Connect with us

Local News

U.S. military expert John Spencer to speak in Winnipeg Sept. 11… argues Israel isn’t committing genocide in Gaza

(Canadian Jewish News Sept. 10, 2024) Maj. (Ret.) John Spencer is an American army veteran who heads the Modern War Institute at the U.S. military’s prestigious West Point Academy in New York State. His books and courses about fighting historic urban and tunnel wars have been widely quoted—he’s even interviewed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who name-dropped the former combat officer’s research during his speech to Congress in July. The Israel Defence Forces like Spencer’s work so much that they’ve brought the Iraq veteran with them three times inside some of the captured Hamas tunnels under Gaza.

Ahead of two speaking engagements in Canada this week—in Winnipeg on Sept. 11 and Toronto on Sept. 12 —Spencer joined The CJN Daily podcast to share his eyewitness accounts of three research tours with the IDF inside the terrorists’ tunnels. Spencer explains why the Philadelphi corridor and 100 tunnels between Egypt and Gaza are what’s holding up a ceasefire deal that some believe could free the hostages.

Although Spencer wasn’t present 10 days ago when the IDF discovered the bodies of six executed hostages under Rafah, he understands why the entrance to that tunnel was actually hidden in the bedroom of a Palestinian child’s room in Gaza. Despite the latest heinous war crime that has rocked Israel and people around the world, Spencer feels Israel is still winning the war against Hamas.

The CJN: Readers may not have been following your prolific writings about what’s been happening in Israel since Oct. 7, but they may have seen when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu name-dropped you in his speech to Congress. Can you just give our listeners a bit of background on what role, if any, you are playing officially or unofficially advising the Israeli government in this war? 

Spencer: Sure. So I’m playing absolutely no official or unofficial role, but my research and my writings have been used significantly to fight the disinformation. I have done multiple visits to Israel and three visits into Gaza with the IDF since Oct. 7, which has informed my writing and research, but no official or unofficial role. 

My research has been, including by the prime minister, many, many times, used to fight the disinformation about what the IDF are actually doing in Gaza to pursue the political objectives provided by the government for the war against Hamas. 

The CJN: We’re interviewing you just a few days after the bodies of the six Israeli executed hostages were discovered in a 20-metre deep tunnel under Rafah. What can you tell us about this particular tunnel, and what is significant about it?

Spencer: There’s a lot of unknowns about it, but we know that it was in conjunction to the IDF recent discovery of a living hostage. Nobody knew that in those targeted operations, because intelligence drives operations. Israel was conducting this operation in the Rafah area, successfully retrieving the live hostage in a tunnel, but without knowing nearby Hamas saw and heard the IDF and then entered another tunnel without the IDF’s knowledge, basically in very close proximity. And because of that IDF operation, I believe that Hamas entered their deep tunnel that they were holding the hostages for all their reasons that are illegal and not in accordance with the law of war, and brutally murdered each one of those six hostages. Then we saw the release of the videos that were very recently filmed. 

We don’t know if that was filmed in the tunnel, but we do know where the bodies were found was in this 20-metre deep tunnel in Rafah, which does pain a lot of people because of the different delays in the Rafah operation to basically search and clear the areas in which now where this all occurred, where they were later discovered through the IDF operation and brought home, finally to their families. 

The CJN: You’ve been in the tunnels. Tell us what you saw. Where did you go? 

Spencer:  My first visit (was) in December.  I actually was taken to the massive tunnel that was discovered outside of the Erez humanitarian zone. So this is a two-and-a-half mile tunnel that went a hundred feet underground. It was a massive invasion tunnel that you could drive trucks through, that had advanced wiring, ventilation, power, telecommunications. It was a multimillion-dollar tunnel that went right up to the Israeli-Gaza wall. It wasn’t used on Oct. 7, but the discovery is just massive. And then it went all the way back into the Gaza urban areas and had many branches. For me as somebody who studies underground warfare, just the sophistication of this and the realization that this is just one of hundreds of massive tunnels that they have found. And the realization of this underground world that Hamas built.

I got to tour this one, but it was also a realization of the 400-plus miles of tunnels in Gaza, costing billions of dollars, unmeasurable amounts of concrete and steel to build this infrastructure underground for the sole purpose of terror. No civilians are allowed in this. 

When I went back in February, I went with the IDF, the 98th division, into Khan Younis.

It was really going through all they’re doing to protect civilians, which I’m sure we’ll talk about, but also just how hard it is to find the tunnels. One of the places I went with the division commander was where they had had intelligence that there was a tunnel, but you just couldn’t see it while standing on the surface. And actually they were doing their procedures to drill and look for the tunnel that was really connecting to a mosque and was coming out of a mosque.

And they found that tunnel. I was basically standing on top of an enemy tunnel that was deep underground. When I went back in July 2024, I went into the Netzarim corridor with the IDF. This area where they’re creating a corridor, not just a road, from Israel all the way to the Mediterranean through Gaza, to create this security zone.

I had this realization and saw on the maps how many tunnels were just in the corridor. You can’t take a step in Gaza without actually feeling and having some belief that there’s a tunnel underneath you. 

Now, I also learned through these different visits from December, February, and July that there are different types of tunnels in Gaza.  As you were wrestling with, well, how many tunnels, how many tunnels has the IDF destroyed, is that there are levels of tunnels: from strategic ones, like that one I was in December that is for large movements or there are ones that actually connect northern Gaza to southern Gaza, which most people didn’t know. They’re in the Netzarim corridor. This is in the area of the Wadi Gaza, which is this river basin that splits northern Gaza and southern Gaza. It used to be a river, but it isn’t anymore. They’ve discovered over a mile-long, two-mile-long tunnels that go underneath that river basin. So something they just didn’t think was possible. So you can basically enter northern Gaza, the very tip of Gaza and come out in Rafah basically in a tunnel.

And those are strategic tunnels. But there are also little tactical tunnels that go from one building to another. 

There are tunnels that are used for command and control, like in Khan Younis they found luxury tunnels for the leadership of Hamas, with air conditioners and ceilings and, you know, kitchens and barracks. The IDF is then making a decision on which ones are critical to military capabilities that have to be destroyed. Can you ever really destroy all these? That’s some of what I’ve learned. 

The CJN: What are the challenges for the IDF in this kind of warfare that we wouldn’t know about from, let’s say,the equipment that doesn’t work, that would work above ground? 

Spencer: So this is getting into the classes I teach in our urban warfare operations course. Underground, people think it’s just the extension of the surface. You have something like a building or something, you have an underground. 

The CJN: Yeah, well we’re used to subway tunnels where the Wi-Fi works, right? 

Spencer: Yes. When you enter the underground, it’s more like going underwater. You can’t breathe without assistance underground and all the contaminants that are underground. It’s very dangerous to just breathe. You can’t see. For military personnel, none of your night vision goggles work, because usually night vision relies on ambient light. And this is a “no light” area.

You can’t communicate because most communication equipment relies on line-of-sight or satellites. So you can’t communicate underground. You can’t navigate. GPS, all of that doesn’t work. You can’t even shoot your weapons because of the concussion of your weapon. So you have to have all specialized equipment designed only for the underground.

Now, unique to Israel, and this is why I’ve been studying Israel for years, is they developed a special unit, the Yahalom, it’s their basic version of a tunnel rats, an entire brigade of special forces engineers who try to develop the equipment, all the drones and robots and dogs and everything that can operate underground, but also the equipment for the soldiers, the tactics. They have the biggest world force that has been dedicated to being able to operate underground and they have been used heavily in Gaza. I also came to the quick realization that yes, you have this specialized unit, soldiers, equipment, everything, but it’s nowhere near the amount that you will need for the size of the tunnels in Gaza. 

The CJN: Okay. And you were mentioning the fact that the IDF is being pilloried for not being humanitarian enough in its military operations and you’ve studied war in tunnels as well in other countries and you’ve been deployed yourself. Why do you feel that the world is not giving Israel a fair shake in terms of how it’s doing this war against civilians? 

Spencer: Well, at the macro level, it seems for Israel, Gaza is where the truth dies. The accusation that Israel has been disproportionate, indiscriminate, excessive, or starving the population. While none of those are true, there’s actually a counterfactual huge body of evidence, actually real and physical. Like the “starvation”. I went to the Netzarim corridor, saw where the (U.S. humanitarian) pier used to be, and there were just mountains, a whole field of humanitarian aid that just hadn’t been picked up. But from the actual execution of war, like you said, for the IDF, there’s no comparison. So the IDF was being compared to other operations where just this tunnel challenge of being able to find and operate with an entire world underneath the urban areas.

Hamas built this world underneath their civilians for the sole purpose of using everything on the surface to cause [criticism from] the international community. the destruction, the civilian casualties, everything, but all these lies about being disproportionate, proportionality–nobody’s faced this challenge in modern history. No military has. 

And then the other thing, which is what the prime minister and other Israeli officials or government use, which is backed up by data, is that in this execution of this war against Hamas, a defender who’s had 15 years to prepare for the attack of the IDF, Israel has done more and has implemented more civilian harm-mitigation measures than any military in the history of war, to include the U. S., Canada, the coalitions, to prevent civilian casualties and destruction. Like evacuating cities, like dropping [leaflets], the use of daily pauses, the use of certain munitions. There’s a long list that I go through. There’s actually over 10 civilian harm-mitigation measures that Israel has implemented, some that have never been created before in the history of war, like tracking civilian populations with their cell phones on or off and then restricting them. This is what I saw in Khan Younis, restricting the IDF operations because of that overriding aspect of preventing civilian harm, trying to get the civilians out of harm’s way, even though Egypt, which owns a lot of the destruction, the civilian casualties, and [took in] not a single refugee. So even that aspect of fighting a war against a military who’s trying to get their civilians killed without a complete area to move civilians to, into the Sinai, which would be really realistic. So the idea of how to find a way to create a safer zone within Gaza while still moving against Hamas.

The CJN:  I know that a lot of people have criticized your view saying, ‘Well, it’s hard for them to be humanitarian when they’re trapped, or their cell phones aren’t working’. But we don’t have to talk about that now, I just wanted to raise the point that some people wouldn’t agree. 

I want to talk about what the challenges are for Hamas in these tunnels. You said Israel can’t see, some of their stuff doesn’t work. But in terms of Hamas and the soldiers that are living down there, I read somewhere recently that there’s sort of an operations manual that was recently discovered that they have to switch them out, because they can’t be in the dark. It’s bad for their mental health. What do you know about the psychological and physical challenges for Hamas [and the hostages and the IDF] to stay down there?

Spencer: Well, so it’s being sensory deprived basically. So when you enter a tunnel, you’re being sensory deprived. And matter of fact, not all soldiers can operate underground. You get things like vertigo, you get claustrophobia.  Just for the breathing, you start to get breathing problems, right? Because even if you have ventilation, which many of these [tunnels] do, there’s still immense amounts of contaminants, from going to the bathroom down there. It’s foreign to the human body. So all of those start to come into place. You can’t spend your life underground without ever coming to the surface. They rotate them because of that psychological impact of being sensory deprived, the contaminants in the air, all really human functions that you’re dealing with down there. You can lose a sense of time.

We kind of know that you kind of need vitamin D every once in a while, so you need the sunlight. So there’s a whole bunch of reasons why it’s really bad. For me, it reckons the understanding that the hostages have been held, many of them—although some of them have been held in civilian apartments and doctors’ apartments and things like that—are being held in this place that’s really unhealthy, inhumane, and unsanitary for humans to live in.

For Hamas, which I don’t really care about, yeah, it’s bad for them to stay underground for a long time. And if they’re rotated, it may help with that. 

The CJN: In terms of where (Hamas leader) Yahya Sinwar is, does anyone know if there is any evidence that he’s still in a tunnel somewhere? 

Spencer: I consult open source intelligence, I do only unclassified. There is, I guess, direct evidence. I think from all rational, reasonable analysis that is the belief that he’s there and what he would lose if he left just from a war objective stance. Just for the fact that Israel was able to take out Mohammed Deif, who is considered like the ghost of Hamas, the original founder of Hamas’s military. I think it’s highly likely that Israel, to include all of the intelligence organizations, have a really good idea of where he’s at in Gaza, but that he has surrounded himself with hostages and that he’s likely surrounded himself with tens of thousands of Palestinians in the areas in which Israel has had to create the safer zones that Hamas has since day one used for their advantages to include firing rockets from within. Mohammed Deif was within a stone’s throw of the humanitarian zone.

So yes, I believe that Israel has a really good idea of the general area. Although it’s a small area, right? Gaza, the Gaza Strip, is 25 miles long, seven to five miles wide in its longest area. It’s still two million people for one person to hide. There’s rumours of him dressing up like a woman, things like that, to hide and move within the tunnels.

There’s one video of him and his family, which is interesting because it’s the only civilians ever allowed in the tunnels, moving through the tunnels of Khan Younis back in the beginning of the war. I think he’s there. I think he is mostly underground for most of the time, like a rat, but that he’s also within this area of hundreds of thousands of civilians. It would be really hard to know exactly where he’s at.

The CJN: Your position is Israel actually winning this war? Because you’ve said yes and, and I’d like to explore that a bit. 

Spencer:  I wrote a Foreign Affairs article countering actually four major articles that have been published on ‘Israel isn’t winning. Israel is actually creating more terrorists than it’s killing’. All of these wrong frameworks.

Israel absolutely is winning its war against Hamas in Gaza, because I taught strategy at West Point. Wars have a start, they have an end. They have political goals, which can change, although Israel hasn’t changed its three primary goals for the war against Hamas. Those are: number one, return the hostages. Number two, destroy Hamas, its political and military power in the Gaza Strip. And number three, secure the borders. 

There’s different wording for them, but those are the three goals. And Israel is absolutely [winning] all three of those.  Especially with the hostages.  They brought home over half the hostages to include over a hundred living hostages. But there is the myth that Israel could have brought them home a different way. It could have been negotiated in the beginning.

It could have done it without military force. It’s just not reality. 

And I go through that in this Foreign Affairs article, that it’s been a combination of diplomatic, military, and other forms of national power that have brought over half the hostages home.

The CJN:  So is Israel’s border with Gaza safer now? We’re not even talking about Hezbollah because that’s a whole other thing, and same with the West Bank, we don’t have time. How is Israel’s border safer today than on Oct. 7?

Spencer: Yeah, absolutely. The whole security framework that was before Oct. 7th will not ever happen again. The reliance on only technologies, minimal forces, the wall, everything. So Israel is building a buffer zone of up to a kilometer from where the wall was. It’s created more corridors through Gaza, which will allow it to project power. It’s secured, which is vital, the southern border between Gaza and Egypt and eliminated the super highway that we now know was there for underground smuggling of weapons, men, weapons, equipment, financing, everything. It sealed that. So just from an overall sense of securing southern Israel from Gaza and the threats of Gaza, it’s massive engineering projects, both creating the buffer zone all the way around, eliminating all the tunnels that were there, creating the Netzarim corridor. There’s new entry points into Gaza that will allow for this new security framework to be in place.

The CJN: You mentioned the Netzarim corridor, so let’s talk about it before we end. Our listeners may have started to hear the words Philadelphi corridor as part of the reason for the holdup [in any ceasefire deal] and the latest huge controversy out of Israel this past week between the government. You mentioned where it is. It’s the border between Gaza and Egypt, which Israel withdrew from in its agreement to disengage from Gaza years ago. And then they’ve reoccupied it because Egypt was allowing, as you said, all this smuggling to go through. And that’s been a big flashpoint.

Why is that so important now in what happens next? 

Spencer: In order to destroy Hamas, which is not the idea of Hamas, but the military power and the political power of Hamas, what Israel has done along this border between Gaza and Egypt, which is only like an eight-to-10-mile stretch of land, but they have moved in, secured it and cut off the bloodline to Hamas, which is in wars actually unique because even in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, that ability for the enemy to be resupplied, to have sanctuary, to get new stuff in,  the U.S. military really struggled with it.  But Israel has been able to actually cut off Hamas now because of the Philadelphi corridor, from all of that resupply of rockets, everything, even financing. Now the contention is how long does Israel need to hold that piece of ground? Does it always need to have forces there, physically there, securing it? I personally believe not so. 

The Israel-Gaza wall, the border wall between Israel and Gaza actually worked. It has a very deep subterranean aspect to it with a bunch of advanced sensors. Egypt was talking about that before it was actually discovered that there’s over a hundred massive tunnels going between Egypt and Gaza to include ones you can drive giant trucks through. Egypt was talking about putting up that wall.  Eventually, I think there will be a new, basically an Israeli-style wall there that will prevent that subterranean traffic because on the surface, you can use advanced technologies, although you don’t rely only on that. Egypt did send a division of armour, basically an armoured brigade to the border, early in the war, and put up a new wall because they also didn’t want anybody coming across their border. 

Why is this such a big issue for Hamas? Why is Hamas saying ‘You will not get any hostages back unless you leave the Philadelphi corridor’? Because it’s their vital aspect of surviving. All they have to do to win this war is survive.

They have ideas on how to do that.  They’re grasping for this corridor. This highway for them is very vital to their survival and to be able to bring more weapons in, to be able to get out, all these things. But they also have ideas to give up political power. I call this the Hezbollah model. Hamas has put forward a plan to bring in some technocrats to govern Gaza, but they maintain military power. Sounds a lot like Hezbollah in Lebanon, although Hezbollah is also part of the government. So they’re grasping at trying to survive the war and basically win. And Israel has said that’s not going to happen. We’re going to demilitarize the strip. We’re going to actually start de-radicalization programs. We’re going to secure the entire border around so that Hamas can’t survive.

The CJN: How long is this going to take and can Israel actually win or this is going to happen again? 

Spencer: So I got this [question] actually in October. How long will this take? How long will it take to clear the urban areas of Hamas’s military capabilities, tunnels, infrastructure? I mean, they found deep buried weapons manufacturing plants and just nobody knew that they were there, that it was possible to do that.

I always say, it isn’t how much time it will take, but how much time do they have? 

Even General Dwight Eisenhower, after World War II said it would take 50 years to re-educate the Nazis. And if you ever thought we were going to give them the ability to wage war again, you were crazy. How long will it take to demilitarize the Gaza Strip? A very long time.

How long will it take to de-radicalize Hamas? But there is a path, right? It is up to Israel. 

Israel is winning, but it’s up to Israel as a democratic country. It’s up to Israel if it ultimately wins, because what is very common in war, is you have to bring in another power. You can demilitarize and you can degrade Hamas to where it’s this guerrilla force, which Israel is very close to doing. Hamas doesn’t have military capability. It’s a guerrilla force hiding in the shadows, governing from the shadows, using humanitarian aid as coercive power over the people. But Israel has to basically help put in a new power.  That will be the ultimate win, is that Hamas never rules again. 

You have to put in another power. There are many ways to do that. You have to start post-conflict operations like de-radicalization programs, reconstruction, and new governance, institutions, all this stuff, which is very common in war, but it will take a very, very long time. And Israel has to, for their survival, the Israeli people especially have to understand that basically.

The CJN: Canada stopped arms permits to Israel back in January. Does that even make a difference to Israel? Are they being hurt by this?

Spencer: I’m sure it absolutely is a problem. It might not be what Canada is providing, it’s the international context that sends a signal to other allies. Israel’s strength is its allies in all wars. So when one ally of Israel says, ‘Because of this, because of these lies, this misinformation, we’re not going to support you with this small item’, which might not have an immediate impact, but globally, you know, in the international context, in the multi-international allies that is Israel’s strength, including in the region Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, it matters. So it’s a horrible signal to send to the world and to send to Israel. 

The CJN: And then Britain just did it too. 

Spencer: Yeah, Britain did it too.  It’s very bad because it’s baseless. It’s based on disinformation. It’s based on things like 40,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, which is not true. It’s a lie. Where does the number come from? What does it mean? Because now there’s this effect-based ideology, kind of like we see with Canada, Britain, and others, they’re using the data on how many people have died. Look how much destruction. There was another way.

The huge myth of this war is that there was another way to bring the hostages home, remove Hamas from power so it can’t do another Oct. 7. Because since Oct. 7, Hamas has publicly said that’s their goal. They will do this as many times as it takes to achieve our goal. The idea that there was another way. And it’s actually a fallacy.

Continue Reading

Local News

Chesed Shel Emes is hiring

Chesed Shel Emes is looking for a daytime “Shomer Plus” – an individual who understands and appreciates the depth and significance of Shmira, who is able to assume some of the day to day tasks managing our facility, and who can take on some of the administrative work –  be it graphic design, social media management, Board support, or providing back up for our 24/7 on call staff.  

This is a unique position which calls for a blend of the spiritual and the practical. We are offering a part time, salaried, daytime position, with employee benefits.  The successful candidate will need to be flexible, patient and have a sense of humor. 

For more information contact Rena Boroditsky, executive director of Chesed Shel Emes at chesedwinnipeg@gmail.com or phone 204-582-5088     

Continue Reading

Local News

Thoughts on Sid Green

Grant Mitchell


By GRANT MITCHELL (Grant Mitchell is a well-known lawyer in Winnipeg whose father, Leon Mitchell, was Sid Green’s law partner for many years.

Following are remarks Grant delivered at the meal of remembrance which was held following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9:

Sid was a Gold medallist in law in the class of 1955.
He knew that my Dad, Leon Mitchell, was in sole practice in the Confederation Building. Leon was 13 years older than Sid but graduated just the year before. Leon had been the business agent for the Civic Employees Union of the City of Winnipeg before and during law school, and his union connections gave him a client base to start a practice.
After obtaining his call to the Bar, Sid attended Leon’s office and informed him, “You need me.”
Leon was taken aback. He was physically disabled from a major bout of Guillen-Barre syndrome, but felt fully capable of practising solo. He told Sid he didn’t need anyone.
Sid told Leon, “You don’t understand. I don’t mean you need me to advise clients, I mean I can do the physical side for you, attending court and hearings and other functions that require mobility.”
With that understanding, they became Mitchell & Green, and later Mitchell, Green and Minuk when Sam Minuk joined the firm. They were the only labour firm in Winnipeg at that time that acted exclusively on the Union side.
In around 1960, a Mitchell & Green client did not have the money to pay for his legal fees and offered the partially constructed cottage he was building at Big Whiteshell Lake to the firm as payment, with the excess to be refunded to the client. Sid and Leon became co-owners of that cottage. For years it had no plumbing and an incomplete ceiling. When Leon died in 1987, Sid got the cottage.
When Sid went into politics, Leon supported the move, and in fact delivered the nomination speech for Sid to be leader of the NDP when he ran against Russ Paulley and then Ed Schreyer.
When Sid was made a Cabinet Minister in the Schreyer government in 1969, Leon also left practice to go into public service, as Chair of the Municipal Board, Chair of the Mental Review Board and Commissioner in the Churchill Forest Industries inquiry. Sam Minuk became a Provincial Judge. It was the end of Mitchell Green and Minuk. That practice was the foundation of what has become the Myers firm.
Sid and Leon’s paths would cross again when Leon was mediator of the Northern Flood Agreement and Sid was the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
They had been professional partners with profound mutual respect, but they were also personal friends and remained so for the rest of Leon’s life.
Leon had a huge admiration for people he thought were unusually intelligent. Sid was at or near the top of that list.

At the funeral, I spoke of Sid’s relationship with my father, Leon Mitchell.
I will just add that during their years at the Confederation Building and then in the Crown Trust Building, they hired an articling student named Bill Rachman, who made Sid and Leon nervous about everything he did. When the articling period ended, Sid told Leon that notwithstanding their reservations about Bill’s ethics and practicing skills, Bill would be far more financially successful than either Sid or Leon. Leon agreed. They were correct.
When Sid returned to private practice after his time in government, the unions and he had a falling out and he found himself acting against unions rather than on their behalf
Sid’s philosophy on unions was that protective labour laws produced weak unions, who would not represent their members’ interests effectively. He felt that Wagner Act type labour legislation, now universal in North America, was a tragic compromise by unions. He believed that the recognition strike and the wildcat strike were fundamental weapons for successful trade unions, and that certification of unions, the duty to bargain in good faith and mandatory grievance arbitration were the poor cousins of the recognition and wildcat strikes. This was opposite to the position of the union movement at that time, which lobbied strenuously for union-friendly legislation in the form of greater and greater regulation of the union employer relationship.
In fact, Sid said that the only labour laws that unions should need were to protect the right to picket, and to take away a court’s power to order a person to work. These 2 provisions are found in sections 56 and 57 of the King’s Bench Act to this day, more than 50 years later, and still known to people of my generation as the “Sid Green amendments”. No injunction to enforce a personal services contract. No injunction to restrict assembly on a public thoroughfare to communicate accurate information, that is, a picket sign.
Sid supplemented professors at the law school, Robson Hall, by delivering several lectures in each term about the fundamentals of labour law. I taught that course for 22 years and I had Sid come for a guest lecture, as he had done in the labour law class when I was a student.
He had a powerful and persuasive way of making his points. For example, he felt that a legislated duty to bargain in good faith was a mistake – let the parties fight it out, and let the stronger survive. If employers don’t bargain genuinely, the response is to hold a strike, not run to the labour board.
“If I offer $1, $2, $3, $5, $10 then I’m bargaining in good faith. If I offer $10, $10, $10, $10, then I’m bargaining in bad faith. But it’s still $10!”
He didn’t like certification and preferred the recognition strike. Settle disputes through battle, not argument. Conflict rather than compromise. He particularly objected to certifying unions by card count as opposed to secret ballot vote. A card signer had no meaningful way of revoking their support for the union if they changed their mind after the union applied for certification.
Sid said, “If I buy a vacuum cleaner from a door to door salesman, under the CPA I have a month to change my mind and get my money back. But if I sign a union card, the next day may be too late to change my mind. Which is more important, having a union take over my bargaining rights, or buying a vacuum cleaner?”
Apart from representing employees against unions, Sid also built a practice of representing lawyers who faced disciplinary action from the Law Society. When he ran to be a bencher, he received more votes than any other candidate, even though he was not affiliated with any of the larger law firms. As a bencher, he would send out a “Report from a Bencher” after each Bencher meeting, giving his analysis on the decisions the Society was making, often critical of the majority.
In so many ways, he believed in a “survival of the fittest” approach to human differences. He did not care for protectionist legislation like Human Rights laws. He particularly objected to affirmative action or any other form of “reverse discrimination”.
In one case I had with him, he was acting for Nabila Malik, an economist in the Cabinet secretariat who had been laid off. I was acting for the employer. He called me to tell me that he wished to amend his statement of claim. “I want to add a paragraph to the claim to say that in letting my client go, the government violated its own affirmative action policy because the policy said that there should be more women in senior civil service positions and yet my client, a woman, was let go when many men in senior civil service positions had remained employed.
“Do you object to my amendment?” “No.”
“You don’t think I believe in that affirmative action bullshit do you?” “I don’t know.”
“I DON’T!” But I say, ‘If you are going to preach bullshit, you have to practice bullshit.’”
Sid took up hockey when he was 50. As a young man, he had been a good athlete, quarterbacking the law school football team. It was a late stage of life to learn to skate and join a new sport but Sid approached it with the same gusto he applied to everything else. When he awoke after cardiac surgery a few years later, his first question was, “Will I still be able to play hockey?” You don’t have to be great at something to love it, as I well know. And Sid loved to play hockey, indoors or out.
An employer client of mine had one of its managers vilified in the union newsletter – the “Golden Turkey Award”. My client said, “We want a lawyer for the manager, and we want that lawyer be one with the kind of reputation that when the other side sees who is threatening to sue them, they will involuntarily cringe uncontrollably.” I gave them 2 names, with Sid’s being the second one. “Sid Green, that name sounds familiar. Who is he?” “Oh, he was once the Minister of Labour in the NDP government, but after he left politics, the unions treated him as a pariah, and now he fights them regularly.” “That’s the guy we want.” Sid took the case. He got a settlement offer so generous that the manager desperately wanted to accept it: full page retraction, apology, substantial payment. He may have been a turkey, but he was not foolish. Sid said it was not enough. He got more, before yielding to the client’s wish to settle. And oh, yeah, there were no more golden turkeys awarded.
Sid loved to litigate. He would rather fight than settle. His adversaries knew that, and as a result, he achieved great settlements. Sid’s rejection of an offer was never a bluff.
He had a fundamental belief in democracy, that the rules should be made by people who were elected, not appointed. If he had the choice, he would prefer to be a law maker rather than a lawyer or judge. He also felt that if a matter was worth taking on, it was worth taking all the way. I doubt that any private lawyer has been involved in more appeals.
Others know more about Sid’s career as a politician than I do. He did love to tell one story about his time in government. In 1975, Bob “Junior” Wilson had just been elected in a Wolseley by-election, narrowly defeating Sid’s friend, D’Arcy McCaffrey. In his first appearance in the Legislative Assembly, Wilson stood up to make his maiden speech. The protocol had long been that when a member speaks for the first time, they give a benign speech about how honoured they are to serve their constituents and how they look forward to working with everyone in the house. Instead, Wilson launched into an attack on the governing Schreyer government, accusing them of every misdeed known to politics, and demanding that they immediately resign and call a general election. It fell to Sid to respond on behalf of the NDP majority.
“The Honourable Member has ignored the usual protocol for new members. I don’t mind that. I have no particular affinity for protocols. I think members should say what they genuinely feel. So I commend the Member for being so frank. I have some difficulty with his message, however. He says that we should resign and cease to govern. But that would be undemocratic. A majority of Manitobans have elected us to run the Province. That is our duty. He may not like it, but the fact is that we are his government. But if he feels badly about that, he should imagine how I feel. He is my member!!”
I’ll close by saying that in Sid’s pre-politics practising days, there were many colourful lawyers that made being a lawyer a fascinating profession. By the time he returned to practice, there were only a few of the wild ones left. The profession needed a gadfly like Sid to make practice fun. The reason he got so many votes from the profession is that Manitoba lawyers recognized that in Sid there was a fearlessness mixed with skill, humour, joy and a profound understanding of the policy reasoning behind the letter of the law. There was no one like him, and I doubt that there will be one. I will miss him.

Continue Reading

Local News

Sid Green – famed lawyer, one of the first Jewish provincial cabinet ministers, and first director of BB Camp – passes at age 96

By BERNIE BELLAN Sid Green, whose name was well known in so many different circles in Manitoba, passed away on Sunday, June 7, at the age of 96.
Green was perhaps best known as one of three Jewish Members of the Legislature who became cabinet ministers in the first ever NDP government in Manitoba, which came to power in 1969 under the leadership of Ed Schreyer. (The other two Jewish members who became cabinet ministers were the late Saul Cherniack and the late Saul Miller.)
Green, who had first been elected as an MLA in 1966 representing the riding of Inkster, led a challenge to then-NDP leader Russ Paulley in 1968, which eventually led to Paulley resigning as leader. The subsequent leadership race saw Green, who was only 39 at the time, facing off against a 32-year-old Ed Schreyer.
Although Green and Schreyer were later to part ways over a number of issues – especially over the issue of aid to private schools, Green and Schreyer were actually good friends.
In fact, Ed Schreyer, who is now 90, spoke at Green’s funeral, which was held Tuesday, June 9, at the Chesed Shel Emes (with interment following at the Hebrew Sick Benefit Cemetery).

Schreyer told some humourous stories about his and Sid’s competition for the NDP leadership back in 1969. Although the two were rivals they agreed occasionally to share expenses along the way as they toured various Manitoba locations, including one night in a hotel in Flin Flon (or it may have been somewhere else; I wasn’t taking notes at the funeral.) Regardless, they agreed to share a room that night but, as Schreyer recalled, it had to have “two beds.”

Another time during that race, when they were somewhere in western Manitoba, they both received a call from someone in a place on the eastern shore of Lake Manitoba. (Again, I don’t remember which location Schreyer said it was.) The caller said they both had to get there soon because there was going to be a crowd of several hundred people gathered for some other event – and it would have been a perfect time to do some politicking.

But, as they pointed out to the caller, that location was 250 kilometres away and they couldn’t possibly drive there on time – so they both agreed to hire a float plane to fly them there. Unfortunately, that was a very windy day, Schreyer noted, and the plane wasn’t able to land close enough to shore for the both of them to wade in. Instead they decided to jump off the plane’s pontoon – landing up to their armpits in water. They bravely went to meet the assembled crowd – in their soaking wet suits.

Green had a long career as an MLA, being elected to the Manitoba Legislature four times: in 1966, 1969, 1973, and 1977. Eventually he broke completely with the NDP and, along with fellow NDP MLA Ben Hanuschak, started a new party, called the Manitoba Progressive Party, in 1981, which failed abysmally.

I remember well how captivating a speaker Sid Green was when he was campaigning in 1981. One story that he told several times to different audiences went along these lines: After the NDP first formed government in 1969 – much to the surprise of almost everyone back then, Green was often called upon to speak at different venues because he was such a powerful orator.

One time he was somewhere in rural Manitoba and before he was called up to the podium to deliver his remarks, the person who was introducing Green said to the audience: “Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce to you the ‘Green Minister.'”

Not missing a beat, Sid took to the podium and said something along the following lines to the audience: “My first appointment to Cabinet was as Minister of Energy, Mines, and Natural Resources. Well, I little knew about energy, even less about mines, and nothing at all about natural resources. So the title “the Green Minister” is an apt one.”

In his early years, Sid Green was a very active member of the YMHA on Albert Street, serving as president of the house council for several years. A dedicated athlete, Green competed in basketball and volleyball at the Y. At the age 50 he took up ice hockey – and was known for his fierce competitiveness. He was to serve on the board of directors of the YMHA for many years, right up until its closing in 1997.
Green was also the quarterback for the University of Manitoba law school football team during the early 1950s – and led them to two school championships. In a 2019 interview I conducted with Green about his early years at the YMHA, he noted that he was the only 5’6″ 150 pound quarterback in the inter-faculty league.
In 1954 Green became the first director of BB Camp, which had just moved to Town Island from Sandy Hook.
In 1955, Green graduated from the U of M law school, winning the gold medal in law that year.
He went on to become one of Manitoba’s most successful labour lawyers, subsequently pairing withfamed labour lawyer, Leon Mitchell, later to be joined by Sam Minuk (who was to become a provincial court judge) in what became the firm of Mitchell, Green & Minuk.
During his time as a lawyer, Green often represented employers – which might seem a little surprising for someone who such a staunch NDPer. But Green was staunchly opposed to entrenching laws such as anti-scab legislation or secret ballot voting to unionize. He thought it important to represent any client, including employers engaged in disputes with unions, no matter how much he might have disagreed with that client’s position, and because he was so skilful in arguing a case, he was much sought after by employers to represent them in labour disputes.
He was so respected as a lawyer, moreover, that he was often asked to represent other lawyers in cases before the courts.
Green was also very pro-Israel and extremely proud of his Jewish roots. Although not a religious man, during his many years at the Y – first on Albert Street, then later on Hargrave, Green was involved in developing many Jewish cultural programs.
In days to come we will have much more about the life of Sid Green. In the meantime, if you want to watch a video interview I did with Sid about his experiences at the Y on Albert Street, you can go to Sid Green reminisces.
Sid Green was predeceased by his wife Shleema in 2009 and is survived by his five children: Arthur, MIndy, Cathy, Sharon, and Marty, as well as 15 grandchildren.

For more about Sid Green’s career, read Grant Mitchell’s eulogy, which was delivered at the Meal of Remembrance following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9: Grant Mitchell on Sid Green

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News