May 8, 2017: Generation to generation – some issues are perennial

By Michael Regenstreif

A story and a column in this edition of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin got me thinking about how some issues of concern to the community are perennial – even if every new generation that comes along thinks that certain concerns are unique to them.

The story is Louise Rachlis’ report about a presentation delivered by Linda Kislowicz, president and CEO of Jewish Federations of Canada – UIA, on the results of a national survey of Jewish baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964). That is the demographic group to which I belong, so the survey’s questions and answers are of personal interest.

The column is Stephanie Shefrin’s “Modern Mishpocha” on page 22.

I was specifically taken with this observation of Stephanie’s: “We think that what our community is going through is unique to now, that it’s our fault, that we need to strike a new committee or devise a new program or do better outreach. All those things are probably true to some extent, but the underlying challenges and fears have been there for decades.”

Stephanie made that observation by looking at issues of the Bulletin published about once every 10 years beginning in 1945, and noticing that many of the concerns faced by Jewish mothers of young children over the generations are the same or similar to many issues faced by Jewish mothers of young children – such as herself – now.

I had a similar observation six years ago after attending one of the Jewish Federation of Ottawa’s openOttawa events.

The openOttawa process was a series of meetings and reports aimed at engaging young Jewish adults in the community. It was the beginning of what is now the Federation’s well-established Emerging Generation division.

In my May 30, 2011 Bulletin column, I noted that “while the openOttawa discussion was fascinating, I couldn’t help but be reminded of how similar the discussion was – minus, perhaps, the Facebook, Twitter and website references – to discussions I was party to in Montreal during the 1970s and ‘80s when I was in that age group. And mine was hardly the first generation to have that discussion.”

My generation, of course, is the baby boomers who are the subjects of the survey, the results of which Linda Kislowicz discussed in her presentation.

There were no big surprises for me in the results of the survey. We want to be engaged in the community in ways we find interesting; we care about making a difference; and, like the generations that came before us, and like the generations that have followed us, we have changing understandings of how we define ourselves as Jews.

I suspect that, if the millennials are surveyed when they reach the ages we boomers are now, the results will be similar.

As I mentioned, some issues of concern are perennial. One of the major issues we’ve continuously covered over the years I’ve edited the Bulletin is Jewish education in Ottawa – and one of the most pressing concerns in recent years has been the fluctuating levels of enrolment in both day schools and supplementary schools. Although there have been some encouraging signs recently, enrolment levels have generally declined over the past couple of decades.

But, as I discovered when I was perusing archived issues of the Bulletin, this is not a new concern.

The February 7, 1941 issue featured an editorial entitled “Educating The Next Man’s Children” in which the author (the editorial was unsigned, but I believe it was written by Rabbi Oscar Z. Fasman, Ottawa’s community rabbi at the time) lamented that most parents in the Ottawa Jewish community of 76 years ago were opting to send their children to public rather than Jewish schools. Now doesn’t that sound familiar?

October 15, 2012: Students should be exposed to a full range of opinion in the Zionist conversation

By Michael Regenstreif

Mira Sucharov, a Carleton University professor who writes the Values, Ethics, Community column in the Bulletin, also has a blog called The Fifth Question on the website of the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. Sucharov posted a column there on September 22 in which she alleges that “someone like me” would be banned from speaking at events sponsored by Hillel Ottawa, the organization representing and serving Jewish students at our local university and college campuses.

According to Sucharov, the ban is on instruction from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). CIJA, the successor organization to several advocacy agencies, including the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canada Israel Committee, acts on behalf of Jewish Federations of Canada-UIA and in partnership with the various local federations, including the Jewish Federation of Ottawa.

Sucharov made the charge after Hillel Ottawa apparently declined to sponsor an event for students with Peter Beinart, author of The Crisis of Zionism, who will be visiting Ottawa on October 23 as part of a three-city Canadian tour, which will also bring him to Montreal and Toronto. She said Hillel Ottawa consulted CIJA on whether to host Beinart and was instructed not to because Beinart advocates an economic boycott of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, what he calls a “Zionist BDS,” targeting the settlements but encouraging the economic support of Israel within the Green Line.

According to Sucharov, when she contacted CIJA to question the directive, Steve McDonald, CIJA’s Toronto-based associate director of communications, told her it was because of Beinart’s advocacy of “economic coercion” against the settlements.

Sucharov, herself, has endorsed Beinart’s call for a settlement boycott in her Haaretz blog and speculates, therefore, that she too would be unwelcome at Hillel events – or at events of other organizations influenced by CIJA.

As I point out in my review of Beinart’s book on page 20, I think his call for an economic boycott of the settlements is counterproductive. That point aside, I have absolutely no doubt he is a sincere and wholly committed Zionist dedicated to the pursuit of a two-state solution to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians, which will ensure Israel’s future as both a Jewish and democratic state. And, while I would argue with Beinart about the efficacy of one tactic he advocates, I think he has valuable things to say. I’m looking forward to hearing him speak at Temple Israel.

I think Hillel Ottawa, like any organization, has the right to engage or to decline to engage any speaker for whatever reason it chooses. For example, I wouldn’t expect a decidedly right-wing organization to present a speaker like Beinart or a decidedly left-wing organization to present a speaker like Daniel Pipes. However, despite any personal opinions I have about what such speakers have to say, I want to able to listen to both of them. I think it’s important that we – students and those of us well beyond student-age – be exposed to a full range of opinion. While I want to applaud speakers with whom I agree, I also want to be challenged in my thinking by those with whom I may disagree.

While I understand and share CIJA’s concern with the tactic Beinart advocates, I would have advised Hillel Ottawa, as the Jewish umbrella group for university students, to hold an event with Beinart – who has many valuable things to say, much of which CIJA would have little if any argument with – on the condition there be opportunity for questions and dialogue. Then, challenge Beinart on his call for a “Zionist BDS” and let him compete in the marketplace of ideas.