Uncategorized
Antisemitism is a Problem Even on Tranquil PEI
By HENRY SREBRNIK (May 30, 2025) At the end of May the Jewish community here on Prince Edward Island met informally with a member of the RCMP to express our worries regarding rising antisemitism. We are very small, some 100 people, and with little visible presence, so it’s not surprising there’s little overt anti-Jewish activity, compared to everywhere else.
Unlike in other provinces, there was never a mass migration of Jews to PEI. The earliest record of a Jewish person on the island is from the mid-19th century but it wasn’t until the 1980s that the Jewish community formally organized itself. Most Jews here are “come from away,” as non-island born people are called. We have few roots and families here. Most Islanders don’t even know we exist.
PEI is a quiet place, and even the antisemites are almost invisible — though, as people at the meeting shared their stories about antisemitic signs on telephone poles, house windows with “from the river to the sea” placards facing the street, reports from some parents about problematic teachers in schools, and so on, they are out there.
For example, an event in Charlottetown last September, on the International Day of Peace, a United Nations-sanctioned holiday, was organized by the local Ukrainian community to protest Russia’s war against their country. Although it had nothing to do with the ongoing war in Gaza, nor was it meant to, yet there were more Palestinian than Ukrainian flags in evidence among the attendees, most of whom came out to make sure Gaza would not be “ignored.”
Our two independent downtown cinemas, which usually host art and foreign films, ran pro-Palestinian movies recently – with, apparently, significant turnouts. Despite City Cinema management having been told that the propaganda being disseminated at the theatre — they were showing the movie “No Other Land,” about life on the West Bank — is highly objectionable to our community, their failure to remove it was extremely troubling. Their lobby had a full display of pro-Palestinian material, a Palestinian flag across their counter, and a Palestinian representative accosting everyone entering the lobby with solicitations for money. At the Tivoli, they presented “The Encampments,” which explores the various pro-Palestinian protests in 2024 on American university campuses. This may not seem like much to people in Montreal, Toronto, or Winnipeg, but here it was a big deal.
During the recent federal election, the website VotePalestine.ca listed more than 330 candidates across the country who expressed “full” endorsement of their “Palestine Platform.” It demanded broad Government of Canada sanctions on anything connected to Israel, including “cultural and academic exchanges.” VotePalestine is closely associated with the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), one of the central organizers of Canadian anti-Israel blockades and street demonstrations.
Almost all the endorsers in the country were in the Green Party or among the New Democrats, but it included 19 Liberals and two Bloc Québécois. (No Conservatives.) On PEI, six candidates endorsed the platform, including, in Charlottetown, Liberal incumbent MP Sean Casey. The other five were running for the Greens or NDP.
Casey was the only Liberal on PEI to sign the VotePalestine pledge. The other three Liberals on the island did not. (The Liberals won all four of the island’s seats.)
There are very few Muslims on PEI, and most are Iranians, Kosovars, Somalis, South Asians, and Sudanese. Few are Middle Eastern Arabs. I can guess with almost certainty that they support the Palestinian movement, but they are not especially strident about it. They are immigrants, many who don’t speak English or French, and so have a modest degree of influence.
A more significant group of anti-Israel activists are people who see the devastation in Gaza and blame Israel for everything; obviously a streak of old-fashioned antisemitism is responsible for their one-sided tenderness for Gazans and lack of sympathy for Israelis, even after October 7. They are involved in island peace committees and church groups and write letters to the newspapers. They have more social visibility and move the needle in an anti-Jewish direction.
But, as elsewhere, the third and most influential people are the ones in the universities, where for the past 40 years, here as everywhere, they have inculcated generations of students with very fully-developed ideological theories about Israel being uniquely evil, an apartheid settler-colonial “white” supremacist racist and imperialist country, and as such an oppressive enemy of all Black, Brown, and indigenous peoples (as propounded by the academics who write articles on so-called “intersectionalism.”) Israel is, to them, the current embodiment of fascism. These toxic left-wing ideologies are a very danger to the continued existence of the Jewish state.
Their disseminators are many of the professors at Columbia, Harvard, McGill, Michigan, the University of Toronto, York, and so very many other universities — some even at little UPEI — who deny they are antisemites but rather “anti-Zionists,” and view that battle as being part of a larger anti-racist and anti-colonial struggle. They wear keffiyehs as their modern form of left- wing identity, after it came into widespread symbolic use when adapted by Yasser Arafat, by the hijacker Leila Khaled of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and by other leading figures in multiple intifadas, globalized and otherwise.
The only framework many students have been given for viewing the world by them is the neo-Marxist vision of “oppressor” and “oppressed,” which they neatly apply to Israel and Palestine. As Kathleen Hayes, a former member of an ultra-left Party for Socialism and Liberation, the group to which the murderer in Washington DC belonged, wrote in “Witness to Jihad,” Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, May 25, 2025, today’s students “learned it in the universities, from professors who repackaged Marxism to resonate in our modern age, using the Jews and Israel as their instruments of choice. But beyond the focus on Jews, this Manichean worldview declares entire classes of people reactionary and evil and suggests they ultimately must be eliminated for the sake of human betterment.”
Israeli violence is the violence that maintains a neo-colonial military occupation and inequality. Palestinian violence is the inevitable response to that; therefore it will only end when the occupation “from the river to the sea” — a call to destroy a sovereign state — ends. The oppressor can never be the victim. Within that narrative, the oppressed sometimes strike back brutally — but this is justified by the greater and more enduring brutality of the oppressor. That is why they justify what happened on October 7, 2023.
So the man who recently murdered the two Israeli embassy officials in Washington DC might say he has nothing against Jews, he just wants a “Free, Free Palestine” to replace the illegitimate Zionist entity. He might even point to Jews in Jewish Voice for Peace and Not in Our Name, as evidence.
But given how intertwined Jews and Judaism are with the Land of Israel, culturally, emotionally, historically, religiously, and now with the state itself, it is really, for most of us, a distinction without a difference. And rightly so. And this is what we are up against.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
Uncategorized
Debating Zionism is good for Jews, actually
A group of Jewish Theological Seminary students were furious with the chancellor’s position on Jewish statehood. In protest, they draped flags around campus before graduation, which the administration removed before the ceremony.
The year was 1948. The flags were Israeli. And the dissenting students were protesting Chancellor Louis Finkelstein’s refusal to make support for Jewish statehood part of academic commencement. Some students even arranged for the bells at nearby Union Theological Seminary to play “Hatikvah,” the Israeli national anthem, after JTS officials declined to include it in commencement.
As a historian of American Zionism, I have been thinking about that episode while reading the many vitriolic reactions to a few JTS undergraduates who spoke out in opposition to the seminary’s decision to welcome Israeli President Isaac Herzog as this year’s graduation speaker. Once again, a JTS commencement has become a battleground over Israel, but the sides are now reversed.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether this was the right moment to extend an invitation to Herzog to speak at commencement. What deserves attention is the outraged reaction to a group of students raising objections, and the speed with which those students’ concerns have been cast as a deviation from the historical contours of mainstream American Jewish politics.
A recent Times of Israel blog post, for example, argued that the mere fact that JTS students raised concerns about Herzog was a rupture with Judaism. “Jewish survival without sovereignty is fragile,” wrote the author, Menachem Creditor, adding that “the founders of JTS did not need to debate the necessity of Jewish self-determination,” and that Herzog “represents the state of Israel and the Jewish people.”
These claims erase JTS’s long and sophisticated engagement with Jewish nationalism and the conception of Jewish peoplehood. Reading American Zionism backward risks collapsing peoplehood and statehood, and creating traditions to ratify present assumptions out of a past that never existed.
The relationship between Zionism and JTS was nuanced from the start. Both founding president Sabato Morais and the seminary’s third chancellor, Cyrus Adler, opposed Zionism on religious grounds. Morais believed the restoration of Jewish sovereignty could only come through divine intervention at the dawn of a messianic era. Adler thought of the growth of a non-religious community in the land of Israel “as the greatest misfortune that has happened to the Jews in modern times.”
Solomon Schechter, as chancellor, brought a measure of support for the Zionist movement to JTS; shaped by the cultural Zionism of Ahad Ha-am, Schechter insisted that Zionism transcended statehood. Its primary aim, he argued, was the national regeneration of global Judaism, not the creation of a secular state that would hollow out Jewish life from within.
And the controversies over the 1948 graduation exercises revealed how far Louis Finkelstein stood from political Zionism, even after the establishment of Israel. Where some Zionists celebrated sovereignty, Finkelstein remained focused on the Jewish character of the land and its people. That orientation drew him toward Judah Magnes’s binational vision — that of a federated framework in which Jews and Arabs would each hold recognized rights and a measure of national autonomy within a single shared political entity.
This reticence to conflate Judaism, Zionism and Jewish sovereignty was not limited to the seminary’s chancellors.
Henrietta Szold, JTS’s first female student, a central figure in its intellectual orbit, and the founder of Hadassah, similarly supported a binational vision from her new home in Jerusalem. Mordecai Kaplan — a longtime JTS faculty member, committed Zionist, and one of the most influential American Jewish thinkers of the 20th century — expressed concern throughout his career about the mistake of equating Jewish nationhood with Jewish statehood. In Judaism as a Civilization, he called for a “more ethical conception of nationhood fundamentally as a cultural rather than as a political relationship.”
After Israel’s founding, Kaplan went further, arguing to David Ben-Gurion in 1958 that “the basic assumption that the state of Israel is a Jewish state is itself open to question.” The Israeli government’s task, he insisted, was to establish “a modern state, not a Jewish state, an Israeli state, not a Jewish state.”
These questions did not disappear even as JTS evolved under new leadership.
Gerson Cohen, whose chancellorship beginning in 1972 marked a shift toward a more pro-statist posture, embraced the state’s significance for Jewish life and identity in ways his predecessors had not. Yet even Cohen insisted that commitment to Judaism must rest “not on political statehood or upon geography but solely on the idea of covenant and commitment to ethos.” He argued that a flourishing diaspora was a necessity for Jewish civilization as a whole, not adjunct to Israeli interests.
His successor, Chancellor Emeritus Ismar Schorsch, was more direct, saying in a recent warning that Jews must ensure that “Judaism qua religion is not submerged and shredded by the power of the Jewish state.”
One can disagree with any of these perspectives. In fact, the disagreement itself is the point.
The leaders who built JTS debated Jewish self-determination, Zionism and statehood while living through the Holocaust, the collapse of European Jewish life, existential danger in Palestine, and the precarious birth of the state of Israel. They were not naïve about antisemitism, indifferent to Jewish survival, or ignorant of Jewish sources. Nor were they unsophisticated about Zionism.
Instead, they offered a more demanding account of Zionism: one that affirmed a Jewish homeland and insisted that Jewish power remain answerable to Jewish ethics, all without diminishing Jewish life in the diaspora.
This is precisely the perspective that has been crowded out of our contemporary discourse, not because these questions were answered, but because the space to ask them has collapsed. As the boundaries of acceptable Zionist discourse have narrowed, issues that arose from within Zionism itself — the potential dangers of equating the Israeli state with the Jewish people, the risks of elevating political statehood above other ethical and communal commitments, and the need to have diaspora Jewish life be seen as carrying independent religious and moral weight — have come to be treated as anti-Zionist rather than part of a living internal debate.
The furor over the JTS undergraduates’ letter objecting to Herzog is a troubling sign that, across American Jewish life, it has become harder to think honestly about the risks of treating support for the state of Israel not merely as a Jewish commitment, but as one that takes precedence over other all other Jewish commitments. When the past is rewritten so that the equation of peoplehood and statehood appears inevitable, American Jews are left with a false choice: either embrace the state as an unquestioned and unquestionable expression of Jewish identity, or abandon Jewish life altogether.
JTS has offered its students a richer education because, in its halls, the relationship between the Jewish people and the Jewish state has been debated and contested. That discourse is not a failure of Jewish commitment, but an expression of it. The sustained engagement with the hardest questions of Zionism is one of the best things JTS has given American Jewish life, and one of the most important gifts it still has to offer.
The post Debating Zionism is good for Jews, actually appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan Sidesteps ‘Genocide’ Accusations Against Israel
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan speaks during an interview with Reuters in The Hague, Netherlands, Feb. 12, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw
Karim Khan, the embattled chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has cast fresh doubt on accusations that Israel committed “genocide” in Gaza, arguing in a new interview that no legal conclusion has yet been reached in the ongoing legal battle.
In a lengthy interview with anti-Israel journalist Medhi Hasan this week, Khan refused to engage in the popularized rhetoric labeling Israel’s military campaign against Hamas terrorists in Gaza as genocidal, even as pressure mounts on the ICC by activists to pursue more sweeping charges against Israeli officials.
When asked directly whether Israel’s conduct amounted to genocide, Khan emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to level charges against Israeli officials and that prosecutors must follow evidence and legal standards rather than political narratives.
“So, you’re not ruling out that there could be a warrant in the future?” Hasan asked.
“Everything is a function of evidence,” Khan responded, arguing that accusing Israel of genocide for political purposes would be “reckless.”
“You’re saying in the past three years there hasn’t been evidence of genocide in Gaza?” Hasan asked, visibly flummoxed.
Khan lamented the “suffering” in Gaza but reaffirmed that the ICC could not proceed in making final judgements about the nature of Israel’s military operations in Gaza without sufficient evidence. He asserted that officials within the ICC are vigorously analyzing the case and that he cannot reveal more about the nature of the investigation.
“So, genocide is not off limits?” Hasan pressed.
“No crime is off limits if the evidence is there,” Khan responded.
Khan has come under fire for making his initial surprise demand for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, on the same day in May 2024 that he suddenly canceled a long-planned visit to both Gaza and Israel to collect evidence of alleged war crimes. The last-second cancellation reportedly infuriated US and British leaders, as the trip would have offered Israeli leaders a first opportunity to present their position and outline any action they were taking to respond to the war crime allegations.
Nonetheless, Khan’s latest remarks are likely to reverberate through international legal and diplomatic circles, where the genocide accusation has become one of the most contentious aspects of the war between Israel and Hamas. Over the past two years, an array of humanitarian organizations and human rights experts have accused Israel of “genocide” in Gaza. These accusations have been controversial and widely contested, with critics alleging these groups and individuals lack sufficient evidence.
Khan’s comments come as the ICC faces intense scrutiny over its investigation into the conflict. In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and now-deceased Hamas terror leader Ibrahim al-Masri (better known as Mohammed Deif) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict. The ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians — charges vehemently denied by Israel, which has provided significant humanitarian aid into the war-torn enclave throughout the war.
US and Israeli officials issued blistering condemnations of the ICC move, decrying the court for drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically elected leaders and the heads of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that launched the war in Gaza with its massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Israel says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication.
Another challenge for Israel is Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
The ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel as it is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the court. Other countries including the US have similarly not signed the ICC charter. However, the ICC has asserted jurisdiction by accepting “Palestine” as a signatory in 2015, despite no such state being recognized under international law.
Genocide is among the most difficult crimes to prove under international law because prosecutors must establish specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
Hasan, one of the most prominent anti-Israel critics in media, has spent the past two years unleashing an unrelenting barrage of criticism against the Jewish state, repeatedly accusing the Israeli military of pursuing a “genocide” in Gaza.
In the interview, Khan also forcefully denied allegations of sexual misconduct that have engulfed his office in recent months, accusing critics of politicizing the claims amid the ICC’s high-profile investigations into Israel, Russia, and other global conflicts. He dismissed suggestions that his pursuit of Israeli leaders was intended to distract from the allegations against him, saying that he did not have evidence to substantiate the claim.
Khan further alleged that senior Western officials attempted to pressure the ICC over its investigation, including what he described as warnings from prominent American and British political figures about the geopolitical consequences of targeting Israeli officials.
The ICC’s investigation has placed the court at the center of an increasingly bitter international divide over the Gaza war. Khan’s comments won’t settle the debate, but the ICC prosecutor appeared to signal a more cautious legal approach than some of Israel’s fiercest critics have demanded.
Uncategorized
UK Police Charge Two Men in Connection with Filming Antisemitic TikTok Videos
The TikTok logo is pictured outside the company’s US head office in Culver City, California, US, Sep. 15, 2020. Photo: REUTERS
British police have charged two men with religiously aggravated harassment offenses after they were alleged to have traveled to a Jewish area of north London to film antisemitic social media videos.
The two men, Adam Bedoui, 20, and Abdelkader Amir Bousloub, 21, are due to appear at Thames Magistrates’ Court, a statement from the Crown Prosecution Service said on Saturday.