Opinion
The news coming out of Israel was making my head spin
By BERNIE BELLAN Our March 20 print issue represented the largest Passover issue we have published in many years. I’m grateful for the continued support The Jewish Post & News has received, both from advertisers and subscribers. The fact that this paper has not only survived, but continues to thrive, comes as much of a surprise to me though, as it probably does to readers who no doubt have been reading of the ongoing struggles of print newspapers. By the way, if you’re reading this on our website and might want to subscribe to the online version of The Jewish Post & News, the cost is only $26. Click here to subscribe: https://jewishpostandnews.ca/uncategorized/subscriptions/
What you might see – if you were to subscribe, are the two pages of often fiery letters that we published in our March 29 issue.
The fact that this paper remains provocative in ways that continue to engender a kind of fierce debate unlike any other that you are likely to see in another Jewish newspaper is part of the reason that we have not only survived the many difficulties that plague other Jewish newspapers, we have done quite well.
Are our readers more open-minded than readers of other Jewish newspapers – to the point where they’re prepared to read and even attempt to understand points of view with which they vehemently disagree? I would suggest that is indeed the case, otherwise readers would have turned away from a newspaper that attempts to provide as many points of view on controversial issues as possible.
When I began preparing material for this particular issue months ago, I did collect quite a few articles related to the Passover holiday itself. But honestly, aside from running a series of Passover recipes in our last (March 15) issue, even though there were some fairly interesting stories available to me from which to choose which were directly related to Passover, instead I chose to make the content of this issue as eclectic as possible – with only a scant reference to the actual holiday.
Lately, the news that has caught the Jewish world’s attention – and much of the non-Jewish world’s as well, has been about the unprecedented fight going on within Israel over the government’s proposed judicial reforms. This particular issue reflects that fight to a large extent, with many stories centering on the impact that story is having.
Even as I write this column it is not at all clear what lies ahead insofar as the proposal to strip the judiciary of its power in Israel goes. The latest news about what was happening in Israel with regard to opposition to the proposed reforms was changing so rapidly that this column had to be completely revised when it was learned that Israel’s defence minister, Yoav Gallant, had come out in opposition to the proposed reforms on Saturday, March 25 – and was supposdely backed by two other Likud Members of the Knesset, onty to be fired by Netanyahu on Sunday, March 26. At that point the two other MKs changed course. What a whirlwind of events!
The fact that Bibi Netanyahu has thrown his lot in with a group of Ultra-Orthodox extremists is in itself confounding. Here we have a man who is decidedly secular in his own life and who, in his past iterations as prime minister, was singularly obsessed with external threats to Israel’s survival, especially the Iranian one, not the aspirations of the Ultra-Orthodox to turn Israel into a theocracy.
One can’t help but wonder at the irony that, as Iran is just weeks away from producing a nuclear bomb, there is nary a word coming from Netanyahu about that looming existential threat. Instead, he has plunged Israel into a crisis of unimagined proportions by catering to the Ultra-Orthodox element of his coalition.
There is no doubt that much of Netanyahu’s anger at the judiciary is motivated by the legal charges of corruption that still hang over his head, but for a man who has maintained for years that only he can insure Israel’s survival against the Iranian threat, to have his eye taken off the ball at this point by a ludicrous campaign to overhaul Israel’s judiciary speaks of his obsession with his own personal well-being – and survival, not the survival of the nation state of Israel.
In advance of writing this column, I took another look at a review I had written of a biography of Netanyahu that was published in May 2018, titled “Bibi – The Turbulent Life and Times of Benjamin Netanyahu,” written by Anshel Pfeffer. And, although Pfeffer is a columnist for Haaretz, the scourge of right-wing Jews everywhere, I noted in my review that his treatment of Netanyahu was quite even-handed – and even sympathetic in many instances.
There were two particular parts of my review which stood out for me upon rereading it: One was that the politician with whom Netanyahu worked most closely over the years was actually his political rival, Ehud Barak, who had replaced him as prime minister in 1999, but who later served as defence minister in a Netanyahu-led government. Barak and Netanyahu shared a common point of view with regard to the threat posed by Iran – and that shared point of view led them to the belief that all other issues could be put aside for the sake of preventing Iran from acquiring the bomb. The other part that stood out for me was the close relationship Netanyahu developed early in his life with the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Shneerson.
If Netanyahu was able to work well with individuals with whom he shared only certain specific interests – but constantly laboured to remove potential rivals to his leadership within his own Likud Party with whom you might have expected he would have shared a common ideology, then you can acquire a better understanding of how, in the current situation, he has decided to align himself with the Ultra-Orthodox members of his coalition. As Pfeffer noted in his book, “Netanyahu has no plans because his policies are tailored only for his political preservation…”
Thus, for the moment, Netanyahu is willing to work with a bloc that, in previous incarnations as prime minister, he kept on the sidelines. But, despite the protestations of many on the right that what Netanyahu is attempting to do is simply correct an imbalance that has occurred within Israel ever since Abraham Barak became the chief justice of Israel’s Supreme Court in 1993 and the Supreme Court took a more activist approach to legal issues, there is nothing in Netanyahu’s past to suggest that he was particularly interested in what Israel’s Supreme Court was doing – until he himself became the subject of a legal prosecution.
While many readers might have only a passing interest in what is currently going on in Israel, no one should minimize the impact of what the Ultra-Orthodox are attempting to do in Israel. For instance, as we noted in our last issue, if you want to get married in Israel, while there is no such thing as a civil marriage being performed in Israel itself, until now you could fly to Cyprus and get married there and have the marriage recognized in Israel – or, as was explained in our last issue, you could also get married online – in Utah, of all places. No doubt, if the courts are stripped of their ability to overrule laws passed by the government, the Ultra-Orthodox will move quickly to pass laws banning those types of marriages.
Further, the claims brought by a great many immigrants to Israel over the years that they are legitimately Jewish have often been subject to skepticism by Ultra-Orthodox Israelis. Governments in the past have tacitly accepted the claims of those immigrants of their Jewish ancestry. What if future immigrants’ claims of Jewish ancestry are rejected – or even worse, the claims of past applicants are subjected to further scrutiny and they are retroactively rejected – where will that leave the status of all those immigrants – and the rights of their children to marry Israeli citizens?
Almost all of us have some sort of familial connections to Israelis and, even if we don’t, we have friends and colleagues who live there. The significance of what the Ultra-Orthodox are attempting to do should not be glossed over with mere suggestions that they represent the “democratic” will of the Israeli electorate. To think that “Haredim,” who refuse to serve in the army, who prevent their children from receiving a general education, who loath and ostracize members of the LGBTQ community – not to mention their antidulivian views on women, have now realized that a political system which they once scorned has now become useful to their forcing their views on the rest of Israeli society is the stuff of nightmares.
Finally, although the notion that many Israelis might flee the country, as well as many businesses, if the proposed judicial reforms get passed, might not be as real a possibility as some may suggest, the mere fact that it is even being contemplated will no
doubt affect the long-range planning of many Israelis for years to come.
And this is all the result of demographics. The Ultra-Orthodox in Israel now have sufficient numbers – and the concomitant votes to cast – to hold the balance of power in Israel going forward. Only a Supreme Court that has the power to protect the rights of the non-Orthodox members of Israeli society stands in the way of Israel’s becoming a theocracy. That danger should not be misunderstood – or minimized by anyone who cares about the future of Israel.
Uncategorized
The Nakba exhibit and the importance of historical context
By NOAH STRAUSS When I went to the Nakba Exhibit, I was shocked, not by the contents of the exhibit but by its size. The exhibit was tiny in my eyes, and I thought the amount of outcry was excessive for an exhibit that is less than 500 words. It felt like every other day the National Post had an article about the exhibit, criticizing different aspects of it. But then I had a realization: the exhibit was never criticized because it was “too” big, but because of the contents of it. When I was toured by the curator, I actually asked her, “Where is the rest of it?” I was confused because I had been misled by the media to believe the size of the exhibit was massive.
I believe that every human being should be able to live a free life. No human should be bullied for who they are. That is not okay, and to some credit, the Nakba exhibit does cover this. But where my problem now comes into play is the fact that the museum fails to portray the full history surrounding the Nakba.
The museum is publicly funded; our taxpayers’ dollars go there. It is supposed to represent our nation and our beliefs, not take a side on history. The Museum did exactly that. It took a side, and guess what? It caused chaos.
Whenever asked why it does not show the other side of history, the museum would always say something along the lines of: our space is limited, the focus of the exhibit is solely the Nakba, etc. But to me, these are excuses, and I will call that out.
For context, the Nakba was an event that occurred around 1948 after the 1947 UN Partition Plan. The Nakba continued until about 1949. During this time, approximately 750,000 Palestinians were either forced out or left what is now Israel.
The Museum is contributing to concerns surrounding the rise of antisemitism. The Museum has failed to mention that during the same era as the Nakba, hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were displaced from Middle Eastern and North African countries, with many forced to leave because of their religion.
Context matters. Yes, 750,000 Palestinians were displaced, but what happened during the same era also left hundreds of thousands of Jewish people without homes. When a visitor with no historical context walks in to see what the “Jewish” people did to the Palestinians, of course they’re going to blame the Jews. Because it makes me, a Jewish person, look terrible.
In my view, the exhibit contributes to concerns about growing antisemitism by presenting an incomplete historical narrative.
But then, as Jewish people, we need to know when it’s time to move forward. We need to focus on how we can positively portray the Jewish community and show the world who we are, rather than allowing others to define us through a one-sided historical narrative.
Noah Strauss is a 15-year-old Gray Academy student
Features
Did the Jewish Federation’s stepping in to force the firing of BB Camp co-executive director Jacob Brodovsky lead to the further alienating of many young Jews from the community?
(June 8, 2024) Introduction: We received the following email from a young Jewish Winnipegger re the BB Camp controversy, which we’ve reported on extensively on this website. We thought it important to post the email as a separate piece rather than as an add-on to an article in which we printed other emails from readers expressing their disappointment at what happened to Jacob Brodovsky, the former co-executive director of BB Camp:
Dear Mr. Bellan,
Thank you for once again cutting through the noise with your April 23rd column, “What the sordid BB Camp affair says about our community.” Your clarity and courage in calling out our rush to judgment and our narrowing definition of “Jewish identity” are deeply appreciated, especially by those of us who feel increasingly alienated in Winnipeg.
I also want to share a troubling observation about one of the loudest voices attacking Jacob Brodovsky: theJ.ca. Their articles—bylines like “Ron East” or “TheJ.ca Staff”—are, in fact, almost entirely generated by artificial intelligence. They contain no verifiable sourcing, frequently hallucinate details, and appear to be little more than a far-right newsletter running smear campaigns under the guise of “journalism.” The entire BB Camp series reads like an AI trained on extremist talking points, regurgitated daily to bully our community into silence.
As a young Jew in Winnipeg, I—and many of my peers—are horrified by the transformation we’re witnessing. What was once a warm, progressive community is now dominated by:
Bigots and Bullies: Parents threatening to pull their kids unless the camp bows to extremist demands.
Florida-style Republican Judaism: A narrow, intolerant ideology portrayed as the only “true” Jewishness.
Collapsing Leadership: Our Jewish Federation leaders, including Jeff Lieberman, have shown they lack the vision or backbone to navigate this crisis.
We stand at a dangerous inflection point. Our community is on the verge of a total and irreversible fascist takeover—an outcome no amount of regret or retrospective apologies can undo.
Please consider reading firsthand accounts from community members who have bravely spoken out:
I know this letter is anonymous and won’t be published, but I hope you see it as proof that many of us are desperate for ethical, forward-looking leadership. Thank you again for using your platform to remind us what Jewish community should mean: diversity of thought, compassion for all people, and the moral courage to call out extremism—no matter where it comes from.
This was NEVER a community of far-right Israelis. This is a shame beyond words.
With gratitude and urgency,
A Concerned Young Jew in Winnipeg
Post script: We had heard from many different sources (who all asked to remain anonymous) that the Jewish Federation’s decision to force the BB Camp board to fire Jacob Brodovsky came as a result of pressure from one or more big donors to the Combined Jewish Appeal. We sent an email to Jeff Lieberman, asking Jeff whether the Jewish Federation’s decision to force the resignation of Jacob Brodovsky as co-executive director of BB Camp came as a result of a donor (or donors) to the Combined Jewish Appeal threatening to withdraw their donation(s) this year unless Jacob were fired. I don’t think anyone would be surprised to learn that Jeff did not bother responding to my request for information.
The Jewish Federation used to advertise elections to its board in The Jewish Post & News for many years, but no longer does so (in the Jewish Post). Instead, it submits a slate of new appointees to its board to members of the current board to be rubber stamped. Is it any surprise that the donors who contribute the most money call the shots for the Federation (which is as its always been. The only difference is the Jewish Federation and the Winnipeg Jewish Community Council before it used to operate with a patina of democracy. Sadly, that is no longer the case.)
We would urge anyone on the Federation board who could give information about what led the board to force the resignation of Jacob Brodovsky to contact us. We would give full anonymity, as we have to the writer of the above letter.
-Bernie Bellan
Local News
Is It Alberta’s Turn to Regulate Online Gambling? Looking at the Possibilities
Online gambling and betting in Canada is booming, with each province allowed to regulate its own space. Ontario, Canada’s most populated province, turned two this year after leading the way in April 2022. In what should motivate Alberta and other provinces, Ontario is already reaping the rewards, generating $100 million annually in gambling revenue. Will the local administration in Alberta do what is needed?
Talks have been rife that Alberta is considering going the Ontario way by having an open-licensing system. In July 2023, the minister for Service Alberta and Red Tape Reduction, Dale Nally, issued a mandate to make this province a hub of online sports betting and gambling.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith recently asked Nally to cooperate with indigenous partners and other stakeholders to develop an online gaming strategy. The main focus will be on revenue generation and responsible gambling. In light of this, Nally said Alberta’s primary focus is becoming a “leading hub for iGaming” with streamlined regulations and low corporate taxes. Such conditions should position Alberta to become a leading iGaming destination.
A few weeks ago, the minister attended the ICE international gaming conference held in London. Together with Ontario’s Attorney General, Doug Downey, and other stakeholders, Nally participated in a roundtable discussion regarding the status of iGaming in Canada. CDC Gaming Reports also revealed that the discussion highlighted the success of iGaming in Ontario and how Alberta can emulate this success story.
Looking into the Alberta Budget 2024, it’s evident that state monopoly could soon give way to Canadian casinos to thrive in the province. Alberta took the first baby steps towards a more liberal gambling sector after setting aside $1 million for gambling. This budget will support the looming review of the Gaming, Liquor, and Cannabis Act and supporting Regulation. The idea is to review the entire regulatory framework to find more funding ways for Alberta charities and community projects.
Major operators like BetMGM, PointsBet, and PokerStars have since hired lobbyists to ensure commercial operators become a reality in Alberta. Speaking to investors and industry analysts in March this year, PointsBet CEO Sam Swanell tipped Alberta and British Columbia to legalize online betting soon. He noted that this could provide the much-needed expansion of that TAM.
Alberta is yet to take full advantage of online gambling despite being the country’s fourth-largest province, with around 4.3 million people. Smaller markets in North America, such as West Virginia and Connecticut, are already benefiting from commercialized online gambling. The good news is that noises about legal online gambling are getting louder in Alberta. It’s just a matter of when the government will make the announcement.
What Next for Online Gambling and Betting in Alberta?
Including a $1 million gambling review budget is definitely a step in the right direction. However, there’s still much to do to end Alberta’s long-standing gambling status quo. But at least the budget opens the door for further discussions and reforms regarding iGaming in Alberta. That discussion has been underway, although the momentum has increased in the last year or so.
As it stands, PlayAlberta.ca is the only regulated online gaming platform in Alberta. It’s a government-run website operated by the AGLC (Alberta Gaming Liquor and Cannabis). Besides casino games, this website provides sports betting and lottery-style gaming experiences. The legal sign-up age on PlayAlberta.ca is 18 years.
For Albertans who prefer more gambling freedom, the government doesn’t restrict anyone from joining offshore operators. Most gaming sites operating in Alberta are licensed in Curacao, the UK, and Malta. Compared to PlayAlberta.ca, these websites provide a more extensive variety of games, rewards, and general experience.
In conclusion, it’s just a matter of when Alberta will introduce an open-licensing market. This approach has proved to be a success elsewhere, especially in Ontario. A recent Ipsos report in Ontario revealed that only 13.6% of the residents prefer to gamble on offshore websites. Alberta could soon follow this path, although there’s much work to do to realize this dream.
