If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, some people will eventually believe it.

The author of that one, of course, was Joseph Goebbels, and he would know. Goebbels was the chief propagandist for Germany’s Nazi Party. He helped to devise and then cover up the Shoah – the Holocaust.

Goebbels would likely approve what has happened in the days following the modern Shoah, October 7. Since October 7, words and meanings have been giddily twisted and manipulated like a rag doll in a madhouse.

Every weekend, everywhere, angry voices – pro-Palestinian, but also pro-Hamas – can be heard on city streets, screaming “from the river to the sea.” The people who use that slogan insist, over and over, that those words are benign, and express no ill-will towards Jews.

And, yes, “from the river to the sea” – from the Jordan River in the East to the Mediterranean Sea in the West – doesn’t explicitly say every inch of “Palestine is for Muslims only, Jews are warmongering Zionist Nazis, and every Muslim has an obligation to wage holy war against them until they are all gone.”

But the Hamas 1988 Charter certainly says that, and plenty more. When he was celebrating the anniversary of said Charter, Hamas’ billionaire leader Khaled Mashaal made clear what “from the river to the sea” means. Said Mashaal: “Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea, and from the South to the North. There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”

No concession. Sorry, citizens of the Jewish state: “from the river to the sea” literally means there is no room for you, and no more Israel. Everyone, from Hamas to the Palestine Liberation Organization – who used it as their official slogan, and who asserted that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine” – know precisely what “from the river to the sea” means. It means no Jews, no Israel. Period.

Because they are disciples of Goebbels, the pro-Hamas propagandists are also careful about their use of the word “Jew.” They prefer “Zionists.”

Zionism is a political movement that seeks a Jewish homeland, in the part of the world Jews occupied for centuries before the birth of Christ – and thousands of years before the word “Palestine” was ever uttered. Saying you oppose “Zionists” – and “the Zionist project,” which is what they call Israel – is a lot less controversial than saying you are against the Jews.

No less than Dr. Martin Luther King is the best source on the distinction. As recalled by author Seymour Lipset: “When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Dr. King responded: ‘When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism.’”

This week, this writer was on a Toronto radio panel with a man who proclaimed he was a “human rights lawyer,” but who revealed himself to perhaps regard some humans as having more rights than others.

The host, Greg Brady, did his best to challenge this man’s many whoppers, which included:

• Hamas hasn’t killed any Jews outside “occupied territories.”
• Firebombing a synagogue may not be anti-Semitic.
• A Montreal Imam who called for Jews to be exterminated, didn’t.

How can anyone, least of all a “human rights lawyer,” embrace such things, all of which are false? Who knows. The “human rights lawyer” wanted more “evidence” on the synagogue firebombing. He didn’t answer yes or no to Brady’s request that he agree that Hamas was a terrorist organization. He said the Imam called for “Zionists” to be exterminated, not “Jews” (see above).

And so on. That’s how it’s been pretty much everywhere, since October 7. The mobs – found in the streets, in faculty lounges, university classrooms and NDP caucus meetings – have manipulated and mauled language to justify, or minimize, Hamas’ mass-murder on October 7.

They have done that because they know, deep in their tiny black hearts, that they won’t win over public opinion by saying they favour eliminating every Jew in Israel. So they say they oppose the “Zionist entity” and want to merely liberate Palestine, “from the river to the sea.”

It’s all so dishonest and divisive and dangerous.

Goebbels would approve.

Comments (8)

Comments (19)

 

What is hate, and what isn’t?

What words are against the law, and what words are allowed?

Actions are easier to judge. When a six-year-old boy is stabbed to death for being a Muslim, Chicago police determined that it was homicide and charged a man. When a 69-year-old Jewish man is pushed by an anti-Israel protestor in California, and he smashes his head and dies, that is classified as a homicide, too.

Words are more difficult to judge, however – and much more difficult to prosecute. And since October 7, a day that will live in infamy – the day when Hamas committed the greatest act of mass murder against Jews since the Holocaust – words have become very important.

Here is a summary of just the past week, in just one province, Quebec:

• Synagogue firebombed
• Jewish community centre firebombed
• Two Jewish schools hit with gunfire

And also:

• Imam says Jews should be exterminated
• Anti-Israel protestor screams “kike” at Jewish student
• Professor calls Jewish student “a whore,” says go back to Poland

The first three incidents are clearly crimes.  In those cases, thankfully, no one was hurt – the bullets and Molotov cocktails missed their intended Jewish targets.  But, for police and prosecutors, those crimes indisputably are acts of terror – that is, and as defined in Canada’s Criminal Code, a political or religious act whose intention is “intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security.” Namely, Jews.

There are lots of terrorism-related sections in the Criminal Code.  If prosecutors can’t convict the Hamas-lovers for simple intimidation, they certainly can do so because the firebombing and school shootings “intentionally endangers” lives and causes property damage.

Whoever is arrested, prosecuted and convicted for these obvious acts of terrorism can be imprisoned for life – and, in the case of non-citizens who commit serious crimes, they can be deported, too.  It’s the law in Canada, and has been for years.

But what about words? What about the Quebec Imam who stood before 20,000 “pro-Palestinian” protestors in Montreal and said this:

“God, take care of these [Jews]. God, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. God, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don’t spare any of them.” The Jew-haters in the crowd cheered.

Now, are those words a crime? It sure looks like it.  There are three sections in the Criminal Code that could apply: wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group (Jews), promoting genocide against an identifiable group (Jews), and willfully promoting anti-Semitism (which, of course, is always directed at Jews).

Every political leader ion Quebec has urged the police to go after the Imam who uttered those hateful words.  So far, that hasn’t happened.

What about the woman who screamed “kike” at a Jewish student at Concordia University?  Or the professor who called a Jewish student “a whore,” and told her to go back to Poland?

Those incidents are hateful and disgusting, but they may not reach the level of crime. As former Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber notes:

“Canada’s anti-hate laws are meant to balance our cherished rights of free speech with the dangers of hate speech. We have made the bar for hate speech high – as it should be. Nonetheless, we require trained police officers to enforce our hate laws. Without dedicated anti-hate units and the training that must accompany it, we will fight a losing battle.”

And, make no mistake: we are losing the battle. Since October 7, there has been an explosion in anti-Semitic hate incidents, everywhere. From open intimidation of Jewish businesses – to bullets being fired at Jewish schools – our social fabric is ripping apart.

And the haters – mostly on the anti-Israel side, to be frank – are doing most of the damage. Why can’t they bring themselves to hold the law assign – just one – condemning Hamas? Why can’t they hold an event – just once – demanding the release of the Israeli hostages?

They haven’t done those things, and it doesn’t look like they are going to do any of those things. They haven’t been deterred.

So, it is now time for the police, the prosecutors, and the courts to apply the principle of deterrence. It’s time to deter further acts of hate.

And, after being convicted,  if some of the haters go to jail or are deported?

So be it.

Comments (5)

Here he is, age 20, at officer cadet training in the Summer of 1952. Front row centre.

He went on to join the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps but the war ended before he could go over. He always regretted being unable to fight fascism and anti-Semitism in battle, but he taught us to always oppose all forms of hate.

We miss him every single day – and on this day, even more.

God bless him and everyone who serves.

Comments (27)

Don’t make it about you.

That’s one of the first things we learned in journalism school. First-person writing wasn’t completely outlawed – but, if your story had “I” and “me” in it, you had to have a very good reason for it.

And: what you feel, as a writer, was irrelevant. What matters is how the people you’re writing about feel. Their feelings matter a lot more than yours.

Journalists and writers started to violate these rules in the early Seventies. Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, Hunter S. Thompson, Joan Didion, Ta-Nahisi Coates, James Baldwin and others started to place themselves in their stories – and they started to sell lots of books and magazines and newspapers.

Some, like George Plimpton, even got into the boxing ring so he could write more vividly about boxing. The new approaches had different names: Participative Journalism, New Journalism. Traditionalists didn’t like it, but the first-person approach attracted converts.

Sitting in a darkened room at the Israeli consulate in Toronto this week, watching unspeakable horrors unfold on a screen, I – sorry – remembered these journalism rules. They created a dilemma.

How does one write about what is up on the screen without personalizing it? How does one write an account that doesn’t describe what one is feeling?

How does one do all that in a way that respects – and accurately describes – the feelings of the people on the screen?

That one was the biggest challenge of all. Because the people on the screen simply weren’t available to be interviewed. And their families – who have been living through horrors that cannot be captured in mere words, even by the likes of Tom Wolfe or Joan Didion – were not readily available, either.

They told the IDF and the Israeli Foreign Ministry that the footage could be shown to journalists, but they did not want it on the Internet, to become the fodder for conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazis.

So, it fell to 25 of us gathered at the consulate on Monday – journalists, commentators, news anchors – to describe what we were being shown, and describe its impact.  The raw footage was taken from security and dashcam cameras,  or devices retrieved from Hamas terrorists. It ran nearly 45 minutes.

I decided, even before I got there, that I would just describe what I saw, and avoid editorializing – save and except calling Hamas “monsters,” which is literal and not figurative. And, at the end, I described how I left the consulate and started to weep.

But I would not editorialize. If you can read about the body of a baby – brutalized and riddled with bullets – and not be moved? Well, no amount of editorializing will change you back into a human.

Before the footage was shown, Israel’s Consul-General, Idit Shamir, addressed us. “What value is there in seeing these horrific sights?” she asked, then answered her own question. “To bear witness. Sometimes, words do not do justice to crimes against humanity.”

“We show you these images to show you what Israel and the world now faces.”

So, my colleagues bore witness. Here is a sampling of what they witmessed:

• Sabrina Maddeaux, National Post: “The worst part was the glee. The pure jubilation of Hamas terrorists as they filmed themselves killing and torturing; their excited voices bragging about their atrocities…I’ll never forget the gore, but it’s the look of euphoria and pride in the terrorists’ eyes, cheering for the cameras as if they were the ones partying at a music festival that day, that will haunt me.”

• Matt Gurney, The Line: “Glee. Pleasure. Delight. Whooping cheers, selfies with the boys (carefully framed to put dead or captured Jews in the background), huge grins. The attacks were efficient, but not joyless. The Hamas terrorists are thrilled to be doing what they’re doing…And they did so with the benefit of having achieved complete surprise. That’s something else I noticed when I took the time to look past the visceral horror of the murder spree.”

• Evan Dyer, CBC: “There are numerous scenes of Hamas fighters celebrating, waving one finger in the air and shouting ‘Takbir’ and ‘Allahu Akbar.’ Jubilant and excited gunmen can be seen both leaving Gaza in the morning and returning with bloodied captives, and with the body of German festival-goer Shani Louk. Some of those images have circulated widely.The film shows Hamas hunting people at military bases, kibbutzes and at the Nova music festival…Hamas can also be seen killing injured people and shooting into rooms full of bodies and blood to kill any survivors.”

These writers, and others present that day, all remark on one thing, over and over: the utter remorselessness of Hamas. Their undisguised delight in savagery and barbarism – and the enthusiasm they showed for torture and rape and infanticide and the murder of so many innocents.

So, then, most of us present broke one of the most important rules of journalism. We wrote in the first person, and we wrote what we were feeling.

But we had no choice.

Because the bastards in Hamas had killed everyone.

Comments (6)