Soon to be ex NDP'r here as well. I utterly loath the moral stance they are taking here. I have had enough of the simplistic "my political enemies hate Hamas, so I therefore support Hamas." I am not sure which is more pathetic that they actually convince themselves they are being righteous or they are just being cynical political opportunists. I have seen both from inside the party and Unions. I remember one high ranking CUPE member honestly telling me that in order to save Canada Post, we needed to start a lobby campaign to make e-payments harder and encourage people to write physical letters more. They have lost the plot. Its all about power for power's sake.
Today’s NDP is no longer the moral compass of Canada, as espoused by Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and others who truly cared for those on the margins of society.
The current NDP model has been taken over by self satisfied urban professionals such as teachers, nurses union leaders and other stakeholders who are invested in advancing their own welfare and everyone else gets endless lectures about how the NDP is the party of the little guy.
Tied to this selfish attitude is the current faddish notions of Critical Theory and DEI that percolates through the left, far left. This distorted view of the world has brought an oppressor-victim angle to Middle East politics that has Israel as the oppressor and Hamas as some sort of innocent bystander who has no obligation to account for their abuses of Palestinians. When ideology drifts that far from reality, blaming Israel for a genocide isn’t far behind. It is no surprise to see high profile NDP members openly supporting these views, as repugnant as they are.
It is often said that sunlight is the best sanitizer and the while the anti-semitism in SOME of our political leaders is a serious concern, at least it has come out into the open and Canadians can act accordingly. The writer of this article has shown us the way...quit supporting those who foment hate and openly state why.
You're being generous by calling CT and the DIE religion faddish notions. They are nothing short of extremist cults that need to be shamed, mocked and driven out of existence (the ideas, not the people) or we're in for some serious trouble, cf. Argentina.
I refer you to Shellenberger's “Woke Religion: A Taxonomy” poster for a detailed explanation on why it's a cult.
Fair points. We shouldn’t gloss over the damage that Critical Theory and DEI initiatives is doing to the pillars of our democracy and the determined effort that it will take to defuse and eradicate the threat.
Extremely young Canadians are being inculcated with views that promote self loathing and repulsion towards our shared values and history. Canadians are slowly seeing the pendulum swing back from this extremism but it will be a hard road to travel.
"young Canadians are being inculcated with views that promote self loathing and repulsion towards our shared values and history" Hyperbole much? Do you actually know any young people who have the point of view you espouse? And if you do how many?
There's nothing wrong with questioning some aspects of our history. And some of the 'values' I grew up with could also do with some questioning.
I draw your attention to school curriculum being taught in elementary school classrooms.
As for history, and as a person who enjoys history it is important to remember the old saying: you are entitled to your own opinions, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts. I find it repulsive to see young people undermining historical events with an interpretation of events that can’t be substantiated by the facts. Edgar Ryerson comes to mind.
You haven't answered my questions. And there are certainly some 'facts' about history as it was taught in the past that were omitted. I've learned a great deal of history as an adult that I didn't learn in school.
And not to be pedantic, but it's Egerton Ryerson not Edgar Ryerson :-)
I wonder if the NDP and others see this purely through the lens of the oppressor versus the underdog, not anti-Semitism. While Jewish people were being oppressed, they were the darlings of many on the left. Now that Israel is country that can very ably defend itself, recent events notwithstanding, they are seen as the oppressors and therefore evil. As underdogs, Palestinians are now celebrated and their actions are tacitly excused as reasonable in the face of oppression. The fact that Hamas cares less about the lives of Palestinians than do the Israelis and that Hamas is committed to the total eradication of Jews in Israel are irrelevant. They are oppressed; ergo, they are good.
A core tenet of leftism in this day and age is that anyone who is perceived to be "punching down" is always deemed to be the oppressor - without regard to circumstances, history, or god forbid, any nuance. It is a very convenient approach that will almost always guarantee favourable media coverage.
Canadian Jew hatred has revealed itself as never before. It can only be decreased by forceful confrontation at cocktail parties and when deciding to STOP DONATING to Jew-hating universities like U of T, McGill, Concordia, Laurentian, UBC, York, Toronto Metro University, Queen's etc.
What's difficult is the confrontation. How do you comfortably chastise a neighbour who equates Gaza levelling with baby killing? How do you have a discussion with a young family who've been taught Jew hatred at school? It's tough and it's a bitch.
I know, I tried...on my son-in-law who espoused the "they're all the same" flatulence. He was reluctant to acknowledge that a "cease fire" was in effect on Oct. 7--and that Hamas killed it, literally. But we've raised an entire 18-30 generation without a moral compass.
But the job needs doing. God willing, Hamas and its murderous constitution will be obliterated.
I didn’t like a lot of the language in the quote from Mr. Singh’s statement. It also sounded nothing like the Ayatollah. That’s a ridiculous comparison and it hurts the credibility of the piece, which otherwise makes some good points.
Adam, you make a good point. I agree. Jagmeet sounds like a Western parliamentarian while the Ayatollah sounds like a theocratic fascist. But they do sound alike in that they’re making the identical preposterous accusation of genocide against Israel.
And for both the Ayatollah and for an important chunk of Singh’s base, in particular the NDP activists, Israel’s supposed depravity justifies Hamas’s atrocities on October 7 and would justify much worse, including the total eradication of Israel, “from the river to the sea,” to quote the favourite chant at anti-Israel protests.
I don’t want to go overboard. Most NDP activists don’t explicitly support Hamas’s atrocities; they’re indifferent to them. They say a ritual, “Of course we don’t endorse violence, but…” and having completed their rhetorical throat clearing they get on to what turns their crank: supposed Israeli evil.
Now of course the Ayatollah is a true Jew-hater; it’s fundamental to his politics and worldview. Singh, I think, is just pandering. But his libels fuel antisemitism and give antisemites permission to act out.
Belief in supposed Israeli evil (which just happens to bear a striking resemblance to a belief in supposed Jewish evil) is justifying all sorts of nastiness on the streets of Canada – nastiness which again, just happens to bear a striking resemblance to traditional antisemitism: from boycotting Jewish businesses, to hateful graffiti on a Starbucks, (not because Starbucks supports Israel but because this one happens to be in Jewish neighbourhood), to a nasty protest at a Josh Matlow fund-raiser. Why Matlow? Well, he’s Jewish. Not to mention shooting at Jewish schools, throwing Molotov cocktails at a synagogue and a community centre… Well, I expect you read the news.
So, yes, you’re right, Singh and the Ayatollah don’t sound alike, except for the very important bit in which they do.
"Belief in supposed Israeli evil (which just happens to bear a striking resemblance to a belief in supposed Jewish evil)"
This conflation has been weaponized too often to silence criticism of Israel, Bibi, or the IDF.
I asked a Jewish cabinet minister, long before Oct 7, a question about Bibi's anti-democratic choices, his preference for Hamas over the PLO, and the answer was "anti-semite!" What a good soldier... (and pathetic.)
THIS is why people like me, who want a more moral Israel, turn away. If it keeps up, more will.
If you're wondering, I've been lucky to meet/know people adjacent to (or actively making) history. Some of my favourite encounters include David Gergen (right before Gulf #2), Ed Broadbent (1980s), Colin Powell (a few years after his big mistake), Tucker Carlson (making a centrist speech in the early oughts), Hazel McCallion (in full form). Many more musicians, business, and public leaders.
My work was about being a better leader myself (pragmatism vs. feelings), helping others to be the same, and facilitating (culture, change, complex problem-solving) in the context of a large private community.
I've made at least as many mistakes as I've had triumphs, am flawed (and good wid it), have the odd strong opinion, and think I learned some things:
- Humans get in real trouble when they simplify the world for everyone, and themselves. Of course ambiguity is stressful (and unsatisfying) but it's the hard work of leading, thought leading, helping beneficial change stick.
- Generalizations are always cruel to someone.
- Unrestrained narcissists filling their needs in politics (everywhere?) leave smoking holes.
- Political dogma and fundamentalist religions are indistinguishable - both require the denial of truth (love).
- The political centre, healthy discourse (the dialectical method), governance to counter bias/heuristics, might save us.
An indulgent response; thanks for being interested.
I'm difficult, and so are you all on this team; it's why I like you so much. Hashing this shit out, without taking our bats and balls and going home... is hope?
The commies had their useful idiots. The equally despotic and possibly even more murderous islamic fundamentalists have... Jagmeet Singh. He's an embarrassment of a politician on just about any front.
I remember when he first came up and people loved him because he was stylish. What an accomplishment.
Any future pieces about the actual genocidal statements from actual Israeli politicians? Any thoughts about these fellow travelers?
“Gaza needs to be wiped out,”
-Galit Distel Atbaryan, Likud Knesset member
“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,”
-President Isaac Herzog
“Gaza won't return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.”
-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant
“It's time to kiss doomsday. Shooting powerful missiles without limit. Not flattening a neighbourhood. Crushing and flattening Gaza. ... without mercy! without mercy!"
-Revital "Tally" Gotliv, Likud Knesset member
"You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible" (for reference: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" 1 Samuel 15:3)
-Benjamin Netanyahu
“We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba…Gaza Nakba 2023. That’s how it’ll end.”
-Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter
“We are too humane. Burn Gaza now, no less!" &
“We can leave one old man (alive) there - he will tell everyone"
-Nissim Vaturi, deputy speak of the Knesset
But yeah, tell us more about how Jagmeet Singh is the problem here
Six Palestinians were killed in the West Bank on Sept 20, bringing the total since the start of the year to 190. But, according to Henry, Hamas broke the ceasefire. And those thousands of protesters in the streets? There all cheering for Hamas and for Israel to be wiped out according to Henry. Don't even consider they might be supporting a ceasefire because 20 times more Palestinians have been slaughtered in Israel's subsequent revenge killing. And the NDP are repeating the lies which "justify the murder of Jews"? FFS
Yes, there is lots of abhorent rhetoric by various Israeli politicians. The difference between Israel & Hamas is that if it's determined that Israel has committed war crimes the country can be held to account by the rest of the world. But how is Hamas to be held to account?
By Brian Henry’s criteria you can call me a “well-meaning person” I guess. Although, to be honest, it feels a little condescending. Regardless, I can’t help but hope that all of us want a ceasefire, that we simply differ in terms of the conditions under which a ceasefire could be implemented. I mean, it seems pretty fuckin psychopathic to actually want to see the bullets, bombs, and shrapnel keep ripping into living people who don’t fight for the IDF or Hamas or one of the other terrorist organizations in Gaza. I kind of think of there being a spectrum with people like Amihai Eliyahu and Mohammed Deif on one end, committed to fighting this war to the last Gazan and then taking it elsewhere, and say, Antonio Guterres and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on the other end saying everybody stop now and go home, and most of the rest of us fitting somewhere in between. Is that wrong?
Hamas is a terrorist organization and the acts committed by them and whoever else came with them out of Gaza on October 7 were atrocities that are not justifiable. But, I seriously don’t understand how it makes sense to say this war has to continue until Hamas is destroyed. How do you measure progress towards that goal? How close is the IDF to that goal now? Even if every Hamas member was dead it won’t kill the ideas that drove them. I think that’s a bigger problem. If the idea is that you bomb Gaza into a moonscape, and hope that everyone else either sees the light or is now too scared to turn those ideas into violence, that severely underestimates the degree of commitment antisemites have shown historically. I don’t have solutions, mostly questions, but in all honesty I don’t get why anybody deserves space to kill, maim, and psychologically destroy innocent people who can’t help when and where they were born and raised any more than I can.
I’m sorry to sound condescending. I meant well-meaning people calling for a ceasefire as opposed to those who do not mean well – who want a ceasefire precisely because they want Hamas to be able to do it again.
In regards to a ceasefire, first we need to be clear that we’re not talking about "a ceasefire" but yet another ceasefire. Since Hamas took control of the Gaza strip and immediately began launching terrorist rockets into Israel, Israel’s policy was to limit its response; it attempted to deter and contain Hamas. This seemed to kind of work. We had a couple decades of continual low-key conflict, with Hamas initiating three significant flareups in 2012, 2014, and 2021. But now that’s done. Oct 7 proved the policy of deterrence an utter failure.
Another ceasefire so that Hamas can rebuild and do it all again, as they’ve promised to?
Ethically, it would be wrong. The first duty of a government is to protect its people. Practically, it could not be done. An Israeli govt that announced they were throwing in the towel wouldn’t last the afternoon.
How do we measure progress toward the goal of destroying Hamas? Fortunately, we don’t have to. We need to leave it up to Israel. It’s their security; it’s none of our business telling them what to do.
But practically, yes, progress toward destroying Hamas is the sort of thing that can be measured. Not every terrorist has to be captured or killed, but the command-and-control structure has to be destroyed, with commanders killed and infrastructure and munitions destroyed. Hamas has to cease to exist as a military threat.
This sort of thing has been done before. No reason it can’t be done again.
Maybe it won’t even require all this. Possibly, for the end game, we’ll see the remnants of Hamas sail off into the sunset to some jihad friendly state in exchange for the release of the hostages.
Again, how it ends has to be up to Israel. That’s what the right to self-defense means. You get to defend yourself. Full stop.
And, no, of course you’re right – destroying Hamas won’t destroy the idea of genocidal jihad, just like destroying the Nazi regime didn’t end antisemitism. But it gave us a break.
Remember that Hamas is the political entity in charge of Gaza and hasn’t allowed free and fair elections for years. Diverting global funds provided in good faith to address serious poverty and unemployment in Gaza is an ongoing problem. If Palestinians are just used by Hamas as pawns to hide behind and suppress for propaganda purposes, are we doing Palestinians a favour with calls for a ceasefire?
We all want the same outcome, which is peace, security and harmony for everyone in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. Thinking that we can get anywhere near that outcome by asking Israel to play nice defies a natural order of events when war is declared upon intruders who violate human rights and dignity in such an appalling manner.
Thanks Darcy, I agree that Hamas stands for tyranny as well as terrorism. 100%. I struggle to understand how anyone who truly values things like freedom and democracy could feel otherwise. You asked if I thought it would be doing a favor to Palestinians to call for a ceasefire. I think that the answer is yes, I do. Here’s one reason: Gaza is roughly half the size of Calgary, the city I live in, but has a lot more people. When I think of it that way I feel like there’s no place that I’d feel safe because I would be constantly aware of bombs and bullets and screaming and fire. I think I’m a pretty normal person and those things scare me. Especially when I remember that the people using them against one another are fine with considering dead civilians to be an acceptable form of collateral damage. They might think it’s tragic, but that doesn’t fix dead or wounded or PTSD’d for life. So, I say yes because I think doing stuff that causes people to feel and be safer is doing them a favor.
I don’t know that I agree that there’s a “natural order of events” that must play out because of what happened on October 7. I guess there’s a limited range of choices, but I’m not convinced the only choices available to Israel are 1) do nothing or 2) take the approach they are. To me, it makes sense for Israel to consider a change in tactics. But again, I don’t think I know enough to propose a realistic solution. I have questions and feelings, not answers. But I’ve read about urban warfare in places like Hue and Fallujah and to me that’s what the next phase of this war looks like. I don’t want to see that. I also think going that route is a poor strategic choice for Israel. Not just because it will result in large numbers of civilian deaths, probably in Israel as well as Gaza, but because it will play out in real time online, and be a brilliant recruiting tool for pretty much everyone who already has it in for Israel. I imagine it will also put the final nails in the coffin that currently holds the relationships they have with a lot of other countries in the middle east and outside it. That doesn't seem necessary to me.
I was a member and was involved in the NDP back in the late 80s and early 90s; mainly for provincial reasons and let my membership lapse when they were finally elected but still supported them. I gave up on the NDP federally when Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis et al managed to freeze out the able Mulcaire and adopt the Leaf Manifesto, which I thought was a big mistake. It is very authoritarian and far left and frankly, not democracy friendly which is a worrying thing for a political party to enthusiastically adopt.
Under Mr. Singh, the NDP, has lost its way and it’s purpose and should just merge with the ever unsavoury Liberals.
"Of course, it can be perfectly reasonable to subject Israel to ordinary and consistent criticism of political policies and actions" BUUUUUUUT:
Don't talk about the flattening of Gaza or the thousands of dead Palestinians or the collective punishment or the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank or Netanyahu's disastrous footsie game with Hamas or the blockade or the murderous rhetoric that has been coming out of the mouths of Israeli officials for decades. All those topics are antisemitic.
No sir, the world is a Hollywood movie, and there are good guys and bad guys and nothing has any nuance or complexity. Let's all come together to cheer on the bad shit that our side does because nobody has any principles and that's the only consistency that matters. Let's spend thousands of words engaging in semantic pedantry instead of engaging with the meat of the issue.
In the elusive dream of power that he thinks he has with the PM. When you sell your soul and any principles you have to avoid going to an election and to cling to the semblance of power you think you have you become “ full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”
It doesn't matter that the IDF is attempting to limit civilian casualties, the number of dead is still a horrifying number. And the lack of medical facilities, water, food & shelter is only going to increase that number. This reality also needs to be acknowledged.
Surprised how hard it is for educated critical thinkers (?) on both "team israel" and "team palestine" to acknowledge being both victim and perpetrator at the same time. Of course the challenge is emotional, therefore the most challenging, but it feels bizarre, otherworldly when either side makes remarkable, unsupportable claims like,
"Unlike Hamas, the IDF is taking reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties..."
Really? How do you confirm that? Is it your position that the IDF is above reproach, has never had any credibility issues?
Neither team looks virtuous, quite the opposite.
Sure Jaggy looks like an idiot. Both ends of the spectrum look silly when they flail about for attention from their most religious zealots with "Freedum!" or "End the colonial, western, oppressive, capitalist, societies for our marxist utopia!" (like we've never heard that joke or punchline before.)
Rather than just another gotcha article: "Hey, your side is the same as the Ayatollah!... so we're more moral!" (boring, repetitive), maybe a discussion about why and how, in a pluralistic society, it might be better for a leader not to pick sides. On the subject of leadership, helping a community survive global trauma, maybe even leading us to a better place... this is a pretty rich vein.
I enjoy The Line despite not always agreeing with everything written because the commentary is smart, well-informed, and well-stated. This piece is astonishingly inflamatory, biased, rage-farming rubbish, although successful judging by many of the comments. Jagmeet Singh = Ayatollah? Are you kidding me?? This is journalism?
It's not journalism. It's opinion, as narrow and ignorant as a Rex Murphy chat with Jordan Peterson. But most of the comments here seem to agree with this dispatch.
I hate how Israel is occupying the West Bank, but I am in awe of how Israel can occupy the Canadian public discourse on its ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes.
Is the loss of life in Gaza horrifying - yes! But Israel is not attempting to commit ethnic cleansing or genocide. And if the IDF commits war crimes Israel will be held to account by the rest of the world.
With all due respect, on the question of genocide, I'm with Raz Segal - an Israeli associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University in the US.
On the question of war crimes, in 2009 both Israel and Hamas were accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, also known as the Goldstone Report. You probably don't know about that because it was barely mentioned in the Canadian media.
Jordan Peterson, whether you agree within or not, is intellectually honest about his positions and, unlike the "fundamentalist true-believers" on the left or right, he welcomes differing opinions.
(Much harder to do than throwing grenades from a safe distance, lol)
Seriously. There's a consistent and good faith argument to be made for what Israel has done (ethnic cleansing is good ackshually), but this piece is incredibly stupid.
I ate a kebob with rice once, and the Ayatollah probably eats kebobs with rice regularly. Does that make me complicit in Oct 7?
When I read this, I find myself thinking about Jen Gerson's article from Monday, as well as feeling a little distraught, wondering where I can turn in terms of our politics now, as someone who tends to the left - but also where we might turn as a nation, in terms of smarter strategic diplomacy and alliances.
Take the NDP and Left’s call for a ceasefire as legitimate. How would you start? I suggest starting with the (George) Mitchell principles that helped initiate the Northern Ireland “Troubles” ceasefire. Yes it’s different (N.I. was a territorial conflict masking as a religious one, Israel-Gaza is a religious conflict masking as territorial) but it’s a start. I don’t see Hamas ever signing on to even one of the Mitchell principles never mind all six, so it’s fair to say calling for a ceasefire is not a realistic option until Hamas is eliminated to the extent that ISIS was.
The Israel-Palestine issue is just the latest ’thing’ for the radical Left. Before this it was Covid lockdowns, before that it was J6, before that it was BLM, and before that it was George Floyd.
The real motive (as explained far better than I can by James Lindsay’s piece: ‘The Current Thing Did Not Take Place’) is to ginny up the support for the Left’s radical view that “we’re all in for the revolution!!” and keep the Marxist ball moving down the field.
Rest assured the ‘next thing’ for the Left will be along soon enough when the Critical Theory movement to tear down society finds its next issue to latch on to.
Soon to be ex NDP'r here as well. I utterly loath the moral stance they are taking here. I have had enough of the simplistic "my political enemies hate Hamas, so I therefore support Hamas." I am not sure which is more pathetic that they actually convince themselves they are being righteous or they are just being cynical political opportunists. I have seen both from inside the party and Unions. I remember one high ranking CUPE member honestly telling me that in order to save Canada Post, we needed to start a lobby campaign to make e-payments harder and encourage people to write physical letters more. They have lost the plot. Its all about power for power's sake.
Fredrik de Boer’s How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement explains well wha has happened to the left in Canada and elsewhere.
He has some great essays.
Today’s NDP is no longer the moral compass of Canada, as espoused by Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and others who truly cared for those on the margins of society.
The current NDP model has been taken over by self satisfied urban professionals such as teachers, nurses union leaders and other stakeholders who are invested in advancing their own welfare and everyone else gets endless lectures about how the NDP is the party of the little guy.
Tied to this selfish attitude is the current faddish notions of Critical Theory and DEI that percolates through the left, far left. This distorted view of the world has brought an oppressor-victim angle to Middle East politics that has Israel as the oppressor and Hamas as some sort of innocent bystander who has no obligation to account for their abuses of Palestinians. When ideology drifts that far from reality, blaming Israel for a genocide isn’t far behind. It is no surprise to see high profile NDP members openly supporting these views, as repugnant as they are.
It is often said that sunlight is the best sanitizer and the while the anti-semitism in SOME of our political leaders is a serious concern, at least it has come out into the open and Canadians can act accordingly. The writer of this article has shown us the way...quit supporting those who foment hate and openly state why.
You're being generous by calling CT and the DIE religion faddish notions. They are nothing short of extremist cults that need to be shamed, mocked and driven out of existence (the ideas, not the people) or we're in for some serious trouble, cf. Argentina.
I refer you to Shellenberger's “Woke Religion: A Taxonomy” poster for a detailed explanation on why it's a cult.
Fair points. We shouldn’t gloss over the damage that Critical Theory and DEI initiatives is doing to the pillars of our democracy and the determined effort that it will take to defuse and eradicate the threat.
Extremely young Canadians are being inculcated with views that promote self loathing and repulsion towards our shared values and history. Canadians are slowly seeing the pendulum swing back from this extremism but it will be a hard road to travel.
I took Gad Saad's suggestion to rename "DEI", "DIE"
it's more fitting of their deeper aspirations. I encourage everyone to do the same.
"young Canadians are being inculcated with views that promote self loathing and repulsion towards our shared values and history" Hyperbole much? Do you actually know any young people who have the point of view you espouse? And if you do how many?
There's nothing wrong with questioning some aspects of our history. And some of the 'values' I grew up with could also do with some questioning.
I draw your attention to school curriculum being taught in elementary school classrooms.
As for history, and as a person who enjoys history it is important to remember the old saying: you are entitled to your own opinions, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts. I find it repulsive to see young people undermining historical events with an interpretation of events that can’t be substantiated by the facts. Edgar Ryerson comes to mind.
That would be Egerton Ryerson.
That’s right. Thanks for the clarification.
You haven't answered my questions. And there are certainly some 'facts' about history as it was taught in the past that were omitted. I've learned a great deal of history as an adult that I didn't learn in school.
And not to be pedantic, but it's Egerton Ryerson not Edgar Ryerson :-)
Yes, as noted above.
Nailed it!
I wonder if the NDP and others see this purely through the lens of the oppressor versus the underdog, not anti-Semitism. While Jewish people were being oppressed, they were the darlings of many on the left. Now that Israel is country that can very ably defend itself, recent events notwithstanding, they are seen as the oppressors and therefore evil. As underdogs, Palestinians are now celebrated and their actions are tacitly excused as reasonable in the face of oppression. The fact that Hamas cares less about the lives of Palestinians than do the Israelis and that Hamas is committed to the total eradication of Jews in Israel are irrelevant. They are oppressed; ergo, they are good.
A core tenet of leftism in this day and age is that anyone who is perceived to be "punching down" is always deemed to be the oppressor - without regard to circumstances, history, or god forbid, any nuance. It is a very convenient approach that will almost always guarantee favourable media coverage.
Or they just hate Jews.
Canadian Jew hatred has revealed itself as never before. It can only be decreased by forceful confrontation at cocktail parties and when deciding to STOP DONATING to Jew-hating universities like U of T, McGill, Concordia, Laurentian, UBC, York, Toronto Metro University, Queen's etc.
What's difficult is the confrontation. How do you comfortably chastise a neighbour who equates Gaza levelling with baby killing? How do you have a discussion with a young family who've been taught Jew hatred at school? It's tough and it's a bitch.
I know, I tried...on my son-in-law who espoused the "they're all the same" flatulence. He was reluctant to acknowledge that a "cease fire" was in effect on Oct. 7--and that Hamas killed it, literally. But we've raised an entire 18-30 generation without a moral compass.
But the job needs doing. God willing, Hamas and its murderous constitution will be obliterated.
I didn’t like a lot of the language in the quote from Mr. Singh’s statement. It also sounded nothing like the Ayatollah. That’s a ridiculous comparison and it hurts the credibility of the piece, which otherwise makes some good points.
Adam, you make a good point. I agree. Jagmeet sounds like a Western parliamentarian while the Ayatollah sounds like a theocratic fascist. But they do sound alike in that they’re making the identical preposterous accusation of genocide against Israel.
And for both the Ayatollah and for an important chunk of Singh’s base, in particular the NDP activists, Israel’s supposed depravity justifies Hamas’s atrocities on October 7 and would justify much worse, including the total eradication of Israel, “from the river to the sea,” to quote the favourite chant at anti-Israel protests.
I don’t want to go overboard. Most NDP activists don’t explicitly support Hamas’s atrocities; they’re indifferent to them. They say a ritual, “Of course we don’t endorse violence, but…” and having completed their rhetorical throat clearing they get on to what turns their crank: supposed Israeli evil.
Now of course the Ayatollah is a true Jew-hater; it’s fundamental to his politics and worldview. Singh, I think, is just pandering. But his libels fuel antisemitism and give antisemites permission to act out.
Belief in supposed Israeli evil (which just happens to bear a striking resemblance to a belief in supposed Jewish evil) is justifying all sorts of nastiness on the streets of Canada – nastiness which again, just happens to bear a striking resemblance to traditional antisemitism: from boycotting Jewish businesses, to hateful graffiti on a Starbucks, (not because Starbucks supports Israel but because this one happens to be in Jewish neighbourhood), to a nasty protest at a Josh Matlow fund-raiser. Why Matlow? Well, he’s Jewish. Not to mention shooting at Jewish schools, throwing Molotov cocktails at a synagogue and a community centre… Well, I expect you read the news.
So, yes, you’re right, Singh and the Ayatollah don’t sound alike, except for the very important bit in which they do.
"Belief in supposed Israeli evil (which just happens to bear a striking resemblance to a belief in supposed Jewish evil)"
This conflation has been weaponized too often to silence criticism of Israel, Bibi, or the IDF.
I asked a Jewish cabinet minister, long before Oct 7, a question about Bibi's anti-democratic choices, his preference for Hamas over the PLO, and the answer was "anti-semite!" What a good soldier... (and pathetic.)
THIS is why people like me, who want a more moral Israel, turn away. If it keeps up, more will.
So who are you? Do you have a name?
My name is Stephen.
What, like Madonna, just the one name. Are you that famous?
Hah! Knew it was a risk...
By one name, I hoped to portray unimportance.
(Ison is the last name)
If you're wondering, I've been lucky to meet/know people adjacent to (or actively making) history. Some of my favourite encounters include David Gergen (right before Gulf #2), Ed Broadbent (1980s), Colin Powell (a few years after his big mistake), Tucker Carlson (making a centrist speech in the early oughts), Hazel McCallion (in full form). Many more musicians, business, and public leaders.
My work was about being a better leader myself (pragmatism vs. feelings), helping others to be the same, and facilitating (culture, change, complex problem-solving) in the context of a large private community.
I've made at least as many mistakes as I've had triumphs, am flawed (and good wid it), have the odd strong opinion, and think I learned some things:
- Humans get in real trouble when they simplify the world for everyone, and themselves. Of course ambiguity is stressful (and unsatisfying) but it's the hard work of leading, thought leading, helping beneficial change stick.
- Generalizations are always cruel to someone.
- Unrestrained narcissists filling their needs in politics (everywhere?) leave smoking holes.
- Political dogma and fundamentalist religions are indistinguishable - both require the denial of truth (love).
- The political centre, healthy discourse (the dialectical method), governance to counter bias/heuristics, might save us.
An indulgent response; thanks for being interested.
I'm difficult, and so are you all on this team; it's why I like you so much. Hashing this shit out, without taking our bats and balls and going home... is hope?
Call the accusations preposterous all you want, doesn't change facts like this one: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/29/israel-kills-two-children-in-latest-raid-on-jenin-refugee-camp
The commies had their useful idiots. The equally despotic and possibly even more murderous islamic fundamentalists have... Jagmeet Singh. He's an embarrassment of a politician on just about any front.
I remember when he first came up and people loved him because he was stylish. What an accomplishment.
Any future pieces about the actual genocidal statements from actual Israeli politicians? Any thoughts about these fellow travelers?
“Gaza needs to be wiped out,”
-Galit Distel Atbaryan, Likud Knesset member
“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,”
-President Isaac Herzog
“Gaza won't return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.”
-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant
“It's time to kiss doomsday. Shooting powerful missiles without limit. Not flattening a neighbourhood. Crushing and flattening Gaza. ... without mercy! without mercy!"
-Revital "Tally" Gotliv, Likud Knesset member
"You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible" (for reference: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" 1 Samuel 15:3)
-Benjamin Netanyahu
“We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba…Gaza Nakba 2023. That’s how it’ll end.”
-Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter
“We are too humane. Burn Gaza now, no less!" &
“We can leave one old man (alive) there - he will tell everyone"
-Nissim Vaturi, deputy speak of the Knesset
But yeah, tell us more about how Jagmeet Singh is the problem here
Six Palestinians were killed in the West Bank on Sept 20, bringing the total since the start of the year to 190. But, according to Henry, Hamas broke the ceasefire. And those thousands of protesters in the streets? There all cheering for Hamas and for Israel to be wiped out according to Henry. Don't even consider they might be supporting a ceasefire because 20 times more Palestinians have been slaughtered in Israel's subsequent revenge killing. And the NDP are repeating the lies which "justify the murder of Jews"? FFS
What a pile of dreck this was.
Thank you. This article and the responses have me shaking my head in astonishment!
Yes, there is lots of abhorent rhetoric by various Israeli politicians. The difference between Israel & Hamas is that if it's determined that Israel has committed war crimes the country can be held to account by the rest of the world. But how is Hamas to be held to account?
By Brian Henry’s criteria you can call me a “well-meaning person” I guess. Although, to be honest, it feels a little condescending. Regardless, I can’t help but hope that all of us want a ceasefire, that we simply differ in terms of the conditions under which a ceasefire could be implemented. I mean, it seems pretty fuckin psychopathic to actually want to see the bullets, bombs, and shrapnel keep ripping into living people who don’t fight for the IDF or Hamas or one of the other terrorist organizations in Gaza. I kind of think of there being a spectrum with people like Amihai Eliyahu and Mohammed Deif on one end, committed to fighting this war to the last Gazan and then taking it elsewhere, and say, Antonio Guterres and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on the other end saying everybody stop now and go home, and most of the rest of us fitting somewhere in between. Is that wrong?
Hamas is a terrorist organization and the acts committed by them and whoever else came with them out of Gaza on October 7 were atrocities that are not justifiable. But, I seriously don’t understand how it makes sense to say this war has to continue until Hamas is destroyed. How do you measure progress towards that goal? How close is the IDF to that goal now? Even if every Hamas member was dead it won’t kill the ideas that drove them. I think that’s a bigger problem. If the idea is that you bomb Gaza into a moonscape, and hope that everyone else either sees the light or is now too scared to turn those ideas into violence, that severely underestimates the degree of commitment antisemites have shown historically. I don’t have solutions, mostly questions, but in all honesty I don’t get why anybody deserves space to kill, maim, and psychologically destroy innocent people who can’t help when and where they were born and raised any more than I can.
Tim,
I’m sorry to sound condescending. I meant well-meaning people calling for a ceasefire as opposed to those who do not mean well – who want a ceasefire precisely because they want Hamas to be able to do it again.
In regards to a ceasefire, first we need to be clear that we’re not talking about "a ceasefire" but yet another ceasefire. Since Hamas took control of the Gaza strip and immediately began launching terrorist rockets into Israel, Israel’s policy was to limit its response; it attempted to deter and contain Hamas. This seemed to kind of work. We had a couple decades of continual low-key conflict, with Hamas initiating three significant flareups in 2012, 2014, and 2021. But now that’s done. Oct 7 proved the policy of deterrence an utter failure.
Another ceasefire so that Hamas can rebuild and do it all again, as they’ve promised to?
Ethically, it would be wrong. The first duty of a government is to protect its people. Practically, it could not be done. An Israeli govt that announced they were throwing in the towel wouldn’t last the afternoon.
How do we measure progress toward the goal of destroying Hamas? Fortunately, we don’t have to. We need to leave it up to Israel. It’s their security; it’s none of our business telling them what to do.
But practically, yes, progress toward destroying Hamas is the sort of thing that can be measured. Not every terrorist has to be captured or killed, but the command-and-control structure has to be destroyed, with commanders killed and infrastructure and munitions destroyed. Hamas has to cease to exist as a military threat.
This sort of thing has been done before. No reason it can’t be done again.
Maybe it won’t even require all this. Possibly, for the end game, we’ll see the remnants of Hamas sail off into the sunset to some jihad friendly state in exchange for the release of the hostages.
Again, how it ends has to be up to Israel. That’s what the right to self-defense means. You get to defend yourself. Full stop.
And, no, of course you’re right – destroying Hamas won’t destroy the idea of genocidal jihad, just like destroying the Nazi regime didn’t end antisemitism. But it gave us a break.
Thanks Brian, I appreciate the response
Remember that Hamas is the political entity in charge of Gaza and hasn’t allowed free and fair elections for years. Diverting global funds provided in good faith to address serious poverty and unemployment in Gaza is an ongoing problem. If Palestinians are just used by Hamas as pawns to hide behind and suppress for propaganda purposes, are we doing Palestinians a favour with calls for a ceasefire?
We all want the same outcome, which is peace, security and harmony for everyone in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. Thinking that we can get anywhere near that outcome by asking Israel to play nice defies a natural order of events when war is declared upon intruders who violate human rights and dignity in such an appalling manner.
Thanks Darcy, I agree that Hamas stands for tyranny as well as terrorism. 100%. I struggle to understand how anyone who truly values things like freedom and democracy could feel otherwise. You asked if I thought it would be doing a favor to Palestinians to call for a ceasefire. I think that the answer is yes, I do. Here’s one reason: Gaza is roughly half the size of Calgary, the city I live in, but has a lot more people. When I think of it that way I feel like there’s no place that I’d feel safe because I would be constantly aware of bombs and bullets and screaming and fire. I think I’m a pretty normal person and those things scare me. Especially when I remember that the people using them against one another are fine with considering dead civilians to be an acceptable form of collateral damage. They might think it’s tragic, but that doesn’t fix dead or wounded or PTSD’d for life. So, I say yes because I think doing stuff that causes people to feel and be safer is doing them a favor.
I don’t know that I agree that there’s a “natural order of events” that must play out because of what happened on October 7. I guess there’s a limited range of choices, but I’m not convinced the only choices available to Israel are 1) do nothing or 2) take the approach they are. To me, it makes sense for Israel to consider a change in tactics. But again, I don’t think I know enough to propose a realistic solution. I have questions and feelings, not answers. But I’ve read about urban warfare in places like Hue and Fallujah and to me that’s what the next phase of this war looks like. I don’t want to see that. I also think going that route is a poor strategic choice for Israel. Not just because it will result in large numbers of civilian deaths, probably in Israel as well as Gaza, but because it will play out in real time online, and be a brilliant recruiting tool for pretty much everyone who already has it in for Israel. I imagine it will also put the final nails in the coffin that currently holds the relationships they have with a lot of other countries in the middle east and outside it. That doesn't seem necessary to me.
I was a member and was involved in the NDP back in the late 80s and early 90s; mainly for provincial reasons and let my membership lapse when they were finally elected but still supported them. I gave up on the NDP federally when Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis et al managed to freeze out the able Mulcaire and adopt the Leaf Manifesto, which I thought was a big mistake. It is very authoritarian and far left and frankly, not democracy friendly which is a worrying thing for a political party to enthusiastically adopt.
Under Mr. Singh, the NDP, has lost its way and it’s purpose and should just merge with the ever unsavoury Liberals.
Sadly, this is not the party it once was.
"Of course, it can be perfectly reasonable to subject Israel to ordinary and consistent criticism of political policies and actions" BUUUUUUUT:
Don't talk about the flattening of Gaza or the thousands of dead Palestinians or the collective punishment or the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank or Netanyahu's disastrous footsie game with Hamas or the blockade or the murderous rhetoric that has been coming out of the mouths of Israeli officials for decades. All those topics are antisemitic.
No sir, the world is a Hollywood movie, and there are good guys and bad guys and nothing has any nuance or complexity. Let's all come together to cheer on the bad shit that our side does because nobody has any principles and that's the only consistency that matters. Let's spend thousands of words engaging in semantic pedantry instead of engaging with the meat of the issue.
Singh will do and say anything to stay
In the elusive dream of power that he thinks he has with the PM. When you sell your soul and any principles you have to avoid going to an election and to cling to the semblance of power you think you have you become “ full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”
It doesn't matter that the IDF is attempting to limit civilian casualties, the number of dead is still a horrifying number. And the lack of medical facilities, water, food & shelter is only going to increase that number. This reality also needs to be acknowledged.
Surprised how hard it is for educated critical thinkers (?) on both "team israel" and "team palestine" to acknowledge being both victim and perpetrator at the same time. Of course the challenge is emotional, therefore the most challenging, but it feels bizarre, otherworldly when either side makes remarkable, unsupportable claims like,
"Unlike Hamas, the IDF is taking reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties..."
Really? How do you confirm that? Is it your position that the IDF is above reproach, has never had any credibility issues?
Neither team looks virtuous, quite the opposite.
Sure Jaggy looks like an idiot. Both ends of the spectrum look silly when they flail about for attention from their most religious zealots with "Freedum!" or "End the colonial, western, oppressive, capitalist, societies for our marxist utopia!" (like we've never heard that joke or punchline before.)
Rather than just another gotcha article: "Hey, your side is the same as the Ayatollah!... so we're more moral!" (boring, repetitive), maybe a discussion about why and how, in a pluralistic society, it might be better for a leader not to pick sides. On the subject of leadership, helping a community survive global trauma, maybe even leading us to a better place... this is a pretty rich vein.
I enjoy The Line despite not always agreeing with everything written because the commentary is smart, well-informed, and well-stated. This piece is astonishingly inflamatory, biased, rage-farming rubbish, although successful judging by many of the comments. Jagmeet Singh = Ayatollah? Are you kidding me?? This is journalism?
It's not journalism. It's opinion, as narrow and ignorant as a Rex Murphy chat with Jordan Peterson. But most of the comments here seem to agree with this dispatch.
I hate how Israel is occupying the West Bank, but I am in awe of how Israel can occupy the Canadian public discourse on its ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes.
Is the loss of life in Gaza horrifying - yes! But Israel is not attempting to commit ethnic cleansing or genocide. And if the IDF commits war crimes Israel will be held to account by the rest of the world.
With all due respect, on the question of genocide, I'm with Raz Segal - an Israeli associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University in the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUeEnjULHe0
On the question of war crimes, in 2009 both Israel and Hamas were accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, also known as the Goldstone Report. You probably don't know about that because it was barely mentioned in the Canadian media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict
As I say, the Israeli occupation of Canadian opinion on the Israel/Palestine conflict is something to behold.
wondering if you've ever listened to either...
Jordan Peterson, whether you agree within or not, is intellectually honest about his positions and, unlike the "fundamentalist true-believers" on the left or right, he welcomes differing opinions.
(Much harder to do than throwing grenades from a safe distance, lol)
I think there's more hyperbole in your assessment...
Seriously. There's a consistent and good faith argument to be made for what Israel has done (ethnic cleansing is good ackshually), but this piece is incredibly stupid.
I ate a kebob with rice once, and the Ayatollah probably eats kebobs with rice regularly. Does that make me complicit in Oct 7?
When I read this, I find myself thinking about Jen Gerson's article from Monday, as well as feeling a little distraught, wondering where I can turn in terms of our politics now, as someone who tends to the left - but also where we might turn as a nation, in terms of smarter strategic diplomacy and alliances.
Sigh.
Take the NDP and Left’s call for a ceasefire as legitimate. How would you start? I suggest starting with the (George) Mitchell principles that helped initiate the Northern Ireland “Troubles” ceasefire. Yes it’s different (N.I. was a territorial conflict masking as a religious one, Israel-Gaza is a religious conflict masking as territorial) but it’s a start. I don’t see Hamas ever signing on to even one of the Mitchell principles never mind all six, so it’s fair to say calling for a ceasefire is not a realistic option until Hamas is eliminated to the extent that ISIS was.
The Israel-Palestine issue is just the latest ’thing’ for the radical Left. Before this it was Covid lockdowns, before that it was J6, before that it was BLM, and before that it was George Floyd.
The real motive (as explained far better than I can by James Lindsay’s piece: ‘The Current Thing Did Not Take Place’) is to ginny up the support for the Left’s radical view that “we’re all in for the revolution!!” and keep the Marxist ball moving down the field.
Rest assured the ‘next thing’ for the Left will be along soon enough when the Critical Theory movement to tear down society finds its next issue to latch on to.
It's a mental disease