Polansky: The uncomfortable reason antisemitism is festering in Canada

Hard to imagine these protests, intimidation and disruption being tolerated if against another religious or ethnic group:

…It is only an emphasis on hatred, however, that would conflate these two disparate cases. Moreover, if there are specific threats against Jews that have arisen within Canada (as it seems there are), that is the result of policy failures. And all of these public gestures in the wake of the Bondi Beach attack represent a refusal to attend to those failures.

This refusal produces a number of externalities. The first is the substantial constriction of both public and private Jewish life within Canada. For cultures do not flourish under police protection. The second is the diminution of Canada’s sphere of genuine liberalism. For liberalism entails the tacit promise that disagreements can be managed peaceably via the political process. Not just violence, but the persistent threat of violence, is (as Hobbes would remind us) merely warfare by other means.

The problem then is not the hatred that lies in the human heart (except perhaps in the most generic sense). The problem is the attenuation of genuine liberalism within liberal societies, and this is a general problem. For Jews do not require special protection; they require the ordinary protections that liberalism is already designed to confer.

Meanwhile, the cause of this problem is not hard to identify: favoured groups, either on ethnic or political grounds, have declined to accept the impositions of liberal norms of behaviour, as both Muslims within Toronto and leftist fellow-travelers have taken to harassing Jewish institutions (and general passersby) as a kind of expanded theatre of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

This is an uncomfortable fact for those who have committed themselves to multiculturalism or general progressivism, and political authorities are understandably wary of the optics should they finally crack down after months of inaction. As a result, both municipal and provincial authorities have declined to enforce the relevant public square laws in the absence of compliance. This is, in other words, a profound failure to uphold basic liberal protections under the guise of liberalism.

That failure, in turn, has downstream effects as increasingly ugly and antisocial behaviours become normalized. Indefinitely occupying public areas opens the way for marching through Jewish neighbourhoods, which in turn opens the way to ripping down mezuzahs from the doorways of Holocaust survivors.

To blame all this on hatred is to avoid the hard choices of governance. It is plain that the reigning governments find it either politically inconvenient or merely bothersome to enforce their mandate to keep public order. But they, too, ultimately answer to their constituents.

The larger question is whether ordinary citizens themselves will continue to suffer rulers who defer the real obligations of ruling to committees, legal counsel, and so on. And it is ultimately the avoidance of those political obligations, rather than the power of amorphous hatreds, that has led to our present situation.

To paraphrase Ulysses in Troilus and Cressida, these daily outrages stand in our weakness, not their strength.

Source: The uncomfortable reason antisemitism is festering in Canada

Robert Brym: Avi Lewis and Independent Jewish Voices are gaslighting Canadians about antisemitism

Needed dose of reality:

…Some white people use the N-word, despite the fact that doing so is deeply offensive to Black people. Black people are entitled to call such individuals racists. By the same token, anti-Zionists may think it’s legitimate to call for the destruction of the Jewish state in Israel. However, most Jews are entitled to call such people antisemites because, for them, support for the existence of the Jewish state is part of what it means to be a Jew.

Finally, based on the results of a 2024 survey, Lewis and Balsam assert that 49 per cent of Canada’s Jews are not Zionists. This claim is misleading. The poll found that 51 per cent of Canadian Jews consider themselves to be Zionists, 15 per cent express ambivalence about referring to themselves as Zionists, seven per cent say they “don’t know” and 27 per cent say they are not Zionists. However, the survey also found that 94 per cent of Canadian Jews support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

According to standard dictionaries and general encyclopedias, Zionists are people who support the existence of a Jewish state in the Jews’ ancestral homeland. Such supporters remain Zionists even if, like me, they favour the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state, oppose the extent of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, express outrage at Jewish settler attacks on Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and support equal rights for all citizens of Israel, including Arabs. 

What, then, does it mean when 94 per cent of Canadian Jews are Zionists by the dictionary definition yet 49 per cent of them decline to call themselves Zionists? 

I decided to find out by conducting a follow-up survey in 2025 asking the participants in the 2024 poll to clarify the matter. The follow-up revealed that many participants are reluctant to call themselves Zionists because the term has developed a strongly negative connotation, under the weight of frequent and often extreme attacks against everything connected to Israel in the media, schools, universities, workplaces and in the streets. 

Nearly all Canadian Jews are Zionists by the dictionary definition, but nearly half of them don’t want to be called Zionists because the term has become a pejorative. According to the poll, a mere one per cent of Canadian Jews say they are anti-Zionists like Lewis and Balsam.

It seems clear that Lewis and Balsam’s interpretations are guided by ideological animus. Antisemitism is a major problem in Canada. Rhetoric and actions denying the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state are antisemitic according to the great majority of Canadian Jews. With the exception of a tiny minority, including Lewis and Balsam, Canadian Jews remain steadfast in their support for a Jewish state in the Jews’ ancestral homeland.

Source: Robert Brym: Avi Lewis and Independent Jewish Voices are gaslighting Canadians about antisemitism

Khan: We have to confront what Ahmed al Ahmed fought on Bondi Beach 

Of note:

…The Muslim community in Sydney has taken a clear stand: it will not receive the body of the deceased terrorist, nor perform funeral rites over it. Dr. Jamal Rifi, a prominent Muslim leader in the city, said: “We don’t see [the offenders] as inside the fold of Islam or as Muslims,” adding, “what they have done is not condoned by any of us and it is killing innocent civilians. We know it is a verse in our book, killing an innocent civilian is the same as killing all humanity.”

Australian authorities have yet to indicate if the attack was related to Israel’s violence against Palestinians. Nonetheless, this is an opportunity to clearly delineate the actions of a government from those of Jews worldwide. It is not antisemitic to criticize and oppose the Israeli government’s genocidal actions against the Palestinians in Gaza and its brutal military occupation of the West Bank. The war crime of Oct. 7, 2023 cannot justify war crimes in which tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed and populations are starved. It is antisemitic, however, to blame all Jews for the actions of the Israeli government. It is antisemitic to vandalize Jewish institutions, businesses and communities in protest. It is antisemitic to instill fear in Jewish communities – and Muslims know all too well the danger of being blamed and targeted for the actions of a few.

After the terrorist attack at a Quebec City mosque during which six worshippers were gunned down in cold blood, and after the murder of three generations of the Afzal family in London, Ont., by an Islamophobe, Canadian Muslims understandably feared for their safety. And while government and law enforcement responded to assure a shaken community, it was grassroots support and love by ordinary Canadians that helped in the healing process. 

Our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours are hurting and fearful. Let us all reach out with wings of mercy and compassion, to build stronger communities – and to build a stronger Canada.

Source: We have to confront what Ahmed al Ahmed fought on Bondi Beach

Various commentary on antisemitism following Sydney

Globe editorial: The fight against the growing darkness of antisemitism

…The groups that march in Jewish-Canadian neighbourhoods, as was the case last month in Toronto, are not mere protestors trying to convince their fellow citizens. They are engaged in an act of aggression and intimidation, an echo of the Ku Klux Klan marching through a Black neighbourhood. They are fueling antisemitism.

Holding regular rallies that demand the eradication of Israel, make unproven assertions of genocide and thirst for a global intifada is not an act of mere protest. It is antisemitic, it fuels radicalism and it clears a path for violence. Demand an intifada often enough, and you will get one.

The right to protest, even in a loathsome way, is a constitutional right. But there are laws that can be, and should be, enforced more vigorously. Canada has a hate-speech law on the books. Crown prosecutors should use it, with particular attention to section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, which prohibits the public incitement of hatred. And police need to abandon their preoccupation with maintaining public order at all costs. A deescalation strategy does not make sense when dealing with protestors looking to assert control of the streets….

Source: The fight against the growing darkness of antisemitism

Cotler: Condemnations of antisemitism are necessary. But they are simply not enough

…Canadians often look at the gun violence that plagues the United States with scorn and disbelief; its predictability and preventability make it especially tragic and senseless. The U.S. refuses to address the underlying cause – the proliferation of guns – and in 2023, nearly 50,000 Americans died from gun violence, and it was the leading cause of death for minors. After mass shootings, American politicians and public figures almost ritualistically offer their thoughts and prayers. Then they move on, until the next time – and then the pattern continues.

Yet, our approach to violent antisemitism in Canada and throughout the West has been almost identical to America’s approach to gun violence. Antisemitic attacks and incidents have become similarly routine and predictable across liberal democracies. After each incident, politicians issue condemnations, but fail to adequately address the underlying cause: antisemitic incitement and disinformation….

Source: Condemnations of antisemitism are necessary. But they are simply not enough

Regg Cohn | The antisemitism that exploded in Australia has long been brewing in Canada

..The more sophisticated protest leaders understand that these dog whistles send different signals to audiences of differing sophistications. All under the flag of free speech and fair criticism, a flag of convenience.

Consider “Zionism is racism.” Nothing against Jews, just everything against “Zionists” — whoever and whatever and wherever they may be.

It so happens that the vast majority of Jews would see themselves as Zionists of one description or another. They simply support self-determination for the Jews of Israel, as for the people of other lands.

And so if almost every Jew is a Zionist, it turns out that the newly permissive and vicious anti-Zionism is a distinction without a difference. In reality, on the street, online, the truth is that “Zionism is racism” is antisemitism by another name.

“From the river to the sea” is another loaded phrase, long ago embraced by Palestinian nationalists and now imported by sympathizers around the world. What does the slogan really mean?

What river, which sea?

Answer: From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which translates into one land for one people — Palestinians — not two states for two peoples. It would leave no trace of Israel or its nearly 10 million citizens (roughly 8 million Jews and 2 million Arab Christian and Muslim citizens).

“Globalize the intifada” means what, exactly?

Protesters have parsed the phrase, insisting that intifada merely means “shaking off” in conventional Arabic. Are we to believe that all who hear the chant, native Arabic speaker or not, are grounded in this grammatical understanding?

Check the Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionaries: intifada refers to armed “uprising” or “rebellion” against Israeli occupation.

To “globalize” an armed “uprising” is not an invitation to a tea party. It has a violent context and a confrontational subtext, which is perhaps why New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a darling of progressive protesters, has belatedly agreed to stop using a phrase that unsettles so many in New York, as in Toronto.

Against that backdrop, should we be surprised that father and son — armed with these incendiary slogans and coded chants and antisemitic dog whistles — would load their weapons and take aim at a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney, slaughtering 15 people? Conditioned and incited by propaganda and prejudice that now travels online and echoes on the streets, it is inevitable that impressionable souls will make illogical leaps that transport their minds from Gaza to Australia or Canada.

Antisemitism, like anti-Zionism, has long predated the Hamas massacre that burst out of Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, and the subsequent Israeli counterattack and overkill. It will persist long after peace finally comes to the Middle East.

I spent four years as a foreign correspondent covering the hatreds of the Middle East. There was a time when I thought Canadians — Jews, Muslims, Christians, people of all faiths and no faiths — could set aside the prejudices of the past and chart a path to a peaceful future.

Back then, I imagined we could transplant our goodwill from Canada to the Middle East, but I had it backwards: Today, the ill will of the Middle East has come to Canada, as it has to Australia.

Source: Opinion | The antisemitism that exploded in Australia has long been brewing in Canada

Lederman: Ahmed al Ahmed showed the world what heroism looks like. What we need now is leadership

…It is tempting to go tribal in difficult times, to keep with our own. This is one of many dangers of a time so dark that lessons passed down from generation to generation might be hatred and violence, rather than love and wisdom. 

Is this massacre a wake-up call? Maybe. But in its wake, my social media feeds still offered up grotesque antisemitism. On a Facebook thread about a new Toronto-area Uber-type service for Jewish people (following reports of Uber drivers shunning certain customers), one guy wrote: “I thought they were called train cars.” In the hours immediately after this massacre, it wasn’t the only Holocaust-related comment on there. When I reached out to the person who wrote it, he told me: lighten up, it’s a joke. He’s from Newfoundland, he replied, where self-deprecating humour is the norm. 

This is very small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. But antisemitism has crept into socially acceptable territory. Would anyone make that kind of public “joke” about any other minority’s deadly persecution? 

I’m so sick of it. The mezuzahs ripped off doorways, the swastikas in public schools, people telling us to go back to Europe. This is happening in Canada.

Sorry if I sound angry during this Festival of Lights. But I am angry.

We can placate ourselves with stories like Mr. Ahmed’s. But we have hit a dangerous place. One man’s heroism is not going to save us. World leaders, Canadian politicians, law enforcement, anyone who has silently stood by while allowing this normalization to happen: it’s your turn to step up and intervene.

Source: Ahmed al Ahmed showed the world what heroism looks like. What we need now is leadership

Kermalli: As a Muslim, I grieve the murder of Jews in Australia — the racist attack breaches the ethical core of every faith tradition

Good commentary:

..As a Muslim, I grieve this because antisemitism is a form of racism that breaches the ethical core of every faith tradition. I also grieve because such attacks inevitably place Muslim communities under suspicion, intensifying fear of the perceived “other.” This is not an either/or. I can acknowledge and hold both of these realities at once.

It matters, then, that amid this horror, a Muslim man intervened and acted with courage, attempting to stop the violence. The actions of Ahmed al-Ahmed, a 43-year-old father of two and Australian citizen of Syrian origin exemplify what Islam actually demands: the preservation of life, even at personal risk.

Along with the Jewish victims, he is a figure worth remembering — not because he is Muslim, but because moral clarity should guide whose stories we elevate. After the Christchurch mosque massacres in 2019, former prime minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern refused to name the killer, saying she would not give him the notoriety he sought. That restraint mattered. It still does. Let us remember the people who ran toward danger, not those who revelled in it.

What we must also resist is the rush to politicize tragedy. We cannot associate this terrorist attack with pro-Palestinian protests. If we do, we will weaken the moral credibility of movements that stand for human dignity.

Faith teaches that in the face of violence, our response must be measured, compassionate and united. We must resist the forces that seek to turn grief into conflict.

Source: As a Muslim, I grieve the murder of Jews in Australia — the racist attack breaches the ethical core of every faith tradition

Lederman: The ceasefire is holding, but in Israel the fight for sustainable peace isn’t over

Good long read:

…Even for a Canadian who couldn’t understand more than the odd Hebrew word, it was electric.When I messaged the woman in Toronto who had let me know about the choir to tell her how profound I found the performance, Bonnie Goldberg shared some notes she wrote after her own experience.

“If the Rana Choir of Muslim, Jewish and Christian women, can find their common voice,” she wrote, “why can’t my former friends who shunned me find their way back to be my friend?”

This shunning in the diaspora has gone from shocking to almost familiar: friendships torn apart, mezuzahs ripped from doorways. For Israel, the shunning is existential, with people around the world using their platforms to question its legitimacy. Does Israel even deserve to exist? 

It was, I have to say, a relief over those 10 days to not be confronted with antisemitism and a prevailing anti-Israel sentiment. There are political arguments and debates here – very heated – but at least you can skip past the should-Israel-even-exist question.

It was also a relief to meet with so many Israelis who are fighting for justice for Palestinians, while also acknowledging the trauma of Oct. 7.

It was never lost on me – visiting art museums, strolling on the beach that I had more rights as a visitor than many of the people who live here, Palestinians, have under Israeli control. I was not able to visit Gaza, obviously. Nor was I able to get to the West Bank. But I didn’t need to go there to know, with certainly, that in those places, there is a lot less of that thing I had been searching for.

Source: The ceasefire is holding, but in Israel the fight for sustainable peace isn’t over

Levitt: At a time of widespread antisemitism, thoughtful conversations are vital

More such conversations needed.

…Recently, I had the pleasure, along with 1,600 people, of listening to two leading commentators share their insight on current issues. NYU’s Scott Galloway and CNN’s Van Jones were the keynote speakers at an event in Toronto hosted by Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, the human rights organization I head. At a time of widespread antisemitism, high-profile pundits — non-Jewish and Jewish, like these respected American observers — addressing this scourge is more vital than ever.

In this limited space, it’s hard to do full justice to the hour-long discussion, moderated by Canadian journalist Steve Paikin, but the following two excerpts give a sense of the thought-provoking conversation.

Responding to Paikin’s question about whether the U.S. is facing the prospect of a civil war, Jones, a prominent Black political analyst, gave a sobering perspective.

“We are being torn apart by a couple of different factors,” he said. “The most important one is that social media companies have decided to make a bunch of money off of dividing people and now they’re waging a shadow war, a grey war, against the West, primarily on TikTok, and they’ve come up with a novel strategy, never before heard of, called ‘Blame the Jews.’

“This is brand new,” he added caustically, “and unfortunately people are stupid enough to fall for it. I keep telling people that blaming the Jews isn’t the oldest trick in the book, blaming the Jews is literally older than books … Whenever they attack Jews, it’s never about the Jews. It’s always some other thing going on. Why are they picking on the Jews? It’s always because it’s another agenda. And so there’s this very nefarious agenda to divide the West, to divide us, to have us turn on each other rather than turn to each other and one of the ramifications of that is this uncivil war in our country.”

For his part, Galloway, a bestselling Jewish author, professor and entrepreneur, was equally astute. Asked why so many U.S. universities had become cauldrons of hate, targeting especially Jewish students, he didn’t mince words.

“A lot of the fault lies with campus leadership,” he said. “In trying to come to grips with American history, unfortunately, we’ve created the very reductive construct of the oppressed and the oppressor. Figure out who you are based on your identity and that categorizes you as the oppressor or the oppressed. What we’ve done is we’ve basically trained a generation [to think] that you’re one or the other. The most reductive or lazy way of thinking for identifying an oppressor, which we’ve taught kids on campus, is that your level of oppression is directly correlated to how rich and white you are. And unfortunately, Jews have been conflated with the richest, whitest people in the world.”

Referring to the anti-Israel encampments on campus, which often openly and enthusiastically embraced antisemitism, he added:

“If I went down to the square at NYU and I said, ‘Burn the gays!” or ‘Lynch the Blacks!’ my academic career would be over by the close of business that day. There would be no need for [discussing] ‘context.’ We wouldn’t be talking about the First Amendment. My career would be over. It became clear to me that on campuses through a series of well-intentioned teachings that went too far, it ended up where free speech never became freer as long as it was hate speech against Jews.”

Long may the insightful voices of Jones and Galloway resonate far and wide. We need more like them speaking out candidly and people giving them the attention they deserve.

Source: At a time of widespread antisemitism, thoughtful conversations are vital

B.C. college instructor fired over Hamas comments reinstated

Her comment appears to lack self-awareness given the nature of much of academic discourse:

Langara Faculty Association president Pauline Greaves said in a statement that she is grateful the troubling episode has come to a close.

“I understand many in our community were hurt and offended by what Dr. Knight said. But collegial dialogue and tolerance for views we don’t like are the bedrock of a robust, engaged academic environment.”

Source: B.C. college instructor fired over Hamas comments reinstated

A definition of racism that targets Jews is racist

Arguing against adding anti-Palestinian attitudes to examples and definitions of racism. As I have argued earlier, anti-Palestinian attitudes can be either ethnic (Arab) or religious (Christian or Muslim).

Hard to think of a comparable situation with respect to other groups (e.g.,anti-Uighur, anti-Khalistan) where the particular is not covered by current ethnic and religious discrimination and hate crimes:

Providing Canadians with tools to root out hate against any group is vital to our democracy. But it is unconscionable that these tools are designed or become weapons to promote hate against another group. The Arab Canadian Lawyers Association’s (ACLA) definition of “Anti-Palestinian Racism” (APR), now gaining traction in Canadian institutions, does precisely that, turning a language meant to defend dignity into a framework that treats Jewish identity as inherently racist.

Discrimination against Palestinians, like against any group, is unacceptable. Fortunately, Canada has strong legal mechanisms in place to address such cases, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and provincial human rights codes. These instruments prohibit discrimination based on place of origin, race, ethnicity, and religion. As the Ontario Human Rights Commission affirmed in an opinion, these existing protections are sufficient to address acts of prejudice against Palestinians.

But APR is not designed merely to fill a legal gap. Instead, it is a political instrument, one that forces a specific historical and ideological narrative that denies Jewish ties to the land of Israel. The definition requires all Canadians to support a Palestinian state from the river to the sea, which means the annihilation of Israel. It also suggests that disagreement with Palestinian political claims or narratives about Israel’s creation, or those which support Zionism, is inherently racist. APR doesn’t simply combat hate; it seeks to delegitimize the belief shared by 94 percent of Jewish Canadians who support the existence of a Jewish state in Israel. This view is shared by millions of other Canadians of all faiths and ethnicities because we acknowledge the right of self-determination for ourselves and others, including for Jews.

This is where the danger lies. APR imposes a rigid orthodoxy on a complex and contested historical and political conflict. In doing so, it undermines the very foundations of our Canadian liberal democracy: open dialogue, freedom of expression, and academic freedom. APR also risks criminalizing legitimate debate and dissent, particularly on university campuses, where open exchange of ideas is essential. Evidence of the danger of APR is already visible. For example, at Carleton University, a recently released report titled “The Palestine Exception” charged professors who teach a course that takes students to Israel to study religions and cultures in the region with engaging in APR.

The effects of APR are chilling. Canadians who support Israel’s right to exist are routinely being marginalized, accused of racism, and excluded. Even Prime Minister Carney, who reaffirmed Canada’s policy of supporting a two-state solution, would be deemed a racist. Many Canadians support a two-state solution and the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Supporting Palestinian rights does not require denying the right of Jews to national self-determination or casting Zionism as a form of bigotry. Yet APR reduces this complex reality to a zero-sum game in which supporting one group requires condemning the other.

The federal government is now being urged to enshrine APR, including by Canada’s Special Representative on Islamophobia, into its anti-racism strategy. This would be a dangerous mistake. By endorsing a definition that equates Jewish identity with racism, Canada would undermine its existing anti-discrimination regime, politicize legal norms, and embolden those who seek to suppress rather than engage in open debate. This definition is not aligned with Canada’s inclusive, democratic values.

It is also remarkable that APR’s proponents reject Canada’s adopted definition of antisemitism, that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). IHRA affirms that criticism of Israel of the same type levelled against any other country is not antisemitic, while APR permits no criticism of Palestinian narratives without being labelled racist—yet another example of double standards applied to the detriment of the Jewish community.

If we want to build a truly inclusive Canada, we must resist simplistic labels that divide rather than unite. Canadians should be free to express support for Palestinian self-determination—as long as such advocacy does not glorify terrorism or vilify Jews. Equally, Zionists and Israelis must be allowed to express support for Jewish self-determination without being cast as racists.

APR is a step away from inclusion. It is a step toward silencing, polarization, and legal confusion. Canada needs practical tools to combat hate. We should not adopt a concept that is being used to demonize one group under the guise of protecting another. The road to justice is not paved with redefinition and ideological rigidity, but with mutual respect, legal clarity, and an unwavering commitment to the rights and dignity of all. Let’s not abandon those principles with a definition that will further fuel polarization and hate in Canadian society.

Source: A definition of racism that targets Jews is racist

Chris Selley: What Canada can learn from two years of anti-Israel protests

Fair points. The citizenship guide does have a reference to imported conflicts: “Some Canadians immigrate from places where they have experienced warfare or conflict. Such experiences do not justify bringing to Canada violent, extreme or hateful prejudices.:

…But we still can lay down some markers about what’s acceptable protest and what isn’t — maybe in the citizenship guide, which is supposed to apply to everyone (not just immigrants). Two principles we could articulate:

Canada is, by design, a land of free expression, including protest, which we treat generously. But at some juncture, having made your point, you have to bugger off from the middle of the road and let people go about their lives. Blocking the road is, after all, illegal. Letting you do it for your cause is a courtesy, not a right. 

If people want to leave homeland conflicts behind, it’s none of your business, even if you share a homeland and think they’re letting the home side down. 

If you target a business for protest because it’s owned by someone who has a different opinion about your homeland, you will be shunned and hooted at unapologetically. 

Meanwhile, Canadian politicians need to take a very long, very hard look at how our police forces conduct their business. Like the Ottawa occupiers before them, the anti-Israel mob has taken outrageous advantage of Canadian police forces’ slavish dedication to de-escalation as the only goal that matters

Source: Chris Selley: What Canada can learn from two years of anti-Israel protests