Jagmeet Singh is a Sikh Canadian politician who has been steadily gaining in popularity; he is also, alas, distinctly unsympathetic to Israel. A report on Singh, with his pro-Palestinian views, and his dislike of the Jewish state, is here: “Rising star or dark force? Jagmeet Singh plans to leave his mark on Canada-Israel relations,” by Ami Friedman, Israel Hayom, July 30, 2021:
At first glance, Jagmeet Singh seems like a stylish hipster, cycling to work on his designer bicycle. It is not a complete mistake: Singh is, if not a hipster himself, at least sartorially influenced by the trend, and is very popular among the hipster community. But he does not work at a vintage record store, and he rides one of his six designer bicycles to the Parliament of Canada as leader of the New Democratic Party. There, on a daily basis, he makes Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a leader who himself knows a thing or two about fashion and visibility, seem grey, archaic and disconnected from the values of the new era.
It has been five years since Singh, 42, became a superstar in Canadian politics. It is clear that his mere presence among politicians from the Right and the photogenic prime minister who carries the values of the Center is a game-changer for many.
As can be expected from a typical liberal politician, Singh has very clear views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a Sikh and as the first non-white leader of a Canadian political party, Singh has adopted a clear pro-Palestinian agenda. When he was his party’s deputy house leader in Ontario, he was one of the only politicians who didn’t agree to support the decision by the region’s legislators to oppose the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanction) movement is designed to cripple Israel economically, by pressuring companies and countries to boycott its goods, by persuading individuals and groups from owning shares in Israeli companies, and by sanctioning non-Israeli companies that do business with the Jewish state. It also calls for a cultural and academic boycott of Israeli institutions and individuals. The BDS works to so undermine the Jewish state that it will be forced to capitulate to Palestinian demands; many believe its ultimate aim is the dismantlement of the Jewish state. The American government, the German government, and many others, have called the BDS, in its essence, “antisemitic.” in its essence. Rajmeet Singh, however, finds nothing wrong with BDS, and he was one of a very few politicians in Ontario who refused to support anti-BDS legislation passed by that province’s parliament.
He explained that, from his perspective, legislating against the BDS movement is a clear infringement on freedom of expression. “Everyone has the right to criticize and to oppose [something],” he proclaimed.
Would Jagmeet Singh then oppose legislation designed to prevent neo-Nazi broadcasts on Canadian television as “a clear infringement on freedom of expression”? Would he support the right of a Canadian branch of the KKK to hold marches through city centers? Would he support the right of ex-Muslims to denounce Islam on the radio, by quoting passages from the Qur’an and hadith? Is Singh really a Free Speech absolutist, or is he not, in fact, in refusing to support the banning of BDS, in essence supporting the policies of a group that, in working to economically and culturally undermine the Jewish state, has been deemed “antisemitic” by the U.S., Germany, the last four Prime Ministers of the U.K., and many others?
He does not hide his lack of affection for Israeli policies. “In 2016 I traveled to the Middle East,” he wrote on Twitter. “I witnessed the technology and development in Israel. I was shocked by the contrast I saw in Palestine.” In another Tweet, he wrote, “I witnessed the presence of the Israeli military occupation in Hebron and the frustrating conditions created by settlements deep in the West Bank,” and called on the UN to bring an end to the settlement enterprise.
He witnessed, and was apparently offended by, the advanced economy of Israel and the “contrast I saw in Palestine.” Did he think what might have explained that difference? The Israelis invest heavily in the development of new technologies of every kind; the Start-Up nation does not only surpass in its innovations the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, but also most every other nation on earth. The Palestinians suffer from both mismanagement and corruption. Palestinian leaders appoint their own relatives and the relatives of their supporters to well-paid government posts; competency is not required. Incompetents govern badly; as a consequence, the Palestinian economy suffers. The corruption is staggering. Two Hamas leaders in Gaza, Khaled Meshaal and Mousa ibn Marzouk, have each amassed fortunes of at least $2.5 billion; in the West Bank, the PA’s President Mahmoud Abbas now boasts a net worth of $400 million. Israel is not to be blamed for this colossal corruption, that helps explain the wretched economic condition of the Palestinians. Nor is Israel to be blamed for the enormous sums the Palestinians devote to war-making: Hamas built hundreds of miles of tunnel networks – the “Metro” — in Gaza, that cost hundreds of millions of dollars; in the West Bank, the PA spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on payments to terrorists and their families. Both this “Pay-For-Slay Program” by the PA, and Hamas’ tunnel network and huge armory in Gaza, have cost the Palestinians hundreds of millions of dollars each year from aid money that has been diverted, money that could have been used to build up the local economies. Jagmeet Singh saw the difference in the economic development in Israel and in the Palestinian areas, was startled by it but did not think to ask himself what explained those differences; Israel was far more advanced, the Palestinians were clearly behind, and that was the extent of his singularly incurious and resentful inquiry. Perhaps if Israel were not so well run economically, if its culture of innovation were not so pronounced, if its people not so industrious and creative, Jagmeet Singh might soften his antipathy to the Jewish state. Sorry, Jagmeet, Israel no can do.
Around two months ago, Singh called on the Canadian federal government to block arms sales to Israel, in light of Operation Guardian of the Walls, for the purpose of what he calls “creating pressure” on Israel to work in humane ways to end the conflict.”
Operation Guardian of the Walls was started by Hamas when, on May 10, it suddenly launched hundreds of rockets into Israeli cities, including seven rockets that landed in Jerusalem. Yet Singh blamed Israel for the war. What “humane ways to end the conflict” did Israel need to be pressured to find? From the first day of the war, Israel was trying to end the conflict quickly, and humanely, by destroying the rocket warehouses, the rocket launchers, the terror tunnel network, the Hamas command-and-control centers, all the while trying to minimize civilian casualties by sending warnings to civilians, by telephoning, leafletting, and the “knock-on-the-roof” technique. The minute Hamas stopped hurling rockets at Israel, the Israelis called an end to hostilities; Israel needed no lessons in “humane ways to end the conflict” from the likes of Jagmeet Singh in Ottawa.
In a speech he gave in the House of Commons, Jagmeet Singh accused the Canadian government of “arming one side of the conflict,” and said that “it is undermining the peace process and it is supporting [the] illegal occupation.”
Is it really Jagmeet Singh’s view that the government of Canada should be berated for not “arming” Hamas, a recognized terror group? Is Ottawa undermining the peace process by not helping Hamas, the terror group that rejects completely the so-called “peace process” and in its Charter calls for the total destruction of the Jewish state? Does Jagmeet Singh regard Israel and the terror group Hamas as morally equivalent? And why shouldn’t Canada sell arms to Israel, a fellow Western democracy, that is under constant assault from terror groups – Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad – and from Iran, that mortal threat to Israel, that is bending all of its efforts to complete a nuclear program that will, Tehran hopes, someday allow it to wipe out the Jewish state?
Canada, which sells to Israel such a small amount – less than $15 million worth – of military equipment, is not thereby “undermining the peace process.” The so-called “peace process” has been undermined by the Palestinians themselves, who have rejected every peace offer made to them. Yassir Arafat famously walked out on a proposal made in 2000 by Prime Minister Ehud Barak to give up 92% of the West Bank, with an equivalent amount taken from Israel itself to become part of the future Palestinian state; in addition that state would include East Jerusalem, while the Old City would be shared. Mahmoud Abbas similarly rejected in 2008 an even more generous offer from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, proposing that Israel retain 6.3 percent of the West Bank in order to keep control of major Jewish settlements, while compensating the Palestinians with Israeli land equivalent to 5.8 percent of the West Bank, along with a link to the Gaza Strip. Olmert also offered to withdraw from Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem and place the Old City — home to Jerusalem’s most sensitive holy sites — under international control. Like Arafat eight years before, Mahmoud Abbas walked out.
What “peace process” does Jagmeet Singh have in mind? Hasn’t he read the outrageous list of fifteen demands made by Mahmoud Abbas that have to be met before the PA will agree to enter into negotiations? These include such things as banning all Jewish visitors from the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. There is no “peace process” not because of Israel, which has made no “demands” to re-enter such negotiations, but because of the PA’s intransigence.
Early in the Israeli operation in Gaza, Singh criticized Trudeau, saying, “Will the prime minister commit to stopping the sale of arms to Israel while they are violating international human rights?” Trudeau didn’t respond but said that the government is following the situation in the region “with concern,” and condemned rocket attacks on Israeli cities.
What “international human rights” was Israel “violating” in the Gaza war? It was Hamas that started the war, Hamas that launched rockets indiscriminately into Israeli cities. It was Hamas that deliberately stored weapons in, and launched rockets from, civilian buildings such as schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and mosques. It was Israel that made every effort to minimize civilian casualties, in some cases calling off air attacks when Israeli pilots at the last minute detected the presence of children too close to the target, Israel through telephone calls, leafletting, and the “knock-on-the-roof” technique, warned civilians to leave buildings or areas about to be hit. The “violation of human rights” was committed by the Palestinians, who endangered Israeli civilians by firing not at military targets but at Israeli cities and towns, and who endangered their own civilians by hiding weapons within, and launching rockets from, civilian buildings; it was the Palestinians who in both ways “violated international human rights.”
According to figures published in Canada, in 2019 the state sold $13.7 million worth of military and technological equipment to Israel. Singh spoke of this during May’s hostilities and claimed that it was proof that the violence in the Middle East also trickles over to Canadian politicians.
It’s unclear what Jagmeet Singh meant by this comment. Did he mean that this tiny sale of military equipment to Israel – the paltry sum of $13.7 million in military and technological equipment — could affect the views of Canadian politicians, making them more pro-Israel? I remain puzzled by his reported remarks.
mortimer says
Jagmeet Singh is a strong supporter of SIKH INDEPENDENCE in a NATIONAL SIKH HOMELAND in Kashmir, but he is opposed to a JEWISH homeland in Israel and Judea.
How very inconsistent.
Infidel says
No, he wants a Sikh homeland in Punjab, which is only 60% Sikh, but the territory demanded – if they actually got it, Sikhs would end up being just 1/6th of the population. Of course, they could do what they tried in 1984 and try ethnic cleansing of all Hindus in that state, following their Paki buddies
gravenimage says
Grimly likely so.
maria says
Siikhs are no better than muslims. There were some single sikhs in India, Indira Gandhi had sikh as her body guard,
Most of them want his himeland back but are the same antisemites like some Christian Lebanese like Helen Thomas (also called toad) who was against islam but hated the Jews.
The only pro Israeli Lebanese as far as I know is Brigitte Gabriel
Niemoller says
After Muslims, Sikhs are the most deadly terrorists in North America in modern times in terms of numbers murdered. 329 murdered in Flight 182 bombing alone. Sikhism is an Islamic offshoot afterall, but they’re still far behind Muslims with 9/11 and many other jihad mass murders like Orlando, San Bernadino, etc.
Infidel says
No, Sikhism is not an offshoot of islam, it’s an offshoot of Hinduism, but there are some key islamic attributes that they have adapted. Where muslims have their ummah, the Sikhs have their Khalsa panth, which is the entire world Sikh community. While there are some other similarities, the theological underpinnings of Sikhism are rooted in Hinduism
But you are right that after the muslims, the Sikhs – the Khalistani ones in particular – are the next most deadly. The flight that you refer to above was an Air India flight that was blown up in 1985 in retaliation against the anti-Sikh riots in India the previous year. As some other posters have noted, they are a very overwhelmed minority of Sikhs in India, but somehow, happen to have more support abroad. And w/ India being one of the countries in the crosshairs of the woke movement, the Khalistanis have happily latched on for the ride, and you have wierd groups like ‘Poetic Justice’ campaigning against India
gravenimage says
Agree, Infidel.
mortimer says
Jagmeet Singh, an apparent socialist, is an anomaly amongst Sikhs who are dynamically entrepreneurial in general. It is hard to imagine how Singh is actually a socialist coming from this entrepreneurial milieu. Moreover, with his strong desire for an independent Sikh homeland, it is totally unbelievable that he would support the crushing of the independent Jewish homeland. Sikh is in fact a very conservative man who is apparently confused about his identity. He believes in ‘Socialism for thee, but not for me.’
OTTER says
He is an out-and-out opportunist and is opposed to India and supports Khalistan. There is an increasing number of Sikhs who have forgotten all about their oppression by the Mughals and are turning on Hindus. Sikhism seems to have directly taken Islam’s fanatical trait. Sikhs are also supremacists and their slogan “Raj Karega Khalsa. means that the Khalsa will rule. I fear that large sections of this community, once the proudest of Indians, have now become seditious. Punjab has also been left behind in development terms by Haryana even though both were demarcated from the same state (Punjab). There is also a growing number of venomous Sikhs in the UK.
Infidel says
Punjab has been deteriorating at its own behest. Previously, it had a coalition government of the Akalis-BJP (where the Akalis are the Sikh party of Punjab), but the Akalis withdrew from it during the farmers protests earlier this year. Despite the name, this ‘farmer’s protest’ wasn’t just about farm subsidies – something that could have been resolved had the issue been just that – but demands of Khalistanis resurfacing. What is bizarre is that just like the Indian government is unwilling to do anything about the violence in Bengal, they are similarly unwilling to do anything about things being brought to a halt in Delhi
A few days ago, a major Indian company which found it next to impossible to operate due to this agitation in Punjab, shut down its offices there and opened a major data center (or more) in UP. UP is turning out to be India’s Florida as far as ease of doing business goes
gravenimage says
Yes–this is a real concern.
And I believe Singh has been banned from India.
Sam says
Why does your article not mention a single word about the blatant Hinduphobia and Sikh Supremacist ideology he stands for?
Ably riding on Pakistani Jehad network connections, Khalistani ideology has struck deep roots in Canadian Sikh diaspora, and needs to be called out..
Canadians just ignore this scourge at the moment as they don’t care if Ks go around bullying Hindus.. but this menace will not stop at just bullying Hindus and bringing South Asian politics in Canada. This will affect all Canadians soon enough
Infidel says
Sam
How do Canadian conservatives view this Khalistan movement?
Raja says
I can say that Sikhs are not anti India per se. They are also very industrious people. There was a time they fought the Islamic invaders to the last drop of blood.It was Indira Gandhi, the former PM of India who did some very foolish things viz a viz the Sikhs. She courted a hardliner, Bhindranwale to garner votes and it backfired on her with her murder. The Sikh “independence” was inspired by Indian diaspora in UK and Canada specifically. What all the wise commentators have missed out is that the seditious movement (Khalistan) was stoked and supported by Islamic Pakistan, a well documented fact. Shouldn’t be surprised that islam had its hand full in India, lately islam is focused on African countries, the insane Western Europe and US & Canada.
Sikhs tend to be little funny and internet’s favorite past time used to be Sikh jokes, akin to Polish jokes in US.
Infidel says
Actually, there was one demand that the Sikhs had which was and is legitimate: being recognized as a religion distinct from Hinduism, and being allowed their own personal laws, just like muslims have. If India adapts a uniform civil code, that demand would be redundant, since one can then point out that nobody has it. However, I do agree w/ the Sikhs in this, since Sikhism is a monotheistic religion and definitely not Hinduism. Yeah, it’s a dharmaic religion, but just as Christianity is not Judaism, similarly Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are not Hinduism
Right now, since the woke movement is targeting India, the Sikhs who are a part of this movement are resurrecting Khalistan
Raja says
Infidel,
Thanks for your reply. The moral of the story: If you deal with kid gloves for islam, you can expect others to demand the same. If you choose to keep islam in its place (by a nation-state) others might not wag their tail.
Rueben Singh says
I was in Punjab, India several years ago and I saw no support for this khalistan rubbish anywhere.
My family is Sikh and no one supports it.
The Sikhs who do support it are Sikhs in the West and even then it is a caste based movement. It is a Jat movement really, the other Sikh castes do not support it.
Even in Canada, a country that I have visited more than 10 times it is only Jat Sikhs. The others do not identify with it.
gravenimage says
Thanks for your view on the ground, Rueben.
Infidel says
As all the above posters pointed out, I’m surprised that Hugh missed the Khalistani sympathies of Jagmeet Singh. That alone clouds his entire vision, b’cos the Khalistan movement demands carveouts from India, including cities like Delhi where Sikhs are not even 10% of the population, while in the meantime, it doesn’t touch any Pakistani territory.
This despite the fact that the one Sikh state that existed in history included the bulk of Pakistan’s Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces: his capital was Lahore, and his kingdom included Peshawar, Multan, Rawalpindi, Lyallpur, not just Amritsar, Anandpur Sahib, Patiala… In fact, the Khalistan movement doesn’t even demand Guru Nanak’s birthplace of Nankana, which is completely in Pak territory. All this is b’cos they can’t alienate both India and Pakistan: they have to choose one. And they chose to be enemies of India, rather than Pakistan. This despite the fact that 2 of their gurus were executed by the Mughals (whom the Pakis love, since they consider themselves the successor state to the Mughal empire and have aspirations of ghazwa e Hind) and another 2 of them fought the Mughals. Had they been buried rather than cremated, they’d be spinning in their graves
So as a result of being vassals of Pakistan, they’ve also chosen to be vassals of muslims. That has also meant that when grooming gangs in the UK touched Sikh girls, the local Khalistanis stayed mum. And the Sikh guy who in 2016 disrupted a Trump rally in protest against his ‘muslim ban’ – I’m willing to bet that he too was a Khalistani
So Israel is losing nothing by such traitors (to their own faith, not India) siding against them. They should be put on their no-fly list and banned from there, just like Ilhan and Rashida
gravenimage says
+1
Dan says
The main thing Americans need to know about this p.o.s. is he’s the head of the N.D.P. (New Democratic Party)
They are the COMMUNIST PARTY of Canada, and make Turdolt look like President Trump by comparison.
In fact, since Singh can’t return to his country of origin – he would face terrorism charges – I’d say he’s a budding STALIN.
Infidel says
Not just that, thanks to him, and others like him, Canada’s relations w/ India – normally friendly – are at rock bottom. I once saw someone in an Indian news channel suggest that Canada carve out a piece of its own territory where Sikhs are high in number, and create an independent Khalistan republic out of that
Bella says
Max Bernier is a rising star but this guy is only Trudeau no. 2, heavy on the number 2.
Infidel says
I was disappointed that Bernier’s Canadian People’s Party did not win. That was the only party that could have saved Canada
gravenimage says
Meet Jagmeet Singh, A Rising Star In Canadian Politics
…………
Ugly suff.
Note that Singh also hates Donald Trump, has called the demonstration at the capitol in the US in January terrorism (even though the only person killed was an unarmed woman demonstrator shot by police).
He is pro-BLM, lauds “taking a knee”, has condemned Justin Trudeau for not being ‘woke enough’. He’s also talked about young people being his “weapon”. Concerning stuff.
He has screamed that Muslims are not safe in Canada–no such concern for the Canadian victims of Jihad terror.
“The reality is that our Canada is a place of racism, of violence, of genocide of Indigenous people and our Canada is a place where Muslims aren’t safe. Muslims are not safe in this country. And Muslims wonder how many more lives will it take?…”
He has–ludicrously–said that you can’t walk down the street in Canada in Hijab without being killed–an obvious lie.
He hates Canada. Yes, Canada could actually get worse with people like Singh.
Ty Ader says
You misspelled his name. It’s Jerkmeat. JERKMEAT!
rp says
Mr Singh does not have two brain cells to see the differences between Israel and Palestine.
His brain can only think ”b” comes after ”a” but ask him what is before ”c”. He will be lost.
OLD GUY says
Funny how some turds flat to the top. Singh is as far from being democratic as Putin.