It’s the next front in the war.

There’s been no ceasefire reached yet. Fighting is still going on, in and around Southern Gaza. Rockets and bullets are still being fired into Northern Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah.

Slowly but surely, however, Israel is winning the war.

As of last week, more than 12,000 Hamas terrorists have reportedly been killed. Three-quarters of Hamas’ 24 battalions – each containing more than 1,000 men – have been wiped out. Missile attacks on Israel have dropped off dramatically.

And, like Adolf Hitler in his final days, Hamas’ leadership is in hiding in subterranean bunkers, moving from one hideout to another, more preoccupied with survival than directing the fight against the IDF – who, incredibly, have lost only 300 troops since the war began in earnest on October 27.

So, Israel is winning. After the military “mop-up” is done, Israel will relinquish governance of Gaza to someone else – possibly some amalgam of the Palestinian Authority, humanitarian agencies and peacekeepers.

One thing is clear: as in the past, public opinion in Israel overwhelmingly opposes governing Gaza. They want Hamas defeated, and the remaining hostages back, but no role in governing the ungovernable.

The Middle East, however, is just one front in the war that broke out after the horrors of October 7. There is another battle raging, and it is not centred in Gaza and the West Bank.

It is the war against Jews taking place around the world.

Not even the “pro-Palestinian” protestors – some of whom are being paid to protest, as this newspaper has documented – dispute the reality anymore: they don’t just oppose Israel’s government (which isn’t anti-Semitic to do). They oppose Jews (which is).

Their Jew hatred has manifested itself, in Canada, in firebombing and shootings and acts of vandalism from coast to coast – at synagogues, Jewish schools, businesses, and even the private homes of Jews. The same sort of anti-Semitism is happening around the planet, too, every single day. It is, as noted, the next front in the war that commenced on October 7, 2023.

This writer has authored ten books, most of them about anti-Semitism, racism and their variants. Regularly, I get asked by exasperated and frightened readers: where does this anti-Semitism come from? In the year 2024, why have we not killed it off, once and for all?

It’s no longer true to say that anti-Semitism is caused by Christians. While the Holocaust was indeed conducted in European Christian nations, no one seems as preoccupied, anymore, by the notion that “Jews killed Christ.” (They didn’t: the Romans did.). And polling shows that the vast majority of Christians in the West strongly support Israel’s right to defend itself, within safe and secure borders.

No, the genesis of modern anti-Semitism is a lot harder to pin down. A lengthy essay in the new Time magazine by Noah Feldman, a professor (ironically) at Harvard’s law school, is now making the rounds. In his “New anti-Semitism” piece, Feldman writes: “Anti-Semitism is actually a shape-shifting, protean, creative force. Anti-Semitism has managed to reinvent itself multiple times throughout history, each time keeping some of the old tropes around, while simultaneously creating new ones adapted to present circumstances.” Jews, he continues, are the targets of whatever hatred is fashionable at the moment.

And Feldman is right. Whenever there is a global calamity, people cast about for a scapegoat, and Jews are always the best candidates. So, 9/11 was caused by Jews, because no Jew was killed that day. The 2008-2009 global financial crisis was caused by Jews, who disproportionally benefitted from the economic chaos. Covid was a Jewish invention, because they own the pharma companies.

Even wildfires has been the fault of Jews: in his amusing (but disturbing) new book, Jewish Space Lasers, Mike Rothschild – who ironically, bears the surname of a centuries-old anti-Semitic conspiracy theory – tells the story of MAGA Trump fanatic, congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. She promoted the notion that Jews were “beaming the sun’s energy back to Earth” with non-existent “space-based solar generators,” and missing non-existent “receiving stations.” And thereby causing wildfires in California.

Anti-Semitism, then, is indeed a shape-shifter, never dying, never completely going away. It adapts, like cockroaches adapt. It is unkillable.

So, since October 7, anti-Semitism is back with a vengeance, globally. It is the new front in the next war.

And, as in every war, the frontlines will grow. Other targets will be added.

Because what starts with Jews never ends with Jews.

Comments (2)

“Free speech,” says Salman Rushdie, “is the whole thing, the whole ball game.”

“Free speech,” he says, “is life itself.”

That feels like a bit of an overstatement. But in Rushdie’s case, it’s probably heartfelt. The British-American author has faced several death threats and assassination attempts since the publication of his book The Satanic Verses in 1988 – including one death threat from Iran’s supreme leader, no less.

Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and several Islamic terror groups have also promised to kill him. In 2022, one Islamic terrorist came close to doing so, stabbing Rushdie repeatedly before a speech in New York. Rushdie lost sight in one eye, and the use of one hand.

There’s no way to know, of course, what Rushdie thinks – if anything – about the Trudeau government’s latest attempt to reign in harmful speech online. But it’s reasonable to assume that Rushdie would be unimpressed.

Rushdie might disagree, but it is not ever unreasonable to have some limitations placed on hate speech, terrorist content, incitement to violence, the sharing of non-consensual images, and child exploitation. For example, the toxic wave of anti-Semitism seen everywhere these days is clearly corroding our social fabric, and causing actual terror in the Jewish community.

So, what would Trudeau’s sweeping package of legislative reforms, announced Monday, do to combat anti-Semitism? Not much.

For starters, Trudeau’s bill is predicated on a falsehood – the notion that it is possible for one country to control what is on the Internet. How, exactly, does one do that? The Internet truly is, as its name implies, a World Wide Web. If the owners of a web site promoting hate or terrorism dislike governmental control over what they have to say, they can just move it to another jurisdiction that is less bothered by it.

The proposed Trudeau law anticipates this, and says it will target social media platforms and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in Canada, and essentially deputize them to police content.

But the social media mavens and ISPs – many of which are headquartered in the United States, where the First Amendment frowns on virtually any restraint on speech – have said they have no interest in acting as Internet hall monitors. They will (and have) simply pull the plug. Which doesn’t just limit free speech. It ends it.

Another problem: who decides?

The proposed federal overseer – an ombudsman-type official – will be vested with extraordinary powers to decide what is, and what isn’t, acceptable. The problem with such an approach is obvious: what is one person’s medicine is another person’s poison. It is wildly subjective, always.

The post-October 7 era has offered us plenty of awful examples of why this is problematic. Anti-Israel types are being permitted by the authorities to regularly promote hate – while pro-Israel voices are being suppressed or cancelled with impunity. A Toronto Star former ombudsman and current columnist, to cite just one example, last week opined that Hamas was “provoked” into attacking Israel – and that Hamas is a mere “system of government” composed of “civilians working for a living.” So, what if the proposed online speech ombudsman possesses similarly vile views? Where does a Canadian Jew go to complain, then?

Now, it may be that the online harms bill is simply a ruse – a political head fake. Trudeau’s Liberals can proclaim that they have taken action against online hateful conduct, without ever actually planning to pass it into law. The real objective, perhaps, is to trap the Conservatives into opposing the bill, which will permit Liberals to say that Tories don’t care about hate and child exploitation.

Which would be cynical and duplicitous. And classic Trudeau-style sophistry.

If the bill’s objective is stamp out online harm, it goes about it in the wrong way. It presently gives too much power to an unelected official to decide what is acceptable – and it underestimates the willingness of social media platforms and ISPs to simply ignore the new rules.

The road to Hell, someone once said, is paved with good intentions. Trudeau’s new bill is full of good intentions.

But it’s still a Hellish mess.

Comments (10)

Comments (42)

Was it the tiny Star of David?

Does Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment now plan to bar anyone from Scotiabank Arena if they are wearing Stars of David around their necks?

If it wasn’t that, was it the words: “Free Our Hostages”? Was it that?

Because, as a general principle, freeing hostages – any hostages, anywhere – isn’t really controversial, is it? The dictionaries define “hostages” as human beings who are illegally seized, and held for ransom. Everyone is against that, aren’t they? It’s illegal, after all.

Looking at the hoodie worn by Toronto defence lawyer Gary Grill at a Raptors game this week, those are the only things one can imagine MLSE’s head of security, Chad Bowman, could object to. The Star of David, or the three words about hostages. White letters, not big. There was nothing else on the hoodie.

Who can be against freeing hostages, besides Hamas? Who can be against the public display of a Star of David?

Oh, wait. We actually know who is against the Star of David being shown in public, don’t we?

In Canada, they’re the same people who have been shooting up Jewish schools and homes, and firebombing synagogues and Jewish delis, and attacking anything that is even remotely associated with someone who is Jewish.

How did it all happen? Lawyer Gary Grill was wearing the hoodie at the game, alongside his best friend, lawyer Leora Shemesh. Says Shemesh: “We got up to get a drink and a security guard approached us and said someone would come to talk to us. She claimed that our sweatshirt was too political. We were also wearing dog tags and I was wearing a Jewish star with an Israeli map.”

She continues: “A manager came and said take it off or cover up or we would be forced to leave.”

Says Gary: “When they asked me to take it off or leave, the assistant head of event security said MLSE doesn’t want to take sides. Really? Remember Kiana Lede, the ‘river to the sea’ anthem singer [at the NHL All-Star game, played at Scotiabank Arena]? It seems what MLSE doesn’t want to do is side against Hamas who believe taking, keeping, and raping hostages is just fine…This isn’t political speech because there aren’t two competing ethical sides to this issue.”

Exactly.

Gary and Leora tried to figure out the MLSE’s policies. The rules didn’t seem to apply to Black Lives Matter, or LGBTQ, or similar causes – the arena, and the Raptors and the NBA, had actively promoted those. The NBA has held LGBTQ nights. And, the Raptors even have a Black Lives Matter clothing line. So what gives?

Chad Bowman isn’t talking, per corporate policy. We emailed him, and he hasn’t responded. So we looked at the “policies” MLSE has promulgated about Scotiabank Arena.

“Conduct” that is “prohibited” includes “displaying signs, symbols, images, flags, clothing, banners that may be considered vulgar, discriminatory, disrespectful.”

That doesn’t seem to fit. A Star of David isn’t vulgar, discriminatory or disrespectful. It’s actually about the loving relationship between humankind and God. And freeing hostages, as noted, is pretty respectful, isn’t it?

There’s only one other “policy” that may apply. It says “displaying signs, symbols or images for commercial or political purposes” is verboten – that’s German for “forbidden,” by the by, which seems apt in relating this story – at Scotiabank Arena.

Again: is it “political” to wear a Star of David? Is it political to say illegally-held hostages should, as a general principle, be released?

Because MLSE isn’t really saying much that is useful about their decision to remove Jews with a threat of force, what are we left with? Are they afraid of the anti-Israel types showing up to a game, and calling for a violent revolution – an intifada – at halftime?

Well, MLSE isn’t saying that. Before Christmas, however, a couple pro-Palestinian types were told by MLSE to remove their kafiyyehs – those traditional black and white scarves you see everywhere – before they would be let in to a Mariah Carey concert.

They shouldn’t have been. Kafiyyehs are ubiquitous in Toronto, and it’s not an incitement to murder anyone. Holding up a sign saying: “Kill The Jews”? A banner reading: “Kill Gazans”? Of course.

But a tiny Star of David, and a plea to release hostages? No.

Situations like these require judgment. MLSE and their security folks didn’t use their judgment. They panicked, it seems. They opted for the easiest course of action – which was to kick out the Jews. To deny them a small indication of their faith. To erase them.

Which, you know, has familiar ring to it.

Comments (6)

Holocaust denier David Irving is reportedly dead.

Some were surprised to hear that he was dead. Because, really, David Irving had been dead inside for a long time.

He claimed to be a historian, but he wasn’t one. He had no training as a historian. Early in his career he wrote books about historical events, and enjoyed some success at that.

But, about 30 years ago, Irving started to pilot alone through some dark waters. And in particular, he started to deny the Holocaust.

He said there was no proof.

Despite the fact that the Holocaust was – and is – the most well-documented mass murder in human history, Irving became a denier. He wanted proof.

He said that those who survived the Holocaust were “liars.” He said there was no “Reich policy to kill the Jews.” He said “there is only one salvation for Germany, and that is Hitler.”

One evening in March 1989, while I was a reporter at the Ottawa Citizen, I learned that Irving – who called himself “a moderate fascist” – was scheduled to give a speech at Canada’s most storied hotel, the Château Laurier. I contacted I the hotel’s management, to ask if they were aware that Irving was a Holocaust denier and a promoter of Nazism – and would they cancel his event, as they occasionally cancelled other controversial events.

The hotel’s management said they wouldn’t. In fact, they gave every impression that they didn’t care.

So, on that night, “moderate fascist” David Irving came to Ottawa. There he stood, beaming, beneath the glittering chandeliers at the posh old local hotel. Talking about the need for “proof” of the death of six million Jews.

He was dressed in a tailored suit and protected by about a dozen neo-Nazi skinheads.  Irving stood before his audience and said there was no proof, and declared himself a “hardcore disbeliever” in the gas chambers used to exterminate Jews at Auschwitz.

On that night in March 1989, more than 300 people were in the Chateau Laurier’s ballroom. They weren’t worried about being spotted there. In fact, Irving’s event was sold out. Dozens were turned away.

Hia audience was mainly comprised of older white men and women from the Ottawa area. Many stood and applauded his hateful words about the gas chambers, and virtually every bigoted word he uttered along the way. They wanted proof, too.

The neo-Nazi skinheads slouched at the ballroom’s doors, and handed out copies of a self-published magazine. It called for “death to race mixers,” contained tributes to Adolf Hitler, and called for “race revolution.”

It was an astonishing scene: hundreds of  people paying to listen to a notorious Holocaust denier – and knowing in advance that the media would be there to document their presence. They don’t care. They came anyway.

And they weren’t nobodies.

There was an Ottawa school trustee, a former ranking diplomat, a Department of Justice lawyer, dozens of public servants, and plenty of school teachers. All of them were there, notwithstanding the risk of media exposure, to hear their St. George, the one whose best-selling books would slay the twin-headed dragon of International Jewry and Communism.

They gave him ovation after ovation. Irving beamed.

Seven months following that wildly successful visit to Ottawa, David Irving flew to Austria and spoke to some banned neo-Nazi groups. In Vienna and Leoben, Irving stated that “the gas chambers in Auschwitz never existed.”

Later on, when not sharing stages with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke or one-time American Nazi Party leader William Pierce, Irving would call survivors of the Auschwitz death camp “assholes,” and claim that “more women were killed in the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car in Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.”

Then, he made a big mistake. When renowned Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt accurateky characterized some of Irving’s views in her writing, he sued for libel. This writer – full disclosure – was a witness for Lipstadt. But in the end, she didn’t need me. She destroyed David Irving in court, and his reputation and career never recovered.

And now, he’s said to be dead. Now, the “moderate fascist” David Irving is gone, and Hell is a little bit more crowded as a result.

So, really, there’s only one thing left to be said about the reported death of this Holocaust denier.

We want proof.

Comments (12)