reason he mentioned all this history, he said, was to make a point. “Despite occasional disagreements, the friendship between America and Israel grew stronger and stronger, decade after decade. And our friendship will weather the current disagreement, as well, to grow even stronger in the future. And I’ll tell you why. Because we share the same dreams. Because we pray and hope and aspire for that same better world. Because the values that unite us are much stronger than the differences that divide us. Values like liberty, equality, justice, tolerance, compassion.”

On Tuesday, Netanyahu addressed Congress, thanking Obama and the United States for support. “This Capitol dome helped build our Iron Dome,” he said.

The day before Purim, he made a parallel between Haman and Ayatollah Khamenei and outlined a litany of Iran’s sins. He warned that the agreement being negotiated “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

If all else fails, the prime minister warned, Israel will do what it needs to do. “For the first time in 100 generations, we the Jewish people can defend ourselves,” he said. “Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.” However, he added that he knows Israel does not stand alone because it has the support of the United States, an assertion that received an ovation from the combined senators and congresspeople.

Top of agenda

Fears that the controversy over Netanyahu’s speech to Congress could fragment the historic support for Israel across Democratic and Republican members of Congress pushed bipartisanship up the agenda of the 16,000-delegate AIPAC conference, which ran Sunday to Tuesday.

Former CNN anchor Frank Sesno interviewed Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on stage at the conference, primarily about Iran’s nuclear program. Both politicians were emphatic that the pro-Israel consensus would withstand the tempest.

Cardin insisted that a final agreement must be transparent and allow inspectors on the ground throughout Iran. He favors increased sanctions on Iran if no deal is reached by the March 24 deadline. He said the only reason Iran is negotiating in the first place is because of sanctions and the economic isolation they have put on the country. “We’ve got to keep the heat on,” he said.

“Diplomacy would be the right answer, rather than war,” Graham said, adding that Congress should have the right to vote on the deal. “A bad deal is a nightmare for us, Israel and the world.” He warned that if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon it would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with the Sunni countries seeking the same weaponry.

On the reactions to Netanyahu’s visit, the men were unanimous.

“Don’t lose focus,” Cardin said. “The bad guy is Iran.” He urged AIPAC delegates to put pressure on their members of Congress to support proposed legislation that would make it difficult or impossible for countries that boycott Israel to do business with the United States.

Graham, who is chair of the Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, received an ovation when he threatened to cut off money to the UN if vilification of Israel in the General Assembly continues.

The bipartisanship flag was waved again later in the day when Representative Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives, and Representative Kevin McCarthy, the Republican majority leader in the house, spoke.

Lawfare not fair

The 1975 UN General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism is that body’s most notorious attack on Israel, said Brett Schaefer, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, but there have been 20 condemnatory resolutions against Israel just in this session of the GA alone, compared with three condemnatory resolutions for every other nation.

Likewise, the UN Human Rights Council, he said, has a disproportionate focus on Israel, while ignoring serious human rights abuses elsewhere. The council’s standing agenda has one permanent item on Israel and another item covering every other country on earth.

These institutional attacks on Israel began before the latest round of “lawfare,” Palestinian leaders’ attempts to gain international recognition without negotiating directly with Israel. Schaefer outlined a long list of successful and unsuccessful attempts by the Palestinians to gain legitimacy through the UN and its agencies. Yet such efforts are in direct violation of peace negotiations, which are premised on mutual recognition and negotiation, he said.

While Palestine has been recognized by UNESCO, the UN body on culture, education and science, Schaefer said Palestine is highly unlikely to be recognized as a full member of the GA because membership must be recommended by the Security Council to the assembly and the United States would likely veto such a move.

“What this is about is Palestinians getting what they want without compromise,” he said, noting that the Palestinian leadership has prepared their people to expect nothing less than complete victory and to view compromise as betrayal. However, Schaefer added, “They’ve been pretty successful so far.” The international community is “enabling Palestinians” in avoiding peace negotiations, he said. This includes the Obama administration, according to Schaefer, which puts pressure on Israel to compromise, but not on the Palestinians. “The Palestinians see no downside to what they’re doing right now,” he said, adding that there does not appear to be any reason to change course.

Gil Troy, a professor of history at McGill University, said the UN was founded as a great healing, redeeming instrument promoting the universality of human rights, but it is now a “Third World Dictators’ Debating Society.” A coalition of Soviet-led developing countries hijacked the UN from the democracies decades ago, he said.

With 193 member-states now, Troy said, the UN represents 193 forms of nationalism, but there is only one form of nationalism that is delegitimized by the GA – the Jewish nationalism called Zionism.

A conundrum for Israel in all of this is that the UN is widely respected worldwide. “The United Nations is the greatest social services agency the world has ever seen,” Troy said. For the overwhelming majority of the world, it is a great organization helping their daily lives, therefore, if the UN hates Israel, Israel must be evil.

Schaefer said Palestinian leaders have benefited from their position as something between a government and a figurehead. “Palestinians have achieved some aspects of self-government but they don’t have any of the responsibilities of government,” he said. UNRWA and other international agencies use foreign aid to run the health, education and civil infrastructure in Palestine, so the Palestinian leaders do not have to take responsibility for their people. He said the world should force the leaders to govern their people.

Schaefer suggested that the United States begin using its own power at the UN. “The United States needs to elevate awareness among other countries that their votes at the General Assembly matter,” he said. There used to be a rule about aid to countries that do not vote with the Americans consistently, but that has been rescinded, he said.

Canada, eh?

An AIPAC session on relations between Ottawa and Jerusalem drew a respectable audience – mostly Canadians but a significant number of Americans as well – and this itself is a sign of Canada’s changed roles in the world, said Jonathan Kay. “No one would have cared what Canada thought 10 years ago,” he said.

Kay, editor of The Walrus and former editor of the National Post’s comments section, was joined on a panel by B.C. author Terry Glavin.

While Prime Minister Stephen Harper is widely credited (or condemned) for shifting Canada’s position to be more pro-Israel, Kay noted it was former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin who changed Canada’s voting patterns at the UN. Kay said he sees this shift as one of the most abrupt changes in foreign policy he’s ever seen. Canadian voting policy had been in line with European nations, he said, which meant generally anti-Israel, but it is now the most “doctrinaire pro-Israel country in the world.”

Glavin said the shift did not come from the top down. Changes in the views of the Canadian general public have been seismic, he said. Canadians had clung to the idea that their country is one of “peacemakers, not warmongers,” an “honest broker” and “not those vulgar Americans.”

As well, the presence in the Liberal and New Democratic parties of a small group of vocal anti-Israel members went largely unchecked until after the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, when there was a significant shift in what Canadians were willing to accept in terms of radical foreign-policy views, Glavin said. “Most Canadians had enough by about 2006, 2007,” he added.

The Conservative party that Harper leads is technically less than 20 years old. When the Conservatives won a majority in 2011, Glavin said, some Canadians were waiting for the creation of a “Pentecostalist Taliban State.” Instead, he said, the country has accepted thousands of gay refugees, increased aid to Palestinians and focused on maternal health in the developing world.

Kay put it more succinctly, calling the Conservatives socially liberal on gay rights and abortion in a way that has no analogue in the United States. He characterized Canada for his American audience as “like one big Vermont,” and said the Conservative government accepts gay marriage as a given and, “cats aren’t marrying dogs or whatever.”

On the Israel front, Glavin said Harper has made clear that the struggle is between “free people and tyrants,” not between Israelis and Palestinians. The engagement in Afghanistan has also changed Canadians’ views of foreign affairs, he added.

Kay believes that the 1956 Canadian “invention” of peacekeeping was a stale dogma that Canadians cherished but were eventually prepared to abandon as the country became more confident. As the threats in the world, particularly radical Islam, increased, Canadians took a different view of their own role.

Will things change if this year’s election is won by Justin Trudeau, whom Glavin said some Canadians view as a “foppish drama teacher snowboarder”?

Kay predicts Trudeau would essentially ignore the Middle East. “To the extent that he knows about stuff, it’s domestic stuff,” Kay said.

Kay credits the CBC for moderating what was once a reliably anti-Israel bias, but Glavin raised a recent incident in which CBC television host Evan Solomon asked then foreign minister John Baird if he thought it was OK to appoint a Jewish person, Vivian Bercovici, as ambassador to Israel. Glavin said that the prime minister recently appointed Kevin Vickers, the heroic sergeant-at-arms who killed the terrorist on Parliament Hill last year, ambassador to Ireland and nobody questioned the fact that an Irish Catholic was being appointed to Canada’s highest office in Dublin.

Baird reflects

Recently resigned foreign affairs minister Baird rejected the idea that strong support for Israel has damaged Canadian relations with other countries, saying that Canada has better relations with the Arab world now than it has had in years.

As foreign affairs minister, he said, his job was to promote Canadian values and interests. Supporting Israel, he said, is where those two intersect.

On Iran, Baird said, history should provide an object lesson. Hitler published Mein Kampf years before he began the “Final Solution.” The world was warned. Now Iran is promising to wipe Israel off the map.

“We’ve got to take that incredibly seriously,” he said.

Pat Johnson is a Vancouver writer and principal in PRsuasiveMedia.com.

Gillerman: “call a spade a spade”

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.

photo - Left to right, former ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman, Mayor of Victoria Lisa Helps and JNF Pacific Region shaliach Ilan Pilo — 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.

photo - 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 — 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.

Pat Johnson is a Vancouver writer and principal in PRsuasiveMedia.com.