ICYMI: Ibbitson: Canada’s foreign policy and its domestic politics on Israel’s war against Hamas are shifting

Indeed. Riding demographics highlight the relative importance of religious minorities, particularly the contrast between Canadian Jews and Canadian Muslims:

….The Liberals have tried to keep both Jewish and Muslim constituencies onside. But as last week’s vote suggests, they increasingly accord a high priority to the rights of Palestinians and to the Muslim community in Canada.

As with other religious communities, Muslims are hardly monolithic. Someone who comes to Canada from Senegal may have different values and priorities than a Canadian who comes from Syria or Pakistan or Indonesia.

And the plight of Palestinians in Gaza may not be the only issue influencing Muslims, who struggle with inflationinterest rates and housing affordability as much as other voters.

Many new Canadians come from societies that are socially conservative. Some Muslim voters may be uncomfortable with the Liberal Party’s strong support for the rights of LGBTQ Canadians.

Finally, Muslim voters for whom supporting the rights of Palestinians is the ballot question may be drawn more to the NDP than the Liberals.

Regardless, the days of Liberal/Conservative bipartisan consensus in support of Israel are over. This is the new lay of the land.

Source: Canada’s foreign policy and its domestic politics on Israel’s war against Hamas are shifting

Khan: Women’s rights advocates should stand up for victims on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 

A welcome revision to her earlier post neglecting Israeli victims, one that has been all too common in much commentary and activism:

….Recognizing the suffering of “the other side” is not a sign of weakness, but rather, a recognition of our shared humanity. We all want human dignity, security and a better future for our children. Let’s work on healing the pain. This will entail difficult conversations that forge a path toward justice for all aggrieved parties.

Source: Women’s rights advocates should stand up for victims on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Judy Weissenberg Cohen: Does ‘MeToo, unless you’re a Jew,’ hold true?

Valid question:

…Then Oct. 7, 2023, happened. Hamas, a listed terrorist entity in Canada since 2002, launched a surprise armed attack on Israel. They massacred more than 1,200 innocent civilians, they kidnapped children, and they raped women. Victims hiding for their lives witnessed the stunningly savage atrocities committed against women and children. The survivors shared their eyewitness accounts. The butchery was meticulously catalogued by the soldiers and first responders — and by the terrorists themselves, who proudly shared footage of their murderous assaults.

Although intentionally documented, the sexual violence has since been denied by Hamas. Many human rights groups — even those with feminist leanings — were either slow to respond, made false equivalencies, or remained silent. It was only after weeks of pressure that Mélanie Joly, Canada’s minister of foreign affairs, finally condemned Hamas, in early December. Human rights organizations whose focus is on the protection of women also remained silent for months. It took the UN eight weeks to put out a statement. And yet, when a report with unsubstantiated accusations of sexual violence levied against Israel was published, Joly and many others commented within hours.

Were they silent about Israeli (Jewish) women because the UN’s women’s groups have aligned themselves with Hamas, whom they view as representing the oppressed? And, if they are the oppressed, they can’t possibly have committed rape?

Does the popular hashtag #MeTooUnlessUrAJew hold true?

Is the rape of women during wartime as inevitable as antisemitism?

While I am grateful for how far Holocaust studies have come in recognizing both the unique vulnerability and resilience of women, it is difficult to see silence about the weaponization of gender-based sexual violence continue. Once women suffered this in silence; we must not, 79 years after the end of the Holocaust, allow Jewish women, or any person, to ever do so again.

I am 95, and I am tired, but this is not the time to be idle. On International Women’s Day, we need to listen to women, to hear their voices, and to speak for those who have been silenced. Regardless of our politics, in this we must all be fearless.

Special to National Post

Hungarian-born Judy Weissenberg Cohen survived the Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration and Death Camp and Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp. She was liberated in 1945 following a four-week-long death march. Judy immigrated to Canada in 1948 and worked in the garment industry in Montreal, moving to Toronto in 1961. She is an activist in anti-racism and Holocaust education, with a focus in women’s experiences.

Source: Judy Weissenberg Cohen: Does ‘MeToo, unless you’re a Jew,’ hold true?

Polgreen:Restoring the Past Won’t Liberate Palestine

Noteworthy:

…The agonizing months since Oct. 7 have made it seem all but impossible for any of us to imagine what kind of hopeful future might be invented out of the present nightmare. We have reached a terrifying new stage of the war with the looming assault on Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of civilians have fled Israeli bullets and bombs only to find themselves once again in the cross hairs with nowhere left to run. But generations of Palestinian activists and intellectuals, people who have perhaps the greatest reason to find sustenance in fantasies of a mythic past free of Israel and its people, do not dream of rolling back time.

“Successful liberation movements were successful precisely because they employed creative ideas, original ideas, imaginative ideas, whereas less successful movements (like ours, alas) had a pronounced tendency to formulas and an uninspired repetition of past slogans and past patterns of behavior,” wrote the Palestinian American scholar Edward Said. “The future, like the past, is built by human beings. They, and not some distant mediator or savior, provide the agency for change.”

Said was perhaps the most influential intellectual heir to Fanon, and in a tragic twist, he too died of leukemia, the same cancer that killed Fanon at the age of 36. Both of them died without seeing their lifelong struggles won. But both went to their graves as modern, cosmopolitan men, engaged with the world not as they wished it was but as they found it, chronicled it and shaped it toward their unshakable vision of self-determination and freedom for the colonized peoples of the world. Liberation requires invention, not restoration. If history tells us anything it is this: Time moves in one direction, forward.

Source: Restoring the Past Won’t Liberate Palestine

John Ivison: University instructor fights back after being suspended for daring to denounce Hamas

Contrast:

….I wrote about Finlayson late last year. He has been teaching at Guelph-Humber for 13 years, has no disciplinary record and no history as a political activist.

In a social media post that he admits may have been a little too blistering, he said that an academic in Pakistan calling for Palestine to be free “from the river to the sea” was a “pro-Nazi zealot.” Finlayson said he stands with Israel, against antisemitism and against Hamas, which he said takes millions meant for health and education and uses the money to make war. “You stand with Palestine means you stand with Hitler.”

Hitler references aside, it was all fairly standard stuff.

…[complainant] Surely this could not be Dr. Wael Ramadan, professor of project management at Sheridan College’s Pilon School of Business?

I’m told it is. I wrote about Ramadan a week or so after Finlayson. He had called Israel “an apartheid state committing genocide” but he was not suspended by Sheridan — in my opinion, quite rightly, since it is not the college’s place to protect the delicate ears of generation Z from opinions with which it may disagree.

Ramadan did not respond to requests for comment then or now, but I am told that the man whose right to free speech I defended is at the centre of the effort to shut down Finlayson’s right to the same, and get him fired in the process.

Academia is in a shocking state when the desire to root out anything that a complainant disagrees with, or considers “unsafe” is gratified by academic bureaucrats.

People far beyond Guelph-Humber are starting to take an interest in this case, aware of the chilling effect on academic speech it will have if it is not challenged.

The university has made a mistake. It should admit as much and reinstate Finlayson.

Source: John Ivison: University instructor fights back after being suspended for daring to denounce Hamas

Chris Selley: Backing the Houthis exposes the raw Jew-hatred of the pro-Palestinian protesters

Such extremism has little place in Canada and those publicly supporting such extremism need to reflect more on the impact of their actions:

Canada is broken in many ways, but the ability of different people from very different backgrounds to get along has not thus far been one of them. That’s very much at risk. Obviously many Jewish Canadians arrived many weeks ago at where I now find myself: Overt public support for Hamas, which is only slightly more subtle about its genocidal aims than the Houthis, has destroyed friendships and professional relationships, and weakened confidence in Canada as a safe place for Jews to live.

I abhor the idea of asking any individual Muslim (or any other Canadian) to explain and justify his position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We’re allowed to think whatever we want about geopolitics inside our own heads, so long as we can be civil to each other out in the real world. But more and more, these protests are becoming an overt rejection of that latter.

Calling for an end to Israel’s war against Hamas is fair enough. The death toll is appalling, the prospects of a lasting victory uncertain. But if they’re as worried about Islamophobia as they claim to be, Muslim organizations and advocates desperately need to repudiate the naked extremism that now seems to have free run within the cause.

Source: Chris Selley: Backing the Houthis exposes the raw Jew-hatred of the pro-Palestinian protesters

Conford: Israelis and Palestinians are both trapped by the dangerous fantasies of history

One of the best commentaries I have seen, thoughtful and balanced:

… For years, the right-wing in Israel – and Hamas in their way – have promulgated the notion that the peace process was an illusion, a mirage. But what events have shown is that the delusion, the Fata Morgana, was that there could ever be normality without finding a peaceful, negotiated settlement to the issue. Polls back in 1993 – before a cruel wave of Hamas suicide bombings and the assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin undermined belief in the possibility – had support for a peace treaty among both Palestinians and Israelis running above 65 per cent.

Since then, the far right in Israel and Hamas have shared the same goal: to put a halt to any possibility of the peaceful division of the land into mutually recognized stable states of Israel and Palestine. Even in the past few weeks, Mr. Netanyahu has boasted how he has stopped a Palestinian state from coming into existence in the past and how he will also in the future, arguing that the Hamas attack shows why he is right to do so.

It is exactly this thinking which has brought us to where we are now.

The sole way to escape the cycle of violence is to clearheadedly renounce all the maximalist and eliminationist fantasies and the dehumanizing caricatures that have led, and will continue to lead, to the horrifying shedding of the blood of thousands of men, women and children….

M.G. Conford is the writer and director of the documentaries Through The Eyes Of EnemiesNot On Any Map, and Fragments of Jerusalem. He is an associate professor of film at Toronto Metropolitan University

Source: Israelis and Palestinians are both trapped by the dangerous fantasies of history

Globe editorial: When protests become acts of intimidation

Well said:

This cannot stand. Supporters of the Palestinian people have every right to express their views and to protest actions by Israel, but they have no right to intimidate and to threaten people on the street, on campuses, in theatres or in neighbourhoods. To tolerate such misbehaviour is to encourage much worse actions that inevitably follow. Enough.

Source: When protests become acts of intimidation

Regg Cohn: Who says we need to choose between Palestinians and Israelis?

Good and needed commentary. Binary over simplifies. Hopefully Gondek can treat this as a learning moment:

Put simply, to be anti-Zionist today is to be anti-Israel. To be anti-Israel is to show antipathy to all those Jews who believe Israel is a sanctuary and ought not to be a cemetery for Jews.

As to the larger question of whether or not an anti-Zionist is antisemitic, rest assured it is problematic for most Jews. Slogans matter, just as words matter, countries matter, people matter.

Appearances matter, and so do no-shows. It is telling that Her Worship the mayor of Calgary worships at the altar of indifference to Israel, but another current slogan comes to mind:

Happy Hanukkah

Source: Who says we need to choose between Palestinians and Israelis?

The Return of the ‘Useful Idiot’

Some history of the term “useful idiots” and its application to some groups and individuals in the Israel Hamas war:

The Hamas charter calls for killing all Jews (not just Israelis), so how could it be that there are Jewish groups, such as If Not Now and  Jewish Voice for Peace, who carry water for Hamas? Hamas and other Islamist groups punish gays with death, so why are there LGBTQ+ groups that are pro-Hamas? Given the way that Iran and Islamists treat women, why do some feminists back them?

The Jewish groups are the most perplexing. Placing the blame for the barbaric terrorist attack of October 7thsquarely on Israel, they are busy lobbying Congress to stop sending military aid. Anti-semitic harassment does not seem to concern them, and their rallies have led to headlines that surely make Hamas leaders gleeful: “Progressive Jewish Groups Blame Israeli ‘Apartheid’ for Hamas Violence” (Newsweek) and “Hundreds Arrested as US Jews Protest Against Israel’s Gaza Assault” (The Guardian) are but two examples.

This phenomenon is not new. Lenin supposedly called people of this sort “useful idiots” and, as the phrase suggests, he had utter contempt for them, especially the liberals of the Kadet (Constitutional Democratic) party. Although they did not themselves practice terrorism, the Kadets apologized for, even applauded, it. As with Hamas, Russian terrorists of the early 20th century reveled in cruelty. It was common to disfigure a person, often chosen at random, by throwing sulphuric acid in his face. Another favorite was to toss bombs laced with nails into a crowded café “to see how the foul bourgeois will squirm in death agony.” One group threw “traitors” into vats of boiling water.  As the leading scholar of Russian terrorism, Anna Geifman, explained, “the need to inflict pain was transformed from an abnormal irrational compulsion experienced by unbalanced personalities into a formally verbalized obligation for all revolutionaries,” as it apparently was for ISIS and is for Hamas.

How could the liberals have stomached such cruelty? Paul Milyukov, the Kadet leader, declared that “all means are now legitimate… and all means should be tried,” much as apologists for Hamas favor decolonization “by any means necessary,” including, it would seem, burning babies alive. Another Kadet official, asked to condemn such terrorism, famously replied: “Condemn terror?  That would be the moral death of our party!”

No sooner had Lenin seized power than the Bolsheviks proclaimed Kadets “outside the law,” which meant anything could be done to them. Right away two Kadet leaders were murdered in their hospital beds. Since Lenin made no secret of his plans—again, like Hamas—why did the liberals not oppose him? Even Russian capitalists contributed to the Bolsheviks and other parties sworn to destroy them!

As if not to be outdone by their Russian predecessors, some American liberals justified Stalin’s purges, the Gulag, and the starvation of millions of peasants. Other liberals objected, and so a split reminiscent of what seems to be developing today took place. Closer to our time, the radical gay cultural theorist Michel Foucault, whose ideas helped form the current academic ethos, came to back Ayatollah Khomeini. In short, we are witnessing a familiar pattern.

What explains it? What makes people useful idiots? It isn’t lack of intelligence. One is most likely to find useful idiots on the campuses of elite colleges and universities. Nor is it ignorance: Hamas is proud to broadcast its atrocities. So what then is it?

In his cycle of novels about the Russian Revolution, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn poses this very question. In one memorable scene, he describes the novel’s hero, Vorotyntsev, at a meeting of the Kadets. “They were all overwhelmingly certain that they were right, yet they needed these exchanges to reinforce their certainty,” he thinks.  And despite his better judgment, Vorotyntsev goes along with them as if he were hypnotized—not because he felt he was wrong, but out of fear of saying something reactionary.”  Today, many are unwilling to risk being called “conservative” or worse, not just to avoid the consequences that such a reputation might entail, but so as not to tarnish their sense of self, which is inextricably tied up with being on the progressive side of everything. At last, Vorotyntsev breaks free from ”the bewitchment” and speaks his mind. How wonderful it would be to get people to do the same in the present day.

Perhaps supporters of Hamas terror naively imagine that they will never find themselves the target of it. “There is reason to fear that the Revolution may, like Saturn, devour each of her children one by one,” declared the French revolutionary Pierre Verginaud at his trial, and it wasn’t long before the guillotine also claimed the revolutionaries who condemned him. Useful idiots need to use their heads before they lose their heads.

Source: The Return of the ‘Useful Idiot’