A photo of Laura Loomer wearing a Trump campaign hate from January of this year.
A photo of Laura Loomer wearing a Trump campaign hate from January of this year. Credit: Gage Skidmore Credit: Gage Skidmore

The question of anti-Semitism, specifically who is an anti-Semite and what constitutes anti-Semitism headlines the news. And in so doing, it is treated as a more or less straightforward question. However, with the appearance on the scene of Laura Loomer, Donald Trump’s latest political paramour, we find an important twist to this story that needs exposing. 

Loomer shot to fame with her outrageous accusations that Haitian migrants in Ohio were eating pet dogs and cats. And while we may all be getting a hearty laugh because of the absurdity of such claims, this overlooks the serious danger such accusations pose because of their apparent political success. 

More importantly for us, while Loomer currently is recognized for her promotion of  such loony conspiracy theories, that are rightly dismissed by mainstream journalists, what is kept separate and sits in virtual obscurity is her prior political activism that centered around her accusations of anti-Semitism. And what gets excluded from the media conversation might be just as dangerous as what routinely gets paraded for ridicule. 

In fact Loomer’s prior activities as a Jewish activist were just as radically extremist reflecting her messianic views of a greater Israel and while pronouncing herself a “proud Islamophobe. Yet we do not see them being condemned quite as quickly or as often even though they long pre-date her pairing up with Donald Trump.  And her candidacy in Florida, as a far right Republican challenging a more mainstream liberal Jewish Democrat, resulted in a loss, suggesting that her prospective constituents, mostly Jewish, apparently rejected her extremist agenda.

So while her wild conspiracy theories are publicly on display and routinely dismissed, her accusations of anti-Semitism, no less reckless, are hidden from view of the wider general public. And the significance of this for Canada is manifold. 

In Canada we see how the focus on anti-Semitism is framed by the creation of MP Anthony Housefather’s special Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The title/mandate for that committee reads as follows: “(Antisemitism and Additional Measures that Could be Taken to Address the Valid Fears that are Being Expressed by Canada’s Jewish Community) 

Now normally, on such occasions, where we would see an urgency to create such a committee, we’d have a debate. But in this instance the debate is foreclosed, as the entire discussion is first guarded and guided by the way the very mandate of the committee is worded. 

Second, that frame is undergirded by the long discredited definition of anti-Semitism as provided by  the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of anti-Semitism (the IHRA) that conflates anti-Semitism with criticisms of Israel. 

The third way the question is managed is through the lobbying efforts of various agencies that directly or indirectly represent the viewpoint of the Netanyahu government and claim the mantle of spokespersons for the “Jewish community”. These efforts are handsomely rewarded by the media, providing unlimited access and not a smidgen of critical pushback.

The asserted relevance of this definition has of course been heightened because of the horrific events of October 7th, 2023, with the attack by Hamas on Israeli Kibbutzim that bordered Gaza. But the definition, as well as the challenge to it, pre-dates October 7, as does the far more reasonable definition as provided by Jerusalem Declaration. 

Therein a far broader perspective that recognizes universal declarations of human rights is adopted, and where they criticize the IHRA definition for causing controversy and confusion. Most importantly, they identify the stereotypical ways in which Jews have traditionally been identified. But again, while the former definition has risen to great prominence, in the West, the latter, more well reasoned one remains in obscurity. 

And it’s not as if the acceptance of the IHRA that stubbornly persists has no ill effects. Its acceptance has led directly to incoherent policy offerings and decisions made by public institutions concerning hiring and firing of prominent academics and human rights activists, both here and in the US. But the cameo appearance in this scene by Laura Loomer should help us bring this question into sharper focus. 

A chance encounter with a right wing religious conservative Jewish colleague 25 years ago helped understand how to put into the context the public debate that has unfolded since October 7. Its concerns include the legitimacy of the state of Israel, the nature of its response to the Hamas attack, the manner in which the West has come to Israel’s defense, and finally, how we do or should define anti-Semitism. 

In my encounter with my colleague I happened to mention in passing that I felt that as Jewish scholars, the issue of the “occupation” of the West Bank needed at least a mention.  In the course of disputing my reference to the West Bank as ‘occupied’ my colleague countered that these were not “occupied” but were “disputed” territories. This was the first time I had heard such a rejoinder and while I found it quite shocking, I believed at the time that it hardly constituted either a mainstream view or the view of the majority of Jews, and in particular Jewish academics. 

But then my colleague continued recounting a sad tale of how, as a religious conservative, they were persecuted by secular “leftist” professors. While my experience was the total opposite, and while I was momentarily jolted by this rejoinder, I had little fear that her position was to be thought of as anything other than quite extreme. But far from remaining an obscure and marginal point of view, today it has risen to a point of great acceptance, both in Israel and de facto here in Canada. And there can be no better indication of this than in the wording of the Housefather’s sub committee’s mandate and its apparent reliance upon the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. 

The issue at hand is that the very wording of the mandate itself begs the question, as to what constitutes a “valid” fear and hence a valid complaint of anti-Semitism, as it seems to draw conclusions, a priori, concerning the “validity”, of the accusations of it is seemingly mandated to assess or, potentially worse, accept. For the wording of the mandate itself seems to have the implied intent of eliciting all manner of accusations, whether legitimate or wildly speculative, be they mere smear tactics, or even those politically motivated.  

Quite unlike other instances, where very serious matters of human rights allegations or racism are at hand, there is here no mechanism attached where one would normally expect to find due process, where we would see an effective vetting process for determining even the plausibility of the claims. So let’s look at what we’re really talking about here.  

Here, it is not a matter of dismissing any and all accusations of anti-Semitism out of hand. But nor are we talking about clear-cut cases here, such as the firebombing of Jewish institutions or gunshots being fired at Jewish schools. It’s more a question of fielding claims that are very serious in their accusatory assertions, where due diligence is, or should be, the order of the day for ensuring that such serious accusations are truly valid. And as these are potentially very damaging accusations, one would expect to find evidence gathering, and of witnesses being called, some of whom may be permitted to dispute such claims, where all this would have in fact been investigated and found to have at least some merit. Instead what we seem to have is a shorthand version of the current Israeli government’s version of anti-Semitism, that “Israel has the right to exist” or “defend itself”, and that anyone disagreeing with current Israeli policies is an anti-Semite. The point is that here we find the potential for great liberties to be taken, such as those taken by Laura Loomer. 

 And indeed this proto genuflected repetition of the phrase that “Israel has the right to defend itself” seems to have become the litmus test while this is hardly ever the essential question at hand, as if anyone officially or unofficially would question that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. Yet any opinions that contradict this now clichéd version in any way, are consequently now exclusively put into a special category of “racism”, by the Housefather committee, where this litmus test, of loyalty to one set of beliefs, is itself protected against criticism, legitimate or not.  

So let’s look for a moment at Netanyahu’s most recent allegations. First, we have Netanyahu’s accusation that the UN’s ruling that Israel must return the occupied territories of the West Bank is “absurd” on its face and anti-Semitic as, by implication it failed to recognize that the West Bank has always belonged to “the Jewish people”, implying that it was given to them by God. However, one can be quite certain, that as a matter of public policy the majority of Jews, especially in the Diaspora, but likely even in Israel, would not go along with such an extreme assertion.  

That does not prevent selective Jewish agencies and lobby organizations, all of whom are affiliated, directly or indirectly with the Netanyahu government, from asserting, when regularly called upon by the media to offer their opinions, that they are spokespeople for some fictive “Jewish community”, presumably of like-minded people in echoing Netanyahu’s sentiments.      

But in Netanyahu’s views, we find, as with Trump, Loomer and indeed Poilievre, a longstanding visceral hatred of the left.  (Poilievre recently accused Justin Trudeau of being “wokish” and a Hamas sympathizer.)  Netanyahu’s own hatred indeed extends to Labour Zionism and especially its promise of a peaceful co-existence, with many still holding the view that Netanyahu did whatever he could to sabotage the prospect of peace with Palestinians because it meant giving up territory he asserted belonged to Jews of the Bible.  In fact, many still hold him responsible for at least an indirect involvement in the assassination of then PM Yitzhak Rabin who was murdered celebrating the forging of a peace accord with Yasser Arafat.  The important point to note here is the relevance of Netanyahu’s and the others’ disdain and visceral hatred of the so-called “left”. This hatred of the left includes a hatred of left-wing Jews, pacifist Jews, Reform Jews, secular Jews, and indeed the many others who would not be in agreement with this messianic view of Israel. This has prompted me to suggest that people like Netanyahu are in fact the biggest Jew-haters on the planet, if sheer numbers tell the tale.

Given how commonly this position on anti-Semitism is now considered to be normal and reasonable, we must ask if the mandate for Housefather’s special committee on anti-Semitism will singularly elicit very similar points of view. And if so, should the entire mandate of the subcommittee be questioned, for should it ever be the case where somebody in disagreement with Netanyahu’s policies is accused of being an anti-Semite on any such grounds? 

Further, Housefather’s sub committee’s mandate will likely include making recommendations to the House of Commons, presumably with the idea in mind of enacting legislation. But then we have to ask what expertise the House has in deciding how to enact such legislation, and what indeed is their record for dealing with such sensitive matters. And if recent events in Parliament have any determination in deciding this, the answer would be zero.

There is perhaps no better a indication of this incompetence than the recent  incident where Jaroslav Hunka, a former fighter on the side of the Nazis during Word War 2 was invited to be a guest in the House gallery on the occasion when President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, himself of Jewish descent, was to address the House. Ultimately this embarrassing set of circumstances was blamed on a poor vetting process and the speaker was held responsible and paid for this alleged “mistake” with his job. 

But what was judiciously overlooked was the fact that the recommendation to invite this person would surely have had to come from the executive of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee. That they would make such a recommendation was never called into question. 

But as it became transparently clear, Hunka was invited in the Cold War spirit of displaying opposition to the Soviet Union of old (regardless of our views on the current war). And while the entire affair showed an abysmal lack of historical understanding of the events of WW2, we were later reminded that Ukrainians who fought on the side of the Nazis were given a clear pathway to Canadian citizenship after the war.

The bottom line is that in these dual respects, the House of Commons and the government of Canada can hardly be relied upon to properly handle the question of ant-Semitism especially if a lack of a vetting process for determining the validity of accusations may similarly plague Housefather’s subcommittee.

All that said, one must question the whole manner in which the media covers this question. For when the media helps us laugh at Loomer’s racist tale of cats and dogs it completely ignores, or essentially countenances, the fanaticism and inaccuracy of equating any criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism. And therein, a great disservice is being done.

While it should be taken for granted that threats of violence and displays of support for Hitler are beyond the pale, what about peaceful demonstrations or the wearing of a Kefiyah that some Jews find threatening? What exactly does the acceptance of often gratuitous accusations of anti-Semitism do aside from aggravate hostilities, while ignoring possible remedies and amplifying and legitimizing perceptions as “valid fears” that have no basis in reality.  

What about a disagreement with a strident zealous true believer who may be a teacher or a colleague? What about the possibility that some Palestinians might perceive the Star of David as threatening? And what of the stereotypes we see and hear of an Orthodox Jew praying at the Western Wall, while Hava Nagila is playing? And why can the media only find a bellicose Rabbi with questionable attitudes towards the other to represent all Jews?  Would we tolerate this nonsense, if, for example, reactionary Priests were exclusively accessed to address accusations against Catholic church policies, not to mention if an orthodox Imam were similarly interviewed to say, defend – fill in the blank.  

And what of the many instances where Palestinian students have warm relations with Jewish professors who are empathetic to their concerns? What about Rabbis for Human Rights or more liberal reform rabbis, both male and female? What about the vast majority of the Jewish population that is neither a Rabbi, a religious zealot nor a member of a lobby group affiliated with the current Israeli government? What about the recognition that the agencies the media calls upon have no time for dissent among their ranks?

By understanding the shenanigans and racist ideology of someone like Laura Loomer, we in fact can bring what is at stake here into better focus. It should call into question the implicit bias in the coverage of such matters and the great advantage from the outset her type of reckless, racist and thoughtless ideas have over clearly more reasonable ones simply by virtue that journalists and public figures alike are intimidated, made to feel guilty and consequently cowed by any accusations of anti-Semitism because of the possibility of their be so accused? 

As a colleague reminded me, long before October 7, a Palestinian expressing a viewpoint is always placed at a great disadvantage by being associated with the accusation of being a potential ‘terrorist’. We just have to see this as morally wrong whatever other viewpoints on any related matters we may have.

But especially now that the Loomer cat is out of the bag, racist allegations and all, it is perhaps past time to call into question this entire process and interrogate in turn, the mandate of a committee purporting to investigate “valid” fears of faceless, nameless Jewish citizens that in effect is defined by circular reasoning that consequently begs the question? For here the real fear ultimately should be that wild, unfounded, irresponsible, harmful, scurrilous, gratuitous accusations, that may themselves be projections and fictional imaginations, that are racist in nature, may be “validated” in a way that costs some good and innocent person their job or well-earned career advancement.

Stephen Block

Stephen Block currently teaches media literacy and political philosophy at Vanier College where he also served as an executive in the local union. His formal training is in industrial relations, political...