As one reads through Mr. Kay’s recent piece, a gnawing feeling starts to grow of déjà vu. Where oh where have we heard this kind of outright denial before? What does this remind the reader of?

When describing his own book, Holocaust industry theorist and disgraced ex professor Mr. Norman Finkelstein stated that his main thesis is that, “the Holocaust has effectively become an industry. Jewish elites, acting in concert with the U.S. (substitute Canadian) government, exploit the horrific suffering of the millions of Jews exterminated during World War II and the few who managed to survive for power and profit.” Replace the word Holocaust in Finkelstein’s claim with Kay’s stated views on antisemitism and what do you get? You get the same outrageous attempts to discredit real efforts to bring important issues forward.

Yes, B’nai Brith Canada relies on the support of grassroot community members to bring awareness to the real problem of antisemitism. For some reason, Mr. Kay thinks he is building a better Canada by denying the problem. But, however much Mr. Kay protests, whatever trivialization techniques he should choose to employ, antisemitism, as the just released Audit of Antisemitic Incidents by the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada documents, is indeed a problem in Canada. The National Post (Page A2 April 11) itself just reported on one of the latest cases of antisemitism in Canada, namely the posting of a hate-filled video on a Canadian Muslim organization’s website in which ex-KKK head David Duke espoused conspiracy theories about “Zionist running dogs” (ie Jews). Barbara Kay of the same paper has consistently denounced acts of antisemitism on and off campus in Canada over the past year. Why, Mr. Kay himself recently moderated a conference designed to bring awareness about the pernicious problem of antisemitism on campus.

We can pat ourselves on the back about how good Canada is when compared to the overt antisemitic violence in France, Sweden or even Iran and stop there like Mr. Kay suggests. Or we can, as B’nai Brith Canada recommends, get down to the real work of countering antisemitism that is present even in Canada — where synagogues are vandalized, where Jewish students on campus are confronted with ugly graffiti and ongoing acts of harassment, where younger students are cyber-bullied with racist taunts, where visible Jews are assaulted.

In Mr. Kay’s own words, “Does anyone else see a problem with that?” We leave it to you the reader to consider carefully.

As published in Full Comment, the National Post’s blog.

Frank Dimant is CEO of B’nai Brith Canada. The 2010 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents is available as a PDF here.

The recent abundance of black-ink headlines that surround building a mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, New York and the planned burning of the Koran in Gainesville, Florida call attention to the issue of tolerance within the United States and the Western world. The United States is founded upon the principles of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights within the First Amendment outlines the freedoms of religion and expression, representing competing rights in the publicized cases of Imam Feisal Rauf and Reverend Terry Jones.

Many on both sides of the debate between religious freedom and freedom of speech regularly use the term ‘tolerance’ to defend their position, and yet a double-standard exists between Muslims and other faiths attesting to the relative meaning of the term.

The Manhattan Islamic community argues that the mosque, reportedly to be named Cordoba House, is meant as a location for interfaith acceptance and an expression of their religious freedom, all the while condemning those who voice opposition to the construction by labeling them intolerant. As an Imam who has called for the cooperation and tolerance of all religious faiths through the creation of this mosque, Rauf has only served to divide a largely Christian population from the American-Muslim community by rubbing salt in the 9/11 wound. Incidentally, this is the very same Imam who justified the 9/11 attacks, stating that “the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

Meanwhile in Gainesville, Florida, Rev. Jones called for the burning of the Koran on September 11^th to commemorate the anniversary of the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans at the hands of Muslim extremists. The announcement by Rev. Jones visibly incited many Muslims worldwide who came out to protest the proposed burning. Many human rights groups throughout the world have expressed the view that Jones and his congregation have the ‘right’ to burn the Koran, but have added that it is inappropriate. Similarly, many Americans have come forth with the view that although building a mosque near Ground Zero is entirely insensitive to the nearly 3,000 victims, their families and the support workers who either sustained injuries or continue to suffer long-term illness, the Manhattan Muslim community has the ‘right’ to do so in that location.

Although one cannot help but recognize the macabre irony of the situation - the 9/11 attacks were a clear and visible message to the Western world that extremist Muslims do not tolerate the ideals of democracy, equality for men and women, and the fundamental freedoms contained in the Constitution. The Muslim community of New York evokes the very same ideals present in the Constitution in an effort to advocate an inappropriate and insensitive location for a mosque. Building the mosque near a site that acts as the grave for so many Americans is a demonstration of insensitivity for the nature of the location and the feelings of the mourning families, and has nothing to do with the concept of tolerance.

Perhaps the proposed location for the Cordoba House is meant as another message to the Western world in the guise of promoting interfaith peace? Many would have us believe so, citing the mosque in Cordoba, Spain built in approximately A.D. 785 upon the ruins of the Catholic church of St. Vincent that acted as a symbol of victory for Islam over Christianity. This choice of name is an attempt to draw further parallels between the two distant yet similar occurrences in history, but surely the symbolism here is an unfortunate one given the optics of a church being leveled to make way for a mosque, as happened throughout history. Did the 9/11 perpetrators consider the World Trade Towers in New York as structures that stood in the way of the march of radical Islam?

We can all agree that burning Holy books of any religion is inappropriate, which was evidenced by the outcry made by religious and human rights groups worldwide; the loudest voices of opposition being from Christian groups and in particular the Evangelical movement. Yet there appears to be reluctance among many moderate Muslims to express any critique of the proposed mosque near the former World Trade Towers, even on grounds of insensitivity.

In the mire of competing rights and religious freedoms, one is left wondering what do ‘tolerance’ and ‘intolerance’ truly mean if the term is so malleable and relative. Questioning the words and acts of others is the only non-disputed freedom in this debate. Given the fact that we have the opportunity to engage in debate is significant when one considers the many radical Islamic regimes that prohibit freedom of expression. We await the day when religious freedom will allow the building of a church in Riyadh and a synagogue in Mecca.

As Jews around the world prepare to usher in a New Year on September 9^th, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embarks on a fresh round of direct Middle-East peace talks in Washington, not seen since 2008. Despite the optimistic and joyous nature of Rosh Hashanah, we cannot help but notice the black cloud of uncertainty that hovers overhead. The timing of the negotiations and Tuesday’s murder of four Jews in Hebron is far from coincidental, and is thus shrouded in symbolism. The terrorist attack in Hebron was intended to communicate a clear message regarding the future of the Jewish State and of its people – Jews are not welcome there. In particular the murder of a pregnant woman, the annihilation of two generations of Jews, sends a deafening message to those who wish to reside within their historic homeland and reminds us of the manifestos of terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah who vow the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.

In the wake of this most recent terrorist attack against Jews in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu will face many difficult decisions in the year to come. Questions abound as to whether Bibi will remain loyal to the Likud party and its Zionist ideals, or whether he will buckle under Washington pressure and repeat the demoralization of Israel during the era of Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. In his desire to soften his hard-line image, will he stay true to his campaign promises or risk a similar Likud split like that which occurred under Ariel Sharon’s administration?

President Barak Obama has openly stated that Hamas was “purposely trying to undermine these talks” and advocates a staunch effort from all sides to achieve a peace agreement within the year. However, to ignore the threats to the Jewish State, as seen in Tuesday’s murders and decades of terrorist attacks within Israel, is to side with the Palestinians who took to the streets of Gaza and the West Bank in celebration of the Hebron murders.

We see in the media the notion that the most immediate threat to the new round of peace talks is the impending conclusion to the building moratorium in the West Bank set to take place on September 26, 2010. To call the building of homes for Jewish residents within Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) a “threat to progress” is to deny the rights of the Jewish people to freely inhabit the Land of Israel. Bibi will soon be forced to decide whether the moratorium on building is to be reinstated in an effort to appease Mahmoud Abbas and continue the “peace” negotiations, or whether to keep his pledge to his coalition partners against the construction freeze.

Perhaps the single-most hopeful area of understanding and cooperation between the negotiating parties is the issue of Iranian nuclearization, one that should be at the forefront of Middle-East peace discussions considering the imminent threat Iran posses to the entire region. The Iranian nuclear bomb will after all not differentiate between Jews and Muslims residing throughout Eretz Israel, which includes Judea and Samaria. The fallout will not even spare the radical Jihadists in Gaza. Thus far, Obama has proven himself to be only a diplomatic opposing-force to Iran’s ongoing nuclear efforts, implementing the equivalent of slap-on-the-wrist sanctions. The question remains, will Obama proceed to deal with the Iranian threat pro-actively, or will his previous responses to Iran merely have set the stage for future reactions?

So, as we sit joyously around the Rosh Hashanah dinner table next week, let us not only remember the victims of Tuesday’s terrorist attack which left 6 children orphaned, but also ruminate on the uncertain future of Israel and the Jewish people that hinges on the current Middle-East peace discussions in Washington and on the decisions made by Prime Minister Netanyahu. We can only hope for a sweet year amidst the mystery that surrounds negotiations as perilous as the Iranian threat.

Tonight, Jews around the world begin a day of mourning and fasting to commemorate Tisha B’Av, the ninth day of the month of Av in the Jewish calendar, which marks the destruction of the first and second temples in the beloved city of Jerusalem, both of which were destroyed by invading armies (the first by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E.; the second by the Romans in 70 C.E.).

Tisha b’Av is an opportune time to focus on the true history of Jerusalem and its eternal connection to the Jewish people.  This was the very focus of B’nai Brith Canada’s recent ad in the National Post.

President Obama, in his now infamous speech in Cairo, gave voice to the critics of Israel that would choose to rewrite the truth.  In his speech, he negated 4,000 years of an integral connection to the land of Israel and the capital of Jerusalem by focusing on the creation of the modern Jewish state of Israel in 1948 from the ashes of the Holocaust, without the context of history.  By severing this bond, it becomes easier for Obama to suggest that the capital of the Jewish state could be divided up as a sacrifice to peace negotiations.  At a time when even the notion of Jews building homes in their country’s capital draws the world’s scorn, it is imperative that we look to history to understand the truth surrounding Jerusalem.

Since King David proclaimed Jerusalem as his capital 3,000 years ago (1004 BCE), Jerusalem has been the nucleus of Jewish national life.  Since ancient times, Jerusalem has been the national, historic, and political capital of the Jewish people.

In terms of religion, Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism.  Jews across the world turn to the direction of the holy city when they pray, and Jerusalem is mentioned throughout the Torah.  During the Jewish exile from Jerusalem and throughout a history marred by oppression and despair, the Jewish people have always yearned to return to their capital.  In daily prayers, Jews across the world call for the rebuilding of Jerusalem as a symbol of the renewal of Jewish life in their national homeland.  The city is the location of the ancient Jewish Temples, the last Temple destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans.  The sole remnant of the holy temple, commonly known as the Western Wall and located in the heart of the Old City in Jerusalem, to this day serves as the quintessential symbol of Jewish faith.  Today, Jews from across the globe gather to pray at and place folded prayers into the crevices of the Western Wall, a location where Jewish scriptures say the Divine Presence rests.

Legally speaking, among the legitimate claims under international law is the fact that legal title to Jerusalem rests firmly with the world Jewish community.  This context is also part of the history many wrongly choose to ignore.  On April 25, 1920, in San Remo, Italy, the supreme allied powers ratified the Treaty of Sevres, which to this day serves as the essential document in the establishment of the map and boundaries of the modern Middle East.  In the deliberations leading up the ratification of the treaty, the Zionist World Movement was represented by Chaim Weizmann, while the Arabs were represented by Hashemite Prince Faisal.  In the end, the agreed upon solution resulted in the promise of a Jewish homeland on what is currently the territories of Israel and Jordan, including all of Jerusalem, and the Arabs would essentially get the rest of the region – currently, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.  In 1921, Prince Feisal’s expulsion from Lebanon resulted in him requesting control over the territory on the east side of the Jordan River (present-day Jordan).  Weizmann agreed to this handover of land initially appropriated for the Jewish state in return for the promise that all the territory west of the Jordan River, including Jerusalem, would fall to the Jewish homeland – a promise agreed to by both the Arab leadership at the time and the British.

In the realm of international law, the 1921 agreement to this day serves as the binding legal accord regarding the status of Jerusalem.  All of the other treaties resulting from the same deliberations that led to the Treaty of Sevres have been judicially upheld.  However, when it comes to the legal right to the historical capital of Jerusalem, public opinion and Obama’s new policy positions appear to give more weight to the illegal Arab occupation of the Old City and the eastern part of Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, following the failed Arab attempt to destroy the nascent Jewish state, than on the legally binding agreements and international law precedents which clearly state that Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish State.  Detractors of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem point to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 which proposed “internationalizing” Jerusalem and dividing the rest of the land between an Arab and a Jewish state.  While the Jews, in their ever-lasting hope for peace in the Holy Land, accepted the plan, the Arabs did not, and in turn declared war.  The Arab failure to accept the UN Partition Plan therefore declared it null and void in international law since it was never implemented by the parties.  As a result, the agreements of the 1920s acknowledging Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem hold to this day.

It was only in 1948 that the Jewish people were able to re-found their national state.  In the War of Independence which saw modern-day Israel’s birth, Jordan illegally occupied Jerusalem.  During the roughly 20 years from 1948 to 1967, until Israel liberated its capital city, the illegal occupation resulted in one of the darkest chapters in the history of the City of Gold.  In violation of the armistice agreement which ended the war in 1948, Jews were denied the right to worship at their holy sites.  Out of the 59 synagogues that stood in the Old City for hundreds of years, 58 were demolished or desecrated.  The historic Jewish cemetery in the Mount of Olives was methodically desecrated and Jewish gravestones were even used for paving paths to and flooring for Arab Legion latrines. Jews were forced to continue to yearn for a united capital city through barbed wires and ongoing suffering.

Today, in the rightful hands of the Jewish State of Israel, Jerusalem has grown to be a bustling urban metropolis.  Renowned across the world as a progressive modern city, the city is home to countless institutions and pilgrimage sights of the other great faiths as well.  Only Israel has maintained these religious locations with honour, dignity and respect, affording worshippers from all walks of life the freedom to freely worship, irrespective of their faith.   It is another inconvenient truth to recall that the Palestinian Authority has allowed the ongoing desecration of Jewish and Christian holy sites (recall the firebombing of Joseph’s Tomb as one striking example) under their control.  State endorsed propaganda continues to deny the historical and legal connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem and the land of Israel.

It is crucial to remember this context when the issue of Israeli “building” in Jerusalem comes up in the news and the Obama administration criticizes Israel.  No other faith or ethnicity has the historic, religious, and political ties to Jerusalem that the Jewish people do.  Just as the Americans have the right to build up their capital, Washington DC, unimpeded, so does the Jewish State of Israel have the authority to build in their undivided capital city.   Want some more inconvenient truths?  Consider that poll after poll of Palestinians living in Jerusalem indicate that the overwhelming majority wish to remain in the Jewish state of Israel should peace negotiations succeed.  Consider also that Jews, who have had a continual presence throughout history in the city’s  make up, live today in all parts of Jerusalem, east, west, north and south.

It was widely reported that Obama hosted a Passover seder meal service for some of his staffers and friends this year.  Someone at the table should have taken the opportunity to remind the President of  the United States of the concluding words of the Hagaddah:  This year we [the Jews] are here.  Next year in Jerusalem.

As Canadians get ready to host the world’s political leaders for the G8 and G20 summits, Islamic fundamentalism in Canada is once again rearing its head with the annual Islamic mega-fest known as the Journey of Faith conference.

The conference, which is billed as North America’s largest Islamic conference, and will be taking place in Toronto from July 2nd to 4th, was originally scheduled to be spotlight Dr. Zakir. Naik, who is quoted as saying that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”. An India-based Islamic preacher, who is known for his antisemitic, anti-Western, homophobic and pro-terrorist statements, he was recently banned from Britain and there are numerous reports circulating that he will also be turned away from our borders if and when he tries to enter Canada.  While the decision to ban Naik should be applauded, there are still many reasons to worry if you are a Canadian.

The Journey of Faith Conference will be chaired by Imam Saed Rageah, the now infamous imam who was caught in a video posting ranting against Christians and Jews from his Toronto-area mosque.  Rageah also called on Allah to “destroy” the enemies of Islam in the video.  According to reports, several of Imam Rageah’s young congregants have disappeared from Canada. They might well be fighting alongside a Somali terrorist organization closely affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

Abdullah Hakim Quick will also be speaking at the so-called conference, as will British-based Islamic lecturer Abdur Raheen Green.  According to the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority, Quick has called for capital punishment for homosexuals.  Green, for his part, has rallied in favour of jihad in his video lectures and has called American and Jews the real “terrorists.”

Malaysian-based President of the Al Khadeem Organization, Sheikh Hussein Yee, will be another one of the speakers participating.  In a video lecture, Yee has stated that Jews are eternally damned to hell and are the “most extreme nation in the world”.

Just these past few weeks, we have seen fundamentalism in action in Canada. Canadian Muslims have been convicted of murdering their own children in the name of “honour”. In the Toronto 18 case, home-grown terrorists were plotting to truck-bomb Canadian high-rise buildings and behead our Prime Minister in the name of worldwide jihad.  We also continue to lose our finest men and women on the battlefields of Afghanistan to Islamic extremists who take offense to girls going to school and the modernization of their society.

While some commentators in Canada, including Jonathan Kay of the National Post, suggest that the decision to ban Naik from Canada was ill-advised, I strongly disagree.  In my opinion, every Islamist speaker on the Journey of Faith’s conference agenda who is known for support of terrorism, derogatory comments towards people of other faiths, or disregard for Canadian values, should be banned from this country.  We as a society must come to the conclusion that to enter or live in our country is an honour and a privilege, not a right.

New Theory on Antisemitism

A new and perverse theory on antisemitism seems to be taking hold, and some of its proponents come from very unlikely quarters.  Let us take the example of a long-time friend of Israel, Liberal MP Anita Neville.  In comments at a hearing of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, she alleged that the Jewish community faced a possible “backlash” of hate in response to the Harper Government’s proclamations in support of the Jewish State and its decisions to defund organizations engaged in antisemitic activity.  What is surprising is that her comments were tantamount to a repeat of various other statements emanating from organizations such as the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF), which also recently alleged that the government’s support of Israel is “fostering” antisemitism.

To B’nai Brith Canada, Canadian Jewry’s senior advocacy organization, suggesting that the government’s clear and principled policies on the Middle East and on countering antisemitism are creating a backlash against the Jewish community is simply preposterous.

All mainstream Jewish organizations in Canada have continually appealed to governments of varying political affiliations to counter, both verbally and materially, all manifestations of antisemitism in Canada, and to stop the moral equivalency between the democratic state of Israel and the terrorists who seek its destruction.  These Jewish organizations, ours included, also urged governments to ensure that there be full accountability for all taxpayer dollars funding overseas NGOs, and to give unqualified assurance to Canadians that these funds will not be utilized directly or indirectly in promoting un-Canadian activities such as glorifying terrorism, the publication of textbooks that include antisemitic and anti-Christian material, or any other activity which undermines the legitimacy of a fellow democracy and ally.

Today, Canada has exactly such a government.  It has assumed the responsibility of ensuring that there is full accountability for Canadian taxpayers’ dollars in the foreign aid that we distribute.  As an example of this principled position, we recently learned that Canadian funds which used to be sent to the general fund of UNRWA (an organization with a history of terrorist infiltration) have now been redirected to food aid.  Specific projects which will lay the groundwork for a fully-functioning justice system in the West Bank, a crucial element in building a strong Palestinian civil society that will strive for peace, will also be funded.  How ironic it is that there are now suggestions that this sort of accountability in the re-distribution of Canadian aid dollars for the benefit of the Palestinians will somehow lead to a backlash against the Jewish community.  How sad if such a far-fetched notion were true.  How short-sighted to try to create any kind of conceptual justification for such activity.

The demonization and delegitimization of the world’s only Jewish State amounts to antisemitism: it is the denial of the legitimate right of the Jewish people as a collective entity to self-determination in its own homeland in much the same way as Jews as individuals were denied basic human rights accorded to all others in the past.  This is a statement which has emanated not only from Canadian parliamentarians from more than one side of the political spectrum, but indeed from authoritative sources and public figures from across the globe.  Pushing the idea that taking action to denounce and defund exactly that type of antisemitism in Canada will somehow endanger the Jewish community is ill-advised since it unwittingly gives license to the base motives of Jew-haters everywhere.

In essence, the newest theory on antisemitism seems to go like this: when the Government makes policy changes which support an ally and fellow democracy, Jews are ultimately responsible and, therefore, bring upon themselves any repercussions from antisemites who take offence at those changes.  Such an assertion would be laughable, if not for the chorus of disparate voices saying just that.

If, according to the likes of CAF, action taken against the enemies of the Jewish community and Israel will in some way encourage antisemitism, than what is the suggested course of action?  Is our government supposed to sit back and continue sending millions of public dollars to obsessively anti-Israel entities in order to appease them and their Canadian supporters?  Is this to be done out of fear of the purported “repercussions” to be faced by Canadian Jews?  The success of appeasement in solving global issues in modern history has a very sad track record. We would do well to bear that lesson in mind, instead of crafting theories that could, unfortunately, become self-fulfilling prophecies.

DÉJÀ VU: AMERICAN JEWISH LEADERSHIP

The irony of President Barack Obama summoning American Jewish leadership for a chit-chat in the Roosevelt Room at the White House recently was certainly not lost on students of Jewish history.

To American Jewry, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the beloved president of the community: they adored him, voted for him, and could see no wrong doing in his actions. The Jewish community today, or about 80% of it, has embraced Barack Obama with the same vigour as their predecessors embraced FDR. But there is a slight difference: I believe that in Obama’s case, there is also an element of fear present.

When President Obama summoned the Jewish leaders to the Roosevelt Room, he was quite clear about whom he wanted present, and whom he wanted excluded. Similarly, President Roosevelt had a Jewish invitation list made up of primarily one, Rabbi Stephen Wise. Rabbi Wise was, in the historical sense, a court Jew. He was the most famous Reform Rabbi in the United States during World War II and, at the same time, was considered the most influential Jewish and Zionist leader in the country. Historically, there were court Jews who put themselves on the line in order to advocate for issues which directly affected the security and safety of the Jewish community. These court Jews would plead with kings, bishops, and princes to rescind orders which negatively affected the Jewish community, to remove heavy burdens of over-taxation which became oppressive and unbearable, and would even intervene to try and stop edicts from being proclaimed which were detrimental to the very welfare and existence of the Jewish people. Rabbi Stephen Wise did not fall into the same category as these court Jews.

For as millions of Jews were being massacred in Europe, Rabbi Wise, during his meeting with FDR, had tea and chatted about the weather, sports, and other issues of American concern. He refused to press the President to act in order to try to save those Jews who were condemned to die in the Holocaust. A protest from the United States declaring that those responsible for the genocide of the Jewish people would suffer serious consequences when the war was over, might have given the Nazi killers some pause. But Stephen Wise did not ask and President Roosevelt kept silent.

Jumping to the recent meeting with President Obama, the attendees collectively reflected a Jewish communal leadership that was intent on supporting the President, no matter what he was pushing for. From the description provided by those in attendance, this is exactly what happened.

There was no strong voice present calling for a united Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel, or for the inalienable right of Jews to live in their ancestral homeland, including in Judea and Samaria. There were no voices that called the notion that Jews in Judea and Samaria should be forcibly removed from their homes so that certain areas become Judenrein by its true adjective: obscene. There was also no one to tell the President that such an exercise was recently tried in Gaza and resulted in massive failure and terrorist training camps where Jewish communities had once thrived.

At this point, it is interesting to note that just as Obama recently did, FDR denied many Jewish organizations access to his tea party with Rabbi Wise. The Bergson group, led by Hillel Kook, and a delegation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, that was rousing American Jewry from their slumber and warning of the killing machine in Europe, were both denied entry by President Roosevelt. Nationalists from the Jabotinsky movement and the Orthodox Vaad Hatzalah, who were involved in various rescue efforts at the time, were also shut out of the meeting. These organizations were to march on the streets and fill Madison Square Gardens, but no tea with the President and Rabbi Wise.

Today, the organizations that were excluded from Obama’s private tea party have been thrust into the spotlight and given the responsibility to advance the opinions of what may appear, at first glance, a minority but, I believe, will rapidly become the majority among American Jews. It will be up to B’nai Brith International, the Young Israel Movement, and the Zionist Organization of America to lead the American community in the cause of proclaiming Jerusalem as the united capital of the Jewish people and, at the same time, to assert that Jews have a historical right to live throughout Eretz Yisrael. No dictate from the White House, Moscow, Tehran, or, for that matter, any other place in the world will change the Biblical Covenant that the Jewish people have that gives them the religious, historical, and legal rights to settle their own land. The Jewish Aboriginals have reclaimed and rebuilt their national home according to the road map laid out in the Old Testament, the foundation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Sadly, the one individual who, more than any other, failed in his moment of trial was Steven Savitsky, President of the Orthodox Union. It was his challenge to speak on behalf of the Orthodox Zionist world and to clearly articulate to President Obama the position of this significant component of the Jewish community. Rabbi Yaffi, the Reform leader, clearly had the time to make known the position of his movement which, not surprisingly, was in total support of President Obama’s policies. On the other hand, Mr. Savitsky apparently did not feel he had enough time to argue the case for Jerusalem and object to the edicts of the President. Mr. Savistsky would be well served to review Megillat Esther where Mordechai reminds Esther when she is afraid to intervene with the King that G-d will still save his people, but only Esther will lose her place in history. Sadly, Mr. Savitsky missed that message.

Rabbi Stephen Wise

At first glance, the Israeli vote shows a deadlocked society, divided between right-wing and left-wing constituencies.  This is certainly what the media would like us to focus on.  However, in reality, one has to understand the Jewish mentality, its history and its soul to effectively appreciate the Talmudic situation in which we find ourselves.

On the surface, election results point to two political parties – Likud and Kadima – that are diametrically opposed on all major issues and incapable of working with each other. To many, this appears to be an unsolvable situation. In reality and upon closer examination, the dynamics point to a very different unfolding scenario.

The national vote reflects the inner struggle of the Jewish soul.  It is an attempt to reconcile essential survival and security issues with that of peace.  Thus, we have the two basic fundamental concepts locked in unison, survival and peace. These two all too often competing tensions form the crux of our Jewish dialectic.   On the one hand, the Israeli public wants instant gratification, and it wants it now. The organization Peace Now perhaps best embodies this school of thought. Its name, by definition, emphasizes peace now, and all the wonderful things peace will bring: the cessation of rockets raining down on Israeli town, the ability to go about one’s daily life without fear, and to be accepted as a fellow human being in the society of nations.

Read the rest of this entry »

As a proud Canadian, I wholeheartedly support the Canadian Armed Forces in its struggle against the radical Islamist terrorist Taliban organization.

As a North American, I pledge my full support to the United States Army in its ongoing struggle against Al-Qaeda, another radical Islamist terrorist group, and its various offshoots worldwide.

As an honourary member of the Commonwealth of Nations, I applaud the efforts of the British and Australians in their struggle against radical Islamist fundamentalists who have made it their mission to destroy the value systems of liberty, human rights, dignity and tolerance that we herald in Western civilization.

Read the rest of this entry »

This Hanukkah, just as in years past, we follow the holiday tradition of lighting the Hanukkiah, or candelabra, in commemoration of two major events: the national political freedom of a People, obtained through a war of the few against the many led by the Maccabees against the Greeks, and the spiritual revival and cleansing of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.  While we rejoice in the powerful symbolism of the Hanukkiah and all it represents, we cannot help but be saddened as well as we contemplate the darkness that has befallen the State of Israel. How ironic, that just as we remember the triumph of the Jewish People, we are also witness to the political machinations by those who seek to lead, which threaten to destroy the social fabric of a country.

If ever there was the need to be imbued with the great fighting spirit of the Maccabees, that time has come. Now more than ever, it is essential that we find our inner strength and determination to confront the Jihadists like Hamas and Hezbollah, and, yes, even Fatah’s Al-Aqsa and Tanzeem militias. Instead, we see in Israel a leadership embroiled in an election campaign that shows no clear direction for the future.

The Labour Party, which at one time had nearly absolute control of Israeli society, is all but shattered, surviving under a leadership composed of yesterday’s chiefs and burdened by their overwhelming failures.  Ehud Barak, the man whose folly in southern Lebanon initiated a unilateral withdrawal that created the de facto Hezbollah State, is leading a party which will perhaps end up in fourth or fifth place in the Knesset.

Read the rest of this entry »