Mitch Wolfe: The Playful Contrarian

Contrary to conventional wisdom, John Tory is going after the downtown Toronto leftist vote, not the conservative Ford Nation vote.

Let me explain.

CFRB, 1010 Newstalk radio host and golf aficionado, John Tory, officially entered the race on Monday to become the next Mayor of Toronto.

To continue the golf analogy, for Tory’s first shot, although Tory appeared to line up to the right with the intention of hitting the ball down the centre, Tory hooked to the left and into the rough.

This is entirely predictable because John Tory has not being going to the right for years now.

Royson James of the Toronto Star believes that with the entry of Tory and Stintz, the so-called “right” will be splitting the vote between Ford, Stintz, Tory and to a lesser degree, Soknacki.

James writes:

“What we now have is a recipe for vote-splitting on the right that could lead to two outcomes polls show the majority of Torontonians don’t favour now: a Ford re-election with less than 30 per cent of the vote; or a Chow romp.

Having failed to sort out their preferred candidate before the race began, conservative voters and organizers will have to figure it out over the next six months.

Is it the damaged Ford, or a more palatable alternative? Only then will they be ready to tackle Chow in what promises to be a defining campaign for Toronto’s future.”

With due respect to reporter James, I take a different, more contrarian approach.

I predict that John Tory, if he does have any real support, will be cutting into the downtown Toronto leftist elitist vote, that is, into Chow Country. Not into Ford Nation which includes the neglected outer suburbs of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough.

The conservative right in Ontario started abandoning John Tory around the time he, against the advice of his Conservative advisers and his fellow Ontario Conservative caucus colleagues, persisted in advocating for public funding of faith-based schools during the disastrous 2007 Ontario provincial election.

Recall in that election, John Tory, due to his own arrogance and stubbornness, single-handedly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and personally handed an unpopular Dalton McGuinty another majority victory.

During that same election, the provincial riding of Don Valley West rejected John Tory for his Liberal opponent, Kathleen Wynne.

Subsequent to those two horrible defeats, Tory tried for about 18 months to convince his caucus colleagues that someone should give up his/her seat so that Tory could lead his party as an elected representative in the Ontario legislature.

Finally, after convincing one of his conservative colleagues to hand her seat to him,Tory then proceeded to lose in a by-election one of the most secure conservative seats in Ontario.

Though leader of the Ontario Conservative party, I firmly believe that Tory’s failure to obtain a seat for 18 months and his subsequent failure to win a provincial seat in a safe Conservative provincial riding in a 2009 by-election, were clear evidence that Ontario conservatives and their provincial representatives had given up on John Tory and in effect had abandoned him.

I also believe that Tory’s years as a talk show host have not helped him attract conservative supporters.

In a recent Forum Research poll, in a hypothetical matchup among Ford, Chow, Tory, Stintz and Soknacki, Chow would win with 35 per cent, Ford would nab 30 per cent, Tory 22 per cent, Stintz six, and Soknacki three. In a Chow-free scenario that included Tory: Ford wins with 33 per cent, while Tory languishes behind at 28, Stintz gets 17 and Soknacki eight.

Note in either scenario, Ford’s support remains strong and solid in the 30-35 per cent range. Tory has no traction in Ford Nation. In the absence of Chow, the other major contenders, Tory, Stintz and Soknacki must fight over and go after Chow’s support — not Ford’s unwavering and solid Ford Nation support.

In other words, Tory’s best hope for victory is that he must go after Chow’s downtown support immediately.

Let me throw another log on the fire.

My thesis is not only that the right has abandoned Tory, and will not vote for him in significant numbers, but that Tory has actively shifted left to go after mushy Liberal support.

In other words, John Tory, in the first days of his campaign, has revealed himself to be what many of us true fiscal conservatives have long suspected: John Tory is a mushy downtown Liberal elitist in Tory clothing.

Tory’s first priority is to kick-start the building of another downtown subway, the so-called, “Downtown Relief Subway,” notwithstanding that the downtown elites have already, count them, three subways to choose from: the Yonge subway, the Spadina-University line and the Bloor subway. And the neglected suburbs, save for the short Sheppard subway — to date — zilch, nada, zero.

John Tory’s campaign is being run by a McGuinty/Wynne Liberal honcho, Tom Allison, Premier Wynne’s adviser and campaign manager for her leadership victory. Tory’s key advisers include Ontario Liberal heavyweight provincial minister Brad Duguid and Scarborough Ontario Liberal Mitzi Hunter.

I guess his new political philosophy is “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”.

John Tory is already starting to sound all “touchy feely” like Premier Kathleen Wynne.

In a recent campaign ad, Tory said “people have to come to work at City Hall – councillors and everybody, and work together, not against each other.”

The problem with this “namby, pamby” approach to city politics and governance is that the left-wing councillors on Toronto city council are tough, single-minded and inflexible in their objectives. They oppose the privatization of garbage services in Toronto.

I believe that with a compliant mayor, the left would prefer de-privatizing garbage services. And as in Miller time, be in favour of dramatically increasing city services, union jobs for life and overgenerous pensions at city hall, all funded by Toronto taxpayers.

John Tory’s more conciliatory approach, that is, to cave in to the hard left-wing city council faction, may bring short term peace in city hall, but would lead to future garbage strikes and would be disastrous for Toronto’s fiscal future.

To date, I believe that true fiscally responsible voters will pass on John Tory.

In Saturday’s Globe and Mail, the normally serious columnist Marcus Gee devotes an entire article to mocking John Tory’s inability to pull the trigger on his political mayoral campaign.

For a year now, John Tory, former campaign manager for Kim Campbell’s disastrous 2003 federal campaign, former managing partner of Torys, (his family law firm), former Rogers Media exec (family friend), former failed Ontario PC provincial leader, former losing mayoral candidate against David Miller, has permitted his name to be considered as a possible replacement for Mayor Rob Ford.

Yet respected political pundits, who may have initially considered Tory a better choice for mayor than Rob Ford, are now having serious doubts about Tory’s suitability.

Edward Keenan of the Toronto Star has called Tory’s failure to launch both incompetent and disingenuous. Gee’s brilliant satirical article, “Run for Milk? John Tory is Absolutely Certainly Thinking About It” holds Tory to further ridicule.

Over a week ago, I covered much the same ground as Gee in my Huffington Post article,
“Potential Mayoral Candidate John Tory Stumbles Even Before Reaching the Political Gate”,

But Gee has skewered John Tory much more humorously.

In this funny article, Gee imagines a conversation between Tory and his wife, Barbara, in which Barbara simply asks John Tory to bring home some milk.

Gee then has Tory launch into an hilarious, totally irrelevant discussion about milk and the advantages of milk and that Tory is in favour of teeth:

“I’m all for milk. Good stuff, no doubt about it. Great for the teeth. And I’m all for teeth, too. Hard to do without teeth, though. ……”

In further response to Barbara’s increasingly desperate pleas to bring home milk, Tory replies:

“Well, let’s talk this through. I certainly have nothing against the idea. And if I don’t bring home the milk, who will? It’s just one of those basic obligations that all citizens have to shoulder, no matter what their station in life (and I’ve been very fortunate, I’m first to admit). Many a time my father would say to me, John, get on your bike and run up to the corner for a quart of skimmed milk for your mother. And I’d do it, no questions asked, I can tell you. On the other hand, if I make a habit of stopping for milk on the way home, what happens to the poor milkman?”

Please note, that Gee, who has been an observer of John Tory, for decades has captured the essential John Tory. Tory knows he is a nice guy. He loves to talk and hear himself talk. And Tory likes to look at and argue all sides of the issue, to the point of irrelevance. And as a substitute for decisive action.

Gee, talking through, Barbara, reminds John, that milkmen have stopped delivering milk over 40 years, and implicitly criticizes Tory for apparently being out of touch as yesterday’s man.

“Barb: John, they stopped delivering milk about 40 years ago.

John: Fair enough. I stand corrected. So it’s not a question of employment.

Barb: No, it’s a question of bringing home the damned milk.

John: Now, Barb, no need to raise your voice. One of the promises I made when I went into public life was to avoid the kind of shouting and name-calling that turns people off politics. There is no reason two people can’t disagree without being uncivil. As they say, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Barb: The milk. Can we get back to the milk?

John: What about it?

Barb (through gritted teeth): Can … you … get … some?

John: I understand completely what you’re saying. We need milk. I get that. I don’t disagree. I wouldn’t even be thinking of running for mayor if I weren’t ready to take a stand on important issues of public policy.

Barb: Run for mayor if you want. Run for Grand Vizier, for that matter. Just bring home the milk.

John: Absolutely, but …

Barb: (hangs up).”

Gee’s little absurdist play exposes the basic weaknesses of John Tory, as a political leader. In his effort to be a nice guy and everyone’s friend, Tory has failed to take a firm and unequivocal stand on any of the important issues, affecting the city of Toronto, ie subways vs. LRT, the dismantling of part of the Gardiner Expressway, and the proposed Porter Air expansion.

Gee also anticipates that Tory’s major platform is that he is not Rob Ford and that he can get along with the rest of Council. He promises to be civil and conciliatory.

Tory fails to realize that the times and the City need tough, strong and decisive leadership.

Not dancing around the City Hall flagpole, singing Kumbaya.

And the more Tory dithers and talks around and avoids any serious subject, according to Gee, the more people will hang up on Tory, in favour of other stronger and more forthright candidates.

I am not suggesting that John Tory’s campaign is D.O.A., but the patient is bleeding profusely and the prognosis is not good.

John Tory’s non-campaign to become the next mayor of Toronto is in trouble. This is why.

First, Edward Keenan, senior editor of The Grid and contributor to the Toronto Star, publicly questioned Tory’s suitability for the job. Apparently, Keenan was not very impressed with John Tory’s Hamlet-like dithering about whether he will jump into the political fray.

Keenan concludes his article, which is critical of both Tory and Chow, this way:

“The act of public indecision–be it real or contrived–being performed by Chow and Tory is distressing not because we might especially need or want either of them to be mayor. It’s distressing because it means that these two people, widely considered to be the best bets to lead us into the future, are either not ready for the job or are being dishonest about it. Incompetence and disingenuousness: Neither are good qualities to use as your introduction to the public you hope to lead. Moreover, both are qualities we already have in a mayor–qualities many are hoping to leave behind by electing someone like Tory or Chow.”

Second, I believe Tory’s chances are also suffering because potential Toronto voters are seriously questioning Tory’s political judgment and his less than successful political career — one that has been riddled with arrogance, poor political judgment and a sorry string of personal political losses, including, but not limited to the following:

John Tory was campaign manager for the federal Tories and then Tory leader Kim Campbell in the federal election of 1993, in which the federal Conservatives were reduced from 151 seats to 2 federal seats. Who can forget Tory’s disastrous decision to air a negative campaign against Liberal leader, Jean Chretien, which seemed to stress Chretien’s facial deformity.

Some of us die-hard Conservatives, forget nothing and forgive nothing.

In 2003, Tory ran and lost to David Miller for Toronto Mayor.

In the 2007 Ontario provincial election, as provincial leader of the favoured Ontario Conservatives, Tory snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory against the unpopular Liberal Dalton McGuinty by stubbornly promoting a disastrously unpopular policy of public funding of faith-based schools.

The failure of this campaign was directly attributed by some Conservative insiders to John Tory’s failure to delegate and his micromanaging of that disastrous political campaign.

In this same election, Tory had left a safe Conservative seat in Dufferin/Peel/Wellington/Grey to run in the Don Valley West riding. He lost to Liberal MPP Kathleen Wynne. No Conservative MPP would step aside to provide him a provincial seat as leader of his party for months, until MPP Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock) finally agreed to be the sacrificial lamb.

Tory then proceeded to lose the 2009 by-election, in one of the safest Tory seats in Ontario, which had been solidly Conservative since the mid 1990s.

Personally, I see no evidence that Tory has learned from his previous political mistakes.

In a recent Forum Research poll, in a hypothetical matchup among Ford, Chow, Tory, Stintz and Soknacki, Chow would win with 35 per cent, Ford would nab 30 per cent, Tory 22 per cent, Stintz six, and Soknacki three. In a Chow-free scenario that included Tory: Ford wins with 33 per cent, while Tory languishes behind at 28, Stintz gets 17 and Soknacki eight.

My associates and I have been talking to and calling Ford Nation supporters in the outer suburbs of Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough. Our conclusion is also that Ford Nation’s support for Ford is unwavering and is not moving to John Tory, as confirmed by the above Forum Research poll.

John Tory’s numbers have probably not been helped by his recent embarrassing public musings about why women are earning less income than men. First, Torysimplistically blamed women for not being aggressive as men in negotiating their salaries. Then Tory backtracked and put his other foot in his mouth, by stating on his
Newstalk 1010 radio show that his experiences “may be out of date” and that women are “every bit as formidable and active as the men.”

He then suggested young women learn how to play golf.

“Learn how to play golf, learn how to play these things, because you will find it’s immensely advantageous to your career,” he said. “If you play a good game of golf as a woman, I think it’s hugely helpful.”

I do agree with Tory. He is sadly out of date. “Yesterday’s man.”

John Tory comes across as confused, out of touch and well beyond prime time.

A product of privilege and family connections, Tory had a gig at Rogers Media, a company owned by Ted Rogers, family friend, former lawyer at the family firm, Torys, and major client of that same family law firm. Prior to Rogers Media, John Toryworked at Torys, a Toronto law firm founded by his grandfather and developed and run by his father and uncle.

I sincerely hope that John Tory does run against Mayor Rob Ford.

I believe that Ford Nation, which views Tory as a very well-connected, privileged upper-crust Rosedale/Lawrence Park elitist, is dying to loudly and clearly indicate on election day that John Tory does not speak for or relate to the concerns of its members, or those of multicultural Toronto, for that matter.

How does the state of Israel have anything to do with Toronto city politics?

Since 2010 Toronto City Council has been divided over whether to permit an organization known as Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (“QuAIA”) to participate in the annual Gay Pride Parade.

A group of conservative and moderate councillors led by Mayor Rob Ford and Karen Stintz, both declared mayoral candidates, have come out very strongly against the participation of this organization because this group of councillors believes that designating Israel as an apartheid state and promoting the Ban, Divest, Sanction (BDS) movement are attempts to delegitimize the state of Israel and are thus anti-Semitic.

Accordingly, Ford/Stintz et al have tried to push City Council to withhold City funds from the Gay Pride Parade unless its organizers prevent QuAIA’s participation.

Conversely a group of leftist city councillors has supported QuAIA on the basis that this is a freedom of speech issue. And QuAIA should have the right to protest Israeli policies in the Gay Pride Parade.

As will be discussed in this article, this issue is very relevant to Olivia Chow’s candidacy because some of the major proponents of the “Israel as apartheid state” and the BDS movement are key supporters of Olivia Chow and with whom she is identified.

This will become an election issue, because in a recent speech in Israel, Harper labeled supporters and advocates of the anti-Israel BDS movement and the pernicious concept of “Israel as apartheid state” as anti-Semites.

As Harper so eloquently stated in his “Fire and Water” Israeli speech:

“But, in much of the western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language for use in polite society.

People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for their own failings or the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state for the problems of the Middle East.

As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel. On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students.

Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state…..
It is nothing short of sickening.”

Harper was not breaking new ground in his denunciation of the new anti-semitism.

Harper was publicly espousing the European Union’s working definition of anti-Semitism, specifically, the EU’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) (superseded in 2007 by the Fundamental Rights Agency).

In 2005, the EUMC definition of anti-Semitism included the following examples:

Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor; Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

In addition, Liberal MP and former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, on behalf of the Federal Liberal party, has further expanded on the new anti-Semitism which includes:

Political antisemitism: that is, denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination; de-legitimization of Israel as a state (flowing from Israel apartheid rationale); attributions to Israel of all the world’s evils; and economic antisemitism, that is BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.

Similarly, on March 1, 2010, in an open letter, Michael Ignatieff, the then leader of the Federal Liberal Party, also echoed the above sentiments that describing Israel as an “apartheid state” and supporting the BDS movement against it, amount to anti-semitism.

Ignatieff persuasively argued:

“On university campuses across the country this week, Israeli Apartheid Week will once again attempt to demonize and undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state. It is part of a global campaign of calls for divestment, boycotts and proclamations, and it should be condemned unequivocally and absolutely.
Apartheid is defined, in international law, as a crime against humanity. Israeli Apartheid Week is a deliberate attempt to portray the Jewish state as criminal……
Let us be clear: criticism of Israeli government policy is legitimate. Wholesale condemnation of the State of Israel and the Jewish people is not legitimate. Not now, not ever.”

In addition, in 2010 the Ontario legislature with the support of all three parties unanimously condemned “Israel Apartheid Week” in Ontario as “odious, hateful and inappropriate,” in the case of Israel.

In sum, we have at least two major federal parties in Ottawa and three Ontario provincial parties which consider support for “Israel apartheid and the BDS movement” at least odious and hateful and in some cases, anti-semitic.

This relates to Ms. Chow’s candidacy for mayor because some of Ms. Chow’s most ardent supporters, for example, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), whom Ms. Chow has publicly supported, are front and centre in the Canadian anti-Israeli “Israel Apartheid” organization and the infamous Canadian anti-Israeli BDSmovement.

In 2008 CUPW passed a resolution that the union will work “with Palestinian solidarity and human rights organizations to develop an educational campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of Canada for these practices.”

The CUPW resolution also called on Israel to recognize the Palestinian people’s “right to return to their homes as stipulated in UN Resolution 194″ — a demand by Palestinian negotiators that would virtually erase the Jewish state.”

Other groups that support “Israel as apartheid state'” and the anti-Israeli BDS movement, and are supporters of Olivia Chow, include the Canadian Union of Public Employees and rabble.ca, an influential Canadian left-wing online journal.

Rabble.ca is published by Kim Elliott, the spouse of former NDP Deputy Leader LibbyDavies who in June 2010 expressed support for the boycott, sanctions and divestment campaign against Israel. Ms. Davies is a NDP colleague of Ms. Chow.

It is noteworthy that in his 2009 autobiography, former Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove wrote that he was “all for” union leaders taking up activist causes, but criticized union leaders who had taken the Israel file too far.

“Now and then, someone in the labour movement makes a wrong turn or fires a salvo at the wrong target, which casts a pall over the entire movement,” he wrote. “One thing you can’t do as head of a union is to allow the most vocal, and usually most radical, minority to dominate your thinking on issues or the decision-making process.”

To date, Olivia Chow, in whose riding the University of Toronto has celebrated Israel Apartheid Week, has yet to publicly denounce either “Israel Apartheid” or the “BDS” movement.

I am not suggesting that Ms. Chow is anti-Semitic or that she espouses anti-Semitic views or that she even agrees with the anti-Semitic views of the groups which support her and whom she supports.

But Ms. Chow has publicly lectured Mayor Ford to face up to the truth and take responsibility for his actions. Ms. Chow should practice what she preaches.

It is now time for Ms. Chow to take responsibility for her silence and to publicly denounce unequivocally the anti-Semitic positions of some of her supporters, as former CAW president Hargrove has done.

Or Ms. Chow runs the risk of being tarred with the same odious brush.

Prime Minster Stephen Harper in an historic speech, before the Israeli Knesset concluded with these stirring words:

“In the democratic family of nations, Israel represents the values which our Government takes as articles of faith, and principles to drive our national life.

And therefore, through fire and water, Canada will stand with you.”

I predict that this amazing speech will be forever known as Harper’s “Fire and Water” speech.

I also predict that this speech will be considered Harper’s greatest and most memorable speech of his political career and one of the most memorable speeches given by any Canadian prime minister domestically and internationally.

Anywhere. Any time.

This is Harper at his best — thoughtful, sensitive, principled, hard-nosed, tough, supremely confident and fiercely independent of morally relativistic and conventional international opinion. Harper is finally, after all these years, genuinely and sincerely speaking from his heart and soul. From the very marrow of his being.

For those, who have been following Harper for years, admiring him for his discipline and control. But all the time wondering, what drives this very controlling and controlled man. Well, for a brief but very memorable historic moment, we experienced the real Harper unplugged.

And we Canadians, we proud patriots, we believers in the ideals of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law — Harper friggin’ nailed his speech. And with that speech, nailed his place in Canadian history.

Harper delivered. Oh man, did he deliver the goods. Big time!

Contrast Harper with the seemingly more charismatic President Obama.
Superficially, Obama’s rhetoric soars and inspires.

Recall Obama’s First Inaugural speech in which he proclaimed, ” hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.”

That was a brilliant and inspiring speech. Obama was to be the great unifier. But Obama’s soaring rhetoric has never matched his actual deeds as President. Under Obama, the United States is as divided and polarized as ever.

Obama has been a disappointment, all hat and no cattle, all sizzle but no steak.

On the other hand, until his recent Israeli speech, Harper was all substance on the Israeli file, and little inspiration.

As reported by CBC, since Harper has been Prime Minister, his support of Israel has been strong, consistent and unwavering.

In 2006, during the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, when many nations criticized Israel for using disproportionate force, Harper defended the Israeli response as “measured.”

Under Harper, Canada became the first country to review aid to the Palestinians following the parliamentary elections in 2006 that saw Hamas come to power. It also became the first country to boycott the UN anti-racism conferences of 2009 and 2011, accusing those conferences of being forums to criticize Israel.

Last year, Harper opposed all the other G8 members in France regarding the G8’s position on proposed Palestinian/Israeli peace talks and persuaded the G8 to soften its position re Israel and pre-1967 borders.

Whenever the UN has tried to propose blatantly anti-Israeli resolutions, Canada under Harper has vigorously opposed such resolutions, in contrast to previous Canadian governments which weakly abstained.

Unlike Obama, Harper’s stirring rhetoric in the Knesset has been matched by hardcore action and substantive support for the continued existence of Israel, notwithstanding that Harper has faced harsh criticism domestically and tremendous opposition internationally.

Here are a few of my favorite highlights from Harper’s speech.

“The understanding that it is right to support Israel because, after generations of persecution, the Jewish people deserve their own homeland and deserve to live safely and peacefully in that homeland.

Now let me repeat that: Canada supports Israel because it is right to do so.

This is a very Canadian trait, to do something for no reason other than it is right, even when no immediate reward for, or threat to, ourselves is evident….

But, I would argue, support today for the Jewish State of Israel is more than a moral imperative. It is also of strategic importance, also a matter of our own long-term interests….

… I said a moment ago that the special friendship between Canada and Israel is rooted in shared values.

….. Israel is the only country in the Middle East which has long anchored itself in the ideals of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. These are not mere notions. They are the things that, over time and against all odds, have proven to be the only ground in which human rights, political stability, and economic prosperity, may flourish.

Likewise, when they are threatened anywhere, they are threatened everywhere.. …..

Those forces which have threatened the State of Israel every single day of its existence, and which, today, as 9-11 graphically showed us, threaten us all…..

And so, either we stand up for our values and our interests, here, in Israel, stand up for the existence of a free, democratic and distinctively Jewish state, or the retreat of our values and our interests in the world will begin.”

According to Harper, Israel is in the front lines against the ongoing war against democracy, freedom and the rule of law. Harper does not believe that this is only Israel’s fight. It is Canada’s interests to stand with Israel.

Because when Israel is under attack, the values and interests of Canada are or will be under attack as well.

This is a brave, courageous speech, by a very courageous and strong-minded Canadian leader.

As Conservative leader and prime minister, Harper has been very effective. His achievements, impressive. But history will cite Harper’s principled defense of the state of Israel, both in deeds and now in inspirational words as to why Harper will be remembered as one of Canada’s most impressive and independently-minded prime ministers.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in his courageous “Fire and Water” speech in the Israeli Knesset, also spoke forcefully about the historic hate crime that once again is rearing its ugly head.

Harper argued persuasively that in recent years, the world is witnessing ” the mutation of the old disease of anti-Semitism and the emergence of a new strain.”

According to Harper, the old form of anti-Semitism, contained the explicit hatred of Jews and the blaming of Jews and Judaism for the ills of the world or more particularly, the domestic problems of certain nations.

In the case of Germany, in the 1930s, Hitler’s blaming the Jews for Germany’s multiple problems, was used as the rationale for developing and implementing theHolocaust, a state-sponsored and systematic elimination of a whole people and its unique culture.

Harper further argued:

“But, in much of the western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language for use in polite society.

People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for their own failings or the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state for the problems of the Middle East.

As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel. On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students.

Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state. Think about that.

Think about the twisted logic and outright malice behind that: a state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history.

That is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism.

It is nothing short of sickening.”

But, this is the face of the new anti-Semitism. It targets the Jewish people by targeting Israel and attempts to make the old bigotry acceptable for a new generation.

Of course, criticism of Israeli government policy is not in and of itself necessarily anti-Semitic.
But what else can we call criticism that selectively condemns only the Jewish state and effectively denies its right to defend itself, while systematically ignoring – or excusing – the violence and oppression all around it?

What else can we call it when Israel is routinely targeted at the United Nations?

And when Israel remains the only country to be the subject of a permanent agenda item at the regular sessions of its Human Rights Council?”

This is very powerful stuff.

I totally agree with Harper when he stated that criticism of Israeli policy “is not in of itself necessarily anti-Semitic.”

Take for example the Israeli policy towards its minority, the Israeli Palestinians (representing about 20 per cent of the entire population).

Since in general, the Israeli Palestinians, lag behind the Jewish majority in terms of housing, education and income, the Jewish majority’s policies pertaining to this group, may be in part called into question. That is fair game, provided the critics of Israeli policies towards its Palestinian minority, are sincerely interested in the civil and human rights of Palestinians.

Accordingly, such critics, if they were acting in good faith, would also be openly critical of Hamas’ discriminatory mistreatment of Palestinians in Gaza, especially Palestinian women.

But to turn a blind eye to the many civil rights abuses inflicted upon the Palestinians by Hamas, (in terms of rule by violence, lack of democracy and lack of rule of law) is to seriously call into question the bona fides, as Harper has done, of the critics of Israeli policies pertaining to Palestinians.

By just targeting Israel for criticism, indicates that the true intentions of these critics, are not to protect the civil rights of Palestinians, but to use the plight of the Palestinians to create hatred against Israel and its Jewish people.

With the ultimate goal of delegitimizing Israel and deeming Jewish people as international pariah.

Harper has publicly identified this form of criticism as the new anti-Semitism.

Harper is also bang on when he accuses those who criticize Israel as an “apartheid” state, as also engaging in the new anti-Semitism.

Because to suggest that Israel is guilty of engaging in apartheid, akin to the racist and discriminatory treatment of black residents of South Africa, is a modern day form of blood libel. (for centuries anti-Semites alleged that Jews kidnapped Christian children, killed them and used their blood for Jewish rituals)

In apartheid South Africa, as discussed in a recent Huffington Post article ” a minority of whites oppressed a majority of blacks and discrimination was enshrined in law.

There was separation by colour: white, coloured, Indian, black, South Africans were forced to live in areas based on those designations. There were government boards given the legal right to designate “colour… There were segregated sports arenas, public restrooms, schools, stores, restaurants, and public transportation.” Similar to the Jim Crow laws of the U.S. in the early 20th century.

In contrast in Israel, equality of all Israeli residents is enshrined in The Israeli Declaration of Independence, which proclaims, Israel will “ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants regardless of religion, race, or sex.”

Unlike in formerly apartheid South Africa, in Israel there is no segregation by races or color as to the restaurants, hospitals, public restrooms, public beaches. Israeli Palestinians are politically represented in a democratically elected Israeli Parliament.

Their civil rights and human rights are also protected by the rule of law and an independent judiciary and legal bar.

I commend Harper for calling a spade a spade.

That is, solely targeting Israel for criticism, without holding Israel’s opponents to the same standards, is simply the new anti-Semitism — a sickening disease that should be continuously and publicly exposed and eradicated.