United States

Gallup poll concerning

A Gallup poll released last week shows that, for the first time, Democratic voters in the United States sympathize more with Palestinians than with Israelis.

Among Democratic voters contacted, 49% sympathize more with the Palestinians and 38% with Israelis. Among Republicans, sympathy for Israel remains overwhelming, at 78%.

The poll should raise concerns – but not only for the most obvious reasons.

Halie Soifer, head of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, hit the nail on the head when she told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the question paints a false dichotomy. (First, though, she noted that the Democratic Party’s leadership is overwhelmingly pro-Israel, whether that is reflected across the grassroots or not.)

“Democrats – from President Biden on down – strongly support Israel’s safety and security,” she said. But, crucially, she added: “There is no contradiction between being pro-Israel and supporting Palestinian rights, which is why Democrats continue to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as security assistance for Israel and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a zero-sum game, and thus polling that presents it as a binary choice is inherently flawed.”

Calling people on the telephone at dinnertime to ask them how to solve an intransigent international conflict is not likely to advance the most constructive ideas for resolution. Simplistic formulations are inevitable, nuance flies out the door. Questions become self-reinforcing, a sort of unintentional “push poll.” (A push poll is an unethical strategy used sometimes in political campaigns intended not to gauge public opinion but to influence it: “If you knew that Candidate A had a history of drowning puppies and pulling wings off flies, would that make you more or less likely to vote for them?”)

This is not to blame Gallup, an established and respected polling firm. Their question unfortunately, reflects a common narrative, an either/or. That, as Soifer said, is a false dichotomy.

To be genuinely pro-Israel demands we be pro-Palestinian because finding a resolution to 75-plus years of conflict requires some sort of resolution to the statelessness of Palestinians. Equally, being pro-Palestinian demands we be pro-Israel, because compromise and coexistence is the only thing that will result in Palestinian self-determination.

Of course, acknowledging this is the easy part. How to behave in “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestinian” ways is the muddy part. Those who call themselves “pro-Palestinian” often behave in ways that preclude the very thing they claim to advance. By denying Israel’s right to exist, for example, they ensure that compromise is taken off the table and, since that is the route to Palestinian self-determination, they betray the very definition of “pro-Palestinian.”

Those who are “pro-Israel” also need to temper their extremes. It is fair to say that, during the Oslo process, Israelis demonstrated a consensus toward coexistence that has understandably waned since the violence of the Second Intifada. But, for example, the common and senseless mantra we see from some commentators on social media that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people” is a fruitless – and racist – squabble. Deny their history, reject the legitimacy of their land claims – there are still people there whose present and future demands a serious form of address and dignity.

To be clear: the sometimes-stated idea that the status quo cannot hold is simply not true. It has, by and large, held since 1967 and it could continue for another generation or more unless mutual compromise emerges to change that. The status quo arguably harms Palestinians more than it harms Israelis, which has led to an assumption that Israel must be in favour of the status quo. As a consequence, overseas activists have blamed Israel for the situation on the assumption that, as the perceived powerful party, it is the only one that can break the impasse. This is partly, if not mostly, untrue. Compromise must come from both sides and chants like “From the river to the sea …” and “Intifada! Revolution! There is only one solution!” the latter of which echoes Nazi slogans, will not “free Palestine.” They will, however, influence public opinion.

We should be concerned by the results of the Gallup poll – it indicates that decades of building multilateral support for Israel’s security among Americans (and, by extension almost certainly Canadians and Europeans) is failing. But, we should be concerned for another reason. It reinforces a false belief that we can only call ourselves pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. Until we can legitimately call ourselves both, none of us deserves to call ourselves “pro-peace.”

Jews in trench coats

Canadians and Americans are similar, but different. To see this obvious statement in practical terms, two books – by two authors who will speak in Vancouver next month – provide an entertaining and educational contrast.

Andrew Kirsch and Douglas London are retired spies. Well, the term “spy” is, they both readily admit, a bit laden for a job that Kirsch characterizes as a lot of “hurry up and wait” and that London describes as “hours and hours of routine, and a few moments of adrenaline.”

Kirsch is a Canadian and author of I Was Never Here: My True Canadian Story of Coffees, Codenames and Covert Operations in the Age of Terrorism. London is American and author of The Recruiter: Spying and the Lost Art of American Intelligence. They will present as part of the Cherie Smith JCC Jewish Book Festival, in an event dubbed “Jews in Trench Coats,” on Feb. 13.

Kirsch, who grew up in Toronto, left a job in the financial sector in London, England, after the 2005 terror attacks in that city and joined the Canadian Security Intelligence Services, CSIS. He describes himself as “part of a post-9/11 wave of civically minded Canadians who had left our day jobs to do our part in the age of terrorism.”

London’s career in the field was longer, symmetrically spanning 17 years on either side of 9/11, which is, obviously, the Western world’s iconic intelligence failure of the current era.

In the United States, the FBI is the domestic security service, much like our RCMP, while the CIA works almost exclusively outside the country. Similarly, in Israel, the Mossad deals with foreign intelligence and covert activities, while Shin Bet manages internal security. “In Canada, we have one organization [CSIS], and it’s responsible for covering the globe while operating largely domestically,” writes Kirsch.

The lack of awareness around CSIS is one of the reasons Kirsch wrote his book. If the CIA knocks on your door, many people around the world would know to be instantly on alert. If CSIS knocks on a Canadian’s door, Kirsch admits, it usually requires a quick spiel about what CSIS is and what it does. He also wrote the book because, when he and most of the other agents he knows first got interested, there was little to read on the subject of what they might expect.

If most Canadians don’t know what CSIS is, new Canadians can be expected to know even less. The author shares a cute anecdote about how he shorthands his role for Arabic speakers.

“The Arabic term for intelligence service is Mukhābarāt,” he writes. Obviously, somebody from an Arabic speaking country might understandably be anxious when someone knocks on the door and declares themselves representatives of the security service.

“I’d simply say, ‘Canadian Mukhābarāt. Nice Mukhābarāt.’ That might get a laugh and a foot in the door,” he said.

In typical Canadian fashion, Kirsch downplays the drama. He’s no James Bond.

“These aren’t high-stakes negotiations over baccarat and cocktails at a casino. It’s much less glamorous. I was in the coffee and conversations business,” he writes. Nevertheless, he charms with amusing anecdotes, foibles and practical jokes (he and his former colleagues are serious and professional, he insists, but they need to blow off steam). One gets to know the man and the organization.

While Kirsch is modest in speaking of his work and that of CSIS, he makes their significance clear.

“Canada is one of the safest countries in the world. This is not because we don’t face threats, but because we do an admirable job of protecting our citizens against them,” he writes. “That is how law enforcement and intelligence agencies tend to work. If we do our job, you won’t know we were ever needed in the first place.”

One of the most notable incidents in recent history when the work of CSIS did hit the front pages was the foiled Toronto 18 plot in 2006, when a cadre of radicalized Canadians plotted to explode truck bombs in southern Ontario. That was a disaster that didn’t happen because of intelligence, but Kirsch acknowledges tragedies where intelligence failed.

In 2014, for example, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau shot and killed Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, a soldier who was standing guard at the National War Memorial, and then stormed Parliament Hill but was killed before he could reach the heart of our democracy.

And just because Canadians have been blessedly fortunate not to suffer more terrorism doesn’t mean Canadians aren’t involved in some of the horrors we see abroad. A Vancouverite was convicted in absentia for involvement in a suicide bomb attack on Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria, in 2012. Five Israelis and the bus driver were killed and more than 35 other Israelis injured.

Kirsch admits he was worn down by the bureaucracy of the job, but his decision to leave the agency was based on family obligations, when his wife became pregnant. He clearly holds CSIS and his former colleagues in great esteem.

London’s reflections are not so kind. He calls the CIA in the last couple of decades “a cult of personality.”

“The senior ranks became an ever more homogenous collection cut from the same mold, focused more on ambition than the mission, the organization, or the workforce,” writes London. “While there were thankfully brilliant exceptions, the cadre had drunk their own Kool-Aid as to their own brilliance and worth.”

London also paints a more dramatic picture than his Canadian counterpart – not surprising, given the lopsided size and prominence of their respective organizations in the world.

There is cajoling involved in recruiting people to the CIA. One of the crucial tasks of a successful operations officer is determining a person’s motivations. To one potential recruit, London said, “It was Allah’s will that we meet … so we can together accomplish something bigger than ourselves.” In this case, it was an appeal to religious and national pride, not material reward. In other cases, material reward was enveloped in a person’s (usually a man’s) sense of providing for family, in which case London would emphasize that the “ability to contribute modestly to your family’s well-being” was something that would be undertaken by a good family man, not a traitor to his country.

London writes about antisemitism he encountered from among colleagues – especially fellow recruits early in his career, many of whom had never met a New Yorker, let alone a Jew. Both authors write of keeping their Jewishness under the radar. Occasionally, a throwaway comment could still stun.

Kirsch was meeting with a Sunni Muslim who was ranting about his hatred of Shia Muslims.

“And he rolled back into his seat and he stroked his big bushy beard and said, ‘You know, Andrew, they are worse than the Jews.’

“I don’t think I’ve ever felt more Jewish than in that moment,” writes London.

In an amusing observation near the end of his book, London claims people in his business are notorious yentas.

“It’s a pity really that confidentiality considerations prevent the creation of a People magazine, Us Weekly or TMZ program for the agency. Perhaps ironic, but the very same people hired to protect our nation’s most guarded national secrets are absolutely the biggest gossips.”

London proves this in a book that is as juicy as CIA censors would allow.

Jews in Trench Coats, featuring London and Kirsch, takes place at 6 p.m., Monday, Feb. 16. Tickets are $18. The JCC Jewish Book Festival runs Feb. 11-16, with free and ticketed events for all ages. Details at jccgv.com/jewish-book-festival.

מקטאר לוונקובר

צלום: Province of British Columbia

לאחר סיום המונדיאל האחרון בקטאר לפני שבועות מספר, מתחילה ההיערכות למונדיאל הבא – אליפות העולם שתיערך לראשונה בשלוש מדינות בו זמנית: ארצות הברית, מקסיקו וקנדה. זאת בעוד כשלוש וחצי שנים: בחודשים יוני ויולי בשנת אלפיים עשרים ושש

הטורניר בצפון אמריקה יכלול יותר מקומות לאפריקה ומרכז אמריקה, העפלה צפויה של ניו זילנד, שדרוג מזערי לאירופה ורמה נמוכה בשלב הבתים. המארחות ארה”ב, קנדה ומקסיקו כבר מתחילות להיערך לקראת אירוח המונדיאל הראשון שיכלול לא פחות מארבעים ושמונה נבחרות

אחרי סיום המשחקים בקטאר, בעולם הכדורגל מתחילים להביט קדימה אל עבר טורניר הבא שיתקיים בארצות הברית, קנדה ומקסיקו. כיוון שהטורניר בקטאר התקיים בינואר (לאור החום הכבד בקיץ שם), אוהדי הכדורגל ימתינו רק שלוש שנים וחצי עד המונדיאל הבא ולא ארבע כמו בדרך כלל. כידוע, למרות הביקורות הקשות, המונדיאל הבא יתקיים בפורמט שונה. יותר נבחרות, יותר משחקים ויותר שחקנים. לטענת הרבה מאוד מבקרים, גם צפויה רמה נמוכה מאוד של משחקים בשלב הבתים – לאור העפלה של נבחרות בינוניות ואף פחות מכך. הרחבת המונדיאל של צפון אמריקה תסייע בעיקר לנבחרות מאפריקה, אסיה מרכז וצפון אמריקה, וגם לניו זילנד. מי שייהנו פחות מכך באופן יחסי, הן הנבחרות הטובות יותר השייכות ליבשות של אירופה ודרום אמריקה. שם בית המוקדמות יכלול עשר נבחרות, ועשויות לעלות לשלבים המתקדמים לא פחות משמונה מהן. הסיפור המעניין מגיע הפעם מצפון ומרכז אמריקה. זאת כיוון ששלוש המארחות (ארצות הברית, מקסיקו וקנדה) עולות אוטומטית למונדיאל. ולכן ייפתחו שלושה מקומות נוספים ושתי נבחרות נוספות יגיעו לפלייאוף. בסופו של דבר יכול להיות שיהיו שמונה נציגות משם מצפון ומרכז אמריקה. ניו זילנד, שמאז הצטרפות אוסטרליה למוקדמות באסיה תמיד מסיימת במקום הראשון באוקיאניה, תהיה פייבוריטית ברורה לעלייה אוטומטית. נבחרת איי שלמה במוקדמות 2022 הגיעה לגמר נגד האול וייטס, תעפיל עד לפלייאוף אם שוב תסיים כסגנית

נבחרות כמו ג’מייקה, טרינידד וטובגו ואל סלבדור ייאבקו על חזרה לגביע העולמי ובדרום אמריקה ונצואלה – היחידה שמעולם לא עשתה זאת – יכולה לחלום על הופעת בכורה בזכות העובדה ששבעים אחוזים מהמתחרות בתמונה העלייה. השינוי היחיד שזוכה למשוב חיובי מכל הכיוונים הוא בשיטת הפלייאוף. במונדיאל אלפיים עשרים ושתיים למשל, הגיעו לפלייאוף ניו זילנד, פרו, קוסטה ריקה ואוסטרליה, בהגרלה עיוורת נקבעו שני משחקים שהניבו שתי עולות. בפורמט החדש שלב הפלייאוף יתקיים בשיטת ליגה אינטרקונטיננטלית, שתכלול שש נבחרות מחמש יבשות. הן ישחקו אחת נגד השנייה ושתי הראשונות יעפילו למונדיאל

הטורניר של המונדיאל אלפיים עשרים ושש ייערך בשישה עשר אצטדיונים שונים. אחד עשר בערים האלה בארצות הברית: ניו ג’רזי/ניו יורק, דאלאס, קנזס סיטי, יוסטון, אטלנטה, לוס אנג’לס, פילדלפיה, סיאטל, סן פרנסיסקו, בוסטון ומיאמי. שלושה בערים האלה במקסיקו: מקסיקו סיטי, גוודלחרה ומונטריי. שניים בערים האלה בקנדה: טורונטו וונקובר

למרות שהתאחדות הכדורגל העולמית (פיפ”א) החליטו לפני מספר שנים לשחק בפורמט של שישה עשר בתים, שיכללו שלוש נבחרות כל אחד, ייתכן שהתוכנית לא תצא אל הפועל במונדיאל של ארצות הברית, מקסיקו וקנדה. ויתכן שהמונדיאל הצפון אמריקני יתקיים באותה מתכונת ידועה של ארבע נבחרות בכל בית ובסך הכל מדובר בשנים עשר בתים. זאת מתוך רצון לשמור על תחרותיות עד המחזור האחרון של שלב הבתים. לפי התכנון המקורי הפורמט החדש: שישה עשר בתים כאשר יש שלוש נבחרות בכל אחד מהם (בהן אירופית אחת בכל בית). שתי הראשונות עולות לשלב פלייאוף שכולל שלושים ושניים נבחרות וממנו מעפילות לשמינית הגמר

משחקי גביע העולם הבאים בארצות הברית, מקסיקו וקנדה מבטיחים ככל הנראה רגיעה מסוימת בכל הנוגע לתאונות בנייה. זאת לעומת המחדלים הנוראיים שהתרחשו במונדיאל האחרון שנערך בקטאר. המונדיאל העשרים ושלוש במספר יתקיים בשלוש המדינות של צפון אמריקה (ארצות הברית, מקסיקו וקנדה) מצוידות באצטדיונים שהוקמו זה מכבר, בהבדל מאלה בקטאר. מרבית האיצטדיונים במדינות שיארחו את המונדיאל הבא הוקמו בחלקם במאה הקודמת ואחרים בשנים האחרונות. הידוע מביניהם שהפך

למיתוס הוא אצטדיון האצטקה במקסיקו סיטי, שבו נכבש “שער יד האלוהים” על ידי דייגו מראדונה, בשנת אלף תשע מאות שמונים ושש, במשחק רבע הגמר במונדיאל נגד אנגליה. לקראת המונדיאל הקרוב של ארצות הברית, מקסיקו וקנדה, צפוי שכמה מהאצטדיונים בהם יתקיימו משחקי הכדורגל יעברו שידרוג ושיפוץ ואף מספר המושבים יגדל משמעותית. יש להאמין שהפעם בניגוד למה שקרה בקטאר וללא הצדקה, העבודות השונות לא יביאו למותם של פועלים. אם זאת יש לזכור שבמונדיאל הקרוב של צפון אמריקה יש אלמנט שלילי מאוד משמעותי והוא: המרחקים הארוכים בין אתרי המשחקים של ארצות הברית, מקסיקו וקנדה. אלו יצריכו נסיעות וטיסות של מאות ואלפי קילומטרים. כך שהנוחות לא תהיה במיטבה באליפות העולם בכדורגל הבאה

הנבחרות של ארצות הברית וקנדה שהבטיחו כבר אוטומטית את השתתפותן במונדיאל של צפון אמריקה, מחפשות מסגרת איכותית להתחרות בה, במסגרת ההכנות שלהן לגביע העולם הביתי שלהן. זאת, כיוון שלא ישתתפו במוקמות של הבית הצפון אמריקאי לקראת המונדיאל. על כן שתי הנבחרות המארחות של אליפות העולם בכדורגל הבאה פנו לאחרונה התאחדות הכדורגל של דרום אמריקה, וביקשו להשתתף במשחקי אליפות דרום אמריקה לנבחרות, קופה אמריקה, שיערכו בשנת אלפיים עשרים וארבע. בכירים בהתאחדות הדרום אמריקנית מציינים כי אין להם התנגדות לצרף את ארצות הברית וקנדה למשחקי קופה אמריקה הבאים. לעומתן, נבחרת מקסיקו לא בוחנת לפי שעה להצטרף למשחקי הקופה אמריקה. יצויין כי מקסיקו השתתפה בקופה אמריקה בקביעות עד אלף תשע מאות תשעים ושלוש

אליפות הקופה אמריקה של שנת אלפיים עשרים וארבע, בה תשתתף נבחרת ארגנטינה כאלופה המכהנת החדשה, הייתה אמורה להתקיים באקוודור. זאת בהתאם לסבב הקבוע שנהוג בהתאחדות הדרום אמריקאית. אך אקוודור דחתה את האפשרות לארח את המשחקים ובשלב זה טרם ידוע היכן תיערך האליפות הדרום אמריקנית בכדורגל. יש סיכוי מסויים כי ארצות הברית עשויה לארח את קופה אמריקה, כמובן אם יאושר שהיא תוכל להשתתף באליפות. ארצות הברית אגב שיחקה כבר בקופה אמריקה ארבע פעמים. בשנת אלפיים ושש עשרה היא אף אף אירחה את הטורניר, במהדורה המיוחדת לכבוד מאה שנים שנים למפעל המכובד, שכללה גם שש נבחרות מצפון אמריקה. לעומת זאת קנדה מעולם לא השתתפה בטורניר הדרום אמריקני

נבחרת קנדה בכדורגל ממוקמת כיום במקום החמישים ושלושה בעולם, לפי רשימת הדירוג של פיפ”א. הנבחרת הקנדית הצליחה להעפיל לגביע העולם בכדורגל רק פעמיים: בשנת אלף תשע מאות שמונים ושש ולמונדיאל האחרון שנערך בקטאר. לעומת זאת הנבחרת הצליחה יותר באליפות של צפון ומרכז אמריקה, ואף זכתה בה בשנת אלפיים. ואילו בשנים אלפיים ושתיים ואלפיים ושבע הגיעה קנדה למקום השלישי. באלפיים ואחת הגיע קנדה למקומות שלוש-ארבע. הרכב הנבחרת הקנדית כולל כיום תשעה שחקנים המשתתפים במשחקי הכדורגל של הליגה קנדה. מדובר: בשישה המשחקים בקבוצה של מונטריאול, שניים המשחקים בקבוצה של טורונטו ואחד המשחק בקבוצה של ונקובר ואיטקאפס

Democracy in danger

A pageant of pandemonium consumed the United States House of Representatives last week as it took 15 votes to confirm Kevin McCarthy as speaker. The chaos was caused by a group of far-right congresspeople representing less than five percent of the total House membership. Eventually, McCarthy triumphed – well, squeaked through – by cutting backroom deals that will empower the extremists and weaken the office of the speaker.

Although the holdouts are on the far-right fringes of American society, personality was a major factor in the weeklong deadlock. The opponents have issues with McCarthy as a person and a politician as much as they have with his policies. To succeed, McCarthy had to agree to concessions and cough up inducements that defile the dignity of his office and put the House of Representatives in jeopardy of being hopelessly deadlocked and dysfunctional.

An analogous situation is unfolding in Israel, where Binyamin Netanyahu has returned to the prime ministership. To do so, he had to make some very grubby deals with some very distasteful people.

Here, too, personalities were at play, as much as policies. There is a swath of centre-right politicians who would have joined a coalition that was not headed by Netanyahu. As a result, to regain power, Netanyahu was forced to make deals with far-right figures who should never have been considered for inclusion in a democratic government.

Both of these situations speak to an unfortunate reality of parliamentary democracy. When a bloc fails to attain a comfortable majority, they can find themselves dependent on the support of narrowly focused, ideologically driven extremists that represent very few voters. In many cases, the extremist tail ends up wagging the dog.

This is regrettable and it is sometimes inevitable. Democracy is by no means without its downsides. In fact, Winston Churchill’s aphorism – “Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried” – resonates here.

The foundational piece of democracy is free elections and the peaceful transition of power, a cornerstone that was attacked on Jan. 6 two years ago at the U.S. Capitol. That cornerstone is now under siege in Brazil, in a striking parallel – as if the supporters of defeated former president Jair Bolsonaro directly stole the playbook of the American Republicans’ “stop the steal” scheme to subvert the 2020 U.S. election.

Violent protesters ransacked Brazilian government buildings this week, stealing weapons and artifacts and vandalizing facilities. Brazil does not have as long a history of democratic infrastructure as Israel or the United States, which could make it more vulnerable to attack. One core difference in the Brazilian case, versus the Israeli or American situation, is that the threats, at this point, are coming from outside the government – the protesters are supporters of a defeated (and possibly self-exiled) former leader. In the United States, the insurgents have an apparent stranglehold on one of the houses of Congress and, in Israel, are fully in charge.

The biggest concern in a democracy comes when the extremist tail that wags the dog not only influences policies but actually begins chipping away at the institutional underpinnings of democracy itself. This is a legitimate concern in Israel, as some partners in the coalition are threatening the judicial system, the functioning of police and the very definition of Israeli citizenship. The vote for U.S. House speaker did not itself represent a threat to democracy, though the final votes poignantly took place on the second anniversary of the insurrection that was the greatest attack on American democracy since the Civil War – a moment from which the country and its democratic foundations still reel. And continued dysfunction in the House portends a difficult road ahead for U.S. democracy as voters tire of do-nothing legislative bodies and what some perceive as broken political systems.

Both Israel and the United States are on unprecedented precipices. (Brazil, ironically, probably less so.) However, in both Israel and the United States, entrenched civil society organizations and strong parliamentary opponents are in place to monitor and bolster the fundamentals of their societies. Those on the (geographical and/or ideological) outside should support in every way we can the movements for democracy, pluralism and tolerance in Israel, the United States and everywhere in the world where these values are threatened, including if we see dangers to them here at home.

Concerning elections

On Remembrance Day, we reflect on the sacrifices made by Canadians who fought to defend freedom. Many of us recall the solemnity of our childhoods standing in a school auditorium, first beginning to understand the meaning behind the poem “In Flanders Fields” and the moment of silence.

Similar ceremonies occur worldwide, including in places where the loss of life in wars has been far greater and more recent than our nation’s experience.

At the same time, it is impossible not to reflect on how some of the messages of tolerance, coexistence and peace seem to have been lost on leaders of various countries – as well as those who vote for them.

Across Europe, the Americas and some other places, extremism is growing. Far-right governments in Italy, Poland and Hungary advance xenophobic and scapegoating policies. While not yet reaching the highest echelons of power, far-right groups in Germany and France are growing in popularity. The defeat of Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s extreme-right and volatile president, is a bright spot, though the leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who beat him only by a hair, demonstrated in his previous term as president that he is also no archetype of impeccable governance.

Enormously alarming were this week’s midterm elections in the United States. More than half of the Republican candidates for Congress and state offices, including crucial officials who oversee election processes, are “election deniers” who claim that the 2020 presidential race was not rightfully won by Joe Biden. The refusal of the former president to acknowledge defeat and accede to the peaceful transition of power, hand-in-hand with the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, represent the greatest threat to American democracy since that country’s Civil War. The last two years have shown how fragile this form of governance is and how dependent it is on the goodwill of its participants to abide by the rules and accept the will of the people. The fact that about half of American voters don’t seem the least bit bothered by this reality is the scariest part.

Then, and by no means least, are the results of Israel’s most recent national elections. The good news is that, after five elections in three years, the country will apparently have a stable coalition government. The bad news is that it will include individuals whose political and moral values should be scorned by people who support democracy, pluralism and respect. Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the third-largest bloc, was forbidden from serving in the Israel Defence Forces because military leaders deemed him too extreme. Until he decided to get serious about politics, Ben-Gvir had a framed photo in his home of Baruch Goldstein, the extremist who murdered 29 Palestinians in Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994. His policies include annexing the West Bank and forcibly expelling (at least some of) its residents, an idea that is, put mildly, against international law, and would almost certainly lead to a serious regional conflagration.

Israelis must deal with the situation they have created. Diaspora Jews and other supporters of Israel have a tough row to hoe as well.

Jewish organizations worldwide have issued unprecedented statements of concern and condemnation about internal Israeli affairs. There has always been tension, ranging from a low simmer to a full boil, between Israel and the Diaspora over a vast range of issues. Israelis, we must state, are the ones who put their lives, and those of their children, on the line to defend the Jewish state and they alone have the right to determine its direction. This does not mean, however, that the opinions and concerns of overseas family and allies do not matter.

Israel has always lacked dependable overseas allies. In far too many instances, this has been an unfair situation driven by geopolitical issues and, to an extent, bigotry and antisemitism. But Israel is not entirely blameless in its isolation. Decades ago, Golda Meir said, “I prefer to stay alive and be criticized than be sympathized.” Sometimes, Israel needs to make unpopular choices in the interest of its security.

There are moments when Israel’s hand has been forced, when its leaders have made choices that are unpopular among outside observers but deemed necessary for national security. This is not one of those moments. Israeli voters have chosen some extremely unsavoury people to represent them. They have sown the wind. It is the responsibility of decent people in Israel and abroad – including Jewish institutions – to advocate for tolerance and human rights in order to moderate the inevitable storm.

Games, fun and serious

Team Canada’s 600-strong contingent marched into the opening ceremonies of the quadrennial Maccabiah Games July 14 at Jerusalem’s Teddy Coliseum. They were led by a trio of flagbearers – Toronto’s Molly Tissenbaum, a hockey goalie who has overcome serious health challenges to return to the ice, and Calgary twins Conaire and Nick Taub, volleyball players who are slated to enrol at the University of British Columbia in the fall. Canada sent the fourth largest team to the 21st “Jewish Olympics,” after Israel, the United States and Argentina.

The flag-bearing trio, their 600 teammates and about 10,000 others streamed into the stadium at the start of the largest-ever Maccabiah Games. Also on hand was an American visitor, President Joe Biden, who was the first U.S. leader to attend the event, flanked by Israel’s President Isaac Herzog and Prime Minister Yair Lapid.

The trio of leaders appeared jubilant, and no doubt there is a natural bond between Biden and Lapid that neither shares with either the former U.S. president Donald Trump or the once and possibly future Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who had a legendary bromance together.

While athletes began their friendly skirmishing for medals, the politicians began skirmishing themselves, around issues more existential than soccer scores.

Whatever personal affinity Biden and Lapid might share is at least partly restrained by reality. Lapid took over from Naftali Bennett as a sort of caretaker during the election campaign. Whether he remains leader after the votes are counted in November looks, at this point, less than likely.

Far more importantly, the two leaders disagree on the approach to Iran’s nuclear threat.

“Words will not stop them, Mr. President,” Lapid told Biden in their joint public remarks. “Diplomacy will not stop them. The only thing that will stop Iran is knowing that … if they continue to develop their nuclear program, the free world will use force. The only way to stop them is to put a credible military threat on the table.”

Biden has returned the United States to the Obama administration’s approach, aiming to revive the 2015 agreement between Iran and the West, which was supposed to slow that country’s march to nuclear capability. Trump withdrew the United States from the deal.

After Biden left Israel and headed to Saudi Arabia, words heated up dramatically Sunday. A top aide to the Iranian leader asserted that Iran already has the capability of creating a nuclear bomb but has chosen not to do so. In response, Aviv Kochavi, head of the Israel Defence Forces, responded with uninhibited forewarning.

“The IDF continues to prepare vigorously for an attack on Iran and must prepare for every development and every scenario,” Kochavi said, adding that, “preparing a military option against the Iranian nuclear program is a moral obligation and a national security order.” At the centre of the IDF’s preparations, he added, are “a variety of operational plans, the allocation of many resources, the acquisition of appropriate weapons, intelligence and training.”

Meanwhile, the inevitable moving pieces of Middle East politics continued shifting.

Biden walked a fine line, visually demonstrated by his choice to fist-bump rather than embrace the Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman, who has on his hands the blood of dismembered journalist, author and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, whose grisly murder at a Saudi consulate in Turkey shocked the world. Rumours of warming relations between Saudia Arabia and Israel – the rumours go from the opening of Saudi airspace to Israeli planes, to the full-on recognition of Israel – remain mostly that. Saudis reiterated the old orthodoxy that relations would never develop until there is a Palestinian state.

The United Arab Emirates, meanwhile, is openly mooting returning to diplomatic relations with Iran after six years. The UAE has sided with the Saudis against Iran in the ongoing proxy war in Yemen, but the Emiratis are making noises about “deescalating” tensions.

Back in Israel, meanwhile, divergent approaches to issues foreign and domestic are very much on the front burner. With the diplomatic niceties of welcoming the leader of Israel’s most important ally now in the past, parties are holding their primaries to select their leaders and lists for the Nov. 1 vote – the fifth since April 2019 – and forming new partnerships that reshape the landscape in advance of the nitty-gritty campaigning to come.

Much closer in time, the Maccabiah Games close Tuesday, with final results expected to be more definitive than the national election, which will almost inevitably end up with weeks of negotiations leading to a tenuous coalition government.

New era in U.S. politics

The explosive debate around abortion spurred by the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of a woman’s right to reproductive self-determination reminds us that the Jewish perspective on the topic is nuanced.

“Jewish law approaches each case according to its particular circumstances,” notes an article at chabad.org. This central dictum of halachah, Jewish law, makes generalizations difficult. One thing is almost universally accepted: abortion can be halachically required if the life of the mother is in danger.

In 2015, 83% of American Jews told Pew Research Forum that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, which is more than any other religious group, a finding around Jewish support for reproductive choice that has been true for decades. However, a story from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency recently noted that a growing alignment between some Orthodox Jews and the Republican party in the United States has led a minority of Jews to adopt what has been largely a conservative Christian approach to the subject.

The Orthodox Union released a statement that they are “unable to either mourn or celebrate” the court’s overturning of Roe. Their position is that an outright ban is unacceptable under Jewish law, but that abortion should be limited to cases where the mental or physical health of the mother is at stake, with an emphasis on the preservation of life. Further, they stated that abortion should be available regardless of someone’s economic status.

The tectonic decision by the court, overturning 49 years of precedent set by the landmark Roe v. Wade case, has set in motion frenetic activity across that country and beyond. State officials have had the issue thrown into their laps. The United States will become a patchwork of regulations on the subject. The ruling has led to triumphant celebrations by opponents of abortion and it has reenergized those endorsing reproductive freedom. What all of this will mean, not only for abortion rights but for social movements and society more broadly, can only be remotely imagined at this point.

The abortion decision was only one of several massive reversals of existing norms the U.S. court issued in its session. In other cases, the court made it more difficult for lower jurisdictions to limit access to firearms, weakened the power of federal agencies to address climate change and struck down a ruling that limited prayer in public schools (in this specific case, Christian prayer at school football games).

The succession of cases throws down a gauntlet that most people – whatever their opinions – knew was coming when the former president appointed three justices to the court, creating a 6-3 conservative majority.

In many cases, though, these decisions are deeply out of step with what the majority of the population believes. Of course, court rulings should not necessarily mirror societal norms. Historically, courts have made society-altering decisions in spite of opposition – desegregating public schools against the wishes of white racists, for instance. Leaving aside philosophy, public opinion may not be able to impact a Supreme Court packed with political appointees (three of whom testified in their nomination hearings that the abortion question was settled law) but public opinion will change society.

Anti-abortion activists (and anti-climate, anti-secularism and anti-gun control activists) have been celebrating their big wins in these cases.

In 1973, as pro-reproductive choice activists were celebrating their Supreme Court win, a new movement was gaining its footing. It would develop into one of the biggest, most powerful movements in American history, a new conservatism that led, among many other social and economic changes, to the elections of Ronald Reagan, two Bushes and Donald Trump. And it accomplished one of the core objectives it set out to address: it tipped the scales of the Supreme Court and stripped women of rights they have had since 1973.

Those who were celebrating in 1973 are today experiencing a vast array of emotions: grief, disillusionment, fear. But also rage, determination and purpose.

As the Roe decision did in 1973, last month’s ruling will launch a new movement that, like the new conservatism before it, will address a broad range of social issues and injustices. It was impossible, 49 years ago, to foresee the changes that would come. Whichever side one may be on, be assured that we have entered a new era.

רכישות צבאיות על ידי ממשלת קנדה

רכישה ראשונה: קנדה החליטה לרכוש את המטוס המפציץ החמקן אף שלושים וחמש

לאור פלישת רוסיה לאוקראינה הבינו בקנדה שיש להיערך ברצינות לאיומים שבדרך. ממשלת קנדה הליברלית בראשות ראש הממשלה, ג’סטין טרודו, החליטה סוף סוף לרכוש מטוסי קרב אמריקנים חדישים. מדובר על המטוסים המפציצים החמקנים מסוג אף שלושים וחמש, מתוצרת לוקהיד מרטין. כך אישרה בהודעתה לעיתונות שרת ההגנה הקנדית, אניטה אנאנד. ממשלת קנדה העדיפה איפוא את המטוסים האמריקנים על פני מטוסי גריפן של חברת סאאב השבדית. המטוסים החדישים האמריקנים יחליפו את המטוסים הישנים של חיל האוויר הקנדי מסוג סי.אף שמונה עשרה. בעבר ממשלת קנדה השמרנית בראשות ראש הממשלה דאז, סטיבן הרפר, החליטה לרכוש את מטוסי הקרב האמריקנים המפציצים החמקנים החדישים. אך לאחריה ממשלת טרודו הורידה את הנושא מסדר היום שלה לפני למעלה משש שנים, כאמור עד ימים אלה. אין ספק שהמשבר החמור הנוכחי באוקראינה השפיע על ממשלת טרודו, שהודיעה כאמור על פתיחת המשא ומתן רציני עם היצרנית לוקהיד מרטין, לרכישת המטוסים היקרים

ממשלת טרודו תרכוש בסך הכל שמונים ושמונה מטוסים בסכום אדיר של כחמישה עשר מילארד דולר (אמריקני), עבור חיל האוויר הקנדי. בחודשים הקרובים צפויה להיחתם עסקת הענק בין הצדדים. בשלב ראשון יסופקו לקנדה שלושים וחמישה מטוסים מסוג האף שלושים וחמש, וזאת בתוך שלוש השנים הבאות

יצויין שבמקרה חירום צבאות ארצות הברית וקנדה יגנו במשותף על המרחב האוויר של שתי המדינות המקיימות יחסי שכנות ידידותיים הדוקים מאוד. ובמקרה כזה שתי המדינות יוגדרו כמדינה אחת

עם תחילת העבודה של יצור מטוסי המפציצים החמקנים אף שלושים וחמש, שהושקעו בו למעלה מארבע מאות מילארד דולר (אמריקני), גייסו האמריקנים שבע מדינות נוספות, שיתתפו בפרוייקט היוקרתי והיקר. מדובר במדינות הבאות: קנדה, בריטניה, איטליה, הולנד נורווגיה, דנמרק ואוסטרליה. תשע מדינות נוספות הבטיחו לאמריקנים לרכוש אף הן את המטוסים אף שלושים וחמש היקרים. מדובר במדינות הבאות: ישראל, בלגיה, פינלנד, גרמניה, יפן, פולין, סינגפור, דרום קוריאה ושווייץ

רכישה שנייה: אלביט מערכות תספק מערכת אווירית לצבא קנדה בסכום של כתשעה מיליון דולר אמריקני

חברת אלביט מערכות הישראלית אמורה לספק מערכת שליטה ובקרה לצבאי הקנדי, בסכום של כתשעה מיליון דולר (אמריקני). המערכת אמורה להציג תמונה אווירית מלאה ולאפשר תיאום יעיל ובקרה של כלי הטיס במרחב הקנדי. וכן תקשור ליישומים ולמערכות שליטה ובקרה קיימות של צבא קנדה. המערכת החדישה של אלביט מערכות שתסופק לצבאי של קנדה, תתמוך במשימות אוויריות ובפעולות צבאיות משותפות של פיקוד היבשה, פקיוד האוויר והפיקוד המשותף. המערכת האווירית מבוססת על מערכת צבא “יבשה” דיגיטלית שאלביט מערכות פיתחה לפני מספר שנים, ונמצאת בשימוש פעיל על ידי צה”ל

ממשלת קנדה בראשות ראש הממשלה, ג’סטין טרודו, החליטה לרכוש את המערכת של אלביט מערכות הישראלית, במסגרת פרויקט שדרוג מערך התיאום האווירי של הכוחות הטקטיים. הצבא הקנדי יש לציין, רוצה כבר זמן רב מערכת דיגיטלית שתאפשר התמצאות מצבית במרחב האווירי, תוך תיאום אווירי משופר וניהול המערך שלו על ידי מטה הפיקוד הצבאי

יצוין כי אלביט מערכות זכתה לאחרונה במכרז ענקי של חיל האוויר של איחוד האמירויות, לאספקת מערכות הגנה מבוססות לייזר אינפרה אדום, ומערכות לוחמה אלקטרוניות – בסכום של חמישים ושלושה מיליון דולר (אמריקני)

במקביל אלביט מערכות זכתה לאחרונה במכרז נוסף גדול של חיל האוויר של בריטניה, לאספקת מערכות אלקטרוניות להגברת יכולות הלוחמה – בסכום של כמאה מיליון דולר (אמריקני)

Novel informed by life

Alina Adams, author of The Nesting Dolls, spoke at a recent Zoom webinar organized by the Jewish Community Centre of Victoria. (photo from alinaadams.com)

New York City-based writer Alina Adams, author of the 2020 novel The Nesting Dolls – about three generations of Russian-Jewish women – spoke at a Jan. 27 Zoom webinar organized by the Jewish Community Centre of Victoria.

Adams began with her personal story. Born in the port city of Odessa, she spent the first seven years of her life in a communal apartment: a dwelling, including kitchen and bathroom, that was shared by two families.

“As I mention in The Nesting Dolls, these relationships were not always positive. My parents were lucky in that they got along well with the people they were assigned to share with,” said Adams.

In 1976, her parents decided to emigrate. Two years earlier, the United States had passed the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which linked U.S. trade with the free movement of Jews and other groups in the Communist bloc.

“I like to say we were traded for wheat,” Adams quipped.

To those leaving the USSR, she said, “it was like stepping off the edge of the earth. You didn’t know where you were going, you didn’t know what life would be like when you were there, and you certainly knew you couldn’t come back.”

The family’s first stop was Vienna. From there, they took a bus to Rome, where they stayed for four months before traveling on to North America in January 1977, first to New York and then to San Francisco.

Adams recounted some of the reactions upon coming to America in the 1970s as a young child: for example, the surprise of watching a television screen in full colour. It was television, namely soap operas, that Adams later credited for helping her learn English.

The young immigrant started out in a Jewish day school, where the differences in various customs – her life in the new versus the old world – became very apparent. Parents in North America, she recalled, did not send their kids to school in the same dress every day; they used Band-Aids instead of green antiseptic to treat cuts; and, if their child had the sniffles, they did not place the child’s feet in hot water and then into socks filled with dried mustard.

Over time, Adams and her family got the hang of life in America. She graduated high school and college. All along, she knew she wanted to be a writer.

“My parents claim my first words were ‘pencil’ and ‘paper,’” said Adams. “And what’s the advice all writers get? Write about what you know. Well, what did I know? I knew about being a Soviet immigrant. I knew about living a culture that wasn’t mine.”

Publishers, at first, were not interested in those themes. Nonetheless, an editor at Avon Publishing did like her writing and contacted Adams, asking if she would write a Regency romance. This would become The Fictitious Marquis, a unique book in the Regency romance genre in that Jews are central characters.

Adams now has more than a dozen titles to her credit, including mysteries, books on figure skating (non-fiction) and other romances.

About four years ago, Adams’ literary agent told her that editors were becoming interested in Russia, and this led Adams to write The Nesting Dolls. The novel begins in the Soviet Union of the 1930s and ends in 21st-century, pre-pandemic Brighton Beach, in New York City. It focuses on the lives of three generations of Russian Jewish women in one family; the periods parallel those of Adams’ grandmother, mother and herself.

For Adams, it is the everyday events that are the most fascinating part of writing historical fiction. “Anyone can look up which date Nikita Khrushchev denounced Joseph Stalin, but it is the small details which make historical fiction compelling,” she said.

As an example, she pointed to a personal account she used in the novel. According to her mother, Adams did not want to be breastfed. This caused her mother to go to a doctor and ask him to write up a prescription for yogurt. “These are the little things, in this case how difficult it was to get regular foodstuffs in the Soviet Union, that bring a situation to life and show the reader what an era was like,” said Adams.

The novel was scheduled to be released in 2019 but was delayed to 2020, which, for Adams, turned out to be a blessing for the story’s timeline, in that she wasn’t finishing it during the pandemic. The last section of the book takes place in pre-pandemic Brooklyn in summer. “The things my characters do in the summer of 2019, they could not have done in the summer of 2020,” she said.

Adams lives in New York with her husband and their three children. She has written about her interracial, interfaith and intercultural family for Interfaith Family Magazine and the Forward, and has written columns and articles for dozens of publications.

Sam Margolis has written for the Globe and Mail, the National Post, UPI and MSNBC.

The light of democracy

Tomorrow is Black Excellence Day. The day is adjacent to the birth date of Martin Luther King Jr. and is being recognized in at least 20 B.C. school districts.

Founded last year to draw attention to the lack of Black history being taught in Canadian schools and to highlight the struggles of racialized Canadians, it was originally named Black Shirt Day. The name followed the pattern of other social justice days, such as Pink Shirt Day (anti-bullying) and Orange Shirt Day (truth and reconciliation). Unfortunately, the name Black Shirt Day carries unintentional connotations. The Blackshirts were fascist paramilitary thugs in Italy, akin to the German Nazi Brownshirts.

Many people in the Jewish community expressed concern over the name, as did the B.C. Human Rights Commission. Among the Jewish groups that spoke with the Ninandotoo Society, whose members initiated the commemoration last year, were the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). In an interview with CBC, Geoffrey Druker, Pacific region chair of CIJA, said, “We were kind of gutted. It was painful because we still have Holocaust survivors among us and anybody who suffered from fascism and black shirts would have been hurt.”

In response to the comments, the Ninandotoo Society created Black Excellence Day, which still focuses on the ongoing civil rights struggle of Black and racialized Canadians and the need for a mandatory curriculum on Black history.

Kamika Williams, president of the society (“nina ndoto” means “I have a dream” in Swahili), told CBC, “For us, it wasn’t a matter of should we change the name, it was what should we change the name to. It would be very hypocritical of us to fight against racism within the Black community and then turn the other cheek when other racialized groups inform us of the racist nuances within their community.”

She said most of the discussions focused on “building solidarity … how do we move forward, how do we work together, how do we stay unified and combat racism together.”

Despite the fascist connotations, however, another group, Anti-Racism Coalition of Vancouver, is still going ahead with a Black Shirt Day, with the imprimatur of Independent Jewish Voices of Canada, among others.

Black Excellence Day (Jan. 15) and Martin Luther King Day (this year on Jan. 17 though his actual birthday is Jan. 15) fall just over a week after Jan. 6. This year, Jan. 6 was a time of widespread reexamination of the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol a year earlier. CNN, MSNBC and other mainstream networks provided exhaustive reviews of the events of that day and insights into the larger meaning for its victims – Capitol police, elected officials, staffers, their families and so forth – while right-wing media perpetuated their line that the attempted coup was nothing more than rambunctious tourists.

The Atlantic magazine’s current issue, with the cover story “January 6 was practise,” devotes almost every word in the magazine to the events of that day and what it means for the future. Relatively obscure civil servants and elections administrators were, in some instances, the main bulwark against Trump’s efforts to subvert the will of voters in states like Georgia, Arizona and elsewhere. But, argues the Atlantic, supporters of the insurrection and the “big lie” that Trump won and the election was stolen are now taking their places at the most sensitive (if least understood) nexus of the election bureaucracy. The alarming, pessimistic tone of the magazine’s issue could be summed up as: American democracy has about three years to live.

Various media have raised alarms about these attempts to grab the election levers – and revisited how it was not so much institutions or constitutional niceties that prevented Trump’s coup attempt from succeeding but a very small number of stiff-backed individuals, including then-vice president Mike Pence, who provided the frail barricade around the will of the country’s voters.

The health and survival of American democracy, put mildly, is not a matter of concern for Americans only. Its demise would eliminate what moral suasion the country holds in the world – to say nothing of the potential for misuse of military power. For Canadians, chaos on the other side of the world’s longest undefended border would be cause for serious concern. And any threat to democracy is a threat, foremost, to the most vulnerable and marginalized, Jews included.

Sadly and scarily, this phenomenon is not exclusive to the United States – illiberal strains are gaining ground in various places in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere. What is needed (among many other things) is a mass cultural movement recognizing these dangers and ensuring the health of democracy – or at least giving it a fighting chance if a chunk of the population rejects the outcome of future elections.

While the United States, Canada and pretty much every democracy have not always lived up to their promise – indeed, they have failed in serious ways – democracy is our collective best chance to achieve just societies. For countless Jews, and millions of others yearning to breathe free, America has been a beacon, despite its flaws. We must not just hope, but take action to help make sure its light – and that of other democracies – does not go out.