Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a speech yesterday at the Ottawa Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, sponsored by the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (ICCA). I'm reproducing the full text after the jump, which deals with domestic as well as international Judenhasse, but here's its moral core:
"Let us not forget that even in the darkest hours of the Holocaust, men were free to choose good. And some did. That is the eternal witness of the Righteous Among the Nations. And let us not forget that even now, there are those who would choose evil and would launch another Holocaust, if left unchecked. That is the challenge before us today.... We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is. Of course, like any country, Israel may be subjected to fair criticism. And like any free country, Israel subjects itself to such criticism - healthy, necessary, democratic debate. But when Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack - is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand. Demonization, double standards, delegitimization, the three D's, it is the responsibility of us all to stand up to them.... As the spectre of anti-Semitism spreads, our responsibility becomes increasingly clear. We are citizens of free countries. We have the right, and therefore the obligation, to speak out and to act. We are free citizens, but also the elected representatives of free peoples.... we do know there are those today who would choose to do evil, if they are so permitted. Thus, we must use our freedom now, and confront them and their anti-Semitism at every turn."
The National Post published some excerpts, but read the full text below...
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Nov 8/10:
"Members of the Steering Committee, fellow parliamentarians, Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by saying how delighted I am to see so many of you from around the world, gathered here in Ottawa for the second annual conference of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism.
It is a sign, not only of your commitment to our common cause, but also of the momentum established at the London Conference last year. It is, therefore, a great sign of hope.
History teaches us that anti-Semitism is a tenacious and particularly dangerous form of hatred. And recent events are demonstrating that this hatred is now in resurgence throughout the world. That is why the work of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism has never been so important or timely as it is now.
On behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians, I commend you and support you in the great and important work that you are doing.
I would like to thank Minister Jason Kenney, for inviting the ICCA to Ottawa, and for his outstanding record of leadership in combating anti-Semitism.
I would like also to thank my introducer and friend, Scott Reid, Chair of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, and Mario Silva, Vice Chair, for organizing this conference.
And I would like to thank all my colleagues in the Parliament of Canada here today, including Professor Irwin Cotler, for their dedication to your mission.
Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, two weeks ago I visited Ukraine for the first time.
In Kiev I laid a wreath at Babi Yar, the site of one of the numerous atrocities of the Holocaust. I was left there with much the same impression as I had in Auschwitz in 2008 - that such horrors defy all comprehension.
At the killing grounds of Babyn Yar, I knew I was standing in a place where evil - evil at its most cruel, obscene, and grotesque - had been unleashed. But while evil of this magnitude may be unfathomable, it is nonetheless a fact.
It is a fact of history. And it is a fact of our nature - that humans can choose to be inhuman. This is the paradox of freedom. That awesome power, that grave responsibility - to choose between good and evil.
Let us not forget that even in the darkest hours of the Holocaust, men were free to choose good. And some did. That is the eternal witness of the Righteous Among the Nations. And let us not forget that even now, there are those who would choose evil and would launch another Holocaust, if left unchecked. That is the challenge before us today.
The horror of the Holocaust is unique, but it is just one chapter in the long and unbroken history of anti-Semitism. Yet, in contemporary debates that influence the fate of the Jewish homeland, unfortunately, there are those who reject the language of good and evil. They say that the situation is not black and white, that we mustn't choose sides.
In response to this resurgence of moral ambivalence on these issues, we must speak clearly. Remembering the Holocaust is not merely an act of historical recognition.
It must also be an understanding and an undertaking. An understanding that the same threats exist today. And an undertaking of a solemn responsibility to fight those threats.
Jews today in many parts of the world and many different settings are increasingly subjected to vandalism, threats, slurs, and just plain, old-fashioned lies.
Let me draw your attention to some particularly disturbing trends. Anti-Semitism has gained a place at our universities, where at times it is not the mob who are removed, but the Jewish students under attack. And, under the shadow of a hateful ideology with global ambitions, one which targets the Jewish homeland as a scapegoat, Jews are savagely attacked around the world, such as, most appallingly, in Mumbai in 2008.
One ruthless champion of that ideology brazenly threatens to 'wipe Israel off the map,' and time and again flouts the obligations that his country has taken under international treaties. I could go on, but I know that you will agree on one point: that this is all too familiar.
We have seen all this before. And we have no excuse to be complacent. In fact we have a duty to take action. And for all of us, that starts at home.
In Canada, we have taken a number of steps to assess and combat anti-Semitism in our own country. You will no doubt hear from my Canadian colleagues about the measures we have taken to date.
I will mention for the time being that, for the first time, we are dealing with Canada's own record of officially sanctioned anti-Semitism. We have created a fund for education about our country's deliberate rejection of Jewish refugees before and during the Second World War.
But of course we must also combat anti-Semitism beyond our borders, an evolving, global phenomenon. And we must recognize, that while its substance is as crude as ever, its method is now more sophisticated.
Harnessing disparate anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western ideologies, it targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world, and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so.
We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is. Of course, like any country, Israel may be subjected to fair criticism. And like any free country, Israel subjects itself to such criticism - healthy, necessary, democratic debate. But when Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack - is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand. Demonization, double standards, delegitimization, the three D's, it is the responsibility of us all to stand up to them.
And I know, by the way, because I have the bruises to show for it, that whether it is at the United Nations, or any other international forum, the easy thing to do is simply to just get along and go along with this anti-Israeli rhetoric, to pretend it is just being even-handed, and to excuse oneself with the label of 'honest broker.' There are, after all, a lot more votes, a lot more, in being anti-Israeli than in taking a stand. But, as long as I am Prime Minister, whether it is at the UN or the Francophonie or anywhere else, Canada will take that stand, whatever the cost. And friends, I say this not just because it is the right thing to do, but because history shows us, and the ideology of the anti-Israeli mob tells us all too well if we listen to it, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a threat to all of us.
Earlier I noted the paradox of freedom. It is freedom that makes us human. Whether it leads to heroism or depravity depends on how we use it.
As the spectre of anti-Semitism spreads, our responsibility becomes increasingly clear. We are citizens of free countries. We have the right, and therefore the obligation, to speak out and to act. We are free citizens, but also the elected representatives of free peoples. We have a solemn duty to defend the vulnerable, to challenge the aggressor, to protect and promote human rights, human dignity, at home and abroad. None of us really knows whether we would choose to do good, in the extreme circumstances of the Righteous. But we do know there are those today who would choose to do evil, if they are so permitted. Thus, we must use our freedom now, and confront them and their anti-Semitism at every turn.
That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the purpose of our intervention today: our shared determination to confront this terrible hatred. The work we have undertaken, in our own countries and in cooperation with one another, is a sign of hope.
Our work together is a sign of hope, just as the existence and persistence of the Jewish homeland is a sign of hope. And it is here that history serves not to warn but to inspire.
As I said on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, Israel appeared as a light, in a world emerging from deep darkness. Against all odds, that light has not been extinguished. It burns bright, upheld by the universal principles of all civilized nations - freedom, democracy and justice.
By working together more closely in the family of civilized nations, we affirm and strengthen those principles. And we declare our faith in humanity's future in the power of good over evil.
Thank you for all you are doing to spread that faith. And thank you for your kind attention.
Thank you very much."
Joe:
Based on our Helen Thomas exchange I know and respect that we are on sensitive ground here.
The criticism one hears of ICCA is that their core concern is the defense of Israel, and that they aim to aid Israel by equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Many say, and it sounds plausible to me, that such a strategy is not constructive. First, it is not constructive to ascribe motivations of anti-semitism to critics of Israeli settlement policy, the blockade of Gaza, the occupation, or disciriminatory treatment of non-Jewish Israeli citizens because, whether you agree with them or not, those criticisms do have a legitimate basis, and the criticisms can and should be evaluated on their merits independent of the subjective motiviations that people may have for making them. [The fact that there was a "vast right wing conspiracy" out to get Clinton, doesn't mean it was illegitimate for Republican's to take him to task for his sexual and truth telling transgressions] Second, by attempting to tie every criticism of Israel (or as many as conceivably possible) to anti-Semitism, ICCA burdens all of Jewry with the sins (or perceived sins) of Israel.
I think North American Judaism has become much too Israel centric over the last fifty years and ICCA's efforts to blur the line between Jews, Judaism, and Israel should be opposed.
I think Harper lays out the key tests succinctly and very clearly.
The first sentence in your second paragraph is not true. And if you believe that the Jewish people, alone, have no claim to a state, or that the events of the last century mean nothing... then that line between Jews, Judaism, and Israelis is already unrecognizably blurred, and the ICCA aren't the ones who did it.
Joe, by way of an olive branch, here is a link to a short piece about Kristallnacht and fading memory. It's a humble offering.
My own connection to these events is through my mother-in-law. Brownshirts forced her father to brush the sidewalk outside his taylor shop in Vienna with a toothbrush, on his knees. It saved his family. Through a newspaper ad in a London daily they found a home for 13 year old Lori in England. She took the train, alone, with a Magen David tucked in her shoe. The guards found it and took it from her at the border crossing from Germany into Belgium. Her brother, 18, was active in the Halutz and had his heart set on emigrating to Palestine, but due to restrictions on Jewish immigration under the British Palestine mandate, the leadership decided he should go to New York instead. Her father was able to make his way to Shanghai, the mother left Amsterdam for New York in August, 1939. Lori lived through the Blitz in London, and the family reunited in New York in 1943. Eleven brothers and sisters of the parents, and their families, perished.
The family found success in America. The mother was a milliner, the father founded a successful food vendor push-cart business. Lori was valedictorian at George Washington High School in Washington Heights. Strongly secular, the family has, of course, been strong supporters of Israel.
Ah, the American Story.
And also the Jewish story. Which, for me, is the most recent part of a long reminder about why a Jewish state must exist, where Jews will always find a refuge if it's needed.
That such things could ever happen in Germany was inconceivable to those who lived there. But that word... sometimes, it no mean what you think it mean.
That doesn't mean that no criticism of Israel is valid. Or that Israel becomes magically immune to the natural stupidities of politics or leadership.
It does mean that criticism which denies the legitimacy of a Jewish state, or demonizes without perspective, or never has time for anyone else in the region (esp. the when such people support the avowedly genocidal Hamas in the same breath)... yeah, that's hate. As Harper put it, Demonization, Double standards, Delegitimization.
The old hate is still backed by a large, powerful, and globally influential propaganda machine. And the end goal is, still, murder. In wholesale.
That's also the ICCA's position, as I see it.
. . . of Jews, worldwide? And that's why we need Israel? Whose goal are we talking about here? As if the whole world couln't eliminate Israel in one fell swoop, if that really was the goal . . .
The folks who are getting tarred with the "hate" tag and the sentiment you correctly attribute to ICCA includes earnest young Jews who unfurl banners at the annual Jewish Federation meeting, shouting that "the occupation deligitimizes Israel", "the settlements deligitimize Israel."
Israel is not Noah's arch for the Jewish people in a sea of worldwide hatred. For most, it's just an ordinary country trying to get ahead. For some it's a religious project, but that is a different rationale altogether. For Palestinians, its a disaster.
That's the point, Roland. Israel is just an ordinary country, and the enormous campaign against it is grotesquely out of proportion even to the deeds it's been accused of, never mind the much smaller subset of accusations that are actually true. It's hard to conceive of any explanation for this besides good ol' Jew-hatred; if you can think of one, by all means, dish.
Powerline links to a Cambridge Union debate on the proposition: "The House believes that Israel is a rogue state." More specifically Cambridge University law student Gabriel Latner's defence of the proposition. Latner put forth five examples of why Israel is a rogue state. I recommend reading the article but I have included a few segments here:
"Powerline - The house believes that Israel is a Rogue State"http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027667.php
"Israel's jewishness is a statistical abberation" which should qualify it as a rogue state.
"...The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees Citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world. But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel..
Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets. Compare that to the US's reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst - and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behavior anomalous is an understatement..."
"My Third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns -- it negotiates with terrorists.... You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA - the British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing - and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue - behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal."
" When you compare Israel to its regional neighbours, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbours. At no point in history, has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle east- except for Israel. Of all the countries in the middle east, Israel is the only one where the LGBT community enjoys even a small measure of equality. In Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and Syria, homosexual conduct is punishable by flogging, imprisonment, or both..."
"...I have one final argument - the last nail in the opposition's coffin- and its sitting right across the aisle. Mr Ran Gidor's presence here is the all evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr Gidor is a political counsellor attached to Israel's embassy in London. He's the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them to the UN. He knows what he's doing. And he's here tonight. And it's incredible. Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off,to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy. That's remarkable. Do you think for a minute, that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was 'This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world', that Britain would allow any of it's officials to participate? No..."
Heh. Good for Mr. Latner.
The only disaster for Palestinians is that their international supporters are such abject fools. After all, if they couldn't rely on imbeciles offering "justified criticism" of every move Israel makes, they'd have accepted one of the number of peace proposals that have been offered by Israel over the past several decades. Instead, cheered by leftist asshats, they continue a resistance aimed not at improving their own lot, but at diminishing the lot of others.
Hello Phil:
I understand you agree with the proposition, but feel it's their own fault. I would agree with you that there is a long list of mistakes that many have made in the Palestinian leadership over the decades. But the vast majority of Palestinians are children, women, and farmers whose future, dignity, and livelihood are undercut on a daily basis. When a farmer's olive tree is destroyed by settlers, from malice, and a desire to drive him off his own land, do you think that is just? Do you really think that it takes an imbecil to care about the injustice in that?
I don't think it's "their own fault", you strawman tilter. I think it's the fault of their execrable leadership, and the fault of feel-goodist asshats who always, always, always shift the terms of debate away from the actual behavior of the parties involved and talk about olive trees and children. When some American-born fool goes to Palestine and burns American flags, it encourages fool behavior. When some other fool names a boat after her and attempts to run a blockade in it, it encourages more fool behavior.
It's not really up for debate that all the Palestinians have to do to obtain peace is ... accept peace. They won't do it. I believe the Israelis would. If you could convince me otherwise, or would even attempt to argue otherwise, I would listen. But playing weak rhetorical games based will only earn you scorn.
Olive trees and children is what it's about. That, and water resources, ports and airports, East Jerusalem, and the ability to prosper.
Problems can be perceived from many angles and perspectives. The inability to hear a perspective without reacting with scorn and contempt stands in the way of useful or interesting discussion , not to mention understanding.
Roland, you're avoiding the point: that the Palestinians would have had their share of those olive trees, water rights, East Jerusalem, et cetera ten years ago if their hideous leadership had been willing to accept a compromise. Instead, they decided to go all in on terror and lawfare. And every time some fool in the West says that yeah, rockets and suicide bombs are counterproductive but let's apply all our pressure to Israel to give in to it anyway, it becomes just that little bit less likely the Palestinian leaders will move away from that path.
Roland, quoted re: the Helen Thomas video suggesting the Jews of Israel go back to Germany:
Roland today:
I'm not an idiot, Mr. Nikles. I have not forgotten what you said earlier. Or your attempts to change the subject then when confronted with it, and in the same way.
Some viewpoints deserve scorn, and contempt. Your record, sir, is quite clear. Your opposition to the ICCA and the battle it is fighting is unsurprising, and consistent - as are your evasions when called on it.
Oh Boy, what we don't do for fun on a Sunday morning! Ugh.
Joe, I stand by my statements on the Helen Thomas thread, as I do by my statements about PM Harper's comments, above. You disagree with them, and that's o.k. You often express strong and unvarnished opinions on this site--which is perfectly good, after all it's your blog. However, one should be able to hear a contrary viewpoint or argument without getting all abusive and personal, as you and Phil Smith have done. There is a line between pointed and direct, and rude, and you've crossed it.
M. I hear your point about Palestinian leadership rejecting compromise. As far as I know, none of us here are experts on the topic. I know I'm not. I know enough to conclude that its not as simple as "if only Arafat had said 'yes' to peace" everything would be solved. Here is a short description in the Jewish Chronicle On Line on Afif Safieh take on the breakdown of the peace process. Safieh was Palestinian Head of Mission in London from 1990 – 2005.
Roland, I apologize for my tone.
Instead, let me be blunt. I believe that you, and people who believe as you do, are responsible in a non-trivial way for the hardships being suffered by the Palestinian people. You are responsible in much the same way that many Americans of Irish descent were responsible for the continuation of The Troubles by not only sending money and arms to the Provos, but by sitting around in South Boston bars singing their praises. After all, as Napoleon said, Morale is to all other factors as five is to one. The limitless willingness of such reasonable voices as your own to continue to strive to see both sides of an issue where one side is holding an olive branch, and the other a stick of dynamite, is a tremendous boost to the morale of the "freedom fighters".
Inferring that you are an asshat seems small beer compared to that. But have it your way.
Thank you, Phil.
Much better, and much preferred. :)
R