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

‘Allah will burn them’: What pro-Palestinian students and allies say when they think no one is watching

Deplorable posts and comments. But discussion of university response interesting and the administrators try to navigate an extremely divisive issue and student behaviour:

…Before bringing their trove of information to the Post, the Jewish students tried to go through university channels to address the concerning rhetoric shared in the group chats.

On Aug. 9, 2024, one of their lawyers, Jonathan Rosenthal, filed on their behalf a 17-page complaint to the university, distilling the nature of the comments on the group chat.

Yet there was never a formal investigation because the Jewish students were unwilling to identify themselves as complainants.

Western’s associate vice president of human resources, Jane O’Brien, confirmed receipt of the complaint. In a response several days days later she requested Rosenthal “identify the students involved” and outline any incident alleged to be “a breach of the Code of Student Conduct,” according to an email thread shared with the Post.

O’Brien also informed Rosenthal that concerns about the Palestinian student club’s campus status should be directed to the student union, the University Students’ Council.

“I will NOT be disclosing the names of the complainants,” Rosenthal replied Sept. 3, citing “safety concerns.” The lawyer said providing their names “is simply irrelevant” and requested the university investigate the matter promptly. Rosenthal emailed O’Brien the following week, but didn’t hear back until Sept. 13.

“Though your email indicates that the complaint provides student names and phone numbers, no such information appears to be included. Furthermore, the supporting documentation is comprised solely of what appears to be copied text, the origins of which are not demonstrated,” Foster continued.

Foster underscored that the university prioritizes the safety of complainants and “until such time as you provide the requested information, Western will not be able to proceed with your complaint.”

Rosenthal tried to meet Foster in the middle.

He shared a dossier with a trove of time-stamped data — WhatsApp messages, pictures, videos, phone numbers, screenshots and names — from the group chat but reaffirmed his clients would not publicly identify themselves.

“The chats speak for themselves,” Rosenthal answered Foster on Sept. 17.

Despite trading emails with the university for more than a month, Western wouldn’t budge.

The university defended its handling of the situation in a written statement to the Post. Western spokesman Stephen Ledgley said the complaint, “lacked sufficient information to proceed with an  investigation, such as identifying any student connected to the alleged conduct.”

He added that the “complaint and supporting documentation submitted were reviewed in detail to determine if an investigation could be pursued based on the information provided alone,” however, “there was insufficient information to proceed.”

Rosenthal’s dealings with the University Students’ Council, the student union, followed a similar pattern. His unwillingness to name the complainants remained the key sticking point. In his email exchanges with both groups, each pointed him to the other, rather than deal with the substance of the complaint.

He eventually shared the same dossier of information with Shari Bumpus, the union manager overseeing the student community, outlining several specific alleged violations of union policy dealing with fostering “an inclusive and welcoming environment” and anti-discrimination, but did not hear back.

It’s a response the union defends.

“The USC and Western University are two distinct entities with distinct jurisdictions,” spokeswoman Rebecca Rebeiro wrote the Post in a statement. “The USC was made aware of the anonymous complaint and conducted an investigation to determine if it fell within its jurisdiction. When it was determined this complaint was outside its scope, the USC referred the complaint over to Western University’s Student Code of Conduct Office.”

It’s an approach one Jewish advocacy group says is unconscionable.

“The content of the chats was shown to us. Based on what we’ve seen, we believe that the content is dangerous,” Richard Marceau, general counsel for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), wrote to the Post.

“The individuals involved shared violent threats, antisemitic slurs, and grotesque conspiracy theories, all while joking about how to evade university accountability using disappearing messages,” he added, imploring Western to investigate the matter.

Source: ‘Allah will burn them’: What pro-Palestinian students and allies say when they think no one is watching

Globe editorial: Tweets and platitudes will not defeat antisemitism

Good points:

…It bears repeating: Whatever your view on Israel’s actions in Gaza, Jewish Canadians are not responsible for the actions of the Netanyahu government, any more than Muslim Canadians are responsible for the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah, or Russian Canadians are culpable for Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression.

That simple fact seems to elude the protesters who target the places that Jewish Canadians gather, including near the Ottawa grocery store where last week’s attack took place. Those protesters have a constitutional right to express their anger. But they also have moral responsibilities, namely to ask themselves whether the manner of their protest is fostering an atmosphere of hate….

Source: Tweets and platitudes will not defeat antisemitism

Coren | Gaza has me thinking about my Christian and Jewish heritage and the urgent need to learn, listen and love

Amen:

The founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, was a deeply secular man who once believed that assimilation would defeat antisemitism. He changed his view when exposed to the Jew-hatred of the Dreyfuss trial, when a blameless Jewish French army officer was arrested and imprisoned, with the Roman Catholic Church at the forefront of the campaign.

It took until the 20th century for systemic change, especially when churches were exposed to the horrors of the Holocaust. Today, I almost always experience sensitivity and understanding. Yet, just last month at a major gathering of Christians there was a large banner calling for solidarity with the “crucified Palestinian people.” Of all the words that could have been used to describe the appalling state of the Palestinians and their treatment by Israel, why the ugly accusation that has been thrown at Jews for centuries?

All of us have to learn, listen, and ultimately love. It’s the only chance peace and justice have.

Source: Opinion | Gaza has me thinking about my Christian and Jewish heritage and the urgent need to learn, listen and love

Ian Cooper: The real reason to be upset by the Toronto International Film Festival scandal 

More on the TIFF decision and reversal with broader implications. But presumably, for Cooper, there would be some cases where art and art organizations may wish to draw the line:

…Art, like education, is not a TikTok algorithm. It’s not there to cheerlead your pre-existing biases. If you don’t like something, nobody’s forcing you to watch it. If you find yourself groping for an excuse to silence opposing voices, you should probably find some other line of work.

A partially publicly funded arts organization ought to apply principles of institutional neutrality, and its staff ought to prioritize ideological diversity at least as much as visual diversity. The film festival offers a platform. It should not pick a side. Just as academic institutions have been forced to reinvent themselves along these lines or else descend into endless shouting matches, so too will artistic ones.

It’s hard to know whether TIFF CEO Cameron Bailey, or the festival’s board, donors, and government funders, are willing to deliver that kind of blunt message. To do so would require the kind of restraint that seems to be in short supply in our polarized culture.

If they can’t do that, they should give up their public funding altogether. Canadian taxpayers should not have to pay for anybody’s political soapbox.

Ian Cooper is a Toronto-based lawyer.

Source: Ian Cooper: The real reason to be upset by the Toronto International Film Festival scandal