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

2026/01/06 Leave a comment

Needed dose of reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why a debate over how to define anti-Semitism has reached the United Nations

2023/04/18 Leave a comment

Good overview:

An international debate over what should be considered anti-Semitism — centred around a controversial definition that critics say chills legitimate criticism of Israel — has reached the United Nations.

Last week, a group of 60 human rights and civil society organizations wrote to the leadership of the UN, urging it not to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.

They say the IHRA framework “has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism.”

Among the letter’s signatories are three Canadian organizations: Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East and United Jewish People’s Order of Canada.

The high-profile appeal is just the latest twist in a now-years-long debate around the definition.

Mainstream Jewish groups and governments have urged the UN to officially adopt the IHRA’s working definition. To this point, the international body has insisted it has no plans to do so.

It has been adopted, meanwhile, in other jurisdictions around the world, including several in Canada.

Here’s a look at how the issue has become such a heated topic of debate.

What is the IHRA and why is its definition of anti-Semitism important?

The IHRA is a Europe-based, intergovernmental organization founded in 1988 with the aim of uniting governments and experts to advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance worldwide. Canada has been a member since 2006.

In 2016 organization issued a “working definition” of anti-Semitism, which describes it as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The definition is accompanied by a set of 11 “contemporary examples” of anti-Semitism, seven of which refer to the state of Israel. These include “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination; e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” and “applying double standards by requiring of (Israel) a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

The definition was adopted unanimously by IHRA’s 31 member states in 2016, and has since been adopted by some 865 entities around the world, The Jerusalem Post reported.

Why is the definition controversial?

Critics of the IHRA do not necessarily take issue with the IHRA’s working definition. Rather concerns stem from the 11 “contemporary examples,” which some say can be used to label any criticism of the state of Israel as anti-Semitic, creating a chilling effect in civil society and in academic settings.

Supporters of the definition say it is a key measure in the face of rising antisemitism. Following the release of the joint letter addressed to Guterres, other human rights groups, including the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), reaffirmed their support for the IHRA.

Amid a recent surge in anti-Semitism in Canada and elsewhere, “it is despicable that self-proclaimed human rights organizations are expending resources on a campaign to harm efforts to address this hatred,” said CIJA president and CEO Shimon Koffler Fogel in a written statement provided to the Star.

“Like any other minority, the Jewish people have the right to define what hate looks like against them and the IHRA definition is the most widely accepted definition of anti-Jewish hatred. Rejecting IHRA damages the fight” against anti-Semitism, the statement continued.

However, the IHRA definition’s detractors have said its inclusion of could have a negative impact on human rights.

“If IHRA was adopted by the UN, it would put a chill on the ability of Amnesty, UN experts and other groups to accurately report their findings, and prevent UN bodies from discussing them,” Michael Bueckert, vice-president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), told the Star.

Aaron Lakoff, the spokesperson for Independent Jewish Voices Canada, said his organization has “documented dozens of cases around the world in the last few years, including here in Canada, where the IHRA definition has been used to silence or threaten human rights advocates and Palestinians speaking out against Israeli apartheid.”

How wide is support for the definition?

Fogel, the president of CIJA, said the IHRA definition has broad support around the world.

“The Government of Canada, more than 20 provinces and municipalities, as well as the UN’s own former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and countless others around the world have supported the definition, recognizing its vital educational role in identifying and addressing the various mutations of this ancient hatred,” he said in a statement.

“What could be more legitimate than a definition developed through a nearly 20-year consensus driven process that brought together the world’s foremost scholars on antisemitism, government officials, and activists?”

Still, critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, counter that presenting the IHRA definition as a “consensus” is inaccurate. In a January letter urging the American Bar Association not to adopt the definition, those critics said it has been challenged by anti-Semitism “experts, rabbis, and scholars of Jewish studies, Jewish history, and the Holocaust, by Palestinians who have borne the brunt of its application, as well as by experts on fighting racism and free speech.”

In 2018, Jewish Voice for Peace — a U.S. organization dedicated to foreign policy based on peace, human rights, and respect for international law — released a joint statement signed by 40 Jewish groups opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition.

In 2020, Independent Jewish Voices shared an open letter from over 650 Canadian academics voicing their opposition.

What does the man who wrote the definition say?

Kenneth Stern — an anti-Semitism expert at the American Jewish Committee and the very person who drafted the IHRA’s working definition — has been one of its biggest critics.

“It’s not the definition that’s the problem,” he told The Times of Israel in 2020. “It’s the abuse of it.”

“It sets up a system in which administrators have a reason to either condemn or try to suppress pro-Palestinian speech because their job is to keep the university from being sued,” Stern said.

Where does the UN currently stand?

The UN is currently developing its own plan to respond to rising anti-Semitism, which is expected to be released in June. At this time, the international body has no plans to officially use the IHRA’s definition.

However, last winter, Secretary-General António Guterres recited part of the IHRA’s definition during a Holocaust memorial speech, prompting Israel’s ambassador to the UN to declare that Guterres had “effectively recognized” the definition.

In November, a report released by Prof. E. Tendayi Achiume, the UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, said that although the IHRA definition is legally non-binding, “its de facto influence on the policy and practice of governments and private actors has contributed to violations of the human rights of freedom of expression, assembly and political participation, among others.”

What is the joint letter asking for?

In its letter, the coalition of organizations expresses strong support for the United Nations’ commitment to combating anti-Semitism, but urges the international body to ensure that its efforts “do not inadvertently embolden or endorse policies and laws that undermine fundamental human rights, including the right to speak and organize in support of Palestinian rights and to criticize Israeli government policies.”

The letter points to two alternative definitions of antisemitism, which “while acknowledging that criticism of Israel can be antisemitic … set out more clearly what constitutes antisemitism and provide guidance surrounding the contours of legitimate speech and action around Israel and Palestine.”

One of those alternative definitions is the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, developed in 2020 under the auspices of the Van Leer institute in Jerusalem, and released in 2021. The declaration, which makes explicit that the movement to boycott Israel is not in and of itself anti-Semitic, was developed in response to the controversial aspects of the IHRA definition.

“In this critical moment, as Israel’s far-right government moves forward to annex the occupied Palestinian territories and consolidate its repressive, apartheid rule over the Palestinian people, it is essential that we give our full support to human rights defenders, and reject attempts to silence their voices,” Bueckert of the CJPME told the Star.

Source: Why a debate over how to define anti-Semitism has reached the United Nations

Filed under Antisemitism Tagged with , , , , , ,