March 18, 2013: The message of Passover remains essential after thousands of years

By Michael Regenstreif

I’ve always found Passover – when we recall the slavery our ancestors endured in ancient Egypt and their struggle for freedom and liberation under Moses’ leadership as told in the book of Exodus – to be the most inspiring of all the Jewish holidays.

Every year, the Passover Haggadah reminds us that each of us, like the many generations who came before us, must see ourselves as personally moving from the bondage of slavery to freedom.

Many centuries later, African Americans found inspiration in those same biblical legends as they struggled for freedom from the cruel shackles of slavery in the 19th century and as they continued that struggle in the civil rights movement of the 20th century and beyond.

The story of the ancient Israelites was recalled by such eminent African American leaders as Harriet Tubman, who organized and led the Underground Railroad, which brought many from slavery in the Southern U.S. to freedom here in Canada in the 1850s; and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., the inspiring leader of the modern civil rights movement.

There are countless songs in both the Jewish and African American musical traditions that celebrate these biblical stories and remind us of the paramount importance their lessons still hold in our own time when outright slavery and other forms of extreme oppression still exist in many places throughout the world. You can hear some of those songs on two wonderful CDs, both first released in advance of Passover in 2005, and both inspiring collaborations between Jewish and African American musicians. Eight years later, both CDs remain on the Amazon.com bestseller lists for Jewish music.

Brother Moses Smote the Water (Piranha Records) is a live concert recording by the Klezmatics, one of the most dynamic and innovative bands of the modern klezmer revival, with African American gospel singers Joshua Nelson and Kathryn Farmer, while Let My People Go: A Jewish and African American Celebration of Freedom (Appleseed Recordings) is a collaboration between my friends Kim and Reggie Harris, African American folksingers who have made the songs of the Underground Railroad and the civil rights movement a cornerstone of their repertoire, and their friend Rabbi Jonathan Kligler, the spiritual leader of Kehillat Lev Shalem, the Jewish congregation in Woodstock, New York.

Every year, I listen again to these inspiring albums as we approach Passover. Their songs and stories remind me of the relevance to our contemporary world of the story of Moses leading ancient Israelites out of bondage thousands of years ago. Until freedom reigns throughout the world, the journey begun by Moses so long ago will continue.

End of the Common Era

It was revealed late last month that the Canadian Museum of Civilization, soon to be called the Canadian Museum of History, has changed its style guide and will now use the abbreviations BC and AD, which stand for “before Christ” and anno Domini (Latin for “in the year of the Lord”), rather than BCE and CE for “before the common era” and “common era,” which have been used for decades.

It has become increasingly common for historians and other academics, and for museums, to use BCE and CE over the past 40 or so years as we’ve recognized ours is a multicultural society. The World Almanac and Book of Facts, a reference book published annually in the United States since 1868, dropped BC and AD for BCE and CE in 2007.

But usage of the religiously neutral terms BCE and CE have been common – no pun intended – in Jewish circles for more than 150 years. They were used by Rabbi Morris Jacob Raphall in his book, Post-Biblical History of the Jews, published in 1856.

Museum of Civilization officials insist the change was not made for religious reasons; that it was only made in recognition of more museum-goers being familiar with BC and AD than with BCE and CE.

Using BCE and CE was mostly symbolic. But symbolism is important. The terms sent a message of inclusion and multiculturalism. If some museum-goers didn’t know what the abbreviations meant, they could be told – education is part of any museum’s mission – as, presumably, they have been over the decades. The museum is an institution that belongs to all Canadians and the move is a step backwards to a time when Canada was a less inclusive, indeed, a less tolerant, society. The policy should be reversed.

March 4, 2013: Netanyahu is having a difficult time building a coalition

By Michael Regenstreif

My February 4 column centred on speculation and possible scenarios for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he works to put together a governing coalition following the January 22 election. I said then the next few weeks would be most interesting – and, indeed, they have been.

Things may have changed considerably by the time you read this as the initial deadline for forming a coalition is February 28 (a four-week extension could then be granted). But, as I write this on February 21, only one party has signed on so far: Tzipi Livni’s Hatunah Party, which holds six seats in the Knesset.

Netanyahu has announced Livni will be justice minister in the new government and has been tapped to lead peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Livni’s prime issue in the election campaign was the need to revive peace talks leading to a two-state solution, thus preserving Israel’s defining characteristics as both Jewish and democratic.

That Livni will have this role is certain to please Israel’s important allies in Washington and major European capitals – and even here in Ottawa where Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Minister John Baird, Israel’s staunchest supporters on the international stage, continue to stress the importance of a negotiated two-state solution.

The announcement of Hatunah as the first coalition partner for Netanyahu – whose Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu alliance won 31 seats – was somewhat of a surprise. A month ago, it was widely assumed the first building block of the coalition would be Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid (There is a Future), a new centrist party that captured 19 seats.

One of Lapid’s central planks in the election campaign – as Barbara Crook notes in her My Israel column on page 19 – was that the haredi population assume a fair share of the burden for national service. According to reports in the Israeli media, coalition talks with Lapid, and also with Naftali Bennett’s right wing HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) party, which won 12 seats, have stalled over this issue. Apparently, Lapid and Bennett – who would seem to agree on few other issues – both feel that Netanyahu’s plan to address the haredi issue does not go far enough.

Some reports have suggested Lapid and Bennett have entered into a pact that they would only join the coalition together – a move aimed at freezing out the religious parties who have been traditional allies of Netanyahu’s Likud in previous coalitions.

Israeli coalition building can make for some fascinating bedfellows. Beyond the haredi issue, Lapid and Bennett do not appear to be natural allies. Will their pact hold as coalition deadlines come closer? Will Netanyahu agree to bend on the haredi issue and meet the demands of Lapid and Bennett? Or will he look to other alternatives to come up with the 61 seats he needs to stay in power?

And, if Netanyahu bends on the haredi issue to clear the way for Lapid and Bennett to join the coalition, it’s hard to imagine Bennett – who categorically rejects a two-state solution with the Palestinians – sitting at the cabinet table with Livni.

A workable scenario for Israel to move forward on many important dossiers would be for Lapid to find a way to join the coalition. Then bring in Labor with its 15 seats and Kadima with its two and Netanyahu’s got a 73-seat coalition of the centre-right to centre-left that is not beholden to the religious parties. Possible personality clashes aside, Lapid, Livni, Labor Party leader Shelly Yachimovich and Kadima leader Shaul Mofaz would seem to be natural allies on most of the important issues facing Israel.

But nothing is ever that simple in Israeli politics. There are strong factions within Netanyahu’s Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu alliance, which would be more much naturally allied to Bennett’s HaBayit HaYehudi on the right.

Something will have to give, one way or another, if Netanyahu is to form a coalition. The alternative is new elections much sooner than anyone wants them. The situation over the next few weeks remains fascinating.

February 18, 2013: Ontario Human Rights Tribunal rules on offensive IAW poster

By Michael Regenstreif

Many will recall the offensive poster used to advertise the so-called Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) in 2009. While the argument could be made that IAW posters are always offensive, that year’s version was particularly offensive, coming just after Israel’s Operation Cast Lead aimed at stopping the incessant rocket fire from Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza, which was constantly targeting communities like Sderot in Southern Israel.

The poster read “Israeli Apartheid” while showing an Israeli helicopter shooting a missile directly at a small Palestinian child holding a teddy bear and standing alone behind the walls of Gaza.

The implication of the poster was unambiguous: Israel deliberately targets Palestinian children. An allegation that is patently untrue.

The poster was propaganda created to deceive and to offend – and, by association, to cast pro-Israel students as supporting a racist regime that murders innocent children. Several universities – including Carleton University and the University of Ottawa – recognized the poster for what it was and banned it from their campuses.

The Carleton chapter of Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) brought a complaint against its university to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging the university’s actions were unjustified and discriminatory and, as noted in the judgment in the case rendered by the Tribunal last month, almost four years after the incident, “motivated by an anti-Palestinian animus, and a preference for concerns expressed by Jewish students over the rights of Palestinian students and their supporters.”

In his judgment – which can be read in its entirety at tinyurl.com/SAIA-Carleton – Michael Gottheil, the Tribunal adjudicator, dismissed the complaint brought by SAIA against Carleton, noting there was no evidence of anti-Palestinian bias on the part of the university (all of the IAW activities scheduled on campus were allowed to take place) and removal of the posters, which had been posted without the required approval, was reasonable in that they had been posted without approval, which is contrary to university regulations.

Gottheil rejected the SAIA claim of preferential treatment of Jewish students over Palestinian students and their supporters, noting SAIA “presented very little direct evidence to support its claim of differential treatment, and no direct evidence that ancestry, ethnic origin or place of origin were factors in the respondent’s decisions to remove or ban the posters.”

Gottheil also noted the university’s concern that the posters were contributing to the highly strained atmosphere on campus at the time. Gottheil quoted Carleton SAIA leader Ben Saifer, who said the posters were “provocative and meant to be provocative.” Several incidents of harassment of Jewish and students had been reported and some Jewish students were feeling threatened because of the poster.

“I am satisfied,” Gottheil wrote, “that [Carleton University] had a good faith concern about student safety, and the possibility that the situation on campus might further deteriorate. Its evidence that the number of reported hate-reacted incidents was unprecedented in Carleton’s history was not challenged. ... The reported incidents, if true, were sufficiently serious to raise concerns by the university’s Equity Services department, and warrant a response.”

The boundaries of freedom of speech have become a complicated issue in society – and, particularly, it seems, on university campuses in recent years. While universities should be places of rigorous debate on important issues – including the Israeli’s conflict with the Palestinians – the term ‘Israeli apartheid’ and the boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) movement are not meant to encourage debate or find solutions to the conflict. They are simply meant to demonize and delegitimize Israel in order to shut down debate.

In a letter to the New York Review of Books (October 22, 2009) rejecting a boycott of Israeli films at the Toronto International Film Festival, veteran pro-Palestinian activists Vanessa Redgrave, Julian Schnabel and Martin Sherman dismissed the term “apartheid regime” to describe Israel.

“We oppose the current Israeli government, but it is a government. Freely elected. Not a regime. Words matter,” they wrote.

“If attitudes are hardened on both sides, if those who are fighting within their own communities for peace are insulted, where then is the hope? The point finally is not to grandstand but to inch toward a two-state solution and a world in which both nations can exist, perhaps not lovingly, but at least in peace.”

While there are people and supporters of goodwill on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are earnestly trying to move toward a two-state solution, the IAW crowd and the aligned BDS movement are, sadly, not among them.

This year’s edition of IAW is set to take place on Canadian university campuses in early-March.