Professor Henry Srebrnik

Professor Henry Srebrnik

Saturday, February 07, 2026

Jews Must Defend Israel Against Post-October 7 Libels

By Henry Srebrnik, Shalom Magazine, Winter 2026 

I am not only the child of Holocaust survivors, having been born in Poland right after World War II, but I myself, it turns out, am a survivor. Last summer I found a book, by accident, listing child Holocaust survivors in Poland. I was surprised to see I was on the list since I was born July 19, 1945, after Poland had been freed. But it seems being conceived during the war in a Nazi camp made me one.

To confirm this I filed a claim, with a lot of evidence, with the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany. I did not file under the hardship category (something that is probably true, unfortunately, for most elderly survivors) because, of course, I am not suffering hardships.

In December I got a call from New York confirming my status. They explained that although I am not a hardship claimant, I will nonetheless receive benefits at any Jewish Community Centre in North America, including medical and dental ones, should they include those. I was very surprised! Also, should my annual income ever dip below $66,000, I would be eligible for a monthly pension. Even in retirement, my UPEI pension will be well above that, of course, so that is a moot issue. What I am most pleased about is that this is now “official.”

But I don’t use it as an “excuse” for my “Zionist” views. Maybe Arnold Toynbee was right that we are a “fossil” people, who should have disappeared with the rise of supersessionist Christianity and Islam. But we didn’t. We were dispersed, yet no anti-Zionist calling us “settlers” can give an answer to this question: where, then, if not the land of Israel, are we “indigenous”? The way Cree, Estonians, Kikuyu, Laotians and tens of thousands of other ethnic groups are, even if they migrated from somewhere else. Those assimilated Jews who saw themselves as “indigenous” within the French, German, Hungarian, Polish, and other European nations were in for a rude awakening in World War II. The same happened with those Jews in the Middle East after -- but also, as in Iraq, before -- 1948.

This is what it can lead to, as described by Noah Smith.” In his article “No, You Are Not on Indigenous Land,” published in the Free Press of New York Nov. 27, he points to this problem, which affects all Jews – including, according to our “anti-Zionist” enemies -- even those in Israel:

“My ancestors were Lithuanian Jews. I could leave the country of my birth and go ‘back’ to Lithuania -- a land I don’t know, whose language I don’t speak. Yet my ancestors were not ‘indigenous’ to Lithuania either; they moved there from somewhere else. What if the ethnic Lithuanians chose not to accept me? Where would I go then? Israel? But the folks who do land acknowledgments would consider me a ‘colonizer’ there as well. Would I then wander the Earth, desperately seeking some ethnostate that would allow me and my descendants to live there as a permanently precarious resident alien?” He truly paints the age-old picture of the “wandering Jew!”

Jews, however, have returned – ideologically, even if not completely “genetically” – to a place with which they never lost touch culturally, religiously, and so forth. The land of Israel. It’s a libel to compare this with white Rhodesians, South Africans, the French in Algeria, and indeed Anglo-Canadians, none of whom had any contact or history with those places before conquering them. For that matter, even Afro-Liberians and the Krios of Sierra Leone were “settlers,” since they were freed former Western Hemisphere enslaved people, who didn’t originate in that particular part of West Africa but moved there through American and British auspices.

The Arab claim to Palestine, indeed to the whole Middle East, was itself the result of conquest and settlement, displacing other peoples and religions. No one complains about this, for some reason. Israel, which looms like a giant monster in antisemitic imagery, is but a dot on the map, of about 10 million people, in a sea of billions of Muslim peoples stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. Those, too, were, after all, conquests. The claim to Palestine, shorn of all the “academic left post-colonial” stuff is, to bring it down to Occam’s level, simply this: It is Muslim land, and that’s the long and short of it. This is the non-negotiable truth for Hamas and others of that persuasion. We just don’t buy it.

I consider that what has happened in Gaza is tragic, though to my mind no genocide. If anything, it may perhaps have been an overreaction to a shocking event that triggered the worst fears in Israeli and Jewish minds, given our history. Still, I will never apologize for Israel’s right to exist. I do however worry for the state’s future, given the forces arrayed against it.

Meanwhile, things in the diaspora show little sign of improving. “Have we Crossed the Antisemitism Rubicon?” wonders Jacob Dallal, managing director of the Comper Centre for the Study of Antisemitism and Racism at the University of Haifa, in a Nov. 24, 2025, Times of Israel article.

“The intellectual worldview that has taken root in academia, casting Israel as colonialist and genocidal, and Jews as members or even leaders of the white oppressor class, has spread far beyond universities into other cultural institutions,” he suggests. We may be entering a new era marking the end of the post-World War II hiatus in Western antisemitism.

“Jews will come to face more widespread and systemic discrimination, with silent and not-so-silent boycotts of Jewish and Israeli artists, writers, and academics spreading, largely out of public view.” As anti-Jewish sentiment increases and potentially becomes official policy, the Golden Age for Jews in North America, he contends, may well be over. It certainly seems the case in Canada, where antisemitism has become almost normalized.

 

Thursday, February 05, 2026

Could Trump Have Sent Military into Minneapolis?

By Henry Srebrnik, Saint John Telegraph-Journal

 

Thousands of protesters shut down parts of Minneapolis since the start of the year, to demand an end to the sweeping immigration crackdown that roiled the city for weeks.

Federal agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, arrived in in early January. They are responsible for removing non-citizens illegally in the country.

But they have shot and killed two protesters during this time, and this has set back President Donald Trump’s efforts. He has been losing public support, and it might be the biggest public-relations crisis of his presidency. To become more conciliatory, he dispatched “border czar” Thomas Homan to ease the situation. ICE, which proved too heavy-handed, is retreating from the city.

Both the governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, and the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, had declared Minneapolis a “sanctuary city,” referring to a municipality that limits its cooperation with the federal government in enforcing immigration law.

They reiterated their commitment to stop ICE within their jurisdictions. Frey recently told illegal residents that Minneapolis “will do anything in our power to help because you’re not an alien; in our city, you’re a neighbor.” Walz made it clear that illegals can even claim state benefits.

Trump in turn accused them of fomenting an “insurrection” in Minneapolis and warned he might invoke the Insurrection Act, though he has now stepped back, clearly, from that threat, given the current unpopularity of ICE’s methods.

 But would this have been legal? The Insurrection Act grants the president vast powers to deploy the military to enforce domestic law. Throughout his 2004 election campaign, Trump vowed to crack down on illegal immigration, calling the southern border situation a “national emergency” that could be better handled by invoking the 19th century statute.

Yet many Americans think Trump should not be trusted with the use of the armed forces. Already in Trump’s first term, Georgetown University law professor Rosa Brooks, in a January 30, 2017 article in Foreign Policy, “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020,” raised the possibility of a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.

Six Democrat members of Congress recently posted a video aimed at service members, “reminding” active members of the military that “the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.” The president called the video seditious.

Trump’s critics claim that deploying National Guard and regular U.S. military forces to enforce the law in American cities violates civil-military norms and is unconstitutional. Is it?

In 1807, at the behest of President Thomas Jefferson, Congress passed the Insurrection Act. It was intended as a tool for suppressing rebellion when circumstances “make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”

The Insurrection Act remains controversial because it grants presidents significant discretion. It overrides state preferences. It stands as the primary exception to a longstanding prohibition against military involvement in civilian law enforcement.

Trump is far from the first president to consider its use. After the Civil War, the U.S. Army was involved in supporting the Reconstruction governments in the southern former “slave” states. In the election of 1876, President Ulysses S. Grant deployed Army units to protect the rights of African American citizens at southern polling places.

Two years later, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed. It normally prohibits federal armed forces from participating in civilian law enforcement. Trump’s critics claim this bars the use of federal troops domestically. But the Insurrection Act allows the President to deploy active-duty armed forces or to federalize and deploy National Guard forces to quell civil unrest or to execute the law in a crisis. So, yes, it is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Presidents utilized the Insurrection Act on five occasions during the 1950s and 1960s to counter resistance to desegregation decrees in the South. In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus deployed his state’s National Guard to prevent the integration of a high school in Little Rock. President Dwight D. Eisenhower responded by placing the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and deploying soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division to enforce the law.

The most recent invocation of the act was by President George H. W. Bush, in 1992, during the Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King verdict, when U.S. Army and Marine divisions reinforced the California National Guard. A jury had acquitted four police officers of assault and excessive force charges regarding the brutal, videotaped 1991 beating of the Black motorist.

Trump’s critics also charge him with violating both domestic and international law by using the U.S. military to target drug cartels. But as far back as the Reagan administration in 1986, U.S. Army infantry and aviation assets operated with Bolivian forces against drug producers in that country.

And in 1993, President Bill Clinton issued a presidential directive assigning a substantial role in drug interdiction to the military. So Trump is less of an outlier than his critics imagine.

At the end of the day, though, all of this begs the question: can a U.S. state decide its own immigration policy? Are Americans prepared to surrender, thanks to protestors, the enforcement of immigration law?