Brian Lilley investigates the controversy surrounding KAIROS

and applies some good, old-fashioned journalism to get beyond the spin. He writes:

Kairos denies they are anti-Semitic or engaged in calling for a boycott of Israel and Kenney denies he called the group anti-Semitic, both claims are the sort that are true and false at the same time depending on how you slice it. Kenney’s statement on Kairos came at a point in his speech where he was describing what the government is doing to combat anti-Semitism. He listed the government’s decision to cut off the Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Islamic Congress as two anti-Semitic groups immediately before that single sentence on Kairos. So no, Kenney did not explicitly call Kairos anti-Semitic but the flow of the speech definitely leads you to that conclusion.

So, are the charges correct? Rosie DiManno of The Toronto Star lays out her argument that Kairos fits the charge in her Monday column. DiManno points to much of the same material I so easily found on the Kairos website, a claim that they do not support a boycott but then a 29 page paper on ways churches can divest themselves of shares in Israeli companies, companies that make money selling supplies that might support Israeli settlements and of course ways to engage in targeted boycotts of Israeli products.

Blogger Ezra Levant notes that Kairos, after having some light shone on the views of its partners and supporters is scrubbing its website clean of links to groups or material that is fully anti-Semitic or anti-Israel.

Over the years, Kairos has made the right noises about supporting the State of Israel’s right to exist and defend itself while also supporting all the fashionable causes of the left that are at the fore of the new anti-Semitism. I think the group remains shy of taking the full step into anti-Israeli crackpottery, I also think that Kenney overplayed his hand a touch while trying to play to the crowd in Jerusalem.

Here's KAIROS explanation of its Middle East policy. Here's an excerpt. I am putting in bold the parts that might cause red flags among Jews and I'm putting in yellow the criticisms of Israel and in green the criticisms of its neighbors:

The Convention spells out what an occupying power may and may not do on land that it occupies. Israel is in violation of the Convention in many ways. It has constructed permanent homes there for its people; its ever-expanding network of by-pass roads fragment these already small territories and limit the movement of the Palestinian people; it restricts the people's access to the water of the area; it has confiscated lands, destroyed Palestinian roads, uprooted untold numbers of orchard trees, demolished homes, transferred local people, and imposed many restrictions on normal activities. If Israel were to abide by this Convention, it would not end the occupation but life for the Palestinian people would be much better. Other signatories to the Convention, including Canada, have an obligation under Article #1 to ensure that it is upheld. Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation through non-violent means.

4. Both Palestinians and Israelis must be held to a common human rights standard which includes the protection of civilians. All attacks on civilians, whether in pursuit of political ends or as a part of military operations, or for any other reason, are unacceptable and must be deplored.[Actually this is a moral equivalency argument that criticizes both sides].

Attacks on civilians include suicide bombings, targeted assassinations and military attacks in populated areas which are known beforehand to likely result in civilian deaths.

5. Lasting peace in the region requires recognition of the human rights of the Palestinian refugees. These are outlined in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These include their right of return, their representation in negotiating and building peace, their right to citizenship and a permanent home, and some form of compensation for the loss of homes and property.

Given that Palestinian refugees now number in the millions, their return to Israel might seem an impossibility. Nevertheless, their right to return must be honoured, though its implementation could include alternatives for those refugees who would find them acceptable and fair.

Though a cursory read of this policy will seem even-handed and geared towards a two-state solution, a closer examination comes across as weighted against Irsael.