From the Editor: Our city should adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism

Michael Regenstreif, Editor

By Michael Regenstreif

Editor

Last June, the federal government adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as a component of its anti-racism strategy. At the time, Canada was the 17th country to adopt the definition.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) – the advocacy agent for Jewish federations in Canada, including the Jewish Federation of Ottawa – has been encouraging provincial and municipal governments across the country to endorse and adopt the IHRA definition as well.

In an era when, sadly, antisemitism and antisemitic hate crimes are on the rise, it is important to have a common definition of antisemitism that can guide law enforcement officials, the courts, the educational system, and all of us. The IHRA definition does that by defining both classic antisemitism and pointing out examples of how criticism of the State of Israel can and does cross the line into antisemitism. However, the IHRA definition of antisemitism explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

The line is crossed, though, by “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” or “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis,” or “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” or “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

In other words, criticism of specific Israeli government policies or Israeli politicians are as legitimate as criticism of specific Canadian or American policies. For example, as I write, environmental protest actions by several Indigenous nations in Canada have stopped Via Rail service across the country and it is not anti-Canadian to criticize the government on how it has handled the protests or even how it has handled the totality of relations – and reconciliation – with Canada’s Indigenous peoples. But it would be anti-Canadian to say that Canada has no right or legitimacy to exist as a country because of how it has acted on the protests specifically, or even on Indigenous relations generally.

Bill 168, a private member’s bill introduced by Ontario Conservative MPP Will Bouma, would make Ontario the first province to adopt the IHRA definition. The bill passed first reading at Queen’s Park two months ago and is now at committee.

At the municipal level, few cities have yet taken any action on adopting the IHRA definition. On January 28, the day after International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the city of Vaughan, a Toronto-area suburb became the first city in Canada to adopt the definition.

On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a motion was presented at Montreal’s city council calling for the city to adopt the IHRA definition. The motion was presented by Councillor Lionel Perez, an observant Jew, who told the Canadian Jewish News that he “believes the city should take this position because of the increase in hate crimes against Jews.”

However, when the matter came before the city council, Perez withdrew the motion when Mayor Valèrie Plante said defining antisemitism was “far from a black and white issue” and suggested sending the issue of antisemitism to a council committee which could devise a “Montreal model” to define antisemitism.

The following week there was no such hesitation when the city council of Westmount – the suburb next to downtown Montreal where I lived for 27 years before moving to Ottawa in 2007 – unanimously adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

I hope Ottawa City Council will also soon act to adopt the IHRA definition.

Bulletin website

I’m pleased and excited to report that work on the new Ottawa Jewish Bulletin website is nearing completion and the site is scheduled to go live at www.ottawajewishbulletin.com on Wednesday, March 4.

The new design is a big improvement on our old site, which we have not been able to update since August.

Since then, we’ve been posting content to a temporary site at www.ojbulletin.blogspot.com which we’ll continue to use until the new site goes live. It will be great to get back to our real home on the internet.

Ideas and Impressions: How we ‘welcomed’ Holocaust survivors

Jason Moscovitz

By Jason Moscovitz

They say you are never too old to learn – and learning later in life is worth so much more when it completes a circle that began when you were young. My thanks to the Centre for Holocaust Education and Scholarship (CHES) at Carleton University for making it possible.

I was born a mere six years after the last Nazi concentration camp was liberated. I grew up in middle-class Jewish Montreal. I went to school with the daughters and sons of Canadian-born parents. The Holocaust survivors, the more than 40,000 who settled in Montreal, mostly lived on the poor side of Mount Royal. They arrived with nothing but their lives and their hopes.

I learned about the horrors of Nazi roundups, the ghettos, the cattle cars, the death marches and the death camps exclusively from books. I often wondered why survivors didn’t come to my public school or my Hebrew school or my synagogue to talk about what they actually survived. I can’t speak for all schools and synagogues, but I know it never happened where I went.

Forty thousand survivors of the Holocaust, living in my own city, fellow Jews who had suffered so much, and yet they were almost invisible to me. So near and yet so far away. What was worse in those early postwar years was hearing disparaging remarks about survivors. As a youngster, I heard a lot about their shrewdness, how they were cunning, and dare I say, the narrative from Canadian-born Jews that the European newcomers were tough to do business with. I am deliberately using polite language to make my point.

There was even uglier talk, like suspicion around those who did not have a number tattooed on their arm. “What did they do to survive?” many Canadian-born Jews asked. Terms like “mockies” and “greenhorns” burned my ears, but I don’t remember ever talking about it to anyone. I thought it was a deep dark Jewish secret that the outside world didn’t need to hear about.

Last month, when I attended a Holocaust Education Month event organized by CHES, a light went on in my head when I realized the secret was out.

The expert speakers, survivors, and survivors’ family members talked about the importance of involving the second and third generations to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive by becoming the living voices of survivors.

One of the experts, Zelda Abramson, published a book earlier this year entitled, The Montreal Shtetl: Making Home After the Holocaust. A sociologist, Abramson interviewed people she understood: Holocaust survivors like her parents living in Montreal.

The interviews and research point to the hard life survivors had when they arrived in Montreal. They had no close family, no jobs, most didn’t speak English or French, and they had no money. While the book touches on many aspects of resettlement in Canada, my ears perked up when I heard about the total disconnect between survivors and Canadian Jews.

Abramson confirmed my recollections of harsh judgement and so little outreach from Canadian Jews to help fellow Jews who survived the Shoah. She described what Jewish Montreal was like in the 1950s. Basically two different worlds. Hers and mine.

She writes of Canadian Jews showing visiting newcomers how to flush the toilet as they thought these often highly cultured survivors were ignorant peasants. She told the seemingly never ending tale of survivors, like her parents, seeking help from Jewish social agencies but getting turned down.

Abramson puts forward reasons for the walls that went up. Canadian born Jews in Montreal, often second generation, knew of the antisemitism their parents suffered earlier in the century. Antisemitism didn’t end in the 1950s, but it was waning and there was a palpable fear the 40,000 newly arrived European Jews would create a new wave of hatred of Jews.

There was another basic reason for the unease. Both sides may have had the same religion, but language difficulties and cultural inconsistencies kept them apart. The differences fed on themselves and created the monster of indifference from those who had everything to those who had nothing.

More than a half-century later, the dark secret of Canadian born Jews being so callous, so unhelpful and so critical of fellow Jews is documented history. Not all history is good.

But for me, facing an old childhood demon is entirely positive, because now I can finally understand it.