Features
“Braunsteins on the broom” revisited
By GERRY POSNER Step back in time to 1958. It’s February and the Manitoba Curing Championships are starting in Winnipeg for the right to play in the McDonald Brier. Who should be competing but two Jewish boys from the south end of Winnipeg, Terry and Ron Braunstein? Terry was all of 18 while Ron was only 17. Also on the team were Ray Turnbull and Jack Van Hellemond.
The team competing for the Manitoba championship was skipped by Marno Frederickson. Although few expected the youngsters to have gotten this far, there they were in the final and, ultimately, they prevailed. As Manitoba champs they were entitled to compete in Victoria, BC in March of that year in the McDonald Brier.
Now, just getting to participate in the Manitoba playdowns was by itself a bit of good fortune. First, It was only because Terry came home from school in Texas where he was on a track scholarship in Houston that allowed him even to be around, available, and ready to play. Events in Texas had soured him on the University of Houston and that was exacerbated by his asking a black athlete, a running star, for some running tips. The coaches disapproved of that interaction, told Terry so warned him not to do it again. That – plus other factors led Terry to abandon the track programme.
So, Terry packed up, came home to Winnipeg and was out of school for that year as a result. But he had time to curl and the Maple Leaf rink as well as the Granite Club were inviting. It did not hurt that the uncle of the Braunstein boys was Eph Portigal, a mover and shaker at the Maple Leaf Club. In fact, Terry has always made clear, as did Ron, that their uncle Eph was instrumental in teaching the boys some curling strategy, a significant part of every curling game.
To be clear, the boys had curled some before as they grew up for a chunk of their early years in Binscarth, Manitoba where their father, Dr. David Braunstein was a physician.The boys, as they were then, had (and always have had) what might be called some serious athletic genes. Anyone who can remember Dr. Dave will recall that, among his many abilities in sports, he was a fastball star.
That the athletic gene was prominent in the Braunsteins became evident to me long ago. I recall the day when I first came across the Braunstein brothers and was in awe of what they could do athletically. It was about 1955 and the Braunstein family had moved to Winnipeg. They were living temporarily with the Portigals on Wellington Crescent – near my home on Cordova Street. Up until that time, I fancied myself as a bit of an athlete. Then I met Ron and Terry Braunstein. I saw them playing baseball on Wellington Crescent so easily and smoothly as if they were born with a glove in utero. Right then and there, at age 12, I realized, just how lousy I really was. I have always commented that, of the people I knew personally, the Braunsteins were the best athletes I had ever seen to that point. Of course, in truth, the range of my relationships at that time was slender, so they had few to compete with on my radar screen.
Now, the story of even getting to compete for the Manitoba Curling Championships was more complicated as the team had their lead drop out at the last minute. The rest of the team needed a replacement and had about 24 hours to submit a new name or they would not be allowed to enter. Terry remembered playing against a young kid earlier who had impressed him, but didn’t know how to reach him. “Him” was Jack Van Hellemond, not yet 16. Terry thought that Jack curled at the Belgian Club so he went there that night and luckily found Jack, invited him to play on his team. Jack agreed, but Terry still had to get consent from Jack’s parents and the principal at his school. All of that happened in less than 24 hours.
In any event, the boys did get in, with Ray Turnbull as second, Ron as third and Terry as skip. Not for a second did any of them think they would win the Manitoba Curling Championship event. In the end though, they were victorious at the Winnipeg Arena. I was there and that is a memory etched in my mind.
Off to Victoria in March of 1958 they went and again, nobody thought they had a real chance of winning the Brier. Yet, they played so well that at the end of the week, their team ended in a tie with one of the legends of the game, Alberta’s Matt Baldwin. That forced a sudden death championship, winner take all. I recall sitting close to my radio following every shot as the game progressed. I was crestfallen when they lost in a very tight match. But, as a sports writer then for the Kelvin High School Et Cetera newspaper, as it was then called, I had the chance to write a column for the paper which had the headline “ Braunsteins on the Broom.” It was my first real writing experience that led to the publication of an article about the trip to the Brier for the Braunstein rink. Terry had graduated from Kelvin while Ron was still a student there. I thank Ron and Terry for the part they played, even if was inadvertent, in my budding writing career. This article just revisits that time and place.
The entry of the young Braunsteins into what was then the main event in the world of curling in 1958 caused a major change in the rules of the Canadian Curling Association. That a team with two 18-year-olds, as in Terry and Ray, a 17-year-old in Ron, and the 16-year-old Jack, could compete with adult men was too much for the veterans of the game, so a separate junior competition was created, which exists to this day. Thank the Braunsteins for that rule change.
And yet, that defeat in 1958 did not deter the Braunstein brothers at all as they continued to compete for many more years, ultimately winning Manitoba again in 1965 and going once more to the Brier, this time in Saskatoon. They had an almost unblemished record and won the Canadian championship with a team consisting of Terry as skip, the very well known Don Duguid as third, Ron at second and Ray Turnbull as lead. That was a big day for the boys, the Granite Curling Club and indeed Jews all over the Province of Manitoba who shared the moment vicariously with the Braunsteins. Unfortunately, the team lost in the World Championship in Scotland to a USA team skipped by Bud Somerville. That Ron had to bow out of the event owing to his medial school obligations might have been the factor that caused that loss. We will never know. What we can suggest however, is the fact that the USA win jump started the game in the USA, eventually createing an impetus to get Curling recognized officially as a sport in the 1998 Winter Olympics. Thank the Braunsteins (even in defeat) for that contribution.
The Braunsteins also changed the game slightly when they adopted a more finesse style rather than the hitting game so prevalent until that time. Maybe that change allowed the team to be so dominant. Whatever the reason, what is certain is that when Terry Braunstein won the Canadian Curling Championship in 1965 he was then the youngest skip to win it at age 25, also the first Jewish skip to win. My best guess is that brother Ron Braunstein was the first Jew to win as a second. Prove me wrong.
Even after 1965, Terry continued to be a major player in Manitoba for many years in the curling community. He had to play without Ron, as Ron had continued his medical career and ended up, after a stint in L.A., moving to Vancouver. Terry participated in 14 Manitoba Provincial Championships. He won three car bonspiels and several cash bonspiels, as well as the Grand Aggregate for most victories in the Provincial play downs in 1969, 1971 and 1977. And there were other honours bestowed upon him throughout his carer, including an induction into the Manitoba Sports Hall of Fame, an honour given later to Ron in 2013. Even as a senior Terry Braunstein excelled, competing in several Provincial Championships. In 1994 and 1995 his rink won the Manitoba Seniors’ Championionship. He even participated in the Master’s competition in 2006.
Now, curling was far from the only sport the brothers starred in, as baseball was at least as great a passion for them – and they played at a high level. They loved baseball as they were raised on it by their father. Moreover, both Ron and Terry became very good golfers ( though Ron was quite clear that he was never in Terry’s league). Of course, during all this time, both brothers had careers in which they were involved for a long time. Ron was a prominent psychiatrist in Vancouver, working in a Vancouver hospital for most of his career in the outpatient child and adolescent department. During his career he was significantly committed to the training of young psychiatrists. Given that there is so much thinking in the world of curling, I suggest that it is not such a long stretch from curling to psychiatry. That suggestion would need input from Ron and others who have had two kinds of careers. Save that thought for another article.
Ron only recently retired after over 50 years of medical practice. He and his first wife, the lated Sue Harris, had three children, all of whom live in the Vancouver area. And to nobody’s surprise, the kids are seriously athletic. The eldest, Jon Braunstein, was, and is still a serious runner, as in marathons. Daughter Amy played competitive soccer in British Columbia. Son Dave, the youngest, competes regularly in Ultima. Some genes never change.
As for Terry, he was the founder and head honcho for Danli Promotions, a specialty advertising firm in Winnipeg and beyond. Danli, of course was named for son Danny and daughter Lisa, the children of Terry and his wife, the former Andrea Greenberg. Danny ultimately joined him in the business and is still active in the promotional industry to this day. My son Ari tells me that Danny is a star on the Squash court.
The Braunsteins have achieved much in sport, particularly curling. But if you talked to both of the brothers, you would know little of their accomplishments, as they remain very humble about what they did. That too is a Braunstein gene. They may be quiet about it. I am not.
Features
What Attachment Styles Can Reveal About Dating Habits
How many evenings with a stranger does it take before anything reliable is known about them? Most people answer with a number and then ignore their own answer. What actually gets measured across those evenings is the pattern each person carries into every new pairing, and that pattern has been studied under one name since 1987.
Attachment research began with infants and moved into adult romance almost by accident. It now supplies the best available vocabulary for a question most people ask eventually, which is why their dating life keeps taking the same shape.
A Newspaper Quiz in 1987
Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver tested a hunch in 1987 by publishing a quiz in the Rocky Mountain News asking readers about their romantic history. They received 620 replies. Roughly 56% of respondents described themselves in secure terms, about 25% in avoidant terms and around 19% in anxious terms.
Those proportions were close to what Mary Ainsworth had recorded in infants decades earlier. A distribution found in toddlers separated from a parent for 3 minutes in a laboratory had turned up again in adults describing love affairs, and that correspondence is what made the field take notice.
The method had obvious weaknesses. Newspaper readers who answer a quiz about their love lives are not a random sample, and every answer was self-reported by people describing their own behavior in the most favorable terms available. Later work with better samples moved the numbers around without dislodging the structure, and the structure is what has lasted.
Two Axes and Four Positions
Two questions turned out to organize the whole field. Does a person hold a positive or negative view of themselves, and do they hold a positive or negative view of other people? Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz built their 1991 model on exactly that pair.
Crossing those axes produces 4 positions. Secure covers positive views of both. Preoccupied means a negative view of self with a positive view of others, which produces someone who wants closeness and doubts they deserve it. Dismissing means the reverse, a positive self-view paired with low expectations of anyone else. Fearful covers negative views on both axes, which produces wanting closeness and distrusting it at the same time.
Two axes beat a list of 3 types, because the axes explain why 2 people who both avoid intimacy can look nothing alike in practice.
Pacing and the First Month
There is no fixed amount of dates that settles the question of compatibility, and attachment position changes how quickly a person believes they have settled it. Secure people tend to form an assessment gradually and revise it when new information arrives.
Preoccupied people often decide fast and commit to the decision before it is warranted. Dismissing people frequently take longer and still leave with less, since their default is to withhold the information that would let anyone assess them back.
Separating the decision from the feeling by a fixed interval helps the first group. Deciding after a set number of meetings rather than after a strong evening will not make the assessment more accurate. It removes the largest single source of error, which is a conclusion reached inside the honeymoon phase while everything still looks promising.
Hyperactivation and Deactivation
The mechanism underneath all of this has 2 modes. Anxious patterns run on hyperactivation, which means turning up the volume on distress to draw a partner closer. Avoidant patterns run on deactivation, which means suppressing the signal entirely to keep distance manageable.
In early dating this shows up in small behaviors. Hyperactivation shows up as checking your phone every few minutes after an unanswered message, and as the escalation of a minor scheduling conflict into something larger. Researchers call the wider category protest behavior, and it covers everything from pointed silence to deliberately provoking a reaction. Deactivation produces the pleasant evening that goes nowhere and the topic changed each time a real question arrives.
Both patterns are attempts to manage the same discomfort, pointed in opposite directions. The deactivating version accounts for most of what people mean when they call someone emotionally unavailable.
The Anxious-Avoidant Loop
The most documented pairing in the literature puts a hyperactivating person with a deactivating one. Fearful-avoidant attachment complicates the picture further, since one person can run both strategies in sequence and produce the same loop without a partner’s help. Each strategy strengthens the other. Pursuit triggers withdrawal, withdrawal triggers more pursuit, and the loop holds steady for years because neither person is doing anything the other did not provoke.
The reason this pairing is so common is easy to miss. To someone whose nervous system learned early to associate intensity with love, a secure partner can feel flat. The anxious-avoidant cycle produces intensity on demand.
Positions Move
Attachment position is a tendency, and tendencies move. Positions change across the lifespan with relationships, therapy and circumstance, and a single difficult partner can push someone temporarily toward a pattern that is not their baseline.
That matters for how any of this gets applied. A person behaving in a preoccupied way with one partner may be entirely secure with the next, so the category describes the current pairing as much as the individual in it.
It also rules out the most common misuse of the framework, which is deciding early that a new person is avoidant and treating every subsequent behavior as confirmation. Two quiet weeks can mean an avoidant pattern, a demanding job, a sick parent or ordinary early caution, and the categories offer no way to tell those apart from the outside.
Reading the Categories Correctly
There is one more thing the framework cannot do, and it is the thing people most want from it. Nothing in attachment theory tells anyone which partner to choose. It describes how a person is likely to behave once the choosing is over and the uncertainty starts, which is a different and much smaller claim than the one made by most of the writing built on top of it.
An attachment style is a description of a habit. It names what someone tends to do when closeness is on offer and they are uncertain about it, and nothing in the framework predicts what any specific person will do on any specific evening.
Used that way the idea is genuinely worth having. A person who knows their own pattern can catch it while it is running, and a pattern caught mid-run is the only kind that can be interrupted. Noticing that you commit early and regret it a month later teaches you more than any number of verdicts about the people you committed to.
Uncategorized
Four Seats or No Seats? Why Israel’s Final Polls Disagree Over Amcha Yisrael
Conflicting projections for Ofer Winter’s party illustrate the uncertainty of measuring public support near an electoral threshold.
A Channel 12 poll gives Ofer Winter’s Amcha Yisrael four parliamentary seats.
An i24NEWS survey reaches the same seat total.
Other final polls find that the party does not qualify for representation.
How can surveys conducted close to the same election produce such different results?
The answer lies partly in the difference between measuring a vote share and converting it into parliamentary seats.
A Statistical Boundary
Israel’s electoral threshold is 3.25 percent.
For a party receiving substantially more than that percentage, modest sampling fluctuations may change its expected number of seats without calling its parliamentary presence into question.
For a party whose support lies near 3.25 percent, the same type of fluctuation may change its projected representation from several seats to zero.
This does not necessarily mean the polls are measuring completely different political realities.
They may be producing estimates close to the same threshold but on opposite sides of it.
Sample Size Is Only One Factor
The i24NEWS survey conducted on October 22 included 5,124 adult respondents and reported a sampling error of plus or minus 1.4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
That is a substantial sample by conventional political polling standards.
But a larger sample does not eliminate every source of uncertainty.
Different pollsters may employ different recruitment methods, weighting systems and procedures for estimating turnout.
They may also differ in how they handle respondents who are undecided or reluctant to state their preferences.
These choices can matter particularly for smaller parties.
The Problem of Turnout
Opinion polls generally estimate voting preferences before actual voting takes place.
Election results reflect the ballots cast by people who participate.
Differences between intended and actual turnout can affect parties in different ways.
Analysts must therefore consider not only how many respondents express support for a party, but also whether the poll’s turnout model accurately reflects the eventual electorate.
Without transparent, comparable information about the methods used by each polling organization, it is difficult to identify which methodological difference is responsible for a particular disagreement.
Reading the Final Surveys
The appropriate interpretation of Amcha Yisrael’s polling is neither that its parliamentary representation is guaranteed nor that exclusion is certain.
The available surveys demonstrate uncertainty around a legally decisive boundary.
The four-seat projections reported by Channel 12 and i24NEWS are meaningful observations.
So are the below-threshold findings published by Channel 13, Maariv and Zman Yisrael.
Each survey is a measurement of electoral intentions under a particular methodology, not a count of actual votes.
For readers following Israel’s election, this makes Amcha Yisrael an instructive case study in how polling uncertainty interacts with electoral law.
The final result will provide the definitive seat allocation. The polls explain why the outcome was difficult to measure in advance.
Features
What Constitutes Genocide, and is Israel Guilty?
By HENRY SREBRNIK Genocide is a grave and exceptional violation of international law, defined and prohibited by the Genocide Convention of 1948. But maybe Raphael Lemkin did us no favour in coining the word during the Holocaust. It is now used by antisemites against Israel.
Raphael Lemkin was a Polish-Jewish jurist who escaped from Europe when the Nazis occupied Poland. He moved to Washington, DC, in the summer of 1942, and went on to document Nazi atrocities in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. In this text, he introduced the word “genocide,” the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, ethnicity or tribe) and the Latin cide (killing).
But it’s not that cut and dried. Even before the antisemites accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, as a way of ridding themselves of any residual guilt about the destruction of European Jewry, the word had become little more than a term used by states and “human rights” groups who for one reason or another want to punish their adversaries.
Most of the time they really are talking about “ethnic cleansing,” pogroms, massacres and war crimes. By such criteria, every participant in World War II committed “genocide.” The mass killings of civilians in Hiroshima and Dresden in 1945 would today qualify. But these were acts against even far worse perpetrators of what we now call genocide, designed to speedily end the war.
What about the American war in Vietnam, and of course the almost numberless conflicts across Africa? The wars that dismembered Yugoslavia involved terrible massacres, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, but did they really meet the criterion for genocide? The numbers killed needn’t be huge. About 8,000 Bosniak Muslims were murdered in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb militias in 1995 during the Bosnian war. In the Western Hemisphere it would — and lately does — refer to the cultural and also physical extinction of pre-contact peoples from the Arctic down to Patagonia.
Are ideological attempts to kill groups of identifiable people within a state — the Holodomor in Ukraine, but also elsewhere in Stalin’s USSR — genocide? What about the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Should we call this an “auto-genocide,” since it was perpetrated by the nation’s own mad Maoist regime? Was China’s Cultural Revolution a genocide? Millions probably died. Rwanda is an interesting case — obviously a mass murder by one class-cum-ethnic group against another, a giant pogrom involving intertwined peoples, but where the victims have now turned the tables.
Actually, there have been very few ideologically intentional attempts to destroy a powerless and helpless people, in whole or in part. Only a few qualify by that definition, the Holocaust being an obvious one, as well as the Turkish mass murders of Armenians in World War I. The allegations that Israel committed this crime do not meet the established definition and standards of genocide, are unsupported by established facts, nor do they stand up to common sense scrutiny.
A finding of genocide requires evidence of acts that are intended to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. Israel has neither intended to, nor destroyed, Palestinians as a group in Gaza. Israel’s accusers allege genocide mostly because of the supposed number of civilians killed in Gaza. Such claims are rife with flaws. Genocide is not a quantitative crime; there is no specific number of civilian casualties that constitutes genocide.
Israel set a high bar for how to conduct urban warfare against an enemy who will stop at nothing, including the death of its own civilians. What kind of genocide is it when the population of Gaza is larger today than it was three years ago? And how could it be that Israel is trying to kill innocents when the ratio of civilian-to-combatant casualties is lower than that of other urban wars fought in even less-difficult conditions?
Dave Rich, an Associate Research Fellow at the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism, writes extensively about the intersection of anti-Israel activism, far-left politics, and modern antisemitism. He observes that people respond to the genocide charge through facts and data: Israel’s supporters take the charge of genocide on its face, as an evidence-based allegation of a crime, and try to construct the case for the defence. But there is no defence, because the charge is not made on that basis, or for that purpose, he states.
The term “genocide,” he notes in “From Be’eri to Bondi: Global Antisemitism After October 7, published in Fathom, October 2026, has shed its legal meaning and become a political label, whose antithesis is “resistance.” These two terms represent two states of being: in a colonial setting, either you are engaging in genocide or you are resisting it. There is no middle ground. “Israel is condemned as genocidal, not by observation, but through logical deduction: Israel is colonial, therefore by definition it is genocidal. It cannot be otherwise. And Gaza represents resistance against the entire Western colonial and capitalist power structure.”
Maia Zelkha, editor-in-chief of Yad Mizrah, a Sephardi and Mizrahi cultural magazine, also contends that the left employs the word “genocide” as an ideological weapon. “Before Israel had even launched its ground invasion of Gaza, and before there was any evidentiary record of Israel’s military campaign,” she writes, in her article “Genocide and Its Jurors,” in Quillette, Sept. 24, 2026, many leftist groups “were already describing Israel’s response as genocide.”
On Oct. 8, just a day after Hamas’s massacre and kidnappings, thousands of demonstrators gathered in New York’s Times Square in an “All Out for Palestine” rally to support “Palestinian resistance.” Within days, other organizations were issuing statements describing Israel’s unfolding military response as genocide, situated within a pre-existing theory of Israel as a colonial project that had produced genocidal dehumanisation. Prominent academics, human-rights organisations, activists, journalists, and public intellectuals described Israel’s conduct as genocidal.
Although the conviction that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians is not new, it has garnered ever more strength since the beginning of this war. In March 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, published a report alleging that the Israeli war in Gaza constituted a genocide. In December of the same year, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did the same. Then in July 2025 came both Physicians for Human Rights and B’Tselem, followed almost immediately by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. A resolution from the latter organization requires a two-thirds vote of its members, academics in the field of genocide studies, to pass. One would be hard-pressed to find a more reputable source for the libel.
On Sept. 16, 2025, a UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza; other prominent left-wing organisations and scholars have reached the same conclusion. And finally, on Oct. 9, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to South African judge Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, who led the 2025 UN commission that found Israel guilty of genocide against the Palestinians while completely ignoring many of the world’s worst human rights abusers, including, of course, Hamas. Pillay’s commission found that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes. Yet it accused Israel of genocide. This is a staggering moral inversion. And now the award of the Nobel; this appears to be the greatest possible legitimization of the now-established consensus about Israel’s war in Gaza. The icing on the cake!
But remember this: When a jihadist terrorist organization like Hamas applauds a Nobel Peace Prize, the moral judgment of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee should rightly be called into question.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
