On March 20, 2026, Cotler Fellow Hanmin Oh represented the Irwin Cotler Institute at the 2026 International Counter-Terrorism Conference, held at KINTEX First Exhibition Hall in Ilsan, South Korea. Organized by the Korean Association for Terrorism Studies and hosted by the Counter-Terrorism Security Research Institute, the conference brought together experts from six countries, including South Korea, Israel, Germany, Mongolia, Hong Kong, and Singapore, to examine emerging security threats and to chart the direction of counterterrorism strategy over the coming decade. Prof. Uriya Shavit, the Head of the Institute, and Dr. Carl Yonker, the Institute’s Academic Director, had originally been scheduled to deliver lectures on legal and strategic frameworks for confronting extremism and on foreign influence operations and cognitive threats against democratic societies. However, due to the war with Iran and the deteriorating security situation in Israel, neither was able to travel to Korea.

In Seoul, Mr. Oh represented the Institute and the Cotler Fellows program, introducing the Institute, its work, and the Fellowship program. He also spoke briefly on the global resurgence of antisemitism, emphasizing that contemporary antisemitism is not merely a Jewish concern but a barometer of the health of democracy itself, and that cultivating awareness of how antisemitism operates and spreads is an essential element of any democratic society’s defense against extremism and the erosion of liberal norms.

On Sunday, June 21, 2026, the Irwin Cotler Institute will hold its Annual Strategic Workshop, between 11:00 and 18:00 in Jaglom Auditorium at Tel Aviv University. Participation is free of charge but requires prior registration. If you would like to attend and have not yet registered, please contact cotler@tauex.tau.ac.il.

Please find the program below.

On May 29, Prof. Uriya Shavit, Head of the Institute, and Dr. Carl Yonker, the Institute’s Academic Director, spoke with dozens of students at the University of Pristina in Kosovo. The  Israeli-Kosovo dialogue was initiated and organized by Mr. Premton Asllani in coordination with the University of Pristina’s student union. Mr. Asllani is a Kosovar student who recently completed his master’s thesis (summa cum laude) at Tel Aviv University on the process of Israel’s recognition of Kosovo as an independent state.

During the dialogue, students asked insightful and thoughtful questions on topics ranging from Israel-Kosovo relations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the current war in Iran, Israeli society, how to succeed in academia, and building democratic institutions and society in Kosovo.

Prof. Shavit and Dr. Yonker also met with members of the university faculty and discussed ideas for academic cooperation, including organizing a seminar for young Israeli and Kosovar scholars on the concept of Besa, the code of honor that inspired Albanians to rescue Jews during the Holocaust.

On Sunday, January 18, 2026, the Irwin Cotler Institute hosted its second Diplomats’ Club of the 2025-2026 academic year. Attended by over 60 people, including members of 23 delegations from Azerbaijan, Brazil, Chile, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Nepal, Nigeria, the Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. The seminar was moderated by Ms. Maria Ellul, a 2025-2026 Cotler Fellow.

The seminar addressed the strategic, political, and normative challenges facing the United States as global order gives way to heightened uncertainty, great-power competition, and regional instability. The opening session focused on the future of American democracy at a moment of deep polarization, institutional strain, and global uncertainty. Prof. Uriya Shavit, the Head of the Institute, opened the seminar with a discussion on the fundamental elements that define a democratic state, raising critical questions about the imprint left by the January 6 Capitol Attack on the American electorate and how this may have shaped voting behaviour in the November 2024 elections. Dr. Yoav Fromer followed with an analysis of the intersection between American democracy and foreign policy, addressing in particular the evolving challenges in U.S.-Israeli relations.

The second session turned to the evolving challenges facing American Jewry across the political spectrum. Dr. Carl Yonker, the Academic Director of the Institute, opened the session with an in-depth examination of the rise of antisemitism in the United States as a byproduct of Christian Nationalism. Using the recent arson attack of the Beth Israel Congregation in Jackson, Mississippi, as a point of departure, Dr. Yonker analyzed the role of three prominent figures in the Christian Nationalism movement: Pastor Rick Wiles, Gab founder Andrew Torba, and streamer Nick Fuentes, who disseminate antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories to millions of followers. Ms. Ofir Dayan, of the Institute for National Security Studies, then examined manifestations of antisemitism on the political left, focusing on its proliferation on American college campuses.

Following a lunch break, the third session featured Israeli representatives of both major U.S. political parties, who offered insight into how Americans residing in Israel and dual nationals exercise their suffrage rights. Ms. Chaya Hoput, the Chair of Democrats Abroad in Israel, opened the session with an overview of the organization’s history and mission. Mr. Marc Zell, the Chair of Republicans Overseas in Israel, similarly outlined his organization’s background and shared perspectives on the current state of U.S.-Israel relations.

The final session explored U.S. engagement with the Arab world and Turkey amid shifting alliances, regional conflicts, and evolving global power dynamics. Dr. Brandon Friedman opened the session with an in-depth analysis of the American relationship with Saudi Arabia. Concluding the seminar, Dr. Gallia Lindenstrauss, of the Institute for National Security Studies, addressed U.S.-Turkey relations, reflecting on how President Erdoğan has been perceived by successive U.S. administrations and highlighting moments when Washington has asserted clear red lines – most notably Turkey’s removal from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program following its purchase of Russian S-400 air defense systems.

On Sunday, December 14, the Irwin Cotler Institute hosted its first Diplomats’ Club of the 2025-2026 academic year. Attended by 92 people, including members of 15 diplomatic delegations from Belgium, Brazil, China, Cyprus, Egypt, India, Kenya, Lithuania, Moldova, North Macedonia, Panama, Portugal, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the European Union, the seminar was moderated by Ms. Maria Ellul, a 2025-2026 Cotler Fellow.

The seminar focused on current events in Syria following the overthrow of the Assad regime and marked the publication of the Arabic translation of Dr. Carl Yonker’s book, The Rise and Fall of Greater Syria (De Gruyter, 2021). Dr. Yonker, the Academic Director of the Center, opened the first session with a detailed overview of the current geopolitical struggle for Syria in historical perspective, arguing that the Syrian state once again finds itself weak and fragmented as it did in the early years of independence.

Following Dr. Yonker’s remarks, Mr. Roee Nahmias, the former Arab affairs correspondent for Ynet and a PhD candidate at TAU, offered a detailed analysis of Syria’s new constitution and transitional president, Ahmed al-Sharaa’, addressing the extent to which the new Syrian regime can be considered moderate and whether its moderation can be considered a true transformation or simply a tactical maneuver.

Former Ambassador to Russia, Arkady Mil-Man, concluded the first session with a lecture on the future of Russian-Syrian relations. Commenting on the connection between the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria in Russian-Israeli relations, Amb. Mil-Man argued that Israel’s neutrality in the Ukraine conflict was due to the Russian presence in Syria, Israel’s concern for the Jewish community in Russia, and a psychological fear that the “Russian bear” would react angrily if Israel supported Ukraine. To its shame, according to Amb. Mil-Man, Israel never spoke a word of support or defense of the Ukrainian Jewish community that was being bombed by Russia. Yet when Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar finally did so in the summer of 2025, there was no antagonistic response from Russia, revealing Israel’s fear of Putin was possibly mistaken all along.

After a delicious lunch, the second session on prospects of peace between Syria and Israel began with the blessing and lighting of the first candle for Hanukkah by Ms. Ellul and Cotler Fellow Hanmin Oh.

Following the candle lighting, Prof. Eyal Zisser, a renowned scholar of Syria, spoke on Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations in historical perspective, suggesting that reaching a security arrangement between the two countries is far more likely than a peace or normalization agreement. Concluding the seminar, Dr. Ofir Winter, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, gave a thought-provoking and insightful lecture on Islamic popular and legal discourse in Syria regarding peace with Israel, highlighting views on Jews, Israel and peace expressed by leading clerics and regime figures.

The Cotler Fellowship Program prides itself of the relations it maintains with many of its alumni. One of the most notable among them is Moses Toshimasu (2022-2023), who is currently in an officer training school for the Japanese Air Force. In September 2024, Moses organized, together with his Church in Osaka, the pro-Israeli Higashisumiyoshi Christian Assembly, a three-hour seminar on Israel and the Middle East. It was attended in-person by about 80 members of the Church, with several hundred members watching the event across Japan through live stream.

Prof. Uriya Shavit, head of the Cotler Institute, gave a lecture on the Bible and Israel, discussing the enduring relevance of the Bible in Israeli education and culture, as well as addressed the current security situation in Israel and the Middle East. Dr. Yonker spoke about Christians in Israel and on regional developments in Syria and Iran. Following the seminar, ideas were exchanged on possible ways to promote the relations between TAU and the Church. Mr. Toshimasu offered the translation to Japanese.

Later, Prof. Shavit and Dr. Yonker met in Tokyo with seven leading Japanese journalists and scholars to discuss the current situation in the Middle East. The roundtable was organized in coordination with the Israeli Embassy and provided a forum for important dialogue and exchange on Israeli society and politics, the war in Gaza, and Japan-Israel relations. In attendance were: Prof. Ezaki Chie, an associate professor at the National Defense Academy specializing in the Middle East; Ms. Kanaya Misa, a senior analyst at Mitsui & Co. Global Strategic Studies Institute specializing in the Middle East; Dr. Nagao Satoru, a non-resident fellow at Stanford University’s Hudson Institute specializing in strategic studies and international relations; Dr. Nomura Akifumi, an associate professor at Takushoku University specializing in Shari‘a law; Ms. Okada Mizuki, a political staff writer at Sankei Shimbun covering Japanese security and foreign policies; Mr. Sugita Hiroki, a professor at Meiji University and journalist with Kyodo News, specializing in international politics; and Mr. Kawakita Shogo, a senior writer and editorial board member  at Kyodo News.

Following the successful visit, Mr. Shogo interviewed Prof. Shavit on the Gaza deal and the situation in Israel. The interview was published by a number of leading Japanese media organizations.

On May 19, 2025, the Cotler Institute hosted its third annual Democracy Forum during Tel Aviv University’s Board of Governors events. This year’s gathering featured a keynote address by the Hon. Justice Harry LaForme, Canada’s first Indigenous appellate court justice, whose remarks are reprinted below.

The Hon. Harry S. Laforme

Before I begin my remarks, I wish to acknowledge that we are gathered together on the land HaShem promised to Abraham – the homeland of the Indigenous Jewish people.

I give greetings to you on behalf of the Chief and Council of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation of which I am a proud member. I hope that we will listen and learn from each other and move forward together in a good way.

 Thank you for this honour and opportunity to speak to the Democracy Forum, the University of Tel Aviv, and a very special thank you to my good friend and mentor the Honourable Irwin Cotler. As we say in my Anishinaabe/Ojibwe language – Chi Miigwetch or Big Thank You.

To begin with, I do not speak for all Indigenous peoples in Canada, although I speak for many including my own First Nation.

In Canada, there are around 660 recognized First Nations governments or bands domiciled on reserves, as these two terms are defined by the federal legislation called the Indian Act. This Act has governed and defined Indigenous First Nations peoples’ and their rights since 1876.

An Indian reserve is typically a very small remote piece of land set aside for First Nations. Legal title is vested in Canada and set apart for First Nations use and benefit. Only registered Indians may occupy reserve land. This land should no be confused with First Nations claims to ancestral lands under Constitutional rights to Aboriginal title.

The First Nations people in Canada comprise more than 50 Indigenous Nations (like Cree, Mohawk, Anishinaabe) with 50 Indigenous languages, and the most recent census recorded a little over 1 million First Nations people. We once spoke over 500 Indigenous languages and dialects and we occupied all of Canada from coast to coast to coast since time immemorial.

I am Anishinaabe – an Ojibwe word which means “original people” or “good people”. As I said I am a proud member of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation who are the descendants of the “River Credit” Mississaugas, an Anishinaabe nation. We are split into six different First Nations or Bands. Our ancestors once occupied, controlled, and exercised stewardship over approximately 3.9 million acres of lands, waters, and resources in Southern Ontario, Canada.

I was born on the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, where I was mostly raised. I was born during the time that the Indian Agent was present with absolute authority on our reserve. The Indian Agent was a federal bureaucrat who controlled virtually all aspects of our lives – from cradle to grave.

In 1969 my grandfather and uncles became politically active in response to Canada’s then White Paper policy of assimilation of Indians and I joined them as a young man. It soon became clear to me that the issues facing my people would be resolved though the law before the courts and I decided to go to law school.

When I started law school in 1974 there were 4 Indigenous lawyers in all of Canada and none of them practiced in the area of Indigenous rights because there simply was no such thing. I attended Law School at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Ontario which at the time, referred to itself as the “Harvard of the North”.

I graduated in 1977 and was called to the Ontario Bar in 1980.

Upon graduation I was hired by Osler Hoskins and Harcourt – a large law firm in Toronto – as an associate in its corporate commercial department. I think, at that time, the law firm found an Indigenous lawyer intriguing and novel. In the early 1980s I was a rare Indigenous lawyer with the many challenges that came with it. 

I am grateful to Oslers for the legal experience they gave me but one day as I looked over Lake Ontario to where my reserve was, I realized that Oslers and corporate law was not where I was meant to be. Indigenous law was in its embryonic stage and I wanted to have a voice in its development and its application to my people. After less than a year, Oslers and I parted in a good way and I began one of the first private law practices in Indigenous law.

In 1994 I was among three Indigenous people to sit as a judge on the federal trial courts throughout Canada. Then in 2004 I was appointed to sit as a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal. I was the first Indigenous person to sit on any appellate court in Canada’s history. Indeed, I am told I was the first Indigenous person to sit on an appellate court in all of the Commonwealth. And there I sat for over 14 years as a lonely first. The colleagues I most identified with, and who best understood that I came from a different place, were my Jewish colleagues.

The Honourable Irwin Cotler was the Canadian Minister of Justice who appointed me to the Ontario Court of Appeal and it was not lost on Minister Cotler that I was the first Indigenous person to be appointed to an appellate court in Canada.

It is the practice in Canada that when a person is appointed to an appellate court, they receive a personal phone call from the Minister of Justice. In that brief conversation I asked Minister Cotler “why me”? With little hesitation he answered, “who better to know what justice is than someone who has lived their entire life with injustice”!

These were words that I took with me into the courtroom and informed my decisions as a judge. To me it meant my “lived experience” that included periods of injustice. The Honourable Irwin Cotler is one of my heroes and I am privileged to call him a friend.

I retired from the court in 2018 and returned to the practice of law and advocated for First Nations and Indigenous people.

October 7^th and its aftermath, caused me to reflect upon the deep spiritual connection and love I have for the traditional lands of my people and the cultural and traditional values we hold dear.

The sadistic and barbaric savagery Hamas perpetrated on Israelis on October 7^th continues to fill me with horror and as time passed grief and sorrow joined my horror. Many of my Jewish friends have shared with me how they feel unsafe in Canada. I am angry and deeply saddened by the tsunami of jew hatred, the rampant antisemitism in Canada and the insecurity of my friends.

Since that day I think about my many Jewish friends and how they have supported me throughout my life’s endeavours. As both a judge of the trial division court and the Ontario Court of Appeal the wisdom of my Jewish colleagues helped guide my legal reasoning and decision making, just as my unique background, I believe and hope, influenced them. 

I have come to appreciate that the story of the Jewish people has many weaving similarities to Indigenous people in Canada. For those of us that have some understanding of the impacts of history and some intellectual and historical perspective, it is clearly evident that the Jews are the Indigenous People of Israel for thousands of years.

After October 7^th I observed how in Canada, Anishinaabe culture and traditions were being appropriated by anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian demonstrators to justify the unjustifiable. It caused me to reflect on the nature of the original Indigenous/Canadian relationship at the time of first contact with European settlers.

My Anishinaabe beliefs begin with this: The Creator placed the distinct races of humankind upon Mother Earth and gifted each with unique knowledge to be used for their benefit and the benefit of all humankind.

As Anishinaabe, I try to live in accordance with my traditional values and the Seven Sacred Teachings sometimes referred to as the Seven Grandfather Teachings. They are as follows: Love, Respect, Courage, Honesty, Wisdom, Humility and Truth

The Creator gifted these Seven Sacred Teachings to us all so that we may learn how to live and move forward together in a good way. 

As Anishinaabe we have a deep spiritual connection to the land; to our traditional lands. Mother Earth is our first mother. We are called upon to be stewards of our traditional and treaty lands and to take action in response to what is going on within them. We are taught to pay attention to our traditional territory for issues that do not align with our values. The Creator gave us a voice and a warrior spirit to use when it comes to abuse and atrocity.

I am paying attention and I do not like what I am hearing and seeing taking place on our traditional lands today. It is all too reminiscent of the hate that emanated out of the vile and tragic Indian Residential System of Schools operated by Canada and Christian churches that persisted for decades; well over a century.

Indigenous peoples welcomed the settlers to Turtle Island – North America. Our original relationship was based upon mutual respect, honour, equality, peaceful coexistence, and the sharing of the land; its resources and wisdom. We were allies!

Treaties of Peace and Friendship were entered into that codified these intentions. They stressed peaceful and equal coexistence and were grounded in the seven sacred teachings. These treaties date back to the mid-1400s and were documented by First Nations in what are called Wampum belts or the Covenant Chain.

Notwithstanding these international instruments – which we mutually lived in accordance with for more than four centuries – in the mid-1700s, rather than adhere to these treaties and promises, Britain unilaterally decided to govern the interior of North America by its own rules. In 1763, Chief Pontiac led a coordinated attack by Indigenous groups upon British forts in the Upper Great Lakes Region and unsettled the British attempts at British reign.

The message Chief Pontiac sent to the British was: “We want a partner not a ruler.” Chief Pontiac was not trying to run Europeans out of the region but to restore the terms of alliance and treaty and restore the original relationship.

Chief Pontiac’s military successes lead to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 issued by King George III and now a part of the Constitution of Canada. It was followed by the 1764 Treaty of Niagara. Through these Treaties the original relationship was reaffirmed. The Covenant Chain was said to have been “polished.” The Indigenous people and European settlers lived in accordance with this polished Covenant Chain for another century.

I wish to note that the 1764 Treaty of Niagara – together with the Royal Proclamation – constitute a peace treaty that was entered into between the British Crown and Indigenous nations. The Treaties established a framework for coexistence that recognized Indigenous sovereignty. The Treaty of Niagara is considered a foundational document for First Nations’ relationship with the British Crown and subsequently with Canada, though it is not earnestly recognized as such today by Canada. The treaty, nevertheless, is a notable example of the British Crown’s recognition of Indigenous sovereignty in the years preceding the American Revolution.

A recent court decision in the province of Quebec has provided us with legal recognition and a contemporary meaning to the “Covenant Chain”. The Quebec Superior Court held that this Covenant Chain is a treaty that includes the right to trade and to resolve issues with the Crown through discussion. The court found that this treaty is a diplomatic peace and friendship alliance with a conflict-resolution procedure protected by section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982.

And finally, the court found that the parties – Indigenous people and Canada – must meet their obligations under the Covenant Chain through meaningful discussion. This decision will now work its way up to our Supreme Court because nothing comes easy for us.

Returning then to the evolution of the Indigenous/Canadian relationship. Tragically, in the early to mid-1800s, Canada – now the successor to Britain – felt secure enough in its numeric superiority to Indigenous people to ignore the treaties and alliances with them and abandon completely the original relationship. Canada assumed the responsibilities of governing itself pursuant to the British North America Act (BNA Act) – now the Constitution Act.

The BNA Act was the law passed by the British Parliament in 1867 that created the Dominion of Canada. Under this Act the Parliament of Canada was provided with exclusive legislative authority over “Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians” – Section 91(24). This means the federal government has the exclusive power to create laws regarding First Nations people, their lands, and related matters – as proclaimed by our judiciary. Racism against Indigenous people is now entrenched in the Canadian constitution.

This brought about the Indian Act which has governed First Nations people’s lives from cradle to grave – and still does to this day, even with many amendments. The Indian Act has historically shaped federal policies and legislation concerning Indigenous peoples, and its interpretation has been subject to ongoing debate and legal challenges.

Canada could have chosen to interpret and apply section 91(24) of the BNA in a manner that honoured the Treaties of Peace and Friendship and benefited Indigenous people but instead it interpreted and applied it in a way that marginalized, disenfranchised and enfeebled Indigenous people and made them “wards of the Crown”.

Section 91(24) of the BNA and the Indian Act marked the beginning of the end of Indigenous autonomy and the destruction of the original relationship. The fight to have Canada restore and return to the original relationship continues to this day.

For example, “Indian Status” refers to a specific legal identity of an Indigenous First Nations person in Canada. With the creation of the Indian Act, Canada developed criteria for who would be legally considered an Indian, which again continues. Indeed, the apartheid laws introduced by South African governments were influenced by and borrowed from laws introduced in Canada. Colonization, the reserve system, the Indian Act, the pass system and the introduction of Indian agents — all were put in place by Canada. Some suggest Canada’s policies for dealing with First Nation people were adopted by Nazi Germany.

Canada had developed policies and laws that disenfranchised, oppressed, and marginalized Indigenous peoples as exemplified by the Indian Residential School System which I will talk about later. In addition, there is the common law adoption of the racist and fictional Doctrine of Discovery that permitted – among other things – the unlawful acquisition of all Indigenous land. Through all of this, Indigenous peoples were made “wards of the state”. We were no longer the trusted allies. Rather, we now faced assimilation and cultural genocide.

It is important to understand thatthe Doctrine of Discovery was originally laid out in a series of papal “bulls” – or Catholic decrees or aspirations, not laws. The first papal bull was issued in 1452. These papal bulls purported to give permission to European princes/colonial powers, such as Spain and Portugal, to seize lands and subjugate people in the “New World,” as long as people on the lands were not Christians.

In March 2023 the Vatican repudiated those decrees, saying the “Doctrine of Discovery” that was used to justify “snuffing out” Indigenous people’s culture and livelihoods is not part of the Catholic faith.

But indeed, it was until 2023, and while the Supreme Court of Canada has not explicitly “repudiated” this Doctrine, it continues to be a subject of legal and moral debate in Canada, particularly in cases involving Indigenous land rights. It is important to note that Canadian courts used to refer to and rely upon the Doctrine of Discovery. Canadian courts have moved way from that but now are referring to it as the “assertion of Crown Sovereignty” – whatever that may mean.  

We, the Indigenous people of Canada, continue to live with its dire consequences each day because the Doctrine of Discovery has successfully done its damage – it purportedly legitimized the taking of all our land and it is incorporated into Canada’s jurisprudence.

Before continuing I will briefly discuss Indian Residential Schools. For a period of more than 150 years – beginning in 1831 and continuing until 1997 – First Nations children were taken from their families and communities to attend residential schools, which were often located far from their homes. More than 150,000 children attended Indian Residential Schools. Many never returned.

The first church-run Indian Residential School was opened, as I said, in 1831. By the 1880s, the federal government had adopted an official policy of funding residential schools across Canada. The explicit intent was to separate these children from their families and cultures – to “kill the Indian in the child”. In 1920, the Indian Act made attendance at Indian Residential Schools compulsory for status Indigenous children between the ages of 7 and 15. It was a crime for Indigenous parents to keep their children home or hide them from authorities seeking their apprehension and placement in those schools.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (the “TRC”) – in its final report to Canada released in December 2015 – concluded that residential schools were “a systematic, government sponsored attempt to destroy Indigenous cultures and languages and to assimilate them so that they no longer existed as distinct peoples.” The TRC characterized this intent as “cultural genocide.”

The schools were often underfunded and overcrowded. The quality of education was substandard. Children were harshly punished for speaking their own languages. Staff were never held accountable for how they treated our children.

We know that thousands of students suffered physical, sexual and emotional abuse at residential schools. All suffered from loneliness and a longing to be home with their families. The schools severely harmed the children, their families, and their communities. Children were deprived of healthy examples of love and respect. The distinct cultures, traditions, languages, and knowledge systems of First Nations peoples were eroded by this forced assimilation. The damages inflicted by Residential Schools – as you can imagine –continue to this day.

In 1910, Canada’s Deputy Superintendent General, Department of Indian Affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott, responding to the appalling high death rate of children in Indian Residential Schools, unequivocally stated, “this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian problem.”^[1] As many will no doubt recall, the Nazis aggressively deployed the term “final solution” in connection with Jews all over Europe.

The phrase – final solution – that Canada used in the 1910s in connection with Indian Residential Schools; that the Nazis used during WWII; and was used in the South African apartheid regime since the mid-1940s – has been cleverly adapted and utilized once again.

Any Indigenous person and non-Indigenous Canadian aware of our shared history should shudder to hear it chanted on our streets and in our communities. As Anishinaabe, the term, in all of its iterations, is offensive, hateful and racist. It takes us back to a dark chapter in our shared history marked by the death of more than 6,000 Indigenous children and the multi-generational psychological harm to more than 150,000 Indigenous people. It sadly brings to mind the tragic loss of 6 million Jews across Europe during, and in the period leading up to, the Holocaust.

Anyone with knowledge of the history of Israel and the Jewish people should be horrified to hear it chanted in Canada and elsewhere in the world. 

The calls for the death of Jewish people are unequivocally anathema to the Seven Sacred Teachings. Exclusion, bigotry, harassment, antisemitism, lawlessness, and hate are being permitted on and throughout our traditional and Treaty Lands. All of which is completely contrary to The Seven Sacred Teachings.

As Anishinaabe, I am deeply troubled by the expressions of hatred against Jews and Zionists, and the willful, disappointing and overt ignorance, fueled by misinformation coming from educational institutions and broader society – Ignorance about the current reconciliation efforts of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Ignorance about our shared history and the promise and intentions of our first and existing treaties and our original relationship.

And how quickly the sadistic savagery of Hamas’ invasion of Israel and its promises to repeat October 7th again and again and again are so casually forgotten. A character flaw for many that we First Nations people experience far too often.

Erroneous false narratives are coming out of universities about current reconciliation efforts led by Indigenous peoples to justify divisive hateful conduct that overwhelmingly targets and isolates Jewish and Zionist Canadians.

Some have suggested correlations between Hamas and Israel in the Middle East and the reconciliation work led by First Nations here in Canada. I hear the words “colonizer”, “settler” and “decolonize” to justify terror, violence, kidnapping, rape, targeted civilian massacres. These words are used to assert revolutionary violence “by any means necessary” and that “all forms of resistance” are justified.

I unequivocally reject these assertions and any allyship with those who hold such views. Those values are abhorrent to the Sacred Teachings and expressly contrary to the original founding of Canada. It is important to recognize that Canada is an admitted settler colonial nation.

Anti-Israel pro-Palestinian supporters are in violation of the Treaties with Indigenous peoples and Canada as a party, and The Seven Sacred Teachings. Allegedly they seek to resolve a crisis in the Middle East by means that are completely at odds with Indigenous peoples, the Treaties, our Sacred Teachings, and our relationship with Canada.

Equally dreadful are the measures that target Jewish and Zionist Canadians – people who are welcome on our Treaty Lands and are deserving of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Canadians.

Our Land, the Treaties, our values, and our hospitality are being abused and pirated by treaty scofflaws. Leaders of universities, government, and law enforcement – all of which are Treaty Partners – are knowingly allowing it to happen.

As an Anishinaabe Zionist I am being made to feel unwelcome on my Treaty Lands by anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian treaty violators who self-describe as part of the current colonial settler regime that marginalizes and oppresses Indigenous peoples – me. They should examine the illogic of their own activities on my ancestral and Treaty Lands.

On November 7, 2024 my spouse, Janice, and I were privileged to be a part of the Spirit of Hope Gala hosted by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal – a powerful gathering of diverse communities brought together by their shared humanity and opposition to Jew hatred. We left the event infused with hope and inspired by fellow Canadians.

And then came Amsterdam. Man’s inhumanity to man – on full display. Amsterdam revealed the falsity of assertions that “Intifada revolution” are benign or peaceful calls for change. Hamas publicly committed to repeat October 7^th over and over and over again. In Amsterdam this hateful promise was kept. And the terrorist promise is played out on our streets and in our communities in Canada. Following Amsterdam Hamas delivered on its promise in Montreal, Quebec.

Assertions of allyship with Anishinaabe and Indigenous People were revealed as lies by the September 18^th hijacking of the Toronto District School Board “Grassy Narrows” First Nation field trip by anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian demonstrators.

The purpose of this field trip was to educate students (grade 3 to 12) about the suffering of “Grassy Narrows” members from decades of mercury pollution in their water system. This long-standing tragic piece of Indigenous suffering was treated as irrelevant and used to advance someone else’s dogma – anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian false narratives about Israel and Jewish Canadians. This was to me, malevolent beyond words.

For several hours Canadian children were removed from the care of their parents and used once again, to promote demagoguery – to advance the ideology of the anti-Israel pro-Palestinian demonstrators. And to use youthful students; our children is unforgiveable. The first time we saw the ideologically driven abuse of children was when Indigenous children were used as a tool to destroy the culture, the way of life, and the very existence of Indigenous people.

Remember how our children were stolen from us and placed in Indian Residential Schools – to “kill the Indian in the child.” In those institutions – in addition to what I spoke of earlier – our children were the subjects of medical experimentation, starvation, forced marriage, forced labour, forced sterilization. Our children not only lost their families, their hair but their names – some which were replaced by numbers tattooed on their skin. Many of our children died and were tossed into unmarked graves. Our people are still searching for the bodies of our stolen children so that they may be buried with honour in accordance with our spiritual beliefs. In other words – to bring them home.

My Jewish friends and their allies are advocating that those charged with the public safety enforce existing laws to respond to the tsunami of antisemitism. They are diligently developing lawfare strategies but unfortunately, they are unaware, in my view, of the opportunity to advance novel legal arguments based on the Covenant Chain that I discussed earlier. The Covenant Chain is supported by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP.) The Supreme Court of Canada has held UNDRIP to be part of Canadian domestic law.

As often as antisemitism is explained I still find it difficult to understand. However, I acknowledge its vile existence.

The Islamist strategists correctly believed that their ideologically driven false narratives appropriating Indigenous social justice language would resonate and gain traction with the academically ignorant and the academically sinister in Canada – after all Canada is a self-admitted colonial settler state.

The Islamist extremists are weaponizing Indigenous culture, our shared history and the reconciliation efforts lead by Indigenous people in Canada against Jewish Canadians, Zionists, their allies and Israel.

The Islamist extremists call upon Indigenous values and culture… so we, their opponents, should look to the law – the law as represented by the Covenant Chain and the Treaties that are grounded in Canada’s Constitution to combat their hateful false ideology.

I repeat the Treaties of Peace and Friendship are binding on all people in Canada. We are all treaty partners. They bind the antisemitic, anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian individuals who hijack Indigenous tradition and Indigenous led reconciliation efforts to advance their false narratives and ideology of hate.

I believe consideration should be given to the development of lawfare strategies utilizing the Treaties; the Covenant Chain and enforcing them against these treaty scofflaws.

I repeat, these Treaties predate Canada and they continue to have legal force and effect today. They bind Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada. It would be incorrect, in my view, to suggest that only an Indigenous person has standing to assert them. During these consequential times bold creativity is called for. These would be novel legal arguments but… Fight falsehood with truth… Fight fire with fire.

My Jewish sisters and brothers – you are not alone. I stand with you in solidarity and with immense pride. Hope and trust are very much alive as we journey together on a path of allyship and friendship. You, just as we, have been at these crossroads before and survived, vibrant and steadfast. I have no doubt you will do so again.

Miigwetch. Shalom. Am Yisrael Chai.

The Honourable Harry S. LaForme OC, IPC

Tel Aviv Israel – May 19, 2025

[1] Dept of Indian Affairs Supt D.C. Scott to B.C. Indian Agent-Gen. Maj D. McKay, DIA Archives, RG 1-Series 12 April 1910

On Sunday, May 11, the Irwin Cotler Institute held its Annual Strategic Workshop for members of the Israel-based diplomatic corps. From Egypt to Sweden, Slovenia to Kenya, Nepal to Hungary, Finland to Singapore, the United Kingdom to Uganda, Spain to the Philippines, and more than 10 other countries – dozens of ambassadors, consul generals and other diplomats attended the informative and much-praised seminar discussing regional, Jewish and Israel issues. Dr. Carl Yonker, Academic Director of the Cotler Institute, headed the organizing committee of the workshop, which was co-organized and moderated by Mr. Antonio Pena, Irwin Cotler Fellow 2024-2025.

Mr. Val Simon Roque, the Philippines’ Consul General, stated: “The workshop included scholars whose insights are extremely valuable for us in order to understand the region. Many of us diplomats are preoccupied with so much administrative work, so it is important to hear from scholars who devote their time and energy to studying strategic issues.”

Nepalese Ambassador to Israel, Prof. Dhan Prasad Pandit, noted: “The workshop highlighted questions about democracy that everyone around the world should be discussing.”

The workshop opened with greetings from TAU President, Prof. Ariel Porat, and Prof. Irwin Cotler, former Justice Minister of Canada. Prof. Uriya Shavit, Head of the Cotler Institute, offered introductory remarks.

In the first session, Dr. Ofir Winter analyzed how signs of October 7 were  present – and ignored – in  Yahya Sinwar’s literary writings in the 1990s. Dr. Abed Kanaaneh examined Syria and Lebanon in the current post-Assad era. Dr. Gallia Lindenstrauss closed the session with an exploration of Turkey’s rising global influence, its regional ambitions, and the potential for conflict with Israel.

In the second session, Mr. Dan Meridor, Israel’s former Deputy Prime Minister, Finance Minister, and Intelligence Minister, outlined the historical evolution of Israel’s defense doctrine, from conventional, inter-state threats to modern, asymmetric warfare against terror and guerilla tactics, emphasizing the need for adaptable strategies. Ms. Mirit Guetta compared Islamic concepts of war with Western international law, particularly around the ethics of warfare and the use of human shields as found in the Quran. Prof. Shavit explored whether the two-state solution is still viable – and explained how creative new thinking can, perhaps, make it so.

The third session of the workshop explored the Jewish world. Prof. Cotler discussed the state of present-day antisemitism. He explained that antisemitism is the longest and most global of hatreds, is conspiratorial in nature, and has the ability to shapeshift and frame Jews as the antithesis to the ethos of the time. He emphasized the urgency for concrete government actions against its global resurgence. Dr. Yonker analyzed the worldwide rise of antisemitism post-October 7. His data displayed that this antisemitic wave did not grow gradually as the war in Gaza intensified, but rather reached its peak immediately after October 7, when Israel seemed weak and vulnerable. Finally, Prof. Dina Porat addressed the difficulty of teaching historical atrocities accurately.

The final session of the workshop focused on Israeli society. Dr. Sara Zalcberg discussed Israel’s Haredi community, including its rapid growth, complicated encounters with modernity and tensions with mainstream Zionist Israeli society. Dr. Yonker explored the Christians of Israel, highlighting their educational and economic successes amidst societal challenges. Finally, Prof. Shavit discussed the findings of his most recent book, Islamists in a Zionist Coalition (Rutgers University Press, 2025) on the roots of the pragmatism displayed by The Southern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel.

To watch the full recording of the workshop:

Session I

Session II

Session III

Session IV

From April 15-20, Head of the Irwin Cotler Institute, Prof. Uriya Shavit, and Irwin Cotler Fellow for 2024-2025, Antonio Pena, traveled to Uzbekistan, for a series of meetings and events aimed at enhancing the academic and cultural relations between Israel and Uzbekistan, learning about the situation of the Jewish communities in Tashkent and Buchara, and briefing Uzbek officials on topical issues.

The visit was initiated and organized by Israel’s Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Gideon Lustig, who described it as a great success.

In Tashkent, the Cotler Institute delegation held meetings at The Center for Islamic Civilization (CIC), The International Institute for Central Asia (IICA), and the Institute for Strategic and Regional Studies (ISRS). Ambassador Lustig and Prof. Shavit explored with their hosts potential future academic collaborations and joint academic initiatives, while Mr. Pena presented The Irwin Cotler Fellowship Program as a key initiative, offering scholarships, leadership training, educational visits to Israel, and human rights engagement opportunities for Uzbek students.

Prof. Shavit and Mr. Pena also met with Arkadiy Isakharov, the leader of the thousand-person-strong Jewish community in Tashkent and chairman of the Tero Synagogue, one of two active Bukharian synagogues in the capital. In their discussion, Mr. Isakharov informed of plans for a new synagogue complex that will house museums for the Bukharian and Ashkenazi Jewish communities. He noted that when in November 2024 an antisemitic graffiti was drawn on the walls of the synagogue, the authorities arrested the offender within 24 hours.

In Tashkent, Prof. Shavit and Mr. Pena also met with the leading Uzbek journalist, blogger and Producer Nikita Makarenko, and discussed, among other topical issues, online radicalization and racism and the means to fight this phenomenon. 

Following their time in Tashkent, Prof. Shavit and Mr. Pena traveled to Samarakand and Bukhara. In Bukhara, the ancient city along the Silk Road trade route, major medieval center of Islamic theology and culture, and once home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the world, they met with Rafael Elnatanov, the Chairman of the city’s Jewish community. Elnatanov shared with them the rich history of Bukharan Jews and highlighted the importance of preserving the community’s heritage and assisting those in need. He also observed that, while precuations have been taken, no local incidents of antisemitism have been reported since the October 7 attack, and noted the vital role his community plays as a bridge between Uzbekistan and Israel.

In April, Prof. Uriya Shavit, Head of the Institute, and Dr. Carl Yonker, the Institute’s Academic Director, spoke with dozens of educators and students in India and the United States.

Over the Passover holiday, Dr. Yonker spoke to several dozen teachers and students in the social and historical studies department at Poudre High School in Fort Collins, Colorado. During his visit to his alma mater, Dr. Yonker addressed the current situation in Israel and its security challenges in Gaza and the region, the diversity of Israeli society, and his experience living in Israel. The thoughtful and insightful questions posed by students and teachers following his lecture led to an engaging and interesting discussion on the topics addressed.

Earlier in the month, Prof. Shavit spoke to a group of over 70 students and faculty from the departments of political science, international relations, and history at the Imperial College – Bargarh in the Odisha state of India. Prof. Shavit’s lecture, delivered via Zoom, discussed a range of issues related to the current geopolitical situation in Israel, addressing the war in Gaza, Hamas’ genocidal ideology, the state of the Israeli economy, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and Israel-India bilateral relations.

The lecture was organized by Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Pradhan, who studied in Tel Aviv University’s MA program in Security and Diplomacy in 2017-2018. Mr. Pradhan reflected on his time in Israel as a life-changing experience, fondly remembering his visits to Timna, the ultra-Orthodox Jerusalem neighborhood of Mea Shearim, and the Mahmoudiya mosque in Yafo.