top of page

The Ceasefire Agreement: A New Phase in Antisemitic Demonstrations

Writer's picture: Mark SandlerMark Sandler
Mahmoud Khalil calls on Hamas to repeat another October 7th in the streets of Montreal this week.
Mahmoud Khalil calls on Hamas to repeat another October 7th in Montreal this week | Full Video via @l3v1at4an

This week, a ceasefire deal was announced in the Middle East. It has been met understandably with mixed feelings by Israelis and Canada’s Jewish community. Many are concerned about whether the long term costs of rewarding Hamas’s barbarities and hostage-taking and of releasing many imprisoned terrorists, including killers, outweigh the return of a limited number of hostages, some or many of whom have tragically already been killed. Israel’s unwillingness to ever leave a single person behind is both a badge of its moral strength as a nation, and its vulnerability to terror tactics and somewhat coercive agreements (if not, outright extortion) likely to produce short term gain for long term pain.


I leave it to others to debate the relative merits or deficits of the current ceasefire agreement. Instead, I wish to discuss one painful byproduct of the agreement already manifesting itself on Canada’s streets – the characterization of the ceasefire agreement as a victory for Hamas and Jihadi extremism and a defeat for Israel and Zionism.


I take no issue with those members of all affected communities, here and in the Middle East, who desperately sought and welcome the temporary cessation of hostilities and who hope that it will lead to something “more permanent”, an oxymoronic phrase capturing the absence of any true permanent peace in the region for many decades.


Those who seek the end of the conflict and a lasting peace are very different than those who exult in Hamas’s survival (however militarily weakened) and who, fortified by that survival, voice their support for a renewed battle to eliminate the State of Israel. We saw this kind of hatefest on the streets of Montreal only a few days ago, that included as features the martyrdom of Yayha Sinwar, and incitement to repeat the October 7 barbarities, including kidnappings.


Proclamations of Hamas’s “victory” over Israel and calls for resuming the violent resistance cannot be regarded as merely obnoxious, frustrating or deeply disturbing. They are designed to embolden others to join the jihadist cause, and undermine efforts for peaceful co-existence of Palestinians and Israelis or the normalization of relations between Israel and all its Arab neighbours.


Of course, we’ve seen this movie before. The vocal support for, equivocation about, or denial of Hamas’s barbarities, including the most sinister sexual violence against women, immediately after October 7, gave Hamas carte blanche to use civilians as human shields, convert hospitals and schools to combat zones, and kill hostages in cold blood, while the world demonized Israel. Armed with this worldwide support, as well as the double standard applied to Israel by the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and others, Hamas could more easily hold out for favourable terms, knowing that it would be Israel that would face the most intense pressure to strike a settlement, any settlement.


At home, these rallies supporting Hamas’s actions and the resumption of armed resistance until Israel is destroyed embolden adherents to demonize and marginalize Canadian Jews, and vandalize their institutions.


As we enter a new phase of antisemitic hate speech, directed to supporting the resumption of a jihadist-motivated conflict in the Middle East and globally, police across the country also have a new opportunity to utilize their existing criminal law tools (often underutilized to date) to address criminal extremism.


Calls to repeat October 7 over and over again, to kidnap Israelis, to celebrate the activities of designated terror groups and their leaders, dead and alive, cannot be confused with protected speech. We are dealing with the wilful promotion of hatred, public incitement of hatred, likely to lead to a breach of the peace, counselling terror activities and groups, all criminal violations. Criminal intimidation, unlawful assembly, mischief, and several disguising offences may also apply in certain circumstances, such as where roads are blocked and the lawful use, enjoyment and operation of property by others is obstructed or interfered with.


This new phase calls for a new law enforcement approach. This is one of the messages ALCCA will be communicating to police, prosecutors and governments at every opportunity. Our community, our allies and all Canadians of good will deserve no less. As I have stated before, this cannot be treated as only a Jewish issue, but an issue relevant to the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.


Respectful Dialogue


As many of you know, ALCCA and its diverse allies have been working to operationalize a national respectful dialogue initiative to build strategies for civil discourse and greater understanding, while rejecting extremism and incitement to violence. There were some responding to our initiative who felt that the time was not right for respectful dialogue, given the ongoing war in the Middle East and its undoubted impact on affected communities. They cited the toxic environment on a number of Canadian campuses, not easily displaced, and the collapse of certain interfaith dialogues that predated the war.


Those involved in our initiative disagreed. In our view, while the challenges were and are formidable, there is no bad time for respectful dialogue as an antidote to hatred if facilitated by experts and those of good will. Equally important, we observed an appetite for the dialogue.


All of this to say, the ceasefire agreement may reduce at least one impediment to respectful dialogue or to participation in it by some critically important voices.


 

About the Author

Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.


 

bottom of page