This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Tag: Israel
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney was honoured at the Museum of Modern Art in New York on Nov. 9. He was given the World Jewish Congress Theodor Herzl Award, joining a list of recipients that includes former U.S. president Ronald Reagan (posthumously), former U.S. Secretaries of State Colin Powell, George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former German chancellor Angela Merkel, writer/activist Elie Wiesel and U.S. President Joe Biden.
Mulroney’s speech that evening was superbly crafted. I’m sure it was delivered with the eloquence we’ve come to expect from one of the finest orators ever to lead our country.
A few paragraphs deserve to be highlighted that focus on the Israel-Hamas war and the scourge of anti-semitism. These are important issues due to the times we live in. The former PM has also strongly and passionately opposed this type of racist behaviour for his entire life, which means it’s a matter of personal importance.
“Hamas knew full well the reaction its murderous rampage against innocents would provoke,” Mulroney said. “They knew and didn’t care. Indeed, it is the reaction they sought. They chose to put the lives of the two million people of Gaza they claim to defend in mortal danger in a deliberate, nihilistic attempt to set the Middle East on fire.”
The reasons for this attack “was not to increase the likelihood of a Palestinian state” and “was not to improve the lives of the people of Gaza,” the former PM told the audience. “These are terrorists in the purest sense of the word for whom the senseless violent act satisfies the strategic objective, killing Jews. Hamas knew something else. They knew they could count on a legion of apologists who, while decrying attacks on Jews here at home, are prepared to accept attacks on Jews in Israel as deserved.”
In Mulroney’s view, “contemporary antisemitism has added the State of Israel to its list of targets. Israel has become the new Jew. Stripped of its intellectual pretensions, of the cloak of human rights, these ritual denunciations of Israel with which we have become all too familiar are a pernicious form of racism.”
There was also this powerful paragraph near the end. “Antisemitism, born in ignorance and nurtured in envy is the stepchild of delusion and evil and is a scourge that must be eradicated. It will not be stamped out in my lifetime, nor in the lifetime of my children, or even, sadly, in that of my grandchildren.”
Well said and articulated.
Mulroney’s commendable opposition to antisemitism was detailed in Donald E. Abelson and Monda Halpern’s “On the Right Side of History”: Brian Mulroney’s Enduring Battle Against Antisemitism, published by the Brian Mulroney Institute of Government at St. Francis Xavier University. I wrote about this paper in a Troy Media syndicated column in January, but it’s worth a second examination.
Mulroney was born in Baie-Comeau, Quebec. It’s a “small pulp and paper mill town that had no Jews.” The first Jewish person he would meet, the “son of a local clothier,” occurred at St. Thomas High School in Chatham, New Brunswick.
Abelson and Halpern provided three reasons why Mulroney has strongly opposed anti-semitism in his lifetime. They’re as follows: “his exposure to social justice issues while a student at St. Francis Xavier University (StFX), his years in Montréal in the 1960s, and his intense appreciation for the lessons of the past which inspired his consistent resolve to be ‘on the right side of history.’”
Mulroney has also been frustrated at the hostility against Jews in and around our country. He firmly believes “Canada’s collective shame rests largely in the treatment of the Jews by the Mackenzie King government,” and has always “looked to the lessons of the Holocaust as inspiration for helping to redress other injustices.”
Some critics may feel that Mulroney’s support of Jews and Israel has been politically motivated. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“With Jews representing less than two per cent of Canada’s electorate, Mulroney had little to gain politically by garnering favour with the Jewish community,” the authors correctly pointed out. Rather, he was “fulfilling an ethical imperative – pushing for Jews in federal politics and diplomatic posts, establishing the Deschênes Commission, and supporting the existence and self-preservation of Israel.”
The proof is in the pudding, as the old saying goes.
Three of his chiefs of staff were Jewish – Stanley Hartt, Norman Spector and Hugh Segal. Spector would also be named Canada’s first Jewish Ambassador to Israel, and Conservative Mira Spivak would become Canada’s first Jewish female Senator. Former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis became Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, Liberal Senator David Croll, who Mulroney believed was consistently passed over for a cabinet position “for no apparent reason at the time other than his Jewishness,” was appointed to the Queen’s Privy Council.
I’ve known Mulroney for years. His opposition to antisemitism, support of Israel’s right to defend itself and friendship with the Canadian Jewish community is genuine and has never wavered one iota. He, along with several other former Canadian prime ministers – including my old friend and boss, Stephen Harper – have consistently defended Jews and Israel in both public and private life.
That’s why Mulroney deserves not only the Theodor Herzl Award, but our thanks for being a beacon of light during this difficult time for our country and world.
Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Marit Stiles and the Ontario NDP recently booted out a controversial MPP from its party caucus. This episode serves as a cautionary tale for all political parties, but none more so than the party and movement that foolishly protected this politician until the very end.
Let’s examine what happened between the NDP and Sarah Jama.
Jama, a disability rights activist living in Hamilton, Ont., co-founded the Disability Justice Network Ontario in 2018. She also co-founded the Hamilton Encampment Support Network in 2021 which focuses on affordable housing.
Her left-wing views and regular involvement in radical causes helped her become a visible presence in a short period of time. When Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath resigned her Hamilton Centre seat to run for mayor, Jama announced she was entering the race. No-one challenged her, and the 28-year-old was acclaimed in July 2022.
Jama’s campaign faced controversy when it was revealed she held less-than-salient views about Jews and Israel. This was after an eye-raising video clip from a 2021 pro-Palestinian protest in Toronto’s Nathan Phillips Square posted on the X account of Documenting Antisemitism went viral.
She declared that Israel was an “illegitimate” country and cryptically suggested the “same people will continue to fund the killing of people here, locally, and globally.” It wasn’t terribly difficult to figure out who she was referring to. She also accused Hamilton police of “protecting Nazism” by targeting “Black Muslim Palestinians.” While the specific reference to Nazis was never determined, she described Israel as an “apartheid” state and stood in front of signs that say, “Zionists you will see, Palestine will be free.”
Jama was obviously allowed to make these outrageous and ignorant statements as a private citizen in a free society. The difference was that she was now running for public office. Most political parties shy away from candidates like Jama. They don’t want to be painted with a similar brushstroke – and they certainly don’t want to be associated with real or perceived racist and anti-semitic remarks. Not if they can help it, anyway.
Several organizations like B’nai Brith Canada suggested that Stiles would be wise to withdraw Jama’s candidacy. She didn’t budge, however.
Why? Hamilton Centre had been a safe riding for the NDP for decades. As an example, Horwath won comfortably in 2007 and was easily re-elected an additional four times.
Meanwhile, Jama apologized for her “harmful” comments and said “Jewish people deserve to feel safe, and should never be targeted because of their faith or their culture.” This carefully worded statement satisfied the NDP, and the matter was dropped.
Jama won 54.28 percent of the vote in the March 16 Hamilton Centre by-election. Her route to the Ontario Legislature was now complete.
The warnings that Stiles and the NDP ignored in March would rear its ugly head once more in October.
Three days after the terrorist organization Hamas launched a massive and deadly attack against Israel, Jama posted a controversial statement to her X account on Oct. 10. She depicted Israel’s actions in Gaza against Palestinians as “apartheid” and rooted in “settler colonialism.” She called for an “immediate ceasefire and de-escalation” in Gaza, and that “we must look to the solution to this endless cycle of death and destruction: end all occupation of Palestinian land and end apartheid.”
Many individuals and groups spoke out against Jama’s statement. This included Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Ontario Liberal leader John Fraser, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. Ford also announced his PC government would begin the process to censure Jama for her comments. The NDP MPP threatened to sue the Premier for libel because he had said publicly that she had “hateful views” and a “long and well-documented history of antisemitism,” among other things.
Stiles was also displeased. She spoke out against Jama’s statement and asked her to remove it and apologize. Jama did comply with a semi-apology, but her original statement remained online. In spite of ignoring this request, it appeared the NDP was going to protect its controversial caucus member once again.
Hours before the Oct. 23 censure vote, however, Stiles removed her from the NDP caucus. Several reasons were provided, including Jama reportedly being uncooperative with NDP colleagues, making unilateral decisions and endangering the work environment of party staffers. Stiles also noted that while she and Jama had agreed to work together “in good faith with no surprises,” the latter’s decision to speak against the censure motion in the Legislature came completely out of the blue.
Jama was censured by a vote of 63-23. The NDP was the only party that voted against it. She currently sits as an Independent with no ability to speak or ask questions in the Legislature. As fate would have it, she recently had a Zoom meeting with former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, an equally controversial politician accused of many of the same things she’s faced in her short political career.
There are several lessons to be learned from the Jama-NDP episode. Controversial candidates will almost always fall back on controversy. Apologies in politics are important, but the apologetic politician has to be trusted to follow it to the letter. Losing a safe political riding is obviously unfortunate, but gaining and protecting a caucus member with a terrible track record will cost you even more ridings in the end.
There’s another important lesson in all of this.
Federal and provincial New Democrats have been repeatedly accused of harbouring anti-Israel and anti-semitic candidates, ideas and policies for years. As much as they deny these associations, they continually fall into the same trap and make these alleged ties even worse in the public eye. Had Stiles listened to the advice she was given in March and removed Jama’s candidacy, this particular allegation could have been avoided. It’s actually worth listening to your political rivals every so often.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
In politics, there are important issues and there are useful issues. International issues and foreign affairs are important… but rarely useful, politically. No one could deny that the recent Hamas terrorist attacks, Israel’s military response, and the resulting humanitarian crisis are important things.
But watching the debate unfolding about this new crisis in the Middle East during the NDP convention, it’s hard to imagine how useful this is for New Democrats. Few voters really care about the party’s position on Palestine and Israel, and even fewer will think about it on Election Day.
Among the major parties, the NDP is the one most sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Already in 1938, J.S. Woodsworth, first leader of the CCF, was opposed to the right of Jewish refugees to enter Palestine, claiming “it was easy for Canadians, Americans and the British to accept a Jewish colony, as long as it was elsewhere. Why ‘pick on the Arabs’ other than for ‘strategic’ and ‘imperialistic’ reasons?”
This position created a lot of turmoil within the party at the time, especially since Woodsworth, a pacifist, had been the only MP to vote against Canada’s declaration of war on Hitler’s Germany. The party would eventually line up behind the creation of Israel. But the debates were lively and accusations of racism and anti-semiticism, numerous.
Interestingly, the first Jewish politician to become leader of a party in Canada was Stephen Lewis in Ontario in 1970. His father David, became the first Jewish leader of a federal party in 1971. Another New Democrat, Dave Barrett, was elected premier of British Columbia in 1972, becoming the first Jewish premier.
This is to say that the NDP’s desire to find a balanced position on the conflict between Israel and Palestine goes back a long way. This desire for nuance has forced NDP leaders to be funambulists over time: a two-state solution; Palestine has the right to independence; Israel has the right to defend itself; denouncing terrorist actions and violations of international laws.
But this balanced position does not make all New Democrats happy. Ed Broadbent, Alexa McDonough and Jack Layton all had to manage very delicate situations. Numerous resolutions denouncing Israel are regularly brought to NDP conventions. Candidates have been rejected or dismissed because of their overly strong pro-Palestinian positions or anti-Israel statements.
Former MP Svend Robinson was once arrested by Israeli soldiers while trying to enter Ramallah, arguing that he was there to carry a message of solidarity and to promote peace.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper called for the resignation of Layton’s deputy leader, Libby Davies, for her support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel.
On the other hand, many NDP MPs have been part of the Canada-Israel Inter-Parliamentary Group, which “furthers cooperation and mutual understanding” between Canadian parliamentarians and members of the Israeli Knesset.
Under the leadership of Tom Mulcair, some felt the party was taking a stronger position in favour of Israel. Ignoring the latter’s epic quarrels with leaders of the Jewish community, MP Sana Hassainia even slammed the party’s door using the issue as an excuse, pointing to Mulcair’s in-laws being Holocaust survivors and to the sizeable Jewish community in his constituency.
From there to say that the NDP is under the thumb of the Jewish lobby, there is only one step, happily taken by the most pugnacious. There is a mirror reaction from the fiercest supporters of Israel, who believe that the NDP is infiltrated by pro-Palestinian hysterics. In this context, having a reasonable discussion is mission impossible.
Jagmeet Singh had to play a balancing act once during this last Convention, marked by scenes of demonstrations, heckling, delegates being removed and police intervention. This is not Singh’s fault, but it gave the party an immature image, as videos of the confrontations made the rounds.
At the tactical level, these ardent pro-Palestinian activists target the NDP because it is the lowest hanging fruit. They assume the message will have a more significant and immediate impact on delegates and party policies than if they showed up at a Conservative convention.
They will claim victory when they see New Democrats stand up in Question Period, denouncing “the impact of this war on the Palestinians”, calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and asking the government to “stand up for international law”. Important questions, to be sure.
Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives are relentless on the cost of living, asking Prime Minister Trudeau to “reverse his inflationary policies,” “to lower interest rates” and to “allow Canadians to keep their homes.” Useful questions, without a doubt.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
