Submission to CPCCA

Given my involvement in many online debates concerning the Middle East and, in particular, whether there are people on one side of the debate properly accused of anti-Semitism, I have prepared and sent in an individual submission.

Here is the text:

I am making this submission as a private individual living in Toronto where I work as [reference deleted]. I should disclose for anyone that may find it relevant that for many years Bob Rae was one of the partners of my law firm and I supported his candidacy for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

For the last three years, starting with the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, I have in my spare time immersed myself in online discussions concerning not only the Arab-Israeli dispute but how that dispute is discussed here in Canada including whether some of the discussion raises issues of anti-Semitism. As a matter of first impression, I was alarmed by much of the online commentary and took a segment of that commentary as constituting anti-Semitism. Over time I have come to think that that first impression was fundamentally wrong and I am concerned that the FAQ section of the committee’s website presages recommendations that will operate so as to inappropriately smear legitimate critics of Israeli state policy-or even those that are against the Zionist idea and think a one state solution is the appropriate path to conflict resolution-to the very serious charge of anti-Semitism.

I think we need to step back a bit and take note of what anti-Semitism used to mean in Canada. It meant, among other things: discrimination in employment, denial of access to housing and restrictive covenants tied to land ownership, university quotas, mandated social segregation at clubs and a general feeling that Jews were “the other” and, accordingly, not real Canadians. The all pervasive nature of anti-Semitism in Canada led to an unjust and cruel immigration policy known as “none is too many” which meant that many of the Jewish refugees from Hitler’s Europe were slaughtered rather than admitted into Canada.

I believe that if the coalition studies whether the environment for Jewish Canadians is deteriorating as judged by anti-Semitism as it clearly existed here, there will be very little evidence that such is the case. We Canadians can take pride in the fact that this is so.

On the other hand, there are other identifiable groups in today’s Canada who would argue that it is now they that suffer from some of the forms of discrimination described above. One thing I see mentioned in online discussions among intellectuals who care about this issue is the concern that the coalition was formed to deal with one form of discrimination or bigotry that has declined almost to the point of extinction over recent decades, when today we as a society can see others forms of discrimination or bigotry manifested towards other identifiable groups, but without there being a coalition formed to address their legitimate concerns.

More to the point, many of the commentators whom I follow are concerned that the ultimate result of the work of the coalition will be to criminalize criticism of Israel. They express the fear that the coalition will be reminiscent of the McCarthy era House Un-American Activities Committee.

I think Canada’s history with anti-Semitism is very real and, in that respect, as a Jewish Canadian, I applaud the fact that there are Members of Parliament devoted to the goal that that ugly hatred not re-emerge or again become socially acceptable. But at the same time I’m very concerned that the social stigma of expressions of anti-Semitism not be lessened by defining the term “anti-Semitism” too broadly such that it loses it power to shame.

The purpose of my submission is to express the following idea. I believe that research will show more philo-Semitism present in Canada than anti-Semitism but I’d like to know the state of anti-Semitism in Canada as judged by what we used to think was meant by the term anti-Semitism. I think it would be wise for the coalition to conclude that neither anti-Zionism nor criticism of Israeli behaviour is per se anti-Semitism. What I’d like the coalition to examine is the phenomenon of the old or “real” anti-Semitism manifesting itself as anti-Zionism or criticism of Israeli state behaviour. In this regard, I don’t know how one can articulate a test that operates so as to separate President Carter from David Duke. Moreover, I don’t know what the coalition envisions as a recommendation. If a recommendation would attempt to criminalize criticism of Israel, I’d be concerned. If, however, the coalition could adopt a reasonable written standard addressed at real anti-Semitism cloaked as criticism of Israel, that could be very useful for people to refer to when a particular context makes that necessary or desirable.

My thoughts on a possible test would be to look at whether a particular statement would be viewed as anti-Semitic if references to Zionism and Israel simply were changed to Jews. For example, a statement that “the Jews control the World,” which for me is anti-Semitic, doesn’t lose that character when changed to “the Zionists control the World.” But a statement to the effect that the creation of Israel on balance caused more harm (to Palestinians) than it was of benefit to persecuted Jews (while being a statement that I would passionately argue with), is not in my opinion an expression of anti-Semitism. Similarly, statements to the effect that Jews are disloyal Canadians because they have an affinity to Israel strike me anti-Semitic. In that regard, in my opinion changing references from “Jews” to “Zionists” does not remove the inherent anti-Semitism.

A tough example would be along the following lines. In a political context someone might charge that X should not be elected because that candidate is a “Zionist.” Technically speaking that might mean that someone is expressing a good faith view that Zionism is a misconceived idea. That statement alone may not be anti-Semitic, especially when an electoral choice actually involved other candidates who actually were against Zionism or in favour of a one state solution. But if someone were to add statements to the effect that as a Zionist, candidate X is “disloyal” to Canada, for me the line is crossed. Or if someone were to mention family members being “Zionists,” when those family members are Jewish, it becomes clear to me that the person making the statement or “charge” in fact is expressing anti-Semitism.

But how do you describe a test that separates a progressive idealist generally against ethnicity based nation states and/or concerned with equality and justice for Palestinians, on, the one hand, from cunning anti-Semites, on the other hand? And, in so doing, how can you boldly fight an ancient evil without so expanding the term that it becomes devalued, loses its ability to shame and makes many believe that this is a case of “crying wolf?”

In expressing the above view I should say that I do think that Israel in fact is often judged by a double standard and unfairly criticized. But I’m reluctant to characterize that phenomenon as the “new anti-Semitism.” People engaged in a debate should simply argue that a double standard is at work without resorting to the “showstopper” that their adversaries are anti-Semites. In addition, Israel does actually exist as a sovereign state, complete with a government, embassies and consulates, and as such is able to defend herself in the court of public opinion in the way that all sovereign states are able to do so. Israel does not need Canadian domestic law to regulate that debate. And neither do Jewish Canadians.

I think your primary mandate is to make sure that Jewish Canadians do not return to an era we all wish never existed. In that regard, what matters isn’t whether Israel is judged by a double standard but whether Jewish Canadians are being made responsible, collectively and individually, for the behaviour of the State of Israel. In that regard, while many Jewish (and other) Canadians may disagree with things like Israel Apartheid Week on university campuses, and may (and should) voice their displeasure at things like the label “apartheid” being applied to Israel, as a Jewish Canadian I do not think that the state should step in to control that debate.

Please by all means come up with a test that is useful to expose the “fringe” anti-Semites who try to use the ongoing Middle East debate to express an ancient hatred. But at the same time please be very careful not to over-reach lest you devalue the ability of the term “anti-Semitism” as an appropriate label of bad character deserving of shame.

UPDATE: I supplemented my submission with an appendix containing links to Internet comments that for me did cross the line including "arthurdecco's" greatest hits, being primarily what he includes as hyperlinks. I was motivated to do so by my latest (and final) exchange with him (although I didn't actually include that exchange in my appendix).

Note in this final exchange arthurdecco's classic misrepresentation of a piece of scholarship. In this regard he repeats the behaviour of a Holocaust "revisionist" who attempted to misrepresent that book and received a firm response from the author's whose book he had inaccurately cited. More here. By all means read Edwin Black's book and don't stop at arthurdecco's twisted Feltonesque take on it.

I wonder if there are those that still maintain that there is no arthurdecco and that he is something I have created to embarrass bloggers who let him post comments.

I have also e-mailed the book's author (his contact information being displayed on the website for the book) and made him aware of how his scholarship was being interpreted.

P.S. The author replied to say he will not engage with anonymous Internet commenters so won't respond to arthurdecco but reaffirmed his earlier substantive response that I linked to above.