In a highly contentious move, the Kelowna Unitarian Church and UBC Okanagan recently hosted two events featuring Dr. Muhannad Ayyash and Dr. Jeremy Wildeman, authors of Canada as a Settler Colony on the Question of Palestine. The talks, organized by the Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME): Okanagan, alongside the Amnesty International Okanagan and the Central Okanagan United Church, have drawn widespread criticism for promoting anti-Israel rhetoric and accusations of antisemitism.
The book, which critiques Canada’s historical and current role in supporting Israel, has been described by many as deeply biased and heavily slanted in favor of Palestinian nationalism. While it is essential to explore different perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the focus of these events seemed to lean far beyond criticism of Israeli policies and instead indulged in dangerous generalizations about Jews and Israel itself.
Critics argue that the language used during the events and in the book veers into territory that promotes antisemitism. Ayyash and Wildeman, through their rhetoric, have been accused of aligning with narratives that downplay or ignore the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and instead vilify an entire state and its people. The framing of Israel as a “settler colony” has been linked to a broader trend where criticism of Israel crosses the line into delegitimizing the state’s existence altogether — a key hallmark of antisemitic discourse.
The fact that these events were held within community spaces such as religious institutions and university campuses adds another layer of controversy. These venues, which are meant to foster inclusivity and education, provided a platform for ideas that many believe foster division rather than understanding. In addition, the involvement of organizations such as Amnesty International Okanagan, a group that has historically worked to promote human rights, raises uncomfortable questions about the organization’s commitment to impartiality when it comes to Israel.
The support for such events is part of a broader wave of increasingly hostile attitudes towards Israel that have become prevalent in certain academic and activist circles. These positions often fail to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and the spread of harmful tropes that target Jews as a collective or call for the eradication of Israel. Such rhetoric, critics say, only fuels hostility toward Jewish communities and makes meaningful dialogue about peace in the Middle East more difficult.
Some of the statements made during the events went as far as suggesting that Canada, in supporting Israel, is complicit in what is portrayed as an apartheid regime in Palestine, neglecting the nuances of the situation. Critics contend that framing Israel solely as an oppressor ignores Israel’s right to self-defense in the face of terrorism and the complexities of negotiating peace with groups that do not recognize its right to exist.
In light of the recent uptick in antisemitic incidents around the world, including in Canada, hosting such events is seen by many as irresponsible and deeply harmful. Canada has long prided itself on its multicultural and inclusive values, but the endorsement of this type of rhetoric is a worrying development. It poses a direct threat not only to the Jewish community but also to the broader commitment to peaceful and respectful discourse.
In response to the events, many in the Jewish community have expressed concern over the increasing normalization of antisemitism under the guise of legitimate political discourse. They argue that events like this contribute to a climate of hatred and division, which, instead of fostering understanding, drives wedges between communities that have historically coexisted in relative harmony.
As Israel continues to face international scrutiny, it is crucial to ensure that any discussions regarding the conflict are grounded in fact and avoid descending into harmful narratives that paint entire populations with a broad brush. It is equally important to draw a clear line between critique of government policies and the perpetuation of harmful ideologies that undermine the right of Jewish people to self-determination and safety.
The backlash to these events should serve as a wake-up call for those who continue to blur the lines between legitimate critique and hate speech. It is essential that future discussions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are conducted with respect for all people, regardless of their background or nationality, and that the responsibility to foster dialogue and understanding is not used to justify incitement.