xenophobia

Yom Yerushalayim tainted

Yom Yerushalayim took place Sunday, commemorating the reunification of the city during the 1967 Six Day War. The liberation of the Western Wall, a moment captured so powerfully through an iconic photo of three awe-struck young soldiers, is an unforgettable part of Jewish history.

The reunification of the city was by no means merely a symbolic or administrative event. Neither was it solely a national victory. In the millennia-long history of the Jewish people’s connection to the Second Temple, there have been just two decades when Jewish prayer at the Western Wall has been interrupted – the years between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied East Jerusalem and refused freedom of religious observance at Judaism’s holiest site.

Put mildly, the reunification of the city and its spiritual implications, as well as its political ones, represent a massive historical event. So, it is hardly surprising that emotions run high on the subject. Now, at a time when political extremism is sadly on the rise in so many places in the world, including in Israel, it is likewise hardly surprising that Yom Yerushalayim would be a lightning rod for the worst elements in Israeli society.

On Monday, top Israeli leaders condemned some of the words and deeds of a minority of participants in Sunday’s Yom Yerushalayim parade. Some of the men who marched through the Old City’s Muslim Quarter wore T-shirts with phrases like “Rabbi Kahane was right” and images of a machine gun emerging from a Star of David. Some marchers chanted calls for death to Arabs and slapped racist stickers on the shutters of Muslim storefronts that had wisely closed for the afternoon. Young men shouted “Whores” at a group of Arab women watching the passing spectacle.

Yom Yerushalayim is a day for celebration. While imperfect, Israel ensures freedom of worship at holy sites under its jurisdiction, something occupying Arab forces (that is, Jordan) refused to do. Most of the celebrants Sunday did not exhibit xenophobia and hatred.

Still, the best are tainted by the worst. In this space several weeks ago, in relation to the appearance of Nazi flags and other atrocities at the “truckers” protest in Ottawa, we said: “It is no less abhorrent to march alongside people carrying a swastika flag than it is to carry a swastika flag.”

To march alongside evil is to condone it.

To their credit, top Israeli leaders responded strongly, albeit a day after the abhorrent actions took place. Benny Gantz, the defence minister, said it is time to declare several of the groups involved in the mayhem as terrorist groups. Among them are extremist groups like La Familia and Lehava.

Israelis – and Jews – are very often held to a higher standard than other nations. This is a phenomenon with deep, discriminatory roots. Put simply, it may be a natural, though cynical, human reaction to adherents of the original form of ethical monotheism, i.e. if Jews cannot exemplify superhuman virtue, the justification presumably goes, why should the rest of humanity feel compelled to behave any better?

Conversely, though, the fact that critics (or enemies) of the Jewish people are hypocrites should not affect Jews’ own striving for ethical conduct. The bad behaviour of others is not an excuse for bad behaviour by anyone. Israel as a state – and Jews as a people – must roundly condemn the perpetrators of xenophobia and violence last Sunday.

And Gantz is right. It’s time to call out these perpetrators for what they are.

Xenophobia intolerable

Don Cherry and Ron Maclean on screen, in 2018. (photo by Ross Dunn/flickr.com)

For many Canadians, Don Cherry and his bombastic pronouncements about hockey, but, more importantly, about society and whatever pops into his head, have been like a tolerated, occasionally amusing uncle at the family table. An opinionated crank who seems like a throwback to an earlier, less refined time, Cherry has been coming into our living rooms for decades, part and parcel with our national pastime.

But there’s a limit.

Cherry was finally told to leave the family table Monday after a rant about “you people” – new Canadians, immigrants or, as people of his inclination might characterize them, “foreigners.”

“You people … you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you can pay a couple bucks for a poppy or something like that,” Cherry said on Hockey Night in Canada last Saturday, two days before Remembrance Day. His implication was that new Canadians do not wear poppies or perhaps do so in lesser numbers than Canada-born Canadians. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council was inundated and paralyzed on the weekend by complaints from viewers. On Remembrance Day, Sportsnet, which broadcasts the program, pulled the plug.

Cherry was unrepentant: “I know what I said and I meant it. Everybody in Canada should wear a poppy to honour our fallen soldiers.”

But that wasn’t the context of what he said. His implication was clear: immigrants take the benefits of life in Canada but do not respect the sacrifices that built the country or those who made them. That’s a far different – and more xenophobic – thing than saying everyone should wear a poppy.

Already, of course, social media grumps and trolls are declaring this the latest case of “political correctness” run amok, akin to taking “all thy sons command” out of the national anthem and all the other modernizations that threaten the hegemony of the geezer class.

Times change. People adapt or they don’t. But there are consequences in either case.

“To keep my job, I cannot be turned into a tamed robot,” said Cherry.

So be it.

The future of democracy

Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin spoke strong words at the opening of the Knesset’s winter session this week. The very survival of democracy, he suggested, is on the line.

“Against a background of political upheavals occurring in the West, the free world, it is no secret that democracy – or Western liberal democracy – is in a state of confusion,” said Rivlin. “Many citizens across the world feel that the existing democratic system is struggling to function and, moreover, is struggling to offer an answer to their needs in light of the current threat of terrorism, the current wave of migration and refugees, or the ongoing economic and employment crises.”

Rivlin was speaking broadly, apparently referencing the various movements springing up in recent years at the fringes of what was once the political mainstream. These include new nativist and often xenophobic movements in Europe. The vote by Britain to leave the European Union is a symptom of a strain of political ideology that rejects open borders – both for trade and for people. While the Brexit vote was supported by people across the political spectrum, its campaign was led by the United Kingdom Independence Party, a movement pushing its way into the mainstream from the far right.

While Europe struggles with the challenges of and reactions to economic meltdowns and waves of refugees and migrants, the presidential election in the United States has been rocked by events that also threaten foundational understandings of democracy.

Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president, has suggested he may not abide by the results of the election, an outcome he is alleging to be “rigged.” There is no evidence, according to almost all commentators, of any rigging of the electoral system. Indeed, say most, the patchwork nature of the American electoral system makes comprehensive manipulation of a federal election essentially impossible. However, Trump’s assertions seem based less on the idea that the electoral infrastructure is rigged than on his perception that the media and the political establishment are nearly uniformly against him. As paranoid as this may seem, it is not altogether false. The political establishment, even in his own Republican party, is lukewarm at best toward their outsider nominee. And the media is merely reporting the attitudes of some of the public, many of whom are aghast and appalled at the successive emanations from Trump’s mouth.

However, if the establishment and commentators in the media are lined up against him, this should arguably be viewed as a statement about him, not them – which brings us back to the issue of Trump’s threatened refusal to admit defeat. Absolutely crucial to democracy is the legitimacy – and perception of legitimacy – of the electoral process. In the most contested election in modern history, in 2000, Al Gore accepted defeat even though he received more votes in the state of Florida than the declared victor George W. Bush and, therefore, should have been the winner. In the interest of national unity and the preservation of confidence in the system, Gore acceded to the determination of a Florida court.

Now, Trump suggests he may not accept the results even if he is conclusively defeated. Of course, anything is possible with this candidate, so it may be bluster. But the bigger picture in this scenario is the impact Trump’s words have on his followers. Some are already promising “revolution” if Trump is defeated.

Then, of course, there is the other possibility: Trump wins.

Where American democracy – and the country’s role as a model of responsible government – would go from there is an ominous mystery.

Impact of Brexit vote

In the historic referendum last week, the United Kingdom voted to leave the 28-nation European Union (EU), sending shockwaves throughout Europe and the international community. The results of the so-called “Brexit” vote – 52% in favor of exiting the EU and 48% opposed – spurred the resignation of U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and called into question the identity and strength of the EU, while leaving many nations, including Israel, wondering how the vote will affect policy and trade in the years ahead.

“It’s hard to know what is going to happen, and nothing is going to happen right away,” said Dr. Oded Eran, the former Israeli ambassador to the EU. “There is no doubt that Israel will be left to follow the agreements that will be made between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and to adjust its economic and trade relations with Britain accordingly.”

Opposition leaders in France and the Netherlands have hailed British voters’ decision, calling for similar referendums on EU membership in their countries. “This is the dilemma that the European Union will face,” Eran said. “If Britain was a singular case, then this would be a simpler situation.”

A major factor in the Brexit vote was the influx of Muslim immigration into Europe. Supporters of the Brexit suggested that Muslim immigration threatens the distinct character of European nations.

Opponents of leaving the EU cited growing xenophobia and anti-Islamic sentiment in British society, often coupled with antisemitic sentiments.

According to Fiamma Nirenstein – a former Italian parliamentarian who served as vice-president of the parliament’s committee on foreign affairs and as a member of the Italian delegation to the Council of Europe – there are opposing views within Europe’s Jewish communities on the causes and potential consequences of the Brexit vote.

Nirenstein noted that one school of thought views the Brexit vote “as a sort of punishment for Europe” for growing anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment.

“Over the past century, Europe has been so bad to the Jews,” she said. “And, increasingly now, Europe is against Israeli actions, and Europe is seeing an explosion of antisemitism. So, in the view of one camp, there is something wrong with Europe and something needed to happen to demonstrate that, and the Brexit vote represents this.”

On the other side, Nirenstein suggested, is a second camp that views the Brexit vote negatively – “as an event that strengthens and empowers an illiberal right-wing sentiment throughout Europe,” a sentiment that is simultaneously antisemitic and anti-Islamic and, at its core, anti-immigration.

“As a people that have ourselves been strangers in many lands, Jews have always identified with the value of welcoming the other, so this camp of Jews is against the [Brexit] vote,” said Nirenstein, who also served as chairperson of the International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians.

סערת דונלד טראמפ

דבריו החמורים של המועמד הרפובליקני לנשיאות בארה”ב, דונלד טראמפ, בגנות המוסלמים, מעוררת תגובות נזעמות גם בקנדה. (צילום: Gage Skidmore via wikimedia.org)

סערת דונלד טראמפ מגיעה גם לקנדה: פוליטיקאים קוראים להחרימו וחברי מועצות בערים קוראים להסיר את שמו מהמגדלים

דבריו החמורים של המועמד הרפובליקני לנשיאות בארה”ב, דונלד טראמפ, בגנות המוסלמים, מעוררת תגובות נזעמות גם בקנדה. טראמפ אמר השבוע במסגרת קמפיין הבחירות שלו שיש לאסור על המוסלמים להיכנס לארה”ב, בין אם כמהגרים או כתיירים. טראמפ מוביל עדיין בסקרים מול שאר המועמדים של המפלגה הרפובליקנית, אך הביקורת נגדו במפלגה ומחוצה לה, בארה”ב ומחוצה לה, רק הולכת וגדלה. טראמפ באימרותיו השנויות במחלוקת והפרובוקציות שלו נמצא במסלול הנכון להפוך לאחד האישים השנואים בעולם.

שר החוץ של קנדה, סטפן דיון, אמר בנוגע לטראמפ: “מעולם לא קרה בקנדה מה ששמענו כעת בארה”ב מטראמפ. אנחנו לא יכולים לקבל דבר כזה. אף מפלגה בקנדה לא תתקרב לדברים כאלה. אזרחי קנדה יתנגדו לנצח לאמירות שכוללות שנאת זרים כזו”. ראש ממשלת קנדה, ג’סטין טרודו, סירב להגיב ישירות על דברי טראמפ בטענה כי כל אחד בתפקידו אסור לו להגיב בנושאי פוליטיקה פנימית של מדינה אחרת, במיוחד כאשר מתנהלת בה מערכת בחירות. עם זאת טרודו ציין והוסיף כי: “אזרחי קנדה יודעים היטב היכן הוא עומד בנוגע לנושאים כאלה”.

מנהיגת האופוזיצה הזמנית מטעם מפלגת השמרנים, רונה אמברוז, דחתה את דבריו של טראמפ וטענה שהם מגוחחים. לדבריה: “זה בידי תושבי ארה”ב לבחור מי יהיה המנהיג הבא שלהם, אבל אני בטוחה שרבים ואפילו במפלגתו, חושבים שהתגובות שלו הן מגוחחות”. ואילו מנהיג המפלגה הדמוקרטית החדשה, טום מולקייר, טוען שהגיע הזמן לאסור על אנשים כמו טראמפ שמפזרים דברי שינאה, להיכנס לקנדה”.

במקביל חברי מועצה בעיריית טורונטו וונקובר גם הם יוצאים בחריפות נגד דברי טראמפ. מספר חברי מועצת העיר טורונטו דורשים להחליף השם “טראמפ” של מגדל המלון דירות בדאון טאון, בשם אחר. מגדל טראמפ בטורונטו פועל מאז ראשית 2012. גם חברים במועצת עיריית ונקובר דורשים אף הם להחליף את השם “טראמפ” של מגדל המלון דירות ברחוב ג’ורג’יה בדאון טאון, בשם אחר. מגדל טראמפ בוונקובר שבנייתו הולכת ונשלמת בימים אלה, יפתח בראשית שנה הבאה.

טראמפ מתכוון לבקר בישראל לקראת סוף השנה. במסגרת הביקור לפי מקורביו הוא ינסה לעלות להר הבית ואין ספק שפרובוקציה כזו מצידו, יכולה להצית את כל המזרח התיכון. ראש ממשלת ישראל, בנימין נתניהו, למרות שדחה את דבריו של טראמפ בגנות המוסלמים, כן הסכים להיפגש עימו כשיגיע לישראל.

ארגון או.אי.סי.די: ישראל וקנדה במקום טוב מבחינת נטל המיסים

ישראל וקנדה נמצאות במקומות מוכבדים מבחינת היקף נטל המיסוי בקרב שלושים וארבע המדינות, החברות בארגון או.אי.סי.די. ישראל הצטרפה לאו.אי.סי.די ב-2010 והחברות בו מחויבויות לערכי דמוקרטיה, שקיפות ודבקות בערכי כלכלת שוק ופיתוח כלכלי.

הארגון פרסם בשבוע שעבר את נתוני 2014 ונטל המיסים של חברותיו עומד על 34.2% בממוצע. המדינה עם נטל המיסוי הגבוה ביותר היא דנמרק עם 47.6%. אחריה: צרפת (45%), בלגיה (44.7%), איטליה (43.9%), פינלנד (43.7%), שבדיה (42.8%), אוסטריה (42.5%), נורבגיה (40.5%), לוקסמבורג (38.4%) והונגריה (38.4%) במקומות התשיעי והעשירי. גרמניה (36.5%) במקום השלושה עשר, בריטניה (32.9%) במקום השמונה עשר ואחריה ספרד (32.7%) במקום התשעה עשר. ישראל במקום העשרים ושלושה עם נטל מיסוי של 30.6%, ואחריה במקום העשרים וארבעה קנדה עם 30.5%. יפן (30.3%) במקום העשרים ושישה, אוסטרליה (27.5%) במקום העשרים ותשעה, אחריה במקום השלושים שוויץ (26.9%), ובמקום השלושים ואחד ארה”ב (25.4%). המדינה עם נטל המיסוי הנמוך ביותר היא מקסיקו (19.7%) במקום השלושים וארבעה.