By Frank Dimant, Frankly Speaking, Huffington Post
CEO of B’nai Brith Canada, Publisher of The Jewish Tribune, Chair of Modern Israel studies at Canada Christian College
The conversion of the Jewish vote from the traditional Liberal to the Conservative was not meteoric, but rather a gradual shift over a period of time.
The Jewish Liberal establishment, which had very close ties to the ruling Liberal party, was most aggressive in its strategy to maintain a stranglehold on the Jewish vote. This was evidenced both in Montreal and in Toronto and in particular along the Bathurst strip.
Every effort was made to maintain the historic relationship between the Jewish community and the Liberal Party of Canada. So strong was this connection that Jewish institutional life was radically altered when it became evident that elements within the grassroots Jewish community were beginning to view the Alliance Party, and subsequently the Conservative Party, as natural allies of the Jewish community on those issues which impacted the Jewish agenda directly.
Historic organizations were rapidly altered and new ones created whose agenda it was to keep control over the Jewish community and its voting patterns. The historic Canada Israel Committee which had representation from all segments of the community, including B’nai Brith, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Zionist Federation, United Israel Appeal and the Federations was dismantled as an organization of organizations and replaced by a new entity made up of hand-selected representation.
Subsequently, the first birth of CIJA took place; its mandate, although never publicly professed, was to ensure that voting patterns did not deviate. “Ten Commandments” were enacted, one of which was that it was absolutely critical to discourage any dissent within the Jewish community, and that there was to be no public criticism of the government of the day. Of course, at that time it was the Liberal government.
This took place at a time when B’nai Brith Canada was leading the charge against the voting pattern of the Canadian government in the United Nations on issues relating to Israel. The move was to dramatically curtail those advocacy efforts. Also, the impact of the Jewish Tribune as a grassroots newspaper was being felt. Stockwell Day, and subsequently Stephen Harper and Jason Kenny, were receiving the coverage that others were denying them.
The Jewish mindset was shifting. The community no longer accepted the wild assertions that the Alliance or Conservative parties were riddled with anitsemites. On the contrary, in the historic battle conducted by Stockwell Day in the House of Commons, and by B’nai Brith Canada in the public domain, to ensure that the entire entity of Hezbollah be listed for what it was — a terrorist organization — it became evident to grassroots Jewry that the tide had to change.
In the past two years, Jewish public opinion has rallied heavily behind the Conservative Party. Stephen Harper has been principled in his position on the Middle East and has spoken of Israel as an ally in the fight against terrorism. And yet, as Justin Trudeau begins his meteoric rise to stardom as the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the question is will the Jewish community now turn its back on Stephen Harper, Jason Kenny, John Baird and all the other Conservatives who have stood firmly with the Israel and the Jewish community?
There is already a movement that wants to neutralize Jewish support for the Conservative Party and the mantra is that all three parties have the same agenda regarding Israel, a two-state solution, so why do we have to support the Conservatives? In a well-orchestrated campaign we will soon begin to see a new Jewish agenda being proposed by some, which will advocate that Jewish community adjust its focus to Aboriginal issues, child poverty, health care and social housing.
There will be a concentrated effort to realign the Jewish agenda with that of the Liberal Party, an effort which was made in the last election by the now defunct Canadian Jewish Congress. Jewish fundraising has already taken place for Justin Trudeau and much more is expected. Jewish publications will be fed stories that it would be best not to concentrate on Israel, Iran, and terrorism but rather on domestic issues. Justin Trudeau will be introduced at numerous functions by Irwin Cotler who has now proclaimed support for Trudeau.
There will be ample opportunities for photo ops and declarations of admiration for Justin Trudeau. No efforts will be spared to change the support for the Harper Government on the Bathurst strip. Traditional Liberal support will again mushroom as many will want to be part of Trudeaumania, the new wave of euphoria sweeping Canada.
In such a climate, the Conservative Party should not take Jewish community support for granted, but rather needs to understand the dynamics at play within the heavily-politicized atmosphere that prevails in the Jewish community.
I am very fickle when it comes to politics. I have been told I vote like a Quebecer – oui. no. maybe so.I think it’s a good way to be instead of holding fast to any particlar political party. The majority of Canadian Jews use to be Liberal. I am not too keen on Harpers stance that he has bought in to the two state solution in Israel. There are some things he should butt out of – he is not doing Israel any favours and he can be easily swayed so we as Canadian Jews still need to keep educating him and his party.
Most Canadian activists are familiar with “Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East” (CJPME), a group run by Thomas Woodley that is devoted to the destruction of a Jewish Israel. They support BDS, flotillas, the right of return for Palestinan refugees, sponsor cross-Canada talks by the likes of Norman Finkelstein and Robert Fisk, etc. If a Palestinian anywhere in the world gets so much as a hangnail, CJPME will issue mass mailings blaming it on Israel and calling for sanctions. Even as 75,000 Syrians are slaughtered, the hangnail will still be number one on their list of issues that deny the Arabs peace and justice. But CJPME is politically active and get involved in elections and leadership races, lobbying for pro-Palestinian candidates. In their most recent mailing, they rated all the candidates for the Liberal party based on their position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do not be fooled by CJPME’s talk of a “balanced approach”. Here is their report on the liberal candidates:
Dear Friends of CJPME,
CJPME has released today its Assessment of the Liberal Leadership Candidates on Middle East Policy. It includes important information for Liberal members and followers in advance of the election week, from April 6 to April 14. Based on the candidates’ responses to a CJPME questionnaire and other sources, CJPME ranked the candidates as follows:
B Martha Hall Findlay
B Karen McCrimmon
C+ Martin Cauchon
C Deborah Coyne
C- Justin Trudeau
D Joyce Murray
CJPME seeks to enable all Canadians to promote justice, development and peace in the Middle East. We believe that our Assessment of the Liberal Leadership Candidates on Middle East Policy is an excellent tool for all Liberal members and followers.
CJPME considered multiple sources of information:
1. Statements that candidates may have made in the House of Commons and its committees
2. Statements at the candidates’ own websites
3. Public statements by the candidates, whether captured by the media, made in debate, or observed in person by CJPME analysts.
4. The candidates’ approach to, and responses to, a 9-point questionnaire sent to each of the candidates in February. The questionnaire was designed to enable the candidate to answer all the questions in as little as 2-3 minutes.
5. Other actions known to have been taken by the candidates: e.g. recorded votes or motions; trips to the Middle East; etc.
To have earned a grade of “A” in the CJPME assessment, at least three things would have needed to characterize the candidate’s policy and pronouncements:
1. The candidate would have needed to communicate a progressive – human rights-focused – policy stance on a number of Middle East focal areas identified by CJPME.
2. The candidate would have needed to be specific in his/her recommendations on the Middle East. That is, simple criticizing the Conservative government for “not doing enough” or “playing politics” would not in-and-of-itself qualify the candidate for a favourable rating.
3. The candidate would have needed to demonstrate a willingness to occasionally and publicly articulate their progressive stances on one or more Middle East focal areas
That none of the candidates received an “A” grade is an indication that none of them consistently and/or vocally took human rights-based positions on Middle East issues. Despite the fact that no candidate received an “A,” given the range of grades, it is still clear that there are significant differences between the Middle East postures of the different leadership candidates. The Candidate-by-candidate discussion section further below provides more explanation for the grade assigned to each candidate.
Please share CJPME’s Assessment with all others who may be interested.
Martha Hall Findlay: B
Ms.Hall-Findlay criticised Prime Minister Stephen Harper on January 16 for his “absolute, blind, unilateral support of Israel, at all costs,” noting that this approach is “not conducive to a solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She also stated that Canada should have the courage to criticize Israel where criticism is warranted, given the strong relationship between the two countries. She identified Israel’s intention of allowing more “settlements” (i.e. Jewish-only colonies) in strategic areas of the West Bank as an example of Israeli conduct that Canada should be criticizing. In the current political environment in Canada, such comments are a breath of fresh air, and indeed set her apart from other candidates who have chosen not to take a public stance on these issues. One of her blog statements also indicated a strong interest and sympathy for the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring.
However, through the course of the Liberal leadership race, after several reminders, her office stated that she was unwilling to respond to the CJPME questionnaire. Thus, it is unclear how progressive she may be on other Middle East issues. Such unwillingness to go on record regarding specific aspects of Canada’s relationships with the Middle East may reflect a hesitancy to stand firm – or speak publicly – on her potentially progressive stances.
Karen McCrimmon: B
Because she has not been a siting MP, and because she has not been a prominent leadership candidate, there is little on the public record for Ms. McCrimmon especially on her views on Canadian foreign politics for the Middle-East. She did however chose to answer the CJPME questionnaire, which enabled a fairly accurate assessment of her priorities for the Middle East as compared to the other candidates. Having served in Afghanistan and Iraq with the Canadian Armed Forces, Karen McCrimmon firmly supports the idea that Canada should return to its “liberal roots” and reaffirm its role as peace-keeper in international affairs. She is very critical of the conservative governement and its declining interest in humanitarian aid, unless for economic advantage. She also condemns Israel settlements, which she calls “a provocative action”. She is an advocate of open dialogue and greater balance in Canadian politics. Based foremost on her answers to the CJPME questionnaire, and seeing no contradictory evidence, Karen McCrimmon comes across as a candidate with potentially constructive ideas on how the Liberal party could challenge the current status quo, and how Canada could make a positive difference in the Middle East.
Martin Cauchon: C+
Martin Cauchon has been a faithful acolyte of Jean Chretien. His position on the role Canada should play in the Middle-East therefore appears to reflect that of the former Prime Minister, as he is in favour of an approach considered “moderate,” similar to those of Lester Pearson and Jean Chretien. Despite initial promises to do so, Cauchon’s campaign team did not seize on the opportunity to present his ideas in detail, in response to CJPME’s questionnaire. Based on other information in the public record about Cauchon and his views, CJPME views Cauchon as a « middle of the road » leadership candidate, seeming to favour « compromise » and balance on touchy Middle East issues. Nevertheless, like several of the other leadership candidates, while he is critical of the Harper government’s approach, Cauchon speaks in vague platitudes and offers little in terms of concrete new ideas or directions. Under Cauchon, the Liberal Party might adopt a less accomodating attitude towards Israel and may work to make the role of Canada in the Middle-East that of a peace-keeper. However, on other questions on Canada’s role in the Middle East, Cauchon’s positions remain largely unknown.
Deborah Coyne: C
Ms. Coyne has mixed stances on Middle East issues. Because she responded to CJPME’s questionnaire, her stances are quite clear on many important Middle East issues. However, her answers were by and large middle-of-the-road. She believes that Canada should “consider” a county’s human rights record in its commercial and diplomatic relations, but declined to say that human rights should have higher priority than commercial interests. She stated that a government led by her would have abstained from the UN General Assembly vote on the Palestinian bid for recognition as a state, rather than voting against it. She offered no explanation as to why she would not have supported the bid. She also commented that the bid was “a largely symbolic gesture that was not overly helpful in moving the peace process forward.” The latter comment is symptomatic of either a refusal to recognize the asymmetric nature of the conflict, or of a belief that Palestinians should not make use of their rights unless Israeli leaders give them permission to do so.
In response to the question asking her to indicate her government’s policies regarding Israel’s “settlements,” she said they were “not helpful,” but failed to identify any concrete steps that her government would take to prevent Canadian involvement in settlement activity. Given her background as a lawyer, it is extremely worrisome that she did not acknowledge that the “settlement enterprise” violates international law. (Even the Harper government’s website goes that far.) Similarly, in her response to the question regarding Israeli Apartheid Week she demonstrated a very weak commitment to freedom of expression as it applies to criticism of Israel. She termed IAW “deliberately incendiary” and “counter-productive” and implied that IAW activities were sponsored by “fringe groups” who must be “isolated.” Her dismissal of the legitimacy of IAW activities educating students about aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that are infrequently mentioned by mainstream media outlets or federal politicians is worrisome. However, she does indicate that she would not favour a motion in the House of Commons to oppose IAW. In this regard, she distinguishes herself from Joyce Murray.
She criticized the Harper government’s Middle East stances as counterproductive, and stated that Canada should return to its role of “honest broker” and the stances taken by Canadian governments prior to Steven Harper’s. She supports the Red Cross principles of impartiality, neutrality and humanity in the allocation of aid. She also supports enforcing Canadian laws to ensure corporate responsibility abroad, including in the Middle East.
Justin Trudeau: C-
CJPME’s relatively low rating of Justin Trudeau on his politics concerning the Middle-East may come as a surprise for some. However, when CJPME looked in detail into what Trudeau had said – or hadn’t said – CJPME was disappointed to find little policy detail or policy leadership to justify a better rating. Since he began in the race for the party leadership, Trudeau has been widely depicted as the race leader by the media, but based on the public record, CJPME found that Trudeau did little to stand out from the other candidates on Middle East issues.
Justin Trudeau appears to avoid discussing the core issues, evasively answering questions and refusing to clearly state his position.
When asked if he thought the Harper government was too favourable towards Israel, he was harsh in his criticism of the political strategies of the conservatives who polarize the debate domestically and use it as a political football to pressure other parties, though he never said he was opposed to their positions. In reality, he has never publicly displayed support for a solution to the conflict that would be fair to the Palestinians, while he has repeatedly stated his strong support for Israel. He did have opportunities to stake out his own position, notably during the Israeli offensive on Gaza in the fall of 2012, and the question of Palestine at the United Nations, but he chose not to. Criticizing the Harper government on its policy strategy is not the same thing as actually proposing alternatives that suggest a new – more rights-oriented approach – for Canada in the Middle East.
His participation in the Reviving the Islamic Sprit conference in December 2012, even with several pro-Israel groups pressuring him to cancel, is a big point in his favour. Nevertheless, during his talk – which CJPME attended – he stated merely that he was there to “stand up against the politics of division”, which “appeal to people’s fears and prejudices”. Although he did speak of his plans to make Canada an inclusive country for all, including Muslims, he missed a strategic opportunity to address specific topics of interest to the Arab-Canadian community, and to others for whom human rights in the Middle East are a key issue.
As a sitting MP, Justin Trudeau missed many opportunities to present a clear and compelling vision for Canada and the Middle-East. CJPME fears that, under a Trudeau gouvernement, there would be little in terms of “new” or “clear” initiatives relating to the Middle East. It is unclear whether Trudeau would have the courage to lead Canada to a more balanced position, or to that of an “honest broker” in the Middle-East.
Joyce Murray: D
In both 2010 and 2012, Ms. Murray issued statements condemning Israeli Apartheid Week in extremely derogatory terms. She made reference to her familiarity with South African apartheid (she is a white person born in South Africa), as a point of credibility. Nevertheless, she ignored the fact that innumerable black South Africans have stated that the segregation in Palestine-Israel there is as bad or worse than the apartheid practiced in South Africa. By issuing the statements, she placed herself on the side of those who believe that Israel, unlike other governments, can never be the object of focussed criticism, even for one week a year. Her stance on this crucial freedom of expression issue is indistinguishable from that of the Harper government and does not bode well for her willingness to restore balance to the Liberal party’s Middle East policies.
Ms Murray did not answer CJPME’s questionnaire, therefore there is nothing to counterbalance the Israeli boosterism of her anti-IAW statements.
Ms Murray travelled to Israel in 2011 in a trip organized by and heavily subsidized by the Centre for Israeli and Jewish Affairs. Although such travel is not necessarily proof of support for Israel’s violations of international law, Israeli governments do gain a political advantage whenever foreign politicians visit, unless the politicians make a point of visiting Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups and the occupied Palestinian territories while they are in the region.
Kindest regards,
Thomas Woodley
CJPME President
Is there a Liberal Policy Paper on anything?
Where does Trudeau stand on a United Canada?
What has the Liberal Party done for Jews that would merit Jewish support?
I know where the Conservatives stand and I know what the Conservative Party does for the Jewish People.
Why should I vote Liberal? Not been given a reason to.
Yes, I am Canadian and Yes, I am Jewish!
Does anyone think that Frank Diment is a closet Liberal? The sub-text of this article is that it is OK for Jews “to return to the fold” and vote for the Liberals, a party less committed to Israel.
I am voting for Harper and the Conservative party. Period. And so should every Canadian Jew. You reward those who help you, not turn your back on them like an ingrate.
If Canadian Jews vote for Trudeau, then the diaspora Jewish community is hopeless.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/michael-kravshik/york-universitys-racist-boycott-of-israel/
Not only the Jewish community, who is a ignorant as any other ( look at their US cousins, who voted for Obama and his tacit Jew hate ), will vote happily for Justin Trudeau as they voted for his Nazi loving dad.
In 1936, Trudeau was still sporting a swastika on his shoulders as he rode through Montreal on his scooter.
Do not look to Canadians nor Canadian Jews as a defense against Islam.
I SAID THIS OVER A YEAR AGO ON THIS SITE AND ONE POSTER NAMED MICHAEL D. BECAME ANGRY. But I stand by my words.
Um… there are other people voting in addition to Canada’s small Jewish community.
Lets hope this isn’t going to be Canada’s “Obama Moment”.
The first act of antagonism against the Jewish community by the campaigning Justin Trudeau and his advisers was to speak at a radical convention of Islamists in Toronto titled, “Reviving the Islamic Spirit.” The gathering was to include “IRFAN-Canada, who had its charitable status revoked in 2011 over allegations it was channeling funds to Hamas.”
Justin Trudeau “told the CBC that he’d rather embrace Quebec separatism than live in a Canada.”
Justin also has no policies and no platform, getting by on his father’s name and good looks that his groupies adore.
Justin Trudeau’s brother, Alexandre, makes pro-Islamist documentaries.
I don’t know why Jewish people in Canada, served so well by Harper, a principled man with a proactive record of siding with Israel and leveling with the Islamic world, would vote for another party at this point in our history. Harper is a steady hand and has done well for Canada’s economy. It would be a form of ingratitude that has insanity written all over it were Jews to vote for a man-boy with no record other than his longing to be part of the in crowd even if it means hanging with Islamists.
Justin takes large sums from charities, including Jewish charities who for some unknown reasons gravitate towards his inane platitudes. Also see this link.
Israel and the Jewish people have no better friend in the entire world than Stephen Harper. He has steadfastly and consistently stood by the Jewish people and Israel at enormous personal and political cost. In doing so he has demonstrated steadfastness that even far exceeds that of the Prime Minister of Israel. Recall that he walked out of Durbin even before Israel did!
He is the singular exception to the adage that “states have no friends, only interests”.
Not only the best friend ever of Israel and the Jewish people, but sad as I am to admit it, truly the only friend, in high places. Contrast him to two-faced Obama who is often but grossly mistakenly touted as our best friend.
To dump him for the like of Justin-the-joke-Trudeu would be a travesty and I would for ever hang my head in everlasting shame, dismay and disgust.
I have never been so proud to call myself a Canadian as when Stephen Harper took the helm.
May the All-Mighty bless him and strengthen him!