January 7, 2014, Toronto — B’nai Brith Canada is applauding the upholding of an earlier court decision to stop funding the Canadian Arab Federation over concerns it appeared to support terrorist organizations and promote antisemitism.

"As Canada’s Jewish human rights organization charged with tracking Antisemitism in Canada, B'nai Brith was among the first to express concerns as to the activities of the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF)," said Frank Dimant, CEO, B'nai Brith Canada. "The court upheld the original logical ruling and we are confident that the signal is clear: Support for hate and terrorism will not be tolerated by organizations that receive government funding.

“The CAFs special brand of antisemitic and pro-terror propaganda has only served to hinder the multi-pronged fight to safeguard the Canadian public from the ever-growing problem of radicalization and extremism, both at home and abroad."

 Fascinating, Rhonda!

We have all learned something from your personal investigation which enables us to know more about our own history.
 
- Chana Givon

Hi,

My name is Karen Coleman. I run OnlinePoliticalSciencedegree.org a new site dedicated to Political Science education and resources. You can visit my site at http://onlinepoliticalsciencedegree.org/

I am hoping to spread the word about my site and let all those interested have full access. Do you mind taking a look at the page and if allowable posting a link on your resources page of http://www.winnipegjewishreview.com/links.cfm ?

Being an active promoter of Political Science is my passion. Hopefully my site can help others within the field, as well as those looking to break into Political Science share that passion and learn more about it.

Thank you very much and please let me know if there is anything I can do to have my page be an addition on yours.

Karen Coleman
PO Box 1531
Houston, TX 77219

Hi:

I invite you to visit my new website www.israelimage.net. This website has a new feature where you can download photos.

I will be adding more photos to reach the first 50,000.

Please share this website with friends and other people.

Thank you,

Jack Hazut

Photos from Israel and the world

http://www.israelimage.net/

 www.facebook.com/jack.hazut

Hi Rhonda,

Rabbi Pinsker won the Winnipeg Free Press Dec 2013 writing contest again. It was in the WFP yesterday. You may want to include it in the WJR again. May lift his spirits from the all the events that he went through here.

Thank-you.

Happy other New Year!

Sincerely,

Rosamaria Critelli

Thank you for this excellent article ... while I'm gentile, I am and always will be an admirer & ally of Jews everywhere -- and particularly those in Israel.

There would not be an America without the moral & philosophical foundation put down by Judaism & the Judeo-Christian ethic.

- Jim Reagan
 

Hi Rhonda:

Toronto, ON – On Sunday, the American Studies Association (ASA) adopted a boycott against Israeli academic institutions.

In response, David Koschitzky, Chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), issued the following statement: 

“We condemn the ASA’s academic boycott of Israel, which represents little more than the minority view within a small organization. Despite its symbolic effect, this boycott will have virtually no practical impact on Israel. It will neither promote peace nor improve the quality of life of Palestinians. No matter how the ASA dresses it up, such boycotts are unequivocally anti-Israel rather than pro-Palestinian.

“It is regrettable that the ASA has so conclusively diminished its own credibility with this misguided tactic. Their single-minded effort to blacklist Israeli academic institutions on the basis of nationality is discriminatory and completely opposed to the principles of academic freedom.

“We are encouraged that many academics have spoken out against the boycott, including Canadian Academics for Peace in the Middle East (CAP) – which has been actively mobilizing opposition to boycott campaigns. It is more important than ever that Canadian scholars speak up in defense of academic freedom and oppose efforts to isolate the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.”

Letter to the Editor

I stand corrected, having said in my recent Levy Report article that two-thirds of the British Mandate was lopped off to create a new country called Trans-Jordan, corrected not only by the Don James article of Nov. 6th in the WJR, but also by my friend in Jerusalem who keeps me on my toes.  The actual amount taken away was 77%, over three-quarters.  My figure was taken from an entry in Middle East Diary: 1917-1956, a daily record kept by Col. Richard Meinertzhagen of the British Colonial Office.  In 1917 Col Meinertzhagen was put in charge of General Allenby's Intelligence Station in Cairo.  After the capture of Jerusalem from the Ottoman Empire in January 1918 he was transferred to the War Office in Rafa.  In January, 1919, he became part of the British Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference.

His daily entries make fascinating reading: 22^nd August 1922 from London (p.119): "Today is a great day for the Zionists.  The Palestine Mandate was passed by the League of Nations sitting in St. James’ Palace.  Weizmann and his wife asked Annie and me to celebrate the event by dining with them at the Carlton…";   19^th November 1921 (p.112)  "I have drafted a Cabinet Paper 3328 under which we remove the War Office from Palestine....  The effect will be beneficial as it will remove the anti-Zionist influence.…...from Palestine politics. The whole of the staff......from Lord Allenby and General Cosgrove downwards, have consistently worked against Zionism..."

Here's the entry I used for the ‘two thirds’: 21^st June 1921 (p,99) "I exploded on hearing that Churchill had severed Transjordan (sic) from Palestine in an interview in Jerusalem between him and Abdullah on March 27th this year.  Apparently Abdullah was moving through Transjordan (sic) on his way to help Feisal's adherents in Damascus and (to) make trouble for the French who turned Feisal out last year.  Abdullah had to be placated and met Churchill in Jerusalem; Abdullah was placated at the expense of the Jewish National Home which embraces the whole of Biblical (sic) Palestine.  (T.E.) Lawrence was of course with Churchill and influenced him.  So Abdullah was made Emir of Transjordan (sic), was given a British advisor and a subsidy.  Of course the man accepted at once.  This reduces the Jewish National Home to one-third of Biblical (sic) Palestine.”  Later in the same entry Meinhertzhagen writes: “…..I went foaming at the mouth with anger and indignation.  Churchill heard me out; I told him it was grossly unfair to the Jews, that it was yet another promise broken and that it was a most dishonest act….”
 

Just setting the record straight.

Simone I. Cohen

Toronto, ON – On learning of the passing of Nelson Mandela, David Koschitzky, Chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), issued the following statement:

                “Nelson Mandela was the father of modern South Africa. After 27 years of imprisonment on Robbin Island, he emerged to lead his country into a new era and represented a way forward based not on revenge but on reconciliation, which has become the definitive model for national tikkun olam the world over. We offer our condolences to all those who loved the man and honoured the values he came to represent. May his memory be for a blessing.”
 

 Very interesting and disturbing! Write them and update re their answer.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs deplores the Quebec Government's intransigence

Montreal, November 7, 2013 - Statement by Eric Maldoff and Luciano G. Del Negro, respectively Chair and Vice-President of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs-Québec (CIJA-Québec):

CIJA-Québec expressed its dismay and frustration with the intransigence of the Government with respect to today's tabling of Bill 60 on secularism, which arbitrarily restricts fundamental rights and freedoms.
 
We are disappointed that rather than heeding the advice of a wide cross-section of Quebecers including the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, health institutions and teachers’ unions, the Government has hardened its position by introducing even more stringent measures. CIJA is particularly opposed to section 38 of the Bill, which opens up the possibility for the exclusion of a citizen to sit as a member of the Quebec National Assembly due to his religious identity, which is a fundamental democratic right held by all citizens. By imposing unreasonable limitations on fundamental rights, the Government is sending the message to the Quebec minorities that our rights are dependent on the majority, rather than being protected and guaranteed as they should be under the rule of law.
 
Instead of promoting social cohesion, the bill, which is based on an alleged threat to state neutrality and the equality between men and women, is marginalizing individuals who are well integrated and who contribute significantly to the common good of Quebec society. It is important to underscore that the Jewish community of Quebec has played a significant role in the development of public life since the "Act to Grant Equal Rights and Privileges to Persons of the Jewish Religion" was enacted in 1832.
 
As we stated before the Bouchard-Taylor Committee and more recently in our comments on the draft bill, outward expressions of faith by the Jewish community of Quebec does not threaten the social cohesion of Quebec society, nor the religious neutrality of the state since the time of the Quiet Revolution.
 
We regret that the Government is moving forward with this legislation and we regret that the Government is using this issue as a political maneuver to the detriment of the fundamental rights and freedoms of Quebecers, and we intend to make our position clear during the National Assembly hearings and if necessary in the courts. In fact, we are calling upon all of Quebec society to join our campaign in opposition to this draft legislation.

Hi Rhonda.

I continue to read the WJR with interest and appreciation.  It is full of thoughtful and newsy articles not easy to find otherwise, and your travelogues are always well-written and readable.  I just read your piece on the garden tomb, and I should say that the photos are gorgeous and your tale of washroom-seeking strikes home to anyone who likes to travel casually.

That said, I think you would have done well to discuss the details of the interesting background you weave into your story with someone a bit more familiar with the Gospel stories; there are a number of glitches that I'm sure you would have changed had you known different.

I'll list a few.

First, while Mark is generally accepted as the first of the three synoptic gospels few scholars believe that it was the source used by Matthew and Luke (John doesn't appear to share a common source with the synoptics).  It is believed that all three of these used another common source -- now lost -- as one resource, supplementing with their own materials, styles and insights.

Second, it is not believed that the crucifixion site and the burial site have any simple geographic relationship.  Jesus is said to have been crucified at a site known in the day as Golgotha, outside the city gates.  The body was later taken down, prepared for burial and taken, by Joseph and another Sanhedrin member named Nicodemus, to a tomb (elsewhere) in a garden area owned by Joseph of Arimathea.  So if you were in a garden area believed by some to be connected to the burial of Jesus, there is no firm tradition identifying this with the site of the crucifixion, which did not traditionally take place in a garden.

The most one can draw on here is that the tomb of Joseph was said to be "nearby", but this is a pretty elastic term.  It likely meant on the same side, or perhaps quarter, of the city. Is that garden inside the first-century gates?  If so then the gospels would explicitly rule out identification of the two sites since Golgotha is placed outside the city gates.

Third, you mention the classical blood libel from the Pilate "trial" scene, and I'd like to devote a bit of space to this, as it's an important issue.

This was, indeed, at one time taught in some places to engender ill-will and violence against the Jews -- a sad episode in Church history.  However, it is hard to grasp nowadays how a Christian audience could have taken this teaching at face value.  One must remember, however, that a few centuries ago Christians generally did not have the scriptures in their hands and could not cross-check such teachings against the gospel stories.  Nowadays it is hard to find anyone who regards this view seriously, because anyone can read the Gospels for themselves and notice how incongruous the blood libel is with the Gospel narratives.

I daresay you could find a few ignorami these days who would still accept it, but any substantial probing would reveal that such folk are essentially biblically illiterate.  I have never heard this teaching mouthed (favourably) in any church I've been in -- and I have been an attender all my life in several different denominations, and an active participant in adult Sunday Schools all my adult life.  Occasionally the teaching is mentioned -- say, in a class on medieval christianity or the history of antisemitism -- and always with appropriate derision.

Here are some of the reasons that particular blood libel is not credible as a teaching, and had the audiences of the day actually been biblically literate and free-thinking, it never would have gotten a foothold:

1.  Everyone in the story -- well except the few Romans whose roles in the story are largely irrelevant to the libel -- is a Jew.  Jesus was a Jew.  His supporters and disciples were Jews.  The Sanhedrin and Chief priests were Jews.  The crowds accusing Jesus were Jews.  The Gospel writers Mark, Matthew and John (but perhaps not Luke) were Jews. All the early believers were Jews.  All the heros of the story (excepting a small number of bit part players) are Jews.  This is so obvious it is remarkable that people overlook its importance in understanding what the story is conveying.  Yes the "bad guys" in the story were largely Jews.  But then so were the "good guys".

2.  The phrase "the Jews" is used repeatedly in the gospels, most often referring to those opposing Jesus, in episodes in which everyone present is a Jew.  So ... one has to ask ... what does the phrase mean?  It's clear to anyone who reads the entire gospel (instead of pulling out a single verse at a time and trying to extract meaning word-by-word):  The phrase was used to reference the Jewish leadership -- very similar to what I hear some Jewish commentators do today, when they use the phrase "the official Jews" -- whose intention is apparently to delineate some a group, within the Jewish community, as arrogating the mantle of spokesmen for Jewish society or the religion of Judaism.  In the gospels, this phrase usually delineated those challenging Jesus "in the name of" Judaism -- which would have meant the Scribes, The Pharisees, at times the Sadducees,  Sanhedrin members, teachers of the law, chief priests and so on.

3.  But even that use of the phrase is only a gloss -- a collective noun that only loosely references a large, amorphous group that was by no means monolithic, and who were not uniformly taken as "bad guys".  For example, in one instance in the Gospel of John you find Jesus siding with the Pharisees over the Sadducees in a dispute over the resurrection of the dead.  In another place he mixes criticism of Jewish leaders with mitigating praise in a sermon he's giving.

Further, we find numerous "good guys" among those same leaders in the Gospel accounts.  The two most obvious are Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus -- both members of the Sanhedrin.They are credited with ensuring a proper Jewish burial for Jesus, and act of honour and homage.  Not bad for "official Jews" in the narrative.  

Even in the judgements and plots against Jesus and his disciples one finds dissenting voices. 

At one point in the book of Acts even Gamaliel, the famous first-century Rabbi and contributor to the Mishna and reputed to be a leader in the Sanhedrin, is cited as speaking up in defence of Peter and his companions when they had been arrested for making a bit of mischief and a death sentence for blasphemy was under consideration. 

Thus Gamaliel probably saved the lives of the most prominent Christians of that day -- something for which Christians through the ages ought to be grateful to that particular "official Jew".  At another point, Paul the Apostle is facing a trial before the Jewish leadership and creates a bit of a fuss in that proceedings by appealing to fellow Pharisees -- again, on the question of the resurrection (a bit of a clever debating trick, that derailed the proceedings and only caused more trouble later, but it shows that there was some sympathy and kinship between the early christians and even many of the leaders of the Jews).

4.  "The crowd" at this particular proceeding was clearly not representative of the Jewish community.  It would be a mistake to conflate it with "the Jews", even in any casual normal sense.  Jesus was arrested at night and the trial scene of which we read would have taken place early in the day, and with VERY short notice.  Those in attendance would have been anyone involved in the earlier trial of Jesus before the chief priests.  But that took place early in the morning, probably before the sun rose. It is believed that not even the whole leadership would have been there -- probably only a bare quorum, and most likely hand-picked for the task at hand.

Here I should emphasize that it doesn't matter whether you believe any of this is an accurate history.  Even if one believes it's complete fiction, the point is that one can only build doctrine upon the sacred traditions derived from the Gospels.  So it matters what is implied by the narrative, not whether the narrative itself corresponds to history.  It is the only reliable foundation for Christian teaching.  The only possible conclusion from the Gospel narratives is that there was a largely hand-picked crowd in front of Pilate, who had been prepped like a modern day crowd of "professional protesters" who already know their script.

The point of this is that "the crowd" in that story has no identification with "the jews".  It is a prepared crowd in an arranged proceedings.  Most of the actual Jews of Jerusalem that day were probably still asleep and had no part in the matter.

So it would seem that the blood libel does not derive from the Gospel stories.  What is true, however, is that it was generated by people who misused those stories speaking to an audience who clearly hadn't enough knowledge of them to understand the salient aspects of the gospel narratives that put the lie to the libel.

I'd be interested in whether you know of any Christians (other than low-information sorts who may identify as such) who still hold to this libel.  I'd be happy to challenge them on this.  But as far as I know the issue was put to rest ages ago among Christians who actually, you know, read the bible.

Peace,  Rob

Dr. Robert Craigen

Mathematics, University of Manitoba

Winnipeg, MB Canada

 204-474-7489  (Dept Fax  204-474-7611 )

[email protected]

Editor's response:  Unfortunately, the deocide charge that Jews  killed Jesus is still  believed by many. A recent poll just showed that 26% of Americans (not an insignificant number!) beleive Jews killed Jesus.

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Poll-26-percent-of-Americans-believe-Jews-killed-Jesus-330341

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) is pleased to announce the launch of its Directory of Experts on the Middle East & Jewish Affairs for use by journalists, academics, and policy centres.

Based on the former Canada-Israel Committee's highly acclaimed Directory of Middle East Experts in Israel, CIJA's new and expanded directory provides an up-to-date guide to a wide range of experts on the Middle East and Israel, based in both Israel and North America. It also provides a list of key contacts in Canada on a variety of domestic Jewish issues.

Arranged by subject in alphabetical order – and identified with user-friendly tags – the Directory is a handy compendium of biographical information and coordinates for academic, media and political experts. It gives quick access to qualified individuals who can provide substantive guidance to the vital issues concerning the Middle East and the Jewish world.

CIJA's new Experts Directory is available online to journalists and other qualified users.

To gain access please go to http://experts.cija.ca/ and select “register” to sign up for an account.

 We trust you'll find this Directory useful and we welcome any suggestions for future editions. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Michaels, Director, Research and Senior Media Relations at [email protected].

Sincerely,

 David Koschitzky                                                         Shimon Fogel
Chair                                                                           Chief Executive Officer

Since the [S]election of Hassan Rouhani in Iran, the Islamic Regime has gone on a rampage of mass executions in order to create an atmosphere of fear and terror among Iranians, in an attempt to prevent any opposition against the Regime. The past week alone saw the executions of more than 30 people including a well known Kurdish political prisoner Shirkuh Moarefi who was executed this morning!

Sayeh Hassan an Iranian Canadian lawyer, blogger and pro-democracy activist stated “With the [S]election of Hassan Rouhani not only has the human rights conditions in Iran have not improved but they have become considerably worse. Since Rouhani’s raise to power in June of 2013 more than 300 people have been executed in Iran. Many of the individuals who have been executed are political prisoners of Balouchi and Kurdish ethnicity including well known activists Habibullah Golparipour and Shirkuh Moarefi. There are many more political prisoners who face the imminent risk of execution.”

Ms. Hassan further stated: “It is unfortunate that the Harper Government which has been one of leaders within the International Community in condemning Iran’s Human Rights violations has decided to remain silent in the face of recent mass executions in Iran. It appears that as long as there may be a chance of small concessions by the Islamic Regime regarding the nuclear issue that the International Community including the Harper Government is willing to turn a blind eye on the massive human rights violations committed by the Islamic Regime including the mass executions.”

Ms. Hassan lastly stated: “In the face of total silence of the Canadian Government and majority of the main stream media on the issue of mass executions in Iran, Iranian Canadian activist have organized a rally for Wednesday November 6th 2013 on Queens Park from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. in order to raise awareness about the mass executions and to urge the Canadian Government and media to break their silence with respect to this issue. We invite all groups and organizations who condemn the recent executions in Iran to join us on Queens Park and say No to Executions and No to Islamic Regime in Iran!