Duvi Honig is Founder and CEO, Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce
Canada has just given the Western world a taste of what Jews have been warning about since October 7.
Its taxpayer-funded national broadcaster has instructed journalists not to describe September 11 itself as a “terrorist attack."
Think about that.
Terrorists hijacked passenger airplanes, flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, murdered nearly 3,000 people and dragged America into wars that cost thousands more lives.
Even 9/11 now requires linguistic caution.
If September 11 does not automatically qualify as terrorism, can anything be called by that name?
For Jews, this is painfully familiar. Since October 7, Hamas terrorists have become “militants," Jewish students intimidated on campuses are told it is merely “anti-Israel activism," and violence against Jewish institutions is explained through Middle East politics.
Now that same confusion is reaching September 11.
This week, four men pleaded guilty after four Hatzola ambulances were deliberately burned in Golders Green, London. These were emergency vehicles whose purpose is saving lives. All lives. British authorities have investigated possible links to pro-Iranian extremism.
Jewish ambulances burn in London while Britain increases political and economic pressure on Israel.
Britain is moving toward tougher restrictions connected to Israeli activity in Yehuda and Shomron, while voices in Europe push trade restrictions and boycotts. President Trump has pushed back against international efforts to punish Israel, including sanctions on ICC officials targeting Israeli leaders.
And look at UNRWA.
President Trump this week highlighted a report alleging that more than 100 UNRWA employees participated in the October 7 atrocities, including personnel accused of involvement in holding civilian hostages.
That raises the question of how deeply Hamas penetrated an organization the international community still expects Israel to trust.
Yet Canada joined Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Brazil and the European Union in condemning Israel over its actions against UNRWA facilities in Jerusalem.
Instead of asking how an international agency could allegedly have more than 100 employees involved in the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, these governments condemn Israel for removing that threat from the heart of Jerusalem.
What exactly is Israel expected to do? Allow an organization allegedly penetrated by terrorists to continue operating freely inside its capital and hope for the best?
Canada makes the contradiction especially clear:
At the same moment it joins European governments condemning Israel over UNRWA, its public broadcaster hesitates to call September 11 terrorism.
The word “terrorism" requires sensitivity. Condemning Israel apparently does not.
Lebanon exposes the same problem.
The ceasefire is supposed to lead to Hezbollah’s disarmament. The Lebanese Armed Forces are supposed to remove Hezbollah weapons and prevent it from rebuilding military infrastructure threatening Israel.
Israeli officials say that is not really happening. Even more serious are Israeli concerns that intelligence supplied to Lebanese authorities so Hezbollah positions can be dismantled may be compromised, allowing operatives to move or protect assets before enforcement.
If that is happening, the mechanism created to weaken Hezbollah could instead strengthen it.
And still the international question is: When will Israel withdraw?
Hamas keeps weapons. Hezbollah keeps weapons. Iranian-backed extremists target Jews abroad. International organizations face allegations of terrorist infiltration. Western democracies debate sanctions and boycotts against Israel.
Then comes the distinction between “antisemitism" and “anti-Israel."
An Australian court recently emphasized that criticism of Israel is not automatically antisemitism. That is correct. Anyone can criticize an Israeli government without hating Jews.
But that distinction cannot become a laundering machine for antisemitism.
If you attack a Jew in London because you hate Israel, you attacked a Jew. If Jewish students in New York are threatened because of Gaza, Jews are being threatened. If Jewish ambulances are burned because of Israel, calling the motive “anti-Israel" does not erase the antisemitism.
Freedom of speech protects criticism. It does not require blindness.
Perhaps Canada has unintentionally done America a favor.
Imagine telling a September 11 widow that describing her husband’s murder as terrorism requires journalistic neutrality. Imagine telling a firefighter who watched the towers collapse that calling al-Qaeda terrorists could compromise objectivity.
Now apply that same outrage to October 7, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jewish students being intimidated, Jewish ambulances burning in London, and international employees accused of helping terrorists hold hostages.
Suddenly the Jewish argument becomes easier to understand.
Jews are not asking for special terminology. We are asking for the same moral clarity everyone demands when the victim is someone else.
Criticize Israel. Debate Israeli policy. That is democracy.
-But when terrorists deliberately murder civilians, call them terrorists.
-When Jews are targeted, recognize antisemitism.
-When an international organization is penetrated by people accused of participating in massacres and hostage-taking, do not condemn Israel for protecting itself.
-And when a ceasefire requires Hamas or Hezbollah to disarm, pressure the terrorists to disarm before pressuring Israel to surrender its security.
For years, the West has taught Jews that terrorism can be softened by changing the vocabulary. Now Canada is applying that lesson to September 11.
Maybe this is the wake-up call the West needed.
Because once you become afraid to call September 11 terrorism, the problem is no longer Israel.
The problem is you.