‘Real Starvation Stuff’ Given its Nazi history and its status as one of Israel’s most important allies, Germany had always been unlikely to recognize a Palestinian state before it was established. But Mr. Merz was determined to be a part of the diplomatic efforts. A day after Mr. Macron’s announcement, the German chancellor, the French president and Mr. Starmer issued a joint statement calling for an end to the war, the release of hostages, the disarmament of Hamas, an enormous influx of aid and a halt to any Israeli plans to annex more territory. The trio held a call the next morning. They agreed the situation was “appalling,” according to a British written summary of the meeting. Food was trickling into Gaza, but not fast enough. There was no prospect of a cease-fire. Image Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron are talking in front of a building being guarded by men in military uniforms. Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany with Mr. Macron in Berlin last month. The next day, without telling the Germans, Mr. Macron recognized the state of Palestine.Credit...John MacDougall/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images The three nations — known as the E3 — have more influence when they are aligned. Their unity also gives them political cover domestically. So Germany has not criticized either France or Britain on their decisions to recognize a Palestinian state, in part, a senior German official said, because it needs E3 unity to help manage its own sharp domestic critics on Gaza. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT On Sunday, July 27, Mr. Merz spoke with Mr. Netanyahu directly. The chancellor left the call frustrated, according to a person familiar with the conversation, who spoke anonymously given the sensitivity of the subject, after the Israeli prime minister insisted during the call that there was no starvation in Gaza and that Hamas was stealing the ample food being delivered. The next day, Mr. Merz and Mr. Macron called in to a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Starmer in Scotland. The Europeans urged Mr. Trump to pressure Mr. Netanyahu to allow more aid into Gaza, according to an official who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the subject. After the meeting, Mr. Trump acknowledged the dire situation. “That’s real starvation stuff, I see it, and you can’t fake that,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “We have to get the kids fed.” A Unity Conference The day after Mr. Trump left Britain, Mr. Starmer made it official. He would recognize Palestine unless Israel moved swiftly to end the war and embark on a path toward a permanent peace. Mr. Lammy echoed his boss in a speech at the United Nations. “It is with the hand of history on our shoulders that His Majesty’s Government therefore intends to recognize the State of Palestine,” he said. He received a standing ovation. Canada joined Britain and France soon after. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Mr. Starmer’s announcement surprised the Germans. They already viewed Mr. Macron’s announcement as counterproductive, hardening Israel’s tone and Hamas’s stance in cease-fire negotiations in Qatar, which had collapsed. That same day, Mr. Powell began sharing drafts of the British plan with the allies in the hopes of seizing a moment when heightened global outrage was being met with new examples of political will. Mr. Powell and others in the British government had been working on the plan for months, and had struggled to get Arab leaders to sign on. Now, along with France and Germany, they tried again. It was unclear to the diplomats whether Mr. Trump would support the plan, which incorporated some of the same ideas that officials in foreign capitals had proposed in the past to no avail. According to two European officials, it called for a technocratic Palestinian government for Gaza linked to a reformed Palestinian Authority; an international security force; a full withdrawal by Israel; U.S.-led monitoring of the cease-fire; and — ultimately — two independent states. The British plan also presented an “annex of implementation” with a timeline that included the previously scheduled U.N. conference, sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, aimed at reviving efforts toward a two-state solution. The plan envisioned Arab commitments at the conference and an eventual cease-fire in Gaza, culminating in a Saudi- and French-led peace plan for two states at the U.N. General Assembly in September.
-
-
-
-
AntisemitismCanada In 2026, Tulsa And Panama Are Courting Canadian Jews As Antisemitism Redefines The Cost Of Staying As antisemitism reaches unprecedented levels across Canada, Jewish families and professionals are quietly reassessing their futures, and some are being actively courted elsewhere. Ron East By: Ron East December 31, 2025 SHARE A growing number of Canadian Jews are exploring relocation options A growing number of Canadian Jews are exploring relocation options as antisemitism intensifies and confidence in public protection erodes. (Image: Illustration.) TORONTO — For generations, Canada sold itself as a country where Jews could thrive without constantly looking over their shoulders. That assumption no longer holds for a growing number of Canadian Jews, particularly in the aftermath of October 7 and the months that followed. What has changed is not only the number of antisemitic incidents. It is the atmosphere. Public hostility has been normalized. Jewish schools, synagogues, and community centres operate under permanent security protocols. Anti-Jewish intimidation is increasingly framed as political expression. Enforcement is inconsistent. Accountability is rare. When Jewish life requires constant risk assessment, mobility stops being a luxury. It becomes a rational act of self-preservation. That reality helps explain why, in 2026, two very different destinations, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Panama, are appearing with growing frequency in serious conversations among Canadian Jews who have the means and flexibility to move. This is not a panic migration. It is a strategic recalculation. Canada’s new warning lights Jewish Canadians represent a small fraction of the population, yet account for a vastly disproportionate share of reported hate crimes. This is not a perception problem. It is a documented pattern. More troubling than the statistics themselves is the message many Jews hear in response: concern, sympathy, and context, but little deterrence. Protests that spill into harassment are tolerated. Jewish institutions are targeted repeatedly. Antisemitism disguised as antizionism is parsed endlessly rather than confronted directly. The result is a slow erosion of confidence in the state’s willingness or ability to enforce equal protection. When a community moves from assuming it belongs to hoping nothing happens today, the social contract has already been fractured. It is within this context that Tulsa and Panama are not merely attracting attention but actively courting. Lech Le’Tulsa and intentional Jewish welcome Tulsa is not presenting itself as a refuge city. It is presenting itself as a place that wants Jewish life to grow. In 2026, that effort has taken concrete form through Lech Le’Tulsa, a Jewish-focused relocation initiative designed to attract Jewish families, professionals, and entrepreneurs to the Tulsa area. The program combines relocation assistance with intentional community building and access to Jewish infrastructure. The name is deliberate. Lech Lecha, the biblical call to go forth and build a future, is not branding by accident. It speaks directly to a Jewish historical instinct that understands movement not as retreat, but as agency. Lech Le’Tulsa offers what many Canadian Jews increasingly feel is missing at home: A clear signal that Jewish presence is welcomed, not merely accommodated Immediate access to synagogues, schools, and Jewish communal life A civic environment where Jewish identity is not treated as a liability The financial incentives matter, but the social architecture matters more. Tulsa is offering a landing ramp. It is saying, we are prepared for you to arrive. That clarity stands in stark contrast to the ambiguity Canadian Jews experience when their safety concerns are acknowledged but endlessly deferred. Panama and the appeal of optionality Panama represents a different but equally rational response to insecurity. For Canadian Jews with international mobility, Panama offers residency pathways tied to investment, business activity, or long-term economic contribution. It also offers something increasingly valuable: optionality. Panama has an established Jewish community, a comparatively lower cost of living, and an immigration framework that openly courts skilled and capital-carrying residents. For some, it is a permanent relocation. For others, it is a second base, a contingency plan, or a future passport pathway. What matters is not the destination itself, but the logic behind the choice. When Jews seek second options, they are not rejecting diaspora life. They are applying historical lessons. Jewish continuity has always depended on redundancy, resilience, and the ability to move before crisis becomes catastrophe. The Zionist lens Canadians prefer to ignore Zionism does not deny the legitimacy of diaspora life. It insists that Jews must never be dependent on the goodwill of others for safety or equality. That lesson was written in blood long before the modern State of Israel existed. Israel institutionalized it at a national level. Individual Jews apply it on a personal level. When Canadian Jews explore Tulsa or Panama, they are not abandoning Canada in anger. They are responding rationally to warning signs. They are building leverage. They are ensuring their children have options. This is what Zionist consciousness looks like outside Israel. It is quiet, pragmatic, and unsentimental. An indictment Canada should take seriously Tulsa and Panama are not superior societies. They are intentional ones. Tulsa is saying, we want contributors, and we are prepared to integrate them. Panama is saying, we want residents and investment, and we have clear legal pathways. Canada, too often, is saying something else entirely: we are sorry you feel unsafe, but the politics are complicated. A serious country does not treat antisemitism as a public relations challenge. It treats it as a threat to civic order. That requires enforcement, deterrence, and moral clarity, including the willingness to name antisemitism even when it hides behind fashionable political language. Until that happens, Canada should not be surprised when Jews quietly explore exit ramps. The bottom line In 2026, the fact that Tulsa and Panama can plausibly court Canadian Jews is not an oddity. It is a warning. When antisemitism reaches levels that fundamentally alter how Jews calculate their futures, movement becomes strategy. History teaches Jews to act before apologies arrive too late. Canada still has time to reverse this trajectory. But time matters. And Jews, having learned this lesson repeatedly, are no longer inclined to wait.
-
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment