One more before I go: This youtube video--How to Make a Hamas Hero--is for Sid, Judy, Naomi, the New York Times, the Toronto Star, the Beeb, the Ceeb, and all those who glamourize, romanticize and idolize the explosive Volk of Gaza.
Beach? Blanket? Bingo!: I'm taking a break from all the, ahem, global warming here in southern Ontario (where the snow is as high as an elephant's eye). I hope to be back at the laptop on Saturday, Feb. 7. See y'all then.
Well, shut yo’ mouths: A fundamental tenet of Islamic law requires that no one, and I mean no one, be allowed to say anything negative about Islam. With the passage of a (non-biding) resolution calling for a halt to “defamation” of religion, the United Nations, which supposedly adheres to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has quietly sidled over to—and signed up with—the competing “universalism” of sharia. Nat Hentoff writes about the betrayal for JWR:
On Inauguration Day, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, in a New York Times ad ("An Invitation to a New Partnership"), told "Dear President OBAMA" that Muslims "have compelling strategic and moral reasons to cooperate and peacefully co-exist with the United States in particular, and with the West in general."
Many Muslims here and elsewhere want that partnership; but some, jihadists in the name of Islam, disagree violently. In its address to our new president, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (which has permanent status at the United Nations) made no mention of its own strategic skills that resulted, on Dec. 18, in the passage by the U.N. General Assembly of a nonbinding resolution (with strong advice to its members) that condemns "defamation of religion," especially Islam.
In a 83-to-53 vote, with 42 abstentions, the U.N. General Assembly urges nations to provide "adequate protections" in their laws or constitutions against "acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."
Only Islam and Muslims are specifically named in this resolution against religious defamation sponsored by Uganda — on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference — with co-sponsors Belarus and Venezuela. In the opposition were the United States, a majority of European countries, Japan, India and a number of other nations.
Those voting in favor say they do not want to limit free speech but do intend to stop such expressions as the 2005 Danish cartoons disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad that ignited violent protests by Muslims around the world…
“We don’t want to limit your freedom of speech. We just want to limit your freedom to say anything critical of Islam (because that’s what sharia calls for, and because we’re hoping sharia can take the lead globally with minimal opposition).”
Update: Johann Hari, a columnist for the Independent, decries the shushing:
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this...
Hey, Johann, maybe it's time to acknowledge that the organization you passionately support is in the hands of the shushers, and is thus not worthy of your passion any more.
Hopeychange fan: Guess who's onside with Obama's "change" agenda? I'll give you a hint: He's short, hairy and has a very ballsy wife.
Swine in the sky: This one definitely qualifies as a flying pig moment--Egypt slamming Iran and its terror protegees, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Swooners as king-makers: In an interview on the FrontPage Magazine site, media critic Bernard Goldberg says that the media’s collective swoon for a sonorous-voiced, slim half-Black dude (the topic of his new book A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.), is the reason why Hillary Clinton is not in the White House:
Q: What’s your 60-second synopsis of your book?
A: This is not a book about the same old media bias. This time journalists cross a very bright line. This time they stopped being witnesses to history and they were intent on helping to shape history. They moved from media bias to media activism. In my whole life I have never seen the media get on board for one candidate the way they did this time around and -- this is very important -- they did it without even a hint of embarrassment.
It isn’t just conservatives that feel this way. Lots of people feel the media was in the tank for Barack Obama. They were because he was young, because he was cool, because he was black and because he was liberal. There’s no way in the world we would have seen this kind of slobbering if we would had just inaugurated the first black president who was conservative and Republican.
Q: You’re not talking about opinion writers and pundits, you’re talking about news coverage?
A: I’m talking about two things. In terms of news coverage, forget about what I say. There are polls conducted by nonpartisan groups that said the media was way, way more positive in its Obama coverage than its McCain coverage. In other words, everybody has seen what I’ve seen. I’m not the only one. The media who were on Obama’s team, they didn’t just put a thumb on the scale; this time they sat on the scale.
But we’re talking about lots of supposedly hard-news reporters, but even in opinion -- and this is an important point that I’m glad you brought up -- I think opinion has to be relatively intelligent. I mean, Chris Matthews saying he had “a thrill running up his leg” when he heard Barack Obama speak. And Matthews said, "You’re not an American if you don’t cry when you hear Obama speak."
This isn’t political commentary. This is a man crush. This is embarrassing. He is by far the most embarrassing commentator on television. I want to make it clear -- commentators are allowed to comment. I get that. But the commentary has to have a semblance of intelligence to it, and Chris Matthews has become the single biggest embarrassment in all of the media in terms of this campaign coverage.
Q: So, is he the most egregious example –
A: Let me give you two. Chris Matthews is the most egregious example of media slobbering I have ever seen...Chris Matthews is an embarrassment of the first order. But I’ll tell you something else -- and this is the single most embarrassing sentence I have ever seen in The Washington Post. This is a story on Christmas morning, Page 1, Washington Post, about Barack Obama’s exercise regimen. I’m going to read you the line and I don’t blame you if you think I am making it up. I swear to God I’m not: “The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weight-lifting sessions each week and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.”
Let me tell you something. If there has been a more embarrassing sentence ever published in The Washington Post, please, somebody tell me what it is. You’d read something like this in a romance novel with Fabio on the cover. This is the kind of slobbering I’m talking about. This is not the same old, same old. They jumped the shark this time. They really took sides and they didn’t care who knew it. That’s different from anything that happened in the past.
Q: You already knew the way the media tilts, so were you just waiting for this to happen or did it shock even you?
A: That’s a very interesting question. It’s the latter. I figured it was going to be the same old thing. Of course they were going to root for the Democrat. They always root for the Democrat, the more liberal the better. That I expected. And believe me, I wasn’t going to sit down and write a book about that. But the more I looked at it, the more I watched, I said, “I can’t actually be seeing what I am seeing. I can’t believe I’m reading what I’m reading.” What pushed me over the edge in terms of wanting to write a book about it was the incredible lack of concern for what anybody thought. Even Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post recently said it’s not just conservatives who think the media rolled over for Barack Obama -- and they better change.
Q: Hillary Clinton has to be pretty annoyed at the media.
A: She’s the biggest single loser in all of this. If the media had done its job early on, Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee for president of the United States and probably elected president of the United States.
Oh, well. At least she got a lovely parting gift—Turtle Bay (while we get 4-8 years of a
president who's made "outreach" to the Muslim world his priority.)
Auschwitz museum to close?: Auschwitz may be a wildly popular tourist destination, but there’s news it could close if Poland and other countries don’t come through with the cash to keep it open.
I have mixed feelings on the subject. I believe that it is vital to educate people about the Holocaust, particularly at a time when more and more seem determined to deny it. At the same time, though, I am disturbed that many in Europe are keen to commemorate dead Jews (out of guilt, and because dead Jews have the advantage of being both harmless and virtuous) even as they reject Israel and its living Jews; wilfully or through their silence, they are assisting those who would launch a second Shoah.
So, yes, let’s keep Auschwitz open. But do so in the awareness that a look to the past won’t be enough to put the brakes on a potentially horrific future.
She’s come a long way, baby: If you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a loudmouthed, Jew-hating, religious crank, wait’ll you get a load of the Iranian who may even outdo him in sheer zaniness—Mrs. Ahmadinejad. From pajamas media:
Since becoming president in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become one of the most widely known Iranian politicians. In direct contrast, his wife has been one of the most discreet spouses in Iranian political history. The world got its first glimpse of her in 2005, after she accompanied her husband on a trip to Malaysia. However, she did not speak any words and has hardly ever appeared in front of cameras since then. What was even more mysterious was her identity. She was only referred to as Mrs. Ahmadinejad in the very few reports which mentioned her. Her real identity was strongly protected.
But on January 18, 2009, the world suddenly met Azam Al Sadat Farahi, who until that day was known as Mrs. Ahmadinejad. The encounter was brought about by a letter she wrote on behalf of Gazans to Suzanne Mubarak, the wife of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. In it she wrote:
The people of Gaza have been subjected to aerial, ground and sea attacks and have been living under siege for a long time. Witnessing the bombardment of mosques, hospitals and houses and the mutilation of women and children brings pain to the heart of any human being. …I ask you to do whatever is in your capacity to help the people of Gaza and to help them from the oppression that they are suffering from, so that your name is placed alongside the name of worthy and peace seeking women.
One could doubt whether Mrs. Ahmadinejad’s letter would have any impact, because these days Egypt is trying its best to isolate Iran. This was seen by the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei on several occasions asked for Mubarak’s help. Nothing ever came of it.
Nevertheless, the symbolic value of the letter should not be ignored. Many people around the world believe that Iranian women, especially conservative ones, are confined to the boundaries of the kitchen. This may be true about wives of conservative clergy. However when it comes to non-clergy conservatives, the opposite is true. Quite a few are very vociferous in their political thinking and beliefs...
In this dynamic pairing, Mister Ahmadinejad is the pretty one, while Missus Ahmadinejad has the bigger balls.
When special victim groups collide: Now here’s a conundrum for the human rights types—what happens when a Muslim doctor, out of religious conviction, refuses to treat a pair of lesbians, and the lesbians complain about it to the local human rights constabulary? Whose “rights” take precedence—the Muslim’s, or the chicks’? Here’s the story on the Ceeb site (strangely, it’s listed under the heading of "health"):
A lesbian couple claims a Manitoba doctor refused to accept them as patients because of their sexual orientation.
Andrea Markowski says she and her partner were stunned when a Winnipeg doctor told them treating lesbians violated her religious beliefs.claims a Manitoba doctor refused to accept them as patients because of their sexual orientation.
Andrea Markowski says she and her partner were stunned when a Winnipeg doctor told them treating lesbians violated her religious beliefs.
Markowski says the foreign-trained doctor, from Egypt, also said she had never treated lesbians before.
"I said, is there a problem with our sexual orientation in terms of your ability to care for us? Markowski told CBC News. "And she said, yes, there is a problem. She said that it's against her religion, and in fact she's never provided any kind of care to lesbian or gay people before."
The couple of 18 years has lodged a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and the Manitoba College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Markowski says the college needs to take more responsibility to ensure foreign-trained doctors are ready to practice in Canada.
She says the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures no one can be denied health care on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Indeed a puzzler, one which has the potential to make a sensitive thought cop’s head explode.
[According to a 2006 Environics survey] 44 per cent of Canadian Muslims believe Canada should accommodate their traditional beliefs, while 81 per cent of the general population thinks immigrants should adopt mainstream Canadian beliefs. In particular, 53 per cent of Muslims think sharia law should be recognized as a legal basis for settling family disputes, while an overwhelming majority of the general population disagrees. Of those surveyed, 55 per cent of Muslim women and 59 per cent of Muslims aged 18 to 29 indicated their preference for sharia law. Remember, this survey was conducted one year after the Ontario sharia controversy.
These numbers suggest that the use of sharia in Canada is by no means a dead issue, even if sharia arbitration courts have been deemed illegal in many provinces. Just look at Britain, where the government has been grappling with the role of sharia in family law. The popularity of informal "Islamic courts" - which have no standing in British law - has been growing steadily. Most cases involve women seeking divorce. Since these "courts" are outside the legal system, there is no accountability, review or transparency of the judgments, and no formal standards or training for the judges, who are exclusively male. Some have received training in Saudi Arabia, where a conservative form of Islam is prevalent.
In domestic violence cases, Islamic scholars have hesitated to dissolve abusive marriages, leaving wives too intimidated to pursue charges. In one case, a judge declined to grant a divorce to a victim of domestic violence. Her father then came forward in support, at which point the judge reversed his decision, highlighting the central role of the family patriarch in such proceedings.
The British situation illustrates that if sharia is driven underground, quasi-courts will proliferate in response to demand, without the necessary checks and balances. Given the growing affinity to sharia here, there will be future debates on this topic. Instead of the hysteria of 2005 in Ontario, we will need to engage in rational discourse about the flexibility of sharia; identities in flux; the role of religious belief in family law; and the balance between religious freedom and gender equality. In spite of reassurances by proponents, traditional Islamic law contradicts gender equality in inheritance and divorce.
Underlying this is the question: Why the growing affinity to sharia? Since 9/11, Canadian Muslims have felt increased discrimination. This has a direct impact on identity and how a minority perceives its acceptance by the majority. With the raucous, sometimes racist, nature of the Ontario controversy, many Muslims were forced to focus on sharia as a component of identity, resulting in a plurality wishing to abide by Islamic principles in matters of family law.
Making Islamic arbitration illegal will not make it vanish. Without proper oversight of informal sharia courts, we risk ending up with the mess in Britain.
My letter:
Sheema Khan claims that a spike in “discrimination” faced by Muslims post-9/11 caused them to feel rejected by the wider society and more eager to embrace sharia, Islamic law. She goes on to say that when Ontario nixed sharia tribunals, it exacerbated the sense of rejection, and that these hurt feelings can only be ameliorated by reversing that decision. In other words, if more Muslims want to see sharia set up shop here in Canada, it’s largely because of the actions of non-Muslims.
I fear she is giving us way too much credit--and giving far too little to sharia’s enduring appeal, as well as its newfound blossoming around the globe, the result of a great Islamic revival.
Then again, if I wanted to see sharia --a law that is antithetical to Western law in that it makes no distinction between church (or mosque) and state, and enshrines religious and gender inequities--gain a toehold here in Canada, I might harp on “racism” and “discrimination,” too: making people feel guilty can often be the most effective means of getting them to agree to something that is in your interest, but definitely not in their own.
Dr. Khan is famous for her promotion of the Islamist agenda in Canada as founding chair of CAIR-CAN, deemed to be an unindicted co-conspirator by the US Department of Justice for funding Hamas and whose US members have been found guilty of supporting terrorism by US courts.
This article is no different from her actions to promote the Islamist agenda.
Dr. Khan's assertion that Muslims have been choosing Sharia because of post 9/11 discrimination is an exercise in great Islamist spin. According to Dr. Khan, Muslims are not adopting Sharia because of the vast flow of Saudi money into Canada, or the pressure from the Saudi trained imams, or the radicalisation that is taking place at mosques and Islamic schools (that saw Islamists murder Aqsa Parvez last winter) or the new immigration of Islamists from Arab countries - no - Muslims are choosing Sharia because you and I are making them do it. As she says - "many Muslims were forced to focus on sharia as a component of identity" - a direct result of Ontario's rejection of Sharia Law.
It is unfortunate that Dr. Khan is given space in this national newspaper to propagate her Islamist agenda to Canadians.
Besotted by Obama: Rabbi Reuven Bulka, co-president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, was paying close attention to the American inauguration last week, and damn if he didn’t like what he saw. From the Ottawa Citizen:
…The most indelible impression I am left with from that memorable January day was not anything Mr. Obama said. It was what he did.
After the conclusion of the ceremony, he, his wife, Vice-President Joe Biden and his wife, escorted former president George W. Bush and his wife to their waiting helicopter, the first leg of their return home to Texas.
While the ceremony has become tradition, the extent of the sendoff was reportedly like no other president has done.
This is the same team that literally tore Mr. Bush apart during the campaign, that held nothing back in their unrelenting attack on almost everything he did as president. The way that Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden accompanied the Bushes was a sight to behold. They were quipping with each other, they embraced just before alighting, and then the Obamas and the Bidens, not content with merely taking the former first family to the helicopter, waited on the White House steps for the helicopter to take off, and waved to it as it rose into the clouds.
They had a full day of activity ahead of them. The inaugural ceremony had already run late, there was pressing business to address, not to speak of the move into new abodes, literally myriad ready excuses. Instead, they walked the walk, in this case very much the extra mile. They showed that in the big tent, you can vehemently disagree, but remain not merely civil, but also very respectful.
Obama’s plea to work together, to transcend self-interest in being devoted to the larger community, was inspired as it was spoken, and eloquent as it was lived in this walk.
If the Obama-Biden team does nothing more than instill this atmosphere of respect in the interactional discourse, political and otherwise, that will make this presidency most worthwhile. With respect comes dignity and honesty. With honesty comes responsibleness. With responsibleness comes the energy and the desire to faithfully address the pressing issues.
After that, a large dose of wisdom, good fortune, Godly blessing, and the world is transformed. This mix of ingredients — respect, honesty, responsibleness, and wisdom, belongs in politics, in the workplace, in the home, in the schools, yes even in the sports arenas. This is an inaugural, more precisely a renewal, we can all be part of — Americans, Canadians, anyone and everyone.
"Responsibleness"? I don’t think that’s a real word, Rabbi. But leaving that aside for now, it think it would behove you and the rest of the “tikkun olam” types at the Ceej to get a clue about The Transcendent One. He is not the paragon you make him out to be. In fact, at this very moment he’s pretending 9/11 never happened even as he goes on bended knee, tugging his forelock, and performs a mega suck up to the tyrants, despots, thugs, theocrats, and theo-thugocrats who comprise the leadership of the Muslim world. But maybe you’re so used to the CJC’s culture of ingratiation (“twinning” with mosques; “mentoring” Somalis; linking arms with the likes of Syed Soharwardy and Harpoon Siddiqui) that you can’t recognize the old dhimmi two-step (first step: bow; second step: grovel), even when it’s going on before your eyes.
R.I.P. John Updike: The American author has succumbed to lung cancer. I didn't much care for his novels, but his literary criticism was awesome.
Does identity trump safety?: Maybe. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is hearing the complaint of Sikh who was told he’d have to remove his turban and wear a hard hat if he wanted to retain his job with Home Depot. From Canoe:
TORONTO -- A Sikh security guard who was asked to trade in his turban for a hard hat by a Home Depot manager presented his case of alleged discrimination before a human rights tribunal yesterday.
Deepinder Loomba, 50, testified he was commissioned to patrol a Home Depot site under construction in Milton and on Dec. 6, 2005, the assistant manager supervising the site asked him to replace his turban with a hard hat.
When he refused, Loomba said the manager and other workers ridiculed and humiliated him. After two hours, Loomba said he could not handle the humiliation and left the site. He subsequently filed a complaint with Home Depot and the Ontario Human Rights Commmission. He's seeking $40,000 in damages.
THREAT ALLEGATIONS
At one point, Loomba alleged the manager threatened his employment if he didn't put on a hard hat.
Loomba said the company was investigating the matter but he did not hear of the outcome.
Home Depot acknowledged the Sun's request for comments, but did not provide one before press time.
In his testimony, Loomba explained how Sikhs who adopt the turban are not supposed to cut or expose their hair in public. In their holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, a Sikh's hair is to be treated as a gift from God and acceptance of the faith.
"My hair has been unshorn since birth," Loomba told the tribunal, adding the only time he removes the turban is when he sleeps and bathes.
"It's a part of you. It's part of your identity," said his son, Roopjyot Loomba, 20, who is waiting for his grandfather to come to Toronto for his turban ceremony…
Couldn’t someone devise a reinforced turban that satisfies safety requirements? And, until then, couldn’t the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal throw out cases such as this which waste its time and our money (since this so obviously has nothing to do with "discrimination" but is about wanting to abide by construction safety codes)?
Up to his neck in oily shekels: Quel dommage! George Mitchell may never get to be U.S. envoy to the Mideast again. His ability to act as an “honest broker” may have been compromised by his law firm’s precipitously one-sided associations in the region. And don’t get me started on that case of the Dubai boy camel jockeys... From Bloomberg via Yahoo (my bolds):
Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- George Mitchell, President Barack Obama’s special Middle East troubleshooter, was chairman of a law firm that was paid about $8 million representing Dubai’s ruler in connection with a child-trafficking lawsuit.
The DLA Piper law firm did legal and lobbying work on the case, which alleged that Dubai’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al- Maktoum and another official used children kidnapped from other countries to ride as jockeys in camel races. The firm lobbied federal agencies, members of the U.S. House and about two dozen Senate offices, including those of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2006 and 2007, according to Justice Department foreign-agent disclosures.
Mitchell, 75, who isn’t a registered lobbyist, didn’t lobby either on this issue or for Dubai generally. DLA Piper partner Bill Minor said in an e-mail that Mitchell, a former Democratic senator from Maine, mainly focused on growth and management at the firm of almost 4,000 attorneys and 65 offices worldwide, and high-profile projects such as an investigation of steroid use in Major League Baseball.
Mitchell’s firm had extensive lobbying clients and offices in the Middle East ranging from the leader of Dubai to a Kuwait construction firm contracting in Iraq. The firm also has offices in Egypt, Oman, Qatar and Abu Dhabi and has an affiliation with a law firm in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Mitchell traveled to Dubai and spoke to the press there about the issue.
Suit Thrown Out
The camel-jockey suit was thrown out after the U.S. Justice Department notified a Miami federal judge that it planned to intervene and argue that al-Maktoum was immune from the suit as a foreign leader.
“That he was such a key figure in the firm himself certainly gives the appearance that probably any of the clients that solicited help from the firm may have had a business relationship with him as well,” said Craig Holman, who lobbies for tougher governmental ethics rules for Public Citizen, a Washington-based advocacy group.
In a Jan. 24 telephone interview, Mitchell said he “was generally aware of the case but I had no involvement in it.”
“I visited Dubai. I did not discuss the case with the Sheikh. I had nothing to do with bringing it in,” Mitchell said. “I was merely chairman when it occurred.”
No “the buck stops here” for our Georgie—‘specially when there are oodles of shekels to be made off oily Arabs.
Memo to Jewish useful idiots—you’re expendable: FrontPage Magazine’s David Solway has a message for all those anti-Zionist Jews who are assisting our enemies—your loyalties (or, rather, your disloyalties) aren’t going to exempt you from their wrath:
…Given the virulent anti-Zionist advocacy of so many prominent Jewish self-haters, one remains skeptical of ever achieving collective assent or reasonable consensus. Masking the syndrome of self-contempt as a quest for “justice,” these Jewish turncoats seek redemption in a denial of both history and genealogy. Diagnostically speaking, it is not so much a mental illness or clinical aberration we are witnessing, but a sickness in the soul supple enough to contort itself into a spurious idealism, a simulacrum of ideological nobility.
Few of these people, I suspect, have ever been viciously targeted and physically assaulted merely for being Jewish. Very few have ever lived under the constant threat of military invasion, of suicide bombers wreaking carnage in their public spaces and of randomly incoming missiles on their towns and cities as a matter of everyday existence. They hail largely from among the privileged who have been spared the traumatic experience of confronting the bloody and unflinching enmity of their antagonists. They have jobs, salaries, leisure, prestige, comfort and security. They are bubbled in their groups and organizations. Their children do not live in Sderot where an entire generation of Israeli youngsters, growing up amidst the relentless shelling of their homes and playgrounds, suffers from acute PTSD and severe psychological regression.
This state of fortunate exemption has allowed them the luxury of sanctimonious censure of those who are on the receiving end of all they have managed to avoid. Our renegades would do well to read George Steiner’s Language and Silence. Steiner writes: “If Israel were to be destroyed, no Jew would escape unscathed. The shock of failure, the need and harrying of those seeking refuge, would reach out to implicate even the most indifferent, the most anti-Zionist.”
But of course, it is not only a question of Israel. “Somewhere the determination to kill Jews,” Steiner continues, “to harass them from the earth simply because they are, is always alive.” Those Jews who affect otherwise are living in a fool’s paradise. Just as many Hasidic and Haredi Jews, who reject the existence of Israel and seek asylum in their sacred texts, will one day discover there is no safety in Numbers, so will Jewish anti-Zionists—or their children—eventually learn the hard way that they too will be targeted and cast out when their useful idiocy is no longer needed.
At the end of the day, it really is that simple. And the end of the day, let us also remember, is the beginning of the night.
“Smart” messiah hastens our doom: As I sat at a family gathering listening to yet another “dumb George W. Bush” joke uttered by a family member whose world view I don’t share, it occurred to me that one good thing about the arrival of the happy hopeychangers—those brainiacs—is that it should put an end, once and for all, to such “humour.” Not that it will, given that that crowd won’t be able to poke fun at the messiah—he’s sacrosanct—and will thus likely resurrect the “dumb Bush” shtick just so they’ll have something to laugh at.
Anyway, the fact is that the “dumb” guy may not have fully understood the nuances of Islam—he did, after all, call it a “religion of peace”—but he did “get” that some of those who practised it were “evil-doers”. The “smart” messiah, on the other hand, is an utter dunderhead who thinks you can defuse a jihad with hugs and kisses and lots and lots of chatter. And, in the new spirit of “inclusiveness,” he has given first dibs on a TV interview to Arab TV.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday chose an Arabic satellite TV network for his first formal television interview as president, delivering a message to the Muslim world that "Americans are not your enemy."
The interview underscored Obama's commitment to repair relations with the Muslim world that have suffered under the previous administration.
The president expressed an intention to engage the Middle East immediately and his new envoy to the region, former Sen. George J. Mitchell, was expected to arrived in Egypt on Tuesday for a visit that will also take him to Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama told the Saudi-owned, Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel.
Obama said the U.S. had made mistakes in the past but "that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."…
20 or 30 years ago—oh, you mean when Jimmy Carter betrayed America’s ally the Shah and allowed religious nutjob Khomeini to set up shop in Tehran? Yeah, those were the days.
It seems clear that the “smart” president gets Islam and the Arab mind not at all. Allow me to clue you in, genius. They’re going to laugh at you, Mr. President. They’re going to utter honeyed words to your face and diss you behind your back. They’re going to interpret your overtures as weakness. They’re going to dismiss you as a wimp, a pushover, who won’t stand in the way as sharia takes the lead.
This “smart” messiah—really dumb!
Update: More stupidity--Obama tells Israel and the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table.
…In a transcript published on Al Arabiya’s English language Web site, Mr. Obama said he believed “the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away” and that he had told his envoy to “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating.”
“Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions,” Mr. Obama said. “But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that, instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table.”
Shortly after the interview, an explosion on the Israel-Gaza border on Tuesday killed an Israeli soldier. A Palestinian farmer was shot dead, according to Palestinian witnesses, in retaliatory gunfire. The incidents were the first known fatal incidents since the Gaza fighting ended 10 days ago.
Mr. Obama said Israel “will not stop being a strong ally of the United States and I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.”
He also said he believed it was “possible for us to see a Palestinian state — I’m not going to put a time frame on it — that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.”
He’s right. Unfortunately, the “contiguous state” he’s talking about is currently called "Israel," a place that doesn’t exist on any Palestinian map. (I think this would be as good a time as any to say “told you so” to all the clueless Jews who voted for this panderer to Islam. Thanks, Jews.)
Happy hopeychangism in Toronto: Introducing DiverseCity (get it?) a project which aims to put power in the hands of Toronto's "visible minorities" by training them to become "leaders" (i.e. more "mentoring" Somalis and similar malarkey).
What's wrong with the Ceeb?: What's wrong with Canada's public broadcaster is exactly the same as what's wrong with the Beeb, here nailed and impaled by the great Melanie Phillips:
The worst of it is that even senior BBC executives can’t grasp the problem because they, too, share the same way of looking at the world and view their own Left-wing position as the centre ground.
Intrinsically unable to correct itself, the BBC thus embodies a frighteningly closed thought system.
In fact, not unlike the closed thought system of those who heed sharia and who want to
see it prevail.
Happy hopeychangism: Obama's m.o., argues this article in Commentary, is actually the return of Carterism (only without the peanuts and the passel of toothy, meeskite relatives).
Cojones-ectomy in Washington: The Obama White House is planning to hand its testicles to the mullahs on a silver platter engage in “vigorous diplomacy” with Tehran. From the Jerusalem Post:
US President Barack Obama's administration will engage in "direct diplomacy" with Iran, the newly installed US ambassador to the United Nations said Monday.
Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are US officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials. But US Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet UN Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.
"The dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council. And its continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase," she told reporters during a brief question-and-answer session.
Her comments, reflecting Obama's signals for improved relations with America's foes after eight years under former US president George W. Bush, came shortly after she met with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on her first day on the job.
Iran still considers the US the "Great Satan," but a day after Obama was sworn in, it said it was "ready for new approaches by the United States." Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said his country would look into the idea of allowing the US to open a diplomatic office in Teheran, the first since 1979.
Rice said the US remains "deeply concerned about the threat that Iran's nuclear program poses to the region, indeed to the United States and the entire international community."
"We look forward to engaging in vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran," she said. It would include "continued collaboration and partnership" with the other four permanent members of the Security Council - Britain, China, France and Russia - along with Germany, Rice said.
"And we will look at what is necessary and appropriate with respect to maintaining pressure toward that goal of ending Iran's nuclear program," she said…
To paraphrase the Bard: Oh, what fools these happy hopeychangers be.
Idle minds are the devil’s workshop: There haven’t been any classes at York
University, Toronto very own Gaza U, for going on three months now; teaching
assistants and other Ontario CUPE members (the union helmed by witch hunter/
Jew-hater Sid “Vicious” Ryan) are on strike. That means York’s student
government has plenty of time on its hands to craft demented poison pen letters
to the Jewish state—like this one, a motion it passed mere days ago:
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN GAZA
MOTION 2009-01-21: 03
a. Whereas the York Federation of Students works to defend the basic human right to an accessible system of post secondary education for all, regardless of race, colour, creed, sexual orientation, ability, class status, nationality, place of origin , or personal or political beliefs;
Whereas on the 27th of December, 2008, the Israeli state launched a mass military attack against Gaza, code-named "Operation Cast Lead" and as of January 19, 2009 over 1200 Palestinians have been killed and infrastructure including hospitals, schools and civilian homes have been destroyed, and
Whereas the state of Israel's military have attacked educational institutions in Gaza including: on Saturday the 27th of December, 2008 an air missile hit the Gaza Training Centre in downtown Gaza City killing 8 students and wounding 19 and on Monday December 29 an F-16 fighter plane bombed the Science Laboratory and Library of the Islamic University in Gaza, just a few hours before some of its 20,000 students were to enter the campus to conduct exams. A few days later, on the 3rd of January a jet levelled the private 'progressive' American school in Gaza, killing its security guard and denying some 200 students their education for the foreseeable future. Later the same day, the Agricultural School in Beit Hanoun was damaged by 4 artillery shells, and 4 more schools were damaged throughout the Strip, and on January 10 reports of two direct air strikes of Gaza's education ministry, and
Whereas this recent attack is the single largest massacre in Gaza, and despite the current cease fire, Israel's current occupation of Gaza has dramatic negative implications on how Palestinian youth and their families access basic human rights including, but not limited to, clean water, food, health care and education;
Whereas this humanitarian crisis requires an international call from students to demand that we work towards building an environment free of systemic societal oppression including one that is free of military occupation and war, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the York Federation of Students issue a public statement of its condemnation of the Israeli attacks on civilian, humanitarian targets, Universities, United Nation Schools, and Academic infrastructure in Gaza that have lead to the bombing and mass destruction of educational institutions and caused over a 1,200 civilian deaths, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the York Federation of Students show support and solidarity with the people of Gaza by calling upon the Canadian government to pressure the government of Israel to adhere to its' international legal obligations to end attacks on civilian infrastructure and to allow unimpeded access for all Palestinians to their educational institutions, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the York Federation of Students support the call from Human Rights Watch for an unbiased, independent investigation of human rights violations and any violations of the Geneva conventions that occurred during the conflict, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the York Federation of Students affiliate to the RIGHT TO EDUCATION campaign which provides information on the need to protect and ensure access to education for all students in Palestine and any student living under war and or occupation.
Got that? The York student government stands foursquare with Hamas, jihadi
terrorists, backed by Iran’s mullahs, who have dedicated themselves to a genocide
of Israel’s Jews—and who’d like to extend the killing to include every Jew, everywhere.
Way to go, coalition of useful idiots/fellow travelers and crazed jihadis!
Anyone sickened by this Judenhass masquerading as humanitarianism can contact
York’s craven president, Mamdouh Shoukri, at mshoukri@yorku.ca
Use it or lose it: Free speech, that is. Here are two of the world’s most vocal “Islamophobes”—recently indicted Dutch politician Geert Wilders and Muhammad biographer Robert Spencer—writing about how free speech, our most precious freedom, is being squelched by Muslims. From NRO:
Wednesday, January 21, was a black day for freedom, and the beginning of an all-out assault on free speech in the Netherlands. The Amsterdam Court of Appeals ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders (one of this article’s co-authors) for his statements about Islam. To participate in public debate is now a dangerous activity. This is the Netherlands today—and it could be the entire Western world tomorrow.
The prosecution of Wilders was unexpected, though in retrospect one can see that something like it has been in the offing for a while. The year 2008 marked 60 years since the United Nations first promulgated its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet instead of celebrating this notable anniversary by reaffirming human rights, the world in 2008 saw certain fundamentally important human rights nearly disappear under intense pressure from Islamic countries that oppose freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the equality of all people before the law. Islamic efforts to create exceptional privileges for Muslims in the area of human rights have been advancing for quite some time, and they made great strides in 2008. Now, with the Amsterdam court’s judgment, we see the outcome of such efforts.
The Islamic bloc has been on record for two decades as opposing free speech. In 1990, foreign ministers of the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), currently the largest voting bloc in the United Nations, adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. It states clearly that Islamic law—sharia—is the only true source of human rights. Few analysts in 1990 understood that this was tantamount to declaring the legitimacy of institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims, and signing the death warrant of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience as well. And not just in Muslim lands: The OIC and allied organizations have been aggressively pursuing efforts to extend elements of sharia into the West, though few people realize it even today.
Due to the relentless efforts of the OIC, passage of a resolution on combating defamation of religions is now a yearly ritual in the United Nations. First introduced in the General Assembly in 2005, the resolution has been adopted with landslide votes every year since. While this resolution is non-binding, the OIC has declared its intention to seek a binding resolution—one that would require UN member states to criminalize criticism of Islam, as the OIC defines such criticism. This is a clear indication of the progressing Islamization of the United Nations.
On March 28 of last year, the UN hit rock bottom. Its Human Rights Council—whose members include such stalwart defenders of freedom as China, Cuba, Angola, and Saudi Arabia—adopted a resolution that severely modified the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. Instead of simply reporting on cases in which the right to free expression is being violated, the special rapporteur will now also have to report on cases in which that right is being “abused”—including when individuals use their freedom of speech to criticize Islam, or the particular elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and Islamic supremacism. In essence, this means that the function of the special rapporteur has changed 180 degrees—from safeguarding the rights of individuals who hold unpopular or controversial ideas, to trying to limit the freedom of individuals to express such ideas.
As the Canadian delegation noted, “instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise.” This is fundamentally inconsistent with the very foundation of the human-rights tradition, as are measures combating “defamation of religions.” Such measures aim to protect institutions and ideas from criticism, instead of protecting individuals from the consequences of criticizing them. The very concept of freedom of speech has thereby been turned on its head.
Now the full force of this initiative has been directed against those who are sounding the alarm about the Islamization of the West. How could this have happened? Where was the opposition from Western nations? The silence in Europe has been deafening. Only recently did the French ambassador finally speak out, on behalf of the European Union, against the UN initiative to outlaw defamation of religions. He stated that the EU would not accept integration of the notion of defamation of religions into the framework of human rights, since the primary purpose of human rights is to protect people, not religions.
Still, talk is cheap. If we want to preserve our universal human rights, we have to show determination in 2009 to defend them from the OIC’s attempts to erode them…
Hear, hear. But can we, will we, in an era of touchy-feely Obama “inclusiveness”? Well, I will, and I know lots of other who will, too. But we’re all “Islamophobic” conservatives. I have no sense that liberals (ie. most Canadians) have any awareness that A) their freedom is being eroded by the OIC, or B) any awareness that the OIC has twisted, corrupted, our most cherished values—freedom of thought, speech, and religion; human rights—and is using them against us. And very successfully too, one must add.
…Why were local politicians silent about this display of bigotry, week after week?
Why did the Calgary Police Service permit this unruly mob onto private property in the first place? Why were trespass charges not laid against them weeks ago? Why did the police do nothing when a pro-Israel counter-protester had a shoe thrown at him, and when a rabbi was spat at? Why were assault charges not laid against them?
The answer is obvious: local politicians have done their math. There are only 8,000 Jews in Calgary, and more than 75,000 Muslims. Denouncing anti-Semitic bigotry is fine for politicians when the bigots are politically powerless neo-Nazi skinheads. When they're radical Muslims, funded by Saudi Arabia, the politicians fall silent.
Same for Canada's Orwellian human rights commissions. They claim to be against "hate". They're awfully brave at taking on Christian clergy who preach the Bible's "hateful" Book of Leviticus. But notice their cowardly silence in the face of mass hate marches in the streets. Jennifer Lynch is probably off on some other five-star junket to study how Cameroon keeps their people so free.
The police aren't much better: it's easier to tell a handful of pro-Israel supporters to leave than to tangle with 200 angry Muslim radicals. It's not only the politically correct thing to do, it's just plain easier. I mean, really: who's more likely to throw a molotov cocktail at you, or stab you -- a few middle-aged Jews, or some just-off-the-plane radicals from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, here to promote sharia law?...
All that’s necessary for the triumph of evil is…multiculturalism?
Update: Using quotes from the bible, Syed calls on "good Christians" to join Muslims and do something to stop the Jews. Give that man an Order of Canada!
Update: Anything on the CJC site about the Calgary fracas? Don't be silly. The last Ceej utterance was a full ten days ago, when it acknowledged Raoul Wallenburg Day. Kind of appropriate, actually, since, given what been going on in our snug, smug Trudeaupia of late, the Jews are probably going to need a few Wallenburgs. (As an aside, Syed Soharwardy is one of the Muslims with whom, not too long ago, the Ceej was trying to "build bridges," applauding his Muslims Against Terrorism racket because it was, um, against terrorism. Quel ironie!)
Update: Some "protesters" do a number from Cabaret:
The Jews in the mall drink their lattes and shmooze
While Gaza’s reduced to mere dust.
But gathered together for sha-ree-ah
Tomorrow belongs to us.
The green flag of Islam waves proud in the breeze.
The tanks of the Jews will all rust.
And our days of glory will soon return;
Tomorrow belongs to us.
Now Allah, oh, Allah, we know you’ll come through.
The infidels’ fear is a plus.
And one sunny morning we’ll wake to find
Tomorrow belongs to us…
It’s mullah time!: You would think that, at some stage, the Palestinians would twig to the fact that they are being used—and not in a good way—and that many of their brothers who weep oceans of crocodile tears for their plight care about them as living, breathing human beings not in the least. Case in point: the mad, bad, dangerous to know mullahs. The theo-thugocrats are delighted to sponsor those kooky hotheads, Hamas, but not because they give a hoot about the people of Gaza. They do so, of course, for jihad, jihad, jihad. But they’re also looking to score points against their age-old rivals, the Arabs. How’s that working for the holy rollahs? Not so well, according to Michael Ledeen:
Iran’s always tyrannical and sometimes apocalyptic mullahs have certainly been busy of late. They’ve been spinning faster than a champion dervish, trying to convince the gullible, at home and abroad, that their Hamas proxies in Gaza won a signal victory against Israel, and that Iran was the reason for their success. Meanwhile, they’ve called for the assassination of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak, Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, and Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni, and organized mass rallies against President Obama, complete with ritual burning of his photo.
Some of it shows the regime’s comedic skills at their highest pitch, such as the offer of a million dollars to anyone who killed Mubarak. That is a generous reward the mullahs know they’ll never have to pay off, since anyone who actually murdered the Egyptian president would hardly be in a position to collect. At the same time, Tehran provided us with one of their favorite bits of street theater: seventy thousand screaming citizens demanding to be sent to Gaza on suicide missions. There, too, the offer was cost-free, since Iran doesn’t send its own citizens to blow themselves up. They use the despised Arabs for such things. Nobody’s seen an Iranian suicide bomber since the fall of the shah in 1979.
The battle of Gaza showed at least two important things about the Iranians:
–They are totally ready to fight to the last…Palestinian;
–When push comes to shove, not even the most faithful proxy can count on Tehran for assistance.
No sooner had the fighting started, than top Iranians flew to Damascus to tell Hamas’s “leaders” (who never left Damascus; no battlefield ribbons for them) that they had better not stop fighting. No cease fire until the Israelis had been defeated. This produced the entirely predictable result of increasing casualties in Gaza (both Hamas terrorists and innocent civilians), and a clear victory by the Israelis.
The mullahs obviously couldn’t permit that result to stand, and so they declared victory. Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Majlis (Parliament) delivered the official version: “In Gaza, Israel for the first time succumbed to the resistance of the Palestinian people in its alleged territories and Gaza was actually liberated in this war…Gaza is the beginning of Israel’s serious downfall…”
Oh well, they still have their ace in the hole—their nukes.
Is Islam at odds with the Ontario Human Rights Code?: The OHRC outlines the religious “rights” we here in Ontario enjoy:
Religion and Human Rights
Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, discrimination because of religion (creed) is against the law. Everyone should have access to the same opportunities and benefits, and be treated with equal dignity and respect, regardless of theri religion.
Religion includes the practices, beliefs and observances that are part of a faith or religion. It does not include personal moral, ethical or political views. Nor does it include religions that promote violence or hate towards others, or that violate criminal law…
My question: How does that second paragraph square with Islam, which makes no provision for separating the religious from the political (since it acknowledges the validity of only one law—Allah’s); which, in keeping with its founder’s example, calls upon the faithful to “promote violence” against non-believers until they feel themselves to be subdued; and whose religious texts (the Koran, the Hadiths) are chock full of “hate towards others” (apes ‘n’ pigs ‘n’ all that jazz)?
It's like the Patty Duke Show, only with Arabs: How's this for freaky? There's a Canadian Mohamed Boudjenane, who heads up the Canadian Arab Federation, and who writes articles in which he pimps for Hamas. And there's a UK Mohammed Boudjenane--same name, but with an extra "m" in his Mo--who was put away for life in Londonistan because he conked his neighbour on the noggin, sawed off his head, and, much to the chagrin of his co-passengers, carried it around with him on a bus before finally discarding it (the head, not the bus) in a canal. Cue the 60s TV show theme song: "But they're Mohameds/Identically named Mohameds all the way/Two guys who share the same name/Diff'rent as night and day..."
Update: Mister Ed, anyone?
Update: Gidget?
Victims R Us: The Canadian Arab Federation, which helped organize the pro-Hamas rallies in Toronto, and which vocally champions the genocidal jihadis in their “resistance” against the Jews, posts a report by the American Arab anti-Defamation Committee (ADC) detailing the “discrimination” and “Islamophobia” faced by Arabs in the U.S. Here’s a brief excerpt:
…The [American Arab anti-Defamation Committee] ADC received an average of 120 to 130 reports of ethnically motivated attacks or threats each year between 2003 and 2007, a sharp decrease from the 700 violent incidents it documented in the weeks following the 2001 terrorist attacks. But that figure is still higher than the 80 to 90 reports it received in the late 1990s.
The report said that discrimination at airports based on stereotyping, over-zealousness or prejudice by airline personnel or even other passengers is now one of the main sources of discrimination facing Arab-American air travelers. "Arab-American travelers face serious issues with border crossing detentions and delays, especially on the U.S.-Canada border."
Arab-American students continue to face significant problems with discrimination and harassment in schools around the country, said the ADC report. "Arab-America students and faculty have faced increased levels of discrimination and political harassment campaigns, especially involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and efforts by right-wing groups to stifle debate on U.S. foreign policy in academia."
The ADC report finds that defamation in popular culture and the media a very serious problem facing the Arab-American community. "In spite of a far better record from the film and television industry in 2003-2007, defamation spread wildly in the non-fiction world of television, magazines, radio, newspapers and websites. A campaign of relentless vilification against Muslims and Islam has been the single biggest contributor to the collapse in American public opinion of Islam during this period."
The report pointed out that "Islamophobia" and "anti-Muslim intolerance" is on the rise in the United States and highlights the mushrooming of the so-called "terrorism expert" as a cottage industry with the Arab and Muslim-American communities often in its crosshairs…
No mention, of course, that Arab (and Canadian) Arabs are often on the other end of “ethnically motivated attacks,” harassing, threatening and throttling Jews. Nothing about the reason behind the heightened scrutiny at airports—ie. Arabs who are keen to blow up large airliners full of infidels as a bloody offering to Allah. Rien about how Arabs (and the usefully imbecilic leftist academics who back them) have made North American university campuses hotbeds of Judenhass such that Jewish students don’t feel welcome, and often fear for their safety. Bupkes about the mainstream lefty media’s ongoing hostility toward Israel and e’er burgeoning love affair with jihadist “fighters”. And nada about how, every day, the hard and soft jihads are hastening the time when, in the words of a famous cover story in an “Islamophobic” periodical by infamous “Islamophobe” Mark Steyn, the future belongs to Islam.
But then, anyone expecting the CAF and its poor, victimized retinue to engage in sober self-reflection is either stupid or deranged—or both.
A mountain of bias goes unnoticed: When I read Canada Israel Committee communications director Paul Michaels’ assessment of the Canadian media’s (including the Ceeb’s) coverage of Gaza—he says that, on the whole, it has been fair—I literally gasped. Clearly, Michaels has not been paying much attention to Ceeb radio—as I do most every day. If he had, he would have heard the pro-Hamas propaganda emitting like a sonic assault of toxic sludge. The little melodramas about Gaza moppets and the cruel Jewish bloodhounds, snapping at their innocent backsides, recounted in a still, small voice by Ceeb drama queen Margaret Evans. Anna Maria Tremonti’s seemingly endless interviews with Hamas flaks detailing Israeli infamy, usually with no rebuttal from the other side. The frequent airing of the thoughts of anti-Zionist Jews, like the repellent Judy Rebick. And this morning, in what may be the ultimate Ceeb Israel-bashing piece—the pièce d’Islamiste résistance, if you will—helium-voiced former NDP politico Sharon Carstairs, waxing lachrymose over the plight of a few Hamas “fighters” incarcerated in Israeli prison.
Well, boo flaming hoo, Sharon. What about Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who was kidnapped by Hamas, the better to tease and torment Israel and his poor, long-suffering parents? What about the fact that your Hamas “fighters” are fighting to annihilate the Jewish state for the greater aggrandizement of Islam? What about the angry mobs of pro-Hamas “protesters” in Canadian cities screaming “Death to the Jews” and itching to take out their “frustration” over “injustice to Palestinians” on some local Juden. (During the last “protest” in Toronto, police could barely contain the mob, urging counter-protesters to flee before “protesters”—seething, raging—could get to them.) Funny how Sharon and her like-minded Ceeb sob-sisters don’t seem to be expending any angst over those issues.
Michaels’ evaluation of Ceeb coverage appears to be predicated on one—count it, one—lone interview with Yossi Klein Halevi on Ceeb radio show Sunday Morning. But that’s a mole hill compared to the Everest of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel items on Ceeb radio. So is it that the CIC can’t see the mountain? Or is it that, because the sheer size of it is so daunting, so depressing, it prefers to pretend it isn't there?
Gitmo “morality”: Sure, you can occupy the moral high ground by, say, springing
Guantanamo lunatics from their palmy asylum (someone should tell “boy soldier”
Omar Khadr it’s 30 frikkin’ below in Toronto; he might think twice about coming
“home”), but what happens once the zanies are back out in the world? The Ottawa
Citizen’s David Warren considers the ramifications of repatriating the prison’s inmates:
…It is right of the law to prohibit torture. It is right in almost every circumstance to obey the law (and accept the consequences in any other). There will, however, always be tight corners where "the law is a ass," and to pretend this were never the case is to assume a disingenuous posture. Moreover, as when Guantanamo opened, there are circumstances in which no existing law has been written or can be applied, and yet the principle of retribution remains: that the innocent will be vindicated, that the guilty will be punished.
And: that the defenceless will be protected against serial killers. To set any of the Guantanamo inmates free, on some jurisprudential technicality, is to smear one's hands with the blood of their victims when they return to their trade. This is not a hypothetical proposition: for while the numbers are disputed, a proportion of "low risk" inmates already freed from Guantanamo have returned to action.
This is why families of 9/11 victims were outraged by the executive orders. It is why Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, who lost 17 of his men in the attack on the USS Cole (at Aden in 2000), said of the order, "It demeans their deaths." For among the apparent beneficiaries of President Obama's "symbolic" measure is a "suspect" in the Cole attack.
It is why American and allied soldiers, whose lives are on the line against Islamist terrorists not yet captured, must necessarily feel demoralized. Conversely, it gives them a powerful motive to overlook the niceties when another of the enemy falls into their hands.
Barack Obama is not a complete fool, and the measures he has ordered are likely to prove cosmetic. Paradoxically, many of the prisoners at Guantanamo may well now suffer worse fates than if they had remained on location untried, or been processed through the military tribunals. For they will have to be sent somewhere. No country, whose citizenship they may nominally carry, is eager to receive them. Dump them on the authorities in, say, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, and I daresay their prison conditions will not improve.
The liberal mind -- now fully restored to power in the United States -- is in love with symbolic gestures. It is not much enamoured of the hard prudential reasoning that is involved in choosing between two or more evils. The mystery, to me, is the consistency with which it chooses to ignore the greater evil, in order to address the lesser.
Actually, I don’t know that the liberal mind is even capable of perceiving genuine evil.
With its sanguine view of humanity (it’s a small, cuddly world, after all), it is much
more inclined to disavow the existence of evil and seek “balance”—as the Toronto Star
did yesterday when it placed comments about Hamas and Gaza by Mohammed
Boudjenane, CAF chief, and Amir Gissin, Israel’s consul-general to Toronto, side by
side under one heading. That, I think, is the liberal mind’s greatest failing—its infatuation
with a bogus “fairness,” its allegiance to moral relativism, and, above all, the sheer
mush-brained cluelessness that enables evil to blossom right under the sanctimonious
liberal’s nose. And just when the liberal feels most comfortable, ensconced in his
Laz-E-Boy on the moral high ground, it is then that evil comes around and slices off his
head or blows him up for Allah.
Go, jihadis!: The Canadian Arab Federation’s Mohammed Boudjenane makes no
bones about it—he’s a big fan of Hamas, and he thinks Canadians should be, too.
From the Toronto Star:
…Israel's attempts to "teach the Palestinians a lesson" have mainly failed. On the contrary, every time Israel escalates the attacks, it gives newer generations of Palestinians more reasons to hate it.
What other feelings could normal people have for a state that has pounded their area – less than half the size of the city of Toronto – with 1,500 tons of explosives?
In the short term, the assault seems to have achieved the opposite results: The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), does not seem to have lost much of its operational capacity, its chain of command seems to be intact, and its popularity is skyrocketing, both in the Palestinian street and the Arab street. This comes at the expense of the West-supported chair of the Palestinian Authority and PLO, Mahmoud Abbas, whose way of handling the whole issue was met with contempt and dismay by Palestinians.
Hamas has also attained a new level of international standing. During the last days of the war, Qatar called for an emergency Arab League Summit meeting to discuss the issue of the war on Gaza. Because of political pressure – presumably from Israel, the U.S. and the European Union – Abbas refused to attend the meeting.
Since it is inconceivable to hold talks to discuss a Palestinian issue without the presence of a Palestinian representative, Hamas was invited, and they did represent the Palestinians in that forum. This is a blow to the PLO, which has fought for decades to achieve the title "the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."
In Canada, this war has again exposed the biases and the unprincipled ways of the Conservative government (supported by the Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff), which made statements that not only placed Canada to the right of the United States bu also managed to alienate most Palestinian and Arab Canadians.
Canadian media were all willing to buy into the Israeli propaganda machine and parroted its lies.
The rubble in Gaza will be removed, buildings will be rebuilt, streets will be paved again, but we are yet to see if the scars this war left on the souls of the children of Gaza will ever heal.
We are also yet to see if Canada is still a country that lives up to its stated support for human rights and universal values. On the other hand, a number of thing are clear: Hamas has emerged more powerful and more popular, Israel has shown once again its ability to unleash excessive force against civilians, and Canada cannot claim anymore that its foreign policy is fair and balanced.
My letter:
From the way the Canadian Arab Federation’s Mohammed Boudjenane describes Hamas--as a wildly popular “resistance” movement that has “attained a new level of international standing”--you would think it was some sort of respectable outfit, the Islamist equivalent of, say, WW2’s French Resistance. The truth, of course, is vastly different. Hamas is a terrorist enterprise--on Canada’s list of terrorist groups--whose Charter explicitly calls for the genocide of Israel’s Jews: The only thing it is “resisting” is Israel’s right to exist. Hamas is supported by and beholden to the mullahs of Iran, a regime that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. And if you think Hamas has it in for Israel’s Jews, if anything, it treats its Arab brothers even worse. Just ask Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah members were brutalized and murdered by the score following the recent ceasefire.
It is deeply disturbing that Boudjenane and his organization would act as cheerleaders for this gang of thugs.
Kah-vetch, kah-vetch, kah-vetch: Muslim scholars have itemized their manifold
grievances—and issued a clear warning—in a letter to the new leader of the free
world. From Islam Online:
CAIRO — A galaxy of Muslim scholars thinkers, political activists and academics have penned an open letter to US President Barack Obama urging him to begin his reign by remedying injustices inflicted on Arabs and Muslims for peace to prevail and America to restore its image.
"Civilization cannot flourish and peace and security cannot be enjoyed by the world unless justice prevails on the ground and dominates international relations," said the letter, a copy of which was obtained by IslamOnline.net.
It listed the injustices that need to be alleviated in order to end hostilities and promote peace in the world.
"No other nation in history has suffered injustice like the one inflicted upon the Palestinian people," the Muslim leaders wrote.
"This fact might have been ignored by the US in response either to some financial, political or media pressure or to ideological illusions, legends or electoral ambitions."
The signatories include Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), Rashid Al-Ghanoushi, Secretary General of Al-Nahdha Movement in Tunisia, Qazi Hussein Ahmad, leader of Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami, and Ali Sadruddin Al-Bayanoni, head of Syria's Muslim Brotherhood.
The letter affirms that normal relations with Arabs and Muslims can not be reached "unless the injustice inflicted upon the Palestinian nation" is lifted and "unless the Iraqi and Afghan sovereignty is retained."
Obama, who was sworn-in as America's 44th and first black president on Tuesday, January 20, has vowed a new start with the Muslim world.
"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," Obama said in his inauguration speech, watched by millions around the world.
US Image
The Muslim leaders regretted that a large part of the injustices in the world today was either perpetuated or ignored by the US.
"Although America is the country which calls for freedom and respect of human rights more than any other country in the world, we believe that the governments of America, in practice, are the ones which violate the human rights most, and confiscating others’ freedom," they said.
"Furthermore, it has shown the lion's share in supporting dictatorial regimes, conspiring against growing democracies, planning military coups, and disregarding the international organizations."
The letter warned that attempts to impose an American model by force and pressure would only backfire.
"The first affected by this method is America itself."…
Relax, aggrieved galaxy. The president has already announced his intention to take
“the moral high ground,” which means he’s likely to be much more of a pushover than
was his predecessor.
Schools reopened in Gaza on Saturday after Israel's devastating three-week war, and peaceful coexistence seemed further than ever from the traumatised minds of young Palestinians.
"Good morning! Still alive?" excited teenage girls asked each other as their class, all in white headscarves, lined up in the yard shortly after dawn at Beach Preparatory School.
School starts early in the Gaza Strip because there is not enough classroom space for all the children, so there must be two shifts a day.
The pupils were seeing their teachers for the first time since Israel bombs began falling on Gaza on December 27. About 1,300 Palestinians were killed, over half of them civilians.
Critics warn that the violence of Israel's offensive, which followed the collapse of a six-month truce, can only reap a harvest of greater militancy from a newly radicalised generation. According to one Gaza website, 3,500 Palestinians were born during the 22-day war.
"Israel hates Palestinians, hates Arabs, hates Muslims, hates Islam," said one girl in Nuha Abdulati's English class, as her schoolmates nodded in agreement.
Israel lost 10 soldiers in the fighting and three civilians killed by rockets or mortars fired from Gaza by the Islamist Hamas militants who control the enclave.
The girls did not seem to be aware, or to take seriously, that it was Hamas which declared an end to the truce in late December, and that Israel's stated reason for attacking was to eradicate the threat of rockets which began to pepper southern towns. Scores exploded in one day before its forces struck.
Older Gazans who want compromise with Israel regret the high price of this "resistance." But in the classrooms at Beach Prep, any suggestion of making peace now was dismissed.
Asked if the current cease-fire would endure, most girls said they did not think so. Asked if there could be peace with Israel one day, most said there could not. None said it was possible…
Well, the moppets got that part right, at least. “Peace” as they understand it precludes
Israel’s existence and will only come about once Israel (and all other kafir nations) are
where Islamic supremacists (such as Hamas, Gaza's rulers) believe they’re supposed to
be—under Islam’s thumb.
Update: Another tug-from-heartstrings piece about Gaza moppets returning to school
(after their, er, education was so rudely interupted by child-murdering Jews),
this one from the New York Times.
Hold your tongue (and turn off the camera), kafirs: The grotesquely misnamed
UN Human Rights Council has been up to its old tricks—trying to remove the human
right of kafirs to question or criticize Islam (a human right the OIC, the organization that
calls the shots at the UN, describes—and derides—as “Islamophobia”). A documentary
film crew, which had been trying to capture the inner workings of this most ridiculous
of UN bodies, has discovered to its dismay exactly how “free speech” and “human
rights” are understood by the world’s guardian of those concepts (i.e. not unlike how
they are understood according to the terms of sharia). From expatica:
Geneva -- A television production crew was expelled Thursday from a United Nations meeting discussing freedom of expression and defamation of religions.
Two journalists from the French-German cultural channel ARTE were asked to leave a meeting room at the UN's European headquarters during a public session of a human rights body preparing for a racism conference in South Africa later this year.
The journalists were working on a documentary on how the issue of human rights is debated at the United Nations.
According to a diplomatic source, the expulsion announced by the chairman of the session, Russian representative Yuri Boychenko, was requested by the Organisation of Islamic Conference and by the African group of states.
"It is regrettable that he was not informed of the procedures that allow a public session to become a private one," Marie Heuze, chief spokeswoman at the UN in Geneva said.
The expulsion took place when the debate was raging on freedom of expression and the defamation of religions, two issues which are proving particularly sensitive in a proposed declaration for the conference in Durban, South Africa.
According to Muslim participants, human rights should take into account defamation of religions, while the Europeans are opposed to its inclusion.
A British delegate said any mention of this concept in the resolution "damages the prospects" of a successful conference in Durban.
According to a diplomatic source, at least three European countries -- Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands, have threatened to boycott the conference if the resolution is accepted.
The United States, Canada and Israel have already said they would not attend the event, which is scheduled to take place April 20 to 24.
The earlier 2001 Durban conference on racism, held just a few days before the September 11 attacks on the United States and against the backdrop of the second Palestinian intifada, ended in acrimony amid accusations of anti-Semitism.
It “damages the prospects” of a successful conference? Who’s he kidding? Durban II
is shaping up to be every bit as deranged as Durban I, the conference that set the
standard for UN lunacy—another rip-roaring fiesta of Judenhass with Israel, once
again, as the designated piñata. (Israel’s absence won’t diminish the frenzy one iota,
since, as everyone who understands Judenhass knows, Jews don’t have to be
physically present for the Jew-haters to stew--no, luxuriate--in their loathing.)
So far, so bad: Obama--the first 100 hours.
Update: AP headline--Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands.
No doubt about it: we're doomed.
Flying while Jewish: Since political correctness is de rigueur while racial profiling
is sooo George W. Bush (didja hear the news?—the war on terror is finito) airport
security is working hard to ensure that middle aged Jewish chicks who write articles
countering the jihad don’t try to sneak explosives onto planes. Phyllis Chesler, the
middle aged Jewish chick in question, describes her run-in with the scrutinizers:
…So there I was: Gratefully confined to the airline’s wheelchair, when I was told that both my companion and myself had been randomly selected for an extra-special, super-duper security search.
I kid you not: At least two men of Middle Eastern descent (who could have been FBI agents for all I knew), breezed right on through as I sat there. Two people did a slow-and-careful search of our carry-on luggage; they examined my computer millimeter by millimeter. Special chemicals were involved. And much time.
My patient companion was put in a radiation/x-ray chamber and radiated. We took off our shoes, coats, jackets, and jewelry. (If they could, they would have had me remove my bright shiny new hip too). I was physically patted down in every imaginable place–and had to try very hard not to laugh when the security attendant told me that she would “also have to search my wheelchair.” “Please do,” I said, “but it is not mine, it belongs to the airline.” She nevertheless searched it vigorously, especially below the wheelchair seat while I was still seated in it.
Two of the security guards were weather-beaten, angry-looking prison warden-like women with whom one does not wish to make eye contact. Three more were milder sorts but all were “just following orders.” As I sat there I wondered: What if they were border guards in a war-zone? What if my life depended on whether I made this flight? How exactly does one “sweet-talk” such self-important bureaucrats?
And thus, does terrorism–and our need to defend ourselves from attack–impinge more and more upon our lives. Airports are no longer any fun, all the glamor and excitement are gone, one waits on long lines to be searched, as we must, we must.
I would like every passenger to remember why. These burdensome and necessary procedures are not due to American foreign policy or to Israel’s precious existence but to death-eating Muslim terrorists. As I’ve written many times: Not all Muslims are terrorists–absolutely not–but these days, all terrorists seem to be Muslims.
For saying true things like this, as is our right to do in free democracies, Mark Steyn was tried for committing “hate crime speech” in Canada and now Geert Wilders will be tried for it in Holland. Taslima Nasrin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, all live in hiding because they spoke out about Islam. Which of us will be next?
I say: All of us must be next and we must keep on speaking the truth until we roundly defeat the jihadists on all the fields of battle.
North American airport security people (some of whom, no doubt, have received
“sensitivity training” from some Islamist organization, so they won’t needlessly hurt
Muslim feelings during the course of their work) would probably search Geert,
Taslima, Ayaan and Wafa, too.
The great Washington suck-up scheme: As part of his hopey-changey agenda, Obama is reaching out to the Muslim world.
If he really wants to get on their good side, he should find a way to "solve" that pesky Jewish sovereignty problem, pronto, if you catch my drift.
Nuts!: One definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting
a different result each time. A propos of that, Obama’s opening gambit for the Middle
East, is, simply put, bleeping bonkers. Caroline Glick, no happy hopey-changer she,
unpacks the lunacy:
It is a fundamental truth that while history always repeats itself, it almost never repeats itself precisely. There is always some measure of newness to events that allows otherwise intelligent people to repeat the mistakes of their forbearers without looking completely ridiculous.
Given this, it is hard to believe that with the advent of the Obama administration, we are seeing history repeat itself with nearly unheard of precision. US President Barack Obama's reported intention of appointing former Senator George Mitchell to serve as his envoy for the so-called Palestinian-Israeli peace process will provide us with a spectacle of an unvarnished repeat of history.
In December 2000, outgoing president Bill Clinton appointed Mitchell to advise him how to reignite the "peace process" after the Palestinians rejected statehood and launched their terror war against Israel in September 2000. Mitchell presented his findings to Clinton's successor, George W. Bush in April 2001.
Mitchell asserted that Israel and the Palestinians were equally to blame for the Palestinian terror war against Israelis. He recommended that Israel end all Jewish building outside the 1949 armistice lines, and stop fighting Palestinian terrorists.
As for the Palestinians, Mitchell said they had to make a "100 percent effort" to prevent the terror that they themselves were carrying out. This basic demand was nothing new. It formed the basis of the Clinton administration's nod-nod-wink-wink treatment of Palestinian terrorism since the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994.
By insisting that the PLO make a "100 percent effort," to quell the terror it was enabling, the Clinton administration gave the Palestinians built-in immunity from responsibility. Every time that his terrorists struck, Yassir Arafat claimed that their attacks had nothing to do with him. He was making a "100 percent effort" to stop the attacks after all.
After getting Arafat off the hook, the Clinton administration proceeded to blame Israel. If Israel had just given up more land, or forced Jews from their homes, or given the PLO more money, Arafat could have saved the lives of his victims.
Mitchell's plan, although supported by then secretary of state Colin Powell, was never adopted by Bush because at the time, terrorists were massacring Israelis every day. It would have been politically unwise for Bush to accept a plan that asserted moral equivalence between Israel and the PLO when rescue workers were scraping the body parts of Israeli children off the walls of bombed out pizzerias and bar mitzvah parties.
But while his eponymous plan was rejected, its substance, which was based on the Clinton Plan, formed the basis of the Tenet Plan, the Roadmap Plan and the Annapolis Plan. And now, Mitchell is about to return to Israel, at the start of yet another presidential administration to offer us his plan again.
Mitchell of course, is not the only one repeating the past. His boss, Barack Obama is about to repeat the failures his immediate predecessors. Like Clinton and Bush, Obama is making the establishment of a Palestinian state the centerpiece of his foreign policy agenda.
Obama made this clear his first hour on the job. On Wednesday at 8 a.m., Obama made his first phone call to a foreign leader. He called PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. During their conversation, Obama pledged his commitment to Palestinian statehood.
Fatah wasted no time responding to Obama's extraordinary gesture. Wednesday afternoon Abbas convened the PLO's Executive Committee in Ramallah and the body announced that future negotiations with Israel will have to be based new preconditions. As far as the PLO is concerned, with Obama firmly in its corner, it can force Israel to its knees.
And so, now the PLO is uninterested in the agreements it reached with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. For Israel to enjoy the privilege of negotiating with the PLO, it must first announce its willingness to expel all the 500,000 or so Israeli Jews who live in Judea, Samaria and the neighborhoods in east, south and north Jerusalem built since 1967 as well as the Old City and then hand the areas over, lock, stock and barrel to the PLO.
This new PLO "plan" itself is nothing new. It is simply a restatement of the Arab "peace plan" which is just a renamed Saudi "peace plan" which was just a renamed Tom Friedman column in the *New York Times*. And the Friedman plan is one that no Israeli leader in his right mind can accept. So by making this their precondition for negotiations, the PLO is doing what it did in 2000. It is rejecting statehood in favor of continued war with Israel.
What is most remarkable about the new administration's embrace of its predecessors' failed policy is how uncontroversial this policy is in Washington. It is hard to come up with another example of a policy that has failed so often and so violently that has enjoyed the support of both American political parties. Indeed, it is hard to think of a successful policy that ever enjoyed such broad support.
Apparently, no one in positions of power in Washington has stopped to consider why it is that in spite of the fervent backing of presidents Clinton and Bush, there is still no Palestinian state…
Yeah, that one’s a real head-scratcher. Could it be that the reason there’s no
Palestinian state—and I may be going out on a limb here—is because the only
Palestinian state that interests the Palestinians is the one currently occupied
by the Jews?
I offer you that insight gratis, Beltway boychiks.
Seeing is believing: I recall that at the Combating Hatred conference in November,
’07, a number of emissaries from Canada’s designated victim groups said something
along the lines of, “I don’t know if I can define ‘hate,’ but I know it when I see it.”
Well, I know how to define anti-Zionism, the hate directed at the Jewish state that
rebounds onto the Jewish people—it’s Judenhass, pure and simple. And I have seen
it on display in all its ugliness and hysteria—it’s a kind of madness, no?—at the
pro-Hamas rallies in this, the best of all possible multiculti Trudeaupias, my own
hometown of Toronto. A letter-writer to the National Post has seen it, too (h/t WM):
Re: Anti-Zionism Is Not Anti-Semitism, letters to the editor, Jan. 21.
Why don't your letter writers come and tell their analytical garbage to my son's 20-year-old friend, who last week ended up in hospital after being beaten up in Toronto? His "crime"? He was wearing a Magen David (the Jewish, not Zionist, Star of David). As he fell to numerous blows, his attackers shouted, "Jewish [not Zionist] scum. Let's see how strong you are without your army now!"
The police were most helpful: "We will lay charges only if we know who they are."
Do readers know what hurts Jews most? Not the fists and iron clubs; we're accustomed to those. Instead, the betrayal from within is always the most painful.
Yoseph Barrett, Toronto.
Nice, eh? I'm expecting the CJC, which springs into action whenever a satirical 'toon
of Islam's founder is published by a Danish newspaper or a Muslim gravestone is
toppled in France, to immediately issue a news release condeming this attack as being--
what did it call the 'toon publication again?, oh, yeah--"inexcusably provocative". Also,
inexcusably hateful. (Just kidding. Of course, I expect the Ceej to do no such thing.)
NIMBY Continentals: From his self-satisfied perch on the moral high ground,
the president is preparing to release the inmates of Gitmo back into the world.
Oddly enough, though, AP reports that the EUnuchs, who for many years have
been occupying the same moral high ground, seem less than thrilled at the prospect
of having to reabsorb these hardened jihadis:
DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) — Across Europe, President Barack Obama's decision to shut the Guantanamo Bay prison has raised an awkward question: Which EU states that railed against the camp will offer new lives to released prisoners?
The U.S. Defense Department says about 50 of the 245 prisoners awaiting freedom cannot go home again on security or political grounds, raising the need to find an alternative place to send them. But European Union members long critical of Guantanamo shied away Friday from any firm commitments to help.
Ireland has joined Portugal, France, Germany and Switzerland in saying it probably would participate in an EU-organized plan that might take shape at a summit of foreign ministers Monday in Brussels.
But it already appears likely that Europe will leave some of Guantanamo's inmates in limbo behind a policy of: No terrorists please.
Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin said European Union members should agree on terms and conditions for housing at least some of the 50 "as a logical consequence of our arguing for the closure of Guantanamo."
He emphasized, however, that "no one is talking about terrorists or anything like that coming to EU countries. We're talking about non-combatants — people who clearly have no history of any terrorist activity."
Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said in a written statement to The Associated Press that all EU countries thinking of taking ex-prisoners "will have to have regard to difficult security issues which arise." He declined an AP request to explain what those concerns were and how EU leaders could overcome them.
Ahern said in his prepared remarks he expects the Brussels talks to promote "a united and positive response at EU level to any request made by the new U.S. administration for help in bringing about the closure of Guantanamo."
In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said the Obama administration was carrying on diplomatic contacts begun on Bush's watch with "allies and partners, including a number of European countries," about the transfer of some detainees. He declined to discuss any specifics.
Diplomatic and security officials across Europe acknowledge that in the Obama era their nations risk exposure of double standards — complaining of American injustice, but presuming that ex-Guantanamo prisoners are too hot to handle themselves. Most nations in the 27-country bloc remain in the position of waiting for an EU request that they might prefer never comes…
See how easy it is to claim the moral high ground—which is often a realm of cowardice,
cluelessness and amorality—when someone else is doing your dirty work?
Religion repackaged?: James Taranto of Opinion Journal notes that the Zionist Organization of America is concerned that Obama may be signalling that "Judeo-Christian" is about to be superseded by "Christian-Islamic":
The Zionist Organization of America has a question for President Obama, concerning the statement in his Inaugural Address that "we are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus--and nonbelievers":
What is the reason President Obama chose this sequence when listing these four religions?
Throughout its history, the United States has always been known as a nation based on Judeo-Christian values and heritage.
Moreover, surveys show that there are some 5-7 million Jews living in the United States. Most surveys show that there are 1.8-2.8 million Muslims living in the United States.
In contrast, in President George W. Bush's Inauguration Speech on January 20, 2001, he said the following, "Church and charity, synagogue and mosque, lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and laws."
Hmm, why did he choose that order? It couldn't have just been random, seeing as how Obama cares so much about words. Let's consider the possibilities:
He's not going by number of adherents, as the ZOA statement points out, since there are more Jews than Muslims in America (although curiously the group omits a count of American Hindus). Muslims vastly outnumber Jews world-wide, but then so do Hindus.
He's not going chronologically, the idea behind "Judeo-Christian" (though come to think of it, one imagines there were nonbelievers before there were Jews). And if he were trying to rhyme, he'd have done something like "Christians, Hindus / Muslims 'n' Jews."
When in doubt, alphabetize: That's the advice an editor gave us when we were young. But Obama doesn't seem to have followed it. "Jews" is ahead of "Muslims" in the alphabet; and while "Islam" does come before "Judaism," "Hinduism" precedes them both.
Wait, we've got it! He is going alphabetically--not by the name of the faith or what its adherents are called, but by the name of the central figure in each: Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Vishnu.
Oh yeah--and Zilch!
I wouldn’t read too much into it. After all, as a few e-mailers have pointed out to me,
Obama has beaucoup de Jews in his administration, which means we have nothing to
worry about re his preferences, right?
Bow, scrape, grovel; repeat: Bruce Bawer, who lived in the Netherlands for a
time, and who authored While Europe Slept, a study of Europe’s capitulation to
Islamists, casts a baleful eye at the Iron Veil that has descended on his former
domicile:
…In Dutch Muslim schools and mosques, incendiary rhetoric about the Netherlands, America, Jews, gays, democracy, and sexual equality is routine; a generation of Dutch Muslims are being brought up with toxic attitudes toward the society in which they live. And no one is ever prosecuted for any of this. Instead, a court in the Netherlands—a nation once famous for being an oasis of free speech—has now decided to prosecute a member of the national legislature for speaking his mind. By doing so, it proves exactly what [Geert] Wilders has argued all along: that fear and “sensitivity” to a religion of submission are destroying Dutch freedom.
Can we honestly say that things are any different here in Canada?
Oh frabjous day!: Jihad's over, saith The One. Time for the "healing" to begin.
Update: Dubya's "war on terror" is toast. The way ahead, saith The One, is to "reclaim the moral high ground." Memo to Obama: do that, and your moral high ground is going to be littered with the bodies of dead Americans, the victims of jihadis who could care less about your "morality," and who have no qualms about engaging in whatever savagery it takes to come out on top.
Today’s spin--heartless Jews murder the innocent: In its weekly Friday digest,
the Canadian Islamic Congress posts this report, from UK rag The Guardian,
about the immense loss of life in Gaza, much of it comprised of children. The piece’s
headline is a mini maudlin masterpiece: “They’ve killed us; me, Amal and Soso.
They’ve gone to heaven.” What follows is insidious anti-Zionist propaganda,
something at which both the Guardian and the CIC excel:
Four-year- old Samer Abed Rabbo lay half-covered by a blanket yesterday in
her hospital bed, as she tried to explain the bullets that crippled her and killed her two sisters.
Samer was hit by a bullet in the back that damaged her spinal cord and left her arms and legs paralyzed, probably permanently. Her sisters Amal, aged two, and Suad, eight (nicknamed Soso), were killed outright when their house in northern Gaza came under attack from an Israeli tank last week.
"They killed us," Samer said. "We're dead. Me, Amal and Soso. They've gone to heaven " The Jews destroyed the house and I don't want to go back there. I love Amal and Soso."
Israel's military says it does not target civilians and blames Hamas, the Islamist movement that runs Gaza, for the high civilian casualty toll, because it fights from within urban areas. The Israeli military is in turn accused of using its immense firepower indiscriminately in built-up areas packed with civilian families trying to shelter from the fighting. More than half of Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants are children.
The extraordinary number of civilian deaths " particularly among children -- is for many a defining and shocking feature of this brutal offensive, which began in force on December 27. Today (mid- January) some 1200 and at least one-third of them are children. Up to 5,000 Gazans of all ages are among the injured, again at least one-third (and likely up to half) of them children. Many of the children have injuries that will leave them permanently disabled, facing more operations and months or years of rehabilitation therapy " both of which are very hard to come by in the impoverished Palestinian territories…
I can’t say for sure whether Amal and Soso have indeed gone to heaven (and if
they have, may they rest in peace), or whether their deaths were fabricated for
propaganda purposes. However, it seems clear that, as per usual, the Palestinians
have, for obvious reasons, inflated the number of deaths. An Honest Reporting alert,
citing a YNet News report, casts doubt on the veracity of Hamas’s figures:
…“The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter," according to the newspaper article....
A Tal al-Hawa resident told the newspaper's reporter, "Armed Hamas men sought out a good position for provoking the Israelis. There were mostly teenagers, aged 16 or 17, and armed. They couldn't do a thing against a tank or a jet. They knew they are much weaker, but they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."
The reporter for the Italian newspaper also quoted reporters in the Strip who told of Hamas' exaggerated figures, "We have already said to Hamas commanders – why do you insist on inflating the number of victims?"
These same reporters mentioned that the truth that will come out is likely to be similar to what occurred in Operation Defensive Shield in Jenin. "Then, there was first talk of 1,500 deaths. But then it turned out that there were only 54, 45 of which were armed men," the Palestinian reporters told the Italian newspaper…
Not that for Zion-haters accuracy and the truth make a bit of difference, since the Big
Lie is so much more effective in making their case.
Update: What really happened to the Amals and Sosos.
Situation normal all fouled up: An IHT headline informs us that, with the ceasefire holding, Gaza is "edging back to normalcy." I guess the IHT's definition of "normal" is broad enough to include a terrorist entity beholden to crazed Shiacrats; one that is funded entirely by international largesse such that there is no industry (save for digging tunnels through which to smuggle weapons and supplies, and cooking up "homemade" rockets) and no incentive to start any industry, since the rationale for this entity's existence is the eliminatation of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, and, ideally, the extermination of world Jewry in toto; and which contains a large "refugee camp" even though the "refugees" hold the reigns of power in their own territory.
If that's "normalcy" then the world is serioulsy f**ked.
Black masks and Black Death: We've become accustomed to terrorists who fall victim to, er, jihad-related work "accidents" (i.e. would-be shahids who never quite make it to Paradise because they 'splode before they're supposed to). Well, here's a report about a far more disturbing terrorist misfire--40 al Qaeda members who bought the farm after accidentally dosing themselves with the Bubonic plague.
No worries, though. Once President Obama and his hopey-changers clean out Gitmo and do away with that nasty waterboarding, I'm sure al Qaeda will be so impressed by their empathy and humanitarianism that they will immediately drop plans to revisit the glorious 14th Century, when a third of Europe's population succumbed to this incredibly revolting disease.
Same old, same old: Hope? Change? 'Tis to laugh. President Obama's first order of business for the Middle East is to try to reinflate the fortunes of a tapped out kleptocrat who's been given the heave-ho by his own people, and thus has the support of no one save the foolish kafirs who insist on keeping him in the game. The president's second order of business is to fly in--wait for it--George Mitchell (remember him?) so he can try to get the two sides together to, you know, talk, and find a way to resolve their differences.
Not exactly what anyone would call a quantum leap forward, Mr. President.
UN to the rescue: What Israel knocketh down, the anti-Zionist internationalists
vow to rebuild. I think that merits a song:
Nothing’s impossible for those who wait
To ‘liminate
The Jewish state.
They’ll pick Hamas up,
Dust Hamas off,
Start the jihad again.
Don’t lose your confidence if Jews fight back.
Just wait until the next attack.
And pick Hamas up,
Dust Hamas off,
Start the jihad again.
Hate like a soul inspired
By a Prophet from long ago.
Who cares if they bomb and blast you
When UN gives you more dough?
Don’t you remember the famous japes
That Jews are all pigs and apes?
So pick Hamas up,
Dust Hamas off,
Start the jihad again.
Tough love: An Australian imam has told the menfolk in his flock that, as per
instructions in the Koran, it's okay to force your wife you have sex with you and hit
her should she balk, so long as you're careful not to draw blood. From the Herald Sun:
EXCLUSIVE: A MELBOURNE Islamic cleric has told his male followers they can force their wives to have sex and hit them if they are disobedient.
Coburg's self-styled cleric Samir Abu Hamza said despite Australian rape laws it was impossible for a man to rape his wife even if she refused to have sex with him.
In a recorded lecture entitled "The Keys to a Successful Marriage", delivered to his male worshippers but now broadcast on the internet and viewed by several thousand people, Mr Hamza said Islamic law allowed men to hit their wives as a last resort, but they were not to make them bleed or become bruised.
He said under Islamic law, as described in a koranic verse, it was a man's right to demand sex from his wife whenever he felt like it.
"If the husband was to ask her for a sexual relationship and she is preparing the bread on the stove she must leave it and come and respond to her husband, she must respond," Mr Hamza told his male followers on the video sermon.
He then mocked Australia's criminal laws, which required consent for sex to be lawful.
"In this country if the husband wants to sleep with his wife and she does not want to and she hasn't got a sickness or whatever, there is nothing wrong with her she just does not feel like it, and he ends up sleeping with her by force . . . it is known to be as rape," Mr Hamza said. "Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?"
In the contradictory sermon, delivered in Melbourne or Sydney about 2003 but posted late last year, Mr Hamza initially instructs his listeners "don't hit your wife".
But he goes on to say exactly how men should hit their wives, according to his interpretation of Islamic teachings.
He said Islam cursed "those people who hit the animal on the face, (but) what about hitting your wife?"
"First of all advise them," he said. "You beat them . . . but this is the last resort...
And that "resort" is part of what you might call an all-inclusive package, with
instructions governing every single aspect of life, down to the most picayune.
All I can say is that when it comes to doling out marital advice, this guy is
no Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
FP: Geert Wilders is being put on trial by the Dutch Court of Appeals in Amsterdam for making anti-Islamic statements. Tell us what this charge is about and the ramifications if Wilders loses.
Spencer: The charge is essentially that he has insulted Islam and Muslims, and engaged in hate speech. Hate speech, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and hate speech laws are tools in the hands of the powerful that they can use to silence the powerless and crush dissent.
And make no mistake: even though the Muslims in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the West present themselves as embattled victims of racism and "Islamophobia," that is exactly what is going on here: this is just one part of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference's efforts to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam -- including "defamation of Islam" that goes under the "pretext" of "freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security."
If they succeed in doing this, we will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West -- in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an, so this initiative not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.
FP: So if this attempt to silence the truth about Islam succeeds, who exactly, at this stage, “will be rendered mute”? If the totalitarians get their way, who will be silenced? Tell us what boundaries this affects.
Spencer: Well, when the Organization of the Islamic Conference specifies that they consider defamatory even speech about Islam that goes under the rubric of "counter terrorism or national security," they are trying to stop counterterrorism analysts from studying and discussing the motives and goals of Islamic jihad terrorists. The ones who will be rendered mute will be the ones who we most need to speak: those who understand why the jihadists are attacking us, what they hope to accomplish, and what kind of society they envision.
Since the answers to all those questions and others lead back again and again to core texts and teachings of Islam, the only ones who will benefit from our remaining in ignorance about those answers will be the jihadists themselves, who will be able to continue their work unimpeded by interference from those who understand them and can thus formulate effective ways to oppose them.
The enemies of free speech who are trying to destroy Wilders at this point also wish to silence any critical discussion about Islam in the public square, in accord with Sharia norms. If they get their way here, it will come through the UN, and through President Obama's determination to work closely with the UN and build bridges to Islamic countries.
FP: And free speech in the United States?
Spencer: There will still be free speech in America in much the same way as Henry Ford used to say that you can have any color car you want, as long as it's black: free speech will still be a constitutional right, but "hate speech" will be specifically exempted from its protections, and "hate speech" will be defined to encompass speaking honestly about the actual texts and teachings of Islam that contain exhortations to violence and assertions of supremacism -- unless one is referencing such material approvingly as a believer.
FP: All Wilders did was point to what Islam teaches. This means that it will be illegal to say the truth about what is in Islamic theology, correct?
Spencer: Yes, when these truths are enunciated by non-Muslims in a spirit of opposition to Islamization.
FP: If this process continues, when and how will these forces try to silence you? Will you be willing to go to jail for telling the truth?
Spencer: I do think this will come down the pike eventually, but I expect that there will be some major challenges to efforts to extinguish free speech in America before it happens. And maybe enough Americans will recover a sense of what made this country great, and why free speech is important, to roll back the attempt to restrict freedom of speech here. There looms a battle over the Fairness Doctrine, which is essentially an attempt to muzzle political dissent, and how that comes out will reveal a great deal about what opponents of Islamization stateside can expect next. But anyway, certainly, of course I'm willing to go to jail for telling the truth, or to die for telling the truth. Life lived by lies or sustained by lies is not worth living.
FP: Now trials such as these produce a great opportunity for defendants to tell the truth right? Wilders can use the trial and the publicity surrounding it to expose Islamic theology and to crystallize the hatred in its texts, right? Someone like you can come as a witness for the defense to show that Wilders is correct theologically, etc., right?
Spencer: I would be glad to do this or to help him in any way. This has been done before, in a case in Australia's Victoria State a few years ago. However, it may be that truth is no defense, as was declared in one of the Mark Steyn show trials in Canada last year. After all, for cases like this to proceed, truth must not be a defense -- otherwise the case could not be brought in the first place. Prosecutors will never be able to sustain a case that Wilders has misrepresented the Qur'an, so the only thing they will be able to do is to assert that he had some evil ulterior motive, or hurt the feelings of Muslims by stating these truths.
In any case, yes, one thing that could happen -- as it did in Steyn's case -- could be that much about the Islamic supremacist agenda is brought to the attention of the public. That possibility could make a trial of Wilders a great victory for free speech and for the general defense of the West against Islamization.
FP: What might happen to Gilders himself if he is found guilty? Might he go to jail?
Spencer: I'm not familiar with Dutch laws regarding "hate speech" and any prescribed penalties that come from engaging in it, but I do believe that is a possibility.
FP: Wilders is being prosecuted for, among other things, comparing Islam to Nazism. The problem is, however, that Islamic theology is filled with Jew-hatred, myriad Islamic leaders have called out, and continue to call out, for another Holocaust, and in the present-day anti-Israel demonstrations we see calls for genocide against Jews – and they are articulated in the cause of Islam. Can you comment on this phenomenon?
Spencer: Yes, what you're saying is true, and let us not forget the enthusiastic support that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, gave to Hitler during World War II, or the present-day alliance between European neo-Nazi groups such as the National Democratic Party in Germany, a neo-Nazi party, and Islamic jihadists. Yet no official notice is taken by the European Union or any other entity in Europe of this long-standing and recurring phenomenon, and instead here again Wilders is penalized for stating manifest truths…
Nor is much official notice being taken of how Nazi Judenhass has morphed into
Judenhass that targets the Jewish state and its Jewish supporters. But that’s because
officials are craven wimps who find it easier to ignore or placate the scary “enthusiasts”
instead of dealing with the ugly reality of the new Judenhass—the Judenhass of those
who, no surprise, are likely to be screaming the loudest about “Islamophobia”.
Koo koo Moo Moo strikes again: If nothing else, the Gaza incursion will be remembered for breathing new life into some wacky, anti-Zionist schemes. For one, there's Ontario union boss, Sid "Vicious" Ryan, and his witch hunt of Israeli academics (a particularly loopy ideas since many if not most of said academics, being die hard Lefties, are likely to see things exactly as he does). For another, there's kooky Libyan potentate/waxwork Moo Moo, he of the variously spelled last name, and his "one state solution"--"Isratine." The nutty, Hamas-promoting New York Times has thoughtfully provided Moo Moo with precious space to refloat his lead balloon of an eliminationist scheme (for there's no getting around it: a "one state solution" would effectively solve the problem of Israel's existence, allowing that final one per cent of Mideast land to "revert" to its "rightful" Muslim "owners").
He can't dance, don't ask him: President Obama, who is clearly smitten with his statuesque wife, lauded her attributes by citing a famous quip about Ginger Rogers, of the Astaire-Rogers dancing duo. Michelle, said Barack, "can do everything I can do, only backwards and in heels." Whereupon, with the eyes of the world upon him, he swept up his Ginger in his arms...and did the lamest, gauchiest, nerdiest turn around the floor ever.
How gauche was it? Well, let's just say "the nimble tread of the feet of Fred Astaire" (to quote Cole Porter) was nowhere in evidence.
The obvious conclusion: he may be God, but this deity can't dance.
Were I metaphor-minded (and I am, I am), I would say that this does not bode well for all the dancing he'll have to do with jihadists, despots, theocrats and the e'er graceful diplomats who can execute pliees, grand jetees and entrechats galore while appeasing/sucking up to all of the above.
Wilders charged with ‘hate speech’: Canadians, take note. If we continue to speak
out against the jihad and sharia in this, a Trudeaupian realm of “good thoughts” that
comes equipped with a bureaucracy especially empowered to police them, this is bound
to be our fate, too. From the Beeb:
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.
Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.
Mr Wilders said the ruling was a "black day for me and for freedom of speech".
"I am shaken. I had absolutely not expected it," he told the Dutch news agency, ANP…
That was his—and our—first mistake. He—and we—should not only expect it, we
should count on it.
Reserving judgement: The new prez has extended a hand of friendship to the
Muslim world, so it’s reportedly going to give him the benefit of the doubt and see
whether or not he’s willing to kowtow to them how this “friendliness” plays out.
From al Reuters:
CAIRO (Reuters) - Arabs and Muslims gave the benefit of some doubt on Wednesday to U.S. President Barack Obama's offer of "a new way forward" with the Muslim world, but many said it would take deeds rather than words to convince them.
After eight years of President George W. Bush, who invaded two Muslim countries and gave strong support to Israel, Arabs and Muslims watched Obama's inaugural speech on Tuesday closely for any sign that U.S. policy toward them will change.
With some exceptions on the fringes, a clear majority said they welcomed a new tone from Obama, who promised relations based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
"This is a speech that reflected a new spirit of dialogue, reaching out and working together. This is a new direction that is certainly not what the Bush administration has been pursuing," said former Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher.
Hilal Khashan, political science professor at the American University of Beirut, noted Obama's reference to Muslims as a significant part of the patchwork of the United States, an attitude not common in U.S. political discourse.
"The fact that he mentioned Muslims means a lot. This is a symbolic gesture to the Muslim world that they are part of the world. He's inclusive," he said…
Ah, yes, “inclusiveness.” Islam is nothing if not “inclusive,” since it wants to “include”
Dar al Harb in Dar al Islam. But Obama’s a smart guy. I’m sure he knows all about it.
A priest, a rabbi and a minister walk into a concentration camp....: Those chuckleheads in Iran who, despite their outwardly dour demenour, do like to have a good laugh now and then, are about to release a book that pokes fun at--wait for it--the Holocaust. From the Daily Times:
TEHRAN: A student-linked Iranian publisher plans to launch English and Arabic language versions of a book of caricatures and satirical writings about the Holocaust, a semi-official news agency reported on Sunday.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused outrage in the West and Israel for saying in 2005 the state of Israel should be wiped off the map and for a Tehran conference in 2006 that sought to cast doubt on the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed by the Nazis. The book deals with the ‘big historical distortion’ of the Holocaust and the English and Arabic editions would be published at a ceremony in Tehran later this month when a message from Ahmadinejad would be read out, Fars News Agency said.
It appeared to be translations of a book, which official media in September said had been published about the ‘fiction’ of the Holocaust. Details could not immediately be confirmed.
Ceremony: “The presentation ceremony will be held on January 27 with the attendance of a number of government officials,” said Muhammad-Mehdi Hemmati, who is involved in the project...
Hey, maybe the Ceeb, which already has a hugely successful shill-com designed to "put
the fun back in fundamentalism," could turn it into a mini-series.
Ban channels his inner Kofi (and Boutrous Boutros and Kurt, etc): Those UN
Sec’y-Gens are all cut from the same cloth, aren’t they? Witness the latest guy, on a
visit to a now somewhat defanged viper’s nest in Gaza. Does Ban say boo about how
poor victimized, virtuous Gazans have turned schools and hospitals into torture
chambers in order to torment and murder their own? Don’t be silly. That would be
completely out of character for one of these UN popinjays. As per usual, he’s most
lachrymose about only thing—what Jews have done to Arabs.
From the Wall Street Journal:
…United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in Israel and Gaza Tuesday, criticized Hamas for firing rockets into Israel. But he reserved some of his harshest words for Israel, lashing out again at Israeli's attack against a U.N. facility inside the territory.
"I am not able to describe how I'm feeling. Everybody can still smell the burning," he said at a press conference in Gaza, adding that the attack was an "outrageous and totally unacceptable attack." Israeli officials said their soldiers responded to fire in the vicinity and officials are investigating.
The U.N. boss said he was in Gaza "to demonstrate my solidarity with the population of Gaza," and he condemned Israel's "excessive use of force."...
The population of Gaza is jihadist, eliminationist and sitting comfortably in the back
pocket of the Ayatollahs. If he’s “solid” with them, he’s solid with the enemies of
Western civilization (hello, OIC), in which case, why would anyone who lives in a
democracy listen to anything this wretched man, this tool of tyrants, has to say?
Broken Ban: Surveying the devastation in Gaza, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who's there on a visit, called it "heartbreaking". This one's for you, Ban, to help you mend:
I can think of other wars
That Jews have had to fight
When the UN got behind Jews’ enemies.
We could always see tomorrow
And know it would be bringing pain and sorrow.
And…
How can you mend Ban’s broken heart?
How can Jews stop missiles from raining down?
How can we stop the crazed Jew-haters
Running amok thru town?
And how can you mend this broken diplomat?
How can jihadis ever win?
UN’ll mend
Hamas in Gaza
So it can fight again.
I can still hear the chorus
And other such like lies and calumnies.
The MSM paints Jews the villain
Because of all the Hamas blood that’s spillin’
And…
How can you mend Ban’s broken heart?
How can Jews stop missiles from raining down?
How can we stop the crazed jihadis
And how can you mend this broken diplomat?
How can Islamists ever win?
UN’ll mend
Hamas in Gaza
So it can fight again.
Talking to Hamas: While much of the Arab world continues to give Hamas the cold shoulder, great-statesman-in-his-own-mind Bashar Assad tells a Der Spiegel interviewer that he knows for a fact that the Eurodhimmis are open to chatting with the jihadis, and that he's most delighted to facilitate the "dialogue":
...SPIEGEL: No Western politician wants to sit at the same table with Hamas.
Assad: That's not true at all. Many European officials have sought a dialogue with Hamas, especially recently.
SPIEGEL: With your mediation?
Assad: The Europeans have learned from experience. That's why they are now talking to the Hamas leadership here in Damascus -- not publicly, of course. I don't want to mention any names. But I do think it's telling that they include people who are especially critical of Hamas in their speeches. We try to help where we can.
SPIEGEL: The key Hamas representative abroad, Khaled Mashaal, was granted asylum in your country. He is at the very top of the Israelis' hit list. Many consider him to be far more radical than the Hamas leadership in Gaza. Are there any conditions to your hospitality?
Assad: Mashaal has changed. He already mentioned the borders of 1967 in 2006. What does that mean? It means that he accepts a two-state solution. Besides, a few months ago he also said that he would sign anything that the Palestinian people see as the right thing to do.
SPIEGEL: That's a very broad interpretation. In our view, it is little more than indirect recognition.
Assad: Talking about the 1967 borders means more than indirect recognition. We Syrians see it this way: We do not recognize Israel and Israel is still our enemy -- it occupies part of our country, the Golan Heights. If the Israelis withdraw from Golan, we will recognize them. First comes peace, then recognition -- not the other way around. We have been grappling with our relationship with Israel for more than 30 years now. With Hamas, the process began only three years ago. You have to exercise patience...
Become an icon in your own mind: Can you do it? Yes, you can.
Legoland Inaugural: The Telegraph has a photo gallery of today's swearing in ceremonies as imagined by the creative folks of Legoland, California. (I happen to live in Legoland, Toronto, courtesy my brick-besotted youngster.) My favourite: the Aretha Franklin Lego lady. She's a dead-ringer for the real thing.
He really is the Saviour: Over at Hamas House (a.k.a. Ceeb radio) some revelers were singing "Obama" (that's it, just "Obama") to the tune of "Oh Come All Ye Faithful".
This is going to be a loooong day.
Poem for a tortured soul: Is Maher Arar laughing all the way to the bank? Could be:
Remember when Maher Arar.
Became a big media star?
He was paid lots of dough
For his sad tale of woe
Heh: Canada tells former Weatherman and current Obamamigo Bill Ayers, "We hear you knockin', but you can't come in."
Identity theft: In the grip of a pathological delusion that they are the "new" Jews, while the Jews are the "new" Nazis, the Palestinians invite you to come visit the Palestinian Holocaust Museum.
Exactly when, you might ask, did this so-called "Holocaust" take place? Apparently, it began with Israel's founding (a.k.a.. the Naqba, the Catastrophe) and has been ongoing ever since.
Brits' true colours (i.e. green, like the Hamas flag): Melanie Phillips reports on the spiraling Judenhass in the U.K., spurred on by the Gaza invasion. What is particularly upsetting about it, she writes, is how the country's "senior politicians" have failed to condemn it. She has especially harsh words for that hypocrite extraordinaire, Prime Minister Gordon Brown:
...Repeatedly, Gordon Brown has said, as here, that ‘too many innocent people’ have died in Gaza without acknowledging these crucial points: that while all deaths of innocents in war are to be much regretted, the vast majority of those killed have been Hamas operatives; that Hamas deliberately falsify these figures by classifying terrorists as civilians; and most crucial of all, that Israel has gone to extreme lengths to avoid killing innocent civilians – lengths to which the British and Americans most certainly are not going in Afghanistan. For Brown to avoid stating any of this, and instead to lend credence to the libellous claims about Israel’s behaviour which have incited this wave of anti-Jewish bigotry and violence makes the British Prime Minister effectively an accessory to that bigotry and violence.
Let us not hear any more pieties from him about his great love of Israel and the Jewish people. The hypocrisy is simply nauseating.
Oily royal sheds crocodile tears for the jihad's cannon fodder: The latest Wahhabi to head up the House of Saud has pledged $1 billion to help Hamas rebuild its devastated infrastructure. The unctuous monarch says that "one drop of Palestinian blood" is more valuable than all the money in the world.
Of course it is. If not for their communal concern about "Palestinians" (about whom they care as a symbol of Arab "resistance," but not as actual human beings, since they insist they remain "refugees" until such time as Israel disappers) how else would Arabs stay united? Futher, if not for the Palestinians, Arabs might notice--and rebel against--their own despicable, despotic, misery-engendering regimes.
The rapture: Wake me when it's over--please (to the tune of "Yankee Doodle"):
Barack Obama’s swearing in
Now captivates the nation.
The hagiography is thick
And so’s the adulation.
Nice lookin’ chap;
The family’s cute;
But ‘pon further reflection
The notion he can “save the world”
Seems based on his complexion.
Home truths: Pajamas Media contributor Leon de Winter (a Dutch writer) uses
the metaphor of Israel being a house (previously “owned” by an Arab grandpa) in
a hostile Arab/Muslim/Islamist neighbourhood to describe the Palestinian mindset
re Jewish sovereignty (my bolds):
…Our neighbor, the dog, wants us to leave him alone. We can’t. His death is our ultimate ambition in life. We live in our hovel, we grow nothing in our garden, and we leave our schoolbooks on the shelf because we dream of returning to our grandfather’s house and work solely towards our neighbor’s collapse. Nothing is allowed to distract us from that.
Our neighbor claims that when he bought the house, it was just a wooden hut on a piece of barren land that he turned into a palace. He claims he planted a fertile vegetable garden — that’s a lie. It was an estate with fertile soil and the bathrooms had gold taps; our grandfather told us so himself, we even keep the key to his house in a sacred place. If we had still been living in our grandfather’s house then we would have had all those freezers in which our neighbor keeps his food. The family of monkeys and pigs never lived there before; our neighbor’s existence is based on clever lies and forgeries.
We keep challenging him and when we’ve insulted him enough and managed to wreck some part of his house, he marches angrily into our place. We can’t stop him and we have no idea how long he’ll stay in our hovel, until one day he leaves. Then we lick our wounds in satisfaction and survey in intense pleasure all the destruction he left behind, and we show it to the world. Our scars prove to us and to the world that our cause is just. We know he doesn’t harm us when we leave him alone, but we want him to harm us. If he wouldn’t, the world would think he is just an ordinary guy. Which he isn’t. That’s why we provoke him. Without him harming us, we wouldn’t exist.
We want to kill him, but we don’t have the right weapons. He has the means to kill us all, but he doesn’t, the coward. If we had the weaponry he has, we would have killed him long ago. And the fact that he doesn’t kill us, although he could, is a sign of his unbearable arrogance.
Some, who don’t live in our neighborhood and who don’t know how things work around here, occasionally ask us, “Why do you keep provoking him when you know that he’ll hit back so ferociously?”
This question proves they are ignorant about our neighborhood. We do it because that’s what our life is about. Our neighbor, who’s a murderer of prophets, humiliates us just because he is there. That’s why we can’t think about anything else. Our grandfather’s honor is worth risking our own lives and those of our children and grandchildren. We have no future as long as our neighbor lives in peace and plenty. None of us in the neighborhood can build as long as his house remains standing…
Here’s how I have come to think of it: the Jews came out of the fire of Europe’s
Holocaust and landed in the sizzling frying pan of statehood in the Middle East. The
change of venue has given rise to the same old obsessions, lunacies, rancours, and
calumnies, only this time focused on the Jewish state, and—who would have ever
thought it possible?—amped up to an even higher level of frenzy.
No doubt about it: something about “the Jew” brings out the crazy in some people.
Jews (and friends of Jews) 4 Israel: Kathy Shaidle has some photos of the pro-Israel rally held in Dundas Square this afternoon. Although it had been snowing steadily since the previous evening, and was still snowing during the rally (and is still snowing now, more than four hours since it wrapped up), there was a very respectable out. I was glad to see that the crowd skewed mostly young. That's understandable, since Hillel, the Jewish university students' association, helped organize the event. I was also pleased to see--and hear from--an Indian, just back from India, and a Cuban, one of several non-Fidel types who turned out to support the only democracy in the Middle East. Also, some of my Christian buds were there--Kathy, Wendy, Chris, Joanne; baruch Hashem for all the Christian Zionists who manage to turn out for practically every pro-Jew gathering around. Across the street, there was a fairly skimpy counter-protest by anti-Zionist Jews, including those carrying a banner declaring they were "JEWS IN SOLIDARITY WITH GAZA." In other words, JEWS FOR JIHAD. Or, had this been the 1930s instead of the two thousand oughts, JEWS IN SOLIDARITY WITH BAVARIA. Or something like that.
"End the Occupation" (of the Zionist entity by Zionists and by Juden/Zhoos of their, er, living, breathing bodies): Judenhass--it's all the rage, encore.
If only he were as thick as Judy, Naomi, Jack and all the other useful idiots: In what they obviously consider the ultimate diss, "protesters" who gathered outside Peter Kent's office yesterday to tell the ardent Israel supporter that "Israel must be put in its place" (i.e. supine, under Islam's thumb), called the Tory Cabinet Minister "an egghead."
Spilling blood in Iran, again: Rest assured, (or Ashura'd), it's only for the sake of ritual:
Just occurred to me...: "Hamas" is an anagram for "a sham."
Very fitting, no, considering that it's a sham "resistance movement" comprised of holy warriors hell-bent on installing sharia uber alles?
"Dhimmis United Against Dhimmitude": Now, that's the kind of "interfaith dialogue" I can really get behind.
Update: An even better name would be "Kafirs United Against Dhimmitude," don't you think?
Harpoon’s doing his happy dance: The Toronto Star’s resident apologist for the
Islamist viewpoint is thrilled to bits that Obama is being sworn in this week. And why
not? All this “out with the old, in with the new” cannot help but benefit those who
favour the apologist/appeasement perspective:
In two days, George W. Bush will be gone, not a moment too soon. Out the window will go his policies.
The resounding victory of Barack Hussein Obama was a reaction to the war on terror, war on Iraq, war on Afghanistan, war on the American constitution and the Geneva Conventions, and war on regulations of the financial markets.
This is not to take anything away from Obama's historic achievements. Overcoming the racial barrier was only one of them.
In going from being a black candidate to one who happened to be black, he transformed America. There's no more talk of the White House becoming a Black House with a cabbage patch, but rather of the first black family moving into the house built by slave labour.
Obama is a highly educated man of rare talent, who has put intelligent debate back at the heart of American democracy that had made a virtue of ignorance.
He is calm, dignified and full of grace, even to his tormentors, including John McCain and Hillary Clinton (who claimed that she, not he, represented "hard-working Americans, white Americans.")
But Obama cannot possibly fulfill the expectations he has raised, in America and abroad. He cannot walk on water. Nor are all his prescriptions perfect. But he has indeed ushered in an era of hope.
WAR ON TERROR
Obama hopes to convene a conference of Muslim leaders to tell them America is not at war with them and to ask their help to "defeat the terrorist threat that's there" from Muslim sources.
As well intentioned as it is to try to reconcile Islam and the West, the premise is wrong, writes Olivier Roy, French author and expert on Islam. "It's a false notion that `Islam' and `the West' are distinct entities." To say so is to concede Osama bin Laden's point and paradoxically that of Islamophobes in the West.
Muslims are a diverse lot, as are Muslim nations. `Islam' is not the cause of terrorism, wars and insurgencies. Oppression, occupation, separatism and geopolitics are. Religion is only a banner to rally support or to rail against the U.S., Israel and others, just as it is for those among us who've been whipping up hysteria against Islam.
The war on terror was ill conceived and has only increased terrorism, as David Miliband, British foreign secretary, noted Thursday.
As U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said: Address the causes, not the symptoms of terrorism…
MIDDLE EAST
Too many people are in denial that the decades-long Israeli-Arab conflict is the most burning issue in many parts of the world, as Tony Blair has said.
Obama has promised to be "actively engaged" – "from the minute I'm sworn into office."
But he won't succeed unless he is prepared to depart from the unspoken but most obvious premise of Israeli/American policy, which is, sadly, now also Canadian policy: placing a different value on Israeli lives and Palestinian lives – the first matter, the second do not.
This is a racist, neocolonial construct. The subject race is dehumanized and demonized, subjected to relentless repression and collective punishments.
Israel has a right to security and peace. So do the Palestinians. One is not possible without the other.
It's clear that the policy of isolating Hamas has failed. The Gaza offensive has only strengthened it and weakened Fatah. If it is all right to talk to Iran, Hamas's patron, about curbing Tehran's nuclear ambitions, why is it heresy to talk to Hamas about peace?...
First, it is pointless to “talk to Iran.” Second, the only “peace” that Hamas and all other
jihadis are interested in is the kind that no infidel could possibly find palatable—i.e. the
“peace” that will follow once infidels accede to primacy of sharia.
Third, all this talk of “collective punishment” is hogwash. It is meant to blow smoke so
folks won’t notice that
A) Like Hitler, Hamas was elected by the people, and remains wildly popular with the majority of them (so much for separating out “the people,” who are supposedly innocent and virtuous, and Hamas, which is supposedly riding roughshod over them);
B) Hamas’s raison d’etre—like Fatah’s—is the extirpation of Jewish sovereignty in Israel (it says so, right in both groups’ charters);
C) Hamas cares not a whit for the lives of the people, purposely and purposefully putting them in harm’s way so that their deaths will inflame outrage against Israel; and
D) Israel is the miner’s canary. Its death will presage the demise of Western civilization as a whole.
"What a country!": Remember Yakov Smirnoff, the immigrant from the U.S.S.R. who for a time built a comedic career out of his wry observartions about the differences between Communist Russia and the U.S.? (Sample quip: "In Russia we only had two TV channels. Channel One was propaganda. Channel Two consisted of a KGB officer telling you: Turn back at once to Channel One.") Every so often Smirnoff would underscore his delight at having found refuge in the Land of the Free with what became his tagline: "What a country!" Only in America, as another comedian used to say, could a Ukrainian with a thick accent rise to play comedy shows in Vegas. (He has since gone on--no joke--to a career in academia.) Similarly, only in America would a chick who's acknowledged to be part of the Wahhabi lobby (lahhbi?), and who as such pledges allegiance first and foremost to Allah's--and not to man's--law, be invited to participate in a key Obama inauguration event. From the American Thinker:
Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), will deliver a prayer at the National Cathedral during the National Prayer Service on January 21st. The event is part of the festivities for the inauguration of Barack Obama, which occurs January 20. A convert to Islam, Mattson directs the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary.
ISNA has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamist group, and was named an un-indicted co-conspirator in U.S. v Holy Land Foundation, a case that uncovered covert financing of the terrorist group Hamas. Since her election as ISNA president in 2006, Mattson's apologias for the radical Wahhabi sect of Islam have gained a much wider audience.
What a country! Better they should have asked Smirnoff.
“Terrorism” explained—and whitewashed: A Canadian Islamic Congress official
takes a stab at explaining a word that Islamists and UN diplomats find so evanescent,
so hard to pin down, that for years they’ve tried--and failed--to arrive at an acceptable
definition. As Imam Dr. Zijad Delic sees it, though, there are two kinds of “terrorism”:
“official terrorism,” which is apparently something infidel nations perpetrate on Muslims,
and Israel inflicts on Palestinians; and “unofficial terrorism,” for example, the terrorism
that occurred on 9/11. The latter terrorism, being “unofficial,” wasn’t conducted under
the auspices of an “official” state sponsor, however the imam is open-minded enough to
leave room for those doubters who espy the hands of sinister Zionists lurking and
working behind the scenes. One thing these two kinds of terror do have in common,
according to the imam: “religion” is never, ever involved. (My bolds):
…There exists, however, a critical division among the perpetrators of terrorism, which must be taken into account: this is the separation of terrorism into official and unofficial categories.
Official terrorism - by far the most dangerous - comprises all intentionally violent or oppressive acts supported by an internationally recognized nation, country, sector, or state, whether carried out by the army of the given state, by individual governmental elements, or in the form of designated operations designed to benefit only the state or entity in power. Recent examples include: the devastating attack by Serbia on Bosnia and Herzegovina; the U.S. invasion of Iraq (reportedly resulting in the deaths of up to 1 million within five years); the American-led campaign against Afghanistan (resulting in about 6,000 civilian deaths during 2007 alone); and now Israel’s brutal targeted offensive on Gaza, where the death toll during only two weeks (at the time of writing) already surpassed 900.
Unofficial terrorism should not be underestimated either. The catastrophic events of 9/11 and 7/7 have not been traced (so far) to any predetermined and/or premeditated governmental conspiracy. Nor have they revealed any credible evidence of conscious religious motivation. As noted, an act of terrorism can be perpetrated by a government, an army, a group, or an individual, using direct or indirect means of violence. Here again, it is a grave mistake to associate such terrorist acts with any religion -- even when we hear claims of responsibility (after the fact) by those who desire the fame or notoriety of being supposed agents for religious goals. Their acts and/or claims do not speak for the true adherents of any religion.
Terrorism is terrorism, plain and simple. We can help stop it by calling it what it is and by understanding what it isn’t.
Agreed, so here goes: What is it? It’s the jihad. What do we need to “understand” about
it? It aims to turn Dar al Harb—that’s us—into Dar al Islam—that’s them. Plain and
simple, that’s all we really need to know.
B206TomSawyerPaintingTheFence.jpg)
The Ballad of the House of Saud: There's news that the economic downturn has cost the oily Arab states plenty of dough-re-mi. But as Elly Mae used to say to Jed when she was bringing another critter to play near the see-ment pond, "Don't worry, Pa, there's plenty more where this came from." Here's the Beverly Hillbillies Theme Song, revised in "homage" to a family of slick--and still filthy rich--Wahhabi sheiks:
Come and listen to my story ‘bout a house named Saud.
And then one day, kickin’ back and playin’ Euchre,
When up through the ground seeped some bubblin’ lucre.
Oil, that is.
Black gold.
Arabian tea.
Well, the first thing you know Sauds were gazillionaires.
Their kinfolk spent like a bunch of drunken sailors.
They spread their faith via masjids and madrassahs
On fire: In these tough economic time, it's good to know there's at least one sector that can count on doing a booming business--the folks who manufacture Israeli flags.
The brothers from another planet: And speaking of the delusional, the Tehran
Times high-fives a bunch of L.A. tribe members (including some who hail from
far-out asteroid Neturei Karta) who are helping further Mahmoud and the mully-
bullies’ Jewlimination scheme:Early Thursday morning, Jewish activists in a historic first in Los Angeles, chained themselves to the entrance of the Israeli Consulate and blocked the driveway to the parking structure, blocking all traffic in and out of the building. ""We sent a clear message to the world that LA Jews are part of the global majority in opposition to the Israeli siege of Gaza,"" said Lenny Potash a 72-year old protester who was cuffed to eight other activists, blocking the driveway to the consulate.
The activists were joined by 50 other supporters and who chanted ""LA Jews say, End the Siege of Gaza"" and ""Not in Our Name! We will Not be Silent!"" Protesters also held up signs reading ""Israeli Consulate: Closed for War Crimes.""
""We succeeded today in letting Jews and other Americans of conscience know that it is safe to speak out against the policies of the Israeli government and that the Israeli lobby does not speak for everyone,"" said Robin Ellis, a registered nurse who also risked arrest to block the consulate entrance.
""We are committed to escalating non-violent activities in the future to end the siege and win justice for Palestinians,"" Ellis said.
The group of activists were an ad-hoc, multi-generational group of LA Jewish residents, including members of the recently founded International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network. They shared a commitment to ending the Israeli siege on Gaza and an end to Israeli apartheid.
The demonstration will kick off a wave of demonstrations across the United States uniting Palestinians, Jewish people, and other Americans outraged by the siege.
""We are shocked and outraged at Israeli's latest act of violent aggression against the Palestinian people. Killing over 1000 people, including 250 women and children, bombing schools and mosques and then calling it self-defense—that is the worst kind of hypocrisy. It also amounts to war crimes,"" said Hannah Howard, a local member of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.
""We shut down the Israeli consulate today because as Jewish people we cannot allow business as usual while violence is being done in our name.""
Action participants also spoke out against the U.S. government's unconditional support for Israel's siege and its ongoing war against the Palestinian people.
""While U.S.-funded F16's rain down bombs on the people of Gaza, our elected officials locally and nationally offer unqualified support."" said Marsha Steinberg, a retired union representative.
""Our government must stop sending billions of dollars in military and economic aid to the Israeli war machine,"" Goldberg said. In the coming week, concerned Americans from all backgrounds will call on the new presidential administration to make a 180 degree change in policy.
""While the end of the siege on Gaza is our most immediate priority, this is only the latest chapter in Palestinians' 60 plus year experience of occupation and ethnic cleansing. Peace and justice in the region will only come when Palestinians have freedom and control their own destiny,"" said Lisa Adler, a community organizer in Los Angeles and another member of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.
""Even before the siege began, Israel's inhumane months-long blockade of Gaza created a major humanitarian crisis. We must end the siege. And we are building a nonviolent international movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions that brings an end to Israel's policies of occupation and apartheid and advances the Palestinian struggle for justice,"" said Adler.
Earth to Adler, Earth to Adler, come in, Adler…
Too late. Ms. Adler and the others are apparently lost in space.
On talking bears and non sequiturs : Prefacing his National Post column with
an anecdote about an Albanian chap who shot and killed a Kodiak bear at a Toronto
zoo because he thought he overheard it and the other bears plotting (in Albanian) to
take over the world, George Jonas divides today’s pundits into two categories: the
delusional, and the sane but clueless. Into the former category he places the malign
Ms. Klein, who, like the Albanian bear-killer, is in the grip of a powerful delusion,
hers re the Israeli, not the ursine. Into the latter category he places the New York
Times' unaccountably well-regarded analyst, Thomas L. Friendman, who has some
thoughts on the way ahead vis a vis Gaza's implaccable jihadis:
…It was Naomi Klein's column calling for the boycott of Israel --a piece that also caught Jonathan Kay's attention earlier this week -- that reminded me of the Albanian-speaking bears. A writer friend sent it to me with a note, saying: "Meanwhile, from planet Klein..."
Ms. Klein's column in The Nation did read like a message from another planet but, just like the bear-killer's delusion, it did have a certain internal logic. A bear that conspires to take over the world may have to be shot, and a political system "infinitely worse than apartheid" may have to be boycotted.
That the Jewish state is "infinitely worse than apartheid" is the opinion of South Africa's Minister of Intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils, quoted with approval by Ms. Klein. We, in this solar system, may find the parallel daunting, but those who inhabit Ms. Klein's universe could conclude, as she does, that "[t]he best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa."
I think equating Israel with apartheid makes a person as certifiably delusional as hearing Kodiak bears converse in Albanian. However, if Israel were what delusional critics think it is, what they suggest would make sense. It's eminently sane people who often come up with the worst non sequiturs in their articles, opinion pieces and letters on the Middle East.
Such sane critics agree that Israel has a right to exist and that any nation is entitled to defend itself. They also agree that deliberately launching rockets against civilian targets is terrorism, and that terrorism is wrong. They agree that using civilians as human shields is a war crime, which belligerents such as Hamas commit whenever they try to hide behind their non-combatants, effectively turning their own wives and children into hostages. They dismiss Marxist-socialist-Arab-nationalist-Muslim-militant calumnies about racist or white-colonial Zionism as vile fantasies.
Yet if the Middle East narrative is the way they tell it, responding to it the way they suggest is a series of non sequiturs. Are non sequiturs worse than delusions? No, but like rusty hinges, they squeak more.
Some critics of Israel's policies grate on the ear big time. Take those who urge Israel not to respond "disproportionately" to Hamas because, although terrorism is wrong, so is wartime civilian suffering. "Two wrongs don't make a right."
True. Two wrongs don't make a right. But if terrorism is the first wrong, the second wrong isn't resisting terrorism, but not resisting it. A proportionate response to terror is whatever stops it. So far, the rockets keep coming from Gaza.
Other critics warn that winning a shooting war is useless if Israel loses the public relations war. But Israel literally can't afford another PR victory. Having won the mother of all PR victories against the anti-Semites of Europe, the Jewish people haven't another six million lives to spare to win one against the anti-Semites of Asia as well.
Finally, there's Thomas Friedman. Thinking aloud in The New York Times, Mr. Friedman appears to conclude that Israel should respond to the extent necessary to educate rather than to eradicate a foe whose stated aim is to eliminate it…
Good thinking there, Tom. Along the lines of, say, telling the Allies at the height of WW2
to stop their shooting war and “educate” the Nazis.
Hamas's greatest hits: Now for a limited time you can still llisten to MEMRI's compilation of Hamas sound bites, a thrilling assortment of deranged rants shreiked by members of one of the most famous jihadi terrorist groups on the planet. Snap your fingers in time to "Death to the Jews!" Mambo to the sultry Latin rhythms of "Death to America!" Just try to resist succumbing to the delectable ear candy of "Allahu Akbar!" You've seen it on the streets of Toronto, Montreal and Calgary. Now be the first on your block to hear it live, direct from the chanting, ranting capital of the Middle East, Gaza City...
Lloyds of Londonistan: Have some “dirty” money from a disreputable, terror-funding
totalitarian source that needs laundering? Why not use Lloyds, a financial institution with
years of experience in that area? From the Weekly Standard:
"Londonistan" is the nickname given to the UK capitol in 1995 by France's counterterrorism service, partly out of frustration over the safe haven that the city offers to radical Islamist groups that have been exiled from their home countries and/or other EU nations. The year 2009 began with a story that offers a whole new dimension as to how that nickname fits better than most of us would have imagined.
This past week one of the major UK banks, Lloyds TBS Group, paid $350 million to New York State and U.S. Federal authorities in an out-of-court settlement. The fine was paid over charges that Lloyds obscured the fact that billions of dollars that had passed from its office and then through U..S banks and finally on to other foreign destinations had originated in Iran, Libya, and Sudan in violation of U.S. sanctions on those nations. It is the largest fine ever paid in the history of the Manhattan DA's office.
In all, some $300 million from Iran are believed to have transferred on to American financial institutions via Lloyds, and another $20 million from Sudan. Both nations are accused of financing numerous terrorist organisations, and it appears that the Iranian money may have been used to purchase materials that were used in that nation's ballistic missile and nuclear weapons development programs. Lloyds activities in acting as a laundering agent in this manner date back as far as 1995, according to the U.S. Justice Department…
Hmmm. I wonder if, as an added service, they’ll launder your funds in a sharia-compliant
way?
Hamas’s Kampf: Naomi Klein, Judy Rebick, Sid Ryan: just a few of the folks who
hate Israel and see it as being more or less equivalent to—and maybe even a good deal
worse than—Hamas, an organization which takes its cues on genocide and Judenhass
from the Third Reich. Ron Rosenbaum is sickened by the whole sorry, sanctimonious
lot of them, and isn’t afraid to say so:
Sorry, but I’m not going to let up on this. It’s become the Big Lie of our time, subscribed to by those who want to make a moral equivalence arguent (sic) about Israel and Hamas. The Big Lie is that Hamas is some kind of Palestinian rights organaization (sic), just a little more extreme and religiously based, when in fact it is an exterminationist anti-semitic death cult with its roots in Nazi ideology.
No, it doesn’t yet have the power of the Hitlerites at their peak to murder millions, but they would if they could, and all it takes is a suitcase nuke and then they can. Giving support of any kind to the “struggle” of Hamas is like giving support to the Nazi Party, to Hitler’s “struggle”, just before or just after it came to power. It was still weak, the Nazi Party’s Germany, but it was no less evil. Should we have sympathized, temporized with Hitler’s party then because it was weak or because the Germans lost a war they started that killed millions and felt really oppressed by the consequences? Or should we have rooted Hitler’s party out when we had a chance?
Hamas are the ones who have caused the recent suffering of the Palestinian people they have led into this horrible situation; they got Gaza and look what they did with it. The first thing, the only thing they cared about was using it to kill Jews.
For those who still willfully blind theselves to the true nature of Hamas, here’s more about the Nazi culture that gave rise to Hamas from the invaluable (non-Jewish) leftist German historian Matthias Kuntzel. (I mention his religion just so those who seek that as an out won’t find it).
Read it or continue to live in ignorance of the Big Lie. Those who support the exterminationists of Hamas in any way, such as pretending that “both sides” are at fault, are like those who gave aid and comfort to the Nazis and sought to find an excuse to blame the Jews for the death camps. Were “both sides” at fault in the war against Hitler’s Germany? Sorry to have to put it that way, but you can no longer plead ignorance for your shame, Jews especially, however “well-meaning” you think you’re being in trying to sympathize with “both sides”. An exterminationist party is an exterminationist party and as so they are unequivocally evil.
Oh, Ron, there you go again “demonizing” the, er, demons. Don’t you know that all the
cool kids think that Israel is the unequivocally evil one? As one comment following the
Ottawa Citizen editorial (see post below) puts it
Never mind hatemongers what do you call it when people, including children, are rounded up, put in a building and then bombed. Until the killing of innocent people is stopped hate will rise to the top and spill over. If the actions of the Israeli military is not hateful what is it?
Hard to argue with that impeccably daft/ignorant logic.
What's that smell?: You would think that the sight of angry mobs of Jew-haters
on the streets of Canadians cities channelling angry mobs of Jew-haters in, say,
Medieval Saxony would elicit a degree of consternation in the media and other
quarters. And, indeed, it has raised a few eyebrows; why, even the Ceej took
a break from hunting down virtual Nazis and ensuring that Canadian bathroom stalls
remain swastika-free to ride on the coattails of others and steal unearned props for
“exposing” the virulent hatred on display. But, as this editorial in the Ottawa Citizen
demonstrates, it’s going to be awfully hard to come to grips with the reality of this
hatred, since the natural Canadian inclination, us being so “nice” and multicultural and
all, is to want to impute it to a radical “fringe,” thereby making it seem far less
threatening than it really is. The dirty little secret (that’s not so secret), of course, is
that radical it may be; “fringe” it most definitely is not:
…Some scary things have been happening at pro-Palestinian rallies. These are not so much rallies in support of Palestinians, or even rallies against Israel, as they are rallies against Jews, no matter where they live.
On Wednesday the Canadian Jewish Congress released a video of scenes from recent anti-Israel demonstrations in Canadian cities. Some protesters are heard repeating the medieval anti-Semitic libel that Jews drink blood. One woman is seen yelling, "Jewish child, you're going to f***ing die, Hamas is coming for you." At a rally in Calgary, men were photographed giving the Nazi salute.
And yet at pro-Israel rallies across Canada, speakers consistently express not just support for Israel but sorrow for Palestinian suffering. At an event in Ottawa last week, organized by the local Jewish community, Rabbi Zischa Shaps made sure to include innocent Palestinians in his prayer for all those caught in the conflict.
Meanwhile, back at a pro-Palestinian rally on Jan. 10 in Montreal, people chanted, in Arabic, "Palestine is ours, the Jews are our dogs."
We can only hope that the hatemongers represent the fringe and not the mainstream of pro-Palestinian activists.
Wake up and smell the Judenhass, Citizen editorialist. The “mainstream” in
attendance—which is pushing hard for one final ethnic cleansing of Jews in the
Middle East—reeks to high hell of it.
The most depressing article I've read all week: Read it and weep, for yea, verily, Israel 'tis indeed alone.
The eyes have it: Today's song is dedicated to an odious union boss, with apologies to the Eagles:
Sid, old boy, just seems to keep on ragin’
‘Bout the infamy of Is-ra-el.
He want to punish it for just existin’.
He wants the whole Jew state to go to Hell.
Lately he’s been showin’ up at rallies.
Firin’ up a crowd that thinks like him.
Claims he don’t hate Jews;
He just wants “justice.”
He hopes the Jew state’s future’s lookin’ grim.
So he tries revivin’ efforts meant to “boycott”.
He wants those “Zionists” to pay a price.
Whate’er you do, don’t call him “anti-Semite”
‘Cause if you do, it isn’t very nice.
You can’t hide your Ryan eyes.
And your smile is a thin disguise.
Despite your claims we realize
What really lurks behind your Ryan eyes…
Meeting of minds: Hirsute jihadi Mahmoud Ahmaninejad says Israel's continued existence is not "feasible".
Slick mainstreamer TIME Magazine concurs.
Grab some Gravol: Obamamania is making me nauseous.
At last year's trial at the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal, I was accused of peddling a view of Islam as one identical, homogeneous mass. So I was very struck by the interesting interpretative differences that emerge here:
We had been discussing a passage of the Koran that suggests that God turns a group of impious Jews into apes and pigs. The Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, among others, has deployed this passage in his speeches. Once, at a rally in Beirut, he said: “We shout in the face of the killers of prophets and the descendants of the apes and pigs: We hope we will not see you next year. The shout remains, ‘Death to Israel!’”
Mr. Rayyan said that, technically, Mr. Nasrallah was mistaken. “Allah changed disobedient Jews into apes and pigs, it is true, but he specifically said these apes and pigs did not have the ability to reproduce,” Mr. Rayyan said. “So it is not literally true that Jews today are descended from pigs and apes, but it is true that some of the ancestors of Jews were transformed into pigs and apes, and it is true that Allah continually makes the Jews pay for their crimes in many different ways. They are a cursed people.”
Gotcha. So you Jews should quit being so uptight: We're not saying your great-great-great-grandfather was a pig, only your childless great-great-uncle. This guy may be the moderate "partner for peace" Israel has been looking for.
I think Mark may have come up with a good working definition of a “moderate”:
a Muslim who doesn’t think that, for Jews, being an ape and/or pig is necessarily
inherited. J
More bogus claims: Sinister Jews employing "white phosphorous"?
Nuh uh.
Horrid Jews: I can kind of, sort of, understand why Arabs and other Muslims who've been raised to despise Jews and the Jewish state would proceed to do just that. What I can't understand--what I'll never understand--are the Jews who side with the enemies of the Jewish people, and who add fuel to fire of Judenhass. Do they really think their behaviour means they won't get put on the same cattle cars as the rest of us, or that the suicide bomber, prior to detonnation, will take the time to separate them, the "good" Jews, from the "bad" Jews, the Zionists? Consider the British MP in this Jerusalem Post story, for example. With Jews like him, who needs hairy, scary Shias?
Gerald Kaufman, a governing Labour Party British Member of Parliament, declared Thursday that Israel was taking advantage of the guilt many non-Jews feel over the Holocaust to ruthlessly press ahead with its offensive in Gaza.
Kaufman, a frequent critic of Israel who was raised as an Orthodox Jew, sharply criticized Israel in a House of Commons debate on Gaza, saying that "The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt from Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."
The MP also commented on the claim that large numbers of the Palestinian victims were militants, saying that "I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants," he said.
Kaufman urged the British government to impose an arms embargo on Israel.
Lunatics running the asylum: Guess who's just been handed the plum assignment of chairing the UN's lead agency? Why, it's that bunch of Shia thugo-theocrats who deny the Holocaust, sponsor jihadi terror groups to the north and south of Israel, and have vowed to wipe the Jewish "blot" off the otherwise pristine Islamic landscape.
Not even Orwell or Kafka at the peak of their inventiveness could have concocted this stuff.
The “context” of Judenhass: In “the Canadian context” at the moment, the Jew-haters
are massing on city streets and calling for the extirpation of the Jewish state and the
extermination of the Jewish people. In London, meanwhile, they’ve stepped it up a
notch, and are partying like it’s 1933. In Berlin. Melanie Phillips has more:
A second Starbucks has been attacked in London by Islamist thugs. The first was smashed up during last weekend’s violent demonstration in Kensington near the Israel embassy. The second, in Whitechapel, was firebombed in the early hours of Tuesday morning. The East London Advertiser reports:
A fire bomb was hurled into the premises of a cafe and coffee bar in London’s East End in the early hours of this morning. It was one of a series of ‘hate’ incidents in Whitechapel which have included anti-Semitic graffiti, believed to be linked to protests over Israel’s operations in Gaza. The thugs hurled the petrol bomb through the front glass door of Starbucks in Whitechapel Road, 300 yards from Brick Lane, at 1am. The manager was trapped in the office at the back and saw the intruders smashing their way into the premises on the CCTV and had to stay hidden.
But why, you may well ask, should the Islamists target Starbucks? The ELA supplies the answer:
Starbucks, whose American chief executive Howard Schultz is Jewish...
Not Israeli, note. Just a Jew…
And in the ignoble tradition of Medieval Jew-haters in Europe, who torched entire
Jewish communities; and Islamic Jew-haters in North Africa, who murdered Jews for
being iniquitous infidels; and Cossacks in Czarist Russia, who sliced and diced their
way through Jewish shtetls; and Nazis, who on Kristallnacht smashed synagogues and
other Jewish premises, the prelude to the pan-European orgy of murder, being “just a
Jew” is just enough to set off those who lust for Jewish blood.
Lay off, Ms. Smarty Pantsuit: Incoming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has given us a preview of the hopey-changers' foreign policy. It's something called "smart power"--a shmancy way of referring to the same old ineffectual "diplomacy/appeasement" that largely marked her tubby hubby's term in office. "Smart power," obviously, is a back-handed swipe at what the h.c.-ers consider to be the previous administration's employment of "dumb power," i.e. its recourse to the military. (Lest we forget, Bill Clinton also used the military--for example in Bosnia--although he did nothing to stop the jihadis who had attacked Americans and American property time and time again, and whose last laugh at his "smart power" came on 9/11.) Hillary's first order of business, natch: "solving" that intractable Israel-Palestinian problem.
The heart sinks, the mind reels, and a voice in the wilderness screams out that the situation, in the memorable words of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (referring to another intractable problem) could well benefit from a prolongued period of "benign neglect."
David Solway, on the FrontPage Magazine site, elucidates why Hillary and the all the other peace-mongers should back the hell off:
Under existing conditions, the best the Middle East can hope for is a long cold peace and even this is probably an Arcadian notion. We must learn to live with the situation as best we can, just as people who are afflicted with serious illness must take the proper measures in order to survive, stick to their medications, expect relapses and seek treatment no matter how stopgap. There's no point wondering what might have been had they not contracted their infirmity by having acted differently in the past or expecting that somehow the disease will be pacified and magically disappear by some sort of “talking cure.” The Middle East is sick with an incurable disease; all it can strive for is occasional remission and approximate recovery after yet another malign episode. This is what Reality is telling us; pious hopes only make things worse, as the last sixty years should have made clear by this time.
In the real world there are some “problems” for which there are no satisfactory solutions. To believe otherwise, to assume that negotiation, dialogue and diplomacy can eventually resolve even the most intractable predicament or standoff, that it is only a matter of time until belligerents of whatever stamp or provenance can be made to see the light, and that all peoples desperately want nothing more than peace, prosperity and equitable arrangements between them, is a utopian delusion of the first magnitude. Its effect can be catastrophic and frequently is.
The Middle East has been ailing for 3000 years and will not be healed tomorrow, next year, or even next century, if we get that far. One thinks of Irving Kristol’s insightful remark that “Whom the gods would destroy they first tempt to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.”…
Two of a kind: An American Thinker invites us to play that old party game--Spot
the Loony:
The following remarks are from commentaries on the Israel-Hamas war by [sanctinonious far-left PBS pundit Bill] Moyers and by the world's best-known Nazi/Klansman, David Duke. Can you tell which is which? (The answers appear at the end.)
1) All you have to do is the look at the resolution recently passed by the House of Representatives (HRES 34 EH) with only 5 dissenting votes.... It condemns Hamas and the people of Gaza as terrorists but has no mention of the decades long Israeli occupation and strangulation of the West Bank and Gaza.
2) America has officially chosen sides. We supply Israel with money, F-16s, winks and tacit signals.
3) [People killed in Gaza] are the casualties and victims of Israel's decision to silence the rockets from Hamas terrorists by waging war on an entire population.
4) For over 40 years Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza, imprisoned and walled off its people.
5) Israel misses no opportunity to humiliate the Palestinians with checkpoints, concrete walls, routine insults, and the onslaught in Gaza.
6) By the blockades of food and medicine, by the checkpoints and by the mass bombing and resulting slaughter, Israel is endeavoring to make life so horrible for the Palestinians, that they simply leave Palestine ...
7) By killing indiscriminately -- the elderly, kids, entire families by destroying schools and hospitals -- Israel did exactly what terrorists do...
8) ...Israel has bombed and terrorized the people of the region for years, and ...will not recognize the government the people of Gaza voted for in free elections.
9) ...one man's terrorism becomes another's resistance to oppression.
10) It is time for the United States and all EU nations to completely cease all economic and military aid to Israel.
11) As if boasting of their might, Israel defense forces even put up video of the explosions on YouTube for all the world to see. A Norwegian doctor there tells CBS, "It's like Dante's Inferno. They are bombing one and a half million people in a cage."
12) Our political elites show neither independence nor courage by challenging the consensus that Israel can do no wrong. Although one recent poll found Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive by a 24-point margin, Democratic Party leaders in Congress nonetheless march in lockstep to the hardliners in Israel and the White House. Rarely does our mainstream media depart from the monotonous monologue of the party line.
13) A tremendous array of media personal attacks and political sabotage both in influence and monetary will descend on the hapless [politician who opposes Israel] The same thing is true in media...
14) But those who raise questions are accused by a prominent reform rabbi of being "morally deficient."
15) Go to the Book of Deuteronomy. When the ancient Israelites entered Canaan their leaders urged violence against its inhabitants. The very Moses who had brought down the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" now proclaimed, "You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred poles, set fire to the carved images of their gods, and wipe out their name from that place"....So God-soaked violence became genetically coded.
(Answers: Bill Moyers: 2,3,5,7,9,11,12,14,15; David Duke: 1,4,6,8,10,13)
How did you do? If it was difficult to tell the difference, we might have found PBS a replacement for Moyers when he retires.
I didn't do so hot. How about you?
“Toilet warriors”: Mark Steyn is less than impressed (an understatement of epic
proportions) by the CJC’s belated response:
I got a press release from the Canadian Jewish Congress today, and what struck me immediately was the weirdly insecure boastfulness of the headline:
CJC Exposes Incitement To Hatred And Violence At Pro-Hamas Rallies
What a strange angle to prioritize. Not the "hatred and violence", but the fact that the great CJC has taken the lead into bringing it to public attention.
Er, no, you didn't. In fact, Bernie Farber and the rest of the CJC honchos have been so hors de combat these last two weeks that their retiring nature has been remarked upon by commentators at home and abroad. There was even a phrase applied to Bernie & Co - the "Jews of silence" - and a song written for them. One charitably assumed they were unable to take time out of their hectic schedule of deciding whether to give Richard Warman or Warren Kinsella the CJC Greatest Hero of the Century award, and then someone said, "Well, maybe we should upgrade it to Greatest Hero of the Millennium", and you know how these meetings can drag on.
But just for the record the CJC did not expose the "hatred and violence". For one thing, Bernie, Warren & Co didn't bother going to the Hamas rallies. Kathy Shaidle did, and Girl on the Right did, and Point de Bascule did, and Kate McMillan and others spread the news about what they saw. Bernie Farber said nothing. Even the great Nazi Hunting Toilet Warrior lui-meme was silent.
What's interesting about that group is how many of them - Kate, Kathy, Ezra - are being harrassed by Richard Warman, the guy Bernie Farber thinks is the greatest Nazi hunter of all time. The cardboard hero gets garlanded by the CJC, the real friends of Canadian Jews get sued. Ezra makes a sharp point:
The problem with Burny and Freiman is that they don't actually know how to fight real anti-Semites, because they've been fighting Internet anti-Semites for so long. It's like the difference between playing Guitar Hero really well, and then being asked to play a real guitar. They only know how to fight "hate" on the Internet, like a video game.
Indeed. The Section 13 fetishists are the go-to guys if you think Marc Lemire and whoever drew the lonely swastika at knee height in that public toilet are the real threat to the peaceable kingdom. But, if your priority is mobs marching through the streets making explicitly genocidal, eliminationist threats, then the Toilet Warriors are no use…
Our Jewish leadership has long claimed that it needs its security blankie—Section
13 censorship provisions—for the sake of the community’s “psychological well-being.”
Well, how’s that “psychological well-being” withstanding the sight of frenzied
“protesters” shouting "Death to the Jews" in Downtown Montreal and Toronto? Not
so well, I’d venture. If nothing else, the recent “protests” should prove once and for all
that censorship is not the way to go, that it empowers anti-Zionist groups such as the
Canadian Arab Federation (one of the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s honoured
“stakeholders”), and that, at best, it affords Jews a false sense of security. After all, you
can’t run to an HRC to complain about an angry mob.
CAF scrambles to get the media back on message: Another group perturbed
by the Canadian Jewish Congress’s news conference yesterday: the Canadian Arab
Federation, one of the many Muslim organizations with which the Ceej had
endeavoured to “build bridges”. When you’re on the same page about wanting to
combat “discrimination” through state censorship, that’s not a problem. However,
when one side supports Israel and the other side helps organize angry mobs of
“protesters” who burn Israeli flags and chant “Death to the Jews,” there’s bound to be
a parting of the ways—at least in the short term. What really galls the CAF’s
executive director is that all this exposure of actual, tangible Judenhass in the streets
of Toronto threatens to expose the truth, i.e. that the stuff about “the Occupation”
being the bone of contention is a crock, and that anti-Zionism is Jew-hate—the
Jew-hate of our era. From the National Post:
...Mohamed Boudjenane, who is executive director of the Canadian Arab Federation, said he found the images and video clips offensive but that organizers had "nothing to do with it."
"Was there a deliberate attempt by the organizers to encourage hateful messages and permit and facilitate hateful demonstrations? Were there any attempt in the speeches to attack the Jewish faith and demonize the Jewish community?
"To those questions, 'No, no, no.'" "We would never support hateful activity. We would never use these types of message and slogans toward the Jewish communities because at the end of the day ... this is about occupation. That is the issue we should be debating."
Organizers of rallies in Toronto to oppose the action in Gaza said parade marshals did not witness any improper behaviour.
Members of the Aryan Guard appeared at a Calgary march but organizers asked them to leave.
Yesterday, about eight people protested on the sidewalk in front of the hotel arguing that the Canadian Jewish Congress's press conference detracted from the issue and "demonized the opposition."
Well, if the horns and tail fit, wear ‘em.
Lie down with Jew-hating pro-Hamas dogs, get up with Hamas fleas: A group of anti-Zionist Jewish "protesters" are so upset that the Canadian Jewish Congress actually condemned the hatred on display at pro-Hamas, er, "protests," that they forked over whatever the going rate is on newswire these days to make sure the wider media is apprised of their "outrage":
TORONTO, Jan. 14 /CNW Telbec/ - Activists and concerned community member are voicing outrage that, in the context of an ongoing Israeli military assault which has killed more than 900 Palestinians, wounded more than 4,000 and destroyed essential civilian infrastructure in the already devastated Gaza Strip, the Canadian Jewish Congress is seeking to smear those who have protested these atrocities.
At 1:30pm on Wednesday January 14, some of these concerned community members will assemble in front of Toronto's Sutton Place Hotel (955 Bay Street at Wellesley) to denounce the CJC's attempts to distract people from ongoing Israeli crimes, and to provide information regarding the CJC's connection to the propaganda campaign accompanying the latest Israeli assault.
Judy Deutsch, a member of Independent Jewish Voices (IJV)-Canada and one of the eight Jewish women who recently occupied the Israeli consulate in Toronto to protest the Israeli attack on Gaza, emphasizes that the real scandal is the whitewashing of Israeli crimes as they transparently unfold. "The disinformation from Israel is transparently dishonest and shameless and is a travesty to all civilians caught up in this needless invasion," Deutsch says. "There is no excuse for these distortions of the facts as there is such reliable information from numerous human rights and medical witnesses to the atrocities."
Dan Freeman-Maloy, a graduate student at York University who researches Canadian-Israeli relations, notes that the CJC is directly connected to Israel's system of wartime diplomacy. "It is well known that Israel has established a National Information Directorate to justify its invasion of Gaza before world opinion, involving representatives of the IDF, key government ministries and the Jewish Agency," Freeman-Maloy explains. "The CJC, like the Canada-Israel Committee, is part of an advocacy system closely associated with the Jewish Agency, and its shameful apologetics for Israeli crimes amount to crass and cynical diplomacy."
Andy Lehrer, a member of the IJV-Canada steering committee, adds that CJC smearing of anti-war demonstrations is wrought with hypocrisy. "Such charges are aimed at suppressing legitimate protest against Israeli war crimes,"asserts Lehrer. "Ironically, the CJC has ignored repeated requests that they distance themselves from a bona fide hate group, the Jewish Defence League (JDL), which has had a high profile within the Jewish community, including at CJC-sponsored events. In addition, the JDL has engaged in verbal abuse and intimidation at Gaza solidarity events," Lehrer explains. "Last Thursday we held a vigil across the street from the CJC's own pro-Israel rally and were subjected to a barrage of hate speech and vitriolic abuse from the JDL, who had come out to support the CJC rally. Among the things they yelled were 'you're not Jews, you're shit,' 'you're rats' and 'blow yourselves up.' The next day I talked to Farber and asked him to publicly denounce the JDL. He refused."
Foreign journalists have recently been barred from entering Gaza, multiple news offices within the Strip have been damaged by IDF attacks, and numerous journalists working from Gaza have been killed by IDF forces. While Israel wishes to see international perceptions shaped by its diplomats and their associates, Canadian journalists can hopefully adopt a more critical attitude.
Hopefully, not. (Aw, did the big, scawy JDLers huwt youw tendew feewings,
"pwotestews"? Tell it to Babawa Hall.)
Ingenius--and demonic--use of dead Juden: Time was when Jew-haters used Jews to make lamp shades and soap. But that's soooo 1940s. Today's Jew-haters are far more hip and eco-minded. They want to use Jews as, er, "fossil fuels."
Brrrrr: Incoming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is going to push hard for the U.S. to sign a climate change treaty because otherwise, she says, there could be wars and stuff due to global warming.
Global warming? Is she frikking kidding me? It's thirty flipping below outside. I think we could use a few more of those greenhouse gas emissions, to act as insulation.
Ryan in the doghouse: CUPE Canada has scolded CUPE Ontario's Sid "Vicious" Ryan for being such an a-hole (actually, for seeking to revive his witch hunt of Israeli academics). From the Toronto Star:
CUPE's national president has rebuked the union's Ontario leader over his call for a boycott of Israeli academics.
On Jan. 2, Sid Ryan, head of the provincial office of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, said in a news release "... we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the (Islamic) university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general."
Jewish groups condemned the proposal and, yesterday, they were joined by Paul Moist, president of CUPE's national office.
"I believe such a resolution is wrong and would violate the anti-discrimination standards set out in the CUPE Constitution," Moist said in a release.
"I will be using my influence in any debates on such a resolution to oppose its adoption."
In an interview, he added: "We don't discriminate against people based on their nationality."
Yesterday, Ryan, whose union is autonomous from the national office, insisted he and Moist are "on the same page" and that he changed his proposal more than a week ago to focus on Israeli institutions, not individuals.
"In the process of examining academic boycott initiatives by other organizations around the world ... it has become clear that the position is not banning individuals," Ryan said in a CUPE statement yesterday.
"Rather, an academic boycott should focus on issues of investment, partnership, fundraising and joint projects."
Ryan told the Star such a boycott could include asking pension plans to stop investing in Israel's post-secondary education system, and ending partnerships between Canadian and Israeli universities.
"If we're saying that we're not going to be funding universities in Israel, that's not impinging on anybody's academic freedom," Ryan said.
Ryan had initially defended his original proposal, saying "Academic freedom goes both ways."
He did apologize last week for comparing the bombing of Islamic University in Gaza to the actions of the Nazis.
Apologize, did he? Big whoop. Let me know when he "apoligizes" for keeping
company with lunatics who want to "kill "f***king Jewish children" and who think
Hitler didn't do a good enough job.
Another country heard from: A tape purportedly from Osama bin Laden, who apparantly has Blu-Ray in his Waziristan cave, allowing him to keep tabs on current events (hey, it's a possibility), 'invites jihad' for Gaza.
Um, isn't it already there, big fellah?
Hairy, scary guy: Mark Steyn notes the passing of Tom O'Horgan, who, for one brief shining moment during the 1960s enjoyed great renown for his "tribal musical," HAIR. In honour of his passing, I am reviving the theme song from HAIRAN, my "Shia Tribal Musical":
We asked him why.
Why he’s a scary guy.
He’s scary noon and nighty night.
Nukes are a fright.
He’s scary through and through.
Don’t know what he
Is gonna do.
It’s all for the jihad
That he’d kill for God,
Sez Mahmoud--
“Give me a land with nukes,
Strong, beautiful nukes,
Shining, gleaming, streamin’ into action.
Though you think we’re kooks
Nukes
Give us lots of power.
Here, Georgie; there, Ehud,
Show you our cojones with our
Nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes nukes, nukes, nukes.
Grow ‘em, throw ‘em, long as I can blow ‘em
My nukes.
Let ‘em land with a heave
Aimed straight at Tel Aiv
So Jews’ll feel the fury of my nukes.
The Jews our Prophet hated
Had ‘em all eliminated.
Sharia rules!
Kafirs are fools!
You all will soon be humbled by our
Nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes.
Grow ‘em, throw ‘em, long as I can blow ‘em
My nukes.
I like ‘em long, strong, deadly, dreadful,
Flashy, brashy, and panachey,
Shiny, loaded, ‘sploded,
Rushing, crushing, hushing,
Streaming, striking and tobbaccied:
Kafirs’ll get smoked and Nagasaki’d.
‘Oh Say Can You See’ is Great Satan’s theme song
Not for very long.
Down they fall,
Kill you all,
Have a ball
When you’re blown to Hell.
(Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo)
I seem ga-ga in some fora
When I mention my green aura,
An aura worn by Ahmadinejad.
My nukes, now I adore ‘em
Though I know you all deplore ‘em.
When my bombs are flyin’ up above me
I know my Mahdi loves me.
Nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes.
Grow ‘em, throw ‘em, long as I can blow ‘em
My nukes.”
The Ceej takes action: I just heard on CFRB that the Canadian Jewish Congress is finally going to be saying something about the crazed Judenhass that's been on display at al fresco Gaza protests.
'Bout time, guys.
Update: Ezra Levant comments, brilliantly:
After averting its eyes for a week, the Canadian Jewish Congress has grudgingly acknowledged that there is anti-Semitism in Canada that is not perpetrated by ageing Indian chiefs or teenagers on Internet chat sites. They've called a press conference for Wednesday to talk about the bigoted pro-Hamas rallies that have been raging across Canada.
According to a release, the CJC's press conference will be staffed by Bernie "Burny" Farber, Mark Freiman and Sara Saber Freedman.
Burny, as we all know, has a section 13 fetish. He has become Canada's loudest defender of censorship -- which is why I've changed the spelling of his name to Burny. He's the 21st century equivalent to a book-burner.
And that's a problem. Because it's one thing to use the law to bully a single political offender for "promoting hatred", and grind him through years of punitive legal hassles, with the final result being the removal of a single website on the Internet (how pitiful). But what do you do when there's 10,000 people who have engaged in hateful acts on the city's streets, and they're looking forward to doing it again next week?
Try taking 10,000 people to a human rights commission. (Oh, the commissions would love it, though, wouldn't they? Bigger budgets; a bigger sense of self-importance; more control over more peoples' lives.)
But you can't use section 13, actually, because it only applies to hate spread over phone lines and the Internet.
And the Criminal Code provisions require an enormous standard of guilt -- what we saw in those rallies, with the possible exceptions of the support for terrorist groups, is likely below the standard of a criminal conviction. Shouting "kill all the Jews" isn't specific or imminent enough to be taken as a real death threat. It might breach the criminal code provisions against hate speech. But how do you apply that to a mob of hundreds or thousands chanting their Jew-hatred, often in Arabic, often with masks hiding their identities?.
Mark Freiman is a lawyer who has worked on the CJC's section 13 cases, and is a defender of those laws. Not encouraging.
The problem with Burny and Freiman is that they don't actually know how to fight real anti-Semites, because they've been fighting Internet anti-Semites for so long. It's like the difference between playing Guitar Hero really well, and then being asked to play a real guitar. They only know how to fight "hate" on the Internet, like a video game...
"Guitar Hero Burny"--heh. Ezra's post points to an unpleasant truth. Even here in
multishmulti Canada, a Trudeaupian realm of virtue and politeness where Jews "twin"
with mosques and "mentor" Somalis, where "bad" speech is policed by government
bureaucrats, and where we pride ourselves on "diversity" and "inclusiveness," the
veneer of civility is very thin. Stip it away--as Gaza "protesters" have done--and you
can see the festering Judenhass (Muslim, Leftist) that lies just below the surface.
Update: Last week on TVO's The Agenda, Ontario 'human rights' Czarina Barbara
Hall was 'splaining her new mandate. Prior to this year, she told host Steve Paikin, the
OHRC acted as a "gatekeeper," fielding complaints, arranging for mediation between
the two parties,and, if mediation failed, deciding which complaints should be sent off
to the "human rights" tribunal for adjudication. Now that the new year is here, Babsy's
brigade is going to leave all that small stuff to the tribunal, and set off on a quest to
work on the "bigger" picture. The aim: to pre-empt "discrimination" in Ontario before
it gains traction, and "change" the behaviour of errant Ontarians.
Tell me, Babs, how are you going to "change" the behaviour of throngs of crazed
Jew-haters? Is the OHRC planning to take time off from, say, hassling "ageist" strip
club owners to try to pre-empt a pogrom on Bloor Street?
Boneheaded Damsel, Shut-up?: Since the hated Bush is shuffling off centre stage
to make way for the Messiah-in-Chief, one had thought that the initials BDS--Bush
Derangement Syndrome, the phrase coined by Charles Krauthammer--could
also be retired. But nooo. It seems there's a new BDS out there, and it has to do
with another Leftist derangement. Ron Radosh of Pajamas Media explains:
It has become increasingly evident that The Nation magazine , still the most influential journal of the supposedly moderate and responsible Left in America, is becoming the organ committed first and foremost to the destruction of Israel. This time, its prescription for dealing with the Hamas inflicted war on Israel comes from Naomi Klein, this generation’s Noam Chomsky in women’s designer suits. Klein, with her demonic hatred of Israel, makes your average run-of-the mill self-hating Jew sound balanced.
In an article entitled “Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction,” (BDS) Klein calls “for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa.” She endorses a 2005 program put forth by a “huge coalition of Palestinian groups.” Each day “Israel pounds Gaza,” she writes, “brings more converts to the BDS cause.”
Klein does not even purport to show any concern, indeed any awareness of, Hamas’ self-proclaimed goal to destroy Israel, its Islamist ideology that calls for permanent war against all Jews, or its continued and sustained rocket attacks on Israel. She does not even attempt to declare a J-Street type phony “moral equivalence” that equates Israel’s defense of its citizens with Hamas’ rockets. In her eyes, there is only one guilty party: the State of Israel…
BDS: Bitch Doth Spew (Judenhass). Bollocks, Dumb Shrew.
Bad Diabolical Slut?
Condi’s shame: Can’t say that I’m looking forward to an Obama White House.
Then again, can’t say that I’m sad to say buh bye to the calculating, cunning,
clueless Condi Rice. Al Reuters, a news agency so brazenly anti-Israel that it isn’t
even aware of the flagrant bias it has larded into this story, reveals that it was only
due to the last minute machinations of Ehud Olmert that Condi was forced to
abstain on an anti-Israel resolution she herself had cooked up:
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said a telephone call he made to U.S. President George W. Bush last week forced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to abstain in a U.N. vote on the Gaza war, leaving her "shamed."
Pouring on political bravado in a speech late Monday, Olmert said he demanded to talk to Bush with only 10 minutes to spare before a U.N. Security Council vote Thursday on a resolution opposed by Israel calling for an immediate cease-fire.
"When we saw that the secretary of state, for reasons we did not really understand, wanted to vote in favour of the U.N. resolution ... I looked for President Bush and they told me he was in Philadelphia making a speech," Olmert said.
"I said, 'I don't care. I have to talk to him now,'" Olmert said, describing Bush, who leaves office on January 20, as "an unparalleled friend" of Israel.
"They got him off the podium, brought him to another room and I spoke to him. I told him, 'You can't vote in favour of this resolution.' He said, 'Listen, I don't know about it, I didn't see it, I'm not familiar with the phrasing.'"
Olmert said he then told Bush: "'I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favour.'
"He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it -- a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged," Olmert said.
Fourteen of the Security Council's 15 members supported the resolution, which has failed to halt Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip and Hamas's cross-border rocket fire.
Abysinnia, Condi. Don’t let the Turtle Bay front door hit your benighted keester on the
way out. (Not that I expect Hillary to be any improvement.)
Update: Joseph Klein of FrontPage Magazine sheds more light on what he calls a
"contemptible resolution:
The United Nations has been working especially hard in recent days to bail out the Hamas terrorists from the prospect of a devastating defeat at the hands of Israel.
Hamas caused the present conflict by its unprovoked firing of hundreds of rockets deeper into Israel, targeting Israeli civilians for death and terrorizing its women and children. Hamas, not Israel, unilaterally decided against extending the six month ceasefire that had expired in mid-December 2008, which Hamas had been violating anyway. After clear warnings to stop the rocket fire which went unheeded by Hamas, Israel responded with military force in self-defense pursuant to Section 51 of the UN Charter.
Nevertheless, under pressure from the Arab bloc, the UN Security Council adopted a contemptible resolution on January 8, 2009, which calls for an “immediate” ceasefire, “leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza”. Hamas’s provocation for the Israeli military action is not mentioned even once. There is not a word stating that the rocket attacks on the Israeli civilian population must stop completely as a condition for such withdrawal of Israeli forces. Indeed, the resolution places no onus on Hamas at all for the present situation, much less imposing any obligations on the mini-terrorist state it is running in Gaza. Although Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and would never have tolerated a Hamas-led government if it had stayed instead, the UN resolution is based on the premise that Israel still effectively controls Gaza and thus is fully responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian civilian population living under Hamas rule. This is truly a heads-Hamas-wins, tails-Israel-loses setup.
Shamefully, the United States decided to abstain, rather than use its veto power to block this one-sided, anti-Israel Security Council resolution.
The resolution emphasizes “the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings.” While calling on member states to “intensify efforts” to prevent “illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition”, nothing is said about destroying the remaining tunnels built by Hamas or removing the rocket parts and other arms from the terrorists’ hands that have already been smuggled into Gaza. There is no provision for an effective international monitoring force to stop any further smuggling.
The resolution “condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism”. Since Israel is singled out elsewhere in the resolution for its military presence in Gaza and the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians are not mentioned at all, the spin artists accusing Israel of ‘crimes against humanity’ will have a field day. They will interpret the resolution as condemning only Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians and equating Israel’s acts of self-defense with ‘state terrorism’. No accountability for using Palestinian women and children as human shields – a deliberate tactic of Islamic terrorists – is laid at Hamas’s doorstep. Since Hamas is not mentioned even once in the resolution, the Islamic propagandists will surely argue that neither Hamas’s assaults on Israeli civilians, or Hamas’s deliberate use of civilians as human shields, were intended to be included within the definition of acts of terrorism. This fits into the Islamic fictional narrative that Hamas militants and other Islamic terrorists are not really terrorists at all – they are legitimate resistance fighters.
The resolution recognizes “the vital role played by UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East] in providing humanitarian and economic assistance within Gaza.” It actually asks for additional contributions to UNRWA...
Oily royal altruist strikes again: Such a selfless humanitarian, that Wahhabi king.
When he isn’t busy arranging conferences where dhimmis and true believers can hook
up and discuss their common denominator—old Abe—he’s offering to assist young
Gazans who’ve been maimed during the Israeli offensive. Al Reuters has more on one
of the world’s most compassionate souls:
RIYADH (Reuters) - A Palestinian girl who lost her legs and a boy who was blinded in Israel's attack on Gaza are amongst Palestinians receiving treatment in Saudi Arabia, a Saudi minister said on Tuesday.
"(King Abdullah) saw you on television and was extremely affected," Health Minister Hamad al-Manei told the girl, Jamila, at a meeting of Arab health ministers in Riyadh.
Saudi state media have carried prominent coverage of several dozen wounded Palestinians brought to the country for treatment in Saudi hospitals. A precise figure of those being treated was not available.
"I was playing when this accident happened. I didn't have a bomb or a weapon for them to do this to me. I was on the roof and suddenly I found myself in hospital," Jamila, in a wheelchair, told the Saudi minister in front of television cameras at the meeting.
"I asked 'what's going on?' and they said I was in a coma and my legs had been amputated, and my cousin's too. My sister was killed and another cousin as well, God have mercy on them."
The meeting of health ministers will discuss Israel's offensive in Gaza that has killed more than 900 Palestinians and put Arab leaders under public pressure to act.
The story of Jamila and Luay Sobh, who was blinded, was shown earlier this week on Al Jazeera television, which has carried extensive coverage of civilian casualties inside Gaza. It was not clear how old the two children were.
Qatar, which owns Al Jazeera, has asked the 22-member Arab League in Cairo to hold an emergency Arab summit on Friday.
Arab countries closely allied to the United State such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been cool to the idea of a summit, despite two weeks of popular protests around the region demanding government action.
Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak was expected in Riyadh on Tuesday for talks with King Abdullah. Egypt has blamed Hamas for the assault on Gaza, which Israel began on December 27 saying it wanted to stop rocket fire into neighboring Israeli towns.
The Saudi government, which sees itself as the leader of mainstream Sunni Islam, has refrained from explicitly blaming Hamas for the offensive, but some writers in Saudi media have attacked Hamas for aligning itself with Shi'ite power Iran.
Saudi Arabia has organized an aid campaign for Palestinians that has gathered over $27 million, but the government has prevented efforts to organize demonstrations in its main cities of Riyadh and Jeddah.
Um, to whom are they planning to hand over the aid money—their enemy’s proxy,
Hamas? Highly unlikely, I’d say. Sounds to me like this “charity” is likely to remain at
home, at least for the time being.
Yiddish word of the day: The word is "shlecht," one of those words that cannot quite fully be translated into English, because to do so loses the juice and the pith of the Yiddish. As best as I can translate it, "shlecht" means super-duper rotten. Here, I'm put it in a sentence: Those nations which failed to stand with Canada against the UN "Human Rights" Council's absurdly one-sided anti-Israel motion ("Canada votes alone for Israel"--the Toronto Star's oddly worded headline; shouldn't it be "Canada alone votes for Israel"?) are "shlecht". And for that matter, the motion was "shlecht" too.
Israel is a small country, but when it goes to war, the front is extraordinarily broad. On Sunday of last week, it reached “Gan Dalia,” the kindergarten my five-year-old son David attends in the Ramot neighborhood of Jerusalem. That morning, officers of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) came looking for veteran head teacher Dalia Emanuelof. She was off that day, so they continued searching elsewhere, ultimately waiting outside her home in the nearby suburb of Givat Ze’ev until she returned that afternoon.
The news the officers brought was unbearable: Her 22-year-old son, Dvir, had been killed in Jabalya, making him the first Israeli casualty of the ground campaign in Gaza. Fighting there as a staff sergeant in his infantry unit, the elite Golani brigade, he was felled by Hamas mortar fire. Though Israel has a conscript army, Dvir did not have to be in Gaza, as he had received high marks as instructor of a squad leader course, was asked to go to officer school, and would still have been in training had he accepted; he deferred, however, saying he would not be fit to command until he had first fought alongside his comrades. In fact, Dvir did not have to be in any front-line position: His father Netanel had died of cancer at age 46, shortly before Dvir’s service began; as an only son in a single-parent family, Dvir was exempt under IDF rules from combat duty. Before accepting him to Golani, his commanding officer visited Dalia and asked if she acquiesced in her son’s opting for a dangerous path he was not obligated to choose. Her answer: “If this is how Dvir wants to serve his country, then this is what he will do.” Two days before entering Gaza, Dvir had called home and said: “Mom, I have to fight. I have to be there.” He went, and he fought—and was buried on Sunday night in the Mount Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem.
A few days later, I was thinking about Dvir as I prepared to speak at an Israel solidarity rally at the Ramaz high school in Manhattan. I opened by talking about Dvir’s words to his mother, and then explained why he had to fight—that is, why Israel had no choice but to wage war to stop Hamas from firing missiles at homes and schools in Sderot and other cities in the country’s south. After describing Israel’s war aims, I addressed the issue on the minds of these morally sensitive young people: How we could be sure that, in the pursuit of moral ends, Israel was using moral means? I stressed the lengths to which the IDF goes to protect Palestinian civilians, and contrasted it with Hamas’s systematic strategy of using non-combatants—women, children, even hospital patients—as “human shields,” to prevent the Israeli army from attacking its fighters or to saddle the Jewish state with the blame for the civilians who are killed.
Afterwards, I fielded questions from seniors in one of Ramaz’s honors classes, of which the most difficult was posed by an earnest young woman named Julie. She accepted that Israel was right to launch an offensive and was fighting in accordance with the dictates of morality, but was deeply concerned about the outcome: If Hamas was eager for Palestinian non-combatants to be killed, while the IDF did its best to prevent such casualties, how could Israel hope to win? Either the Israeli army would be deterred from landing the blows needed to defeat Hamas, or Israel would end up killing large numbers of civilians and be forced by international pressure to accept a cease-fire prematurely—which would be perceived as a Hamas victory, on the model of Hizbollah’s “triumph by surviving” in the Second Lebanon War. She offered a chillingly apt understanding of the statement made in 2004 by Hizbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and later echoed by many Hamas leaders: “We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are the most vulnerable….We are going to win, because they love life and we love death.” Nasrallah had meant that the Jews loved their own lives while Muslim radicals embraced death in the pursuit of jihad, but in Gaza, it turned out that Jews also cared more for the lives of Arab civilians than did the leaders of Hamas. I answered, haltingly, on the level of tactics, pointing out that the IDF’s detailed intelligence and precise execution enabled it to limit the bulk of Palestinian casualties to Hamas fighters, and that international condemnation of Israel has been kept in check by widespread revulsion at the use of human shields.
The question was still on my mind when I landed at Ben-Gurion Airport the next morning and headed to a shiva visit at the Emanuelofs. The first floor was overflowing with well-wishers, some sitting and most standing, centered around Dalia, her three daughters, and the general in charge of Israel’s ground forces, Avi Mizrahi, who in an extraordinary gesture of respect was making a condolence visit in the midst of war. Due to his rare combination of gentleness and determination, he became, with Dalia, the center of attention, and the two engaged in a dialogue interspersed with occasional comments from Dalia’s eldest daughter, Hadas, who got married less than a year ago and was visibly pregnant with the family’s first grandchild
From this dialogue, an extraordinary portrait emerged of Dvir—a modest, idealistic young man who was a leader in the Bnei Akiva youth movement, delighted in taking his friends on hikes throughout Israel, and could never be found without his trademark smile, which radiated out from his sparkling eyes and lit up everyone around him—a point amply attested to in the photos displayed in the Emanuelofs’ home. He loved life, with a passion, but was willing to risk his own because he felt a sense of mission to protect Israelis living in the country’s south. Dalia, too, was heroic in her own, quiet way. On her face and in her voice one could discern profound sadness, but also pride in her son and the army in which he served, and resolve that Israel must continue to fight until victory. One could also detect a spirit of hope, bordering on faith, that her people would triumph—and that, as Jews traditionally say, Netzach Yisrael lo yishaker, the Eternal One of Israel will not fail us.
Equally extraordinary was the picture Dalia painted of the support her family had received. She spoke of two teenage girls who came to her home, and when asked how they had known Dvir, answered that they had never met him but identified with the family’s tragedy and wanted to give whatever comfort they could; of a middle-aged man who said only, ‘I’m a citizen of Israel, and I came to be with you, as a representative of all of Israel’s citizens;’ of an elderly gentleman who walked in leaning on a cane, and declared: “I heard that a Golanchik (young Golani soldier) in your family was killed; I fought in Golani in the War of Independence in 1948, and have come to offer my condolences.” She described a phone call from a woman she didn’t know, who had just had a grandson and wanted permission to name him Dvir. Dalia assented, but urged that he be given a second name, as Jewish tradition says that in calling someone after a person who has suffered an unfortunate fate, one should make this change to symbolize the hope for better fortune. The grandmother answered that the boy’s name would be Dvir Chai—“Dvir lives.” And Dalia concluded the story: “A few days after my son had been killed, I could already say again, ‘Dvir lives.’”
At one point, Dalia turned to General Mizrahi and asked why Israel could not fight in Gaza the way coalition forces have in Iraq and Afghanistan—bombing aggressively against enemy fighters in populated areas. There was no bitterness in her voice at the IDF for having endangered her son’s life by its regard for Palestinian civilians, nor any desire for revenge—only the concerned tones of an Israeli mother anxious to protect the sons of other Israeli mothers. The general answered thoughtfully, but without hesitation, that the IDF had gone to greater lengths to protect its soldiers in Gaza than in previous conflicts, citing the week-long air campaign that preceded the ground invasion. He added, however, that the IDF’s strength is integrally tied to maintaining its humanity and morality. Soldiers are united in part because they know that regardless of religious or political differences, they share a common moral code. Alluding to the widely-held view that Hamas’s military leadership is hiding under Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, he said that he wouldn’t give an order to bomb the hospital from the air, because there are certain things one simply doesn’t do. This is an obligation, he stressed, that the IDF has as a Jewish army. From the reactions in the room, it was clear that while everyone identified with Dalia’s question, they accepted the answer—and were impressed that the officer used this opportunity to reinforce the Jewish values binding all of us together.
As I left to return home before the start of the Sabbath, I understood the answer to the question I had been asked by a young woman 6,000 miles away. Yes, on the tactical level it can be a handicap to love life when your opponent loves death. But in the end, it is that love of life that will enable us to prevail. We will defeat those who love death, because we love life so much that we Israelis—from teenage girls to senior officers in wartime—know how to give comfort to those who have lost a loved one, and to say, “We are with you.” Our love of life enables us to confront tragedy, and emerge with the pride and resolve, the hope and the faith, that Dalia showed.
We love life so much that we educate our children to love life, though surrounded by enemies who hope, pray, and work for our deaths. It is this love of life that enabled the Jews to return to our homeland and rebuild a state after 2,000 years, and it is the sense of mission stemming from this love that will sustain the Zionist dream long into the future. We love life so much that we refuse to have our sense of morality dulled by enemies who seek to force us to kill women and children in order to defend our families. Though our principles limit the IDF’s effectiveness, they provide us with intangibles that more than compensate—the confidence and the strength to pursue our aims secure in the knowledge we are acting justly, and the unity that comes from a society acting in accordance with its most cherished values. And yes, let no one err, we will win because we love life so much we are willing to brave death, if necessary, to ensure that our people can lead free lives in the country we have established against all odds. In the end, it is this love of life that will enable us to prevail—not only in the war in Gaza, but in all the challenges we face in the years and generations to come.
"Racism" verboten; Judenhass okey-dokey: "Youts" and other anti-Zionist louts rampaging through the streets, burning cars and smashing windows--the Brit press gives that story a shrug and a sigh. But the heir's spare referring to one of his Afghanistan regiment mates as a "Paki"---mass freak out.
Well, they do hate their "racists," don't they.
Update: Now the British press are upset because the heir and his lads call an Asian polo-playing mate of theirs by the politically incorrect nickname "Sooty". I dunno. Maybe they weren't referring to his skin shade.Maybe it was a reference to a bear on a popular Brit TV kiddie show. Maybe. In any case, "Sooty" is pretty mild compared to "Kill all the Juice."
Same old song: The UN is warning of a--wait for it--"refugee crisis" in Gaza, as thousands are forced to flee their homes to find makeshift accommodations.
Um, how does that work, exactly, since Gaza is a wholly-owned and operated Palestinian enterprise, and since, despite that fact, there is still a UN "refugee camp" there? Are these new refugees from the old refugee camp, and if so does that make them double refugees, or refugees squared?
Update: Now it's "a 'torrent' of refugees." What next, a tsuanami?
Update: "Nowhere is safe for trapped Gaza residents: UNRWA."
Building bridges (and mentoring Somalis) over troubled waters: My blogging amiga BCF asked me to write a parody of "Sound of Silence" for all the "Jews of silence"--official Jews who freak out over a swastika in a public loo, but are strangely silent about overt Leftist/Islamist Judenhass in the streets of Toronto. Happy to oblige, Blazes:
Hello, Bernie, hello, Len.
I’ve come to talk with you again.
Because a rally full of hate and ire
Seems poised to set off an almighty fire
And the vision of Jew-hatred we thought dead
Fills me with dread,
How ‘bout you Jews of silence?
In restless dreams you all seem lost
Thinking your thoughts of Holocaust.
Searching for Nazis under basement rugs.
Meanwhile ignoring the Islamist thugs.
Then our ears were stabbed by
Made me cry.
How ‘bout you Jews of silence?
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more.
“Protesters” rioting in London town,
Burning cars and mowing people down.
Will Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam write a refrain
‘Bout a Peace Train
For all the Jews of silence?
“Fools,” said I, “You silent Jews.
Hunting for Nazis--that’s old news.
Speak up now or fore’er hold your peace.
Jihadi hatred isn’t going to cease.”
But their words don’t ever seem to come.
Seems they’re numb.
How come they’re Jews of silence?
And the people seethe and yell,
“Kill Juden; Down with Is-ra-el.”
And the crowd flashed out its warning
With all the venom that it was forming.
“The words of the Nazis are written on some bathroom walls.”
It’s what appals
And frightens Jews of silence.
Word play: When some freedom-loving Danes dared to publish some satiric
cartoons in a newspaper, the Canadian Jewish Congress flew into action.
Fumed the Ceej (my bolds),
The decision by all those who chose to publish the cartoons is inexcusably provocative, insensitive and disrespectful of Muslim believers.
Quite the hissy fit, no?
But when a high profile Canadian Jew-hater, who has made the witch hunt of Israeli
academics his personal mission and whose animus toward the Jewish state is such
that he hopes to one day see it disappear, compared Israel to the Nazis, the Ceej
expressed frustration that Sid Ryan continues to call for a boycott of Israeli academics, undermining the value of his apology for making an offensive Nazi analogy.
Whoa, calm down there, fellahs; you’re going to pop a vein.
The question must be asked, so I shall ask it: Why does the Canadian Jewish Congress
seem to reserve its strongest language, its highest dudgeon, to defend the rights and
interests of Muslims?
The “oldest hatred” gets a beastly makeover: Israel’s bad image is often
imputed to bad P.R. If only, it is often said, Israel had better P.R., or was better
at P.R., the media would “understand” Israel’s predicament, and would be more
willing to give it a fairer shake. But anyone observing the frenzied anti-Israel
“protests” of recent days must have an inkling that something else is going on here,
something that has very little to do with inept or ineffectual publicity. Professor
Efraim Karsh explains what that “something” is (my emphasis):
For millennia Jewish blood has been cheap, if not costless, throughout the Christian and Muslim worlds, where the Jew became the epitome of powerlessness, a perpetual punching bag and a scapegoat for whatever ills befell society. There is no reason, therefore, why Israel shouldn't follow in the footsteps of these past generations, avoid antagonizing its Arab neighbors and exercise restraint whenever attacked. But no, instead of knowing its place, the insolent Jewish state has forfeited this historic role by exacting a price for Jewish blood and beating the bullies who had hitherto been able to torment the Jews with impunity. This dramatic reversal of history cannot but be immoral and unacceptable. Hence the global community outrage and hence the world's media provision of unlimited resources to cover every minute of Israel's "disproportionate" response, but none of the devastation and dislocation caused to Israeli cities and their residents.
Put differently, the Palestinians are but the latest lightning rod unleashed against the Jews, their supposed victimization reaffirming the millenarian demonization of the Jews in general, and the medieval blood libel - that Jews delight in the blood of others - in particular. In the words of David Mamet, "The world was told Jews used this blood in the performance of religious ceremonies. Now, it seems, Jews do not require the blood for baking purposes, they merely delight to spill it on the ground."
Zionism Failed to Solve the "Jewish Problem"
To make such an argument will no doubt be dismissed as "Zionist propaganda" by many opponents of Israel. But in fact this not only runs counter to the prevailing wisdom among Israeli academics and intellectuals, for whom such arguments are anathema, but it also challenges one of the most fundamental tenets of Zionism - that the creation of a Jewish state, where the Jewish diasporas would congregate and become normalized, would solve the "Jewish problem" and ameliorate, if not eliminate altogether, the phenomenon of anti-Semitism.
What this line of thinking by the founding fathers of Zionism failed to consider, however, is that the prejudice and obsession that had hitherto been reserved for Jewish individuals and communities would be transferred to the Jewish state. As the poet Heinrich Heine, himself a convert from Judaism, once wrote, Judaism is "the family curse that lasts a thousand years" and no matter how much it has tried, Israel has never been able to escape this disturbing reality.
A saddening thought indeed. But is there any other explanation as to why, sixty years after its establishment by an internationally recognized act of self-determination, Israel remains the only state in the world that is subjected to a constant outpouring of the most outlandish conspiracy theories and blood libels; whose policies and actions are obsessively condemned by the international community; and whose right to exist is constantly debated and challenged not only by its Arab enemies but by segments of advanced opinion in the West?
The Judenhass of yore hasn’t gone away. It has merely mutated into an even more
monstrous hatred, a Godzilla of hatred—the irrational, obsessive, dare one say,
deranged? Judenhass that zooms in on the Jewish state. Anyone who thinks the
monster can be defeated with good “P.R.” doesn’t understand the nature of the beast.
A strategy of divide and conquer: Muslims may be seethin’ and ragin’ on the streets
of Toronto—driven near mad at the sight of Jewish dhimmis fighting back against the
Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. But over at the Canadian Islamist
Islamic Congress, all is sweetness and light and raindrops on roses and whiskers on
kittens. Imam Dr. Zijad Delic, the CIC’s man in the nation’s capital, lays it on with
a trowel in an effort to persuade Christian Canadians to stand with Muslims against
the Jews:
…When hands are open in greeting, others are immediately put at ease. For me, open hands symbolize honest intentions, a gesture to show you that I have no hidden agendas; no desire to trick you, harm you, or hurt you. My open hands also show that I am not afraid to be vulnerable; to give myself over to you in a moment of trust. What greater test of faith can there be?
And what about the open heart? When I attend interfaith meetings or talk to Canadians of other faith traditions, even to those who do not adhere to any faith, I work hard on building trust by being as honest and transparent as I can. I become very uncomfortable with those who say one thing in our meetings as colleagues, but another in different company, among different friends. Such duplicity, or fragmented identity, generates only suspicion; it can only impede the progress of our dialogue and intentions toward the betterment of this great country, Canada.
Then there is the continual struggle to maintain an open mind. In life, we must learn not only what to think, but how to think. And for this to happen we need more than mere knowledge or data about our faith and beliefs; we need true wisdom. We need leaders who are dedicated to "walking the talk," according to the core teachings of their respective scriptural texts. In Bosnia we used to say: "Before cutting, measure three times!" Similarly, I would earnestly suggest to our leaders: "Before saying anything, think three times!"
Finally, a few words about having an open creed. The broader and deeper our understanding of faith becomes, the better and more open human beings we can be. Faith opens our eyes and clears our vision; we see others through a more empathic lens, from a more attuned spiritual perspective -- which is in complete accord with what the will of God Almighty desires for us.
Ignorance and misunderstanding about our respective faiths closes the doors of dialogue, co-operation and ethics. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught something very similar to the Christian "golden rule" when he said: "Love for others what you love for yourselves and you would attain the status of the best believer; be good to your neighbor, and you will be the best Muslim."
In our present era of rapid globalization and the ever-expanding information highway, one powerful tradition of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) guides my daily thoughts and actions: "The best among God's people are those who are the most useful to others; and the worst are those who bring harm to their fellow humans."
In Canada, we have a far greater opportunity and potential for achieving genuine openness and of doing "good" to others than in perhaps any other place on earth today. What could be more challenging and hopeful as we stand at the dawn of a new year? If anyone on the face of the earth, at this difficult time, deserves this "goodness" it would be the people of Gaza. It could start with us - with Canadians.
Would that encompass all the people of Gaza—including the Hamas jihadis—or only
those civilians who are being forced against their will to act as cannon fodder for the
Hamas jihadis? Inquiring Canadians would like to know.
Feel the love: Let’s turn from current unpleasantness—calls for a Jewish genocide
in the streets of “the most multicultural city in the world”—and revisit a more hopeful
time. Was it only yesterday that an official Jew and an Order of Canada winner/
apologist for the Islamist viewpoint were caught up in the heady hype of a “twinning”
scam scheme? As the apologist, thrilled to bits by this turn of events, enthused in his
newspaper column
Away from the media din of extremist Jews and Muslims, some extraordinary developments are taking place that herald the beginning of a potent-ially historic thaw between the mainstream moderates of the two communities in North America.
"I never thought I'd live to see this day in my life," Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress said of the twinning of 50 synagogues and 50 mosques in Canada and the U.S., including eight in the Toronto area this coming weekend.
Jews and Muslims will visit each other's places of worship and break bread together. Setting aside the Arab-Israeli conflict that divides them, they'll explore their common religious roots and, more urgently, their obligations to each other as Canadian and American citizens…
Seems life is full of little surprises, eh, Bernie?
Nice work, guys: Mark Steyn has a heartfelt tribute to Canada’s “official Jews,”
those guardians of the community who decided some time ago that the hunt for
furtive “Nazis” was more important than Canadians’ free expression. These men
have helped make our country what it is today—a place where no “Nazi” or Christian
dare raise his voice, but where jihadists and lefties are free to spew the kind of
Judenhass that would have warmed the tiny heart of Joe Goebbels:
"I want Hizb'Allah to wipe the state of terrorism off the planet..."
"The state of terrorism - Israel - will be wiped off the planet, Inshallah."
Teheran? Ramallah? Islamabad? No, a speaker at yesterday's demo in Toronto. And, for those who patiently point out that measured criticism of Israeli government policies is not anti-Semitism, check out the lady yelling, "Jewish child, you're gonna f—-in' die!"
During the last year, as the Canadian Islamic Congress and their eunuch stooges in the "human rights" commissions attempted to criminalize my books and columns as "hate crimes", various leftie groups - including PEN Canada and the Canadian Association of Journalists - came to see the country's censorship laws as incompatible with freedom. The only public defenders of the "human rights" commissions were, of all people, the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith Canada and other "official Jews" (in Ezra Levant's words) who insisted state censorship was necessary in order to cow the last three "white supremacists" in Saskatchewan into submission and prevent such horrifying crimes as scrawling swastikas at knee height in public toilets.
So the Canadian Jewish Congress made common cause with the Canadian Islamic Congress and the neo-Nazi takeover of the prairies (or, at any rate, prairie toilets) has been prevented. And now explicitly genocidal eliminationist threats against Jews are being bellowed out at public rallies. But that's okay, because it's not a hate crime, unlike my book. Which may explain the curious silence of the CJC and the toilet warriors.
Congratulations to the CJC on helping build a tolerant hate-free Canada. In 20 years' time, I hope there'll still be enough Jews in Toronto and Montreal to man the CJC offices. Or maybe by then the Canadian Jewish Congress will be operating out of a PO box in the Turks and Caicos.
Well, at least they’d have better weather.
No safe place for Jews: The whole idea behind having a Jewish state was so that
there would be at least one place in the world where Jews could go to escape
persecution. It hasn’t exactly worked out that way, as Israelis once again are forced
to take steps to try to safeguard their sovereignty, and the animus toward the Jewish
state spills over into—and pollutes—supposedly civilized parts of the globe.
Diana West has a round-up of protests over Gaza the frenzied Judenhass on display
yesterday in various Western cities:
As the world focuses on the potential for urban warfare in Gaza City, the world ignores a far more perilous kind of urban warfare now underway from Los Angeles to Fort Lauderdale to Toronto to London to Barcelona to Milan to Berlin to Copenhagen to Oslo. Here, roiling mobs of Muslims in the West are taking jihad to a new stage of threat, violence and political blackmail. It is the hallmark of our decadence, however, that even as our governments and elites fret for Hamas in Gaza, the crown jewels of the West, our rich and storied cities, are under assault by the jihadist proponents of Hamas in our midst. Their agenda is clear: the destruction and subjugation of Judeo-Christian civilization. In the short term, that means cutting off Israel from the West, isolating Jews from their own countries, and sowing fear in the majority Christian populations…
The jihad’s useful media idiots: You know how UNRWA and Hamas go
hand-in-hand? It’s ditto, writes American Thinker James Lewis, for Hamas and the
mainstream media (his italics):
The Hamas War is now beginning to look like a ritual Kabuki play. We know all the moves -- all we can do is watch how well the actors play out their well-worn moves.
Except that this is not a play, and real lives are being lost.
The key is not the terrorists. They are stuck in their ways. The real key is the international media --- who are hardly neutral observers as they like to pretend. The international leftist media are essential players in this melodrama.
Put it this way -- do you really think that the Arab civilians in Gaza are volunteering to be human shields for Hamas? Some of the biggest fanatics, maybe -- but how many of Gaza's 1.4 million civilians are really prepared to die, along with their families, when Israel inevitably retaliates against thousands of Hamas rockets? How many Gaza Arabs care less for their children than for their masters? How many would flee from Gaza if Hamas let them?
According to Ynet, Hamas gunmen forced Palestinian civilians at gunpoint to go back to their homes.
At a recent anniversary bash for Hamastan, 250,000 Gaza residents showed up. Khaled Abu Toameh, a rare voice of reason in the Palestinian universe, argues that Gazans still support Hamas. But more than a million Gazans didn't turn out to cheer the regime on its birthday. The number of Gazans who didn't celebrate Hamas would seem to be at least as important as those who did. Maybe, just maybe they are not so ready to sacrifice their children for an empty promise of paradise.
Arab governments are now speaking out against Hamas -- including Egypt's President Mubarak, the PA's Mahmoud Abbas and the Saudis. Those are very big names in the Arab world. They see the sacrifice of Arab civilians as useless, as it obviously is. Even an Iranian newspaper had the guts to criticize Hamas --- and was immediately shut down for it.
It was just reported that Gaza City hospital received Arab beheading victims -- not exactly Israel's way of making war. Hamas has been reported to be butchering and breaking the hands of Fatah supporters in Gaza. How many of them were civilians, killed just because they wanted to escape? Remember how Saddam Hussein cut off the tongues of his own bureaucrats, to terrorize them before the American invasion. That's what Hamas is doing right now in Gaza.
The media tell to us that the Arabs of Hamastan are voluntary martyrs -- but remember how CNN told us how beloved Saddam Hussein was, just days before the regime crumbled? And Mookie Al Sadr --- who was also destined to beat the Americans? And the Taliban? CNN and BBC told us that those dictator types were invincible because their people loved them. They all lost miserably. CNN's Baghdad editor confessed his personal complicity with Saddam only after the bloody Butcher of Baghdad was overthrown.
In fact, it is the media themselves who are criminally complicit in the internment of Gaza's civilians in the line of fire. They could stop the terrorists simply by headlining Hamas' responsibility for the plight of the Arabs of Gaza, over and over again. That's the real story --- if only they could headline the facts right in front of their eyes. But they don't.
That shows us the real values of CNN and BBC; morally they are no better than the terrorists. The media are essential to the Kabuki play of terror, response, and renewed terror. They are constantly fanning the flames.
So when the media and the Left predictably demand Israeli appeasement of Hamas, let's just ask them: where is your compassion for the Arab victims of a jihadist internment camp called Gaza? How much longer do you want civilians to be turned into the bloody victims of the terrorist publicity machine?...
How much longer? As long as it takes for Israel to be plowed under, I’d say.
Exactly what I was afraid of: Obama promises new tack on Iran.
Jew-hate in the U.K.: As Britain’s “leading” Jews issue a call for Israel to stop the
‘horror’ of Gaza,” another Jew—call her a non-leading one—details the horrifying
Judenhass that’s been set loose in the land. From the Guardian (which, ineptly, gives
the piece an innaccurate and misleading headline):
I am a secular, liberal, identifying British Jew. My parents would have taken great pleasure if my acting talents had landed me a starring role in the primary school nativity play; on Christmas Day, we gather at home eating smoked salmon bagels and mince pies. There is no conflict whatsoever between my religion and nationality. On the contrary, they have always supported and echoed one another in terms of the values and moral structure they promote. Judaism has taught me to value liberalism, education, tolerance, family and charity. All Jewish religious services and celebrations include a heartfelt toast to the Queen, because Jews in this country have felt safe, well-assimilated and, most of all, grateful.
In August 2001, I turned 21 and my parents gave me a Star of David necklace. Then a month later, the world changed and my mother, with remarkable foresight, began her campaign to rescind the gift, begging me to take it off because she was frightened it would make me a target in the wake of mounting evidence that fanatical Islamism was tightening its grip on the country. My argument was always the same - when I am no longer safe being identifiably Jewish on the tube, I don't want to live in England.
Now it's happening and I am devastated. It was bluster. I am resolutely, irreducibly British. I love Marmite and Labradors and Sunday lunch. If you step on my foot, I will reflexively apologise. New York, where I will go if I have to leave the UK, does not feel like home for me nor, I suspect, could it ever. But as the British establishment sides with the appeasing of Islamism at home and abroad and as the word Zionism is increasingly bastardised, hijacked by a new definition comprising traditional antisemitic libels and demonising conspiracy theories, and as the liberal media and campaigning groups single out Israel disproportionately among all other countries for criticism, perpetuating the myth that Israel is responsible for mushrooming anti-western sentiment, I feel increasingly that I cannot stay.
My little sister arrived back at her university last week to discover buildings had been daubed with antisemitic graffiti. Across north London, the same scrawled vitriol has been appearing - "Jihad to Israel", frequently accompanied by the message: "Kill Jews."
Hamas' leader Mahmoud Zahar has now declared Jewish children worldwide as "legitimate targets" and although Fleet Street's recent Hamas revisionism made his statement easy to miss, it seems that plenty of others have taken note. The Community Security Trust has dealt with more than 50 antisemitic incidents in the UK in the last two weeks, including an arson attack on a synagogue, a massive spike in violence since the current operation began in Gaza.
"Normally, in that period we'd expect about a dozen," their press officer explained to me, but what a staggering and unacceptable base rate. The average number of antisemitic attacks in a civilised western country should be zero. There has been a sea change in Europe and it's terrifying.
Clarity from Caroline: How well I remember those who, some years back,
were touting the “and they will beat their spears into pruning hooks” scenario that
would ensue once Israel had fully “disengaged” from Gaza. And how well I recall
thinking at the time, “You people are seriously delusional, and should see a shrink
a.s.a.p.” Here’s Caroline Glick, who never harboured any delusions about what a
withdrawal would mean, explaining why leaving Gaza was such a tremendously--
no, a cataclysmically--stupid idea:
Israel is fighting a war with Hamas today because Israel withdrew from Gaza three and a half years ago. If Israel had not withdrawn its military forces from Gaza and forcibly expelled 8,000 Israeli citizens from their homes and farms in September 2005, it would not be fighting this war today. If Israel had not withdrawn, if it had retained its forces in Gaza and retained its communities - on whose ruins the IDF now fights - in Gaza, Hamas would probably never have taken over. And even if Hamas had taken over, it would never have been able to threaten a million Israelis with missiles and rockets and mortars.
Wedding jihad: Kind of puts a damper on things when "Mazel Tov!" is drowned out by "Allahu Akbar!". The New York Post has more:
A Long Island waiter rebelling against his pastor father terrorized guests at a Jewish wedding reception, blasting a recording of a pro-Palestinian rally that included Arabic chants through the DJ's microphone, authorities said yesterday.
Stephen Buttafuoco, 23, was charged with an aggravated harassment as a hate crime for allegedly blaring "Allahu akbar," Arabic for "God is great" - scaring more than 700 guests at the wedding of David and Amanda Zar, who were wrapping up the reception at the Woodbury Jewish Center at around 1 a.m. last Sunday, Nassau County cops said.
Buttafuoco, who was arrested Friday and is not related to infamous Long Island lothario Joey Buttafuoco, allegedly "admitted he did this with the intent of disrespecting the [Jewish] religion," according to court papers.
He was arraigned yesterday in Nassau County District Court and released on $1,500 bail.
His lawyer, Thomas Spreer, insisted his client is not a terrorist, just a confused kid trying to rebel against his minister father.
"He did a foolish and impulsive act," Spreer claimed. "He's not a radical. He didn't even know they were on the air. He feels absolutely horrendous."
Buttafuoco, a Queens College creative-arts student, had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in Manhattan a day before the wedding, and recorded the chanting on his cellphone.
At the Jewish Center, Buttafuoco thought he was playing the recording just for a friend, and didn't realize it would be blared to the whole reception, his lawyer said.
Morrell Caterers, which handles weddings at three Long Island temples, including the Woodbury Jewish Center, said Buttafuoco was fired on the spot.
"We took appropriate action. We fired the gentleman in question and we called the police," said co-owner Scott Morrell.
Spreer said his client was not anti-Semitic, and had worked for Morrell Caterers for about two years without any problem.
Stephen "was just quietly rebelling against his dad," Spreer said...
Ah, yes, just another rebellious "yout".
Residents in Kensington have called for protests to be moved after violent clashes outside the Israeli embassy yesterday in the London borough.
Fighting broke out between police and around 20,000 protesters outside the Israeli Embassy in Palace Green - with an estimated 100,000 protesters airing their views around the city.
Author John Cookson, who represents Old Court House Residents' Association, said homeowners are sealing into their houses every night as their street is close.
He said: 'The biggest kick in the teeth is that we are picking up the bill in our council tax. We have appealed to the Metropolitan Police to switch the protests to Hyde Park but no one is listening to us.
Windows were smashed and policemen were injured - with one officer knocked unconscious in the running battles and two requiring treatment for facial injuries.
The protesters - mainly young men - knocked down barriers threw missiles including eggs, red paint, sticks and shoes as 300 officers in full riot gear tried to maintain the peace.
There were reports that some protesters had tried to set fire to police vans.
The violence, which broke out in front of the Israeli Embassy, appeared to be led by a hard-core of masked and hooded youths.
A national demonstration against Israel's attack marched from Speakers' Corner at Hyde Park today to the Israeli embassy in High Street Kensington.
It was estimated there were around 100,000 protesters in total across London, including the Trafalgar Square, Hyde Park and Kensington protests.
There was a heavy police presence lining the route taken by the protesters.
Chanting 'free, free Palestine', the crowd was led through the streets of London by a vocal group of largely young men.
A Starbucks coffee shop in the area was stripped of chairs and had its front windows smashed, and protestors also removed fittings from the shop.
Residents living in flats above watched the scenes from their windows, and many people pleaded with police to let them out of the cordon.
At one point, the protesters were seen to throw shoes at mounted police posted in the Notting Hill area.
The march ground to a halt outside the Israeli embassy as tens of thousands of people surged past carrying placards.
At a number of points, officers asked some of the noisier and more enthusiastic protesters to 'calm down'.
There was pushing and shoving between protesters and police in riot gear outside the embassy building.
Demonstrators chanted noisily and tossed shoes over the heads of the police ranks towards the embassy…
‘Calm down’? How can ‘protesters’ ‘calm down’ when the pernicious Jewish state
continues to be a fact? They’ll ‘calm down’ when they’re good and ready—like when
the Jews are finally toast.
Old news: Did you know that there are Jew out there who actually oppose Israel and side with the Palestinians? Well, of course you did. Apparently, though, it comes as great news to Harpoon Siddiqui, who manages to spin a whole column out of this dog-bites-man "insight". My repsonse:
Haroon Siddiqui informs us that “not all Jews are supporting Israel.” That hardly comes as a surprise, since long before there was an Israel, there were Jews opposed to the very idea of a Jewish state. It would have been far more interesting to learn about another group of dissenters: Arabs and other Muslims who oppose Islamist groups such as Hamas and the regressive, repressive religious laws they seek to impose on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Of course, there’s one huge difference between Jews who speak out against Israel and Muslims--such as Salim Mansur and Tarek Fatah--who speak out against sharia law. While anti-Zionist Jews may be on the receiving end of a few angry e-mails and phone calls, they know they can speak freely, even in Israel, without having to worry that their stance will garner them death threats or fatwas.
It was strictly forbidden to have a notebook in Belsen, but my Aunt Ruth had one anyway. Just a little pocket diary - an appointment book with one of those tiny pencils. And in it, in the autumn of 1944, she noted that Anne Frank and Anne's sister, Ruth's schoolfriend Margot, had arrived in the concentration camp.
My mother and my aunt had been watching through the camp wire when the Franks arrived. Mum remembers it well, because they had been excited to spot girls they knew from the old days in Amsterdam. They had played in the same streets, been to the same schools and Ruth and Margot attended Hebrew classes together. The pair had once been pressed into service to act as bridesmaids, when a secretive Jewish wedding had taken place at the synagogue during their lesson time.
But Ruth and Margot did not grow up together. Because while Ruth and my mother lived, Margot and Anne never left Belsen. They died of typhus.
I am telling you this story because I want you to understand Israel. Not to agree with all it does, not to keep quiet when you want to protest against its actions, not to side with it always, merely to understand Israel.
There are two things about the tale that help to provide insight. The first is that all these things, the gas chambers, the concentration camps, the attempt to wipe Jews from the face of the Earth, they aren't ancient history, and they aren't fable. They happened to real people and they happened in our lifetime. Anne and Margot Frank were just children to my aunt and my mother; they weren't icons, or symbols of anything.
The second is that world opinion weeps now for Anne Frank. But world opinion did not save her.
The origin of the state of Israel is not religion or nationalism, it is the experience of oppression and murder, the fear of total annihilation and the bitter conclusion that world opinion could not be relied upon to protect the Jews.
Israel was the idea of a journalist. Theodor Herzl was the Paris correspondent of the Neue Freie Presse when he witnessed anti-Semitic rioting against the Jewish army captain Alfred Dreyfus who had been falsely accused of espionage. Herzl was then among the small corps of journalists who in 1895 witnessed the famous ceremony of disgrace in which Dreyfus was stripped of his epaulettes.
The experience led Herzl to abandon his belief in assimilation. He became convinced that Jews would only be safe if they had their own national home. Herzl became the first leader of modern Zionism. For many years many Jews resisted Herzl's conclusion. My grandfather was among them. But the experience of Jews all over the world in the first half of the 20th century - not just in Europe but in the Middle East too - rather bore out Herzl.
So when Israel is urged to respect world opinion and put its faith in the international community the point is rather being missed. The very idea of Israel is a rejection of this option. Israel only exists because Jews do not feel safe as the wards of world opinion. Zionism, that word that is so abused, so reviled, is founded on a determination that, at the end of the day, somehow the Jews will defend themselves and their fellow Jews from destruction. If world opinion was enough, there would be no Israel.
The poverty and the death and the despair among the Palestinians in Gaza moves me to tears. How can it not? Who can see pictures of children in a war zone or a slum street and not be angry and bewildered and driven to protest? And what is so appalling is that it is so unnecessary. For there can be peace and prosperity at the smallest of prices. The Palestinians need only say that they will allow Israel to exist in peace. They need only say this tiny thing, and mean it, and there is pretty much nothing they cannot have…
The problem, of course, is that Finkelstein is looking at it through Western eyes. To
Hamas and most other Palestinians, “this tiny thing,” as he calls it, is actually huge, a
behemoth, because it involves repudiating both their prophet and their scripture. If you
want to talk size, it doesn’t get any bigger than that. Here's Nonie Darwish, who was
born in Gaza, explaining it to Phyllis Chesler (my bolds):
PC: Talk to me about Gaza, your hometown. What, in your opinion, is really going on there?
ND: The world needs to understand the roots of the eternal conflict, which is the Sharia law commandment to kill all Jews. Peace can only happen if such roots are exposed and understood.
For decades, Arabs had demanded that Israel end the occupation, and in 2005, Israel did so, disengaging unilaterally from Gaza. With their demands met, there was no ‘cycle of violence’ to respond to, no further justification for anything other than peace and prosperity. With its central location and beautiful beaches on the East Mediterranean, a peaceful and prosperous Gaza could become another Hong Kong; a shining trade and commerce center. But instead of choosing peace they chose Islamic jihad. Arabs of Ghaza rolled their rocket launchers to the border and started bombing Israeli civilians.
The reasons for choosing violence over peace is due to Sharia. Mainstream Sharia books define Jihad as: “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion.” (Shafi’i Sharia 09.0). Jihad is not just the duty of the individual Muslim, it is also the main duty of the Muslim head of State (the Calipha): “A Muslim calipha is entrusted to take his people into war and command offensive and aggressive Jihad. He must organize Jihad against any non-Muslim government.
Zia-Ul-Haq, former President of Pakistan, said “jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim Ummah.”
Some people seem to think that such laws are just historical relics, on the books, but not in practice or in control of the minds of Muslims. But that is the kind of denial we cannot afford; these laws rule the hearts, minds and actions of a majority of Muslim individuals and States around the world today. These scriptures are taught, preached and promoted as the incontrovertible and eternal word of God and funded by Saudi petrodollars throughout the world, including Western nations such as the U.K. and the United States.
How can a Muslim leader or individual avoid the hundreds of Quran and Hadith commandments to Muslims to kill Jews and Christians? How can a Muslim leader face his devout Muslim subjects with a decision of friendship and peace with Jews when the mosques all over the Middle East recite Mohammed’s commandment to Muslims: “The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!” (Sahih Muslim 41:6985, also Sahih Bukhari 4:52:177).
This Hadith, issued by Mohammad was issued in the 7th century, not after the 1948 creation of the State of Israel. It is not a response to modern-day grievances; it is a permanent commandment.
This is the real basis of the Arab/Israeli conflict: not a conflict over land or occupation, but a divine Muslim obligation to destroy neighboring (non-Muslim) Israel, where Jews are no longer dhimmis but are free to rule themselves...
We have a winner: And in the category of most obnoxious self-loathing Jewess on the planet (drumroll, please)...why, it's Avi's Jazeera's missus, the loathsome Ms. Klein.
Silence speaks volumes: Shhh! If you're really quiet, you can hear what Arab countries are saying by not saying much of anything at all. From the Wall Street Journal:
The Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip has sparked a predictable wave of protest throughout the Muslim world. (Somebody please call us the day a similar protest is held against al Qaeda's mass murder of Muslims in Iraq or Pakistan.) But theirs aren't the only voices making themselves heard on the subject of Gaza.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported this week that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had told a visiting delegation of European foreign ministers that Hamas "must not be allowed to emerge from the fighting with the upper hand." The comment was later relayed by the Europeans to Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni.
We called the Egyptian embassy in Washington to confirm Mr. Mubarak's comments and never heard back. But the remark squares with the way Egypt has acted toward Hamas since the war began. It has sealed its border with the Strip to prevent an exodus of Gazans and barred all but a trickle of humanitarian aid to enter. Little wonder that Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah has called on Egyptian army officers to topple Mr. Mubarak's regime.
Mr. Mubarak has good reason to want to see Hamas humbled: As the Palestinian franchise of his own suppressed Muslim Brotherhood, it poses a direct threat to his rule. The same goes for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia, which see Hamas as another Iranian proxy in the Sunni heartland. Their views, too, are being expressed sotto voce...
It's a no-brainer (except for those with, well, no brains): Martin Peretz explains why it shouldn't be too hard to choose sides in this one:
The ethics of this war are actually quite simple. Hamas is sworn to the elimination of Israel. Does anyone truly have a different reading? Israel was almost cajoled into this battle by the relentlessness of Hamas assaults and the undeniable ability of Hamas to acquire more weapons of ever greater sophistication. Did anyone warn Hamas that this was putting the Gaza Palestinians in peril? There is a certain kind of dumb stridency to those who have taken up the Hamas cause in this conflict. Take Turkey: It aspires, as an editorial (that is also a very much needed history lesson) in Monday's Jerusalem Post argues, to be the mediator in settling issues between Israel and Syria. I always thought this was a fatuous ambition, as it has turned out to be. But Turkey has now shown its true colors: It is an Islamist regime supporting another Islamist regime, killers both. Do not forget the hundreds of unnoticed civilian victims of indiscriminate Turkish bombing over Kurdistan. In any case, Europe won't forget. Turkish membership in the European Union is dead. Finished.
There are times when peoples must choose, and this is one of them. If Hamas is not crippled now it will live to torment Israel again — not to mention Egypt and Jordan and even Saudi Arabia, the last three of which are at least circumstantial allies of the United States. The assumption with which some of the putative actors in the diplomatic drama play is that an injured Hamas can be reformed. I believe this to be hokum, no more than that the Taliban can be reformed but also no less. Psychopathic Islam, for which suicide is its most elevated drama, is a hardy and resilient phenomenon.
Judenhass in Europe: It's deja vu all over again as citizens take to the streets to rage against the Juden. From al Reuters:
LONDON, Jan 10 (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of demonstrators marched in cities across Europe and the Middle East on Saturday to protest against Israel's offensive in Gaza, clashing with police when some rallies turned violent.
Police in riot gear confronted around 20,000 protesters brandishing banners and Palestinian flags outside the Israeli embassy in central London, while Oslo police used tear gas against rock-throwing activists in the Norwegian capital.
About 30,000 took to the streets of Paris, many demonstrators wearing Palestinian keffiyah headscarves and chanting "we are all Palestinians", "Israel murderer" and "peace". Some threw stones at police and burnt Israeli flags.
"We are here to demand the end to this unacceptable war. There are more than 800 victims including numerous children and civilians. We cannot accept that," said Communist Party leader Marie-George Buffet at the Paris march.
Israeli tanks advanced on Gaza and Hamas militants fired rockets at Israel on Saturday as both sides ignored international calls to stop the conflict.
The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says at least 830 Palestinians have died. Thirteen Israelis have been killed: 10 soldiers, and three civilians hit by rocket fire.
Israel is demanding a complete halt to Hamas rocket fire, plus regional and international guarantees to stop the group rearming via smuggling tunnels under the border with Egypt.
More than 40,000 people protested against the Gaza assault in towns across Germany, while demonstrators at the Israeli embassy in Dublin threw shoes and carried a mock coffin, covered with pictures of wounded or dead Palestinian children.
"The haunting images of homes wrecked, of terrified families existing among rubble in shock and despair, and of endless funerals, has rightly outraged people across the world," said Gerry Adams, president of nationalist party Sinn Fein.
"It is time all of this was brought to an end: The slaughter of people in Gaza must end," Adams told a Dublin rally…
So the slaughter of "Zionists" can begin, right?
Meanwhile, here in Toronto, the Ceeb reports that Sid "I'm Not a Bigot" Ryan
was urging on pro-Hamas types at the mass demonstration in front of the Israeli
consulate:
TORONTO - Thousands of people took part in pro-Palestinian demonstrations across the country Saturday and demanded that Canada not take sides in the ongoing conflict overseas.
Police estimated that about 2,000 protesters were packed outside the Israeli Consulate in Toronto calling for an end to Israeli attacks in Gaza.
Many of the protesters were children, who carried graphic signs depicting some of the youngest victims of the violence in Gaza. One little girl held a baby doll wrapped in a white sheet, stained with fake blood.
She was the daughter of Isser Baker, whose entire family was with him at the protest. He said he has told his children what is going on.
"They understand exactly what is happening (in Gaza). Children are without food, without medicine, without school."
Amir Ghorvei may only be 10-years-old but it wasn't his first protest. The boy from Mississauga, Ont., attended with his mother, but he knew exactly why he had come.
"I think that the war on Gaza should stop," he said.
"Palestinians are getting killed every day and Harper doesn't want to do a thing about it."
Much of the protesters' criticism was launched toward the federal government as they spoke out against what they considered to be unabashed support of Israel.
"John Baird was quoted as saying the resisters in Palestine are cowards," said Ali Mallah of the Canadian Arab Federation.
"Well I have news for you John Baird and Stephen Harper, the only coward we know is Stephen Harper and his government."
Mallah's comments were met with cheers and chants of "shame on you."
The Toronto crowd was predominantly made up of Palestinian protesters, although a small contingent of Jewish supporters were also in the crowd, separated by a police barricade.
Although the protest was peaceful the mood was still tense and an Israeli flag was burned by some protesters.
Also in the crowd was Sid Ryan, president of the Ontario wing of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who was forced to apologize for comparing bombings by the Israeli army to actions taken by the Nazis during the Second World War.
On Saturday he urged the Palestinians in the crowd to get involved politically so they can affect change in the government.
"You've got to get political. You've got to elect some politicians," Ryan said...
Men in black: Michael Coren holds back nothing (save the name "Sid Ryan") in a searing indictment of today's blackshirts. From the Toronto Sun:
It might have been more appropriate if it had been written in German.
The statement by CUPE Ontario supporting "a ban on Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario universities as a protest against the Dec. 29 bombing of the Islamic University in Gaza. In response to an appeal from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees, we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general."
Peaceful and legal protest against Israel or any other nation is entirely acceptable and even helpful in a free and democratic society, even when it's ill informed and predictable. But this is something fundamentally different. It is in effect a loyalty oath demanded by zealots and fundamentalists of ordinary, apolitical people who happen to have been born in the Jewish state.
It is unlikely that these extremists have thought this nonsense through for more than a few hysterical moments, but let's ask a few basic questions.
Is this "condemnation" to be asked of Israeli Arabs or only of Israeli Jews? There are, of course, more than 1.5 million Israeli Arabs and, as Israelis, they enjoy full democratic and civil rights.
Thousands of them study at Israeli universities and many of them teach at Israeli universities, unlike in most Arab countries where the Jews were expelled and cannot study, teach or even live.
Is this "condemnation" to be asked of, for example, Iranians teaching in Canadian universities over their government's public hanging of homosexuals, stoning of women or shooting of university students demonstrating peacefully? Or of Egyptian academics, of whom there are many in this country, over the persecution of Christians in Egypt, the banning of various independent newspapers or the building of the wall on the Egyptian side of the Gaza border?
Or of academics from Zimbabwe, Communist China or the dictatorships of Syria or Libya because of their governments' vile policies? Or of academics from Sudan, where hundreds of thousands have been murdered, raped, enslaved and forcibly converted to Islam? Or, for that matter, of Palestinian academics -- their Hamas government only last week murdered 35 Fatah members and shot a further 75 in the legs, thus crippling them. They force women to wear the hijab and threaten to throw acid in the faces of girls who refuse.
Goodness, such a "condemnation" was not even asked of academics from Rwanda when that country's government was attempting genocide!
But it is being asked of Israelis, where the armed forces are responding after eight years of terror, rocket attacks and murderous provocation.
What this crass, painfully immature, impossible and snarling little gesture does is to single out for unique targeting and hatred an identifiable group of people merely doing their job. Jews. Most of them, by the way, born in Israel because their families were forced by pogrom, Holocaust and Arab expulsion to leave their former nations and live in Israel.
In a phrase, it's Jew baiting. And it's beyond the pale of civilized behaviour and acceptable discourse. It takes a complex issue involving two peoples who deserve justice and reduces it to abuse, blacklisting and a discrimination soaked in the excesses of 1930s Europe.
Black shirts hiding in colours of red and green. They should hang their heads in shame and beg forgiveness.
Alas, having no awareness of shame, the shameless rarely if ever hang their heads.
Just desserts: Somali pirates drown with their ransom.
Iran leaves Hamas to twist and shout: Why aren't the mullahs riding to their proxy's rescue? One expert says it's because they're prioritizing, and on their "to do" list, nukes come before helping co-nutjobs. (In any case, it's not as if the mahdi men care about saving lives in Gaza; if and when Iran drops the Big One, the Palestinians will be the Jews' co-toast).
Eight Jewish Canadian women [including the redunkulous Judy Rebick—ed.] who were arrested while holding a protest inside the Israeli consulate have been released.
The RCMP arrested and handcuffed the women, who were staging a sit-in protest against the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza inside the consulate at 180 Bloor St. W. The women were held briefly inside a paddy wagon, but were not charged and were released.
Included in the group were Israeli peace activists, filmmakers, the president of Science for Peace and a variety of students.
"Israel purports to represent all Jews worldwide and these atrocities are not being committed in our name," said spokesperson and filmmaker Cathy Gulkin, standing outside of the consulate.
Gulkin said the women entered the secure consulate on the seventh floor of the building two by two around 10 a.m.
She said the point of the protest was to draw attention to the fact that not all members of Toronto's Jewish community support the agenda of the Israeli government.
"There are Jews that do not follow the Israeli line and are sickened by what is happening in Gaza."
Outside of the consulate a group of more than thirty supporters carried signs saying "People of Gaza you are not alone" and "Toronto Coalition to stop the war."
They shouted slogans "No justice, no peace," "Jewish women not in our name" and "Stop the violence."
Do you think these idiot chicks have even a clue about what “peace with justice”
means in an Islamic sense—i.e. the “peace” that will exist once Israel doesn’t and
all uppity kafirs have either been killed or turned into dhimmis? (Not that it
would matter if they did, since, like Hamas, they’d like to see the curtain ring down
on the Zionist entity, too.)
…What is certain in the wake of the Gaza conflict is that the CAF of old — the non-partisan organization that focussed on domestic issues rather than international ones — is now being led by people who sympathize with a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel more than the civilian victims that Hamas uses as political fodder.
Perhaps a more apt name for this group today would be the Canadian Hamas Federation.
Works for me.
Judenhass, Part III: The essay that best summarizes the grand sweep of
Judenhass, I think, is this one, written several years ago by the brilliant Cynthia
Ozick. Here’s how it opens:
We thought it was finished. The ovens are long cooled, the anti-vermin gas dissipated into purifying clouds, cleansed air, nightmarish fable. The cries of the naked, decades gone, are mute; the bullets splitting throats and breasts and skulls, the human waterfall of bodies tipping over into the wooded ravine at Babi Yar, are no more than tedious footnotes on aging paper. The deportation ledgers, with their scrupulous lists of names of the doomed, what are they now? Museum artifacts. The heaps of eyeglasses and children’s shoes, the hills of human hair, lie disintegrating in their display cases, while only a little distance away the visitors’ cafeteria bustles and buzzes: sandwiches, Cokes, the waiting tour buses.
We thought it was finished. In the middle of the twentieth century, and surely by the end of it, we thought it was finished, genuinely finished, the bloodlust finally slaked. We thought it was finished, that heads were hanging—the heads of the leaders and schemers on gallows, the heads of the bystanders and onlookers in shame. The Topf company, manufacturer of the ovens, went belatedly out of business, belatedly disgraced and shamed. Out of shame German publishers of Nazi materials concealed and falsified the past. Out of shame Paul de Man, lauded and eminent Yale intellectual, concealed his early Nazi lucubrations. Out of shame Mircea Eliade, lauded and eminent Chicago intellectual, concealed his membership in Romania’s Nazi-linked Iron Guard. Out of shame memorials to the murdered rose up. Out of shame synagogues were rebuilt in the ruins of November 9, 1938, the night of fire and pogrom and the smashing of windows. Out of shame those who were hounded like prey and fled for their lives were invited back to their native villages and towns and cities, to be celebrated as successful escapees from the murderous houndings of their native villages and towns and cities. Shame is salubrious: it acknowledges inhumanity, it admits to complicity, it induces remorse. Naïvely, foolishly, stupidly, hopefully, a-historically, we thought that shame and remorse—world-wide shame, world-wide remorse—would endure. Naïvely, foolishly, stupidly, hopefully, a-historically, we thought that the cannibal hatred, once quenched, would not soon wake again.
It has awakened.
In "The Modern Hep! Hep! Hep!"—an 1878 essay reflecting on the condition of the Jews—George Eliot noted that it would be "difficult to find a form of bad reasoning about [Jews] which had not been heard in conversation or been admitted to the dignity of print." She was writing in a period politically not unlike our own, Disraeli ascendant in England, Jews prominent in liberal parties both in Germany and France. Yet her title points to something far deadlier than mere "bad reasoning." Hep! was the cry of the Crusaders as they swept through Europe, annihilating one Jewish community after another; it stood for Hierosolyma est perdita (Jerusalem is destroyed), and was taken up again by anti-Jewish rioters in Germany in 1819. In this single raging syllable, past and future met, and in her blunt bold enunciation of it, George Eliot was joining bad reasoning—i.e., canard and vilification—to its consequences: violence and murder. The Jews, she wrote, have been "regarded and treated very much as beasts hunted for their skins," and the curse on them, the charge of deicide, was counted a justification for hindering them from pursuing agriculture and handicrafts; for marking them out as execrable figures by a peculiar dress; for torturing them … spitting at them and pelting them; for taking it certain that they killed and ate babies, poisoned the wells, and took pains to spread the plague; for putting it to them whether they would be baptised or burned, and not failing to burn and massacre them when they were obstinate; but also for suspecting them of disliking their baptism when they had got it, and then burning them in punishment of their insincerity; finally, for hounding them by tens on tens of thousands from their homes where they had found shelter for centuries, and inflicting on them the horrors of a new exile and a new dispersion. All this to avenge the Saviour of mankind, or else to compel these stiff-necked people to acknowledge a Master whose servants showed such beneficent effects of His teaching.
As an anti-Semitic yelp, Hep! is long out of fashion. In the eleventh century it was already a substitution and a metaphor: Jerusalem meant Jews, and "Jerusalem is destroyed" was, when knighthood was in flower, an incitement to pogrom. Today, the modern Hep! appears in the form of Zionism, Israel, Sharon. And the connection between vilification and the will to undermine and endanger Jewish lives is as vigorous as when the howl of Hep! was new. The French ambassador to Britain, his tongue unbuttoned in a London salon, hardly thinks to cry Hep!; instead, he speaks of "that shitty little country." European and British scholars and academicians, their Latin gone dry, will never cry Hep!; instead they call for the boycott of Israeli scholars and academicians.
Even Martin Luther (though his Latin was good enough) failed to cry Hep! Instead, he inquired:
What is to be done with this wicked, accursed race, which can no longer be tolerated? The Talmud and the rabbis teach that it is no sin to kill Christians, to break an oath to Christians, to rob and plunder them. The one and only aim of the Jews is to weaken Christianity. They have poisoned the springs, they have murdered Christian children for their blood for their rites. They are becoming too prosperous in Germany, and in consequence have become insolent. Then what is to be done? Their synagogues must be reduced to ashes, for the honor of God and of Christianity. Christians are to destroy the houses of Jews, and drive them all under one roof, or into a stable like gypsies. All prayer-books and copies of the Talmud are to be wrested from them by force, and their praying and even the use of God’s name is to be forbidden to them under pain of death. Their rabbis are to be forbidden to teach. The authorities are to prohibit Jews from traveling, and to bar the roads against them. Their money must be taken from them. Able-bodied Jews and Jewesses are to be put to forced labor, and kept strictly employed with the flail, the axe, the spade. Christians are not to show any tender mercy to Jews. The emperor and the princes must be urged to expel them from the country without delay. If I had power over the Jews, I would assemble the best and most learned among them and, under penalty of having their tongues cut out, would force them to accept the Christian teaching that there is not one God, but three Gods. I say to you, the Jews do great evil in the land. If they could kill us all, they would gladly do so, aye, and often do it, especially those who profess to be physicians—they know all that is known about medicine in Germany; they can give poison to a man of which he will die in an hour, or in ten or twenty years; they thoroughly understand this art.
So much for sixteenth-century Hep!—a reprise, under the guise of Reformation, of 300 years of abusive Christian power. But it foreshadows twentieth-century Hep! as well: the flaming synagogues, the prohibitions, the expropriations, the looting, the forced labor, the phantasmagorical lies, the Stalinist doctors’ plot, the bloodthirsty reversals of intent: "if they could kill us all, they would gladly do so."
Luther came late to these pious inspirations. Nearly all had their precedents in the Church he renounced; and even the medieval Church practiced mimicry. It was Pope Innocent III who implemented the yellow badge of ignominy (Hitler was no innovator, except as to gas chambers)—yet Innocent too was innocent of originality, since he took the idea from Prince Abu-Yusef Almansur, a Moroccan Muslim ruler of the thirteenth century. Post-Enlightenment France may be known for its merciless persecution of a guiltless Dreyfus, and for the anti-Jewish rioting it set off; and, more recently, for the gendarmes who arrested and deported the Jews of Paris with a zeal equal to that of the Germans. But Paris had seen anti-Jewish mobs before—for instance, in June of 1242, when twenty-four cartloads of Talmuds were set afire in a public square. And while elsewhere in France, and all through the Rhineland, the Crusaders were busy at their massacres, across the Channel the Archbishop of Canterbury was issuing a decree designed to prevent the Jews of England from having access to food.
All this, let it be noted, preceded the barbarities of the Inquisition: the scourgings, the burnings, the confiscations, the expulsions.
Any attempt to set down the record, early and late, of Christian violence against Jews can only be a kind of pointillism—an atrocity here, another there, and again another. The nineteenth-century historian Heinrich Graetz (as rationalist in temperament as Gibbon) summed up the predicament of Jews across the whole face of Europe:
If Jewish history were to follow chronicles, memorial books and martyrologies, its pages would be filled with bloodshed, it would consist of horrible exhibitions of corpses, and it would stand forth to make accusation against a doctrine which taught princes and nations to become common executioners and hangmen. For, from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, the persecutions and massacres of the Jews increased with frightful rapidity and intensity, and only alternated with inhuman decrees issued by both Church and the state, the aim and purport of all of which were to humiliate the Jews, to brand them with calumny and to drive them to suicide …. The nations of Europe emulated one another in exercising their cruelty upon the Jews …. In Germany they were slain by thousands …. Every year martyrs fell, now in Weissenburg, Magdeburg, Arnstadt, now in Coblenz, Sinzig, Erfurt, and other places. In Sinzig all the members of the congregation were burnt alive on a Sabbath in their synagogue. There were German Christian families who boasted that they had burnt Jews, and in their pride assumed the name of Judenbrater (Jew-roaster).
And all this, let it again be noted, before the Shoah; before the Czarist pogroms and the Czarist fabrication of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"; before the exclusions, arrests, and gulag brutalities of the Soviet Union; before the shooting of the Soviet Yiddish writers in the basement of Moscow’s Lubyanka prison; before the rise of contemporary Islamist demonization of Jews; before the eight-decades-long Arab assault on Jewish national aspiration and sovereignty; before the Palestinian cult of suicide bombing. Anti-Semitism feeds on itself from continent to continent, from Iceland to Japan: it scarcely requires living Jews…
...but, invariably, it demands dead ones.
My suggestion: it's time to retire the term "anti-Semitism" to encompass the entirety of
Jew-hate. It causes confusion--because Arabs are Semites, too, as they are often
quick to remind us--and enables Jew-haters like the execrable Sid Ryan to disguse their
hatred as self-righteous concern for the "rights" of Palestinians. Anti-Semitism should
be used only to refer to that specific period in history when Jew-hate was predicated
on "race". In so doing, we would be able to put the current wave of hatred--the
irrational hatred of the Jewish state, i.e. anti-Zionism--in its proper context, and see the
raving anti-Zionists for what they really are, i.e. Jew-haters, plain and simple.
Misspellers on a spree: It’s back to skool for these “youts”. From the Sun:
YOBS daubed vile graffiti at a Jewish cemetery and a nearby housing estate in London over Israel’s Gaza invasion yesterday.
But the thickos misspelt the words — writing ‘Welcome to GAZZA’ and ‘We are Bin LADIN’ in Whitechapel, East London.
As 20 council workers cleaned up, thugs bragged: “Don’t bother, we’ll do it again tonight.”
One worker said: “They’re sick.”
Depraved on a account of they’re deprived?
The wide, wide world of Judenhass: It’s all the rage, notes Mark Steyn:
In Toronto, anti-Israel demonstrators yell "You are the brothers of pigs!," and a protester complains to his interviewer that "Hitler didn't do a good job."
In Fort Lauderdale, Palestinian supporters sneer at Jews, "You need a big oven, that's what you need!"
In Amsterdam, the crowd shouts, "Hamas, Hamas! Jews to the gas!"
In Paris, the state-owned TV network France-2 broadcasts film of dozens of dead Palestinians killed in an Israeli air raid on New Year's Day. The channel subsequently admits that, in fact, the footage is not from Jan. 1, 2009, but from 2005, and, while the corpses are certainly Palestinian, they were killed when a truck loaded with Hamas explosives detonated prematurely while leaving the Jabaliya refugee camp in another of those unfortunate work-related accidents to which Gaza is sadly prone. Conceding that the Palestinians supposedly killed by Israel were, alas, killed by Hamas, France-2 says the footage was broadcast "accidentally."
In Toulouse, a synagogue is firebombed; in Bordeaux, two kosher butchers are attacked; at the Auber RER train station, a Jewish man is savagely assaulted by 20 youths taunting, "Palestine will kill the Jews"; in Villiers-le-Bel, a Jewish schoolgirl is brutally beaten by a gang jeering, "Jews must die."
In Helsingborg, Sweden, the congregation at a synagogue takes shelter as a window is broken and burning cloths thrown in. in Odense, principal Olav Nielsen announces that he will no longer admit Jewish children to the local school after a Dane of Lebanese extraction goes to the shopping mall and shoots two men working at the Dead Sea Products store. in Brussels, a Molotov cocktail is hurled at a synagogue; in Antwerp, Netherlands, lit rags are pushed through the mail flap of a Jewish home; and, across the Channel in Britain, "youths" attempt to burn the Brondesbury Park Synagogue.
In London, the police advise British Jews to review their security procedures because of potential revenge attacks. The Sun reports "fears" that "Islamic extremists" are drawing up a "hit list" of prominent Jews, including the Foreign Secretary, Amy Winehouse's record producer and the late Princess of Wales' divorce lawyer. Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that Islamic nonextremists from the British Muslim Forum, the Islamic Foundation and other impeccably respectable "moderate" groups have warned the government that the Israelis' "disproportionate force" in Gaza risks inflaming British Muslims, "reviving extremist groups," and provoking "UK terrorist attacks" – not against Amy Winehouse's record producer and other sinister members of the International Jewish Conspiracy but against targets of, ah, more general interest.
Forget, for the moment, Gaza. Forget that the Palestinian people are the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the Earth. For the past 60 years they have been entrusted to the care of the United Nations, the Arab League, the PLO, Hamas and the "global community" – and the results are pretty much what you'd expect.
You would have to be very hardhearted not to weep at the sight of dead Palestinian children, but you would also have to accord a measure of blame to the Hamas officials who choose to use grade schools as launch pads for Israeli-bound rockets, and to the U.N. refugee agency that turns a blind eye to it. And, even if you don't deplore Fatah and Hamas for marinating their infants in a sick death cult in which martyrdom in the course of Jew-killing is the greatest goal to which a citizen can aspire, any fair-minded visitor to the West Bank or Gaza in the decade and a half in which the "Palestinian Authority" has exercised sovereign powers roughly equivalent to those of the nascent Irish Free State in 1922 would have to concede that the Palestinian "nationalist movement" has a profound shortage of nationalists interested in running a nation, or indeed capable of doing so. There is fault on both sides, of course, and Israel has few good long-term options. But, if this was a conventional ethno-nationalist dispute, it would have been over long ago.
So, as I said, forget Gaza. And, instead, ponder the reaction to Gaza in Scandinavia, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and golly, even Florida. As the delegitimization of Israel has metastasized, we are assured that criticism of the Jewish state is not the same as anti-Semitism. We are further assured that anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism, which is a wee bit more of a stretch…
To reiterate, anti-Zionism is how Jew-hate is manifested in our time—history’s third
wave of Judenhass, following anti-Judaism (hating Jews for the religion) and anti-
Semitism (hating Jews for their “race”). The sooner everyone understands that, the
better.
“Youts” and their useful idiot rock Paree: Don’t you just love a good car-b-que?
Pajamas Media’s man on the scene describes the frenzied Judenhass that’s
overtaken the French capital in the wake of the Gaza incursion:
The biggest demonstration against the Israeli military intervention in the Gaza Strip took place on January 3 in Paris. More than 20,000 attended, most of them Muslims — many, in fact, radical Muslims. This was not just another pro-Palestine demonstration (there have been dozens of them every year since the start of the Second Intifada); this was an Islamist urban riot. Cars were burned, property was destroyed, and policemen were hurt by an angry mob of about 500 anti-Jewish youth, mostly coming from the suburbs of the capital city to loot and yell their hatred of anything Israeli, Jewish, or simply representing the French state, which they see as an ally of the “Zionists.”
The pro-Gaza demos began on December 30, 2008, when about 4,000 gathered in Paris at the call of the leftist parties (the Communists, the Green Party, and the Trotskyite Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire, but not the Socialists), and the major pro-Palestine organizations like the Association France-Palestine Solidarité. Even on the first day of their mobilization, it was clear that the crowd was asking for more than the usual slogans in support of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas, and the “rights of the Palestinian people.” They were asking the French left to express open and plain support for Hamas and what it stands for: destroying the state of Israel and blaming the “Zionists” for every evil in the world. Within the French pro-Palestine movement, many think the Palestinian Authority is too moderate and say that the only “resistance” today is that of Hamas and Hezbollah. As a result, there were many flags with the emblem of both movements in the ranks of the demo. While the official slogan was “Stop the bombing and blockade in Gaza,” there was a huge flag in the crowd which read: “Paris - Gaza - Beirut - Kabul - Baghdad - Jenin, Resistance!” In other words: in the name of anti-imperialism, spread terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism on French soil.
On December 31, another demo took place in the heart of Paris, at the call of theParti des Musulmans de France (PMF) and the Collectif Sheikh Yassine (Sheikh Yassin Group), named after the late leader of Hamas. The PMF is a radical fringe movement which is openly anti-Semitic. Its president, Mohammed Ennacer Latrèche, went on a trip to Iraq in 2003, just before Saddam’s fall, together with some of the most hard-line anti-Zionists from the extreme right, such as Hervé Van Laethem from Belgium and French members of the Réseau Radical, a national revolutionary group. The PMF, which marched through the heavily Muslim districts of northern Paris, had organized the demo by explaining that the Israeli strike was caused by the belief of the Tsahal soldiers in “their Torah, which has become an inspiration for committing the most filthy crimes.” The same slogans were repeated the following day, when Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was in Paris, by about 800 Islamists burning Israeli flags in front of the Paris Opera, while a bunch of radicals chanted, “Israel, you are Nazi” and “Long live Hamas.” Another popular slogan then was: “United Nations, in 48 you gave birth to a monster and you named it Israel.”
Very catchy. Here are a couple of my slogans: THERE’S NOTHING NOBLE
ABOUT THESE SAVAGES, and the ever-popular JIHADI JEW-HATERS
HAVE TINY LITTLE PENISES!
WASHINGTON, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Many voices around the world speak up for the Palestinians, but few in the U.S. Congress.
Lawmakers in Washington routinely pass nonbinding resolutions supporting Israel during Middle East crises. The Senate on Thursday backed Israel's battle against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip and the House of Representatives followed on Friday.
Even U.S. lawmakers who express sympathy for the Palestinians hesitate to call themselves pro-Palestinian and they voice strong support for the security of Israel as well, hewing to decades of close U.S.-Israeli ties.
"When these events occur, there's almost a knee-jerk reaction of Congress that endorses 1,000 percent what Israel is doing," said Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat and Lebanese-American who has voted against some of the measures and did so again on Friday.
"Israel is our ally. ... It always has been, with which I perfectly agree. But I don't believe in allowing that to blind us to what is in our best interests, or giving knee-jerk approval to anything Israel does. We don't do that with any other ally," he told Reuters.
Washington has been Israel's closest ally since 1948, when President Harry Truman made the United States the first country to recognize the new Jewish state.
Harry Reid, who leads the Democratic majority in the Senate, gave voice to the depth of the relationship when he said on Thursday, "Our resolution reflects the will of the State of Israel and the will of the American people."
The Senate measure offered "unwavering commitment" to Israel. It recognized "its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism" and urged a ceasefire that would keep Hamas from firing rockets at Israel.
That closely tracked Republican President George W. Bush's comments on the crisis, said Ric Stoll, professor of political science at Rice University, who questioned whether it helped U.S. diplomats trying to broker a ceasefire…
It’s a genuine head-scratcher for this Reuters scribe: why would American legislators
be inclined to support a modern, democratic nation—the only one in the Middle East—
over a bunch of crazed jihadis who, for their own potty religious reasons, are bent on
killing all Jews, everywhere? And that, my friends, is how you can tell that, in the morals
department, al Reuters, is completely and irredeemably bankrupt.
Hair today, gone tomorrow: Illinois' House of Reps has voted to impeach Helmet Head von Thugojevich.
Two names I bet you thought you'd never read in the same sentence: Live from Gaza, it's...Joe the Plumber?
Muslims heart Obama: From a "cultural" persective, he's their kind of guy. (h/t WM).
The unspoken truth about the fighting in Gaza, which began on December 19, 2008, when Hamas rockets broke a voluntary truce, is that this is the frontline of a much larger war. This war began 30 years ago with the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is now global in scope. Its agenda is the extermination of the Jews and the destruction of the West.
The Islamic terrorist organization Hamas makes no secret of this agenda. Its Egyptian founders and Palestinian inspirers were active followers of Adolf Hitler and enthusiasts of the Nazi Holocaust. The founding charter of Hamas, which promises that “Islam will obliterate Israel,” memorializes the Egyptian admirer of Hitler, Hassan al-Banna, as “the martyr…of blessed memory.” The same document contains the genocidal incitement of the Prophet Mohammed to “kill the Jews,” to hunt them down “until they hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and trees cry out ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”
In 2006, these Islamic Nazis took possession of the Gaza Strip, which is unoccupied except by Hamas and is Jew-less (because the Palestinians would kill any Jews that moved in their state). Hamas has turned Gaza into a terrorist fortress, launching rockets into Israeli schoolyards, hospitals, and townships, and launching them from Palestinian schoolyards, hospitals, and townships to ensure that the maximum number of civilians – both Jews and Muslims – would die for their cause. They will win the Armageddon they are planning, they boast, because “the Jews love life and we love death.”
And all around the world, and across Europe and throughout the United States, Muslim and secular radicals are rallying to this Nazi cause, supporting Hamas and attacking Israel and the Jews. The unholy alliance formed by Muslim fanatics and socialist radicals is the face of the terrorist future in the West. It is a coalition for whom no party is so evil that it does not deserve aid and comfort if its enemies are Israel and the United States, and if it is willing to attack them.
The wars in the Middle East are the frontline of the Islamic Nazi offensive – a 60-year aggression of Muslim Arabs against the Jews, rationalized at each turn by epic lies that resonate with radicals in the West: that the Arab aggressors are the victims; that the Jews stole Arab land (Israel in fact was created out of the ruins of the Turkish empire); that there is a Palestinian entity that wants peace with the state of Israel (there is none – there is not a single Palestinian leader – who supports the existence of a Jewish state).
The Palestinians are the only people in history to have a majority support a national death cult, to worship the murderers of little children (including their own), and to proclaim the murderers saints and “martyrs.” The father of Palestinian Nationalism, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was an acolyte and ally of Hitler who preached the extermination of the Jews and planned to construct his own death camps for Jews in the Middle East. The miseries Palestinians have suffered are self-inflicted, the inevitable consequence of staking their national ambitions on the genocide of another people, while embracing a death cult for themselves.
Their allies in the West are either stupendously ignorant or morally blind…
Both, I’d say.
Useful idiot of the week: It’s piano man Anton Kuerti. In an article in the Toronto
Sun, the “internationally acclaimed concert pianist and human right activist” called
Israel’s actions a “war crime,” adding
“Israel has attacked the people of Gaza with utter contempt,” Kuerti told a news conference.
“The unbelievable war crimes that Israel is committing in Gaza ... it makes me ashamed to be a Jew.
“The servile way in which Canada is supporting the U.S. position — basically it’s all Hamas’s fault because of missiles that they throw over in desperation — I think this reluctance of Canada to use its influence makes me ashamed to be Canadian.”
Thanks, Anton. You make me ashamed to own a piano.
The bravest woman in Canada: My vote goes to Homa Arjomand, the Iranian-born Canadian who spearheaded the drive to keep sharia tribunals out of Ontario, and who is now trying to prevent sharia in the form of polygamy from becoming legal. From the National Post:
While the discussion on polygamy has largely focused on B. C.'s polygamist community of Bountiful, a long-time Canadian activist says she believes it is also being practised among a minority of Muslims in Canada.
Homa Arjomand, a Toronto based activist who has campaigned against the use of shariah law to resolve family disputes in Canada, said she is hopeful the Bountiful case will open the door to other polygamy investigations.
Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44 -- two leaders in the breakaway Mormon sect living in Bountiful -- were arrested by the RCMP on Tuesday and charged with practising polygamy under the Criminal Code.
Ms. Arjomand said the practice of polygamy among Muslims has experienced a resurgence in recent years alongside the growth of fundamentalist Islam. "[Polygamy] has become a flag of political Islam," said Ms. Arjomand in a telephone interview from Toronto yesterday.
She said it is often the younger generation endorsing the practice.
A recent case Ms. Arjomand dealt with in Toronto involved a Muslim woman who became concerned for her daughter after she had become a man's second wife.
"I am hoping one day all people who commit polygamy will face jail time," Ms. Arjomand said.
The Koran, Islam's holy book, permits polygamy, but it is not a requirement of the faith. Islamic law allows men to take up to four wives under strict conditions, including financial capability.
"[Islam] recommends that they take on only one wife ... however, Islam allows it for a solution for certain circumstances," said Mohamad Rachid, an imam at the Richmond Mosque in B. C.
Those circumstances may include the first wife being unable to bear children or being unable to be intimate with her husband for physical or mental reasons. Both Mr. Rachid and Aziz Khaki, president of the Muslim Canadian Federation, say they have not come across Muslims in British Columbia with plural wives.
"I have travelled extensively across Canada and I have not met any Muslims with multiple wives," Mr. Khaki said.
Both leaders say they tell Muslim communities in Canada that they must respect Canadian law, which has outlawed polygamy. While there are no estimates of Muslims with multiple wives in Canada, Ms. Arjomand said that she believes there are cases across the country.
In Toronto, where she works as a transitional support counsellor for abused women, Ms. Arjomand has dealt with two cases of polygamy in the past year.
Last May, a well-known Toronto imam, Aly Hindy, told the Toronto Star he had officiated at or "blessed" more than 30 polygamous marriages in the past five years.
About 2% of Canada's population are practising Muslims, according to the 2001 census.
Statistics Canada is not expected to release updated numbers until 2011.
I applaud her efforts wholeheartedly, but you know and I know--and I suspect Homa
knows, too--that, whether or not the state grants it legal validity, Islamic polygamy is
here to stay. The government may move against Mormons, but it would never, ever,
move against Muslims. Indeed, it's a safe bet that the state will continue to turn a
blind eye to Islamic polygamy, and give it de facto validation by handing out welfare
assistance to Muslim men and their multiple wives.
Take that, Sid: Jonathan L. Richler is dubious; Sid Ryan is odious. Put the two together and you get this, Richer's letter in the Globe and Mail:
Toronto -- Sid Ryan extends a public apology for comparing Israeli operations in Gaza to Nazi actions during the Second World War (Sid Ryan, Man About Israel - letters, Jan. 8).
The Ontario president of CUPE says he was "caught up in the emotion" and that all he was trying to do was "draw attention to the terrible bombing of learning institutions," a reference to the Dec. 29 Israeli strike against the Islamic University in Gaza, which provides Mr. Ryan with justification for calling for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
What he doesn't mention is that the university was closely affiliated with Hamas, that two labs served as research and development centres for Hamas's military wing, that the development of explosives was done under the auspices of professors and that buildings were used for meetings of senior Hamas officials.
Given Mr. Ryan's history of bias against Israel, his drawing of moral equivalences between terrorist organizations like Hamas and Israel's legitimate counterterrorist measures, and his singling out of Israel for differential treatment (as has been noted, there are no similar calls by CUPE for a boycott of academic institutions of any other country in which genuine human-rights abuses occur), it's reasonable to conclude Mr. Ryan isn't sorry for his shameful comments, only for being called on them.
Israel roasts, eats, Arab babies: Haven't read that headline--yet---but when you read stuff like this day after day, you know it's coming.
A preview of coming attractions: Obama advisors urge talks with Hamas.
Ingratiation schemes fail to pay off: Despite Jewish efforts to “twin” with mosques
and “mentor” Somalis, jihadis still pose a threat to Canadian Jewry. This warning has
just been released by B’nai Brith Canada:
‘Jewish institutions targets for potential attacks,’
warns B’nai Brith Canada in security alert to community
TORONTO, January 8, 2009 – B’nai Brith Canada has issued a community-wide security alert calling for heightened vigilance during this time of Middle East crisis as events abroad begin to reverberate here at home. Since the launch of Operation Cast Lead, the Jewish human rights organization has documented a spike in incidents against Jews in Canada, including harassment and death threats. This comes amidst reports of violence abroad, notably the firebombing of a synagogue in Paris, and credible reports emerging that point to possible other global targets.
“Warnings of possible hostile attacks against Jewish community targets demand your attention as a matter of top priority,” said Frank Dimant, B’nai Brith Canada’s Executive Vice President, in a security alert that went out across the country to synagogues, communal institutions, and Jewish individuals.
“Security monitoring groups are reporting increased Internet chatter that point to targets across the United States, as well as in Canada.
“Following extensive, ongoing consultation with security experts, B’nai Brith Canada advises all Jewish community institutions to ensure that proper security measures are in place at all times. The organization urges persons to report suspicious activity to its Anti-Hate Hotline, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 1-800-892-2624…
Sid Ryan’s final solution for the Jewish state: It’s what you might call a “one
state solution”—that one state being Arab “Palestine”— since Sid thinks that Jews
have “no right” to be sovereign over any part of the land. From the Jewish Tribune:
TORONTO – At one of a number of large anti-Israel demonstrations against Israel’s ‘Operation Cast Lead’ around the world, launched in response to eight years of Hamas rockets landing in Israel’s south, Sid Ryan, president of CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) Ontario, told a counter-demonstrator, local graduate student Jonathan Jaffit, that “Jews have no right to be there in the first place.” Several hundred anti-Israel protestors congregated last week in front of the Israeli consulate on Bloor Street, while about three dozen counter-protestors gathered across the road. A week later, last Saturday, the estimated number of pro-Hamas demonstrators at a Dundas Square rally was up to thousands, while more than 100 pro-Israel demonstrators were counter protesting.
Asked Monday to clarify his statement and to advise whether his remarks about the Gaza invasion were personal or CUPE policy, he responded in obvious anger: “You’re not an objective reporter…it’s absolutely wrong for Hamas to send rockets against civilians,” but “none of this would be happening” were it not for “Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands for the past 60 years.”
When the Jewish Tribune attempted to say that Israel in fact took possession of the so-called Palestinian territories during the 1967 war, just over 40 years ago – not 60 – Ryan hung up, saying he was on his way out…
“On his way out,” huh? Fingers crossed on that one.
Skew you: The Toronto Star’s Harpoon Siddiqui, always prepared to step up to
the plate and represent the Islamist viewpoint, is extremely concerned about the skewed
coverage of the Gaza conflict—which he claims is completely skewed in favour of
Israel:
…What our political and media establishment are telling us is this:
· Israel must not be provoked but the Palestinians can be.
· The trauma suffered by Israelis in the border area along Gaza is not acceptable. But 60 per cent of 1.5 million Gazans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder is.
· Israeli politicians, facing an election Feb. 10, have to be sensitive to electoral concerns, but Palestinians elected in a fair election Jan. 2006 must be isolated and jailed.
· There's an equivalency between Hamas's handmade, ill-targeted rockets and the lethal hi-tech Israeli arsenal, some of it of American origin.
· Palestinians must pay heed to Israeli/American/Canadian demands but Israel may ignore calls for a ceasefire by the UN, the European Union and even allies France, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.
· Israeli lives matter, Arab ones don't. In fact, it is worth prolonging the bloodshed in Gaza, as in Lebanon in 2006, to allow Israel time to achieve one or two more of its objectives. Arab blood is cheap.
"Unfortunately, all this plays into the hands of those Palestinians and Arabs, and more generally, Muslims, who say, `the West is against us because of who we are and is engaged in a civilizational war against us,'" says Jim Reilly, professor of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Toronto.
"If we include Iraq and Afghanistan, it reinforces the message of Al Qaeda and co-thinkers that they are waging war against a predatory and rapacious enemy.
"All this makes it that much harder for us to argue back against the militants and the zealots."
Riiiight! If only Canada was willing to side with the jihadis, the “militants and zealots”
would be much more inclined to entertain our arguments. Makes sense to me.
Also, it must be pointed out re Harpoon’s points: they’re a huge load of codswallop.
The invective of certain world leaders has grown louder as the Israeli invasion of Gaza continues.
They've been joined by voices here at home eager to pin the blame for the tragic loss of life on Israel.
Fortunately, most Canadians have little difficulty understanding why Israel has resorted to such harsh actions.
For years, that country has been pummelled by rockets that place one-eighth of its population at mortal risk.
Cries for Israel to back off and calls for an immediate ceasefire ignore the fact that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, the violence only increased. Or that Hamas used a previous six-month truce to double the range of its rockets.
While the bloodshed of innocent civilians is deplorable, we cannot forget that the Palestinians who chose Hamas in a democratic election weren't unaware of that organization's intent to destroy Israel and its predilection for terrorist tactics to achieve that aim.
Hamas hides amongst its own people to launch its implements of death toward Israel, then screams murder when Israel retaliates to protect its own citizens.
Yet, this bloodshed is Israel's fault, according to fanatics such as Ontario CUPE president Sid Ryan, who is calling for a ban on visiting Israeli academics in response to a Dec. 29 bombing that damaged a university in Gaza. If it was used as an arms storehouse, Ryan should aim his vitriol at the academics who run that institution.
The moderator of the United Church of Canada called for an immediate ceasefire, in a statement suggesting Israel is chiefly to blame. "Peace cannot be achieved through violence," said the Right Rev. David Giuliano.
The Right Reverend should tell that to Hamas, which could employ the non-violent methods of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi to win sympathy for the legitimate grievances of its people.
The cowardly terrorist tactics of Hamas show it is interested neither in peace nor improving the lot of Palestinians.
The world should direct its enmity accordingly.
It should, but since much of it is in the grip of Phase III Judenhass, it likely won’t.
XXX in great distress: The economy is in such bad shape that even the U.S. porn industry is looking for a government bail out.
My advice: move your operations lock, stock, and handcuffs to Canada. Here in the Great White North the government will actually give you money to produce your films (because it's "cultural," doncha know).
Dhimmis and kafirs: It’s interesting to compare the official Canadian Jewish-Hindu
response to Islamic terrorism (bang the drum for “diversity” and “multiculturalism”;
mum’s the word on “jihad” and “Islam”) to an effort being organized in the U.S.
Phyllis Chesler has the details (my bolds, italics):
The calls for Israeli blood grow louder, both in world-wide demonstrations and diplomatically, as Hamas continues to choreograph Israeli “atrocities ” by launching rockets at Israeli civilians from their carefully chosen positions in Gazan schools, hospitals, and mosques.
This is an incredibly cold-blooded trick but it’s one that works. The media falls for it and people of good will are, understandably horrified by the photos of dead and dying Palestinian civilians. Synagogues as well as living Jews are now being physically attacked all across Europe; they are being verbally and often physically attacked all across America.
But now: For some unexpected good news. Hindus (yes, those who live in Bombay/Mumbai as well as all over the world), Jews, (yes, those who live in Israel and elsewhere around the world), Christians, and Buddhists are organizing a rally right opposite the White House on January 20th, the day of President-elect Obama’s Inauguration. This “Coalition for Peace” is urging Obama to “declare Pakistan a terrorist state; stop Iran from producing an atomic bomb; stop Saudi Arabia from funding terrorism; stop Pakistan’s double game with the USA; stop Hamas and Hezbollah’s rocket attacks into Israel; seize Saudi Arabian assets for crimes against humanity.”
Sounds good to me.
The Coalition for Peace are asking people to rally in Washington, DC on January 20th, right opposite the White House from 12-4pm. The Coalition writes:
“The oldest traditions of the world, Hinduism and Judaism, are facing the biggest threat of our times in the form of Radical Islam. Today this problem threatens humanity itself. The brain washing of Islamic children with intolerant ideologies, is being funded by countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. There is an urgent need to control the use of enormous oil revenues directed at efforts to Islamize the whole world.”...
Can you imagine the authors of this, a mealy-mouthed tribute to “diversity” with nary a
mention of the “I” word, evincing the same kind of moral clarity? I think not.
Where You At, Baby?: There's a trace of gloom in hopey-changey-land, writes Roger Kimball, as some of the faithful are beginning to wonder where the "real" Obama is hiding:
Notwithstanding Inauguration Fever, there are signs of unhappiness in Obamaland. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is just about to begin her tenure as the first-ever female head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is deeply distressed by Obama’s pick of Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, to head the FBI [Oops: wrong acronym: as a reader points out, Obama picked him to head the CIA: "FBI, CIA, ONI. We're all in the same alphabet soup." --The Professor in North by NorthWest]. “I wasn’t even consulted,” sniffed Feinstein, dabbing her eyes (I paraphrase). And Obama’s choice of the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inaugural sent poor Frank Rich into orbit. Reaching for his most opprobrious epithet, Mr. Rich warned that he discerned “a faint tinge of Bush” creeping into the otherwise immaculate reverie that was his image of Barack Obama. Any moment now, I expect an outbreak of Capgrass Syndrome to cascade through the ranks of the faithful.
Capgras Syndrome? That’s the delusion, named for the French shrink Jean Marie Joseph Capgras, that “a close relative or friend has been replaced by an impostor, an exact double, despite recognition of familiarity in appearance and behavior.” (See here for more.)
How could Obama, who promised Change, assemble an administration virtually indistinguishable from that of Bill Clinton? How could he add insult to injury by asking Bob Gates, George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, to stay on? How could he pick Lawrence Summers as his top economic advisor? Didn’t Obama know that Summers had trespassed on one of the most sacrosanct of prohibitions by offering an independent thoughttouching on what David Stove called “the intellectual capacity of women”? How dare he?
Yes, it’s cognitive-dissonance time among the Obamaniacs, and I fully expect widespread sightings of Capgras Syndrome among the faithful. (I also expect The New York Times to discover that the world is a complicated place.) It won’t be long, I predict, before you hear people assuring us that,really, the genuine Obama is locked up in Bill Ayers’s basement and that the chap scheduled to take the oath of office on January 20 is an impostor carefully fabricated by (say) Hillary Clinton...
Sorry to have to break it to you, unhappy hopey-changers: that is the real Obama.
Sid's mea culpa: The thing about Phase III Judenhass--the irrational hatred of the Jewish state--is that it's the only type of Jew-hate that is socially acceptable, desirable, even, especially if you play on the Lefty team. Post-Holocaust, and in our touchy-feely Trudeaupia, admitting that you dislike Jews because of their religion or their "race" will most likely get you a tut-tut and a cold shoulder, and maybe even an invitation to join that very exclusive group of gents on the Ceej honoree's "Nazi" roll. (Of course, that only applies if you're white. If you're Muslim, you're allowed to hate "the Jews" and say awful things about them, as long as you do so "in the context" of the Koran.)
So when CUPE Ontario chief Sid Ryan, a Phase III Jew-hater, strayed into Phase II territory--he tried to revive his witch hunt of Israeli academics, but forgetting that he wasn't "anti-Semitic," only anti-Zionist, he compared Israel to the Nazis--it was a huge faux pas, and he was vigourously and vociferously condemned. Sid has tried to rectify his error with an apology. It appears in today's National Post:
I would like to extend a public apology for earlier comments in the media comparing bombings by the Israeli army to actions taken by the Nazis during the Second World War.
I was wrong to say what I did. It was never my intention to hurt or cause offence to anyone.
I was attempting to draw attention to the terrible bombing of learning institutions. I got caught up in the emotion and the comparison I used was hurtful and completely beyond the pale.
Sid Ryan, president, CUPE Ontario, Toronto.
Update: Sid's apology also appears in the Globe and Mail. So does this letter, by
Sandra Levy of Victoria:
Hamas and CUPE have much in common. Both are mandated to improve the standards of life and to work for those they represent. And both abuse their position, working, instead, to attack Israel.
Update: My clever husband just pointed something out to me. Sid probably made
the apology on his lawyers' advice. Otherwise he might have been facing prosecution
for "hate speech."
Put a fork in Bernie, he's done: Laura Rosen Cohen skewers, grills and lambastes you-know-who for his refusal to acknowlege the provenance of terrorism:
In their article today “Confronting Terror Together”, Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress and Manoj Pundit of the Canada India Foundation describe the harmony of two Canadian ethnic communities standing and grieving together to face ‘pernicious evil’ in the wake of the Mumbai bombings. Yet by refusing to identify the nature of the evil, or name it, both are not just demonstrating an ostrich-like approach to cross-community mourning, but betraying their own communities and even endangering Canadian lives.
The entire article contained not a single mention of the Islamic nature of the terrorist attacks. It didn’t contain the word jihad, Muslim or Islam. They describe “attacks”, “terror” and “horror”. They make an awkward, misguided and smugly self-congratulatory mention the ‘diversity of Canada’s ethnic and religious communities’ that came together to mourn. But nowhere in their piece can one find a finger pointed toward the jihadist threat in our midst. What are they so afraid of? Why can’t the leaders of these two communities articulate that the particular attack that brought them together in mourning was an attack by Islamic terrorists from Pakistan?
Though these Canadian commentators have either not been able to pinpoint the specific motivation behind the attacks (unlikely), or are unwilling to do so (unforgivable), the Indian government has been more successful at this task.
Today, the Indian government handed over to Pakistan, and publicly released transcripts of conversations that took place between the terrorists and their handlers. The Associated Press report contains the following bits of dialogue:
"If you are still threatened, then don't saddle yourself with the burden of the hostages. Immediately kill them," he said. He then added, "If the hostages are killed, it will spoil relations between India and Israel." "So be it, God willing," the gunman replied…Later in the night, nearly 24 hours after the attacks began, the handlers urged the gunmen to "be strong in the name of Allah. "Brother, you have to fight. This is a matter of prestige of Islam," the handler said. "You may feel tired or sleepy, but the commandos of Islam have left everything behind, their mothers, their fathers." The gunmen were told several times not to kill any Muslim hostages.
The inability of the Canada’s Jewish and Indian community’s so-called leadership to clearly articulate the nature of the threat facing the world is capitulation to fear and perhaps wishful thinking. Much as it is distasteful, and even horrifying to consider that a particular Islamic belief –however misguided – was a root cause of the attacks, these are the facts.
Many Canadians bravely reject the ostrich paradigm and expect more from those who position themselves as the public face of victimized communities. We expect moral clarity from our government and community leaders and we deserve no less.
This type of thinking is not only a disservice to Canadians, but more dangerously undermines truly critical thinking about terrorism by continually obfuscating the jihadist threat and repeatedly attempting to blunt our moral compasses. By denying the reality of the existential threat facing us, Mr. Farber and Mr. Pundit grant an additional victory to the perpetrators and simultaneously defame the memory of the victims. Shame on them.
Arrrrrgggghhh!!!: No, that's not me pretending to sound like a pirate. That's my dismay, my utter disgust, at reading this, from the Ceeb:
Canada will give $4 million to the United Nations and Red Cross to be used for humanitarian assistance in the Palestinian Territories, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Wednesday.
Of the money, $3 million will be given to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which distributes food and other humanitarian aid supplies to roughly 750,000 Palestinians.
The remaining $1 million will go to the Red Cross, said Cannon, who spoke to reporters following a Conservative caucus meeting in Ottawa.
"We are … extremely concerned with the humanitarian issue," said Cannon, who said he was grateful Israel has implemented a daily three-hour window to allow supplies into Gaza...
Say it ain't so, Larry. Not UNRWA. You may as well cut out the UN middleman and
give it directly to Hamas, since some of those shekels are going to end up funding the
jihad against Israel.
Update: My letter to the minister:
Dear Mr. Cannon,
While I can understand why the Canadian government would want to provide humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza, I would urge you and the Prime Minister not to do so under the auspices of the UN agency UNRWA. UNRWA is an organization that employs members of Hamas, the jihadi terrorists Israel is fighting. Hamas, as I'm sure you know, is on Canada's list of terrorist organizations. For many years, along with providing “relief” for Palestinian “refugees”—the “refugees,” it must be said, of a war fought more than six decades ago—UNRWA has worked to ensure that "refugees" remain adamant in their hatred of the Jewish state, thus undermining any hopes of their coming to terms with its existence and making peace with it.
Yours very truly,
I'll give you a hint--they hate Jews and like to give a right-handed salute, palm forward and held high: Jonah Goldberg identifies the real Mideast Nazis, and, pace Sid Ryan, it's not the Israelis.
Letter to CUPE: The following letter was sent to CUPE (no, not by me). I have the author's permission to post it:
To whom it may concern at CUPE:
I am writing to you as a former union member and a former NDP supporter.
The romance of the left with Jihadists everywhere, and especially the Hamas Jihadists, has had a sobering effect on me, yanking me right out of your camp and into the arms of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). How many of your members will come to the same conclusion is difficult for me to tell, but your anti-Israel actions have definitely gained you one fierce enemy, and the conservative party has gained at least one new adherent.
Your boycott demand that Israeli academics renounce their government position is nothing short of McCarthy's conduct - "Are you now, or have you ever been..." I am old enough to vividly remember those days, as well as the universal condemation of the US by the left on that account. Here you are, doing much worse. Shame on you.
If you check out such sources as Israel21C
(http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enPage=HomePage)
you may learn about the contributions Israeli academics and scientist make daily to the welfare of mankind. If you boycott Israeli academics - you will be the loser, not Israel. For 0ver 60 years Israel has coped effectively with serious boycotts; by comparison, your petty boycott is a joke. The net result of boycotts past has been that Israel is a thriving democracy - our sister - while her Arab foes wallow in hatred and repression.
I cannot end this note without underscoring the profound contempt and revulsion I feel for CUPE's leadership.
Sincerely,
Only in America: So let me get this straight. Even though he was caught on tape trying to shake down a children's hospital and attempting to sell Obama's vacated senate seat to the highest bidder, Illinois' thug governor still gets to appoint the state's next junior senator?
Un-frikkin'-believable!
On tolerating intolerance: This bit of doggerel, from an Ogden Nash poem, is for Barbara Hall, the clueless busybody who's in charge of changing behaviour in the province of Ontario:
Sometimes with secret pride I sigh
To think how tolerant am I;
Then wonder which is really mine;
Tolerance, or a rubber spine?
Situating Sid: In a letter to the National Post, Sid Ryan claims yet again that he is not an anti-Semite (although he doesn’t use that exact term, preferring the less highly-charged word “bigot”. (His letter is rebutted in an editorial on the opposite page.) To bolster his case, he mentions another gent who is definitely not an anti-Semite/bigot—UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk. How could he be an “anti-Semite,” when he himself is Jewish? (As if there aren’t tons of Jew-hating Jews out there.) And like Falk, the president of the UN General Assembly and all those Brit academics who want to cleanse Zionists from their ranks, Sid’s problem is not with the Jewish people per se. Why, that would be “bigoted” and no one could possibly accuse old Sid of that. No, his, their, problem is with the Jewish state, and only the Jewish state, which they single out for being grossly injudicious toward its Arab minority population—not to mention flagrantly xenophobic, not to mention downright racist, not to mention lots of other terrible things that Israel, and only Israel, is and does.
Since they focus—exclusively, obsessively, over-heatedly, excessively, endlessly—on the Jewish state and not on the Jewish people, one cannot possibly call them anti-Semites, right?
Well, strictly speaking, that’s correct. They aren’t “anti-Semites” because, strictly speaking, anti-Semites are those, like Adolf Hitler, who harbour an irrational loathing of the Jews because of their “race,” even though Jews don’t have a distinct “race”. (I told you it was irrational.) However, that doesn’t let Sid, Dick and all the other obsessive/compulsive Israel-bashing Dicks off the hook. They may not be anti-Semites, but it’s clear that they are “anti-Zionists”. That is, they have an irrational hatred of the Jewish state, and wish to see the Jewish “experiment” brought to a close.
You see, Sid, in the grand sweep of history, there are three phases of Judenhass. Phase 1—anti-Judaism—was the irrational hatred of Jews because of their religion. From there we segued into Phase II—anti-Semitism, the irrational "racial" hatred that gave us the Holocaust. Finally, we end up where we are today, with Phase III Judenhass, anti-Zionism. (Note that there’s often an overlap between the three as, for example, in the case of Islamist anti-Zionism, which incorporates elements of Phase I and Phase II.)
So, agreed, Sid, you are not a Phase II Jew-hater. What you are, sir—what all anti-Zionists are—is a Phase III Jew-hater.
Which, I guess, does mean that you're a bigot, too.
No doubt: Watching head Ontario Human Right Commissar Barbara Hall on Steve
Paikin’s show The Agenda last night, I was reminded of Sister Aloysius, the nun who
presides over the Catholic school in the movie Doubt. Although there is no physical
resemblance between Hall and Meryl Steep, the actress who plays Sister Al, and
although Sister Al spends most of the movie scowling and grimacing, whereas Hall
spent her half hour with Steve with a faux-affable grin plastered on her shiny face
(doesn’t TVO have the budget to buy face powder?), the two share something in
common: They are both members of a religious order—Sister Al, obviously, a Catholic
nun; Hall a curate of the Church of Human Rights—and both have no doubt that they
are the guardian of all that is good and true, Sister Al for her school, Mother Superior
Hall for her province. So where Sister Al ensures her charges toe the line by terrifying
them into compliance and thwacking kids on the back of the head should they dare to
doze off during Father Flynn’s Sunday sermon, Mother Superior Hall ensures Ontarians
toe the line—i.e. pay obeisance to the orthodoxy of political correctness—by chastising
those, such as Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine, who dare to step out of line.
And, to take the Doubt analogy even further, one could say that what Father Flynn,
the character played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, is for Sister Al, Mark Steyn is for
Mother Superior Hall. Sister Al despises Father Flynn because he is different. His nails
are too long; he likes three lumps of sugar in his tea; he is genial. Most threatening of all,
he wants to take the church in a different direction and Sister Al, having no doubt that
it’s the wrong direction, is determined to thwart him. In much the same way, Mark
Steyn is different, and thus represents a threat to Mother Superior Hall. Steyn is smart,
Conservative and, quel horreur!, funny, deploying his devastating wit on a variety of
sacred cows, including multiculturalism, leftist cant, and the “religion of peace”.
Mother’s not having any of that. Mother, even though she admits to having no
jurisdiction over the matter, decided to pass judgement on the case of Elmo’s sock
thingies vs. Maclean’s, and to convict the plaintiff of blatant and socially unacceptable
“Islamophobia”. Of course, Mother claims she did so in order to “spark debate”.
But read her words:
While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean's article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes. And, while we all recognize and promote the inherent value of freedom of expression, it should also be possible to challenge any institution that contributes to the dissemination of destructive, xenophobic opinions.
Does that sound like a debate-starter? Or a debate-stopper? Far more like the latter,
I’d say, since it’s evident that when Mother speaks of wanting people to “debate” these
issues, what she really means is that she wants everyone to stop having opinions that
don’t jibe with hers. Mother wants all her students to straighten up and fly right, to not
give her any sass or backtalk, and, above all, to not say anything, if we haven’t
anything nice to say.
And starting the first of the year, Mother has a whole new set of powers. Now,
instead of deciding which cases should and should not be considered by the province’s
Human Rights Tribunal—what she calls being a “gatekeeper”—Mother’s going to let
the Tribunal act as its own gatekeeper. Since she and minions will no longer have to
sweat the small stuff, so to speak, their time will be freed up to tackle the big stuff,
in Mother’s lingo, to “work on systemic issues…the bigger issues” so as to
“prevent discrimination before it starts.” How so? Well, as Mother explains, say
the landlord of an apartment building wants it to be “adults only,” and someone who
has a kid complains about it. And say it appears there are other landlords who have
a similar policy. Should that be the case, it would be Mother’s job to assemble the
landlords, tell them where they’ve gone wrong and endeavour to “change their
behaviour”.
Of course, that “adults only” thing doesn’t seem to be a problem at the moment.
And the only real example of a “systemic issue” she could cite were those
Asian “fishers” who caught heck for poaching fish (and who, as poachers, would have
caught heck no matter what their ethnicity, but, hey, good thing they were Asian, eh?,
so Mother could work on changing the behaviour of those who object to having their
fish pinched). Aside from that, the only other “systemic” example I can think of are the
two strippers who complained that they were fired from their jobs because their
employers were “ageist”. Mother didn’t mention whether she’s planning to gather
the province’s strip club owners in order to “change their behaviour” and compel them
to hire menopausal peelers, but given her mandate to go out into the community and
pre-empt discrimination, such an effort is definitely not outside the realm of possibility.
Mother seems most concerned about one specific group of students: the Muslims. Ever
since 9/11, says Mother, they’ve been picked on and “stereotyped”—and if there’s one
thing Mother cannot abide, in the same way that Sister Al couldn't stand Father Flynn’s
longish fingernails—it’s “stereotyping”. That Maclean’s article by Father Flynn, er,
Mark Steyn—that was chock full of the kind of “stereotyping” Mother deplores.
And Mother wants us all to resolve to knock it off with such “stereotyping”. On the
subject of jihad, Islamic supremacism, creeping sharia and “stereotypes” of non-Muslims
espoused by the Perfect Man in the Perfect Text, Mother, of course, has nothing to say
(not that she was queried about it by Paikin).
At one point Mother, who unlike Sister Al, really wants us to like her, said, “If I’m saying
something that has a harmful impact on someone, I want to know it.” Well, Ms. Hall, the
idea that I or any other Ontarian needs you and your merry band of apparatchiks to
“change” our behaviour or to be the playground monitor who ensures that all we kids
mind our p's and q's and play nice during recess does have a harmful impact on us.
A dreadful impact. It juvenilizes us, treats grown-ups like children, forces us to comply
with one set of rules—your rules. Ontarians don’t need you to “change” our behaviour
or to tell us how to think and what to say. In fact, we’d all be much, much better off were
we to finally come to our senses and dispense with you and your “behaviour changing”
services entirely.
The new McCarthyism: Were you to ask CUPE boss Sid Ryan what he thought of McCarthyism, that era in American history when Americans were hassled and blacklisted for having any connection to Communism unless they agreed to play ball with the House Committe and "name names," good lefty that he is he would no doubt say it was dreadful. Appalling. A dark period that brought out and reflected the worst of America. And yet, in calling for a boycott of Israeli academics, and saying that they should only be allowed to continue teaching if they publicly renounce Zionism--in essence, forcing them to answer the question "are you now or have you ever been a Zionist?"--isn't he employing exactly the same tactics as right-wing Senator Joseph McCarthy?
You see, these days most of the McCarthys--the kafir ones, anyway--can be found on the left.
The media spins: Israeli bomb kills 40 at UN school. The reason the school was hit: Hamas was firing mortars from the school, which is was using as a weapons depot, thereby more or less guaranteeing it would be hit, knowing how the media would spin it (i.e. in a "boo, Jews!" way).
A "moderate" speaks: The P.M. of "moderate" Turkey says Israel's destruction is in the cards because the Big Guy (and I don't mean the Wahhabi king or the head holy rollah or even Islam's founder) is on the true believers' side.
Here we go again: The Canadian government, which, since 2000 has been warning Canadians to stay out of Gaza, is being criticized for failing to rescue the Canadians who refused to listen, went there anyway, didn't leave when they had the chance. This is the latest instance of Canadians who are Canadian in name only sending out an S.O.S. in this way. That last time it happened, during the summer '06 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, millions of taxpayers' dollars were expended to get these faux-Canadians out of harm's way, only to have them return to their real homeland once hostilies had ceased. The Canadian media, always a sucker for a good Palestinian sob story, continue to tug at the heart strings about these poor souls, but I suspect that for more than a few Canadians, who have had it up to here with such rescues, the sobs are falling on deaf ears.
Holy rollahs howl: The best defence being a good offence, Iran is claiming to be
irate about the brazen abridgement of human rights—in Canada.
From Fars News Agency (h/t BCF):
According to a statement released by the Foreign Ministry's Press Bureau here on Wednesday, the book examines different subjects through an analytic view.
Topics include "Canada's non-compliance with international obligations", "violation of economic, social and cultural rights", "violation of civil and political rights", "Canada's violation of human rights of indigenous peoples", "violation of human rights of refugees and immigrants", "violation of the rights of women and children", "Canada's police brutality and their abuses".
Iran also presented world diplomats at the United Nations headquarters in New York in September with a 70-page booklet on Canada's human rights violations.
The document revealed that the Canadian government denies its people food, clean water and the right to work.
"Routine unlawful strip and beatings by Canadian police has been a matter of concern for international community," noted the booklet, entitled Report on Human Rights Situation in Canada, adding that "the practice of police is alarming simply because ... it is functioning as if there is no need to have judges."
The publication, which said its accusations are drawn from "objective and factual information released by authentic and credible international sources," stated that a range of human rights violation occur in Canada, especially toward aboriginal peoples, refugees and immigrants.
"To the great dismay of the international community, it is a great concern that the rights of women are violated, and no serious attention has been paid in promotion and protection of women's rights in Canada."
Moreover, the document concluded, "Canada's position as a self-declared standard-bearer on human rights has been demoted to a blind-folded and bullied follower of the new school of unilateralism and the axis of derailment of international human rights law."
The booklet emerged on the eve of the UN's annual summit, attended by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier.
The booklet said Iran calls on the Canadian government to "comply with its international commitments before ... find faulting against others at the international community."…
"In other words," say the theothugocrats, “Back off Canada, if you know what’s good
for you.”
Hideous Judenhass in Londonistan: It is captured in a report by a Pajamas Media writer who was on the scene:
I attended the hate-Israel rally held in London’s Trafalgar Square on Saturday, January 3. Some may say I am nuts; I like to think I am showing a little of the same courage that Israeli soldiers are now displaying as they go into the hell of Gaza. My late mother was a WAC in World War II, as was my aunt, who served with the army of occupationin Japan. My sister is a tough cookie and we even have a female cousin who, family lore has it, fought for Trotsky and was shot by a firing squad. My late father marched on Harrisburg when blacks were not allowed into a civil engineering organization.
So, DNA pumping away, in I marched. I witnessed crowds of very angry white, middle-class, respectable Britons wearing keffiyahs and piling onto the Tube from the very start of the Northern Line in faraway Barnet. As my train approached Charing Cross station I realized that if I had identified myself as sympathetic to Israel’s plight I might have been attacked. In Trafalgar Square itself thousands of even angrier people milled about; young men in keffiyahs chanted epithets against Zionists, their fury accompanied by placards with Stars of David superimposed on swastikas and slogans denouncing genocidal, war criminal Israel.
There were Jews for Justice for Palestinians and hundreds of communists, socialists, and revolutionaries who in their youth had all lived on kibbutzim but who now hate the “imperialist Jewish state.” One priceless poster said “Let Iran Have Nuclear Weapons.” I challenged the owner that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament opposed all nuclear weapons and he bellowed down at me — he a big fella, me a tiny Ashkenazi blob — that the region had to protect itself against Israel. Another choice piece of posterdom bore a pronouncement about the Arabs being starved because of Israeli produce being farmed. I reminded its perpetrator that there are over a million Arabs living inside Greater Israel and that the reason why they don’t all run to escape to the West Bank and Gaza is that they have a pleasant life with a wage, a mosque, freedom of the press, and the right to conduct business. One non-Muslim stall holder who was banging on at me about the oppression inside Israel was lost for words when I explained that in Haifa and Jaffa I have seen Jewish and Arab retirees playing cards in Arab-run cafes. A British gentleman selling soaps from Nablus tried to explain oppression with a poster of “disappearing Palestine” and that “these are from the West Bank”; I reminded him that Rabin had given back Nablus and Bethlehem and that Begin had given back the Sinai.
Of the scores of leaflets and books being sold in the Square one stood out: entitled “The Nakba (Catastrophe)” and written by Anne Alexander and John Rose, it tells us that “the ethnic cleansing of Palestine” involved the founding fathers of Zionism exporting European fascism and creating a colonial hub in Palestine. With the little matter of the Holocaust being far less important than “Zionist land grabbing,” this screed informs us that the Zionists of 1947 were planning a “ruthless assault” on the Arab population of the region. What is interesting is that this narrative reiterates the issue that dominates the current discourse in Britain: why is it that so many Arabs always die and so few Jews? This was asked of me in the Square. I replied: “Okay, if you are unhappy that so few Jews are dying right now, start by killing me.” Monographs like this spend page after page asserting that the creation of Israel was the worst catastrophe inflicted on the world in modern times. Imagine the uproar if someone produced a work about the “catastrophe” of the creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan during partition in the same year that Israel was created, when a million Indian Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim souls died in brutal violence.
The atmosphere at the January 3 rally, at which visceral speeches about the evil, murderous, criminal, genocidal Zionist entity were delivered hour after hour by what seemed to be endless streams of angry British protesters — former Mayor Ken “I would never have created an Israel” Livingstone and Jewish comedian Alexei “I am ashamed” Sayle among them — became incendiary when a speaker invited the crowd to march to the Israeli embassy in Kensington. Next to me several young Muslims in green Hamas scarves wielding large sticks were booked by the police. Later a large crowd of some 5,000 infuriated protesters descended on the Israeli consulate, burned Israeli flags, and hurled missiles whilst another crowd threw hundreds of shoes at Downing Street…
Charming. Reminiscent of Berlin back in the day, but without the Gemütlichkeit.
Update: Everybody sing!
There’ll be Jew-hate over
The white cliffs of Dover
Today and tomorrow—yes siree!
They will praise jihadis
And call Jews baddies
As Blighty sinks in infamy.
The Guardian will fume and sneer.
The Beeb will pass on some lies.
And folks'll erupt in tears
And pray that soon Zion dies.
There’ll be Jew-hate over
The white cliffs of Dover
Today and tomorrow, shamelessly.
They’ll be angry and ragin’
On this occasion
And ‘til Jews are pushed into the sea…
Oh, that Ceej: There’s nary a mention of the odious Sid on the Ceej site (and, with the
exception of a news release about an upcoming rally in support of Israel, nary a
mention of anything to do with Gaza or the frenzied anti-Zionism it has touched off in
these parts). However, the Ceej did just post an article from the Senior Times about
how thrilled the Black community is about Obama’s election (not my bolds):
Barack Obama becoming the president of the United States has evoked a depth of emotion around the world rarely seen in history. Montreal film-maker Laurie Gordon was in Rome on “the long night of Obama” and recalls the anticipation and electricity that permeated that city. “We were six hours ahead so everyone stayed up all night. I was in a café when they were still counting the votes and a barista came in and just said one word: “Obama!”
Closer to home, The Senior Times asked people whose work involves them in community and social justice, what Obama’s victory means to them.
Egbert Gaye, publisher and editor of Community Contact, the black community’s monthly newspaper since 1994: “I’m surprised that America moved so easily to not seeing race as a hindrance. It’s a redemption for the nation.”
Dorothy Williams, Montreal historian whose book Blacks in Montreal 1628-1986: An Urban Demography was re-issued this month. “I was watching the election on TV and realized I was standing in front of History, that nothing was ever going to be the same again. For our youth it was an absolutely life-changing event – it said to them ‘anything is possible.’” It’s a door that is never ever going to be closed again.” Dr. Williams also mentioned that there were American presidents before Obama whose ancestors included black people. “Anybody who knows about race and history knows he’s not the first black president. It’s not a secret because his blackness is visible.”
June McGibbon, program coordinator at the Walkley United Families Association: “I heard one little boy say to me ‘Now I can be what I want to be’ To have a black president is, for this generation, eye opening. I was amazed at the young age group that followed the election right from the beginning.”
Sheila Goldbloom, retired social work professor, recipient of the National Order of Quebec and the Order of Canada. “I’m delighted. I think it provides a universal feeling of hope that we can change the system and make it work.”
Victor Goldbloom, former Quebec minister and president of the Quebec Region of Canadian Jewish Congress. Recipient of the National Order of Quebec and the Order of Canada: “It’s quite spectacular how many different elements in American society supported Mr. Obama. This is really a manifestation of the best that the United States can be. Soon we’ll see more and more people of various origins rising to positions of major responsibility in Canada.”…
Oh, brother. Excusez-moi while I go barf.
Killing us softly: The incoming American president wants to spend a whopping $775 million to "stimulate" the economy.
"Stimulate"? More like keep it ailing and comatose for many years to come, I'd say.
Murderous Hamas: The cover of war has given Hamas the opportunity to weed out "undesireables," something which, as FrontPage Magazine's Jacob Laskin writes, it has been doing for quite some time:
From reprimands of “disproportionate response” to condemnations of civilian casualties, Israel’s military offensive in Gaza has drawn derigueur denunciations from the international community. Less noticed is that while Israel has taken great pains to avoid innocent deaths in Operation Cast Lead, at great peril to its fighting men and women, Hamas vigilantes have spent recent days deliberately assaulting and killing their fellow Palestinians, just as they have done for years.
According to the Jerusalem Post, since the beginning of the Israeli offensive, more than 75 Gaza Palestinians have been shot in the legs or have had their hands broken; more than 35 have been executed by Hamas operatives who accuse them of being Israeli “collaborators.” Of course, Gaza is not teeming with Israeli spies and most of Hamas’s victims are not only not traitors but likely helped vote the terrorist group into power in the January 2006 legislative elections. Instead, Hamas’s campaign of homegrown terror is the latest example of the terrorists turning on their Palestinian compatriots – a brutal but seldom-discussed cycle of violence in which Palestinians emerge as their own worst enemy.
Hamas’s fratricidal tendencies date back to its 1987 founding. In her 1996 book God Has Ninety-Nine Names, Judith Miller, a former New York Times bureau chief in Cairo, reported that within a few years of its official existence, Hamas had “proved more deadly to Palestinians than to Israelis.” Between 1987 and 1993, the years of the first Palestinian intifada, Hamas killed some 26 Israelis but also many of the 800 Palestinians murdered in those years for being alleged Israeli “collaborators.” In 1992 alone, according to Middle East analyst Mitchell Bard, some 200 Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians – more than double the number of Palestinians killed fighting with Israeli security forces.
Though murdered on the accusation of aiding Israel, most were not collaborators at all. “Rather,” as Judith Miller noted, “they were women who wore slacks and other ‘prostitutes,’ as Hamas called unveiled women; they were alcoholics, drug users, teachers with whom Hamas disagreed, Marxists, atheists, a Darwinist, Freudians, members of the Rotary and Lions Clubs – which Hamas’s charter called Jewish spy organizations – and, in particular, supporters of the PLO, Hamas’s main rival for power among Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories.”
Even among the “guilty,” the definition of collaboration often had more to do with Hamas’s hatred of Jews than any act of betrayal. To have any contact with Jews was to risk being judged a “collaborator.” So it was that, in October 1989, a Palestinian father of seven was reportedly stabbed to death in the West Bank city of Jericho for the unpardonable crime of selling “floral decorations” to Jews building a traditional succah dwelling.
These targeted killings of Palestinians marked not a departure from Hamas’s founding vision but its fulfillment. As an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas has always held the Brotherhood’s position that its jihad will be successful only after its rivals – real or imagined – are eliminated from within...
Not so brotherly, that Brotherhood.
Barista, there’s a fly in my coffee!: This one’s making the rounds on the ‘net:
What happens when a fly falls into a cup of coffee? The Italian throws the cup away in disgust. The Frenchman takes the fly out and drinks the coffee. The Chinese eats the fly and throws away the coffee. The Russian drinks the coffee with the fly since he’s not being charged extra. The Israeli sells the coffee to the Frenchman, the fly to the Chinese, buys himself a new cup of coffee and uses the extra money to invent a device to prevent flies from falling into coffee. The Palestinian blames the Israeli for the fly in his coffee and protests to the U.N., applies to the E.U. to buy a new cup of coffee, uses the money to buy explosives instead and then blows up the coffee house where the Italian, Frenchman, Russian, and Chinese are trying to convince the Israeli to give away his cup of coffee.
Takes one to know one: Anti-Zionist union boss Sid Ryan is calling for a boycott
of Israeli academics unless they agree to renounce Israel. Sid thinks that’s only fair,
considering that Israel bombed the Harvard of Gaza, a university where eager young
students, keen to soak up knowledge, were engaged in the give-and-take of
intellectual inquiry with learned, wise professors.
Just kidding. The university in question was Hamas U., where students matriculated
in jihad and Judenhass. But no matter. To Sid, Israel’s actions were reminiscent
of—you knew it was coming—the Nazis. According to Sid, the Third Reich used
to specifically target universities, too. (It did?)
The word “Nazi” has coaxed the Ceej, which has been largely missing in action since
the Gaza fracas began, out of hiding. On CFRB radio, Ceej chief Bernie Farber
called the loathsome Sid an “anti-Semite”.
Finally, something Bernie and I can agree on.
But since Sid is the one who brought up the “N” word, let’s analyse the situation
to determine who’s being more Nazi-like. Is it the Jews, who, after years
of forebearance, were goaded into taking action against crazed, implacable jihadis
bent on their annihilation; or it is a union boss, who, for whatever reason, has it in for
the Jewish state, and wants to single it out for opprobrium?
Look in the mirror, Sid. I do believe that could be a trace of a brush moustache
on your upper lip.
Update: When it comes to Ryan, the Ceej and I are in synch. Still, I couldn't help
but chuckle when I read this, from CFRB's report:
Ryan calls the resolution a reasonable response to the attack on the Islamic University. He compared the attack to the Nazis burning books during World War Two.
Len Rudner of the Canadian Jewish Congress says this is an attempt to take freedom of speech away.
There's something--oh, I dunno, silly?, astonishing? bitterly ironic?--about a chap
who champions state censorship in the form of human rights commissions talking
about "freedom of speech".
Update: According to CFRB news, "Sid Ryan says he's received a whole host of angry
voice mail," but has no intention of softening his position re Israel. In fact, says Sid, he
relishes the outrage, because it only makes him more determined to push on.
Glick in the house: In case you missed it, here's Kathryn Jean Lopez's interview with the always insightful Caroline Glick in The Corner:
Q: What exactly started this latest flare-up?
A: The fighting in Gaza today started about three weeks ago when Hamas renewed its rocket, mortar, and missile assault against Israel. Last June, Israel foolishly agreed to a six-month ceasefire with Hamas. Hamas used the time to have Iran double the size of its missile arsenal and double the range of its missiles, and to build up its Iranian-trained, armed, and financed Hezbollah-style army of 20,000 men. Hamas called its renewed offensive “Operation Oil Stain.” On December 17, Hamas attacked Israel with more than 80 missiles, rockets and mortars.
It took Israel ten days to finally respond to Hamas’s assault, which for the first time put Israeli major cities like Ashdod, Yavne, Beersheva, and Gedera under assault.
What is interesting about this latest round of fighting is that the world paid little attention to what was going on when it was only Hamas attacking Israel. People only started paying attention when Israel’s government said enough is enough and started defending its territory and citizens.
Q: Is the media here in the U.S. or internationally remotely fair?
A: When the media are only interested in what is going on when Israel defends itself, the answer is no, they aren’t fair. They don’t pay any attention when hundreds of thousands of Israelis are relegated to bomb shelters for weeks and months on end. They don’t care that Israeli children can’t go to school or day care because Hamas is targeting schools and day-care centers. They only cover the story when Israel finally decides to put an end to this crazy situation where our children are growing up underground. And this is appalling.
From CNN’s coverage of events here, for instance, you could easily come away from the news thinking that Israel is attacking Gaza for no reason. The European media, and much of the U.S. media dismiss the significance of Hamas’s missile, rocket, and mortar campaign against Israel by noting that these projectiles are relatively primitive and have no guidance systems. But this misses and indeed distorts the entire point. Hamas doesn’t need advanced weapons. Its goal is not to attack specific military targets. Its goal is to attack Israeli society as a whole and terrorize our citizens. That’s what makes it such an outlaw.
In fact, this random bombing of civilian targets is the very definition of war crimes. Due to their random nature, every projectile launched against Israel by Hamas is a separate war crime. And that’s the real story. But again, outside of publications like National Review and the like, the Western media have ignored this basic truth and worse, they have turned the criminal nature of Hamas’s campaign into a justification for it.
Q: What does the fighting mean for the future of Hamas-led Gaza?
A: There are four possible outcomes for Israel’s current campaign — two would be positive and two would be negative. The best outcome would be for Israel to overthrow Hamas’s regime and destroy its capacity to wage war against Israel or threaten Israel in any significant way. To achieve this goal, Israel would have to reassert control over Gaza. Since the Israeli government has already stated that Israel will not reassert control over Gaza, and since reasserting control would be extremely embarrassing for the current leadership, which led Israel out of Gaza with promises of peace three and a half years ago, it is fairly clear that this outcome will not be forthcoming.
The next best outcome would be something analogous to the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Although the U.S. left Saddam Hussein in power after that war, it asserted control over the no-fly zones and set up a clear sanctions regime that by and large prevented Iraq from rearming and apparently prevented Iraq from reconstituting its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Here too, chances that this outcome will prevail are not great because the Israeli government has already stated that it is unwilling to reassert control over Gaza’s border with Egypt which is where most of Hamas’s weapons are imported from.
The third possible outcome, which is already not a good one, would be for Israel to end its current campaign and just walk away with Hamas still in charge. In due course, Hamas would reconstitute its military forces and missile arsenals and reinstate its campaign against Israel. The positive aspect of such a future is simply that, subject to domestic political constraints, Israel would be able to go in and bomb Hamas anytime it felt that threatened. Israel would be under no international obligation to avoid defending itself, beyond the regular anti-Israel pressure.
The fourth, and worst possible outcome is that Israel reaches some sort of internationally sponsored ceasefire agreement whereby foreign powers the EU, the U.S., Egypt, Turkey, or whomever agree to form some sort of international monitoring mechanism to oversee Gaza’s borders with Israel and Egypt. The reason this would be the worst outcome is that Israel’s experience with such forces in Lebanon and in Gaza itself has been wholly negative. These international forces will never fight Israel’s battles for it. Instead they inevitably shield terrorists from Israeli attack while ignoring the terrorists’ moves to rearm, reassert political control over their populations and reinstate their assaults against Israel. Moreover, because these international forces fear the terrorists they shield, they tend to side with them against Israel and blame Israel for any violence that takes place.
Unfortunately, this is the outcome that the Israeli government is now pushing for in its diplomatic contacts relating to the war in Gaza.
Q: A lot of critics say that Israel is just going too far in its attacks. What do you make of the charge?
A: The interesting aspect of this claim is what it tells us about the success of anti-Israel propaganda. For instance, Richard Falk, the Jewish anti-Semite who the U.N.’s Human Rights Council appointed to act as its rapporteur against Israel began accusing Israel of committing war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza the moment Israel began its campaign. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch systematically fabricate international “law” backed by “eyewitness” reports from Hamas supporters in order to accuse Israel of breaking it every single time it takes any steps to defend itself, no matter how restrained.
Israel has done nothing in its campaign against Hamas that could be considered going “too far.” It has done nothing in its campaign that could be considered “disproportionate.” It has targeted military targets and terror operatives.
The fact of the matter is that Israel is held to standards that are discriminatory while its enemy — an illegal, openly genocidal terrorist organization — is defended and shielded from attack by the media, by self-proclaimed human-rights activists and by hostile foreign leaders like British Foreign Minister David Miliband and Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan. Luckily, with some one million Israelis now under assault, Israel has decided that we just aren’t going to pay attention to their obscene attacks on our right to self-defense this time around.
Q: Would you caution Israel at all?
A: Absolutely. I think it would be a grave error for the government to agree to any sort of international monitoring mechanism of Hamas. If the government doesn’t want to see this war through to a complete rout of Hamas, and doesn’t want to retake Gaza’s border with Egypt, then it would be best for us to just weaken the group as much as possible while we have troops on the ground and then walk away to fight another day. We cannot trust the kindness of foreigners to do for us what we will not do for ourselves.
Q: What does the future hold for the Palestinians in Gaza?
A: Their future right now doesn’t look too attractive. These are people who overwhelmingly supported Hamas in the 2006 elections. They supported Hamas when it expelled Fatah from Gaza in 2007. And they supported Hamas when it began shelling Israel’s main port city Ashdod and big cities like Beersheva with missiles. By throwing their lot in with a genocidal terrorist group, Gazans, and indeed Palestinians as a whole, have made clear that they prefer the ravages of war to the blessings of peace. Until they change their minds, it is hard to see how they can expect to prosper morally, politically or economically...
Ryan's hope: This one's for Sid, union boss, useful idiot, anti-Zionist, sanctimonious blowhard:
Sid Ryan, malign and malicious,
Had a plan that was very ambtitious.
Sought to end Mideast feudin’
By punishing Juden.
No wonder they call him “Sid Vicious”.
Update: And another one:
A union boss known as Sid Ryan
Has a bit of a problem with Zion.
He prefers those young laddies
Who proclaim they're jihadis--
An anti-Semite, without even tryin’.
A welcome voice of reason: The Toronto Sun's Peter Worthington--who's as worthy as the Globe and Mail's Patrick Martin is deplorable--condemns "the world-wide condemnation of Israel," explaining that Israel had no choice but to strike as it has:
…Wars that are won, are rarely unpopular.
Had the U.S. been content with winning it's lightning invasion of Iraq, and then leaving as soon as Saddam Hussein's tyranny was successfully deposed, President George Bush would be regarded as one of America's better presidents instead of being a contender for the worst.
Israel's intent is to eliminate Hamas' lethal infrastructure; to defuse its rocket capabilities. Perhaps even to undermine its authority, and return the more sensible Palestinian Authority, or Fatah, to run Gaza. This may be an unlikely prospect, but at least neutralizing the existing threat is feasible.
Israeli prestige suffered after the 33-day war with Hezbollah in 2006 because it didn't win quickly and decisively. Military flaws were evident.
A ceasefire is not peace. Israel's air assaults, and now its invasion happened only because Hamas provoked such a response by its continuing harassment by rockets. What choice did Israel have other than to retaliate?
No country wants peace (not necessarily friendship) with its neighbours more than Israel does. Instead of street marches, demonstrations, protests against Israel, Iran-backed Hamas should be brought to heel, or persuaded to behave.
Hamas encourages deaths of Palestinian civilians as a public relations ploy against Israel. And in a Pavlovian reflex, the world usually responds as expected, deploring Israel's need to fight back.
Repeatedly, Hamas avows its determination to eliminate Israel.
Only Israel takes these threats seriously.
Those who say Israel's attack will rally international support for Hamas don't understand the Mideast. Losers aren't revered; martyrs are not winners.
Perhaps the main reason Israel chose to attack now, and not prolong Hamas' harassment, is that it wanted to react on President Bush's watch, and not delay until Barack Obama was inaugurated.
Obama's pledge to support Israel may be negotiable -- George Bush's support is proven. A new administration in Washington will have little choice but to accept a fait accompli -- assuming it is victory for Israel.
Shades of the Nuremburg Laws: Patrick “Sid” Ryan, head of Canada’s largest
union, CUPE, has come up with a time-tested method for dealing with Jews—one
that was tested back in the time of the Nazis, that is. In response to Israel’s push
into Gaza, he’s calling for a boycott of Israeli academics (even though many of these
academics are likely to be as anti-Zionist as he is):
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - JANUARY 2, 2009: CUPE Ontario to recommend support for ban on Israeli academics in response to Gaza bombings - TORONTO, Ont. – CUPE Ontario’s university workers committee will bring a resolution to its annual conference supporting a ban on Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario universities as a protest against the December 29 bombing of the Islamic University in Gaza.
“In response to an appeal from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees, we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general,” said Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario. “It’s a logical next step, building on policy adopted by our provincial convention in 2006.”
Resolution 50, adopted in May 2006, supported boycotts, divestment and sanctions aimed at bringing about the Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories and a just peace in the region.
“Clearly, international pressure on Israel must increase to stop the massacre that is going on daily,” said Janice Folk-Dawson, chair of the CUPE Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee, whose conference is scheduled for February. “We are proud to add CUPE voices to others from around the world saying enough is enough.”
Ryan and other CUPE representatives will join in the demonstration against the Israeli assault on Gaza at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, Saturday, January 3 at Dundas Square in Toronto.
-30-
For more information, contact:
Sid Ryan, President, CUPE Ontario, 416-209-0066
Pat Daley, CUPE Communications, 416-616-6142
Yes, by all means please do contact Sid or Pat and let them know how you feel about
this disgusting Judenhass.
Hamas, in a nutshell: This is the organization most of the malicious, despicable, callow Western media favours over the Jewish state.
Message for the mullahs: In deciding to show some spine and stop being Hamas’s
sitting duck, Israel isn’t just sending a message to Hamas; it’s sending one to Hamas’s
sponsor, Iran, too. And, as Michael Ledeen writes, Iran doesn’t much like—and
may even be freaking out a bit about—the message it’s getting:
After years of refusing to see Iran’s aggressive intentions, most sensible observers of things Middle Eastern now recognize that the most important terrorist organizations, from Islamic Jihad to Hezbollah and Hamas, are essentially Iranian proxies.Figaro this weekend carries a story bluntly headlined “Iran Behind Hamas’ Grad Missiles,” and flatly states that Hamas military commanders have been trained in Iran and Syria to use the deadliest missiles in their inventory. The battle of Gaza is therefore the second between Israel and Iran in two and half years, the first being the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah (which, lest we forget, was kicked off when Hamas kidnaped three Israeli soldiers).
It follows that Iran could well lose this battle, and defeat is very dangerous to a regime like Tehran’s, which claims divine sanction for its actions and proclaims the imminent arrival of its messiah and of the triumph of global jihad. If Allah is responsible for victory, what can be said about humiliating defeat? The mullahs are well aware of the stakes, as we can see in their recent behavior.
For some time now, the regime in Tehran has shown signs of urgency, sometimes verging on panic. Of late, the mullahs have organized raucus demonstrations in front of numerous embassies, including those of Egypt (with chants of “Death to Mubarak”), Jordan, Turkey, Great Britain, Germany and today (imagine!) France. These demonstrations were not mere gestures; the regime’s seriousness was underlined on Sunday, the 4th, when it offered a million-dollar reward to anyone who killed Mubarak (the Iranians called it a “revolutionary execution”). Significantly, the announcement came at a rally of the Basij, the most radical security force in the country, at which the Revolutionary Guards official Forooz Rejaii spoke. The Egyptians take it seriously; they have been on alert of late, looking for the possibility of a Mumbai-type operation in Cairo or elsewhere.
At the same time, the regime intensified its murderous assault against its own people, most notably hanging nine people on Christmas Eve, and assaulting the headquarters of Nobel Prize Winner Shirin Ebadi.
This intense tempo of activity bespeaks alarm in Tehran, which is fully justified by a number of setbacks. First of all, the dramatic drop in oil prices is devastating to the mullahs, who had planned to be able to fund terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East, Europe and the Americas. Suddenly their bottom line is tinged with red, and this carries over onto their domestic balance sheets, which were already demonstrably shaky (they were forced to cancel proposed new taxes when the merchant class staged nation-wide protests). No wonder they seize on any international event to call for petroleum export reductions. Just today they called for a drastic reduction of oil shipments to all countries that supported the Israeli military incursion into Gaza…
Reuters Q&A: As unbiased as ever:
...Q - How long will the [Gaza] operation last?
A - The army said the sweep would last "many long days" and that troops were prepared to push as deep into Gaza as required by the Israeli government as it seeks a diplomatic solution. Pressure on Israel to cease fire is likely to grow as casualties mount. Some international leaders have already called for a truce and anti-Israel protests have erupted across the Middle East and Europe in response to the death of civilians in the Gaza Strip. In Israel, strong public support for the operation could erode if large numbers of soldiers are killed and rocket fire intensifies. Israel holds a national election on February 10.
Q - What's life like in Gaza?
A - Emergency services have been stretched to the limit by the carnage from Israeli barrages and ever-encroaching clashes. There is food, but not enough, and frequent power outages. There is no shortage of water. Hospitals do not have enough beds or medicine to cope with the wounded, though Israel says it is allowing through sufficient humanitarian supplies. Palestinians cannot leave Gaza unless they risk a perilous trip through some smuggling tunnel to Egypt.
Q - How might Hamas fight the Israeli ground forces?
A - Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth and Israel faces tough urban warfare in a showdown with Hamas forces who know their way around the maze of streets and back roads. That might explain why the Israelis have yet to enter Gaza City. While Hamas says its forces have already inflicted significant Israeli casualties in face-to-face fighting, the military says most Palestinian attacks on its troops have been from afar. Hamas is believed to command at least 25,000 trained fighters with a variety of small-arms and anti-armor missiles. Israel does not detail its deployments but Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said in the past that two or three army divisions -- more than 20,000 troops -- would be needed for a Gaza sweep.
Hamas said it captured two soldiers during Sunday's fighting. Israel denied it. Hamas may be waging psychological warfare in parallel to open combat, mindful of Israelis' emotional attachment to their conscript army.
Q - What has happened to Hamas's leaders?
A - Several military and political leaders have been killed in Israeli air strikes, but most of the Hamas upper echelon went to ground early in the offensive. Hamas says its command network remains intact and that its leaders do not fear "martyrdom."...
Jews for Nazi Germany: And by the same token:
Extreme and extremer: Ron Rosenbaum writes that comparing Hamas to the Nazis is an insult--to the Nazis.
Canadian “outreach”: Chillingly, the website of Canada’s Department of Foreign
Affairs offers this “heart-warming” tale about Canadian efforts to ingratiate ourselves
with Indonesians:
Islam in Canada has a truly global heritage. The first Muslim immigrants came to Canada over a century ago from Europe. Since then, Canadian immigration patterns have shifted so that Canadian Muslims have been drawn from virtually every country in the world. Lately, most new Muslim Canadians are arriving from Asia and the Middle East. In 2001, at almost 600,000 members, Muslims made up 2% of the religious denominations of Canada.
Like Canada (and like most Muslim countries), Indonesia is a country of many faiths, including Islam, Christian, and Hindu. The balance is strongly Muslim, so much so that this nation of islands is home to 1/5 of Islam’s 1 billion adherents.
Young Muslims studying in pesantrens (boarding schools) and universities were provided the chance to satisfy some of their curiosity about Canadian Muslims during several outreach events conducted by Embassy of Canada representatives. The events took place during Ramadan and followed upon a series of summer visits to the Embassy by student and youth groups.
From pioneers to present-day
The first event was held at the Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta. The Rector herself, Dr. Hj. Masyitoh, welcomed the Embassy delegation and gave an opening remark to the audience of over 120 students and academics. The Canadian visitors screened the first part of A New Life in a New Land, a 2004 documentary about the Muslim experience in Canada, from the first arrivals 150 years ago to the experiences of current day immigrants.
Students also heard a presentation by Embassy of Canada representatives about everything from Canada's pioneering legal framework for multiculturalism, to figures and charts on Canada's immigration patterns. The discussion of Canada's composition in terms of religion and visible minorities was extensive. Settlement and integration programs were described along with statistics on how Canadians view multiculturalism (for the most part, positively).
After a discussion of Canada's current challenges and debates related to multiculturalism (What does it mean to be Canadian? Is it okay to be Canadian and wear a hijab?), the questions about Canada's evolving diversity were lively. Students wanted to know about Canada's foreign policy, its stance on deviant sects within Islam, and on Islamic sacrifices.
What do non-Muslim Canadians think of Muslims?
At Paramadina University, about 50 people attended the event, including Vice Rector Wijayanto. There students wondered about Canada's policy with regard to permits to establish mosques, on religious clothing, and on mosque loudspeakers. How did Canadians who were not Muslim perceive Canadians who were -- did they assume that Muslims had links to terrorism and extremism?
At Paramadina University and at a third event at the UIN-McGill Canadian Resource Centre in the State Islamic University of Jakarta, Khalid Gebirrebbi of Citizenship and Immigration Canada kindly shared some personal insights as a Canadian Muslim working for the Canadian government. His listeners had some very specific, even personal questions: "How many rakats (parts of Islamic prayers) of taraweeh (prayers performed during Ramadan) do you perform in Canada?" and "Can you hear adzan (the call for prayers) in Canada?"…
Well, inquisitive one, at the moment you cannot hear adzan in Canada, but given the
rate at which sharia is insinuating itself into the fabric of Canadian society, that could
well change in due course. One drawback to emigration, though: if you come to
Canada, there’s a very good chance some Jew will try to "mentor" you.
If Canadians want the real poop on what’s happening in Indonesia—the world’s
most populous Muslim nation—they should avoid this whitewash and read this.
And this. And this. And this.
…There are some who claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality by killing so many more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets. That is an absurd misapplication of the concept of proportionality for at least two reasons. First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian. Second, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk of civilian death and the intentions of those targeting civilians. Hamas seeks to kill as many civilians as it can. It aims its rockets in the general direction of schools, hospitals, playgrounds and other entirely civilian targets. The fact that it has not killed as many civilians as it would have liked to is a tribute to Israel’s enormous devotion of resources to the building of shelters and to the construction of early warning systems. Hamas, on the other hand, refuses to build shelters, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel’s military actions. It knows, from experience, that when it forces Israel to take military actions that result in the deaths of even a small number of innocent Palestinian civilians, many in the international community will condemn Israel. Israel understands this sad reality as well, and goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties, even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilian areas. Accordingly, Israel’s actions satisfy the principle of proportionality as well as the principle of self-defense against armed attack.
Until and unless the United Nations and the rest of the international community recognize that Hamas is committing three war crimes--targetting Israeli civilians, using their own civilians as human shields and seeking the destruction of a member state of the United Nations--and that Israel is acting in self-defense and out of military necessity, the conflict will continue and perhaps escalate. If Israel succeeds in destroying the terrorist organization Hamas, it may well lay the foundation for a real peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. But if Hamas persists in its capacity to target increasing numbers of Israeli citizens, Israel will have no choice but to persist in its self-defense efforts. No democracy would do otherwise.
Broadcasters of a feather: In a post about the BBC’s egregiously slanted coverage
about Gaza, Melanie Phillips refers to the public broadcaster as “al Beeb”. Since
Canada’s version of the Beeb is, if possible, even more egregious in its dhimmitude—
after all, there’s no Little Mosque in the Midlands—it would be appropriate to refer
to our national broadcaster as “al Ceeb”. And here’s but one more reason why that
name is justified: this promo for its popular shill-com. Click on the link and you will be
asked by one of the shill-com’s characters, in character, to “give to the hungry.” This
request for charity, we are told, is a co-operative venture between al Ceeb and
several Canadian Islamic organizations, including:
· CAIR-CAN, the Canadian affiliate of (though it claims to be “distinctive” from) the American organization CAIR. CAIR, in case you don’t remember, was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, which saw charity shekels for the hungry landing up in terrorist coffers. (Not that CAIR-CAN is involved in such skulduggery, its being “distinctive” and all.)
MAC's roots are deeply enshrined in the message of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). Its modern roots can be traced to the Islamic revival of the early twentieth century, culminating in the movement of the Muslim Brotherhood. This movement influenced Islamic activities, trends and intellectual discourse throughout the world including those of Muslims who came to Canada in search of freedom, education and better opportunities.
MAC adopts and strives to implement Islam, as embodied in the Qur'an, and the teachings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and as understood in its contemporary context by the late Imam, Hassan Albanna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. MAC regards this ideology as the best representation of Islam as delivered by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
· Islamic Institute of Toronto; a big mosque in the big city. Go to its website and find this blatant Judenhass--GAZA FILES: ISRAEL'S GENOCIDE AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS
· MuslimServ, a registered charity which says it is
engaged in service based projects in the name of Islam. We believe service is a form of Dawa. In the true spirit of Islam, our projects provide benefit to all, irrespective of race, religion or gender. We believe in dignity and equality of all human beings; male or female, rich or poor, irrespective of race, color or creed. Our work is expressly in Canada, though in extra-ordinary circumstances we also support extra-ordinary need abroad. For example we supported Tsunami in Indonesia and Earth quake victims in Pakistan.
Our mission is to burnish, emblazon and raise high the name of Islam. We follow the Qur'anic injunction to feed the hungry; and do it in the name of Islam. Our food contribution is always halal meat, packed proudly in packaging with Islamic crescent and inscription A Gift From Canadian Muslims.
In other words, Canada’s public broadcaster, which operates courtesy taxpayer
largesse, has hooked up with four, count ‘em, four, overtly Islamist organizations.
Why aren’t Canadians up in arms about this? I know--let's ask the Ceej to complain
about it. J
All the Jews’ horses and all the Jews’ men couldn’t put “Palestine”
back together again: Mahmoud Abbas, who’s in charge of the eastern Palestinian
statelet (which, confusingly, is on the West Bank) may make all sorts of disapproving
noises about Israel’s current actions, but it’s obvious that he’s quite pleased to bide his
time and let the Jews do his heavy lifting. As Mark Steyn observes, however,
it's not clear that Abbas and Fatah are restorable in Gaza. And, in the end, neither faction is capable of running a sovereign state - if only because in both cases politics is a cover for their real interests: Fatah prioritizes kleptocracy, Hamas prioritizes Jew-killing. If you want to loot the public treasury, you sign up with the former; if you want to launch rockets at the Zionist Entity, you sign up with the latter. But, if you're interested in economic policy or governing ideology, there's nowhere to go. And in Gaza Hamas remains far more popular than Fatah. Israel can certainly precipitate the fall of Hamas, but it's less obvious that it can put the "Palestinian Authority" back together again, or whether that is necessarily in its own interests.
Of course, it doesn’t much matter if putting Humpty back together again is in Israel’s
interest: Israel will most likely try to reconstruct the egg no matter what—and dollars
to falafel balls, Abbas will let them. After all, Israel has been in the hopey-changey
game ever since Oslo—no, make that ever since Begin gave back the Sinai. And if it
succeeds in squashing Hamas, I predict it and the world will immediately get busy
with Round—what? I seem to have lost track of the number—of the endless “peace
process,” with smooth operator/last man standing/softer jihadi Abbas in the role of
designated “peace partner”. Will the clueless/duplicitous diplomats of the world ever
acknowledge the truth—that the Palestinians are incapable of running anything other
than a terrorism enterprise, a Middle East Murder, Incorporated? In the word of a
TV looter/hoodlum mob boss, fuggedaboutit!
As a Jew who volunteers six weeks each year as a social worker in Gaza, I have been enraged by Israel's ferocious war against Gaza, which has killed scores of innocents.
Each morning, I phone my many Muslim friends in Gaza to inquire of their welfare and how they cope with the Israeli missiles raining overhead. The refugees there are the descendants of the 2 million Palestinians driven out of Israel when it was founded in 1948.
While close to 400 Gazans have been killed since Dec. 27, Gazans also remember 950 of their Palestinian brethren on the West Bank killed by Israeli settlers since the year 2000.
Unfortunately, the deaths in the West Bank have gone under the radar because the people were not killed by missiles, but by guns, and no TV cameras were there to capture the horror. It is ironic that Israel launched its war during the holiday of Hanukkah, whose main message is the pursuit of peace among all peoples.
It is incumbent upon the major powers, particularly the United States, to force the two antagonists to the negotiating table for a lasting peace for the most intractable conflict of our time. After all, Jews and Arabs, Semitic cousins, have far more in common than differences that divide them.
The name “Abe Goldberg” sounded familiar, and then I remembered where I’d heard it
before. He’s the gent who, not long after King Abdullah’s weekend of twinning, wrote
the Star a letter in which he suggested that anti-Zionist cranks Neturei Karta were on
the cutting edge of “interfaith dialogue.”
Thanks for the sage words of advice, Abe—“talk” to our jihadi “cousins” ‘cause
we’re mostly the same; take a page from Neturei Karta. Why do I have the feeling
there are tons more “bright” ideas where those came from?
Also—could someone please give Abe the bad news that, anti-Zionist Gaza volunteer
or not, he's still on Juice Guy's hit list?
Lose, Jews!: Melanie Phillips bewails the West's perfidy:
…The moral inversion in the west is so egregious, so monstrous, that the better Israel is shown to behave the worse the vilification that rains down upon it. What other country in the world would show such restraint in the face of more than 6000 rocket attacks upon its citizens – 6000! – that it took seven years before going to war to put a stop to it? What other country would treat individuals – including proven terrorists – from that enemy territory in its own hospitals? What other country would continue to provide essential foodstuffs and other supplies to those enemies who continued to fire rockets at it? What other country, when finally forced to go to war to stop the attacks, would show such concern to avoid the loss of civilian life that it contacts the population in enemy territory -- even households containing identified terrorists – to warn them to flee from the imminent bombardment? And what other country would, for showing such unparalleled moral scrupulousness, be vilified and libelled as Israel is?
Israel’s behaviour is moral, legal and proportionate. This conflict is revealing just who is on the side of morality, decency and sanity and who is not. The President of the Czech Republic, who is also the incoming president of the EU, has emerged in the former camp, declaring stoutly that Israel’s behaviour is both just and necessary. France’s president Sarkozy, however, has called upon both sides to stop hostilities – a moral equivalence which effectively gives Hamas victory by requiring Israel to abandon the defence of its citizens. Similarly in Britain, Foreign Secretary David Miliband has repeated his call for an immediate cease-fire – while Prime Minister Gordon Brown, according to this Telegraph piece, has apparently complained to Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert that
too many people have died
Would that be, perhaps, too many Hamas terrorists who have died? Would Brown have preferred that more of them continued to live so that they could carry on murdering more Israelis?...
You betcha.
Elmo in a dress: Hasta la vista, inventor of the Blackberry. And now, a few words from the Canadian Islamic Congress's incoming president, Elmo's former second-in-command, Dr. Wahida Valiante. From the sounds of it, she's planning to continue in the same grandiose tradition (i.e. boastfulness alternating with complaints about how Muslims are victims and Islam is "misunderstood"):
…Of my 48 years in Canada the last ten have seen Canada’s essence as a nation of quiet optimism challenged by the politics of fear.
The events following 9/11 tested Canada and they surely tested me.
It was shortly after 9/11 that I had an "us" versus "them" experience that was unknown to me in my previous 40 years in Canada. True, like any other new immigrant, I too experienced incidents of racism and bigotry, but never where I was clearly identified as an enemy - or one of "them." Appearing at an event on behalf of the CIC I was asked whether I would formally denounce the actions of the 9/11 terrorists.
This question struck me as if it were a bullet. Here I was being asked to denounce "them" in order to verify that I was really with "us". Yet, the "them" I was being asked to denounce were as alien to me as they were to any other Canadian. My initial reaction of shock turned to anger and then momentarily to fear: could it be that as a Canadian citizen of 40 years I could be denounced on the basis of actions of individuals as culturally and ethnically removed from me as are the Swedes? Was the ostensible sharing of a common religion between the terrorists and me enough to indict me in the eyes of my fellow Canadians? Was this not an inquisition of sorts?
The following years saw a steady torrent of experts who expounded upon the "Muslim threat", the inevitable transmogrification of Europe to Eurabia: "...not all Muslims are terrorists -- though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle."
With the image of atrocity fresh in everyone’s minds and hot propaganda raising the specter of more, it was not surprising that Canada’s commitment to constitutional liberalism - freedoms borne by the Canadian constitution and system of laws - was severely challenged. The proposed and subsequently enacted anti-terrorism laws challenged Canadians with the question of what rights they were willing to relinquish and what intrusions they would allow the state in the name of "security."
Even less surprising was the sense of growing alienation within the Muslim community in Canada. For many Muslim Canadians, Canada had changed.
And it was in this growing political malaise that CIC responded and continues its work. Since then CIC has played a major role in advocating on behalf of Muslim Canadians by addressing the anti-Islam rhetoric and gross misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims in the media. Concurrently it has actively assisted Muslim Canadians in projecting themselves onto the Canadian political landscape in order to avoid the resentment and isolation that comes along with political disenfranchisement.
I believe there is no better way to build a strong Canada and a strong Muslim community in Canada than by engaging in Canada’s most cherished institution - participatory democracy.
To date the CIC has had a number of significant achievements in its efforts to engage Muslim Canadians in the national political dialogue. These range from groundbreaking studies of anti-Islam media bias, to encouraging Muslims to engage in the political arena by providing assessments of what their elected officials are saying and doing.
The CIC is helping young Canadians to be their best by setting up student scholarships in politics, social work, law and journalism. The CIC endeavours to inform and educate all Canadians on important national and international issues that the mainstream media regularly ignores through our Friday Magazine.
Perhaps the CIC’s greatest achievement to date is the establishment of Islamic History Month Canada, which has been well received by a broad range of Canadians.
There is much that Canadians do not know about Islam’s role in shaping Western civilization - that the most harmonious relations between cultures and religions occurred when there was a common objective of seeking scientific knowledge and improving the commonwealth of all humankind and that this confluence of interests occurred at a time when Muslim scientific scholarship was at its zenith.
Discussing this Islam’s history promotes mutual respect and understanding, and peaceful co-existence...
Same old CIC blather.
Israel's lose-lose situation: It's summed up in, of all places, the Toronto Star:
USA Today's bizarre news "roundup": Bitter battles in Gaza--and Illinois.
You mean anti-Blagojevich ground forces have landed in Chicago?
Media channels Tiger Beat: I know I’m really dating myself here, but when I
was but a wee pre-pubescent scaramouche, I would, on occasion, dip into one of those
rags which, in gushing, godawful prose, detailed the purported doings (most of them
likely fabricated by the magazine’s scribes) of the Jonas Brothers/Zach Efron/Gossip
Girl hunks of my day. The names of the two magazines I remember reading when I
was, oh, around 10 or 11, were 16 and Tiger Beat (which, who knew, is still around).
Why dredge up such ancient history? It’s because reading Rex Murphy’s mirth-inducing
column about the media’s collective Obama swoon, it struck me that there’s not much
difference between it and the Tiger Beat-style mush ‘n’ gush I remember:
…Normally, the press stands apart from mass adulation. Not so with Mr. Obama. A recent report in The Washington Post read like a mash note from a teenager. The article had a picture of the Lightworker, shirtless, and commented: "... he was photographed looking like the paradigm of a new kind of presidential fitness, one geared less toward preventing heart attacks than winning swimsuit competitions." I beg to differ. Pass the defibrillator, now.
The reporter/disciple was, however, just warming up. Next he galloped off into territory left unexplored even in chicklit: "The sun glinted off chiselled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games."
If this guy gives up the politics beat, there are a hundred massage parlours out there thirsty for this kind of copy. This is The Washington Post, remember. Has the financial crisis tipped the collective media mind into entertainment reporting mode?
Very little of this, I repeat, is Mr. Obama's fault. (Although that famous line of his on winning the nomination as "the moment when the rise of the seas began to slow and the planet began to heal" was an unhappy toe-dip into the waters of absurd self-inflation.) But if the mainstream press offers "the sun glinted off chiselled pectorals," let's stop calling it news. This is Baywatch punditry…
As I recall, the sun used to glint off Donny Osmond’s chest, too.
A sight to behold: Hindsight, as they say, is 20-20. Thus, when one looks back at the following israelinsider report from back in May, 2004 in the light of current events, it is easy to see that the peace peddlers who were pushing for Israel's full departure from Gaza were dead wrong, and those who had hesitations about it--i.e. voices on Israel's Right--were, well, right:
An estimated 150,000 demonstrators thronged Tel Aviv's Rabin Square Saturday night and called for an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and a return to negotiations with the Palestinians. Organizers, who hoped the demonstration would arouse the Left and prove that the majority of Israelis support withdrawal, turned down calls from the Right to postpone it while families were still burying soldiers killed during the week's action in Gaza.
Police issued no official number of participants in the rally, but the crowd was said to be anywhere between "more than 100,000 people" (Reuters), and "some 120,000 people" (Israel Radio), to "more than 150,000 people" (Jerusalem Post, Army Radio, Maariv and Yediot Aharonot).
The size of the pro-withdrawal rally was significant, organizers said, because it was some three times larger than the number of Likud Party voters who rejected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan in their referendum on May 2, and also larger than the rally staged last month against the proposed Gaza withdrawal.
"This is a protest of the majority," opposition leader MK Shimon Peres (Labor) told the crowd. "Eighty percent of our people want peace. One percent is trying to block it."
MK Amir Peretz (One Nation) said that he would continue "to fight until Israel pulls out of Gaza." He added, " Gaza is not holy land; it is a cursed land, and people lose their humanity there. I am from Sderot, the city that is bombed by Palestinian Kassam rockets daily. We do not fear disengagement; we do not fear dialogue or a political settlement," he said.
But Ami Ayalon, former Shin Bet security service head and co-sponsor of the People's Voice peace initiative, said the tens of thousands taking part in last night's rally were not a genuine cross-section of Israeli society.
"There are too few new immigrants here tonight, and not enough people from the Galilee and Negev, or from the low income towns," he said.
Ayalon had previously refrained from participating in left-wing rallies but was asked, along with other pro-peace organizations, to show a united front calling for a withdrawal from Gaza. The only group that was not included in the rally was the Refuseniks Movement, which calls on Israeli soldiers to refuse to serve in Gaza or on the West Bank.
Also missing from the crowd were representatives of Israel's religious population and Likud Party members who had supported Sharon's withdrawal plan. Even so, media analysts said it was surprising to see, in a left-wing rally, signs being held that showed support for the Likud's prime minister. "Arik, we are with you," one sign said.
Yahad head Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of the Geneva Initiative, however, issued a scathing attack on Sharon. "Sharon is not the first prime minister who wasn't able to make peace, but he's the first one who didn't try," Beilin said. "Sharon talks about living by the sword for another 100 years. We say, not 100, not 50, and not 10."
"Whoever says there is no partner on the Palestinian side, is just lying," Beilin said.
Beilin told reporters that the rally showed that Israel's "peace camp was awakening." According to Channel Two television, Beilin was wearing a flak jacket for personal protection. Over 1,300 police were on hand to secure the event, which shut down much of central Tel Aviv.
Organizers rejected calls from the Right, including from Welfare Minister Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party), to postpone the rally while Israeli families were still burying their sons, killed in action during the past week in the Gaza Strip.
"This is a cynical exploitation of the deaths of 13 IDF fighters, who were killed during the fight against the terror infrastructure," Orlev said. He added: "This is yet another political failure of the left, which uses wrong ways to advance its political goals."
Rally organizers said that their intention was to save as many lives as possible, and noted that the Likud had not postponed its referendum when terrorists shot and killed Tali Hatuel and her four daughters on the day of its vote.
Yitzhak Frankenthal, head of the Bereaved Families Forum, said it was important to hold the rally despite the protests from the Right. "Every day that Israel remains in Gaza costs us more lives, and the sooner that we get out of there, the better," he said.
Might one say that, in hindsight, the Left lacked foresight? And, further, might one add that, in hindsight, the absence of foresight--as well as insight--is what has landed Israel in its current predicament?
Update: In hindsight, some of those on the Right lacked foresight, too. Here, for example, is what President Bush had to say when queried about Hamas's freshly-minted election victory:
Q Mr. President, is Mideast peacemaking dead with Hamas' big election victory? And do you rule out dealing with the Palestinians if Hamas is the majority party?
THE PRESIDENT: Peace is never dead, because people want peace. I believe -- and that's why I articulated a two-state solution early in my administration, so that -- as a vision for people to work toward, a solution that recognized that democracy yields peace. And the best hope for peace in the Middle East is two democracies living side-by-side.
So the Palestinians had an election yesterday, and the results of which remind me about the power of democracy. You see, when you give people the vote, you give people a chance to express themselves at the polls -- and if they're unhappy with the status quo, they'll let you know. That's the great thing about democracy, it provides a look into society.
And yesterday the turnout was significant, as I understand it. And there was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that's positive. But what was also positive is, is that it's a wake-up call to the leadership. Obviously, people were not happy with the status quo. The people are demanding honest government. The people want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find health care.
And so the elections should open the eyes of the old guard there in the Palestinian territories. I like the competition of ideas. I like people who have to go out and say, vote for me, and here's what I'm going to do. There's something healthy about a system that does that. And so the elections yesterday were very interesting.
On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing. The elections just took place. We will watch very carefully about the formation of the government. But I will continue to remind people about what I just said, that if your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace. And we're interested in peace…
Bush should have had the insight to acknowledge that there was nothing "healthy" about electing Hamas; that, in fact, it signaled that the Palestinians had one very sick society, one incapable for the foreseeable future of living side-by-side in peace with the Jews.
The Star's "disproportion": The Toronto Star reports that "thousands" of demonstrators turned out yesterday to "protest" Israel's actions in Gaza, but a report on local Ceeb radio puts the number at "about a thousand" on the pro-Hamas side and 75 or so on the pro-Israel side.
Why the huge disparity in estimates? It couldn't be because the Star wants the fury at Israel to appear even larger than it is, could it?
Stop the presses!: Layton no longer trusts Harper.
No longer?
Shahida's to do list: 1) Put on dynamite belt. 2) Put on abaya so no one can see you're wearing a dynamite belt. 3) Blow up self, lots of Shia religious pilgrims.
What's truly "disproportionate": No, not Israel's response to jihadis bent on its (and our) destruction. What's truly out of whack is that Israel amounts to less than one per cent of the total land mass of the Middle East. And yet the Arabs, the Muslims, their useful leftist idiots (hello, Eurythmical, delusional Annie Lennox) are convinced that that's one per cent too much, and are doing their utmost to do amend the "injustice" that's been done to Arabs--Arabs!--who have had their land "stolen" by Zionist, colonialist, imperialist Jews; what's "disproportionate" is the outrage, the frenzy, the mass freak-out of those who side with Hamas, barbaric goons connected to that really big "shoe" (as the late Ed Sullivan used to say), the global jihad.
The world is a crazy place, my friends. Time to don our t-shirts:
Judy, Judy, Judy: Here's a poem for J.R., one of the Ceeb's favourite lefty chicks
(she's neck and neck with Avi's missus):
A deplorable Jewess named Judy
Believed she was doing her duty.
Does she aid and defend a
Jihadi agenda?
You bet your sweet patootie!
No more “Big Love” in Gaza: Roger L. Simon weighs in on the timely demise
of a Hamas thug who reportedly had four (give or take) wives:
One of the more puzzling viewpoints of our cultural relativist and (self-described) progressive friends is that they insist on telling us that values of the East… or more specifically the Islamic Middle East… are just as good as ours, while at the same time reminding us of the paramount importance of the equality of women, gays, etc., lest we be slack in that regard.
Contradiction? Well, we could ignore this. After all, consistency is the hobgoblin and all that… But along comes the assassination of Hamas leader Nizar Ghayan in Gaza today and we learn the poor benighted ex-fellow had four wives (now apparently defunct along with him) - or, in the words of Haaretz, “at least four“: Earlier Thursday, an Israeli aircraft killed a high-ranking Hamas official in Gaza along with nine women, including at least four wives, and 11 of his children, in the first major assassination since the IDF launched Operation Cast Lead on Saturday.
It had always been my understanding that Islam permits only four wives, even for powerful thugs like Ghayan who was apparently responsible for multiple suicide bombings as well as the murder of a good number of his fellow Palestinians in the reviled (by Hamas) Palestinian Authority. Or so the religion dictates. But don’t, with all these extra wives floating about, think for a minute there are orgies going on in Hamastan. As the Wiki tells us: Multiple marriages are a heavy responsibility on the male. It is not a pleasure trip as some people may assume. Some even imagine all kinds of sexual exploits involving a man and his wives altogether. However, such activity is not permissible in Islam. A man must divide his time equally among his wives. He may, for example, spend one night with each wife on a rotating schedule.
Now here’s an interesting possibility. Evidently, again according to Haaretz, the Israelis had given one of their telephonic warnings to the residents of Casa Ghayan that they were about to bomb his warlordness’ manse. Normally, the aforementioned residents scatter (wouldn’t you?) or, at the least, go up on the roof and make a conspicuous presence to the Israelis in hopes their guilty Jewish pilots will turn away. But this time it didn’t happen. Why? Could poor Nizar have been in a quandary, trying out to figure out how to “divide his time equally among his wives,” skulking about in the corridor between the bedrooms and then poof? [Why don't you consult Gloria Steinem about that?-ed. I knew you had a sense of humor.]
And so it goes. Nicolas Sarkozy complains about the lack of “proportionality,” but those of us with a different take, say “Bravo, IAF!” You are ridding the world of a psychotic religious murderer before he kills more people - Jews and Arabs. More, please.
Apparently, if it’s a choice between Israel getting rid of psychotic religious murderers
or not getting rid of psychotic religious murderers, the Nicolas Sarkozys of the world
would prefer that the psychotic religious murderers remain alive and kicking
(and seething and raging and kidnapping and 'sploding and blasting missiles into Israel).
Standing on guard for Canadian Jewry: With "protesters" taking to the streets once again with hateful signs decrying the Jewish state, it's no surprise that Canada's foremost Jewish advocacy organization, the Canadian Jewish Congress, has once again issued a news release vehemently condemning the egregious Judnehass that's been let loose in our environs (as, for example, it vehemently condemned the toppling of some Jewish and Muslim gravestones in far away France).
Just pulling your leg. Of course, it's mum's the word over at the Ceej. Wouldn't want to burn any bridges or disturb any recently shifted paradims, right?
Jihad is the other pillar of Hamas’ foundational Jew-annihilationist ideology featured in the 1988 Covenant. Once again, this is already suggested in the opening statement before the preamble which includes the following quote by Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood: “Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished that which was before it.” Hamas, it should be noted, claims to be a wing of the International Muslim Brotherhood. Article 2 of the Hamas Charter, for example, states: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organisation which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times.”
But the body of the Hamas Covenant includes unequivocal statements of Hamas’ irredentist commitment to the annihilation of Israel via jihad. Jihad martyrdom is lauded in article 8 “the Hamas slogan,” (in fact borrowed from the 1928 Charter of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood), which states, “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its Constitution; Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” Article 13 makes plain that Hamas’ jihadism is completely incompatible with any meaningful Middle East peace settlement:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that…There is no solution to the Palestinian question except by Jihad. All initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavors.
And article 15 (subtitled, “Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is a Personal Duty”) elucidates classical jihadist theory, as well as its practical modern application to the destruction of Israel by jihad:
The day the enemies conquer some part of the Muslim land, jihad becomes a personal duty of every Muslim. In the face of the Jewish occupation of Palestine, it is necessary to raise the banner of jihad. This requires the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses, locally [in Palestine], in the Arab world and in the Islamic world. It is necessary to instill the spirit of jihad in the nation, engage the enemies and join the ranks of the jihad fighters. The indoctrination campaign must involve ulama, educators, teachers and information and media experts, as well as all intellectuals, especially the young people and the sheikhs of Islamic movements…
It is necessary to establish in the minds of all the Muslim generations that the Palestinian issue is a religious issue, and that it must be dealt with as such, for [Palestine] contains Islamic holy places, [namely] the Al-Aqsa mosque, which is inseparably connected, for as long as heaven and earth shall endure, to the holy mosque of Mecca through the Prophet’s nocturnal journey [from the mosque of Mecca to the Al-Aqsa mosque] and through his ascension to heaven thence. “Being stationed on the frontier for the sake of Allah for one day is better than this [entire] world and everything in it; and the place taken up in paradise by the [horseman's] whip of any one of you [jihad fighters] is better than this [entire] world and everything in it. Every evening [operation] and morning [operation] performed by Muslims for the sake of Allah is better than this [entire] world and everything in it.” (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Ibn Maja). “By the name of Him who holds Muhammad’s soul in His hand, I wish to launch an attack for the sake of Allah and be killed and attack again and be killed and attack again and be killed.” (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim)
Unfortunately, Hamas’ views on the jihad against Israel, and Islamic Jew hatred, are entirely concordant with those of the most authoritative religious educational institution within Sunni Islam—Al Azhar University, in Cairo, Egypt. Consider a fatwa written January 5, 1956 by then Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Hasan Ma’moun, and signed by the leading members of the Fatwa Committee of Al Azhar, and the major representatives of all four Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence. [English translation from State Department Telegram 1763/ Embassy (Cairo) Telegram 1256 D441214] This ruling elaborated the following key initial point: that all of historical Palestine having been conquered by jihad, was a permanent possession of the global Muslim umma (community), “fay territory” (booty/spoils), to be governed by Islamic Law. The January, 1956 Al Azhar fatwa’s language and arguments are indistinguishable from those employed by Hamas (in its Covenant), revealing the same conjoined motivations of jihad, and conspiratorial Islamic Jew hatred:
Muslims cannot conclude peace with those Jews who have usurped the territory of Palestine and attacked its people and their property in any manner which allows the Jews to continue as a state in that sacred Muslim territory.
[as] Jews have taken a part of Palestine and there established their non-Islamic government and have also evacuated from that part most of its Muslim inhabitants… Jihad… to restore the country to its people.. is the duty of all Muslims, not just those who can undertake it. And since all Islamic countries constitute the abode of every Muslim, the Jihad is imperative for both the Muslims inhabiting the territory attacked, and Muslims everywhere else because even though some sections have not been attacked directly, the attack nevertheless took place on a part of the Muslim territory which is a legitimate residence for any Muslim.
Everyone knows that from the early days of Islam to the present day the Jews have been plotting against Islam and Muslims and the Islamic homeland. They do not propose to be content with the attack they made on Palestine and Al Aqsa Mosque, but they plan for the possession of all Islamic territories from the Nile to the Euphrates…
Thanks, “protesters,” for validating this Protocols-suffused jihadi madness.
Made my day: The estimable Robert Fulford calls Patrick Martin--formerly, the
Ceeb's Mideast correspondent, currently, the Globe and Mail's--"deplorable".
Another “Go, Hamas!” rally in T.O.: Today’s the day a bunch of impassioned
pro-jihad “protesters” will once again be gathering outdoors to voice their contempt
for Jewish efforts to deal with the viper’s nest that is Gaza. (The JDL has organized
a counter-rally.) Their efforts demonstrate that, just as there is acceptable and
unacceptable hate speech—acceptable hate speech being anything hateful said by
Muslims “in the context” of their religious teachings; unacceptable hate speech being
anything hateful said by Christians, Caucasians, basement-dwelling Hitler buffs or other
non-Muslims—there’s also acceptable and unacceptable killing. Unacceptable killing
occurs when Jews fight back against and kill Arabs. Acceptable killing occurs when
Arabs and/or other Muslims are the ones doing the killing. For instance, a report in the
Washington Post details a peacemaking confab between tribal leaders in Iraq that was
busted up when an uninvited shahid blew himself and dozens of those in attendance
to smithereens—the type of killing that would never in a million years impel “protesters”
to take to the streets.
Two more thoughts on today’s “protest”: It’s frikkin’ cold out there, so the
pro-Hamasniks had better be wearing their woollies. And, for the sake of comic relief,
I’m hoping this “protester” shows up:
Er, surely not all "Juice". Surely he'd be willing to spare, say, jihad-cheerleader,
"Juice-ess" Judy Rebick and other "Juice" of her ilk. (At least, that's what those
"Juice" are counting on--as the assimilated "Juice" of Germany counted on the
Germans.)
Update: What "protesters" have been sipping:
Crappy way to start the day: The Ceeb radio newscast at the top of the hour had
as its first story a local Arab chick spewing lies about the number of civilian casualties
in Gaza (“hundreds, thousands”), the result of Israel purposely targeting innocent
Gazans. (The newsreader said in effect that her numbers might be out of whack, but
since her purpose is to elicit sympathy for Palestinians, a degree of inaccuracy—what
you or I would call bald-faced lies/specious propaganda—is perfectly acceptable.) The
worst part, though, was that noted “leftist activist” Judy Rebick, Jewish chick, seconded
those emotions. Judy went on and on—and on—about how she, as a Jew, feels
horrible about what the Jewish state is doing to those poor, pitiful, victimized, virtuous,
lovely Gazans. Why, it makes her ashamed to be a Jew.
Me? It shames me that the Ceeb, which purloins my tax dollars and yours, has
effectively become a mouthpiece for the jihad, and that useful imbecile Judy Rebick
is Jewish.
Think I’ll go back to bed.
It’s not the “hate speech,” it’s the ideology, stupid: The men who helm
Canada’s Jewish advocacy/anti-anti-Semitism organizations argue that the country
needs that added layer of “protection” afforded by human rights commissions in
order to catch and punish the hate-speaking miscreants who, for various reasons,
can’t be tried in our regular courts. Without that extra security, they claim, White
Power hate will abound, and Canadian Jews could be facing a genocide, the all
but unavoidable result of that type of unfettered freedom. But an article in
Commentary magazine goes to the heart of why such thinking is a total crock:
…The vast majority of Germans in World War II did not personally and passionately hate the Jews: they had never even met the men, women, children, and infants whom they would eventually butcher en masse. It was, for the most part, a methodically drilled-in ideology that powered the genocide machine, a machine that killed six million Jews despite the fact that the Germans did not hate them.
Similarly with the events of September 11, 2001. Did Muhammad Atta, the ringleader of the terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers, genuinely and fervently hate every single individual working there on that fateful day, let alone all of the passengers on the plane he commandeered? How could he? He had never met them, and they had never personally done anything to him. What is more, Atta had spent many years in the United States preparing for his mission, during which time he rubbed elbows with all types of Americans. Is it plausible that he managed to maintain a constant boiling rage all day every day toward every one of these acquaintances and their fellow countrymen? How could such a creature survive, or master the self-control to carry out his assigned role?
What is true for Nazi storm troopers and al-Qaeda operatives is true for today’s fundamentalist Shiites. It is not their genuine, vehement hatred that we have to fear; it is their endless, drone-like training. Their militant hostility to Israel is no more a function of immediate, genuine, blood-boiling rage than it is the result of some heinous act or other performed by the Jewish state, however frequently such purported crimes are exploited as triggers of “popular” protest. The hostility is, unfortunately, something far more durable and deeply implanted.
That Israel is the devil, the root of all evil, a criminal cancer that must be excised from the Muslim body politic—these propositions are not ephemeral feelings for most Iranian Muslims, but rather eternal truths that gradually, through endless, tantra-like repetition, have cloyed in the conscious mind while simultaneously installing themselves beneath the level of immediate emotion and awareness, in the place where basic instincts, automatic assumptions, and ontological verities reside. There they have taken root, to remain dormant until circumstances require their activation. When the time is right—and the rulers of Iran have made no secret of their conviction that the time is drawing ever nearer—decades of propaganda will serve the same function for them that centuries of Christian anti-Semitism in Europe performed for the Nazis…
Get it through your thick skulls, guys: The next “Holocaust,” should it come, won’t
occur because of a few pimply-faced Furher buffs blogging about “the Jews” from the
folks’ faux-wood paneled rec room in Nowheresville, Manitoba. So you can knock it
off with the Section 13 crap, ‘kay?
The Captain and Abbas: Setting aside their long-standing differences for the
moment, the leaders of two Palestinian factions assay some 70s cheese:
Jews,
Jews’ll keep us together.
Think of them, “friend,” whenever,
Bombs are flyin’ into Gaza.
Don’t hem and don’t haw,
It gives us a chance for another hurrah.
Just start,
Froth and scream about Jewry.
Start,
Vent your spleen and your fury.
It's such a gift to let Jews
Keep us together.
Whatever.
Old animosities;
A rivalry that never ends.
When the moment's opportune
Then enemies can seem like friends.
We will, we will, we will, we will
Be there to share this endeavour.
Jews’ll keep us together.
They’ve done it before and they’ll do it again,
So we can pretend
Hamas and Fatah won’t be foes to the end.
Don’t stop--cause we need Jews to fight us.
Stop--and what else will unite us?
It's great to hate and let Jews
Keep us together.
Distortion and clarity: A telegenic Palestinian spokeswoman endeavours to play
the victim card while playing fast and loose with the facts, but a wised-up Fox
newscaster, who can’t bear her blatant lies, shuts her down. Meanwhile, WaPo
columnist Charles Krauthammer says Israel's morality--and Hamas's complete
absence thereof--is abundantly clear:
Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.
Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis -- 6,464 launched from Gaza in the past three years -- deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.
This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel, Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage -- or, if it is really fortunate, an errant Israeli bomb -- will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel.
For Hamas, the only thing more prized than dead Jews are dead Palestinians. The religion of Jew-murder and self-martyrdom is ubiquitous. And deeply perverse, such as the Hamas TV children's program in which an adorable live-action Palestinian Mickey Mouse is beaten to death by an Israeli (then replaced by his more militant cousin, Nahoul the Bee, who vows to continue on Mickey's path to martyrdom).
At war today in Gaza, one combatant is committed to causing the most civilian pain and suffering on both sides. The other combatant is committed to saving as many lives as possible -- also on both sides. It's a recurring theme. Israel gave similar warnings to Southern Lebanese villagers before attacking Hezbollah in the Lebanon war of 2006. The Israelis did this knowing it would lose for them the element of surprise and cost the lives of their own soldiers.
That is the asymmetry of means between Hamas and Israel. But there is equal clarity regarding the asymmetry of ends. Israel has but a single objective in Gaza -- peace: the calm, open, normal relations it offered Gaza when it withdrew in 2005…
Hamas wants “peace” too—the calm, closed, abnormal world that will come when all
resistance to Allah ceases, and all people accept their duties under his law.
Elmo, man of myth-tery: In a talk he gave to a group of anti-Zionist Jews late last
year, the outgoing (in both senses of the word) head of the Canadian Islamic Congress
discussed five prevailing “myths”:
…In the 2006 book "Media, Terrorism, and Theory (edited by Anandam P. Kavoori and Todd Fraley), Dr. Daya Kishan Thussu, professor of international communications at the University of Westminster (London) lists five myths propagated by the Western media in their campaign against Islam and Muslims.
1. The Myth of "Islamic" Terrorism:
While it is rare to find a Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, or Buddhist brand of terrorism, it has been common both before and after 9/11 for the media to use the term "Islamic" terrorism. Additionally, while the use of other terminologies (e.g. Islamic fundamentalist/fundamentalism, Islamic militancy, Islamists, political Islam, etc.) is familiar, all of them point in one direction - to the label of "Islamic" terrorism. This already dark distinction is compounded by bracketing Islam with the heinous Nazi legacy through an increasing usage of "Islamofascism."
2. The Myth of Madness:
Prof. Thussu notes that the media effectively frame conflicts involving opposing Muslims within a binary context where Muslims are "projected as irrational and fanatical, pitted against a firm, rational, and reasonable" Western political leadership. "The demonizing of supposedly bigoted leaders can be effective tool for propaganda," Thussu continues, "as it helps to personalize an invasion by reducing the entire country and its population to one person." In more recent developments, the American administration under George Bush Jr. did that with Saddam Hussein prior to invading Iraq and then treated Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad similarly in making threats against his country.
3. The Myth of Nuclear Threat:
The threat that a Muslim country - whether Iraq, Syria, or Iran -- will soon develop nuclear weapons and use them to attack the West or Israel, is very popular with imperialists and Zionists. We now know that "The argument that Iraq was in possession of nuclear weapons and had the capacity to deploy them within 45 minutes notice" was a lie, yet it was disseminated by global media without proof and given out as a compelling reason for invading that country.
4. The Myth of Atrocities:
Double standards define the media's presentation of "atrocities committed in the name of the war on terrorism, with terrorist groups receiving maximum opprobrium and the state-sponsored terrorism (and torture) often being ignored."
5. The Myth of Morality:
The most important myth used by the media, according to Prof. Thussu, is "about the U.S. crusade to spread democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world. It has been proposed that force may be needed to democratize the international community. However, the undermining of democracy in the United States and Britain was evident during and leading up to the Iraqi invasion. An historically unprecedented number of ordinary citizens -- as many as eight million -- marched on the streets of five continents on February 15, 2003, demonstrating against the U.S.-British plan to invade Iraq, and yet the democratically elected governments chose to ignore popular sentiment."
Amid the fervor of America’s open-ended "war on terror," Western media and governments are advancing a heightened level of Islamophobia in the interests of a shared neo-imperialist and Zionist agenda to dominate, exploit, torture and kill Muslims. It’s the same Islamophobic cycle returning once again, worse than ever.
Some myths which, for obvious reasons, Elmo failed to mention: the myth of
“Islamophobia” (there’s no such beast; there is, however, a completely rational
need to criticize the m.o. of some Muslims as well as certain, shall we say, problematic
aspects of their faith); the myth of the Jewish drive for global control as set out in
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a tract cobbled together from other sources by
Czarist police and purveyed as genuine in much of the Judenhass-suffused Islamic
world; and perhaps most crucially, the myth of Islamic tolerance, as documented
by Islam expert and “Islamophobe” Robert Spencer in his book of that name.
Howls of outrage from CAIR in five, four, three…: A group of air passengers
en route to Orlando had their travel plans interrupted when one of them was
overheard making an, er, odd comment. From the Washington Post:
Officials ordered nine Muslim passengers, including three young children, off an AirTran flight headed to Orlando from Reagan National Airport yesterday afternoon after two other passengers overheard what they thought was a suspicious remark.
Members of the party, all but one of them U.S.-born citizens who were headed to a religious retreat in Florida, were subsequently cleared for travel by FBI agents who characterized the incident as a misunderstanding, an airport official said. But the passengers said AirTran refused to rebook them, and they had to pay for seats on another carrier secured with help from the FBI.
Kashif Irfan, one of the removed passengers, said the incident began about 1 p.m. after his brother, Atif, and his brother's wife wondered aloud about the safest place to sit on an airplane.
"My brother and his wife were discussing some aspect of airport security," Irfan said. "The only thing my brother said was, 'Wow, the jets are right next to my window.' I think they were remarking about safety."
Irfan said he and the others think they were profiled because of their appearance. He said five of the six adults in the party are of South Asian descent, and all six are traditionally Muslim in appearance, with the men wearing beards and the women in headscarves. Irfan, 34, is an anesthesiologist. His brother, 29, is a lawyer. Both live in Alexandria with their families, and both were born in Detroit. They were traveling with their wives, Kashif Irfan's sister-in-law, a friend and Kashif Irfan's three sons, ages 7, 4 and 2.
AirTran spokesman Tad Hutcheson agreed that the incident amounted to a misunderstanding. But he defended AirTran's handling of the incident, which he said strictly followed federal rules. And he denied any wrongdoing on the airline's part.
"At the end of the day, people got on and made comments they shouldn't have made on the airplane, and other people heard them," Hutcheson said. "Other people heard them, misconstrued them. It just so happened these people were of Muslim faith and appearance. It escalated, it got out of hand and everyone took precautions."…
Hands up all those who think there was more to it than, "Wow, the jets are right next
to my window"; "Wow, the jets are right next to my window" doesn't get you chucked
off a plane.
Bloodied but unbowed: The AP scribe whose first name is Ibrahim is deligthed
to inform us that, despite being pounded for days by Israel's targeted bombing, it's
more or less business as usual for the resilient folks of Gaza.
Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'--like this guy, eh, Ibrahim?
Yo ho ho!: Somali pirates are at it again. This time they've comandeered an
Egyptian freighter and its crew of 28.
Asked and answered: Michael Gurfinkiel poses—and then responds to—the most
salient questions about Israel’s mission in Gaza:
Is Gaza under Israeli occupation? No. The Israelis withdrew from the enclave to a man in 2005. Is Hamas a legitimate ruler in Gaza? No way. It seized power there in 2007, as the result of a civil war against the Palestinian Authority. Has Hamas engaged in systematic aggression against Israel ever since then? Yes. Is it conducting repeated, blind shelling against civilians in southwest Israel? Yes. Has Hamas abducted an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, on Israeli soil, and does it keep him as a hostage, which is under international law a crime against humanity? Yes. Has Hamas one-sidedly announced it was canceling a several-month lull with Israel? Yes. Does it publicly list the destruction of the Israeli republic and of the Israeli society as political aims? Yes. Under such conditions, Israel’s right to make war on Hamas and to destroy it is absolute.
A positive sign: It’s looking like curtains for Ha’aretz, the house organ of Israel’s
suicidal peace-peddlers. From Der Spiegel:Its lonely fight against the occupation of the West Bank made Israeli newspaper Haaretz internationally famous. At home, the paper is fighting for survival.
The irreverence of the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz is visible from the first moment a visitor enters the paper's editorial headquarters.
There in the foyer hangs an open pig's carcass, looking just as it would in a slaughterhouse. This one, however, is reproduced in pieces of candy -- red ones for the muscles, and yellow for the innards. The building's doorman is on hand to help interpret this installation. The sculpture, he says, is like the land of Israel itself: "Beautiful on the outside, rotten on the inside."
"The land" is also the translation of the name Haaretz, and the newspaper's problems are indeed linked with those of the country. What the paper offers in abundance -- a willingness to compromise with the Palestinians -- has once again become a fairly unpopular stance in Israeli society.
One floor down from the foyer is the conference room. It's a windowless space and looks a bit like the nerve center of a war cabinet. This afternoon, Defense Minister Ehud Barak is here to visit the newspaper. What follows is a vigorous exchange of views. On one side is the country's most critical editorial department; on the other, the politician who has shifted the traditionally left-wing Labor Party to the right, to the point where Barak's opinions sometimes seem to hardly differ from those of nationalist Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the center-right Likud Party.
Barak, a retired general, presents himself as a hardliner and quickly wears the journalists down. The louder he speaks, the more the editors lose any desire to ask him questions. The minister bellows. He pounds his right fist on the table. Even the croissant he casually stuffs into his mouth can't stop the flow of his words. In the end, the editor-in-chief observes with some bewilderment "that just now we didn't interrupt you for 20 minutes."
Struggle for Survival
And so the contemplative Left has again lost to the noisy mainstream. It's a symbol for the newspaper's struggle to survive in its ever-more-lonely position as a well-respected daily. Abroad, Haaretz is known for its strong position against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Its English-language Web site registers a million users each month. At home, however, only 66,000 Israelis buy the paper…
Power to the people, who are much smarter than the “progressives” in the
“intelligentsia”.
Same old mental illness: One had hoped that the Gaza offensive meant that, at last,
Israel had shaken off the final remnant of its Oslo fantasies. Alas, in the midst of it all,
Israel’s Left seems gripped by the same delusions, the same fatal desire to be liked
by the Jews' enemies and those who comfort them. Two stories today tend to support
that conclusion: Israel rejects a ceasefire even as it offers aid to Gaza; and dippy
Tzipi in Paree tells France’s media that, at the same time that it’s bombing the bejeesus
out of Hamas targets, Israel is preparing a peace treaty.
A peace treaty? Israel’s death warrant, more like.
Snatched from the vaults of history: More than a decade after the fact, it’s
interesting to look back at Faisal Kutty’s report about the first ever OIC shindig
which, who even remembers?, was held in my burg back in 1996. (I’ve taken the liberty
of highlighting a few things that jumped out at me):
About 150 delegates from Canada, the U.S., Europe and the Middle East gathered in Toronto from Oct. 12 to 14 to participate in the first-ever Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Symposium in Canada.
The invitation-only conference, jointly-sponsored by the OIC, the Libya-based World Islamic Call Society, and the Toronto and Region Islamic Congregation (TARIC), attracted leading North American Muslim activists, scholars and intellectuals to address the topic: “Islam and the West Toward Dialogue and Understanding.”
The aim of the meeting was to set the stage for dialogue between Muslims and others. Haroon Salamat, chairman of TARIC, says Toronto was selected because organizers “look at Toronto as a city where there is more enlightenment in terms of relations between non-Muslims and Muslims.”
Dr. Ahmad Sakr, president of the Foundation for Islamic Knowledge, told delegates that there were many misunderstandings about Islam and Muslims. This was echoed by other speakers at the meeting. Speaking at a press conference, His Excellency Dr. Hamid Algabid, secretary-general of the OIC, said that the misunderstandings arise from ignorance and from historical reasons.
The OIC sponsored the conference as part of its mission to increase understanding and communication between Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the secretary-general, similar symposia have been organized on all the other continents.
The OIC was founded in 1969 to bring together Muslim states around issues of common interest. Today, with 53 member nations and 3 observer states, it is the largest cooperative organization in the world next to the United Nations. Perhaps the best-known arm of the OIC is the multi-billion-dollar Jeddah-based Islamic Development Bank (IDB), which provides loans and grants for projects and programs around the globe.
TARIC, another sponsor of the event, serves more than 2,000 families in the greater Toronto area and is one of the major Islamic centers in Canada. It has made it its mission to reach out to the non-Muslim community. The third organization which had a hand in making the symposium a reality was the Libya-based World Islamic Call Society. The Society was founded in 1982 with the mandate of taking the message of Islam to all corners of the world.
The Society’s secretary-general, Dr. Mohammed Sherif, who holds a doctorate from the University of Chicago, was denied a visa to attend the symposium.
The aim was to set the stage for dialogue between Muslims and others.
Some delegates and speakers took the opportunity to question the OIC and Muslim diplomats in attendance. A participant asked Dr. Algabid what steps the OIC had taken in response to the killing of Muslims by Israeli soldiers over the tunnel issue. Dr. Algabid, a former prime minister of Niger, replied that the organization had done everything within its mandate, which is limited to “political and diplomatic” activities. Egyptian Ambassador to Canada Mahmoud Farghal came to the secretary-general’s aid and said that “there will be no compromise on Jerusalem.” He added that “Israelis cannot decide the status of Jerusalem unilaterally.”
Eric Margolis, contributing foreign editor of the Toronto Sun, blasted the inaction and impotence of the 1.2 billion Muslims around the world. He rhetorically asked what Muslim nations are doing when Muslims are killed in Bosnia, Kashmir, Palestine, etc. The columnist, whose parents hail from Albania, suggested it was time for Muslims to take a stand and use their political and economic leverage to protect their own.
“How can you expect to get respect from the West, when you don’t even respect yourself?” Margolis asked. He concluded by advising that “better relations with the West is a worthy goal, but even worthier and far more urgent is better relations between Muslims.”
Overall, delegates thought that the symposium was a positive first step toward bridging the gap between Islam and the West by educating. “Education is expensive, but ignorance is far more expensive,” noted Dr. Sakr. The idea was elaborated upon by executive director Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, DC. Awad spoke about the importance of Muslims engaging in an all-out public relations campaign to educate the media. He called on Muslim leadership to put as much effort into public relations as it does to build schools, mosques and cemeteries.
Abdisalam Abdulkader, executive director of the Somali Youth Association of Toronto (SOYAT), told the Washington Report that the symposium was “successful in communicating the true picture of Islam.” He felt, however, that to have maximum effect, the conference should have been open to the greater community of Muslims and non-Muslims.
Other speakers at the three-day function included: Dr. Jamal Badawi, professor at St. Mary’s University; Dr. Abdullah Hakim Quick, president, Islamic Social Services and Resources Association; Dr. Muzzammil Siddiqui, director, Islamic Society of Orange County; Dr. Yahia Abdul Rahman, chairman, American Finance House; M. Haroon Siddiqui, editorial page editor, The Toronto Star; Abdullah Idris Ali, President, Islamic Society of North America; Dr. Manazir Ahsan, director general, Islamic Foundation, U.K; and Zubeda Vahed, equity officer, Peel Board of Education…
Thirteen years later, one would have to say that the OIC has been wildly successful. Its
ranks have grown by four more member nations; it basically calls the shots at the UN; its
“outreach,” especially in the form of sharia financing, continues to make great inroads,
ensuring that sharia law finds a welcome home in global banking sectors. Who back
then, before Hamas in Gaza, before the infidel invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, before
9/11, could even have imagined such mind-boggling achievement in such a relatively
brief space of time?
Laugh of the day: You knew it was coming—the UN, under prompting from the
Arabs, has convened the Security Council to try to put the kibosh on Israel’s anti-jihad
efforts. The laugh comes not from that—or, at least, not just from that—but from a
deathless utterance by an unnamed “Western diplomat”. From Reuters:
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 31 (Reuters) - Arab countries called an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday to debate the violence in Gaza, demanding in a draft resolution an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants.
The evening session adjourned without a vote being called and diplomats said negotiations would be held in coming days over the draft, which Western delegates described as unbalanced and focusing almost entirely on Israel's actions.
The resolution, presented by Libya, called for "an immediate ceasefire and for its full respect by both sides." It also demanded protection for Palestinian civilians, opening border crossings into Gaza and "restoration of calm in full."
It denounced "the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by Israel" but its only mention of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel was a vague reference to "the deterioration of the situation in southern Israel."
"It's going to need a lot of work," one Western diplomat said of the resolution…
Gee, ya think?
Her hips and lips don’t lie: Despite the fact that they were feeling terrible about
what was happening in Gaza, New Year’s revellers in Abu Dhabi didn’t allow their
rage at Israel to dampen their enthusiasm for a performance by twitchy-hipped vixen,
Shakira. However, to demonstrate their virtuousness and show solidarity with the
beleaguered jihadis, attendees manifested somberness and claimed to be upset that
Shakira never once alluded to the violence. From Gulf News:
Abu Dhabi: Her fans screamed as the lights went down and an enthusiastic Shakira appeared against a rainbow backdrop ready to bring in 2009.
A slightly somber atmosphere seemed to hang over the venue as revellers acknowledged neighbouring emirate, Dubai’s decision to ‘cancel’ New Year celebrations because of the violence in Gaza by order of Ruler, Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum.
Something the Latin singer didn’t mention throughout the gig to the disappointment of some concertgoers.
But the Grammy Award-winning singer turned things around by playing her trump card and winning over Arab fans with a touching few lines about being in the Middle East.
Shakira, whose father is half Lebanese, referred to her Arab roots as she took the stage but again failed to mention the violence in the Palestinian territory. “I’m the fruit of an Arab land, and I’m immensely proud of my Arab heritage,” she said with a hand placed firmly across her chest.
“I just wanted you to know that and also that I can’t think of a better place to spend New Year’s Eve.”
The Latin pop star headlined the lavish New Year’s Eve party at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi – a concert many, including organisers, had feared may not come off.
However, as they say in the business, the show must go on – and it did. Although not as many of the 10,000 tickets available sold as expected as the intimate concert failed to sell out.
Opening with a signature Spanish song (which not many recognized in fairness) the little Latina shook her hips as only she knows how and had fans dancing from the start.
Fans expressed mixed feelings about the concert going ahead even though many had paid hundreds of dirhams for tickets.
As well the Spanish numbers, the audience were treated to all the favourites including Hips Don’t Lie, Underneath Your Clothes and Whenever Wherever – one which saw fans scream the words back up onto the stage as she bent down and put the microphone across the excited crowd below her.
Dressed in a cropped waistcoat style top and trousers the singer showed she’s not just about the hips and dancing, which she claims to have picked up from her Arab grandmother, and played the acoustic guitar as part of her set.
Alexa Ferrintine, 24, a sales assistant from Dubai, originally from the UK, said the concert should go ahead but added it would have been nice if the singer had acknowledged the problems from the stage.
“Pop stars are influential and it is their words which would reach across borders and barriers – not mine. I thought someone like Shakira would know that. She’s a bright girl.”…
Agreed, which is why she was smart enough to keep politics out of it.
Oh, no, Mahmoud, anything but that. How could the world process even a temporary
halt to the interminable, er, process?
My missive:
It is grimly amusing to hear Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas race--or should that be lope, since it took him a good four days to say something?--to Hamas’s defence. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that Fatah and Hamas were at each others’ throats--literally--in a bloody civil skirmish to determine who would get to control Gaza. Hamas won that round, as, earlier, it had won the Palestinian election, and a humiliated Fatah was unceremoniously cast out and forced to lick its wounds back in the West Bank.
So when Mr. Abbas expresses words of sympathy for his despised arch-rival, they ought to be taken with copious amounts of salt since it is clear that, in taking on Hamas, Israel is actually doing him a huge favour.
He knows it, Israel knows it, and no doubt Hamas knows it, too.
At this very moment, you know Mahmoud is doing his happy dance.
Closing in on a decade of dhimmitude: Happy New Year! Here’s the opening
line of “Canada's champion of multiculturalism: Bernie Farber leads the charge against
hate speech and for equal rights for religious minorities,” an article that appeared in the
San Diego Jewish Press-Heritage, August 13, 1999:
When about 3,000 Canadian Muslims held a convention in Toronto recently, they gave Bernie Farber a standing ovation as a "defender of the faith."
A defender of their faith, thus paving the way for all the ingratiation kissing up
grovelling “defending” that was to follow. Maybe this will be the year his efforts
are finally rewarded with an Order of Canada.
Template by Splinder.com | header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de
