Features
The enthralling account of the attempt to revive a drowning victim – as written at the time by Dr. John Eadie
By BERNIE BELLAN Fascinated as I was by the story I had received from Reid Linney about Aron Katz, there was something else attached to the information about Aron Katz that was equally compelling: A vivid account of an attempt to revive a drowning victim, also in Big Whiteshell Lake (which is where Aron Katz drowned). It turns out that, subsequent to publishing the story of Aron Katz’s life – and tragic death, in our Aug. 3 print issue, we received information that confirmed the drowning victim in the account you are about to read could not have been Aron Katz.
What happened was that years ago, Dr. Gerald (Yosel) Minuk, who was also a classmate of Reid Linney and Aron Katz at St. John’s, had read an account of a drowning in Big Whiteshell Lake in a book titled It was a photocopy of something that, as Gerald (Yosel) Minuk subsequently explained to me in an email, had appeared in a book titled “History and Folklore of the Whiteshell Park North,” which his wife happened to buy from a woman going door to door selling copies of the book about cottage life in the Whiteshell area.
After Dr. Minuk had read Dr. Eadie’s chapter in the book, titled “Triumph and Disaster,” he was certain that the story Dr. Eadie tells must have been that of Aron Katz’s drowning. He sent a photocopy of the chapter to Reid Linney who, in turn, sent it to me.
It turn out the author of the story, Dr. John Eadie, was a Director of Public Health in Manitoba who would eventually became the Director of Epidemiology for the Province of Manitoba.
In his obituary, it notes that Dr. Eadie, who died in 2014, was born in England, studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh, and served with the Royal Army Medical Corps in Burma/Rangoon during the Second World War.
in 1950 Dr. Eadie and his family moved to Portage la Prairie. “In 1955 the family moved to Winnipeg, and later he purchased a cabin on Big Whiteshell Lake, where he would spend his retirement years exulting in family and his beloved outdoors,” his obituary notes.
I’ve decided to reprint Dr. Eadie’s entire account of what happened one summer day in the Big Whiteshell. However, as you’ll see once you start to read Dr. Eadie’s account, he says that what happened occurred on a Sunday – and that he decided to record his recollection of the day’s events at 4:00 am the following day, which would have made that a Monday. Aron Katz drowned on a Tuesday – and, as you’ll see at the end of this story, Dr. Eadie’s own daughter, Sheelagh, offered further evidence that the drowning victim described in the story you are about to read was not Aron Katz.
Here is Dr. Eadie’s story:
BIG WHITESHELL LAKE
JOHN A. EADIE
LOT 8 BLOCK 4
TRIUMPH AND DISASTER
“A normally busy Sunday at the lake started, for me , at about 7:30 a.m., when I took my wife’s dog for a run up to the ‘mountain’ behind our cottage. After a rest to admire the start of another ‘Sunny Manitoba Morning,’ without a cloud in the sky – back downhill, with Tuffy in the lead, to breakfast alone, listening to the world political situation on C.B.W., as was my custom.
“A quick shave and out to do chores – gas up in readiness for a day’s water-skiing, etc. Still no one else astir in the cottage. So out comes the axe and finally dispose of that poplar stump that should wake someone.
“Now the boys are astir and we’re off water-skiing. The water’s a bit choppy and there’s plenty of traffic – so I do most of the driving. Kenny goes first – an old pro at 13 years, followed by his friend Lars – skiing for 24 hours, but keen to catch up. Then Maria – a beginner, but too shy to tell us to speed it up for her. Irene and Carmen – prospective sisters-in-law to my two older boys – go up double.
(At this point the story is cut off. It resumes here:)
“A swim to the point with my wife, Pat, and a friendly visit with the neighbours.
“Great Scot – it’s 3:30 p.m – so we’re up to grab some lunch. When that’s over, the day’s activities tell their tale and I drop off for 40 winks.
“A thunder of feet up the stairs, ‘Dad, there’s a drowning at the dock!’”
“Up and moving. Grab the keys – to the wagon – drive to the dock. The kids beat me to it by boat – tell me it’s out at the diving dock, but they take me over by boat – 13-year-olds think fast and act with purpose.
“At the floating dock – signs of tragedy. A lifeless young man in his prime, the centre of earnest ineffective efforts at artificial respiration and cardio massage. What to do? Find out what the chances are or try to improve the resuscitation techniques? I’ll have to try both, somehow.
“ ‘ How long was he under?’ – ’15 minutes – maybe 10 – maybe eight – Who had a watch – how accurate are the estimates?’ (five minutes is the limit.)
“ ‘Is he breathing “No!’
“ ‘ Any pulse?’ ‘Yes,’ says Nurse.
“ ‘Is his airway clear? Are we getting air into his lungs?’ ‘Not much!’
“ ‘OK – four men get an arm or leg up and lift him, head down, feet up. You “Nurse” – (she wasn’t, but we didn’t know for an hour) – help clean out the mouth of blood and vomit. Quick – back down – on his back and start massage and breathing.’ Not good – take over breathing and show breather how to get a good breath in – chest rises – ‘OK? Now you try it. Get the rhythm 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005 – breathe. Repeat – a beat a second and a breath every five beats.’
“Am doing the massage – ‘Who can take over?’ ‘I will,’ says a voice – strong and confident – and he has the build to see us through to Pinawa. ‘OK – use the butt of the palms, quick beats – right on the breast bone – see?’ ‘OK!’ – tries it.
“Nurse reports femoral pulses – colour poor – pupils not good. To continue or stop?
“No one knew how long he was under for sure – he’s turning pink after being tipped up a couple of time and improving technique. OK – he has a chance – let’s give it to him.
“Time to look to the next step. ‘We need a hard board and four men to help lift.’ ‘Here we are!’ A surfboard appears – ‘We need a boat to get him to main dock.’ ‘OK- change boats – yours is biggest. Can you bring it alongside?’ ‘Did anyone send for ambulance or Mounties?’
(At this point the story is cut off again. It resumes here:)
“new catch phrase -KEEP the SYSTEM GOING. ‘If you’re tired ask for relief.”
“ ‘When we move him onto the surfboard after the next breath – hold it, he’s filling up again – tip him up and clean him out. Well done!’ Back to the SYSTEM. It’s going again.
“ ‘OK, now move him on to the board after next breath – 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005 – Breath – MOVE!’ He’s on the board – KEEP the SYSTEM GOING.
“ “Next move – move the board on to the boat – head to front – breather and cardiac massager keep going. After next breath MOVE but KEEP THE SYSTEM GOING.’ He’s in the boat – the two men on the outside fall in the lake and get left behind. Nobody laughs.
“We’re moving – to the main dock. On to dock –
“ Get the crowd out of the way!’ Someone does.
“ OK. Four men move him down the dock, but KEEP the SYSTEM GOING!’
“ ‘Who’ll drive my wagon?’ – ‘I will.’ – ‘Here’s the keys – the blue wagon’ – back it on to the dock – tailgate down – four movers ready – into the wagon and the SYSTEM KEEPS GOING.
“Nurse” asks privately – ‘What are his chances?’ – ‘Just about zero.’
“The Mounties are here, flashing lights and the works.
“ ‘We need water in a cooler – bucket – anything.’ They appear.
“We’re off.
“ ‘Hey, not so fast – watch the corners – we can’t do massage at that speed.’ We’re all on our knees – never knew steel deck was so hard on knees, especially on corners and on my cartilage scar.
“ ‘OK – relieve the breather!’ ‘I’m OK, Doc.’
“ ‘You can’t do it all yourself – take a break and come back stronger.’ ‘OK.’
“He’s getting pinker – He’s got femoral pulses. His pupils seem smaller, are they really? Wish I had my glasses! ‘Good work –keep it up – Keep it up – change breather – change massager – keep it up. Get a rest.’
“A young guy in his car gets between us the Mounties and won’t pull over, despite our lights and horn. The Mounties radio ahead and he’s invited to stop for a ticket at Seven Sisters.
“Half hour to Pinawa. Twenty minutes to Pinawa. Ten minutes to Pinawa. He’s still pink, still got a pulse. But, what about those pupils? Keep it up. ‘Breather rest so you can take over again at Pinawa.’
(Cut off again. Resumes here:)
“femoral pulse – but hold it – those pupils are dilated and fixed and have been for half hour or more. Don’t tell the team – yes, we’re a team now – everyone knows his job and does it well.
“Last time – KEEP the SYSTEM GOING – back in to the Emergency door. A word with Pinawa doctor – into Emergency.
“Electro-cardiogram shows he still has pulses, still was pink – without the system pulses become few and weak – pupils still dilated. The patient is dead. DISASTER! Or is it triumph? – Seven total strangers – who didn’t even know each others’ names – worked themselves into a team in three hours of desperate effort for a patient whose name they didn’t know.
“When the verdict was finally announced – that he was dead – despite pulses and pink colour – the Nurse looked around the room and there wasn’t a dry eye to be seen. For a stranger? Who is a stranger?
“The dilated pupils showed the patient’s brain had died before he was pulled from the water He’d been down too long – but who could be sure? He had a chance – we gave it to him – but it didn’t work out.
“The team was totally exhausted. After a wash up and juice or coffee the Mounties took our statements His girlfriend’s father came in to thank us – she was too distraught.
“Then home to family and friends, bucking traffic all the way back to Big Whiteshell – where there is still no lifeguard!
“Dozens of these helpers who gave instant action and response to requests should not be forgotten.
“But for the seven people – four men: an orderly, a policeman, president of the Campers Association, and the doctor; three ladies: a nurse, an accountant, and a housewife we thought was a nurse – it will remain TRIUMPH AND DISASTER.
“(Above disjointed notes written at 4:00 am the following morning, when I couldn’t get b
ack to sleep for the drama going round and round in my mind.”)
Post script: As mentioned at the beginning of this story, despite the many similarities between Aron Katz’s drowning and the drowning described in Dr. Eadie’s account – which had led Dr. Minuk to assume that the account was indeed that of Aron Katz’s drowning, subsequent to publishing this story in the Aug. 3 print issue of The Jewish Post & News, we received an email that had been written by Dr. Eadie’s daughter, Sheelagh. In it Sheelagh wrote: “I am thinking that Aron is not the person John assisted.
Aron died on a Tuesday and given that Dad wrote his notes right away and refers to it being a Sunday it is not likely that he would confuse the day of the week. As noted this is a discrepancy that is noteworthy.
“Secondly, he refers to his son, Ken, as being 13 but in July 1973, he was 11 going on 12.
“Dad was a precise person, not sure that detail would be altered.”
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.
