Paper presented to 2010 Conference on Combating Antisemitism, Ottawa

(Wonkish) 

As parliamentarians and experts from over 40 countries are taking part in a three-day conference in Ottawa starting today, November 7^th, entitled 2010 Conference on Combating Antisemitism,” hosted by the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (ICCA) with support from the Government of Canada, I wish to submit the following observations and recommendations for your consideration.

Let me start by saying where I come from. Born in 1952 and raised in multicultural and somewhat segregate Montreal, I have worked in international cooperation most of my adult life, which includes economic and social development, peacebuilding and the promotion and protection of human rights. Although I presently teach the subject part-time at three Canadian universities, I worked in NGOs most of my life, such as Oxfam, SUCO and Alternatives, until 2007.

The latter organization had many Canadian government funded development and peacebuilding projects in the Middle East and elsewhere. In so doing, I worked in or on over 40 different countries on five continents through the years, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, West Bank and Gaza Strip. Finally, and in the spirit of disclosure, I was a Liberal candidate in the 2009 federal by-election in the riding of Hochelaga.

By submitting the present paper, for which I am solely responsible, I hope to contribute both to the Conference’s goal “to learn about the most effective ways to combat antisemitism around the world” and to CPCCA’s related objectives:

·       To identify and define the nature of antisemitism in Canada today.

·       To analyze, as far as evidence allows, the extent of the problem.

·       To make practical recommendations as to how the problem can be addressed.

To guide this analysis, the paper will focus on the four points found under the question, “Why is it necessary for Canada to conduct an inquiry into antisemitism?,” contained in the Q&A section of CPCCA’s Web site:

1.    The extent and severity of antisemitism is widely regarded as at its worst level since the end of the Second World War.

2.     The problem is increasingly widespread affecting societies and individuals around the world.

3.     Antisemitism is being manifested in a manner which has never been dealt with before.

4.     It is key that we gain insight into the problem of antisemitism locally, before we convene and find solutions globally.

From the outset however, I wish to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the Honourable Irwin Cotler, Canadian Member of Parliament, co-founder and chair of the ICCA, that, “Antisemitism is the oldest and more enduring of hatreds – ‘a lethal obsession’ as it has been called – which has caused untold catastrophes. As it has been said ‘while it may begin with Jews, it doesn’t end with Jews.’ We ignore antisemitism at our peril.”

I apologize ahead of time if any of these observations and suggestions has already been made in depth, as I do not have access to the previous submissions, nor did I attend many of CPCCA’s public hearings.

The recent past

The first point made is that “The extent and severity of antisemitism is widely regarded as at its worst level since the end of the Second World War.” I believe this statement needs to be dissected as many things have improved for Jewish people here and abroad since 1945, whereas the situation has severely deteriorated in other areas.

I do this because I believe it is important to have a better understanding and an accurate picture of where we were in 1945, what has been achieved since then, and where we are today, in order to find the right series of solutions to this persistent challenge, and not unduly frighten some of our own senior citizens who have lived through some of the worst of times.

On the positive side, I would argue that Western countries, including Canada, were far more racist and discriminatory toward Jews and other identifiable groups, particularly visible minorities, than they are today, whether based on ethnicity, race, colour, national origin, culture, language, gender or sexual orientation. Sixty-five years ago, most nations of Europe for example were not the liberal democracies we have today, but rather were based on ethnic nationalism. Indeed segregation policies were often institutionalized, such as access to religious-denominated public schools, voting rights, membership in business institutions and private clubs, social services and housing, and job opportunities in the public and private sectors, to name just a few.

This pernicious philosophy ultimately led to the Holocaust, perpetrated by Germany with the willing participation of too many in other European countries and the refusal to admit Jewish refugees in safe countries such as Canada. It also led to the creation of the State of Israel for the Jewish people, as a safe haven for all those of the Jewish faith and for the protection and promotion of Jewish culture.

This type of outright, institutionalized discrimination is, thankfully, a thing of the past for the most part in Western Europe and North America, among other countries. This does not mean antisemitism, racism and discrimination do not still exist or that extremist forces are not trying to regain lost ground, but it is heartening to see that, contrary to what we witnessed previously when outright acts or statements of racism occurred, today’s institutional representatives, political leaders and opinion makers for the most part bounce on and denounce such acts and statements. Indeed such acts and discrimination are now illegal and the laws usually enforced, backed by a series of defence mechanisms and institutions.

The dream that many Jews and others shared and fought and sometimes died for before and after WWII, to turn their countries into liberal democracies, has for the most part been incrementally achieved after many decades in Western Europe, Canada, the U.S., and a number of other countries.

However, as with other recognized rights, forces often reappear to challenge, diminish and withdraw equality rights, partly because underlying prejudices remain within segments of the population and/or are encouraged and manipulated. We have seen over the last decade or more the growth of xenophobic parties and policies in a number of Western countries, particularly against Muslims, Roma, people of colour, and in some cases Jews as well. This is not necessarily the same as actions taken against illegal immigration and false refugee claims. Canada and the U.S. are not immune to these tendencies, unfortunately.

Reported individual and small-group statements and acts of antisemitism have also grown during this latest period within Western societies, and antisemitism has expanded and shifted to other groups and movements in countries surrounding the State of Israel and elsewhere. As CPCCA states in its second point above, “The problem is increasingly widespread affecting societies and individuals around the world.”

New forms of antisemitism

The third reason given to conduct such an inquiry is that, “Antisemitism is being manifested in a manner which has never been dealt with before.” By this the CPCCA means, as spelt out in the About Us section of its Web site:

“Antisemitism is not a new problem; however recorded incidents of antisemitism have been on the rise internationally. Furthermore, the problem is now being manifested in ways never experienced before. While accusations of blood libel or petty vandalism are still issues for the Jewish community, new fears have arisen especially for those who support the State of Israel. For example, on some university campuses, Jewish students are being threatened and intimidated to the point that they are not able to express pro-Israel sentiments freely, or are even fearful to wear a Jewish skull cap or Jewish Star of David around their necks.”

While antisemitism existed long before the founding of the State of Israel, there is little doubt however that the Arab-Israeli conflict has led to or brought out greater antisemitism, anti-Arab racism, and islamophobia.

Let me first state the positive side that, in my view, there is today far greater sympathy for the Jewish people and support for their rights in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere than say 50 years ago. There is also much support for the right of the Jewish people to have their own state, the State of Israel, which goes well beyond the Jewish community and the so-called “Jewish lobby.” I would even say that this level of sympathy is much higher than that accorded Palestinians and their cause. In fact, the very mention of the latter often provokes recoil, apprehension and questioning of true motive, outside of “pro-Palestinian” circles. There is nevertheless enough lingering antisemitism within the population, which criticisms and events can bring forth, to warrant that we take it seriously and try to counter it.

Is there antisemitism within the “pro-Palestinian” side in Canada, including social organizations, NGOs, solidarity groups, and political parties? The easy but unscientific answer is undoubtedly with some people, but the true answer in my view is that we do not know to what extent. I would doubt the reliability of polls on this issue, as most would shy away from stating their own anti-Semitic biases, because of the stigma associated with it and to hide one’s true motive.

So again we need to dissect the issue in order to get a better understanding of the problem and how to confront it. We can take for granted that Jewish citizens that are very critical of Israeli policy are not anti-Semitic. These include such public figures as Noam Chomsky, Judy Rebick, Naomi Klein and Warren Allmand, and others who are not known. Many of them are also engaged in social organizations, solidarity groups and NGOs that reflect their views as general members, Board and Executive Committee members, staff or volunteers.

In my own experience within the international cooperation NGO community working in or on the Middle East over some thirty years, I have only heard one outright anti-Semitic comment (and that was over 25 years ago) and only a few questionable ones (e.g. referring to a Jewish lobby). Although many of them are highly critical of Israeli government policy, none advocate the destruction of the State of Israel or the use of violence against it. In fact all of them support a two-state solution where both Israel and Palestine would live side-by-side in peace and security within recognized borders. While it is impossible to know what people hold in their heart of hearts if they hide it, I have not been witness to outright anti-Semitic statements or acts within the NGO community.

One of the dangers is the advocacy for the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees if within present-day Israel, which could effectively end it as a Jewish state, but most understand that is unlikely to happen (more can be said on this). Another danger is that heavy criticism of Israeli policy can be perceived as anti-Semitic and can bring out old, or foment new, antisemitism sentiments within the population, which in some cases can lead to anti-Semitic statements and acts, and makes it that much harder to find compromise solutions. Note however that if these groups do not denounce Palestinian violence as often or as strongly as some would prefer, it is most often because they do not want to distract from what they perceive as the fundamental cause of the conflict at this time, which is the non-agreement on an acceptable and final two-state solution.

The final and perhaps bigger danger and error in my judgement comes from a small number of leftists who propose to legitimize the armed resistance by any means or even strike an alliance with Islamists because they either erroneously consider them to be “progressive” and/or strategic partners to bring about whatever end game they prefer. This is not a new approach and it has usually failed in the past. In passing, I also consider it a huge strategic mistake for secular conservatives to strike alliances with the religious right and even support Islamists on occasion to achieve short term gains against secular leftist nationalists (e.g. support of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt).

The threats and verbal or physical intimidation towards Jewish students referred to above, when and where they occur, come most likely from some individual extremists and marginal groups who, on this and other issues, try to confront, intimidate, and silence all opponents. This in itself is undemocratic and deplorable, and has no place on campuses, nor the more limited attempts to drown out certain speakers regardless of which side engages in it. It is all the more indefensible and a clear sign of antisemitism if identifiable Jewish students are verbally or physically attacked because these extremists assume they are pro-Israelis. Indeed “Antisemitism represents a break from Canadian values, which promote the rights of all individuals to practice their religion, educate themselves, and express themselves with security and freedom,” as stated on CPCCA’s Web site.

The Annual Israel Apartheid Week on Canadian campuses last March was a culminating point and lead to severe polarization and confrontation, attracting legitimate critics on both sides of the issue and possibly some of these less-than democratic forces (I did not attend, so cannot say for sure). I suspect it is in part these types of events and harsh (some would say unfair) criticism and comparison, bringing together disparate groups and indistinguishable motives, that led to the following statement in the London Declaration which associates Israeli opposition and antisemitism: “We are alarmed at the resurrection of the old language of prejudice and its modern manifestations – in rhetoric and political action – against Jews, Jewish belief and practice and the State of Israel.”

For the Jewish community and outside observers, it is impossible to know whether all or any of this opposition to Israel is legitimate dissent or if it finds its roots in antisemitism. And with the past history of antisemitism still fresh in their minds, it is not hard to understand their concern, desire to investigate, and mobilize to counter it, as this conference and the CPCCA attempts to do.

I hope that these few lines have contributed to the fourth and final point stated in the introduction: “It is key that we gain insight into the problem of antisemitism locally, before we convene and find solutions globally.”

Recommendations

To contribute to finding of solutions and the stated desire to “develop meaningful suggestions on how to combat it [antisemitism] both locally and globally,” here are a few recommendations which may be applicable outside of Canada as well:

1. Provide an open national forum and outlet for groups to come together and work on peacebuilding initiatives, including proposing acceptable compromise solutions and better Canadian government policies to achieve such ends. And promote empathy and a toning down of severe rhetoric coming from both sides of the issue.

2. If a course on ethics and religious cultures for high school students is deem highly useful to Quebec society, a similar course/presentation, televised and online, with information package ought to be made available and disseminated to the wider adult population that has never received such instruction during its own schooling, whether in Canada or elsewhere, aimed at combating all forms of racism and prejudice. This may be done simultaneously with an annual anti-racism educational campaign, aimed at youth and adults alike, designed and run by legitimate organizations with experience in this area.

3. Since ignorance often leads to apprehension and fear, and since most people have never set foot in another religious institution than one’s own, I suggest that we hold an open door three-day weekend of all religious establishments aimed not at converting visitors, but at informing the general public about the denomination’s beliefs and practices, with a good Q&A exchange.

4. Keep tabs on and counter anti-Semitic statements asap after they are said, particularly those uttered by people in position of authority such as religious and political leaders.

5. Organize a sensitization campaign to explain in no uncertain terms that Islamist and other religious extremist movements are not progressive movements, but rather far-right conservative political movements bent on establishing religious states, not liberal democracies.  The campaign should also encourage groups and citizens, whatever their political philosophy, not to associate or ally with such far-right religious movements or parties, nor support their “right to all forms of resistance.”

It would be a pleasure to discuss this further with members and participants, and answer any questions you may have.
--------------------
Robert M. David teaches international development and globalization at the University of Ottawa and Concordia University. He was a Liberal candidate in a federal by-election in 2009.