French: Whatever This Is, It Isn’t Anti-Zionism

Good commentary:

…I unequivocally support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, but I have also written repeatedly and critically about Israel’s tactics in its war on Gaza, which I believe have prolonged the conflict and created extraordinary and unnecessary human suffering.

Jewish lives aren’t more precious than Palestinian lives, and any form of advocacy for Israel that treats Palestinians as any less deserving of safety and security than Israelis isn’t just un-Christian; it’s anti-Christian. It directly contradicts the teachings of Scripture, which place Jews and Gentiles in a position of equality.

Second, internal Christian debates about whether the modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy — as interesting as they can be — should be irrelevant to American foreign policy, which should be based both on American interests and American commitments to international justice and human rights.

But historic Christian antisemitism is rooted in a historic Christian argument, and it requires a specifically Christian argument in response.

Put in its most simple form, Christian antisemitism is rooted in two propositions — that Jews bear the guilt for Christ’s death (“Jews killed Jesus”), and that when the majority of Jews rejected Jesus (who was a Jew, as were all his early apostles), that God replaced his covenant with the children of Abraham with a new covenant with Christians. This idea of a new covenant that excludes the Jewish people is called “supersessionism” or “replacement theology.”

Put the two concepts together — “Jews killed Jesus” and “Christians are the chosen people now” — and you’ve got the recipe for more than 2,000 years of brutal, religiously motivated oppression.

Boller is a recent convert to Catholicism, and she — like Candace Owens — wields her newfound faith like a sword. But perhaps they both need to spend a little more time learning and a lot less time talking.

First, let’s put to rest the indefensible idea that “the Jews” killed Christ. As the Second Vatican Council taught, “The Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.”

This isn’t a statement of high theological principle as much as basic common sense. Convicting an entire people, for all time, of the crimes of a few religious leaders is a moral monstrosity that runs counter to every tenet of Christian justice.

Second, Boller’s own church teaches that there is a deep bond between Christians and Jews. Last year, Robert P. George, a noted Catholic political philosopher at Princeton, wrote a powerful essayin Sapir, a Jewish journal of ideas, in which he described the relationship between the Jewish people and the Catholic Church as an “unbreakable covenant.”

As George writes, Pope Benedict XVI explicitly rejected the idea that the Jewish people “ceased to be the bearer of the promises of God.” Pope John Paul II said that the Catholic Church has “a relationship” with Judaism “which we do not have with any other religion.” He also said that Judaism is “intrinsic” and not “extrinsic” to Christianity, and that Jews were Christians’ “elder brothers” in the faith.

Indeed, paragraph 121 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”

I don’t believe for a moment that the Catholic view is the only expression of Christian orthodoxy. I know quite a few Protestant and Catholic supersessionists who are not antisemitic, but I highlight the words of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI because they starkly demonstrate the incompatibility of antisemitism with Christian orthodoxy.

But one doesn’t have to agree with Catholic teaching (or its Protestant analogues) to be fairly called a Zionist — a Christian Zionist, even — because one believes in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

The reason is rooted in Scripture’s commitment to equal dignity for all people, regardless of ethnicity, class or sex. As an extension of that commitment, no group of people should be subjected to abuse or persecution — much less genocide.

In this formulation, a so-called Christian Zionist would also likely be a Christian Kurdist (not a phrase you hear every day) or have a Christian commitment to Palestinian statehood. Kurds and Palestinians have also been historically oppressed, denied a home and deprived of the right to defend themselves.

In those circumstances, statehood isn’t a matter of fulfilling prophecies; it’s about safety and security. It’s about self-determination and the preservation of basic human rights. And if you think that can be done without supporting statehood, then I’d challenge you to consider the long and terrible historical record.

A consistent Christian Zionist would oppose both the heinous massacre of Jews on Oct. 7, 2023, and the aggressive, violent expansion of settlements in the West Bank. He would stand resolutely against Iranian efforts to exterminate the Jewish state and against any Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

Embracing the idea that the modern state of Israel is a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecies and therefore must be supported by the United States for theological reasons can lead us to dangerous places — to a belief, in essence, in permanent Israeli righteousness, no matter the nation’s conduct and no matter the character of its government.

But the opposite idea — that Christians have replaced the Jews in the eyes of God, and there is no longer any special purpose for Jews in God’s plan — has its own profound dangers. It creates a sense of righteousness in religious persecution, and it has caused untold suffering throughout human history.

The better Christian view rejects both dangerous extremes, recognizes the incalculable dignity and worth of every human being, and is Zionist in the sense that it believes that one of history’s most persecuted groups deserves a national home.

And since Christians have persecuted Jews so viciously in the past (and some still do today), we have a special responsibility to make amends, to repair the damage that the church has done. That begins by turning to the new Christian antisemites and shouting “No!” Ancient hatreds born from ancient heresies have no place in the church today.

Source: Whatever This Is, It Isn’t Anti-Zionism

Lederman: Now is a bad time for Canada to ditch its antisemitism and Islamophobia envoys

Yet another commentary arguing for keeping the envoys. Still remain to be convinced that envoys will be any more effective than the council, apart from providing some comfort to affected groups:

…Why not keep these envoys and have them report to the council? 

Granted, the status quo wasn’t working. And it’s fair to question why a government assigns these roles to only specific groups. Why not for Black people – who are the most targeted for hate crimes in Canada – or Indigenous people, or LGBTQ+ folks?

But the way hatred aimed at Jews is being accepted, mainstreamed or shrugged off these days, all around the world, is astounding. 

Canadians are fortunate to have a government that cares enough about discrimination to create this council. But this is crisis time for the Jewish and Muslim communities. Specially designed roles are required, with strong people in them willing to take on all that hate; I don’t know how Ms. Lyons did it, or how Ms. Elghawaby has been doing it. Kudos to them both, and to Mr. Cotler.

It is imperative that the voices representing these communities do not get drowned out, watered down, or disqualified in a council dealing with what shouldn’t be, but sadly and certainly at times will be, opposing concerns.

Source: Now is a bad time for Canada to ditch its antisemitism and Islamophobia envoys

Former Minister and envoy Cotler:

…Mr. Cotler, founder and international chair of the Montreal-based Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights non-profit, and Canada’s first antisemitism envoy between 2020 and 2023, said the government’s decision to abolish his former post was “however well intentioned …. uninformed, ill-advised and prejudicial, both to its mandates of preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting antisemitism.”

He said the decision had been made “precisely at a time when we are witnessing an unprecedented global explosion of antisemitism, including here in Canada, and rising levels of Holocaust denial, distortion, minimization and inversion.”

Mr. Cotler said in a statement that the new advisory council on rights, equality and inclusion, while valuable, will be no replacement for the envoy role. 

“From my experience, such a council, while necessary to combat all forms of hate, tends to marginalize or erase the singularity of anti-Jewish hatred, its globality, and its descent into standing threats of intimidation, harassment, violence and even terrorism,” he said. “This decision will end up, however inadvertently, making Jews in Canada less safe, and feeling less safe.” 

The new advisory council will be overseen by Canadian Identity Minister Marc Miller, and it is not known if Ms. Elghawaby, the Islamophobia envoy who still had several months left on her term, will be a member. …

Source: Former antisemitism envoy warns abolition of the post could make Canadian Jews less safe

From former head of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation:

…This is not about privileging one community over another. It is about protecting the integrity of Canada’s human rights framework. Antisemitism remains the oldest and most persistent hatred in Western history. Islamophobia has intensified in recent decades and has proved deadly in Canada. Treating these realities as interchangeable risks responding inadequately to both.

Unity is not built by flattening differences or avoiding difficult truths. It is built through recognition, accountability and trust. Communities facing rising hatred are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for visible leadership, institutional commitment and meaningful consultation. When decisions affecting them are made without that engagement, trust erodes — and trust is far harder to rebuild than institutions.

Canada does not face a choice between unity and effectiveness. It can pursue both. But doing so requires clarity, not consolidation. Dedicated offices with clear mandates, stable funding and public accountability should be strengthened, not dissolved. Advisory bodies should support this work, not replace it.

As we remember the victims of the Quebec City mosque attack and reflect on the enduring lessons of the Holocaust, the minister of Canadian Identity and Culture should reconsider this decision. Combating hatred is not a matter of administrative efficiency. One size does not fit all.

Source: Opinion: Let’s not dilute antisemitism and Islamophobia

Kutty | Two major cuts by Carney are testing the limits of community trust

As I wrote some four years ago, don’t believe these envoys facilitate integration and greater mutual understanding as they tend to be advocates for particular group: Racism and the need for a national integration commission:

…In practical terms, Ottawa’s legitimacy on this issue will now depend on what happens next.

Who will sit on the new council? Will Muslim and Jewish leaders be adequately represented? Will the council have independence and influence? Will its recommendations shape legislation, policing, education, and online regulation? Will ministers remain directly accessible to affected communities?

Racism and religious discrimination are not interchangeable phenomena. Antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, and anti-Indigenous racism each have distinct histories and dynamics. Treating them as generic “hate” risks flattening those differences. At the same time, siloed responses can obscure shared structural causes such as economic precarity, digital radicalization, and political scapegoating.

The government must now demonstrate — through appointments, funding, transparency, and sustained engagement — that it is not retreating from the fight against Islamophobia and antisemitism, but reorganizing it in good faith.

Community organizations are right to remain vigilant. Monitoring, advocacy, and constructive pressure are not signs of disloyalty. They are essential features of democratic accountability.

This moment should not be framed as a simple victory or betrayal. It is better understood as a test.

A test of whether Ottawa can move from symbolic politics to durable partnerships. A test of whether institutional reform will deepen or dilute accountability. And a test of whether trust — so painstakingly built over years — will be reinforced or quietly eroded.

The answer will not be found in press releases. It will be found in practice.

Source: Opinion | Two major cuts by Carney are testing the limits of community trust

Carney government replacing Islamophobia and antisemitism envoys with advisory council

Can’t claim credit but it has been something I have been advocating for some time, as separate envoys tend to accentuate differences:

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government said Wednesday that it is eliminating Canada’s special envoy positions on fighting Islamophobia and antisemitism.The positions, which Carney had pledged to keep when he ran for Liberal leadership, will be replaced by a new advisory council on “Rights, Equality and Inclusion,” Culture and Identity Minister Marc Miller said in a news release.

“The Advisory Council will be comprised of prominent Canadians from academia, experts and community leaders with a mission to foster social cohesion, rally Canadians around shared identity, combat racism and hate in all their forms, and help guide the efforts of the Government of Canada,” Miller said, without immediately announcing its membership.

First reported by the Star, the move comes as the Liberal government had been looking to fill the special envoy position on combating antisemitism and Holocaust remembrance after former representative Deborah Lyons retired in July, several months before her term was set to end.

Speaking to reporters following a Liberal caucus meeting, Miller said the new council will address rising polarization and division coming in part due to the war in Gaza, but will still recognize the “specificities” of Islamophobia and antisemitism.

“I think we have to give the opportunity to people to be upset,” Miller said. “I think the focus here, though, is to make sure that we are focusing on the unity of the country, on the division that we know is there that’s been fuelled by a lot of things, and making sure that we have a group of experts that will focus precisely on trying to bring people together.” …

Source: Carney government replacing Islamophobia and antisemitism envoys with advisory council

Jewish group calls on Ottawa to launch commission on antisemitism

Not convinced that having separate envoys for antisemitism and islamophobia improves understanding and integration. Former envoy Deborah Lyons was candid about her experience and frustrations:

Jewish advocacy group B’nai Brith is calling on Ottawa to launch a commission on antisemitism and appoint someone to the envoy role that has been left vacant since July.

The group is holding a midday press conference on Parliament Hill today, a day before the annual remembrance ceremony at the National Holocaust Monument.

It’s asking Ottawa to fill the role of special envoy for combating antisemitism that has been vacant since Deborah Lyons resigned in July, three months before her term was set to expire….

Source: Jewish group calls on Ottawa to launch commission on antisemitism

“Jack Jedwab: Reducing the Holocaust to yet another story of colonialism distorts history”

Needed reminder:

…“Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate the late Elie Wiesel warned repeatedly against precisely such historic revision and the distortion to which it has given rise. For Wiesel, the Holocaust was not merely one genocide among others, nor simply another chapter in humanity’s long record of cruelty. Rather, it was a singular event rooted in a uniquely European legacy of antisemitism, culminating in the systematic and industrialized attempt to murder Jews.

Wiesel’s insistence on this point was not at all about being indifferent to other victims of mass violence. On the contrary, he affirmed the sanctity of all human suffering. His concern was that careless comparison between genocides risked cancelling the very things that distinguished each horrific tragedy.

Today there is real need to heed Wiesel’s warning, as colonialist framings of the origins of the Holocaust gain traction with influencers and many academics. Recognizing the historical specificity of the Holocaust is in no way an obstacle to broader empathy or compassion for victims of other genocides. Rather it is essential in identifying the key lessons needed to prevent future atrocities. When it comes to the Holocaust, one hard truth must not be blurred: reducing it to yet another story of colonialism”

Source: “Jack Jedwab: Reducing the Holocaust to yet another story of colonialism distorts history”

List of suspected Nazi war criminals welcomed in Canada should stay secret, information watchdog rules

Seems a bit too precious given not released earlier prior to the Russian attack on Ukraine:

…LAC had told Caroline Maynard, the Information Commissioner, that disclosing the list would result in significant injury to Canada’s relationship with a foreign government. LAC also told her it would “cause significant injury to the defence of a foreign state allied with Canada,” Maureen Brennan, an investigator in Ms. Maynard’s office, said in the e-mail. 

The e-mail said the harm would extend “beyond Canada’s relations with the foreign government in question” and would adversely affect Canada’s relationships with other allied states.

“I reviewed LAC’s consultation materials and note that there was an overall consensus that, in the current political climate, disclosure of the information would give rise to serious concerns about reasonably expected harm,” Ms. Brennan said. 

Dozens of leading scholars from around the world, including Sir Richard Evans, former Regius professor of history at Cambridge University and author of 18 books, including Hitler’s People, have called on Canada to declassify the report.

On Friday Canada’s Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, named after the famous Nazi hunter, reacted with dismay that the information watchdog had upheld Ottawa’s decision to keep the list secret. 

“The government’s claim that revealing the truth about Nazi war criminals living in Canada could somehow be a threat to national security or international diplomacy is an insult to the intelligence of the public,” said Jaime Kirzner Roberts, senior director, policy and advocacy at the center. 

“It is long past time for the facts to come out about the Nazi perpetrators of genocide and war crimes who were allowed to escape justice and live comfortable, protected lives in our country.”

A research team led by UCLA historian Jared McBride, an expert on war crimes in the Second World War, last year unearthed what he concluded was an earlier annotated version of the secret list.

The Information Commissioner’s office argued that this list had been released through an access to information request in 2019, “at a time which predates the relevant current global context.” 

Among the names on this list, seen by The Globe, was Helmut Oberlander, a member of the Nazi Einsatzgruppen death squads during the Second World War. The Canadian government spent years trying to strip him of his citizenship, but he died at the age of 97 in 2021 while the matter was still before the courts.

Professor Per Rudling of Lund University in Sweden, who has researched the settlement of alleged Nazis in Canada, said he found the decision to keep the list secret “curious.” He said Ukraine had opened up its own KGB archives and the U.S. has released the bulk of its documents pertaining to alleged Nazi war criminals. 

“Of all comparable Western liberal democracies, Canada stands out as being particularly restrictive on archival materials in regards to purported war criminals,” he said in an e-mail. 

Source: List of suspected Nazi war criminals welcomed in Canada should stay secret, information watchdog rules

Robson: Canada’s prevention gap grows wider the more complacent we become

Thorny lines to draw and not easy to implement but needed given the nature of some of the protests and protestors:

…Diaspora dynamics, therefore, require institutional maturity. The challenge is not to cast suspicion on whole communities. It is to distinguish legitimate protest from intimidation, and political grievance from early-stage radicalization cues—especially when imported conflicts are weaponized inside Canadian information spaces.

Prevention doctrine has to be able to say, without flinching, that a small minority within some diaspora and newcomer populations—including naturalized Canadians—carry or adopt illiberal and extremist ideologies, and that those ideologies can express themselves as targeted hatred toward Jews. Treating that as an institutional design problem—triage rules, evidence standards, and earlier handoffs—avoids both naïveté and collective blame.

It also means using international tools without outsourcing Canadian standards. Many subjects who could fall within the scope of a promotion offence did not begin their political trajectory in Canada. Some may have prior histories of supporting extremist organizations, being investigated abroad, or coordinating across jurisdictions.

Canada already has mechanisms to seek corroborating information while preserving due process through the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The aim is not to “import” foreign decisions. It is to avoid assessing a suspect’s online activity here as if it exists in isolation—especially when trusted partners can corroborate a pattern of propaganda production or cross-border coordination that should inform Canadian risk assessments for bail, peace bonds, and sentencing.

So what does “prevention” mean when radicalization cycles move faster than case-prioritization and reassessment? Canada has conceptual building blocks: the RCMP explicitly acknowledges the linkage between hate crime and violent extremism and stresses prevention alongside enforcement in its hate-crime overview. The gap is operationalization—multilingual capability, faster evidence capture, clearer handoff triggers, and disruption that treats a heightened hate environment as a security condition, not a communications problem.

Canada cannot prevent every attack. But it can choose whether to keep treating antisemitic extremism as a late-stage file—something we condemn after it becomes violence. If we continue to manage weak signals as “not urgent,” we will eventually face the question other democracies face after tragedy: What did we notice early, and why did we decide it was not urgent enough?

Daniel Robson is a Canadian independent journalist specializing in digital extremism, national security, and counterterrorism.

Source: Canada’s prevention gap grows wider the more complacent we become

Regg Cohn | Anti-Israel protests expose the lack of leadership at city hall and Queen’s Park

Indeed, sad example of passing the buck back and forth:

…The minister who oversees law enforcement says more needs to be done. The mayor says she’d like to see more arrests and has spoken to the chief about it.

The chief would like to clarify. Speaking the next day on Moore’s radio show, Demkiw said it wasn’t so simple.

“Listen, I do not know where she’s getting that narrative,” he countered. “The Crown attorneys guide us on the prospect of conviction.”

If these three community leaders are still talking past each other, it’s hardly surprising that protesters are still shouting and chanting at other residents of Toronto who have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The Toronto Police Association issued its own statement after Kerzner’s missives appealing for “clear and consistent direction to our members and the public about what is lawful and unlawful when it comes to protest activity.”

Clarity amid ambiguity isn’t easy. But that doesn’t mean the crown prosecutors who are paid and educated to make these decisions shouldn’t be rising to the occasion — and pursuing test cases as needed.

For two years, protesters have been showing up outside the homes of Canadian Jews to loiter and litigate a conflict a world away — and a country away. That transgresses the universal value that a person’s private home is a private sanctuary — akin to a castle, not a consulate (the Israeli consulate is fully 15 kilometres away from that neighbourhood).

For two years, protesters have been free to hold their own demonstrations on the streets and squares of Toronto, where the right to assembly and peaceful protest is protected by the Charter of Rights. But the right to free speech is hardly unlimited, and freedom of assembly does not confer a right to trespass on private property — let alone empower people to wade in with megaphones to disrupt, drown out or trample on other people’s holiday celebrations in shopping malls (just as unionized workers, even in a lawful strike, cannot picket in a shopping centre).

To be sure, the policing of protests is always a balancing act. But trespass isn’t especially ambiguous on private property; and there’s a difference between peaceful protest (protected under the Charter) versus disruptions that escalate to harassment and hatefulness.

Interestingly, Jason Kenney, a former federal minister of multiculturalism (and ex-premier of Alberta) waded into the debate after the Boxing Day disruptions at Eaton Centre, asking why the authorities (notably his fellow Tories) couldn’t get their act together. Good question.

Kenney suggested they could invoke Ontario laws against trespass. Or apply criminal code laws on mischief; mischief “motivated by bias, prejudice or hate;” causing a disturbance; and unlawful assembly.

A better question is why, if the solicitor general is so vexed by the lack of action, he doesn’t send a letter to his cabinet colleague, Attorney General Doug Downey, suggesting that his ministry provide clearer guidance to Crown attorneys about how to proceed.

The only certainty is that we have a solicitor general who is publicly wagging his finger, a chief who says his hands are tied, a mayor who is washing her hands of the situation, a police union that is throwing up its hands, and an attorney general who may be sitting on his hands.

And no one pointing the way forward.

Source: Opinion | Anti-Israel protests expose the lack of leadership at city hall and Queen’s Park

Lederman: The antisemitism you might have missed over the holidays 

Depressing list:

…There is no question that the war in Gaza has been catastrophic. But Jews around the world deserve to live without discrimination. No other form of racism would be justified in this manner. Nor should it. All Jews are not responsible for the actions of the Israeli government. Nor are all Israelis. Just like all Americans are not responsible for what Mr. Trump is doing in Venezuela (which the acting Venezuelan president, by the way, said had “Zionist undertones”) – and may be about to do elsewhere.

Back to Winnipeg. Two days after the synagogue incident, a Palestinian-owned restaurant was also hit with hateful vandalism. Its front windows were smashed, and there was a disturbing note: “Leave our country terrorists.” 

I wish I was in Winnipeg right now so I could walk through the front door of the Habibiz Café, order a hummus and shawarma plate and tell its owner, Ali Zeid, how sorry I am that this happened. We Canadians need to have each other’s backs and stand up against hatred of the other. As the world around us darkens, this is one thing we can do together.

Source: The antisemitism you might have missed over the holidays