"There are several issues in your article. First, you do not provide a description of B’nai Brith. B'nai Brith Canada is a self-professed staunch defender of the State of Israel and a pro-Israel advocacy organization. Not providing information about B’nai Brith is misleading and unfair as their pro-Israel stances are often conflated with antisemitism."
August 23, 2024
To:
Mia Rabson, Reporter, Canadian Press
Laura Osman, National Reporter, Canadian Press
Dave Obee, Editor, The Times Colonist
Dear Ms. Laura, Ms. Osman, and Mr. Obee,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East to express my concerns regarding the article titled “Identical threats sent to Jewish people across Canada, including in Victoria” published on August 22, 2024, in the Times Colonist
There are several issues in your article. First, you do not provide a description of B’nai Brith. B'nai Brith Canada is a self-professed staunch defender of the State of Israel and a pro-Israel advocacy organization. Not providing information about B’nai Brith is misleading and unfair as their pro-Israel stances are often conflated with antisemitism.
I, therefore, ask you to add a description of B’nai Brith to not mislead your readers on antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
Second, you rely on B'nai Brith's report, which is concerning since it misrepresents genuine political discourse as racial or religious hatred. Anti-Zionism, which involves opposition to the political movement supporting the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in Israel, is a distinct stance that is not inherently antisemitic.
B’nai Brith’s report is not reliable as there are discrepancies between B'nai Brith's figures and other sources , such as the data collected by Global News. While B'nai Brith's 2023 report claimed 5,791 documented acts of violence, harassment, and vandalism aimed at Jews, an investigation by Global News found significantly fewer incidents when examining police data from seven major Canadian cities. Global News reported 465 antisemitic incidents in these cities, highlighting a vast difference between the two sources' figures. Such a discrepancy raises concerns about the methodology and accuracy of B'nai Brith's reporting.
This concern is not new. Scholars such as Robert Brym from the University of Toronto and Rhona Lenton from York University have highlighted this issue. Their study of B’nai Brith’s 2022 report points out that it “lumps together under the rubric of antisemitism actions that are antisemitic with various types of action that are critical of Israel,” urging readers to “temper our alarm” over the findings. Brym has further stated, “It remains the case that one may be critical of Israeli government policy without holding negative attitudes towards Jews. By lumping together anti-Jewish and some anti-Israel actions, and labeling both antisemitic, B’nai Brith Canada ignores this possibility.”
Similarly, Sheryl Nestel’s 2021 report for Independent Jewish Voices draws attention to B’nai Brith’s biased methodology, concluding that “B’nai Brith Canada cannot be understood as a neutral source for reporting on the nature and scope of antisemitism in Canada.”
Here are three examples of the conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the 2021 and 2022 B’nai Brith reports:
- 2021: Labeling criticism of Israel as antisemitic. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have labeled Israel’s policies as apartheid, not antisemitic.
- 2022:
- Misidentifying a flag. The reported “ISIS flag” translates to: “There is none worthy of worship except Allah (God), and that the prophet Mohammad is the messenger of Allah.” This is not an antisemitic symbol.
- Mislabelling graffiti with a Palestinian flag and the phrase “Palestine—from the river to the sea” . This phrase is a common expression of Palestinian liberation, which is not antisemitic.
It is important to raise this issue as mischaracterization can have several adverse effects:
- Dilution of the Term 'Antisemitism': Equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism dilutes the term's meaning and undermines efforts to combat genuine antisemitic incidents.
- Stifling Legitimate Debate: This conflation can stifle legitimate debate and criticism of Israeli policies. Individuals and groups may hesitate to voice their opinions on Israel and its actions for fear of being labeled antisemitic. This suppression of discourse can prevent meaningful discussions.
- Extremist and Fringe Positions: The report sometimes goes further by considering advocacy for a Free Palestine as a form of antisemitism. This stance is viewed by many as an extremist and fringe position that conflates support for Palestinian self-determination with racial hatred. Such a perspective ignores the legitimate and widespread advocacy for Palestinian rights.
It is neither fair nor responsible for Canadian media to uncritically repeat B’nai Brith’s unfounded allegations against human rights activists and others who support Palestinian rights. The fight against antisemitism must be rigorous, but it should not come at the expense of Palestinian human rights or at the cost of truth and journalistic integrity.
I, therefore, urge you to revise this article to clarify that B’nai Brith’s audit conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. This crucial distinction must also be incorporated into future reporting to prevent perpetuating the harmful and inaccurate conflation between antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
Accurate and responsible journalism is essential for fostering informed public discourse and upholding the integrity of media reporting. You should abide by it.
Sincerely,
Lynn Naji
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East