"Israel and the World after October 7: A Nation That Still Dwells Alone?"

Since the launch of the offensive against Hamas, the relationship between Israel and the Jewish people with the international community has undergone significant strain. University and college campuses have witnessed a worrisome upsurge in anti-Semitism, with hate crimes, vandalism and intimidation of Jewish individuals as they are automatically associated with the state of Israel.

Is Israel “a nation that still dwells alone”? Is this fight only theirs, or is the situation emblematic of something greater? Speakers discussed the complex yet frequently oversimplified situation in the final panel in the series. 

Natan Aridan of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev is well known for his recent book Advocating for Israel: Diplomats and Lobbyists from Truman to Nixon (2017). He argued that what is unique about Israel, is that in times of strife, it is not reinforcements which are sought out, but the acknowledgement of the right “to be able to protect ourselves.’”

He drew on his own experience as head of his university’s student union in the 70s. Following the passing of the infamous UN Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism, he came back to find his door covered in swastikas. “I was declared a racist,” he recalled. “We didn’t know [which students were] Jewish [in order to offer support]...because they were worried about being [identified and] stigmatized as being Jewish and therefore, for Israel”- a chillingly familiar reality.

While he noted that democracies should allow demonstrations and a diversity of thought, protesters often blur causes and “jump on the bandwagon” over seeking to understand the context or situation. “It's very worrying…when they present that they're talking about something but their motives are [actually] elsewhere.”

Although activists claim the demonstrations are in response to the current situation, Aridan disagreed. “There is a coalition focus which denigrates the state of Israel and that is a problem that is not connected so much with the war with Hamas…it is about the right of the state of Israel to exist, even within the borders agreed on by the Armistice Commission.”

PhD student Leonel Caraciki at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev focused his studies on the notorious United Nations resolution 3379 mentioned by Aridan. He reflected, “it [almost] feels like I’m reading my thesis in real time [now]...”

The resolution was focused on international cooperation and peace, claiming that the biggest dangers to national liberation and independence were colonialism, racial discrimination - and Zionism. Not only did it officially include Zionism in its list of the world’ most serious ills, but it listed ‘occupied Palestine’ in the same category as the apartheid regimes of Zimbabwe and South Africa.

This would not be the first time the United Nations had demonstrated its obsession with Israel and willingness to distort the facts to detract attention from their own laundry list of human rights violations.

Caraciki observed that the ‘language of delegitimization’ is often linked to the 6-day war where public opinion of Israel changed from a courageous small state struggling for survival to an ‘aggressor’. In this context, “Zionism became this imperialist ideology equated with colonialism.”

In seeking to fight for justice and rights or race, activists often do not realize the inherent anti-semitism in the leftist movement arguments. “Many reproduce it without even thinking about it,” stated Caraciki.

As an academic in the field of Israel studies, he denounced the implications of statements casually made. Following the UN resolution, levels of anti-Semitism rose, combined with “the falsification of history…people promoting the most absurd versions of what I call ‘fictitious Zionism’”; an all too familiar reality.

Rather than contribute to tangible change, such selective knowledge only serves to “promote the most vicious diatribes that we know from the depths of the anti-semitic repertoire of anti-Jewish lies and pass it [on] as legitimate criticism once again.”

Canadian historian Pierre Anctil of the University of Ottawa, known for his work on Yiddish language and history, used Montreal- Canada’s oldest Jewish community- to illustrate the situation.

He reflected that in forty years, he had never before witnessed such a rise in anti-semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric on campus and social media. From students being harassed on campus to religious institutions being marked by vandalism and warning shots, the Montreal Jewish community is on high alert.

Caraciki calls the tendency for activist groups to blend causes, “‘symbolic politics’; it’s not necessarily about Palestine anymore. It’s about defining a certain political camp, and that’s why in other progressive left manifestations….you see Palestine flags even when we’re not talking about Palestine!”

Nikolenyi concluded that many in Canada pride themselves on the ability to engage in dialogue on topics of a decisive manner. Canada provides the opportunity for discussion, “but to use the public space to bring down, to intimidate, to denigrate another people…that's profoundly unCanadian.”