Biro: Canada’s activist academy and the rise of anti-Zionism

2026/06/29 Leave a comment

Of note:

…But anti-Zionism is not, as it is commonly described, a form of legitimate criticism of Israeli politics, practices, or leadership. It is a movement predicated on the belief that Israel is, and was from the start, an illegitimate state, and, more fundamentally, that Zionism—the Jewish aspiration for self-determination in an indigenous, biblically prophesied homeland—is an evil enterprise with colonialist, racist, and genocidal motivations. And so, if Israel, the Jewish homeland, is a pariah state, it is axiomatic that Jews are a pariah people.

This is the essence of anti-Zionism. And it is the aim of my conference to expose and explain the hateful character of anti-Zionism and to reflect on what the prevalence of this ideology in the ranks of our human rights establishment and of our social sciences and humanities scholars says about the state of liberal democracy in Canada and throughout the West.

That Palestinian voices should be heard is not remotely objectionable or even controversial. That human rights grievances must be exposed and that corresponding political and legal accountability must result are givens. But what, one must ask, could the rationale be for wanting, as some in the university did, to include those sorts of divergent and critical perspectives in a conference about the nature and societal implications of antisemitism? What reason might there be to honour and conform to an institution’s “mission and approach” by such measures if not to provide at least some plausible explanation—not to say, justification—for the fact that Jew-hatred is all the rage?

For each type of undertaking there is a corresponding forum. Public education—be it in a high school, university, or taxpayer-funded public museum—must be non-partisan, politically neutral, socially and morally responsible, and, above all, truthful.

Our academy—which, in the broadest sense, includes all of our institutions of research, learning, and teaching—has succumbed to what the Vanderbilt Report describes as “a distinctive form of politicization in which the scholarly enterprise is taken to be subordinate to, or in the service of, political (social or moral) goals beyond the advancement of knowledge and understanding.”

In a world in which activism has supplanted truth-seeking as the overriding mission of the academy and the spirit of the age, we would do well to heed the late Christopher Hitchens’ admonition to be wary of taking refuge in the false security of consensus.

Source: Canada’s activist academy and the rise of anti-Zionism

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Gail Asper, who helped create the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, raises concerns about its upcoming Nakba exhibit along with Cotler, with balance provided by Lederman

2026/06/25 Leave a comment

Struck a nerve:

When the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg opens a show about Palestinian displacement this weekend, one of its founders may be standing outside protesting.

Philanthropist Gail Asper, who led the museum project after the 2003 death of her father, media owner Izzy Asper, fears that the exhibition about the exile of Palestinians from what is now Israel lacks historical context and might inflame antisemitism in Canada.

“I definitely would protest. I am not going to attend the opening,” she said, although she added she does plan to see the show. It opens to the general public Saturday, after a launch on Friday. “I’m never the sort of person that wants a book banned before I’ve read it, so I will go and I will take a look.”

The show, entitled Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present, is devoted to the Palestinian experience of exile after 1947 and uses photographs, videos and objects to relay first-person accounts. It has become controversial in the Jewish community because it does not cover the history surrounding the establishment of Israel, nor the displacement of Jews from Arab lands after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948….

Source: Gail Asper, who helped create the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, raises concerns about its upcoming Nakba exhibit

The Canadian Museum of Human Rights has failed its mandate

…In truth, 1948 produced a double catastrophe: Arab Palestinian displacement resulting from war, and the mass displacement of Jews from Arab lands. Any institution claiming scholarly seriousness must grapple with both.

Instead, the museum privileges one historical memory while marginalizing another.

That is not education. It is curation by omission.

Museums are not activist or propagandistic platforms. They are custodians of public trust. Their role is not to inflame but to illuminate; not to advance ideological narratives but to encourage inquiry, historical nuance and civic understanding.

When museums abandon scholarly neutrality for activism, they become instruments of polarization.

That risk is especially acute today, amid an unprecedented explosion of antisemitism, deep communal fracture and public anxiety.

The Canadian Museum for Human Rights should be helping bridge divides, not deepen them.

A museum devoted to human rights need not avoid difficult subjects. But it must present them with evidence-based inquiry, context, intellectual honesty and moral seriousness.

In this case, it has failed that test.

If the museum wishes to contribute meaningfully to public understanding, it must revisit this exhibition’s framing and ensure it reflects historical truth rather than a selective political narrative.

Canadians deserve better from one of their most important public institutions.

Irwin Cotler was Canada’s minister of justice and first special envoy on Holocaust remembrance and antisemitism,Mark L. Berlin is Professor of Practice at McGill University and former senior adviser on the Middle East to the minister of justice, Alan H. Kessel is a former assistant deputy minister and legal adviser at Global Affairs Canada.

Lederman: The Canadian Museum for Human Rights is right to portray the stories of displaced Palestinians

…Ms. Khan says she is concerned about antisemitism, as the head of a human rights museum should be – as every Canadian should be. She is also concerned that Palestinian experiences were under-represented in the museum. As she should be.

Rational people should be able to distinguish between a foreign dignitary’s museum visit and actual foreign interference. Reasonable people should understand that a human rights museum has every reason to profile the stories of displaced Palestinians. Reasonable people should also understand that the museum has a responsibility to present such stories with integrity. The Canadian public is counting on this national museum, this Crown corporation, to tell these stories. And to tell them fairly and responsibly.







Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Human rights museum board member resigns over ‘one-sided’ exhibit on displaced Palestinians

2026/06/24 2 Comments

Of note. One sided is, of course, partially in the mind of the beholder but this is a hard issue to navigate but one that merits attention:

A trustee for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights says he has resigned from the Winnipeg facility’s board over an upcoming exhibit about displaced Palestinians.

Mark Berlin submitted his resignation in a letter to federal Heritage Minister Marc Miller and the museum’s board chair. In it, Berlin accuses the museum of putting forth “ideology” instead of an accurate history.

“Telling the story with a one-sided perspective chosen by the museum serves to deepen division and contributes to further hostility toward Jews in Canada,” Berlin wrote in his letter, shared with media outlets.

“Presenting the Palestinian displacement of 1948 without its proper historical and political context offers a narrow, one-sided argument of history that can only deepen the distrust and animosity that currently exists between Jews and Muslims in this country.”

Berlin, a professor at McGill University’s international development institute with a background in human rights law, argued the exhibit fails to explain that Arab states fought those who ultimately established the State of Israel in 1948 and then expelled Jews to Israel.

The exhibit, set to open Saturday, focuses on people affected by the forced displacement of about 750,000 Palestinians during the 1948 Palestine war — an event known as the Nakba, Arabic for catastrophe.

Source: Human rights museum board member resigns over ‘one-sided’ exhibit on displaced Palestinians

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Lederman: There’s a lot not to like about the new anti-hate council

2026/06/22 Leave a comment

Never was convinced that these two positions were effective in reducing hate but they did provide assurances to the specific groups. We will see if the council will be more or less successful (don’t envy the officials responsible…):

…The group replaces Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia and the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism. That was the government’s first mistake. Why not keep those positions (and perhaps set up others) and have the various representatives sit on a wider council? 

The problem is urgent, but beyond this announcement, it’s unclear what is happening. In responding to an interview request, one council member indicated they had not yet been officially onboarded and was waiting to have a better sense of specifics. 

Meanwhile, Canadian youth are being hired by a foreign entity to shoot up synagogues. 

Government bureaucracy is notoriously snail-paced. This is no time for dawdling or endless committee discussions, but for meaningful action. This week’s passing of the anti-hate bill will offer some protection. But hate must be targeted at its root, not just its activation. It’s going to be a massive challenge. Let’s go.

Source: There’s a lot not to like about the new anti-hate council

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Silberstein: Rank Islamophobia in Congress is a crisis for American Jews

2026/06/19 1 Comment

Of note:

A growing caucus in the House of Representatives is targeting Muslims, and American Jews should be deeply concerned.

The Sharia-Free America Caucus, established in December, now boasts more than 60 members, all of whom are Republican. In announcing its establishment, one of its founders, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, warned that, “from Texas to every state in this constitutional republic, instances of Sharia adherents masquerading as ‘refugees’ — and in many cases, sleeper cells connected to terrorist organizations — are threatening the American way of life.”

His language was reminiscent of past xenophobic claims made about Irish and Jewish immigrants flooding the country with, respectively, Catholicism and communism. And the fact that the caucus has expanded in influence speaks to the continued radicalization of the Republican Party and the growing threat of American Christian nationalism. The attacks on our Muslim neighbors from the party in power call for Jews to stand up in defense of the value of religious pluralism in the United States.

American Muslims are the right’s immediate targets. But Muslims and Jews both stand to lose if the U.S. becomes an even less liberal and more strictly Christian nation than it is today.

A fictional threat

No one should dismiss the Sharia-Free America Caucus as a flash in the pan. Its membership includes a member of the Republican House leadership, Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota, who has said that “Sharia is completely incompatible with the American way of life and threatens the very fabric of our society.”

The caucus has introduced a number of pieces of legislation to combat the fictional threat of Sharia law, prompting a public letter signed by 119 Democrats demanding the House leadership not allow a vote on these ridiculous bills.

The Democrats are right to be drawing attention to this appalling demonstration of rank bigotry by dozens of Republican members of Congress. It should go without saying that there is no threat of Sharia law supplanting secular American law. Such talk is nothing but the crude fantasy of demagogues.

Instead, the caucus is twisting ordinary religious practices to demonize millions of Americans.

Sharia law, like Jewish halacha, is an unsettled body of religious law that has been interpreted, reinterpreted, and debated for centuries. In the U.S., scholars of Islamic law can weigh in on certain kinds of civil cases such as business disputes. This is exactly how batei din operate for many observant Jews: not as structures that replace American law, but as mechanisms that specific communities turn to voluntarily to help decide internal questions.

Just as the establishment of a Halacha-Free America Caucus would be an illegitimate and plainly hateful assault on the dignity of American Jews, so the existence of this caucus is an insulting act of bigotry toward American Muslims. The message being sent to them is clear: You do not belong here, and if you want to stay out of trouble, you can only practice your faith in ways the majority religious group finds acceptable.

A dark American history

These attacks against Muslims are continuous with a strain of illiberalism and xenophobia in the history of the U.S. with which Jews should be familiar. Yes, this country welcomed ships of Eastern European Jewish refugees at Ellis Island; but it also enacted the 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration quotas — which ultimately helped trap Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, American Muslims faced widespread discrimination in the name of national security — including illegal detainments and unconstitutional invasive police surveillance of communities. Once the terrorism panic subsided, Islamophobia became a standard part of the right-wing playbook….

Abe Silberstein is the Associate Director, North America, of The Abraham Initiatives, an Israel-based NGO working to achieve equality between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Source: Rank Islamophobia in Congress is a crisis for American Jews

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Why is a Canadian literary magazine supporting ‘armed resistance’?

2026/06/10 2 Comments

Good point. Not just literary magazines…:

…So far as I know, there isn’t a Canadian literary magazine devoting an issue to the hard work of mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence. If there was, I would contribute to it.

David Bezmozgis is a writer and filmmaker. His upcoming film, The Betrayers, will be released in 2026.

Source: Why is a Canadian literary magazine supporting ‘armed resistance’?

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Schwartz: Once a global rallying cry, Canada’s institutions have abandoned the consensus of ‘Je suis Charlie’

2026/06/09 Leave a comment

Federal government can only do so much and institutions need also to play a role:

…The recent federal announcement for a more focused national response is welcome. But the deeper test is whether Canada’s institutions will heed the call. 

The standard should be simple and universal: no political cause or ideological grievance earns an exemption from the basic rules of democratic life.

If intimidation is wrong when directed at one group, it is wrong when directed at another. If threats are unacceptable in one political context, they are unacceptable in all of them.

This is where leadership matters.

University presidents should speak plainly when students are targeted. Political leaders should stop calibrating outrage according to constituency or online reaction. Editors should give ideologically motivated violence the prominence it deserves….

Gary Schwartz is a general partner for North Exit Ventures and the CEO of the Canadian Lenders Association. He lives in Toronto.

Source: Once a global rallying cry, Canada’s institutions have abandoned the consensus of ‘Je suis Charlie’

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with

While I was away: Antisemitism

2026/06/08 Leave a comment

Wide range of commentary on antisemitism and conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and the mixed reaction to PM Carney’s address to Jewish leaders. Making an address outside of the House of Commons never works, former PM Mulroney learned that with Italian Canadians, former PM Harper learned that with Sikh Canadians and PM Carney repeats those mistakes with Jewish Canadians.

And Carney should have been clearer on the extreme forms of anti-Zionism on display in Canadian cities and institutions that go far beyond legitimate criticism of the Israeli government policies and actions, particularly under the current Netanyahu government with extremist Jewish ministers in Cabinet and government:

Canada is being tested by a crisis of antisemitism, Carney says

… Mr. Carney’s speech, his first to focus on the topic of antisemitism, was met with polite praise from those in the audience, which included MPs, local and provincial politicians and religious leaders. He had faced pressure to speak in person directly about the issue.

But Jewish leaders criticized him for not addressing his government’s foreign policy toward Israel, which has included condemning the country’s conduct in Gaza and recognizing a Palestinian state – moves that some in the Jewish community have said further inflamed domestic tensions.

“When Canadian elected leaders publicly condemn Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, Jewish Canadians pay the price,” Holy Blossom’s Rabbi Yael Splansky said in recorded remarks played before Mr. Carney began speaking.

Globe editorial: The missing words in Mark Carney’s antisemitism speech

…What should he have said? That the problem is antizionism, a complete, anything-goes rejection of, and demonizing of, Israel’s existence. And that antizionism is manifesting itself on Canada’s streets and university campuses, in a complete, anything-goes rejection, and demonizing of, Jews.

This is where the Prime Minister’s courage failed him. Taking on the antizionists – the core of the problem – was not something this Liberal prime minister was prepared to do. He went into a synagogue before an invitation-only audience of 170 Jewish leaders and did not meet the moment. He didn’t mention Israel, despite his prepared remarks doing so – once. He was unable or unwilling to articulate what is behind the “scourge of antisemitism” that he rightly condemned….

Geist: Why Mark Carney’s Antisemitism Speech Did Not Meet the Moment

…Naming the crisis is only step one however, and on the parts that matter most, the speech missed the mark. Begin with where he chose to deliver it. Carney told his audience he was speaking in a synagogue but the address was for all Canadians. But a speech for all Canadians that frames antisemitism as a national problem belongs on the floor of the House of Commons, where Canadians are represented and where all MPs – whether or not they are Jewish or represent ridings with large Jewish populations – would have had to sit together and hear the need for the country to take responsibility for antisemitism. I’m happy to see Evan Solomon, Leslie Church, Anthony Housefather, Rachel Bendayan, and Ben Carr in attendance. But we need all MPs, particularly those who have said little about antisemitism since October 7th, to see this as their issue too. MPs from all perspectives sitting side-by-side only happens in the House of Commons, and it did not happen yesterday (as one rabbi noted, a speech in a synagogue was needed months ago in the immediate aftermath of the shootings).

Chris Selley: At a synagogue, Carney tells the wrong people to abandon their ethnic rivalries

…We’re lucky, and we have done a lot of things right, but we’re not special: You can’t ask people to bring their faith, culture, language and world view with them to Canada but leave any rivalries or grievances behind. That’s just not human nature. This insistence on combating dire situations with myth-making will eventually be a large part of the Liberals’ undoing. In the meantime, on the issue of antisemitism specifically, Carney’s government seems to have almost nothing to offer. And he offered it at a synagogue.

John Ivison: The crucial words Carney wouldn’t speak in his antisemitism speech

For my part, I felt that it was an unusually eloquent and heartfelt speech but that it fell short for a different reason: it failed to be honest about the cause of the corruption in the body politic.

“We welcome the peoples of the world, in all their diversity and splendour. We don’t welcome the world’s hatreds,” Carney said. “When you come to Canada, you bring your faith, your traditions, your language, your story but you leave behind your animosities.”

But that is not happening. Islamists arrive and are given permission to give vent to their ancient loathing by anarcho-socialists, and their naive campus enablers, who love Palestine but hate Canada, and despise Jews most of all.

The Montreal4Palestine group continues to defend the mock hanging of a man wearing a kippah last month, saying it was directed at a specific political figure (Israeli politician Itamar Ben-Gvir), not at Jews. Will it take a real lynching to convince the waverers that this is not legitimate freedom of expression?

Given the demographics, it is clear why the prime minister was ambiguous in laying the blame.

But, as Elie Wiesel learned in the death camps, neutrality helps the oppressor and silence encourages the tormentor.

The malignancy will continue to metastasize if we keep obscuring its source.

Tasha Kheiriddin: Mark Carney in denial over what’s behind antisemitism

…Citizenship is a two-way street. Newcomers have a responsibility to respect the laws and customs of the place they choose to call home. When they not only fail to embrace Canada’s basic values, but repudiate them, there must be consequences: fines, arrests, deprivation of liberty, and in the case of non-citizens, removal from the country. Let me be clear.

That’s what Carney should have said. Instead, he listed his government’s actions to date, including Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Law. He announced the creation of a Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion, one of whose jobs will be to study antisemitism. It includes one lone Jewish member, former senator Marc Gold, and features Omar Alghabra, an MP who has been photographed numerous times in the company of Islamic extremists.

This is BS. Canada doesn’t need another council to study a problem that Carney described quite fully in his remarks. Canadian Jews need to feel safe in their homes and communities. And all of us need an end to denial, inaction and the toleration of hate.

Lederman: The Prime Minister addressed Canada’s antisemitism problem. Almost nobody was satisfied

… Canada’s Jewish community, like any community, is not homogenous. There are always going to be differences of opinion. Some of the criticism is fair, but the knee-jerk sneering at the Prime Minister’s acknowledgment of Jewish Canadian pain – and his call for the rest of the country to step up – is disappointing and unproductive. The speech was not a hollow gesture, but a meaningful promise to act.

The speech, in fact, was the action. Or an action, at least.

“No Jewish Canadian should ever have to wonder whether the government sees this clearly,” said AI Minister Evan Solomon, who is Jewish. “We do. We see it, we acknowledge it, we are acting on it.”

Canada’s leader is asking the country to come together to oppose antisemitism. This should be commended, not condemned. The response to that plea tells the story of a country divided.

Stephens: Hatred of Israel and the Degradation of the West

…How is it that hatred of one country can wind up doing more damage to the haters than the hated?

All prejudice, mindless or deliberate, is mind-warping; obsessive prejudice, of the kind Israel disproportionately attracts, is even more so. There are today millions of people around the world who, with considerable media and academic assistance, have convinced themselves that the major, if not sole, cause of injustice in the Middle East and even the world is Israel’s occupation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza.

As a result, this obsession has contributed to the relative neglect of the region’s other fundamental problems, above all the abiding grip of authoritarian politics in places like Cairo and Ankara and totalitarian religious fundamentalism in Gaza and Tehran. When was the last time you heard of an American campus protest against the treatment of Kurds by Turkey (a NATO ally and longtime beneficiary of U.S. security guarantees), or the genocide in Sudan?

Why is this year’s arts biennale in Venice being roiled by the inclusion of Israel, but not of China? Why has the recent report detailing the extensive documentation of systematic use of rape and sexual torture by Hamas and its collaborators received little attention?

These aren’t just questions of hypocrisy or double standards. They are evidence of minds that have lost the capacity to think dispassionately and critically. What we should really be worried about isn’t the future of Israel; it’s the fate of the West.

Moral judgments should be made about Israel according to the same standards by which we judge other countries faced with similar circumstances. It’s when Israel is demanded to be a saint — and then, as it invariably falls short, is damned as the worst sinner — that we lose our sense of perspective and proportion.

Jack Mintz: Australia’s response to antisemitism puts Canada to shame

…Dave Rich, a leading British academic on antisemitism, concluded that labelling Zionism as a form of western colonialism is used to demonize, exclude and attack Jewish people and supporters of Israel. He also argued that claiming that Israelis are just like the Nazis in practising genocide undermines the importance of the Holocaust in defining antisemitism.

This all-encompassing approach in Australia should be carefully reviewed by the Carney government. It is not just a matter of a government’s responsibility towards security. It is also an issue of social cohesion.

Like Australia, intimidating demonstrations that dehumanize Jews has led to an increase in antisemitic attacks in Canada. Reported and unreported antisemitic acts are frequent, totalling 567 per month in 2025 alone, according to B’nai Brith Canada’s annual audit of antisemitic incidents.

The Carney government should not wait for a Bondi-like terror incident before acting to curb antisemitism. So far, its effort is deficient.

Lederman: The San Diego mosque shooting is a profoundly 2026 tragedy

….What drives a 17- and 18-year-old to this kind of hatred? To end people’s lives, and then their own? Mr. Clark was about to graduate from high school. 

Consider everything we’re learning about the manosphere – misogynistic, hateful, homophobic, antisemitic, and somehow very attractive to many young men. 

A spark – caused by a bad day, a fateful encounter, who knows what – sends these kids to dark corners of the internet. Their hateful curiosity is reinforced by algorithms that continue to serve up vile ideas. These algorithms are designed to maximize engagement – and, for the social-media companies, profits. It’s all happening in the combustible environment of the divisive politics of the day, where hateful rhetoric has become the norm, not just from blabbermouth commentators, but politicians, all the way up to the U.S. President. 

In the aftermath of this tragedy, far-right Trump ally Laura Loomer posted: “The shooting in California took place at a jihadi mosque known for its hate preachers.” She wrote that it was “likely planned by Muslims” and the U.S. Islamic lobby. There are too many people who will believe her own hate-filled misinformation, uncritically.

Beyond the grief of this incident, there is an urgent need to address this emergency. We are in a confirmation-biased, hate-fuelled misinformation crisis. Wherever these two young men – boys, really – have been taught to hate like this, others are there too, lurking, reading, learning at the knees of influencers, extremist pundits, hateful politicians. The consequences, as we have seen too many times, can be deadly.

Polansky: Despair is not an option

…The perceptive reader will have noted that none of these measures requires special privileges or carve-outs for Jews or any other minority group. Moreover, all of these recommendations apply widely to problems of governance across the country. This is precisely the point. The observable social decline described here afflicts Jews acutely but not exclusively.

Similarly, the older dispensation of Canadian liberalism, now in need of restoration, allowed Jews to flourish along with other Canadians. Another way to put it is that improving the worsening situation of Canadian Jews will entail making much-needed corrections to the country as such. This is not incidental.

Against this proactive view is a growing (and largely online) sentiment, bolstered by a combination of unfavourable demographic trends and ugly news stories, that Canada is finished for Jews, and they should begin looking elsewhere. This, in fact, echoes much of the pessimism one increasingly finds among non-Jewish Canadians of all stripes about the trajectory of their country.

The French novelist Michel Houellebecq famously wrote “there is no Israel for me.” That there is an Israel (or, potentially, a Florida) for Canadian Jews should not change their calculus. By any historical measure, Canada has done quite well by them (and vice versa). They owe something to their country, and if nothing else, they owe it to their ancestors, who braved far worse to get here, to stay and fight. Canadians in general should do likewise. In this, as in other matters, they may find common cause in repairing their country’s weakening institutions.

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

An Israeli genocide scholar looks to Israel’s history to understand ‘what went wrong’

2026/05/08 2 Comments

Of note:

On Nov. 10, 2023, the Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov published a guest essay in the New York Times. Though scarcely a month had passed since the Hamas massacre of hundreds of Israeli men, women and children, Bartov expressed fears over Israel’s military response to this horrifying act of barbarity. But, he concluded, while “it is very likely that war crimes, and crimes against humanity, are happening,” he concluded, there is “no proof that genocide is taking place in Gaza.”By mid-2025, however, Bartov revised his stance in a second Times essay. As a scholar of genocide who has taught classes on the subject — including at Brown University, where he is currently based — for a quarter of a century, he announced, “I can recognize one when I see one.”In his new book Israel: What Went Wrong?, Bartov offers a searing analysis, both personal and professional, of the tragically entwined history of Israelis and Palestinians that climaxed with the disaster of October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel, followed by the even more disastrous response of Israel. Bartov’s account resembles an earlier book on an earlier war: Marc Bloch’s Strange Defeat, in which the veteran of two world wars examines the causes to France’s collapse in 1940. Both internationally known historians, and patriots who served their nation in arms, each man wrote their book when the debacles were still fresh.

For France, the collapse was as much moral and political as it was military. “Whatever the complexion of its government,” Bloch observed, “a country is bound to suffer, democracy becomes hopelessly weak, and the general good suffers accordingly if its higher officials are bred up to despise it.”As Bartov’s book reminds us, this diagnosis applies not just to the decay that undermined the French Third Republic, but also to the moral rot that has been sapping the foundations of the Israeli republic. In his account, Bartov weaves the parallel histories of Israelis and Palestinians — a history composed of two catastrophes, the Shoah and the Nakba, that have ever since shaped events.

Inevitably, the very mention of these events in the same breath often sparks a violent response from many Israeli and diasporic Jews, but Bartov rightly insists upon their pairing. One of the many reasons why Bartov’s book is so important is his insistence that the two events are “inextricably linked historically, personally and as part of a politics of memory” and that they each have “become constitutive of Israeli and Palestinian national identities.”William Faulkner’s old chestnut — the past is neither dead nor even past — is the through-line to Bartov’s sharply, at times brutally, etched history of Israeli-Palestinian relations. Crucially, Bartov argues that what has gone so terribly wrong since 1948 was inevitable only in retrospect. An alternative history, one shaped by a Zionism faithful to the ideals of the Enlightenment, was, if unlikely, certainly not impossible. At the very least the history of the past eight decades could have gone in a liberal and democratic direction….

Source: An Israeli genocide scholar looks to Israel’s history to understand ‘what went wrong’

Filed under Antisemitism, Holocaust, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

The world today resembles my grandmother’s much more than my parents’

2026/05/04 Leave a comment

Disturbingly:

…Not that I was alone in this regard. Theodor Adorno decreed after the war that “to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric”; 15 years later he made an exception for those who had lived through it. Nothing had changed in the culture he was describing. What changed was his understanding that witnesses possess a seemingly unimpeachable answer to most arguments, including his: “I was there.” That is an exercise not in logic or persuasion, but of authority – one of the few places it persists in modern culture. Even if that witness’s recollections are mistaken, even if they are influenced by preconceived ideas, we give that person special consideration. Rightly, and sometimes wrongly, a witness tells us things no one else can, and that no one else dares. And my grandmother was daring – only she regarded her daring as common sense. 

To read the news, or walk down to Yonge and Bloor (or Bathurst and Sheppard) on some Sunday afternoons in Toronto, is to watch embryonic versions of the types that made my grandmother’s life so full of history. Once again they are transgressing society’s limits, seeing what Canadians will tolerate and against whom we’ll tolerate it. In a way I did not foresee, the world today resembles my grandmother’s much more than my parents’. She would be the ideal interlocutor. But to the many questions I would ask her – for example, when precisely did you no longer find yourself at home in the country where you were born? – I have no sense of what she would pick out of her thoughts and memories as a response….

Now when I think back to my grandmother’s stories, it is not as an adult armoured with so-called experience and education. It is as the child of eight or nine, listening for the first time, at about the same age my grandmother was when she experienced this history herself. Both of us too young to make any sense of the experience. 

All the subsequent listening, recording, teaching, writing, remembering: They were, as I imagined, a battle, but now I see they were not against some notion of collective amnesia or falsification of history, but against helplessness of that first encounter.

While alive, my grandmother represented, among many other things to me, the idea that a person can contain and disseminate a witness’s idiosyncratic, fragile and irreplaceable knowledge. I believed this because she had done this herself, in her person. I thought I could take on some part of this. It took only a few years of her absence to show me that this was an illusion.

Source: The world today resembles my grandmother’s much more than my parents’

Filed under Antisemitism, Holocaust Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →