My political gut

Always trust my gut over polls. My gut is telling me Harris is slowly losing the election.

I’m a war room guy, so I always favor bringing the heat. Harris hasn’t.

Maybe the Dems figure the polls will panic their vote. All I know is: whatever they’re doing? It hasn’t worked.


My latest: profiles in cowardice

To remain human, the writer Graham Greene once said, you have to take sides.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has chosen a side: Jews, the Jewish state, Western democracy. Poilievre sometimes gets himself in trouble for lack of nuance.  But this week, his refusal to equivocate on Israel deserves high praise.

On Parliament Hill, Poilievre condemned the avalanche of antisemitism, the likes of which he said “we’ve never seen before in this country.” The Conservative leader cited the “firebombing of synagogues, the hateful, genocidal protests, [the] chants in front of Jewish businesses, homes and hospitals,” and – this week – the burning of the Canadian flag, and the “death to Canada” chants of Samidoun, the federally-registered nonprofit that Poilievre rightly describes as a pro-terror organization.

Said Poilievre: “Let’s unify our people…Let’s secure our borders. Let’s keep terrorists out of our country. And let’s stand up for what’s right once again, and stand with our allies against terrorism, and for decency. Let’s bring home the country that we knew and still love.”

Compare that to the spinelessness of Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow, who this week was notably absent from a Toronto ceremony to mark the terrible events of October 7, 2023. Ontario Premier Doug Ford and two dozen politicians from all levels were there. But not Chow.

She – who is mayor in a region where half of Canada’s 400,000 Jews live – literally suggested to media that the multiple invitations she was sent somehow ended up in someone’s spam folder.  When that didn’t work – because Toronto councillors had reminded her about the event in person, too – Chow actually said she didn’t go because she was, and I quote, “tired.”

[To read more, subscribe here.]


My latest: the CBC’s “eyes and ears”

Couldn’t CBC have shown some respect, even on Oct. 7?

More than 1,200 men, women, children and babies slaughtered by Hamas and Gazans in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023: On the day that Israel was mourning those many slain, could CBC have shown some restraint? More than 100 hostages, including babies and toddlers, held in captivity for a year: On the very day that Israel was hoping for their safe return, could CBC not show some decency?

No, it couldn’t. It didn’t.

On Oct. 7, and in the lead-up to that sad anniversary, CBC did what it has done throughout: Show that it is indifferent to the suffering of Jews in Israel and Canada — and demonstrate that it is unfair to its readers, listeners and viewers in Canada. The people who pay for it, and expect it to do better.

Case in point: Mohamed El Saife. El Saife is paid by CBC to work as a “videographer.” An extensive essay about El Saife was posted on the main CBC website on the day before, and on, Oct. 7. On that same day, a fawning profile of him was broadcast on CBC’s main news programs, on both CBC News Network and on its main network. There, he was described as CBC’s “eyes and ears” in Gaza.

Let’s take a look at what Mohamed El Saife, CBC’s taxpayer-subsidized “eyes and ears,” has to say on social media, shall we?

• El Saife says “Israel” — he puts the Jewish state’s name in quotation marks, to suggest that it is a fiction — has falsely stated that Israel has an “occupation army that violates the dignity of of the bodies of martyrs.”

• El Saife has falsely accused Israel of “massacring” citizens in the Gazan city of Khan Yunis.

• El Saife has published an A.I.-generated image of a Palestinian child wearing wings, and chased by weapons-toting IDF troops.

• El Saife (on his main post on Oct. 7, no less) has falsely said “Israeli threats” have resulted in the “displacement of Palestinians” — even though, in reality, Israel has taken the unprecedented step to warn, and help to evacuate, Palestinians before military actions.

None of this, regrettably, is news.

As this writer revealed a few days ago, the Jewish human rights organization B’nai Brith conducted an analysis of CBC coverage of the Israel-Hamas war after Oct. 7. Of 150 stories in the final analysis, about half were considered openly pro-Palestinian. Only a fraction of that, 32, were possibly pro-Israel. The remainder were considered “balanced.”

The bottom line, according to the analysis: The CBC is wildly biased against Israel. And CBC would not even meet with B’nai Brith to look at their numbers.

That’s not all. CBC has repeatedly refused to call Hamas terrorists what they are – terrorists. They have accepted Israel-Hamas war casualty counts that come directly from Hamas. And they have established a secretive internal group, “Middle East 2023,” to oversee coverage of Israel.

Most recently, we’ve revealed that a member of their digital team wears a keffiyeh to work, and has posted online that Israel is “an oppressive, destructive” country and “you’re a vile human being if you still defend or excuse Israel.”

And, now, we have Mohamed El Saife — who the CBC itself describes as their “eyes and ears” in Gaza — publishing statements that, at a minimum, call into question what CBC insists is its commitment to fairness, balance and impartiality.

“Mohamed El Saife is an independent videographer. The content he shares on his X account presumably reflects his lived experience,” CBC’s chief spokesman, Chuck Thompson, said in response for comment. “That said, it has nothing to do with the content he provides CBC News as a freelance videographer. His views are his own and he does not speak for CBC.”

Is that good enough? Is that adequate? As one veteran and senior Jewish reporter at CBC said to this writer: “We are frustrated that our bosses have not taken a single concern seriously. They’re tried to manage this as a public relations exercise — without addressing the ethical problems plaguing CBC News.”

We, the people who pay for CBC, deserve better. We deserve a public broadcaster that is fair, balanced and impartial.

A broadcaster that is telling the truth.


My latest: October 7, 2023

October 7, 2023.

It dawned with a sky that was so clear and blue, it seemed like you could see forever. It was a Saturday, so quiet, and it looked like it was going to be a beautiful day. In Israel, it was a religious holiday for Jews, too, so few people were working, or ready for what was about to happen.

Around 6:30 a.m., as the sun was coming up, tiny figures could be seen in the sky, coming from West, coming closer. At the site of the Nova Music Festival in the South, in the Negev, some sirens started to sound, and the music stopped. Those in attendance looked up, and saw the killers on their motorized paragliders, coming towards them. They started to run, but it was already too late. Some other killers had arrived, too, in Toyota SUVs and wearing military fatigues and carrying GoPro digital cameras, to record what they were about to do.

An estimated 4,000 members of assorted terror groups – Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, others – spilled across the border, along with 2,000 or so Palestinian citizens. They broke through the fences in more than 100 locations, near army bases and kibbutz farm communities. The atrocities would last for hours: 1,200 murders of men, women, children and babies; more than 100 rapes of women and girls; 250 people taken hostage, including infants. Most of the murders would happen at Nova, to people in their teens and twenties.

The set fire to children, and beheaded babies. They killed entire families. They raped a woman and hacked off her breasts; others, they raped and then filled their vaginas with nails or bullets. It went on lack that, for hours.

We know these things because Hamas live-streamed much of it on Telegram, or they kept footage that they uploaded later to social media. It showed them laughing and smiling and posing for selfies, the walls of the kibbutzim smeared with blood and viscera. Bodies of Jews sprawled behind them on the ground.

Not everyone they killed was a Jew. They killed non-Jews, too. But their main target, then and now, was Jews.

While the orgy of rape and murder was still underway, Hamas and its axis – Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iran, Qatar, Russia and China – flipped the switch on a massive, global propaganda campaign to justify the atrocities of October 7, and to spread their homily of hate throughout Western democracy. Soon enough, via bots and fake accounts and conspiracy theories, the antisemitic hate was everywhere, like a snake. Licking at our windows, trying to get in.

It got in. It is here. Here, in the civilized world of 2024, which now every much resembles another time and place, when all of the world was dark.

Where did their hate, their antisemitism, come from? Why have so many – Generation Z and Millennials, in particular – embraced them, filling our streets and computer screens with things that we thought would never happen again?

I’ve written five books about racism and anti-Semitism, filed hundreds of newspaper columns and stories, and I’ve been on the receiving end of plenty of death threats from haters over the years. In all that time, I’ve formed the opinion that antisemitism is a shape-shifter.  It isn’t practiced by one ideology – it’s embraced, at different times, by every ideology, Right and Left.  It is an ideology unto itself, in fact, one that is older than capitalism, communism and all the other isms. It adapts; it changes with the times.  It endures, like a pestilence for which we have no cure.

To me, it is a tumor that metastasizes when exposed to the many successes of the Jewish people.  Resentment about the extraordinary resilience of their faith, resentment about their strength as a people, resentment about their obvious love for each other and God.  The antisemites seethe with envy and then hate. They are losers and, like all losers, they hate perceived winners.

So: today, now. Lots of news stories and opinion columns will be published this weekend, recalling the horrors of October 7, 2023. Many will express the hope that such a shoah, such a catastrophe, will never happen again. Some will even say it won’t.

Me, I don’t know anymore. All I can think about is the documentary filmmaker who came to see me a few weeks ago. He was doing documentary about the history of antisemitism in Canada. Near the end, he told me he grew up with a Jewish mother who always told him to have a suitcase packed, in case the killers returned. In case he had to leave quickly.

But this is Canada, I said to him. It’s 2024. It’s not Germany in 1939.

“Yes,” he said, and then he took out his wallet, and then he pulled a small crucifix from it. He held it up. He was crying.

“This,” he said, “is so I can pretend not to be a Jew.”


My latest: the Vice-Presidential debate waszzzzz…

What’s happening in Israel is way, way more important. But there was a Vice-Presidential debate last night, and I watched it. In between checking for updates from the Middle East, here are my five impressions of the debate.

1. The beard. Did you know that less than 5 per cent of politicians, most particularly in the United States of America, have any kind of facial hair? Mustaches, beards, those weird soul-patch things that should be banned: in American politics, facial hair projects just aren’t done. Apologies to Abe Lincoln, but U.S. voters strongly prefer the clean and clean-shaven look. So, thus my reaction to the Republican politician named J.D. Vance (or whatever his name really is): it’s visually off-putting. The Kinsellian™ rule is to watch political debates with the sound off. Every time I did, Vance reminded me of the leader of a smallish drug cartel in an old Miami Vice episode. It might not be a big deal to you, but it is to 95 per cent of Americans. And me.

2. HOAG. So, keep the sound off. Just look at the screen. Which guy looks like the car salesman who sold you a lemon? And which one looks like the guy who pulled over to give you and your lemon a boost, when you’re stuck on the side of a rural back road? Exactly. It’s the HOAG: you know, hell of a guy. Tim Walz looks and sounds like someone you could have a beer with. JD Vance looks and sounds like someone who applies Purell right after shaking hands with you.

3. It was boring. As much as political hacks and weirdos like me deplore it, nobody really watches political debates from to gavel anymore. They just don’t. I haven’t seen any ratings about last night, but I suspect that most people changed the channel at the first commercial break. It was just so, so boring. So, most voters’ exposure to it will be in clips: they’ll watch the coverage of the debate, but not the debate itself. And, so, there was one clip that stood out above all the rest: at the end, when Walz repeatedly asked Vance if Donald Trump had lost the 2020 election, and Vance repeatedly refused to answer. Coming from the guy who, as Vice President, is constitutionally required to certify the electoral college results, that’s a big deal.

4. Walz look like a Minnesota deer in the headlights in the first five minutes. And then, when he got the opportunity to talk about policy or his beloved home state, he loosened up and he did very well. In fact, if you were a policy freak, that debate was the best thing that has happened to you all year, pretty much. Walz gave me the impression that he knew and understood public policy. Vance gave me the impression that he was prepared to say anything – no matter how egregiously false, no matter how rip-roaringly dishonest – to cover up the policy dementia of his running mate

5. There wasn’t a fight. In fact, after the debate was over everybody – spouses included – shook hands with everybody. I’m willing to bet that they went off the set and shook hands with every member of the crew and then some bewildered people on the sidewalk outside the CBS studios. Some punch-drunk pundits are complaining about that this morning, but they should be ashamed of themselves. For a decade, Donald Trump and his ilk have denuded our politics of decency and civility. It was nice, for a change, to see two political candidates have a debate that was both decent and civil.

Now, Conservatives flooded my X feed, of course, because they were delighted that there was finally an American politician at the national level who was not a racist, sexist monkey with a machine gun.

But the fact is, and history will record, a monkey with a machine gun is the Republican presidential candidate.

And J.D. Vance wanted to be his running mate.