Islamophobia? I plead guilty.

Like Hamas prioritizes killing Israelis rather than prosperity for Gazans, the Muslims of British Columbia ignore practical socioeconomic factors and vote solely based on their anti-Jewish stance.

It is not me. It is the Muslim community that positions itself as hostile to me as a Jew and as an Israeli. (photo: Hugo Breyer/Unsplash)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

This is a guest essay written by Masha Kleiner, a Canadian Zionist writer.

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

Editor’s Note: This essay is especially prescient because it was written before yesterday’s pogrom in Amsterdam, where dozens of Israeli football fans were deliberately targeted and beaten up by mobs of antisemitic rioters, largely local Muslims and Arabs.

A few weeks ago, a day before the Canadian elections, David Eby (the British Columbia’s New Democratic Party leader) visited a mosque.

He stood facing a group of frowning men and one older woman. One of them, wearing a dark gray robe, said in a condescending voice, gesturing as if explaining basic math to a special needs child: “They [Hamas] fight for their freedom, you and others calling them terrorists. This is our issue.”

David Eby is a tall guy; some people consider that alone as being attractive. That is not how I see him; his entire appearance, starting from his facial expression and posture, transmits a complete lack of backbone. I do not judge people by their looks, but having observed his actions for awhile only reinforced this first impression.

It is more apparent than ever in this video, where he slouches and apologetically mumbles: “Well, I actually do think Hamas are terrorists. … I think what they did on October 7th was really awful.”

A more yielding person is likely to have considered this a good answer, but I do not appreciate half-truths. It is the lack of intransigence, the constant submissiveness, that got us where we are.

I would like to ask him: What about what Hamas did before October 7th? Eighteen years of firing rockets at Israeli cities? When did he, David Eby, last have a rocket fired at his house? What about what Hamas did after October 7th? Holding hostages for over a year? Firing more than 13,000 rockets at Israeli population centers? Using civilians as human shields? Stealing humanitarian aid?

The surrounding men looked sullen from beneath their brows, and Eby added apologetically: “I’m sorry if we disagree on that.” He overcame his inner resistance saying it, because he is not rotten to his core. But I cannot feel grateful, because he is deeply reluctant to say it, because he is a coward, and it is precisely the lack of courage that led us to the dire situation we are in.

A conversation on whether Hamas are terrorists should not be considered a legitimate, appropriate conversation. In an evolved democratic society, no conversation should be criminalized, but some conversations must be perceived as outside the acceptable moral space.

Imagine having a conversation about beating your wife to death, or selling your kids into slavery if you no longer want to feed them. No politician in their right mind would seriously discuss that with their constituents, straight-faced. But a discussion about the legitimacy of slaughtering and kidnapping Israelis is still acceptable.

What’s most ironic is that all of Eby’s moral concessions are in vain. He is still considered hostile and placed on the “pro-Israel” shame list.

Wait, what list?

---

The organized Muslim community in British Columbia has been circulating a voting user guide before elections. The voting guidelines — which are very revealing of how this Muslim community views itself and, more importantly, how it positions itself — instruct that everyone is “free” to make their own decisions; of course, the authors are familiar with electoral laws and know that election coercion is illegal.

However, these guidelines emphasize that, “as Muslims, we should approach these elections in a principled, strategic, and non-emotional manner that will practically benefit Muslims the most.” The accompanying information makes it very clear what are the true priorities of the Muslim community. The accompanying spreadsheet contains a list of candidates by party and riding, with columns indicating whether each candidate is “supportive of Palestine” and whether they are “supportive of Israel.”

In the “Notes” column, considerable attention is devoted to SOGI — which stands for “sexual orientation and gender identity” — an ultra-progressive, LGBTQ-friendly school curriculum. I am not a fan of SOGI; the materials are overly sexualized and pornography-adjacent. (Funny story: One of the more conservative Canadian members of parliament wanted to quote SOGI school materials during a session of parliament and was censored.)

However, the Muslim user guide does not really distinguish between support for SOGI and support for LGBT (without the extra symbols). I feel bad for the “Queers 4 Palestine” movement; their Muslim allies consider support for LGBT as a disadvantage for a politician.

For me personally, the “support for Israel” and “support for Palestine” columns are of greater interest. As I mentioned above, David Eby’s efforts to curry favor did not bear fruit. He was designated as a supporter of Israel and marked with a “do not vote for this candidate” recommendation in capital letters.

Here are examples of reasons why various candidates were marked as unfavorable:

• “Retweeted a tweet on defending Israel regarding October 7th”

• “Reposted standing with Israel from October 7th attacks”

• “Condemning the Hamas attacks”

• “Called October 7th terrorist attacks”

• “He stated that: We have terrorists on our streets right here in British Columbia!” (regarding people chanting “Death to Canada” and burning the Canadian flag)

• “Tweeted on October 9th, 2023: ‘I am disgusted that individuals in our nation are holding demonstrations in support of Hamas terrorist attack on Israel...’”

This Muslim community goes even further. Additional reasons to not vote for a candidate include:

• “Recognition of Israel is clear”

• “Retweeted posts that recognize Israel and mentions October 7th”

• “Supports 2-state solution”

• “Does work to raise awareness around the Holocaust”

---

It was a well-known phenomenon that longtime Palestinian leader (and mega-terrorist) Yasser Arafat’s international rhetoric in English significantly differed from his rhetoric in Arabic. For decades, before auto-generated subtitles were invented, Arafat told his Western audience in English that he was seeking Palestinian statehood and peace, while from the other side of his mouth, to the Arabic audience, he explained that Palestinian authority was just a launching pad for the destruction of Israel.

A similar phenomenon transpires with most Al Jazeera content today. Perhaps, in this case, the lack of ambiguity took me by surprise. Now, the mask is off.

It is the general Muslim community that joins forces to vote in favor of anti-Israel candidates. It is the Muslim community that articulates “support for Palestine” and “support for Israel” as mutually exclusive concepts; not a single Canadian political candidate out of 174 is marked as supporting both.

Even the mere proposition that the two can coexist (a two-state solution) is considered unacceptable. It is the non-fringe, mainstream Muslim community which rejects the premise that Hamas are terrorists. It is the Muslim community that views Holocaust awareness as something negative, even deplorable.

It is not me.

It is the Muslim community that positions itself as hostile to me as a Jew and as an Israeli. It is the conventional Muslims who consider supporting Zionism as hostile to Muslims. It is not Samidoun, the so-called “Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network.” It is not the “Boycott, Divest, Sanction” movement or some other specialized “anti-Israel” movement or organization.

It is the ordinary Muslim who aligns with Hamas and positions himself as fundamentally opposing the right of Israel to exist and the right of Jews to not be massacred.

It is the average Muslim who does not only deny my right to exist; they also deny me the right to call them out on it. In the paradoxical reality we find ourselves in, simply summarizing what they themselves document about their position would deem me “Islamophobic.” Well, I pleaded guilty to the “Islamophobia” charge long ago, so I do not have anything left to lose on this front.

---

In the video where David Eby visited the mosque, he also made a speech about hate, saying: “I know that this community knows that hate doesn’t just stay with one group. It spreads and it grows if you don’t address it.”

I do not think he really meant what he said, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Hatred never stays with one group. What starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews. It was never a secret; the “anti-Israel” protesters have long been calling our country and city “so-called Canada” and “so-called Vancouver,” and even the most willfully blind cannot ignore the burning of the Canadian flag and the “Death to Canada” chants on our streets.

Despite Eby being considered “pro-Israel,” his government has refused to prosecute Samidoun, the group behind the “Death to Canada” chants. The mainstream media speculated that the topic is controversial and that the British Columbia New Democratic Party government did not want to proceed before the elections (which took place last month).

These were provincial elections; the provincial government’s responsibilities are housing, transportation and infrastructure, education, healthcare and social services, labor laws, environment, and public safety. Foreign policy is not in the provincial government’s jurisdiction.

So, why would the Muslim community choose the candidates to vote for based on the candidates’ position on Israel and Hamas? They are not confused; the Muslim community leaders are very well-versed in Canadian law. They do not apply their (albeit broken) moral compass; they do not call it “ethical voting.” They call it “strategic voting.”

British Columbia’s Muslim community wants to elect a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel government to incur persecution against the local Jewish community. After all, the provincial government cannot cut diplomatic ties with Israel, impose an arms embargo on it, or vote in the United Nations. The provincial government can only cut Jewish institutions’ security budgets, promote antisemitic curriculum in schools, and turn a blind eye to the discrimination and intimidation of Jews.

In a similar way that Hamas prioritizes killing Israelis rather than fostering prosperity for the people in Gaza, the Muslims of British Columbia ignore practical socioeconomic factors and choose representatives solely based on their anti-Jewish stance.

These Muslims want a government that will throw the Jewish community to the wolves. This is what they consider to be most beneficial for Muslims. They want a government that will hand them the local Jews as a ritual sacrifice. And they are being strategic about it.

To those who say: “But I have Muslim friends and they are very kind, peaceful, not antisemitic people.” — yes, I do too. The peaceful majority (even if they are indeed the majority) is irrelevant.

---