HEZBOLLAH IN WINDSOR

HEZBOLLAH IN WINDSOR

Recently a billboard went up in Windsor, Ontario prominently featuring the Lebanese terrorist leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. The sign baring the images of Nasrallah and other pro-Syrian leaders of Lebanon was soon removed following energetic protests from the city’s Lebanese Christian and Jewish communities. It was an insult, if not a provocation, flung in the face of all those who believe in furthering understanding between all the cultural communities of Canada. In addition, I believe, we should also understand the billboard as a signal that Canada hosts an active terrorism fan club.
Those who were responsible for the sign told the press that they were honoring the defenders of Lebanon, freedom fighters who fought to defend their country’s independence. There was, of course, not one word about the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, the Iranian supported build-up of rockets, the assassination of Christian leaders who desired Lebanese independence from Syrian domination, the determination of Nasrallah and his organization to destroy Israel, and Hezbollah’s responsibility for the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Argentina. Nor was any heed taken of the fact that Hezbollah is proscribed as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government. According to one Christian Lebanese source, the Arabic on the billboard referred to guerilla fighting and certainly not to peace. While a billboard, of this sort, will anger most decent Canadians and not gain support for Hezbollah; I suspect it had another purpose.
Year after year, we have witnessed the rise of anti-Semitic incidents and the most notable feature of B’nai Brith’s findings has been that the majority of identifiable perpetrators have been Arab and Muslim young men. In the last few years we have seen several attempted synagogue, community centre, and Jewish school bombings in places such as Quebec City, Montreal, and Edmonton. All of the identifiable perpetrators have been young Muslim males. We do not know however, what inspires them to such acts. It is clear that anti-Semitic activity in Canada does increase when tensions rise in the Middle East; the Second Lebanon War did, for example, spark a rise in incidents. While one can understand, but not share, the partisan feelings that are provoked, at such moments, it does not explain the leap from feeling to action, from political sympathies with Israel’s opponents to criminal actions against Canada’s Jewish citizens and their institutions.

I think that the Windsor billboard was aimed not only at the general citizenry but also at Arab and Muslim youth. How inspiring it must be for those young people to see Nasrallah smiling down on them. It is, for them, another lesson learned, assuring them that these figures, reviled by most Canadians, are heroic and inspirational figures, to be emulated in their resistance to “the Zionist enemy”. The messages given to them by militant Imams in Wahabi mosques, the lessons learned in some Muslim classrooms, the abundant images of Israeli brutality on Al-Jazeera and other satellite television networks, and the jihadi web sites are reinforced by the billboard and may move some of these young people towards criminal and perhaps, in a few cases, even terrorist actions. Yes, the billboard was up for only a short time but it will be seen, in the milieu of militant Muslims, as an act of resistance against the massive power of the Zionist lobby. At least, I think that is the message which will be read on jihadi websites in the following days.

The Jewish community can be relieved that the sign was quickly removed, as can the Christian Lebanese. There may also be a positive outcome to this episode if it serves as a warning to Canadian Jews, law enforcement authorities and legislators. There is an enemy of Canadian values out there, but only from time to time does it reveal its public face, as it has in Windsor. We must not allow this incident to be understood as merely a product of a small number of misguided Lebanese-Canadian Muslims. Nasrallah’s evil smile will remain if we fail to take the issue of the rising anti-Semitic menace seriously.

ACTING AGAINST EQUALITY; THE JNF LAND CONTROVERSY

ACTING AGAINST EQUALITY: THE JNF LAND CONTROVERSY

Wherever they have lived, Jews in the modern era have been in the forefront of the struggle for minority rights. In Canada the names of Bora Laskin, David Lewis, and Irwin Cotler have been prominent in the battles not only against anti-Semitism but against racism in general. In the United States we have only to think of the high profile roles of Jews in the struggle for civil rights. For me the iconic image of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel striding along side of Martin Luther King is an indelible memory. We, as a people, have adhered to the belief that the measure of a democracy is in its treatment of its minorities. It is a belief that has served us well. “For Jews,” said Rabbi David Forman, “the building of a society based on a prophetic vision of social justice, equality and humanity is predicated on a universal understanding of a Jewish moral code of conduct that has been refined and elaborated in the perspective of both the historical experiences and the literary tradition of the Jewish people.”

Given this perspective, I rejoiced in 2004 when Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that the state and its affiliated agencies, the Israel Land Commission and the Jewish National Fund, would be prohibited from discriminating against non-Jews in sales of lands. This meant, for example, that members of Israel’s large minority of Arab citizens could not be denied the right to purchase JNF lands. A court led, by then, Chief Justice Aharon Barak ruled that “the state’s obligation to act with equality extends to all of its activities. It therefore also extends to the allocation of state lands.” This was a decision, then, which gave the lie to those who condemned Israel as undemocratic, racist, or even an apartheid state. We could be proud.

It was then, with some dismay, that I received the recent news that the Knesset had passed, in first reading, but by a large majority, a bill that would reverse this decision and restrict the allocation of JNF lands only to Jewish citizens. Proponents of the legislation argued that over decades, Jewish people had deposited their coins in the little blue boxes of the JNF to buy land for Jews in Israel. It would thus be breaking a sacred trust with generations of givers to allow non-Jewish citizens to purchase these lands. One might have some sympathy for this argument, if it was true, but the largest share of JNF lands came not from the blue pushkies but rather from the so—called “vacated lands”, the Arab owned lands taken by the state, following the 1948 War of Independence. These lands, over two million dunam were added to the JNF purchased land of under a million dunam. In other words, Arab citizens of Israel will be denied access to lands which, for the most part, were Arab lands assumed by Israel not through purchase but by conquest.

There have been some voices raised against the new legislation. A spokesman for the leftist Meretz party declared that the “the Knesset is giving an excellent excuse for whoever would represent “Israel as an apartheid state which must be destroyed.” For its part, in a strong editorial, against the bill Haaretz mourned for the rule of law when In an instant, a racist Knesset can overturn [Supreme Court] rulings.” Professor Amnon Rubinstein, recognized as the “father of constitutional law” in Israel warns that if the law is passed that Israel’s international standing will be severely damaged and moreover that “it will contradict the basic constitutional principles of the state, especially the Basic Law on Human Dignity.” He has urged Prime Minister Olmert to amend the legislation and confine the discrimination on land purchases to the JNF purchased lands. Rubinstein is wise to consider international reactions. Israel can ill afford to disregard the sentiments of her allies.

One of the strongest arguments against this discrimination against Arab-Israeli citizens should be – security. The security fence now stands between most of Israel’s people and terrorist threats from the West Bank. Yet, within Israel approximately one-fifth of the population is an Arab citizenry which, for the most part, lives in peace with its fellow citizens. On many fronts, they are already discriminated against in education, social services, housing, etc. Israel should be careful not to further alienate a growing proportion of her own citizens, with the potential to create an enemy within.

My own hope, as always, is for Israel to be “a light unto the nations”. Israel’s democratic aspirations must not be undercut by a narrow and mean spirited nationalism or racism. We will hope that in the days to come the Knesset will reconsider this piece of odious legislation and not give ammunition to those who would condemn the entire Zionist enterprise as a species of racism.

THE COULON AFFAIR

THE COULON AFFAIR

Following Liberal leader’s Stephane Dion’s naming of candidate Jocelyn Coulon for the Outremont by-election B’nai Brith immediately demanded that the candidacy be revoked. The organization was not content with sharp criticism of Coulon but deemed his past words on the Middle East worthy of an over zealous response.

Coulon is a political scientist and former journalist who has expressed himself rather vigorously on Middle East issues. The essence of B’nai Brith’s case against him seems to be first that he has employed exaggerated rhetoric, linking Israel to the U.S. in “massacring Muslims”, “pulverizing Palestinian cities” and “murdering men, women and children.” Second, he has advocated talking to Hamas, a terrorist organization, third he has employed anti-U.S. rhetoric and finally that he labeled Israel’s actions in the second Lebanon War as “disproportionate”.

The basic question is not whether Coulon was right or wrong but rather does his record merit B’nai Brith’s exercise of its moral veto, which declares Coulon beyond the pale? That is,under what circumstances should a major organization of the Jewish community employ its maximum fire power, by not merely criticizing a candidate’s record but demanding his withdrawal from the race.

There are precedents for taking the extreme action which B’nai Brith has opted for, but they do not apply to this event. In the case of racist white supremacists and antisemites, both the American Anti Defamation League, the B’nai Brith and civil rights groups have acted against those bigots who have infiltrated the ranks of various parties in order to spread their vicious doctrines. Here in Quebec, Robert Libman and I, acting for B’nai Brith, made known the xenophobic record of PQ hard-liner Yves Michaud. It was not B’nai Brith but the entire National Assembly which then censured him. In other words, what I have termed the exercise of a moral veto was constrained to cases not of mere political differences but matters which impact on the very basis of a tolerant society.

Most of us in the Jewish community will take issue with Mr. Coulon on one or more or the issues that B.nai Brith has raised but they are points of debate rather than fundamental moral imperatives. I personally believe that some of Coulon’s rhetoric on Israel is “over the top” but it is hardly extraordinary. One can peruse the pages of newspapers from around the world, during the period of the second Lebanon War, and find many such expressions. Let’s face it, the dreadful television images of Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon provoked many reactions against Israel and some were not well balanced.
Mr. Coulon characterized Hamas as being also a social welfare organization and every student of Hamas understands that is an important foundation of its power. Coulon also advocated ending the isolation of Hamas whereas B’nai Brith, along with President Bush, holds that there should be no traffic with the axis of evil. I personally hold no brief for Coulon’s position but many thoughtful individuals, including leading Israelis, believe that it is unfortunately impossible, at least over the long run, to exclude Hamas from the political discourse. As for Coulon’s claim that the Israeli response in Lebanon was disproportionate, that is a matter hotly debated everywhere, including in Israel, where her own Winograd Commission has begun to voice similar sentiments.

My point, again, is not whether Coulon was right or wrong. His words show him to be a strong critic of Israel but he has maintained his support for Israel’s right to exist and in favor of the two state solution embraced by all Canadian political parties. B’nai Brith’s call on Dion to drop the Coulon candidacy was “disproportionate”. I believe B’nai Brith undercut its own credibility by employing a weapon which had previously been reserved for the most heinous cases or racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry. It would have been far better if B’nai Brith had tried to “engage” Coulon, rather than casting him as a major enemy, to be frontally attacked. Of course all of his views are subjects for debate and his opponents may see fit to do so. But the mass of the voters of Outremont, like most Canadians, will pay more attention to issues of the environment, health care and Afghanistan, and some, perhaps, ill chosen words on the Middle East will probably have no impact on the race

ISRAEL AND THE DARFUR REFUGEES

Jews have been at the forefront of those seeking to end the tragedy in Darfur. Here in Canada Irwin Cotler, Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz and Professor Frank Chalk have tried to focus public attention on the genocide taking place in Sudan. This is as it should be. Our own historical experience makes us especially sensitive to the mass slaughter of innocents in Africa. There is, undoubtedly, a second reason for our interest in Darfur. We see an Arab government perpetrating major crimes against humanity while Israel, as usual, is singled out as the great human rights violator, a case of double standards carried to absurd lengths. Thus the Jewish interest in Darfur is not only in human rights; it is also an expression of self-interest in the defence of Israel, which has motivated our concern.

Now, however, the Darfur crisis has arrived on the borders of Israel. Some two to four hundred thousand have been killed but another two million have been dislocated from their homes and constitute one of today’s great refugee movements. Many of the refugees remain in Sudan and tens of thousands have made it to the impoverished nation of Chad where thousands have died in the refugee camps. Thousands more have found their way to Egypt, Sudan’s neighbor to the north but they have not been welcomed by this Arab nation with close ties to Sudan.

It is hardly surprising that some Darfurians have found now managed to enter Israel through her porous Sinai border. It is possible that some of them may be economic refugees rather than escapees from the genocide but all confront Israel with a dilemma. The number now in Israel is about 1400 and their presence has engendered a lively but painful debate. Israel’s government has vowed to deport most of them and Prime Minister Olmert met with Egypt’s president Mubarak and reached an agreement under which Egypt would accept the deportees while also undertaking to keep closer watch on their common border. Thus a nation founded, in large part, as a home for refugees, and a Jewish people which deplored the closed immigration policies of Canada and other western governments when our own people required a refuge now chooses to close the door on the survivors of Darfur.

Eytan Schwartz, a spokesman for an Israeli committee to aid the refugees declared: “We are a country founded by refugees; we are a people who were persecuted for thousands of years. We of all people should know what it’s like to be people of a nation that nobody wants to take in. That’s why we have a moral, historical obligation to take them in, even if they’re from an enemy country.” 63 MKs including Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud and Amir Peretz of Labor signed a student initiated petition to give sanctuary, at least to those now in the country.

However, to date, the narrow, even ethno-centric view predominates. Labor’s Avishay Braverman, a prominent economist, maintains that Israel cannot afford the burden, “we have our own problems with our own immigrants.” Meanwhile Jordan and Syria, both far poorer than Israel, have taken in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees.

“We don’t want to be the Promised Land for African refugees,” said Miri Eisin a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister, in a statement that, probably unconsciously, echoed the bigots of the 1930s who excluded Jews from the safety of Canada and the United States. I was also not happy to see that a recent Israeli poll shows that 47% favor the deportation of the Darfur survivors and only 39% would allow them to stay.

Of course, there is also the legitimate problem of Israel’s identity as a Jewish democracy. This, we would all agree, necessitates maintaining a Jewish majority on the one hand while, on the other, sustaining that democracy’s commitment to human rights which includes accepting a proper share of refugees from all nations. Jews in the diaspora should now be prepared to give material support to an Israel which, hopefully, in the words of Emma Lazarus, will also say “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.”.