The True Measure of Solidarity

The pattern over the last three years has become all to familiar. An incident occurs, statements of condemnation follow, leaders express concern, and organizations issue messages of solidarity. For a brief moment, there is a sense that everyone understands the gravity of what is happening. Then the news cycle moves on—until the next incident.

We have reached a point where the question is not whether people know the right thing to say after an antisemitic incident. It is whether we are prepared to do the harder work of confronting the conditions that allow antisemitism to persist, spread and become normalized?

Last week’s incident at a Montreal synagogue was another stark reminder of the climate in which Jewish communities around the world are living, and the pattern. Condemning the targeting of a place of worship should be the absolute baseline. It should never be the measure by which we assess someone’s commitment to fighting antisemitism.

What happens when Jewish students are intimidated on university campuses, in primary and high schools, when Jewish institutions are vandalized, or individuals are targeted simply for being Jewish? When are Jews marginalized for who they are in workplaces or activities? When all too often, the response is silence: scant public reaction, limited media coverage if any, and even less sustained attention.

This week, I was in court to provide a community impact statement regarding the November 2023 shooting at a Montreal school. The Jewish school was shot at thankfully at night while the building was empty. The trauma of this crime and the many others, extend far beyond the physical damage to a building. When a Jewish school is targeted, the shockwaves are felt by students, families, educators, and the broader community. It shatters people’s sense of security and their ability to learn, gather, and go about their daily lives without fear.

This is where the justice system has a critical role to play. From law enforcement and investigation through to prosecution and sentencing, every level of the system must step up. These crimes must be taken seriously, perpetrators must be held accountable, and the response must send an unequivocal message: targeting Jewish communities and institutions carries severe consequences.

But we should be careful not to treat each incident as an isolated event, or antisemitism as a problem that belongs exclusively to the Jewish community. What we are witnessing raises much bigger questions about the standards we are prepared to uphold as a society.

We also need the willingness to confront antisemitism at its roots and honestly examine what is driving it. And responsibility cannot rest with the Jewish community alone.

How have expressions of hatred become normalized? How have intimidation and hostility toward Jews found acceptance in spaces that should be centers of learning, debate, and inclusion? Why are antisemitic narratives being repeated, legitimized, or excused? And why are institutions that have a fundamental responsibility to protect their communities so reluctant to confront what is happening?

Answering these questions means being prepared to address the full range of ideological drivers behind antisemitism, including Islamist radicalization and extremism. We cannot afford to look away from extremist movements, their narratives, and their efforts to normalize the hatred of Jews. Nor can we allow political sensitivities or the fear of difficult conversations to prevent an honest examination of these threats.

Antisemitism does not have a single source or ideological home. It manifests in different forms and across different movements. Addressing it seriously means confronting all of them—without double standards and without selective scrutiny.

Fair-weather friends show up when solidarity is easy, when condemnation is expected, and when there is zero political cost to speaking out. Real allies are measured by what they do when the cameras are gone, when the issue is uncomfortable, and when standing with the Jewish community requires conviction.

The measure of solidarity isn’t what people say after an attack. It’s what they are prepared to do before the next one happens.

We have no shortage of condemnations. What we need is consistent leadership, institutional accountability, meaningful enforcement, and the courage to confront the conditions that allow antisemitism to thrive.

The Jewish community does not need another round of sympathetic statements after the next incident. It needs allies prepared to stand with it consistently, institutions prepared to uphold their responsibilities, and governments prepared to translate words into action.

This is bigger than the Jewish community. Antisemitism may be one of the clearest warning signs of what happens when hatred is normalized and standards become conditional. The question is whether we are prepared to recognize that warning and act before the consequences reach further.