July 23, 2018: A few troubling sore spots

By Michael Regenstreif

Almost three years ago, after Justin Trudeau led the Liberal Party to victory in the federal election, I wrote a column suggesting Canada’s strong friendship with Israel would continue unabated under the new government (From the Editor, November 9, 2015). Stephen Harper, then the outgoing prime minister, had often been lauded for his strong support of Israel.

Indeed, Canada and Israel have maintained strong ties since Trudeau became prime minister. Just a few months after taking office, Trudeau’s Liberals joined with the Conservatives in passing a motion strongly denouncing the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. In the debate, Liberal cabinet ministers denounced the BDS movement as a modern-day form of antisemitism. And, on May 28, a modernized and more comprehensive Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement was announced by the two countries.

So while the relationship between Canada and Israel has remained strong, there have been a few “sore spots” in the relationship, which have troubled many in the Canadian Jewish community.

One is that the Trudeau government declined to follow the U.S. lead and move the Canadian Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That decision reflects the policy that “Canada considers the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of a general settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Canada does not recognize Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem,” and that an Embassy move should only take place after a settlement has been reached.

Former prime minister Harper has since stated that Canada should follow the U.S. lead and move our Embassy to Jerusalem as well. However, Harper made no move to take that lead himself while he was in office from 2006 until 2015 – and the official policy on Jerusalem quoted above is unchanged from the Harper era.

Two other sore spots came up recently over Canada’s response to Palestinian deaths during the violent protests on Israel’s border with Gaza.

On May 16, Trudeau issued a statement condemning the use of excessive force against the demonstrators and the loss of life and injuries. Trudeau’s statement came in the wake of a Palestinian-Canadian doctor being wounded while treating injured Palestinians on the front lines in Gaza. Trudeau’s major sin of omission was that he failed to mention the role of Hamas, the terrorist organization that controls Gaza, in engineering the violence or that many of the Palestinians killed were actually Hamas terrorists.

Then, on June 13, Canada abstained from a United Nations General Assembly vote condemning Israel for the violence in Gaza. The vote passed by a margin of 120-8 with Canada being one of 45 countries that abstained. (Canada did however support a failed U.S. amendment that would have recognized the role of Hamas and its ongoing campaign of rocket attacks in the conflict.)

There was a not-unjustified feeling among many in the community that Canada abstained rather than voted against the resolution condemning Israel because of Canada’s campaign to win one of the temporary seats on the UN Security Council in 2021. Canada’s support for Israel was seen as a reason it failed to win a seat in 2010. If that was the motivation, I doubt that an abstention will be seen as enough for the overwhelming anti-Israel bloc at the UN.

Disturbed by Trudeau’s statement and the UN abstention, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) arranged a meeting with the prime minister on July 5.

After the meeting CIJA CEO Shimon Koffler Fogel issued a statement saying, “The discussion was frank, constructive, and encouraging. The prime minister was very receptive and responsive to the issues we raised. He absolutely recognized the destructive role played by Hamas. He expressed full confidence in Israel’s capacity and will to hold its troops to a high ethical standard, rather than be singled out for an inherently biased international investigation. And he reaffirmed Canada’s support for Israel, and committed to be more vigilant in countering anti-Israel resolutions at the UN.”

Although we’ll have to see how future developments unfold, I would certainly feel encouraged by the results of the July 5 meeting.

July 25, 2016: How far do we go in restricting freedom in order to protect freedom?

By Michael Regenstreif

As I write – just before this issue of the Bulletin goes to press – the world is reeling from yet another massive terrorist attack in France.

On the night of July 14, just after the fireworks celebrating Bastille Day, France’s fête nationale, in the city of Nice on the French Riviera, a terrorist drove a truck into the assembled crowd and then jumped out and opened fire.

When the news first broke, the death toll was reported at 30. However, as the hours wore on, the number of dead kept rising. As of Bulletin press time the number is 84, but may rise even higher.

France has been particularly hard hit by the wave of Islamist terrorism that has plagued Western nations in recent years. There were the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher attacks on a satirical magazine and kosher supermarket in January 2015 and then the coordinated terrorist attacks last November near the Stade de France during a soccer game and at the Bataclan Theatre during a rock concert.

Other major terrorist attacks on Western countries recently have included the Brussels airport bombings this past March and the massacres in San Bernadino, California, last December and in Orlando, Florida, just last month.

Of course, no one who was here in Ottawa on October 22, 2014 will ever forget the lone wolf terrorist attack at the National War Memorial and Parliament Hill.

And I’ve lost track of how many breaking news stories about terrorist attacks in Israel I’ve posted on the Bulletin website in the past couple of years.

Sometimes terrorism hits too close to our own lives.

My friend Jeff Hardy was an accomplished bass player who gave up his career as a professional musician, when he started a family, to work as an executive chef for an investment firm in the World Trade Center. Jeff was cooking breakfast for the financial traders and died when the hijacked planes hit on 9/11.

The brother of another friend was seriously injured as he cheered for runners near the Boston Marathon finish line three years ago when terrorists detonated a powerful and deadly pressure cooker bomb.

Islamist terrorists – whether they are part of groups like ISIS, al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others, or lone wolf wannabes – would have the world live in a sort of strange, cruel and medieval reality.

And, for whatever currency Islamist extremists may have, it must be noted that they represent a very small fraction of Muslims. In fact, the number of Islamist terror attacks in Western democracies pales in comparison to the number of terrorist attacks in Arab and Muslim countries, where the vast majority of the victims are other Muslims.

Fighting and preventing terrorism is difficult and complex – especially for societies, like ours, which value democratic freedoms and human rights.

How far do we go in restricting freedom in order to protect freedom? How much power do we give to our security services? These are questions, which, sadly, will be on the agenda for many years to come.

Also, sadly, a world faced with terrorism increases the appeal of demagogues who seek to exploit fear and appeal to prejudice. We have seen evidence of that in Europe with the rising popularity of extreme right-wing parties and in the United States where a presidential candidate has threatened to ban Muslims from entering the country, among other measures.

Here in Canada, we seem to have rejected such demagoguery in the form of failed proposals like the charter of values proposed by the former government of Quebec and a snitch line proposed by one party in the 2015 federal election.

The solutions proposed by these demagogues will do nothing to solve the world’s problems in dealing with terrorism. If anything, they will make the situation worse as they remove our democratic freedoms and human rights.

In fact, a world without democratic freedoms and human rights is just what the terrorists want.

April 18, 2016: A killing that sent shockwaves through Israel

By Michael Regenstreif

I ’ve lost count of how many breaking news stories about terrorist attacks in Israel and the West Bank that I’ve posted on the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin website in the past six or seven months. But there have been many – with more added almost every week. Most of the attacks have been relatively small with often single terrorists launching firebombs, vehicular attacks or stabbings.

Between mid-September and late-March, 34 Israelis were killed in the attacks and more than 400 injured. But for the readiness of Israel’s police officers and soldiers – and their often heroic actions – the lists of dead and injured would be much longer.

Many of the terrorists committing those recent acts – mostly Palestinians from the West Bank, but also some Israeli Arabs – have been killed during the commission of their crimes or while fleeing, and few would argue about the need for lethal force in most cases where it has been used in these recent circumstances.

In Ottawa, we vividly remember the terrorist attack at the National War Memorial and Parliament Hill by a single individual on October 22, 2014. We remember our horror at the senseless death of a single innocent person – Corporal Nathan Cirillo on ceremonial sentry duty at the War Memorial – and we fully understood why Kevin Vickers, then the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons, and other security personnel used lethal force to stop the lone wolf terrorist.

We recall how affected our city was by that single incident. For Israelis, though, terrorist attacks, sadly, have become routine. One of the breaking news articles I posted to the Bulletin website on April 8 – about an hour before I started writing this column – was a report that Israel and Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank had recorded a 26 per cent drop in the number of terrorist attacks in the month of March in comparison to February.

There were only 123 terrorist incidents in March – the least number for any month since July 2015. Imagine, 123 incidents, an average of almost four terrorist attacks per day in the quietest month for terrorism in three-quarters of a year.

Lethal force, though, is not always necessary – even in the circumstances of a terrorist attack. Indeed, many terrorists have been captured by Israeli security forces and brought to justice. And that is how it should be.

And that is what should have happened in Hebron on March 24. Two Palestinian terrorists stabbed an Israeli soldier and were shot as they attempted to flee. One of the attackers was killed instantly, while the other was wounded. The wounded terrorist was lying prone on the ground and should have been taken into custody to face justice.

However, video captured an Israeli soldier shooting the terrorist as he lay wounded on the pavement. The incident sent shockwaves through Israel.

Lt. Gen Gadi Eisenkot, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), ordered an immediate investigation.

“This is not the IDF, these are not the values of the IDF and these are not the values of the Jewish people,” said Eisenkot.

“What happened today in Hebron does not represent the values of the IDF,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “The IDF expects its soldiers to behave level-headedly and in accordance with the rules of engagement.”

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon described the incident as an “utter breach of IDF values and of our code of ethics in combat.”

The soldier – whose name has not been released – now faces a manslaughter charge. Reports have said he feared the terrorist was carrying explosives (although he had already been checked for explosives by an IDF officer on the scene before the shooting).

However, there are some Israeli leaders – including Education Minister Naftali Bennett – who feel the soldier should not have been charged.

Israeli leaders often proudly point to the IDF as operating under the highest moral standards – and it must. And that means holding soldiers to account when they act outside their code of ethics.