Category Archives: Politics

Israel vs. the Rest, Part One: Cheerleading the way to Victory

york16 years ago, during my first year at York University, it was the height of the second intifada. Both in Israel and on my campus, tensions flared, screaming matches in public places were common, and a war was waged by both sides to win over the compassion of the media. And on some days in Vari Hall, the central court on campus, if you squinted your eyes just enough, you might have actually thought you were in the West Bank. After all, they had bombed out buses, and we had bombed out buses. They had a separation fence wall, and we had a separation fence wall. They had checkpoints, and we had checkpoints. They had screaming Jews and Arabs, and we had screaming Jews and Arabs. Really, the only difference between the two locales was the lack of terrorists killing people and an armed response. Aside from that, it was war on all fronts.

As an impressionable freshman, fresh out of high school and youth group, I was only too eager to join in the protests and become an activist. I donned my IDF uniform, draped myself in an Israeli flag, and held up posters of victims of terrorism, shouting my support for Israel and feeling ever so proud. Yes, I was an activist. I didn’t tell people that at that point, I had never been to Israel or the West Bank, because it didn’t matter. I read Israel newspapers, and I watched international news. But not CNN.

04protestxlarge1This is the story of far too many members of the Jewish community in North America. Switch sides, and it’s the story of far too many members of the Muslim/Arab community in North America. The details really are the same on both sides. People – many of whom have never been to the land they are yelling about – engaged in screaming matches, fueled mostly by pent-up emotions and an unhealthy dose of propaganda from whatever news outlet is telling the story in the way they want to hear it.

Thankfully, I got tired, grew weary, and mellowed out. I saw the bigger picture. I tried to broaden my horizons. I saw through the vitriol and realized that these rallies, protests, and screaming matches really didn’t accomplish anything. For the most part, they were nothing more than a giant way to get to catharsis for each party. Whoever screamed the loudest, pushed the hardest, showed the most gruesome photos, and attracted the largest group of unimpressed observers won. There was nothing activist about these rallies, nothing influential, and nothing lasting. Sure, they made the newspapers the next day, and spawned a screaming match of words in the letters-to-the-editor section. But that was it. These rallies didn’t influence any change in policy, they didn’t win over larger groups of fence-sitters, and they didn’t raise any knowledgeable awareness among the “activists”. They were and always will be a small blip on the time-line of the conflict.

Which is why I surprised myself yesterday, as with trepidation I joined Hanan – one of our shlichim – and walked down to the Israeli consulate in New York yesterday to watch a pro-Israel/anti-Hamas rally. Not to take part. Just to watch. I wanted to see what a rally looked like after the supposed end of the second intifada. I wanted to see what a rally looked like here in New York.

nyp_m1And here, in the centre of the Jewish world outside Israel, I saw more of the same. Yelling and shouting; some of it filled with hatred, some of it filled with passion, but none of it filled with activism. If anybody there thought that their speeches, chanting, and anthem-singing would actually stop Hamas from raining down rockets on Israel, they were sorely misguided. If anybody there thought that their speeches, chanting, and anthem-singing would actually change US policy on Israel, they were sorely misguided. Maybe in a country or city where support for Israel wasn’t natural, a rally such as this could have had a substantive purpose. But this is New York City! The thousands of people crowding Second Avenue weren’t there to accomplish anything other than a giant feat of cheerleading. And unimpressive cheerleading at that – nobody was tossed into the air, there was no marching band, and there were no pompoms.

At the rally, Malcolm Hoenlein, the Chairperson of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations had an interesting statement to share with the crowd:

“We tell the United Nations today: Stay out. Let Israel do what it has to do.”

Mr. Hoenlein sure is a great cheerleader. He pretty much sums up my entire argument. Thanks, Mr. Hoenlein. What these cheerleaders and rallyers want most of all – more than dialogue, more than constructive discussion, more than engaging activism on the part of North American Jews – is for their side to win. They view Mideast politics as a football game, where North American Jews are cheerleaders jumping around wildly on the sidelines. They don’t want anyone else to get involved, they don’t want to hear the commentary from the pundits (people who actually know something about what’s going on), they just want to see their side pummel the other side without any interference. The UN may have many issues, including a woefully poor track record on being balanced when it comes to Israel, but at least it tries to be a representative voice of moderation. Much more than we can say for Mr. Hoenlein – a man who is supposed to represent the major Jewish organizations, and thus supposedly, the majority of organized Jews.

cheerleaderAnd unfortunately, this isn’t just a Jewish problem. It’s the same on both “sides.” Most of the Western World is content with viewing the conflict in Israel as a football match, because it means they don’t have to get hurt and dirty. They can just dance wildly from the sidelines, cheering and screaming, holding up signs and feeling as though they’re contributing to the welfare of their team.

But cheerleaders don’t get to win the Super Bowl.

*****
Tomorrow — Israel vs. The Rest, Part Two: Those who have the Guts to get Dirty

I’m just saying, is all…

canadiantire1Remember during the past few weeks of political turmoil when Stephen Harper repeatedly insisted that what Canada really, really needed during “the most difficult global economic crisis in many decades” was stability — a stability only Harper’s Conservative government could provide?

Yeah, I remember that, too.

My how times have quickly changed, haven’t they Mr. Harper? Maybe I should be a little more sympathetic… I guess it’s pretty hard working to stabilize our country from the front seat of the roller coaster ride you’re leading Canada on.

After all, the zigzaging, pessimism, and uncertain depression might just be the side-effects of riding on this coaster.

Except these aren’t side-effects… they’re effects. I’m a flat-out dunce when it comes to math and money, but even I can see that Harper’s not exactly cultivating a sense of economic stability. Because I’m a little dyslexic when it comes to the math side of economy, I’ll refer you to some brilliantly damning words from Doug McArthur:

[the current goings on is an] indication of really how kind of badly organized they are right now. It’s funny that a government who has prided itself — at least so they say on controlling the message and keeping the message controlled out of Prime Minister’s office — has perhaps done worse than any other government I can remember in terms of messaging about the state of the economy and I think this is bad for the economy. I think to have inconsistent messages, constantly changing messages, an apparent failure to understand what’s going on in the economy with that is a bad thing in terms of the overall all the actors in the economy.

If you need a good primer on why Harper is an impediment to stability and democratic clarity, I highly suggest you check out the full article at the Globe. It’s worth it.

Contempt: Simply Stated

For some of us, looking at the past week’s events is actually quite a simple matter. Painful, but simple.

While faring much better than the rest of the world, Canada is indeed confronted with a worsening economic situation. And in the midst of this crisis, immediately following a campaign predicated on restoring stability and workability, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have shut down Parliament. They have flatly rejected the concerns of the majority of the elected officials, and shown themselves to be incapable or unwilling to engage in civilized discourse.

The Toronto Star’s Carol Goar surrounds her dismay with quirky and effective rhetoric:

“The Prime Minister whom voters re-elected seven weeks ago to provide a ‘firm hand on the wheel,’ seized the first opportunity to veer wildly into the oncoming lane, gambling that he could damage his adversaries more than he hurt himself.

Stephen Harper miscalculated. He is now struggling to save his discredited government.”

Worst of all – Harper’s given our elected officials a two month paid vacation from their jobs during which he will no doubt spend an exorbitant amount of funds on anti-coalition propaganda. Fiscal responsibility? Economic stability? Productive parliamentary discourse? Are we truly going to sit back for two months while this goes on?

Is there a Doctor in the House?

Do the Conservatives pledge a hypocritic oath when they take office? You might assume so, given this juicy item emerging from the dark pages of parliamentry history…

“Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance”

You might also assume that they take such an oath given what Harper had the gall to say yesterday. These were his words:

presser-62“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as part of the culmination of the machinations of the leader of the NDP, we had these three parties together forming this agreement, signing a document, and they would not even have the Canadian flag behind them. They had to be photographed without it.

They had to be photographed without it because a member of their coalition does not even believe in the country. As Prime Minister it is not my responsibility to turn the keys of power over to a group like that.”

Those are his words. And how about that picture? Well that would be the photograph that Mr. Harper was referring to. See those things in the background? Yup. Flags. Canadian flags. Provincial flags, too.

It’s actually amazing that we can interpret anything the Tories are saying these days, given that they’ve taken to new stretches of doublespeak. The CPC is now saying one thing in English to the Anglos, and a diametrically opposite thing in French to the Francos. Do they think that there aren’t those of us who are bilingual? That line of thought would fall in line with their black and white view of the world, though.

To round off today’s vomit-inducing news, I prescribe reading the Toronto Star’s Q&A’s about Coalition governments. Here’s an excerpt of extreme importance to my fellow (temporary) ex-pats:

Is this a coup d’état?
That’s the way the Harper government would like to portray it. But it’s fundamentally confusing a Republican system with a Parliamentary system. In essence, we have an indirect election of government – rather than a direct election. In a Republican system, voters in the U.S. got to decide, `Do I want McCain or Obama.’ And then secondarily: `Who do I want as my local rep or my state rep?’ Whereas in the Canadian parliamentary system, like the British parliamentary system, you only get to vote for whoever your local rep is, and then the majority of members of that legislature then get to decide who forms that government. And they’re free to change their minds over the course of a parliament…

Until tomorrow night…

It’s Demo-crazy!

bron1180lMy, my, my how things have changed up North. There are indeed moments when I long to be back in Canada. This is one of them. Things are heating up in the true north strong and free, although I imagine that Stephen Harper would argue that things are a little too strong and too free for his liking.

In case you’re living under a rock (read: If you’re an American and don’t get any news beyond the borders of your country), you can enjoy a sampling of Canadian news here, here, here, and here.

I imagine that I’ll have much to say over the next week as this coalition comes to fruition and our “strengthened” government (Stephen Harper’s words) collapses. What I’d like to focus on is not the news itself… there are enough people getting paid to rant and rave about all that. Instead, I’ll direct my own rants at the inevitable hypocrisy that will emerge from the Conservative camp as they attempt to quash any attempt at upholding the notion of checks and balances in our parliament.

To get the ball rolling, let’s put to rest a few of the lies that have already emerged from the Conservative party:

LIE: The coalition is an “undemocratic,” attempt at seizing “unearned” power.

TRUTH: If the ruling party in parliament loses its majority support in the House of Commons, the Governor General will either call for a new election, or if the viable option exists for a coalition government to be formed, can allow them the opportunity to govern. More on that here, for you non-believers. This is a minority government, folks. It’s constitutional. It’s the very definition of democracy. It’s called checks and balances, people.

LIE:This is a “backroom deal that would usurp the elected government without the people’s consent.”

TRUTH: See above. Also note that anything that happens on the floor of parliament (where the no-confidence motion will take place) is hardly in a “backroom.” And also note that almost everything the Harper government has done has been in the “backrooms” and boardrooms of the country, without the people’s consent. Moreover, both the Grits and the NDP have been undeniably public and transparent with regards to their “deal”. Anyone with access to Google can tell you that.

LIE: “Voters certainly offered no mandate for the Liberals and NDP to form a formal coalition with the separatist Bloc Quebecois”

TRUTH: There is no “formal” coalition with the Bloc. They will receive no seats, no cabinet positions, and no change of status in parliament. They are no more in a formal coalition with the Libs and the NDP than they are with the Conservatives. The Bloc will continue to decide on their own what to support and what not to. If it happens that they disagree with the current Conservative agenda and agree to a progressive coalition between the Liberals and the NDP – that’s hardly a formal coalition.

AND, let us not forget that IF the Bloc were included in a formal coalition – as the Tories suggest – that would negate the Tory statement that they were not offered a mandate. Anyone with a calculator can tell you that the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc hold more seats together than the Tories. Sounds like a mandate to me…

So folks, please remember the following. What is transpiring in the Canadian Parliament is:
1. Legal.
2. Democratic.
3. Representative of the majority of the Canadian electorate.
4. Not a separatist government.

And just to round things off with an additional dose of Conservative propaganda, check out what John Ivison at the National Post has to say about the state of affairs back home:

…the most likely scenario will see Mr. Dion become Prime Minister at the head of an alliance so unholy it would have been burned at the stake for heresy in the Middle Ages.

Ivison’s statement is the definitive representation of the ideological abuse of power that pervades Harper’s Conservative party – anyone who disagrees with Harper’s view of Canada is a heretic who deserves to be consumed by fire. On that note, let me be blunt. If you are a politically and socially conservative person – I have no fight with you. We may disagree on policy, but hopefully we can agree on the foundational principles of Canadian democracy. But Harper and his Tories are trying to run government by their own rules and are trying to shut down anyone who gets in the way. Ivison’s suggestion of an unholy alliance smells as though it were lifted from the pages of the Spanish Inquisition, not a modern Canadian newspaper. Let’s try and move past that, folks.

Until the next juicy tidbit emerges…

One of those moments

A little over a month ago – at the conclusion of the most recent Canadian federal election – I posted an article expressing great disdain for the Jewish electorate in my hometown riding of Thornhill. I made no attempt to hide my affiliation with the Liberal Party and my disdain for the Conservatives. I did, however, lay out a relatively objective argument against the elections and the Conservatives’ tactics.

In my rants, I placed the blame squarely on my fellow Jews for electing in Peter Kent – the Conservative Candidate. Given that Thornhill is about 50% Jewish, and that Kent campaigned largely on a platform of “support” for Israel and “I’m not Susan Kadis” (herself a Jew!), it isn’t hard to see how the connection can be made. Also given that Thornhill has been solidly Liberal for all but 5 years of its lengthy history, there had to be an identifiable tipping point in the change. And I identified it as being among the Jewish electorate.

Apparently I struck a sour chord with some, as I was accused of being an offensive racist. As an ardent pluralist (and an ardent Jew!), I refuted these remarks, but basically, I let the issue slide. Clearly my argument was not meant to imply that there was some conspiracy among us Jews, rather it was a demographic observation (coupled with my admittedly Liberal philosophy) attempting to shed light on the matter of one-issue voting. Plus, I was angry – so I ramped up the rhetoric.

Well… Turns out Peter Kent is thanking the Jewish community by making one of his first public speaking appearances at a breakfast at the BAYT (the largest Orthodox shul in Canada, and a really nice community). In last week’s Jewish Tribune, the president of the BAYT’s brotherhood was quoted as saying:

“When I first heard Peter Kent speak to us at BAYT [Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto Congregation], I said to myself, here’s someone who understands the security challenges that Israel and the Western world are facing today and is willing to do something about it,”

This just reinforces my earlier point… it seems that by and large, the Canadian Jewish community is more concerned with one foreign policy issue than with Canadian domestic policy. As I iterated earlier, I have a great concern for this type of voting. Setting aside the fact that Canada has little to no role whatsoever in Israeli or Western security — these remarks illuminate the obsession amongst Canadian Jews with expecting the Canadian parliament to focus on one issue.

As a pluralist, I can entirely appreciate someone who aligns him or herself with Conservative values and believes in the Conservative Party’s overall agenda (something that was almost impossible to do this year given the CPC’s lack of a formally platform presented in time for Jews to vote). I would never assume to dictate what beliefs someone should uphold. But it seems that for much of the Canadian Jewish community, the qualification for getting elected is whether or not you say nice things about Israel.

There are moments when I’m actually thrilled to be living outside of Canada. This is one of them.

One reason, and one reason only…

“Nuclear (pronounced ‘nuke-you-lar’) war would be the be-all end-all of too many people and too many parts of our planet.”

~Sarah Palin

My American friends: even if you forget the fact that she doesn’t understand the complexities of the economy, and even if you forget that she doesn’t understand the complexities of foreign policy, and even if you forget the fact that she doesn’t know the name of the American in charge of soldiers in Afghanistan, PLEASE, for the love of God remember that she doesn’t have a grasp of basic English sentence structure.

Remind you of anyone?

That’s all I’m asking. So, thanks…

Penniless for the Arts

An addendum to my previous post on Arts funding in Canada. Lest you think I’m just a raving “artsy” lunatic upset that government “handouts” are being scaled back due to “budget” constraints… look at this August 2008 report from the Conference Board of Canada. The Conference Board is an economic and corporate research organization. They are not a government organization. They are not a lobby group of any sort. They are objective and non-partisan. This is what they have to say:

The Conference Board estimates that the economic footprint of Canada’s culture sector was $84.6 billion in 2007, or 7.4 per cent of Canada’s total real GDP, including direct, indirect, and induced contributions. Culture sector employment exceeded 1.1 million jobs in 2007.

I’m not a numbers guy (remember I failed math), but this is pretty compelling. Arts and culture industries play a vital role in attracting people, business, and investment, and in distinguishing Canada as a dynamic and exciting place to live and work. Apparently these just aren’t issues the Conservative party seem to be concerned about.

Faceless for the Arts

Normally, I’m not one to jump on social cause bandwagons. I find that wristbands, ribbons, buttons, stickers, car magnets, and the such are often really more about making individuals feel good about themselves than enacting real change. If people really wanted to make a difference, they would get out of their cars and use their feet. But today, I joined a group on Facebook called “Faceless.” Along with that, I replaced my profile picture to an icon which states “Faceless for the Arts.” This is all a part of a campaign to protest the rapidly declining support of Canadian arts and culture by the federal government.

Before clicking on the “Join Group” button, I hesitated for a moment, but then realized that Facebook is actually the exact place where this type of protest should take place. It is an ironic paradox that our world has become increasingly interconnected, yet at the expense of actual face-time. One of the greatest realms that has been affected by this paradox is arts and culture. In Canada, our current government has decided that if artists want to connect with people, they should do so without any of the support they have traditionally enjoyed from the government. Arts and culture has become an increasingly isolated enterprise in Canada on the federal level, with a lack of recognition of its importance and centrality in our otherwise banal national identity.

The Conservative Party of Canada has shown a blatant contempt for the vitality of Canadian arts and culture. In two and a half years, the Conservative Government has eliminated over $34 Million in funding from Cultural and Heritage Granting Programs. The programs affected were designed to assist artists, arts institutions and not for profit charitable organizations in the creation, development, promotion and dissemination of Canadian art both nationally and internationally. And more cuts are anticipated in the coming weeks as part of Harper’s campaign.

So I joined a Facebook group and changed my picture. Sure, on its own, this measure is not going to make a concrete difference, it’s a symbol. But coupled with a thoughtful vote against the Conservatives in the upcoming elections, it’s more than just a symbol.

I hope and pray that people realize how serious these cuts are, and how they are part of a greater negative ideology on the part of the Conservatives. Things are changing in Canada, and the worst part is it’s not just about how we see ourselves. Just read what Slate has to say about us, in an article titled “What’s the Matter with Canada?”:

…Canada’s political system is in turmoil. Since 2004, a succession of unstable minority governments has led to a constant campaign frenzy, brutalizing Canada’s once-broad political consensus and producing a series of policies at odds with the country’s socially liberal, fiscally conservative identity. Canada is quietly becoming a political basket case, and this latest election may make things even worse.

Make no mistake, these policy changes and funding cuts are radically changing Canadian society.

Seething in an Apathy of Olympic Proportions

We’re getting closer to the start of the Olympics. Which means we’re getting closer to the start of my self-imposed boycott of anything Olympic-related. Here’s a rundown of what I’m (not) doing:

I won’t be watching the games or any of the related ceremonies.

I won’t be purchasing or using products/services from any of the Olympic sponsors.

I won’t be taking joy in Canadian or Israeli medal wins… as unlikely as they may be.

Why all this? This is no empty-threat, hippie bandwaggon protest of anything China-related. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the significance of how we personally relate to something like the Olympics, and I believe that corporations, governments, some celebrities, and a very select group of organizations can affect a tangible change. Outside of that, very few individuals can look forward to making a noticable difference. So I admit that my personal boycott isn’t going to have worldwide ripples. Even as part of larger boycotts, these protests won’t have the necessary politcal ramifications that I wish they could have. There’s just too much worlwide tether to China, and people don’t seem to want to bite the hand that feeds them… no matter how tainted the food is.

But I don’t eat foods that I think will disagree with my body, and I’m not going to injest any part of these games. I’m no apathetic cynic, and I’m not going to resign myself to sit back and let things be the way they are “just because.” I humbly suggest that you don’t either.

Here’s a short recap of why I’m taking a political stance on this one… As I noted a few months ago when I came to this decision, it’s based on a few personal realizations and decisions:

1. The olympics are inherently a political event. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. They were formed out of political motivation, and remain a nationalized institution. To that extent, they merit a political response.

2. It is fair to hold our athletes to a higher standard. I believe that the Canadian olympic team should have withdrawn from these games. By participating, they are making a tacit statement that protesting human rights violations and the neglect of civil, social, political, and labour justices takes a back seat to the advancement of personal goals. It’s just plain egotistical.

3. My tax dollars have gone to fund the Canadian team. This is not where I want my government money going.

Intriguingly, our Prime Minister has decided not to attend the Games, and will be joined in his absence by the British PM and German Chancellor. Also, since being elected in 2006, he hasn’t travelled to China, and has decreased our trading relationship with them. I’m no fan of the Conservatives, but the dude’s got it right.

Among all this talk of boycott, President Bush spoke up from his cave and said that a personal boycott “would be an affront to the Chinese people.” Nu? Isn’t that the point? China’s abuses are an affront to the world; the least we can do is step up in their faces. Props to Harper for at least getting that much into his head.

Outside of my mildly apathetic disdain, you can find a humourous look at these olympics, check out Dawn Ponders, who, among other things, has this to say:

…Let me get this straight – The Olympic Games are supposed to celebrate the best in sport and fitness and two of it’s major sponsors are McDonald’s and Coca Cola? Together, these two companies have added more inches to the waistlines of the world than any designer I can think of.