If France, Britain and Canada think that Israel’s actions are “egregious” what does that mean and what does it tell us about the countries where Jews have decided to live for many years? Opinion.
A statement, which was endorsed by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, slammed Israel’s renewed military offensive and warned that the countries would work to sanction Israel if it does not end the war.
“We will not stand by while the Netanyahu Government pursues these egregious actions,” the three leaders said.
“If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in response.”
The three leaders referenced possible “sanctions” against Israel and threatened “concrete actions”.
There we have it – some concrete and/or egregious actions are going to be undertaken unless Israel surrenders in its war against Hamas.
Will concrete actions included military actions?
I am a Canadian Jew whose father survived Auschwitz, where his parents and then 8-year-old sister were murdered. He loved Canada but in a way I am glad that he did not live long enough to witness Canada taking concrete actions against Israel. I would wonder sometimes as a child what would happen if Canada and Israel went to war. Who would we support? Would we leave for Israel?
Is it possible that my children and grandchildren would have to answer these questions? Are these three western leaders about to threaten Israel that unless it consents to genocidal states in Gaza and Judea and Samaria these three countries would try to enforce their wishes through military action?
Once these countries have a high percentage of Muslims and anti-Israel Leftists, we must understand that the power will shift to Muslims.
My grandchildren are identifiably Jewish in dress and lifestyle and educational experience and belong to organizations which allow them to visit Israel often. They live in an upper middle class Jewish neighborhood in Toronto. Toronto Jews are now subject to “concrete” actions all right, which actions are Muslim antisemitic demonstrations, graffiti and other damage done to Jewish institutional buildings, damage done to synagogues, schools and restaurants.
My father came to Canada in 1947. After my family’s presence in Canada for eighty years, are these three leaders the vanguard of a new reality where Jewish self-defense in Israel is construed as “egregious” action? Let’s examine what the three leaders might mean when they portray Israel as some kind of enemy taking “egregious” actions against the Islamists like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iran, Qattar etc.
So if France, Britain and Canada think that Israel’s actions are “egregious” what does that mean and what does it tell us about the countries where Jews have decided to live for many years?
One major dictionary defines “egregious” as “extremely bad in a way that is very noticeable”. Another defines it as “flagrant” or “conspicuously bad”. Another says that egregious means extraordinary in some bad way, such as a glaring mistake or a flagrant lie. It comes from Latin ēgregius, meaning standing out from the herd.
So, according to the European and Canadian moralists, Israeli actions are not just bad but “extremely bad” and intended to be “conspicuous” or flagrant. And the word connotes “standing out from the herd” – meaning Israel is not just one of the crowd, but stands out from the herd, hardly a fair allegation in a world of immoral states with an increasing Islamist orientation.
Merriam-Webster notes that egregious comes from a Latin word meaning “distinguished” or “eminent.” It was once a compliment to someone who had a remarkably good quality that placed him or her above others. Today, the meaning of the word is noticeably less complimentary.
In fact, this example of the evolution and transition of the meaning of words, is part of a growing trend to use our words politically and culturally in the service of ideology.
For example, is a violent protest still a “protest” or do we insist on calling it a “riot”?
Do those tolerant of evil terrorists get to term them “militants” as if they are soldiers subject to the laws and ethics of warfare or do we insist on the use of the word “terrorist”?
The statement of the three western leaders stating that Israel’s actions are not just bad but extremely bad or conspicuously bad reflect a deep hatred for the Jewish State. That is the sad truth.
Howard Rotberg – is the author of books such as The Second Catastrophe: A Novel About a Book and its Author; Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed; The Ideological Path to Submission; and Second Generation Radical: The World Through One Man’s Second Generation Lens. All book available through Amazon.
