RSS
Anti-Israel protesters demonstrated outside a Thornhill synagogue, despite a bylaw protecting houses of worship
A raucous anti-Israel protest outside a synagogue in Thornhill, Ont., which was hosting an Israeli real estate event, is being called a failed test of a bylaw that was intended to keep demonstrations at a distance from religious institutions.
The protest in front of the Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto synagogue (BAYT) on Dec. 9 saw chaotic swarms of counter-protesters and police officers following demonstrators along residential sidewalks while the event took place inside the synagogue. York Regional Police (YRP) had closed a number of streets in advance of the event.
In June, Vaughan city council passed a bylaw preventing “nuisance demonstrations” within 100 metres of synagogues and other vulnerable infrastructure, in direct response to previous demonstrations over Israeli real estate events at synagogues.
Yet on Monday night, demonstrators assembled across from the synagogue, on the south side of Clark Avenue, well within 100 meters of BAYT, for the majority of the hours-long event.
Vaughan’s Protecting Vulnerable Social Infrastructure bylaw prohibits “anyone from organizing or participating in any and all nuisance demonstrations within 100 metres of the property line” of places of worship, schools, childcare centres, hospitals and group-care facilities.
“Nuisance demonstrations,” according to the bylaw, “includes one or more people publicly protesting or expressing views on an issue in any manner—whether intended or not—that causes a reasonable person, on an objective standard, to be intimidated meaning that they are either concerned for their safety or security, or unable to access vulnerable social infrastructure.”
The bylaw cites examples of potentially intimidating behaviour; however, enforcement of the bylaw appears to be subject to interpretation by YRP officers and city bylaw enforcement officers onsite to determine if protests are deemed “peaceful gatherings, protests or demonstrations” as opposed to “nuisance demonstrations.”
“When deciding whether a reasonable person would be intimidated by a demonstration, enforcement staff will make a case-by-case assessment having regard to the objective facts and also what prior court decisions have said about what a ‘reasonable person’ is,” the bylaw read. “Not all instances of individuals stating they are intimidated will necessarily lead to by-law enforcement. Enforcement staff will use best efforts to enforce the by-law and minimally impair individuals’ Charter rights.”
At one point, police—responding to complaints reportedly coming from the demonstrators, whose loud noises such as drums and PA systems police had prohibited—investigated noise from a nearby home blasting Israeli music, and residents were asked to lower the volume while protesters walked nearby streets.
While hectic, there were no reports of property damages or physical assaults. Similar protests at Israeli real estate expos in March resulted in arrests and physical altercations.
Rabbi Daniel Korobkin of BAYT said he had been in close contact with Vaughan Mayor Steven Del Duca before, during and after the real estate event and protest on Dec. 9. He said that while Del Duca and other officials, including MPP Laura Smith, are “trying their best to help the Jewish community,” he thinks there’s a disconnect between what the bylaw was supposed to allow police to do and what took place.
“We don’t know where this directive is coming from, where the [police] have interpreted the bylaw in as liberal a way as possible,” Rabbi Korobkin told The CJN in a phone interview. He said he’d met with YRP officers ahead of the event and asked them to specifically uphold trespassing laws and a noise bylaw that he says police did not enforce during the last protests.
“We asked them to uphold the new bylaw, which allegedly prohibits any kind of intimidating protest, or nuisance protest, within 100 metres of the house of worship. We had every reason to believe that the police would prevent protesters from being within 100 metres of our property. But that did not transpire,” he said.
“What instead transpired is that the police told us that anyone who wants to stand within 100 metres is welcome to do so provided that they are not threatening, that they are not chanting hate speech, that they are not saying something that’s inciteful. And so, the police allowed the protesters to be on the other side of Clark Avenue from the synagogue.”
He notes “a very sincere effort to uphold the bylaw on noise” by officers who would shut down loud sounds “any time someone tried a drum or a loudspeaker.”
“We’re grateful for that. But when it came to the shouting of epithets, like to ‘Go back to Europe’ or ‘You’re guilty of genocide,’ which was one of the signs that was held up, the police did not uphold their side of the bargain.”
He says there were different police unit commanders on each side of the road, and that “the police presence that was on our side basically said, ‘I’m not in charge of their side.’”
“The fact is that they were only doing some of their job, they weren’t doing the entire job,” said Rabbi Korobkin.
“There were groups of protesters who were walking private streets… making loud and boisterous comments, intimidating the neighbourhood, and—bylaw or no bylaw—that simply is their right to do so, and the culture that currently persists within the GTA is that you can say whatever you want, even if it’s inciteful, even if it’s hate speech, and no one’s going to stop you.
“While I’m not intimidated, and we’re going to continue doing business as usual, I think there is fear within the Jewish community, and concern that people feel that our authorities don’t really care about the Jewish community.”
The test of the Vaughan bylaw, according to Rabbi Korobkin, shows the need to “go back to the drawing board and start all over again.”
“There needs to be a different strategy, where our society has a zero-tolerance policy for hatred on either side.
“There is fear in the community. People just want a sense of security. We’re right now on a powder keg,” he said, referring to the synagogue in Melbourne, Australia, set on fire the previous Shabbat, while people were inside.
“We’ve experienced Jewish schools being shot at and vandalized. People… want to know that the police care as much about the Jewish community as they do about these violent protesters.
“To give you an illustration…. [as the night was] winding down, the police went first to the Jews on the side of the synagogue telling them to disperse, before they told the protesters to disperse, which to me is just a further indication that there’s a lopsided sense of priority here.”
He says the real estate event inside the synagogue included 22 realtors who came from Israel, and that the synagogue discouraged the inclusion of properties for sale in the West Bank. The CJN did not independently verify details of properties for sale at the event.
“We made it clear to them that we did not want them to showcase any properties on the other side of the Green Line, even though, personally, I have no issue with that,” he says. “We did not want to deliberately be a provocation.”
“In retrospect, that was probably naive, because the opposition, the people who came out and were told to come out in protest, are people who sincerely believe that any square inch that exists in the country called Israel today cannot be legitimately purchased by Jews.”
Mayor Del Duca, who played a substantial role in creating and passing the bylaw, acknowledges that the Dec. 9 protest shows there’s plenty to learn from how recent events played out.
“People are, it’s a range of confused and angry, concerned, disappointed… I think mostly looking for answers to the legitimate questions they have about what took place on Monday and the difference between their understanding of the bylaw and then what they saw in real time, or what they’ve heard about in the aftermath,” he said.
“There [are] a lot of lessons I think we do have to learn from Monday night and I am going to work very, very hard along with city staff and YRP and others to make sure that we do learn those lessons so that we can do even better going forward, should the need ever arise,” he said.
Del Duca told The CJN in a phone interview on Dec. 11 that the city and YRP need to work together to “go through real-time potential scenarios” to learn and improve on the response to Monday’s demonstration.
He says in speaking to residents Monday night and since, he’s had to explain what “nuisance” demonstrations mean from a legal standpoint.
“I totally understand where [residents who are upset are] coming from. They think of the concept of a nuisance in somewhat of a conventional way. But there’s also a legal definition of what that’s supposed to mean, and where’s the line between what was and what wasn’t,” he said. “None of what I’m saying is meant to diminish the fears, the concerns, the anger that our residents are [feeling].
“I think the responsibility that I have and we have is, we saw in real time how using the bylaw is a tool played out, or maybe not using it as a tool played out,” he said.
Del Duca says the work ahead involves developing policies and protocols for city and police, including addressing the distinctions between types of demonstrations.
“The notion of the 100 metres is something that’s really important. Obviously, it’s foundational to the bylaw itself, and I know that’s captured a lot of attention through the months since we introduced and passed the bylaw.
“Where it becomes less clear, and we said this throughout this entire process… is that the bylaw doesn’t impact what is peaceful protest,” he said.
“Regardless of the issue or the cause… if a person is standing within 100 metres of a place of worship or a school or a daycare, and they’re engaging in what is legitimately peaceful protest, you know, that that’s not something that would trigger the bylaw in terms of making them move further away.”
He says the key question to determine will be whether a peaceful protest turns to a nuisance demonstration.
“I think we have more work to do in terms of playing out all of those scenarios and then having a strong sense of how to respond in the moment.”
He says that while much work was done in developing the bylaw’s policies or protocols “so that if we ever ended up in a situation like this, that would be a clear understanding of how we would deal with it,” this was also the first time the bylaw was tested.
Vaughan was also the first municipality to pass such a bylaw, he said.
Toronto considered a similar “protest bubble zone” bylaw, but councillors voted against it, instead allowing the City and police to develop plans for managing protests and rapid responses to hateful graffiti.
Del Duca acknowledges there aren’t always immediate, clear distinctions, for example, in the middle of a demonstration.
“It does come down to interpretation. But I’m convinced that with enough collaboration and enough scenario planning that we should be able to come to a good spot. It would have been ideal if that had been in place before Monday, I think some of it was, but there’s always a difference between the theoretical preparedness and the practical realities on the ground in a tense situation like we were dealing with on Monday night,” he said.
He says he understands how community members are feeling, and confirms he’s been speaking with Rabbi Korobkin regularly.
“I would just say to the community, I’m aware of the work that still needs to be done and I am committed to making sure that we do it and that I think will position all of us even more strongly to be even better prepared in the future.”
Gila Martow, the Vaughan Ward 5 councillor who represents BAYT’s district, echoed the call to answer questions about the disconnect between expectations and outcomes on Dec. 9, and address community concerns around protest scenarios outside synagogues in the area.
“I have a lot of questions that I’m trying to get answers to, including why police would tell my residents to turn down Israeli music in their backyards, supposedly at the request of the uninvited visitors,” wrote Martow in a brief email statement.
“While I respect the efforts of York Regional Police to keep everyone safe, we need to come up with strategies to emotionally support the Jewish community in the face of unrelenting hate.”
The CJN contacted York Regional Police, who confirmed the service would provide written responses to questions; however, the statement was not received by publication time.
The post Anti-Israel protesters demonstrated outside a Thornhill synagogue, despite a bylaw protecting houses of worship appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law
Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:
- A “blatant violation of international law.”
- A “violation of sovereignty.”
- A “flagrant breach of international law.”
France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.
Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.
In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.
- Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
- However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
- For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
- Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
- Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
- Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.
In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.
These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.
RSS
No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack
People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.
Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.
Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.
Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.
Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.
The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.
The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.
| UAE condemnation of terror | Mahmoud Abbas’ sham |
| “The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability. The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.” [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025] |
“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.
The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem. It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region. This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.” [WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025] |
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat
A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara
Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.
Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.
For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.
One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.
His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.
Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.
Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.
The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.
The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx