While I was away: Antisemitism and Antizionism

Embarrassment of articles and commentary. My selection is by definition selec

Chris Selley: Avi Lewis embraces collective guilt for Jews, but never for Muslims

Valid critique:

…“Indeed, I’m old enough to remember the aftermath of 9/11, when New Democrats — and many others, particularly on the left — admonished us not to do to Muslims precisely what Lewis did to his fellow Jews. (The admonishment was often a bit much, but I fully agreed with the message and still do, no matter what group we’re talking about.)

One very common commentary trope back then was, “Well why can’t Muslims at least apologize for what was done in their name?” It was ugly and un-Canadian, and it rightly got called out. And now, a quarter-century later, Lewis is doing the same thing.

Anyway: By way of follow-up, Lewis bizarrely insisted that he had not held Jews collectively responsible for the wreck of Gaza … which he unambiguously had, including himself among the guilty.  He accused those criticizing him of being “partisan.” Lewis’s fellow travellers insisted, among other things, that Lewis’s critics were acting “in bad faith”— which is, ironically, a very bad-faith argument.

I also have to say I’m intrigued to know what Lewis imagines he or any other Jewish Canadian should have done to stop what he claims is an “ongoing genocide.” Does he have special powers we don’t know about? The anti-Israel rabble isn’t easily placated by empty statements of support and solidary from their politicians. They want Canada to Do Something, or at least be more virulently anti-Israel in its policies and messaging.

“People like Lewis rely on the notion that “criticizing Israel is not the same as criticizing Jews,” which I certainly agree with. But you don’t hear that argument so often nowadays. Protestors seem less and less interested in picking targets that we’re supposed to believe are extra-supportive of Israel. Once you start marching through Jewish-populated neighbourhoods, the argument is laughable. You don’t know who lives there. This is just pure harassment.

Does Lewis realize he’s inviting misery upon himself, for that matter? It’s not hard to imagine the rabble turning on him. They don’t care who he is, or who his father was, or where he sits on the political spectrum. They just want more Canadian politicians to say they hate Israel. And Lewis just made that quit a bit easier.

Lipstadt: Jews targeted by antisemitism need more than statements of sympathy from politicians

Yes, thoughts and prayers without meaningful action…:

… No, what has left me sick and tired are the pious sympathies and sincere regrets issued by government leaders, Prime Ministers (UK, Canada), Mayors (London, Manchester, New York), University presidents (worldwide) and so many others.  Their aides must have a file on their computers which they can expeditiously open when something happens.  Maybe it’s entitled: “Reactions to Attacks on Jews.”  They just need cut and paste from previous declarations.  Last year, in the wake of the Golders Green stabbing, this newspaper put those platitudes on its front page.  I was exhausted just reading them.   [“Our thoughts and prayers are with you”; “An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us”; “We stand with you.” And the one that I find most infuriating: “This hate has no place in our society.”  Has no place? It’s already here… and it’s thriving.]

Do I think leaders should condemn these acts?  Of course.  They must speak out unequivocally and expeditiously and with no contextual hesitations.  But those condemnations must be accompanied by action, including difficult actions, ones that might have political costs. Political leaders must be willing to name the source of these attacks, call them out specifically, and demand that the communities and political enclaves spit out the hate mongers who have taken refuge in their midst.

Leaders must do this even at the risk of losing votes. They must also recognise, as those in the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, among other places, have failed to do, that when their most energetic foreign policy actions are aimed at Israel, when they reward Hamas even when it has made no moves towards peace, the attackers are invigorated.  Despite being warned, as Foreign Secretary Miliband was by Chief Rabbi Mirvis and other Jewish leaders, that this singling out of Israel motivates attackers to harass, attack, and murder Jews worldwide, they ignore the warnings.

Why, my interlocutors ask me, is this happening now? In part because the haters know that there rarely are consequences for attacking Jews.  So please spare me your pious sympathies, sincere regrets, and worn-out protestations. I am not just sick and tired of them, I consider them – and you – to be hypocritical and self-serving.

I – together with so many others – have had enough.

Ambassador (ret.) Deborah E. Lipstadt is the former United States Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism and is currently Distinguished University Professor at Emory University.

Geist: A Definition That Meets the Moment: Federal Government Recognizes Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism

Geist has been a regular commentator on antisemitism and anti-zionism from the  Jewish mainstream perspective:

… Public Safety Canada released its summer progress report on the National Commitments to Combat Antisemitism yesterday, days after the Yom Kippur attack on the Sons of Jacob synagogue in Belleville. Most of the report tracks activities related to police training, funding programs, and provincial initiatives. But what makes the report consequential is the government’s clear recognition in a pair of statements that antisemitism includes anti-Zionism. The statements are sure to attract criticism in some quarters, but anti-Zionism is too often thinly veiled antisemitism, as if substituting the word Zionist for Jew renders the unacceptable acceptable. Given the rising antisemitic violence, culminating in this week’s terror attack, combatting antisemitism requires definitions that safeguard the Jewish community while remaining consistent with protecting freedom of expression. The government’s approach, which relies on a definition of antisemitism based on the lived reality of the Jewish community, does just that.

There is little doubt that the report’s references to anti-Zionism are deliberate. Both fall within Pillar One of the report that focuses on understanding antisemitism. The inclusion is how many in the Jewish community understand and experience antisemitism, facing threats that go to their longstanding beliefs and identity as Jews. For identifying antisemitism, it is that experience that matters, not the intent of the speaker. The report first states that the intended outcome of the pillar is that “Institutions across Canada have increased access to tools, guidance, and training to support the recognition, understanding and response to contemporary manifestations of antisemitism, including anti-Zionism, as outlined in the Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.” The report says the definition and Handbook “will continue to serve as the foundation of the federal government’s engagement with Jewish communities and its work to fight antisemitism.” Second, in explaining why understanding antisemitism is important, it states:

Antisemitism, which includes anti-Zionism, is not always obvious. While some incidents involve explicit threats, violence, or hate speech, others may take the form of conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, coded language, stereotypes, or the collective blaming of Jewish people. Recognizing antisemitism consistently is an essential first step toward responding effectively.

The two statements go out of their way to include anti-Zionism in their understanding of antisemitism, which the government rightly notes is essential to an effective response. The report also links antisemitism to national security, stating that “the Government of Canada recognizes that antisemitism can be a matter of national security” and describes antisemitism as “both an indicator and an accelerator of radicalization.” Given the events of the past week, the statements are both critical and self-evident.

Sucharov: Anti-Zionism and antisemitism should not be conflated

While I understand the formal distinctions between antisemitism and antizionism, in practice these have become largely meaningless in demonstrations and commentary. Both sides need to see the others as human and as victims, current and past. And just as debates over Zionism belong not only to Jews, debates over Islamism belong not only to Muslims:

… But I have come to realize that feeling attached to a place should not preclude one from questioning the material effects of a given state’s governing ideology. This shouldn’t be hard for Canadians to understand. Many of Canada’s most patriotic citizens regularly challenge the settler-colonial aspects of our country’s founding ideology. A full-throated call for reconciliation here within our borders is no different than demanding that the State of Israel grant everyone under its rule freedom, dignity and equality.

What’s more, on the very definition of the term Zionism, we are all too often talking past each other. A few years ago, I published the findings of a survey I had recently conducted of American Jews. There, I found that how Zionism is defined has a marked effect on whether respondents identify with the label or not. Specifically, when I presented respondents with a definition of Zionism as “the belief in privileging Jewish rights over non-Jewish rights in Israel,” support for Zionism plummeted. It was 72 per cent when Zionism was defined instead as support for a Jewish and democratic state, but only 10 per cent when I presented that first definition, which is one I know Palestinians have experienced at the hands of Zionism.

Decades after the late Palestinian intellectual, Edward Said, urged us to try to see “Zionism from the standpoint of its victims,” we must realize that debates over Zionism belong not only to Jews.

Geist: Ontario is Done Waiting for Universities to Act on Campus Antisemitism

Enforcement has always been the Achilles heel:

… Nolan Quinn, Ontario’s Minister of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence, and Security, recently sent an unequivocal message that this isn’t good enough. He issued a revised directive that shifts the emphasis from policies to enforcement. This includes requiring universities to assert authority over student associations and groups, including investigating complaints against them. It also mandates proportionate security measures for campus events and time-and-place restrictions on protests, effectively establishing bubble zones with enforced perimeters around religious and cultural gathering places.

To address concerns about insufficient awareness among students and staff, the directive also requires universities to provide and actively promote training on prevalent forms of hate, developed and delivered with experts trusted by the affected communities. Furthermore, annual reports must now disclose complaint data by category and stage of completion, so universities can no longer hide antisemitism complaints behind a single total.

The directive also addresses the lack of confidence in campus complaints mechanisms. Recent studies, including the CASE report that surveyed 900 Jewish students on campuses across the country and the Benotto report on antisemitism at Toronto Metropolitan University, found that many students did not believe that reporting incidents would result in any action. The province will now require universities to check in with complainants at least every 30 days, until the case is resolved.

Most importantly, the new directive is backed by the threat of real penalties. It expressly puts operating and other provincial funding at risk for non-compliance. Since the prior directive failed to get some Ontario universities’ attention, the possibility of lost revenue might….

Finally, policies and requirements need deadlines. The new directive does not include a deadline for implementation, running the risk that recalcitrant universities will continue to drag their feet on antisemitism.

Tamkin: Mayor Mamdani’s antisemitism strategy doesn’t define antisemitism. That’s a good thing.

Thoughtful commentary on definitions:

Halfway through New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s strategy to combat antisemitism is a page labeled “definitions.” Rather than announce which definition of antisemitism the strategy will use, the page explains why the administration won’t be defining the term.

“Despite antisemitism’s persistent presence throughout history, scholars, community members and community leaders do not agree on certain aspects of what antisemitism is,” it reads. “New York City can and will leverage all of the tools at its disposal to combat antisemitism effectively without needing to adopt a definition for this specific form of hate.”

The strategy instead cites three prominent definitions: the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance or IHRA definition, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, and the Nexus Document (in the interest of full disclosure,I am a fellow with the Nexus Task Force, though I was in no way involved in the writing of the definition). The strategy also alludes to other frameworks.

That it does not include a definition will be held up by some as proof that the Mamdani administration doesn’t take antisemitism seriously. In fact, the decision not to  select one definition shows that it is focused more on fixing the problem than prematurely picking just one method to solve it.

We do not need a definition to fight hatred. We do not have similar pushes to define, say, racism or sexism or xenophobia. The report itself makes the point that a definition is not “necessary useful” for the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism to do its work. “Every crime that may be bias motivated is investigated by the NYPD’s Hate Crimes Task Force consistent with New York State law and applicable criminal statutes. Likewise, allegations of anti-Jewish discrimination reported to the New York City Commission on Human Rights are assessed under the City’s Human Rights Law.”

Moreover, what people who want one definition often mean is that they want antisemitism defined as including anti-Zionism, or that they want the administration in question to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which the Mamdani administration revoked when he came into office. The IHRA definition contains examples of antisemitism that are mostly about Israel and that include “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” and “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Critics (including me) have argued that the codification or singular embrace of IHRA threatens to restrict speech around Israel and US foreign policy.

Further, Israeli legal scholars Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona have argued that, in addition to potentially chilling speech about Israel, the push to codify or embrace this one definition is a push for a government-sanctioned understanding of what it is to be Jewish. “It restricts the freedom of Jews to define their own identity, limiting the ways in which Jewish beliefs, thought and activism can be expressed,” they wrote last year. It would be inappropriate for the Mamdani administration, or any government administration, to take it upon itself to decide what it means to be Jewish.

And insisting that our understanding of antisemitism always and only adhere to one definition is like insisting that we always and only use a hammer for home renovation. Sometimes that is useful; sometimes that can result in destroying your house.

There are times that IHRA may be useful in thinking through what is and is not antisemitic. But there may be times that it leads to overuse and political abuse of the term “antisemitism.” A person protesting Israel and not any other country may be applying a double standard; on the other hand, they may be holding Israel to account because they are an American taxpayer and Israel is the top recipient of US aid. By pairing IHRA with other definitions and frameworks, those in office are more, not less, informed and empowered to thoroughly think through how they’re tackling antisemitism.

That isn’t to say there’s nothing to criticize about the Mamdani administration’s strategy. Some might note that it’s heavier on principle than it is on specific policy; others, that it does not mention that, though anti-Zionism and protest of Israel are not inherently antisemitic, both can cross over into antisemitic rhetoric, vandalism, and even violence.

But they don’t need a definition to do any of that. And like the Biden administration’s 2023 national strategy on antisemitism (which also declined to pick one single definition), the Mamdani strategy takes a whole of government approach, stressing that Jews are New Yorkers and allowing them to live as full-fledged members of society safely is everyone’s responsibility, and that it will use the tools at its disposal to do that. You could just have a hammer, but why would you want that when you could also have a screwdriver, a wrench, and your own ingenuity and discernment?

Allen: Turning Hate into Empathy

Of the various commentaries by my former colleagues, I find Jon Allen’s the most balanced. His critique of the failure of multiculturalism to build bridges between communities engaged in foreign conflicts is not limited to Isreal/Palestine:

… Understanding the Israeli Palestinian conflict and its antecedents is complicated, but recognizing the death and destruction that it has produced on both sides shouldn’t have been. It is a sad testament to Canada’s strong multicultural traditions and previous examples where Jews, Christian and Muslims grieved with each other, that many mainstream Jewish and Muslim organizations, including clergy, were, for the most part, silent in the face of atrocities that occurred on both sides at the time….

Holding Multiple Truths

It seems clear, therefore, that post October 7, 2023, now three years later, far too many people, both here in Canada and in the region, continue to operate completely in their own lanes and root only for their own team. Many Jews and Arabs alike, wherever they may be, are simply unable to hold multiple truths in their heads at the same time. They are unable to see and empathize with the suffering and history of trauma that both sides have experienced.

But despite what some might honestly believe, this conflict has no simple good guys and bad guys. Israelis and Palestinians each view themselves as victims, each have real existential fears based in their recent histories, each have valid historical narratives that cannot easily be reconciled and, as noted, each are currently experiencing real and severe trauma. Finally, extremists on both sides, whether Hamas terrorists or the far-right government in power in Israel, bear much of the blame for where Israelis and Palestinians find themselves today and how they got here.

While Israelis and Palestinians are stuck in the middle of an ongoing conflict, Jews and Muslims in Canada are not. Perhaps it is time for both sides here to lower the rhetoric, stop the allegations of perfidy one against the other, and just for a moment try to understand the pain and fear that each are experiencing. Then, hopefully, the anti-Semitism, very real or perceived, and the anger of the Muslim community, sometimes justified and sometimes not, can be turned towards some reconciliation and mutual empathy.

October 7 vigils demonstrations 

Lederman: There’s nothing to praise about the Oct. 7 attacks. A Canadian literary journal disagrees

Indeed. But many left-leaning folks made similar mistakes over China (Jan Wong), Che Guevara, the Soviet Union etc, useful or useless idiots depending on one’s opinion:

… Over here in Canada, a new special issue of the online journal The Ex-Puritan looks at these events through a literary lens, with a special “Resistance & Hope” issue, guest-edited by writer Bahar Orang. It features Ms. Orang’s own poem, Flood.

“Praise the paragliders, their gentle ascension, their unbroken morning, and of course their triumphant descension, their feet touching down,” it begins. “Praise October.”

There’s a lot of praise in the poem – for “the fighters, whose courage nourishes the world.” For “their cunning, their patience, the tanks on fire, the enemy fleeing.” Also for missiles, “the recognitions written in blood on each one, the names carved already into your own flesh.”

I found this hard to read. But not nearly as difficult as other reading I’ve done about that day.

There is nothing poetic about “Silenced No More,” a report by the independent Civil Commission on Oct. 7th Crimes by Hamas against Women and Children. The report was published in May. Canada’s Irwin Cotler is named as a principal contributor….

People are justifiably outraged about the sexual assault allegedly committed by seven men at Cornell University, known as the Cornell 7. Which makes the silence about the genital-burning, body-severing, gang-rapes of Oct. 7 even more outrageous. Not just the silence, but the denial. Erasure. Praise, even.

John Ivison: On the eve of pro-Hamas vigils, universities finally seem ready to tackle campus antisemitism

Finally: 

…The idea of national standards is not terrible, as long as they adopt the tougher options. For example, York University removed an anti-Israel encampment almost immediately, while other campuses, such as McGill, tolerated them. They quickly became the focal points for antisemitism.

Yet, as Justice Benotto concluded, while universities cannot resolve the conflict in the Middle East, or forge a consensus over competing historical narratives, they can establish clear behavioural recommendations and protect the rights of all members of the student and academic community.

“What the university can do is ensure that it has clear policies that are consistently enforced to ensure that people are behaving towards one another in the university environment in a way that’s conducive to higher education,” agreed Shack. “Ultimately, Jewish people in this country are going to be driven out of public institutions, and out of society, in a very scary way that we’ve seen in other countries throughout history and that no one would ever think possible in Canada.”

The argument against tighter rules against intimidation on campus is that it will stifle free expression.

But the right to free speech is always subject to boundaries.

Cary Kogan, a professor of psychology at the University of Ottawa who heads the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics, said that there is a sense in some faculties that academic freedom is a kind of “white magic that protects you from anything and everything.”

“But the right to experience and participate in an educational setting as a full member of a democratic society has to be balanced with the rights of academic freedom,” he said.

The solution is not that complicated. Expressly prohibit intimidation, harassment, discrimination and conduct that interferes with the rights of others, and impose disciplinary sanctions on those who broach those rules.

Criticism of Israel’s government is protected expression.

But anti-Zionism —  the libel that the Jewish collective, Israel, rather than the individual Jew, is uniquely evil — is not. And it is the normalization of anti-Zionism that is driving antisemitism in Canada.

Lederman: Are we on the verge of an exodus? In a hate-filled climate, Canadian Jews are weighing their options

Of note:

… In a thread about encountering protesters outside his Yom Kippur service in Toronto (where a former Israeli official was speaking), CBC journalist Neil Herland revealed that he has obtained an Austrian passport – his Holocaust-surviving father was from there – “in case Canada becomes unsafe for me as a Jew.”

Is that my next move: a Polish passport? Go back to Poland? Give the chanters what they wish?

Of course not. I’m not going anywhere. But if you had told me three years ago me that I would even be asking these questions; that I would travel to Oklahoma of all places to see how former Canadian Jews are living there, and where more want to join, I would have said: you’re crazy. Or you’re joking. We’re good at that, joking. And wandering.

“A line of decency has been crossed in our province,” said Ontario Solicitor General Michael Kerzner at the Belleville news conference about the synagogue attack.

Antisemitism is not simply a Jewish problem. It is a global problem, and right now, it is a serious Canadian problem. I knew the fallout from Oct. 7, 2023 would be bad, and it has been – catastrophic for Gazans, first and foremost. But this, in Canada, I did not expect.

I understand the impulse to leave. I don’t cast judgment on anyone trying to carve out better, safer lives for their families. But I’m with Mr. Farber. This country built us and we helped build this country. I’m going to fight for it. Despite the despondency, I hang onto the hope. I am not without a home. This land is my land.

The Missed Opportunity of NAZA 

Have not yet seen NAZA but valid point in terms of the opportunity for greater self-reflection:

… Abraham and Szor should be commended for making art that peels back the skin and shows us our darkest instincts: our ability to dissociate, to replace people with numbers, to ignore inconvenient suffering. They are now paying a high personal price for the film, subject not just to online hate (from the right, of course, but also from those on the left who boycott and reject any art made by Israelis, no matter how critical). Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened to revoke their citizenship, and they will face very real death threats if and when they return to Israel after touring with the film. I’d like to say that the fact that they are displeasing people on both sides means, as the truism goes, that they are getting something right. But I can’t help feeling that they missed an opportunity.

NAZA is discomfiting, but it could have been even more so if it didn’t divert attention to a familiar and (for some) reassuring narrative about a fundamentally genocidal Israel. If Abraham and Szor had forced viewers to actually see themselves in those silhouetted people, to understand them as individuals, the shock of it might be even greater than imagining that the rest of us are made of purer stuff.