October 3, 2011: York University incident demonstrates need to understand context

By Michael Regenstreif

York University in Toronto, like Carleton University here in Ottawa, and any number of other universities in Canada and around the world, has been at the centre of anti-Israel activism in recent years. Too often, such activism has been seen to degenerate into antisemitism. Jewish students rightly have become sensitive to issues of antisemitism and have learned how to respond when its ugly head is reared on their campuses.

It’s important, though, when responding to an incident that it’s not a matter of jumping too quickly to conclusions – particularly a wrong conclusion. That’s what happened at York last month when a veteran social sciences professor was delivering his introductory lecture to a course called Self, Culture and Society and was misunderstood by one of the nearly 500 students in the class.

While this cautionary tale happened at York, it could just as easily have been at Carleton, the University of Ottawa, or almost any other university campus.

The professor was telling the students that personal opinions were not relevant in this course and went on to challenge the very idea that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

And he offered an example of what he deemed an unacceptable opinion.

“All Jews should be sterilized,” he said, is just such an unacceptable opinion.

A fourth-year student attending the first-year class apparently missed or misunderstood the context of the professor’s statement and concluded he was an antisemite saying all Jews should be sterilized.

Rather than challenge the statement, or ask for clarification on the professor’s intent in making it, the student immediately left the class and enlisted Hasbara at York – a Zionist organization on campus – in contacting the media, the blogosphere and Jewish community groups to attack what she perceived to be an antisemitic opinion expressed by an antisemitic professor.

The class in question took place on the afternoon of Monday, September 12. The student’s report of the ‘antisemitic incident’ quickly went viral on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter and B’nai Brith Canada took up her case.

However, by the time the story made the Wednesday edition of the Toronto Star and two columns in Thursday’s National Post, the context of the professor’s remark was clear.

In a statement circulated by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), he said it was an example “of the fact that opinions can be dangerous and that none of us really do believe that all opinions are acceptable.

“For the record, I am also Jewish, which undoubtedly influenced my choice of this example of a reprehensible opinion.”

CIJA released a statement describing the incident as “a very unfortunate misunderstanding.” The professor’s “use of an abhorrent statement was intended to demonstrate that some opinions are simply not legitimate. This point was, without ill intentions, taken out of context and circulated in the Jewish community. … This event is an appropriate reminder that great caution must be exercised before concluding a statement or action is antisemitic.”

Indeed, context is important. Too often, we see words taken out of context, misinterpreted and twisted from their intent. This, of course, does not mean we should stop being vigilant or stop standing up when antisemitism and other expressions of prejudice or hatred do rear their ugly heads.

September 19, 2011: We are a community of great diversity

 By Michael Regenstreif

Ottawa’s Jewish community, like most Jewish communities of significant size in North America, is highly diverse.

We’re religiously diverse. Individuals and families in the community range from the fervently observant to the completely secular, and our congregations are part of each of the major movements of contemporary Judaism.

We’re politically diverse. Each of Canada’s, and Ontario’s, major political parties has supporters and activists from among our community.

And while Israel enjoys overwhelming support from the community, our opinions reflect the diversity of Israel’s democratic politics and its multi-party system. And, as in Israel, there is a great diversity of opinion in our community vis-à-vis particular policy issues.

All this is to say the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin strives to reflect the diversity of our community. The Bulletin is open to all segments of our community in our news reporting, in the submissions we receive and publish, and in our opinion columns.

None of our opinion columnists – from the congregational rabbis who share From the Pulpit, to Alan Echenberg, Mira Sucharov, Oliver Javanpour, our many guest columnists, to me – has a monopoly on the truth. You might agree with some things our columnists write and disagree with others. I’m the editor and I don’t agree with everything.

If you want to dispute or applaud something you read in the Bulletin, please do so. If what you have to say is relatively short, write a letter-to-the-editor. If you need more than brief, letter-length space, a guest column is possible. A case in point is Bob Dale’s guest column on page 10, a response to Mira Sucharov’s Values, Ethics, Community in our September 5 issue.

September 5, 2011: The Bulletin gets some attention

By Michael Regenstreif

As a small community newspaper, we’re always pleased to see the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin get some attention. We got some recently in two lengthy posts on the Ottawashtetl blog – ottawashtetl.wordpress.com – written by “Ottawayenta.”

There were also some interesting responses in the ‘Comments’ section of each of the posts.

I thank Ottawayenta for taking time to think and write about the Bulletin. Like so many people in this community, the blogger obviously cares about our community newspaper.

I would like to comment on a couple of things raised in the blog.

There was a stated assumption that the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin is financially supported by the Jewish Federation of Ottawa. A natural assumption, I suppose, because many Jewish newspapers in North America are subsidized by federations.

The Bulletin, though, is not. We are a self-sufficient enterprise supported entirely by advertising and subscription revenue. Our modest profits, in fact, support the work of the Federation.

By the way, the cost of a Bulletin subscription has not risen in many years. At $30 per year, an annual subscription costs about half what I pay every month for my home Internet account.

Ottawayenta suggests the Bulletin should be available online for free as many people, particularly young adults, don’t read print newspapers and rely on the Internet for news and information. I wish we could just do that.

The problem is that few, if any, newspapers have been able to break even in their online operations. Many, including the New York Times, are scaling back or beginning to charge for access to their online content.

We hope soon to give the Bulletin a greater online presence in a way that is financially viable and that makes sense for our subscribers and advertisers.

The Bulletin always welcomes feedback, suggestions and questions from anyone in the community. I’m easily accessible at the Bulletin office, on the phone, and via email. My door is open.

And we always welcome articles, letters-to-the-editor and guest columns on issues of concern from our readers. We are, after all, your community newspaper.

CIJA

As we’ve reported in past issues, the various Jewish advocacy agencies formerly under the umbrella of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA) – the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canada-Israel Committee, the Quebec-Israel Committee, the University Outreach Committee and National Jewish Campus Life – were merged, as of July 1, into a single agency that was temporarily called “CIJA 2.0” until a permanent name was chosen.

There were many people across Canada who hoped the new agency would be called “Canadian Jewish Congress” and maintain the continuity of an organization that was the major voice of Canada’s national Jewish community for almost a century.

Alas, CIJA 2.0 will not be called Canadian Jewish Congress. After several months of behind-closed-doors discussion, the merged agency will be called the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA.

Jack Layton

Seldom have Canadians – of all political stripes – been as united in grief and mourning as we were with the untimely passing, August 22, of Opposition Leader Jack Layton.

In the election campaign last spring, Jack – it seems so natural to call him Jack – appeared to be getting stronger every day, to be recovering from cancer, as he led the NDP to unprecedented success in the May 2 vote.

Although fiercely partisan, Jack earned, and kept, the respect and affection of political friend and foe alike.

Almost immediately after his death, CIJA announced it would establish in his memory the Jack Layton Scholarship for Social Justice, “to be awarded annually to a Canadian student who demonstrates a meaningful commitment to enhancing Canada’s quality of life.”

CIJA chair David Koschitzky said Jack fought for “many causes dear to Canada’s Jewish community … We join with all Canadians in honouring the passing of a passionate advocate and pillar of our Parliament.”

In a last letter to Canadians, written just before his death, Jack continued to inspire.

“My friends,” he wrote, “love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.”

August 15, 2011: CPCCA report does not call for criticism of Israel to be criminalized

By Michael Regenstreif

For two-and-a-half years, since the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA) was established, a number of anti-Israel groups have screamed, hollered and rolled out petitions claiming the goal of the CPCCA (and of the Harper government) is to “criminalize criticism of the State of Israel.” Among the loudest of these groups has been Independent Jewish Voices (IJV).

The CPCCA Inquiry Panel released its report last month. The report endorses the definition of antisemitism developed by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which includes discussion of how some manifestations of anti-Zionism and some criticisms of the State of Israel do cross the line into antisemitism. Nowhere does the CPCCA report suggest that criticism of the State of Israel be criminalized.

In fact, the report rejects the very idea that legitimate criticism of the State of Israel is at all antisemitic.

“Criticism of Israel is not, by definition, antisemitic. Israel is accountable, just like any other state, for its acts in accordance with its obligations under international regimes dealing with human rights and international humanitarian law,” says the report without any ambiguity.

But, despite the report being unequivocal about criticism of Israel, anti-Israel groups like IJV keep repeating the same old mantra about criminalizing criticism of Israel.

A group called Faculty for Palestine published an op-ed in the National Post (July 21) and on the IJV website that said the report called “on the federal government to adopt a definition of antisemitism that would criminalize criticism of the State of Israel.” (Some of the Faculty for Palestine op-ed co-authors are also active in IJV.)

Even when criticism of the State of Israel can be seen to rise to the level of, or be motivated by, antisemitism, the report does not call for criminalization of antisemitism, per se. It says that criminal acts themselves – attacks on Jewish persons or buildings, etc. – can be seen as antisemitic when that is the motivation.

In other words, there is no suggestion in the CPCCA report that criticism of the State of Israel be criminalized.

July 18, 2011: The history of the Canadian Jewish Congress should be honoured and celebrated

By Michael Regenstreif

The Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) website – which was still accessible as of July 7 – includes a brief history of the organization that first came together to represent the Jewish community on a national basis in March 1919.

I presume the page was written about two years ago because the last line is, “From coast to coast, Canadian Jewish Congress is still going strong at 90 years old.” At 92, though, the CJC, ceased its operations. On July 1, as you may already have read in the JTA reports on page 4, the CJC, the Canada-Israel Committee, the Quebec-Israel Committee, National Jewish Campus Life and the University Outreach Committee, were all merged into a new organization temporarily being called CIJA 2.0.

CIJA (the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy) itself is a relatively new body. It was established in 2004 by UIA Federations Canada – the national organization of the Jewish federations in Canada, including the Jewish Federation of Ottawa – as an umbrella organization to coordinate the advocacy efforts of the organizations it has now absorbed. In the original CIJA model, each of the advocacy organizations remained independent with its own structure, board of directors and staff.

In the months since the news of the CIJA restructuring began to emerge late last year, there have been many expressions of concern, particularly from CJC activists, present and past, that CJC’s rich history will be forgotten and that its advocacy work on a broad range of issues of concern to Canadian Jewry will be overshadowed by the new organization’s concentration on Israel-related issues (hitherto, the domain of the Canada-Israel Committee).

One suggestion on the table throughout the merger discussions is that the new organization be called ‘Canadian Jewish Congress.’ This would provide a measure of historical continuity to Canada’s national Jewish advocacy organization and also recognize the CJC’s long and venerable history. The other organizations merged into CIJA 2.0 are all much newer creations, none of them nearly as well known as the CJC.

According to the JTA report, CIJA 2.0 CEO Shimon Fogel has said in the past that it’s possible the new agency will be called ‘Canadian Jewish Congress.’

I suppose the choice of a permanent name for CIJA 2.0 will depend on whether the decision-makers want the new organization to reflect a long history of Jewish activism in Canada or whether they want to start from scratch in building a new brand for Jewish and Israel advocacy.

If it were up to me, I would choose to honour the many thousands of people whose actions have been a part of the CJC over a period that almost reached a century and retain the name ‘Canadian Jewish Congress.’ It’s a history that should be celebrated and not forgotten.

The Gaza Flotilla

As I write on July 7, there have been several reports that organizers of the so-called Gaza Freedom Flotilla have finally decided to abandon their ships after none of them made it out of the Athens port in their attempt to sail the Mediterranean past the Israeli navy bringing “peace, freedom and humanitarian aid” to the Palestinian people.

The flotilla, in reality, was a sham that had nothing to do with peace or freedom and little to do with humanitarian aid. It was simply about delegitimizing the State of Israel.

The amounts of food and other aid that flows daily into Gaza from Israel and from Gaza’s now-open border with Egypt dwarfs anything the flotilla might have brought.

The flotilla’s real goal was to lend support to Hamas, the terrorist organization that governs Gaza while continuing to practise terrorism, while continuing to hold Gilad Schalit – who was kidnapped from Israel – captive for more than five years.

You can’t support Hamas, in word or deed, and be a peace activist. Hamas rejects peace. Hamas is in league with Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator whose regime has murdered thousands of his own people in recent months.

“Peace activists” who want to fight for human rights in the Middle East should try sailing their flotilla into Syria.