Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Monday, May 18, 2009

Obama 2nd Big Test

Barack Obama has already had one big test: the financial crisis. Some say that he passed that one. I beg to differ - dramatically. Increasing the U.S. deficit as much as he did is going to put America into a crisis, though it might be delayed for a few years.

Now he's facing his second big test: The Israel-Palestine situation. According to all the Leftist pundits, Obama's charm and "great genius" are able to resolve any problem. Assuming this to be true, this conflict should be easy for him to resolve. After all, the only thing that Israel is asking for is the declaration by the Palestinians that a Jewish Israel has the right to exist.

I'm glad this is all coming to a head because it'll now clearly show Obama for who he truly is.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

An Upcoming Split Between Israel & America?

I enjoy reading news sources from around the world, including this one from Israel.

Here's a snippet:

Obama's Washington believes America can live with a nuclear-armed Iran – a decision probably taken first under the Bush presidency. But Israel cannot, and may have no option but to part ways with the Obama administration on this point. As a nuclear power, Iran will be able to bend Jerusalem to the will of its enemies, make it unconditionally give Syria the Golan plus extra pieces of territory, tamely accept a Hamas-dominated Palestinian West Bank louring over its heartland and let the Lebanese Hizballah terrorize Galilee in the north at will. All three would make hay under Iran's nuclear shield, while Tehran lords it over the region in the role of regional power conferred by Obama's grace and favor.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Keeping Track of Israel Boycotts

This morning I was referred to a very interesting website that is keeping track of the boycotts against Israel. As I've said before, one is free to boycott anything they wish. But when a large group attempts to boycott something, it's always fascinating to find out what the real underlying reasons are. These reasons are frequently not what is publicly stated.

A lifelong mission of mine is to find out why members of the Radical Left are almost always anti-Semitic (ie. they HATE Jews). The smarter ones know that the optics of this are not good and try to explain it away with comments like "I'm actually anti-Zionist" or "Just because I don't support Israel's actions doesn't mean that I have anything against Jews". But dig down a little deeper and you quickly learn that the Jew Hatred is very much the driving motivation ... in most cases. At least in my experience it is.



Update: I changed the original title of this posting after receiving the e-mail shown below. Mr. Taub is correct, especially considering that I had no idea about this organization! But I don't have the time or interest to fight a SLAPP suit

I was reading your blog today and I found a problem. Your page title “Israel Boycott Watch” violates my Trademark of the name Boycott Watch. I understand there was probably no intent to violate my trademark, but I would still appreciate the immediate removal of my federally registered and legally protected name.

Thank you,

Fred Taub
President,
Boycott Watch (SM)
www.BoycottWatch.com

Monday, January 12, 2009

Are Canadian Jews Too Busy to Defend Themselves?

My title is deliberately provocative. However, it is an unequivocal fact that in Canada most of those speaking out publicly in favour of Israel and against Hamas are so-called "right-wingers". And the vast majority of those people are not Jewish.

A prominent Canadian Christian blogger named Kathy Shaidle has written about this strange phenomenon here and here. And Ezra Levant, a Canadian Jewish blogger, has posted this. Shaidle is interviewed on Rob Breakenridge's show here (at 09:15).

Both bloggers ask a very important question: Why aren't there more Jewish people protesting against Hamas and defending Israel?

Putting my pollster hat on, I've thought of 5 possible answers:

  1. They couldn't be bothered.
  2. They were afraid.
  3. They think that protesting is pointless.
  4. They are actually against Israel's actions.
  5. Other?
Your thoughts?

Wake-Up Call for All Canadians

Here are more "peaceful", loyal Canadian Muslims:

The Double Anti

I've been thinking a lot more about the various groups attending the pro-Hamas rallies. For those who aren't aware, this includes some gays and even some Jews. If you were a psychologist and your boss said, "I need you to come up with a solid explanation of why those who would be immediately oppressed if Fundamentalist Islam seized power would possibly rally in support of the same right now", what would your explanation be?

These days I'm reading an amazing book by Tony Judt about Europe after WW2. I'm currently in the section focused on the 1950's. It was clear that while the USSR was oppressing millions of people, some very horribly, many in the West refused to criticize them; some even publicly showed support to the USSR and against the USA. Note that this especially included many in Western Europe, who just around a decade before had only escaped the clutches of Adolf Hitler because of America. Talk about a short memory!

Were all of these people mentally ill? That's an easy way to sum things up but probably not accurate. Judt concludes that they were "anti anti-communist".

So in their minds, most of these folks went to sleep each night, comfortable that they were not pro-oppression. They were of course, in deep denial about what was going on behind the Iron Curtain. But absolutely no different than those today who will first & foremost criticize America & Israel yet be highly reticent to criticize Radical Islam, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, or any number of African dictators.

Though in the end equation, to any of us with even a mildly right-leaning bent, refusing to criticize totalitarian regimes appears to be exactly the same thing as lending them support; or at least giving them a free pass to do whatever they want.

Looking at the psychology of all this . . .

The Left is generally more emotional, more moved by the immediate circumstances, and rarely looks at the long term view and/or long term repercussions. Words like hypocrisy, dishonour, and self-responsibility have little meaning to those on the Left.

The Right tends to focus on the bigger picture, longer term view. Morality and Right & Wrong have more meaning with the Right, but even more so in the macro than the micro.

Note: Before anyone points out to me about corrupt conservative politicians, religious leaders, business executives, etc. let me state unequivocally that these individuals are phony, greedy poseurs. They are actually the worst of the lot, pretending to be one thing but something else entirely when the rubber hits the road.

A perfect example of this Left-Right difference is the situation of whenever a Canadian soldier kills a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan. In no way, shape, or form can Canada be accused of being an imperialist power. So why did that Canadian soldier pull the trigger on his gun, which killed the Taliban man? The Right understands that a mother's child has just died but focuses on the bigger picture, namely that the Taliban is a horrific regime that will bring nothing but oppression and immense cruelty back onto the innocent people of Afghanistan should they be allowed to return to power. The Left, on the other hand, can pretty much only focus in on the individual death and suspects that an injustice has occurred. For them, thinking beyond the immediacy of that death just doesn't occur.

Members of the media are almost always on the Left. From a psychological perspective, I don't precisely know why this is. It might be because the nature of their work has them bombarded with event after event after event. So they tend to focus most of their attention on the immediate rather than the bigger picture. Historically I wonder if there was more of a balance between Left and Right journalists, unlike the reported 98% to 2% polls say it is now. So professionally, it's very unwise for a new member of the media to espouse anything but Leftist views.

What is so dangerous about the media being so inclined is that their power to shape public opinion is enormous. And like with any good marketing campaign, be it to sell the latest widget or fashion accessory or be it to dehumanize Jews to the level of pigs & dogs, they do alter public opinion more readily than we'd all like to admit. Of course, they take no responsibility for this, citing the old canard that "they're just reporting the news". Sigh.

One saving grace is that the mainstream media is very quickly going broke. I will regret the day if there are no more formal news reporting agencies but hopefully they will remain, albeit with much more balance ... and dare I say it, professionalism. In the early part of this millennium that P-word is sadly lacking across the journalistic spectrum. It has gotten so bad that we now have prominent TV news channels faking deaths.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Pro-Terrorism Rally in Toronto

Free Speech is a great thing and should always be promoted. But given the right of free speech doesn't guarantee that the speaker will utter anything remotely intelligent.

Here are some observations:

  • Clearly non-Jewish protesters posing as Jews
  • The Che Guevera flags (do they even know a thing about what he actually did?)
  • Multiple supporters screaming with glee about how Israel would be wiped off the map
  • Any attempt at peaceful dialogue by the protesters was clamped down upon by the "organizers"
  • The frenzied screaming of "Allah Akbar" such as we see in incensed mobs in Pakistan and other Muslim countries
  • Were the formally printed signs made by the same people who wanted to recently overthrow our democratically elected government with The Coalition?
More here

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Mark Steyn's Latest on on Gaza

Please read Mark Steyn's latest.

Read it slowly. Read it carefully. But read it all. And then join with me and worry. For the excessive tolerance of our "progressive" politicians is so clearly leading to a time when no tolerance will be permitted whatsoever.



With apologies to Martin Niemöller, let me provide a modern version of his famous poem:

First they came for the Jews.
I remained silent, for I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Christians.
I remained silent, for I was not a Christian.

When they came for the conservatives,
I remained silent, for I was not a conservative.

When they came for the atheists,
I remained silent, for I was no longer an atheist.

Then when they came for me,
I expected someone to speak out,
But there was no one left to defend me.

Friday, January 09, 2009

Barbarians Inside the Gates

Please watch the following videos:




Muslim protesters fighting with police in Oslo



Now ask yourself why liberal "progressives" the world over are defending such people, citing moral equivalency and portraying them as victims.

I know plenty of Muslim people. Each & every one of them is a great person. They would never act in a manner such as you've seen above. Defending these upstanding citizens is a fine & noble thing to do.

But how on earth did we get to a point where some now believe that defending violent Muslims is somehow "supporting a minority" and thus the right thing to do? Sometimes I wonder if we're once again living in the Europe of the 1930's and the world is about to get turned upside down again en masse.



If you want to see just how depraved some in Canada have become, read this posting by a "progressive" blogger whose tagline claims to be "rolling back the tide of extremism". The only way he could do that would be to detach his fingers from his keyboard. Clearly his brain has been detached from even the tiniest thread of decency for some time. If one didn't know better, you'd think that this pile of filth would be one of those bandana-wearing anarchists seeking to destroy society. Yet up until now he has been a proud supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Gaza Debate in Canada



Letter Published

The National Post published the letter I recently wrote.

The Hypocrisy of the UN and Europe

Alan Dershowitz, a prominent American liberal, has a very different take on Israel than many of his compatriots. Thank goodness! He has published a compelling editorial about Israel's Right to Defend itself. Here's a snippet:

The firing of rockets at civilians from densely populated civilian areas is the newest tactic in the war between terrorists who love death and democracies that love life. The terrorists have learned how to exploit the morality of democracies against those who do not want to kill civilians, even enemy civilians. In one recent incident, Israeli intelligence learned that a particular house was being used to manufacture and store rockets. It was a clear military target since their rockets were being fired at Israeli civilians. But the house was also being lived in by a family. So the Israeli military phoned the house, informed the owner that it was a military target, and gave him thirty minutes to leave with his family before the house was attacked. The owner called Hamas, which immediately sent dozens of mothers carrying babies to stand on the roof of the house. Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it. They also knew that if, by some fluke, the Israeli authorities did not learn that there were civilians in the house, and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead civilians to the media. In this case, Israel did learn of the civilians and withheld its fire. The rockets that were spared destruction by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.

There have been three types of international response to the Israeli military actions against the Hamas rockets. Not surprisingly, Iran, Hamas, and other knee-jerk Israeli-bashers have argued that the Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians are entirely legitimate, and that the Israeli counterattacks are war crimes. Equally unsurprising is the response of the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and others who, at least when it comes to Israel, see a moral and legal equivalence between terrorists who target civilians and a democracy that responds by targeting the terrorists.

The most dangerous of the three responses is not the Iranian-Hamas absurdity, which is largely ignored by thinking and moral people, but the United Nations and European Union response, which equate the willful murder of civilians with legitimate self-defense pursuant to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This false moral equivalence only encourages terrorists to persist in their unlawful actions against civilians. The United States has it exactly right by placing the blame on Hamas, while urging Israel to do everything possible to minimize civilian casualties.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

The Dirty War of Hamas

Watch this video and you will see precisely what Israel is up against. They're doomed if they don't fight back and damned [by many] if they do.

To those condemning Israel for fighting back to stop the rocket barrages I ask, "What would you do if you were in their shoes?" If your only response is "talk with Hamas" then please know that "Cop-Out" is your middle name.

Personal Reflections

Because of my family history, with my father born in Germany in 1931, I cannot help but make comparisons between 1944-45 Europe and 2008 Gaza. Different times, different wars, different people but striking resemblances indeed there are.

Every time I hear a condemnation of Israel, I think about whether it would have also been applied to the Allied Forces. Every time I hear a moral equivalency argument made about Israel and the Palestinians, I think about whether it would have been made about the Allied Forces and Nazi Germany. Every time I hear about innocent civilians being hurt or killed - I am naturally saddened and feel grief for the Palestinian families - but then I also wonder if calls were made to stop the advance of the Allied Armies toward Berlin.

To think that some people making such ludicrous arguments back then didn't exist would be naive. To think that so many today have learned NOTHING from history both saddens and appalls me. Just like the people of my father's homeland made a terrible mistake, which had to be stopped in its tracks, so must Hamas & Iran as well. For the leaders of these two tyrannies I will shed no tears.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Operation Cast Lead: Background Briefing

A Letter from Israel

Today, Charles Adler read a letter from a woman who lived in Israel. You can listen to it here at 7:00. Do listen.

Brilliant Comment from Small Dead Animals

I read a comment on Small Dead Animals this morning that deserves reposting:

Every leftie should have to join a 12-step program because they are deep in the throes of co-dependency. "Victims" (read Palestinian Gazans) are never responsible for the mess they're in; it's always someone else's fault. 'No need to call the Palestinians to account for their behaviour because they're so obviously (sic) victims.

In the Hamas-Israeli conflict, the leftist brain computes that because Hamas has more casualties it's OBVIOUSLY the Israelis who are at fault--and the Palestinians that need the West's support. The leftist brain seems unable to factor in the the Israelis' competency in protecting their citizens, whereas the Palestinians seem quite happy to ensure collateral damage in their citizenry by storing their weapons arsenals amongst their wives and children. Hey, good way to gain the sympathy of the useful leftist idiots.

It's a curious blindness to see only the "victims'" plight and not their participation in their own misfortune. It's misplaced compassion to think that you can help victims by swathing them in cotton batten when, in fact, you're actually ghettoizing them twice: first, by giving them a pass in their original dysfunction and second, by consigning them to their squalid lives by requiring no responsibility or accountability--in other words, others must fix the situation, not the victims.

The leftist brain needs help.

Posted by: batb at January 6, 2009 7:44 AM

Monday, January 05, 2009

Have Left-Leaning Canadian Jews Converted?

To the Church of Liberalism that is. Laura Rosen Cohen offers great insight on the absolute silence of 3 major Canadian Jewish organizations.

I've long observed that, like a mind altering virus, Liberalism prevents Jews from deeply supporting Israel and Christians from deeply supporting Christianity. Self-preservation of one's own family and friends is simply incompatible with the tenets of the Left.



Ms. Rosen Cohen's editorial seems to have had a little effect on these organizations:
Emphasis on the word "little".

Dennis Prager on the Situation in Gaza

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

And here is a follow-up discussion between Prager and Israeli citizen Yossi Klein-Halevi.

The Moral Bankruptcy of the Left

Dennis Prager has a number of important questions for Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, all of which apply to Canadian "Progressive" bloggers.

Here's a sampling:

It is relevant to the question I will pose that [Dershowitz] omits any mention of the world’s left, even when mentioning the European Union. Who exactly in the European Union is condemning Israel? Its conservatives? Who in America is condemning Israel? Conservatives? Who in Australia or Canada? Conservatives? Of course not. As regards Israel (and America and much else), the Western world’s moral idiots, to use the term in the title of the Dershowitz column, are virtually all on the left, including and especially many of his colleagues in academia.

... but Dershowitz won't put two and two together, at least publicly, and conclude that there is something fundamentally and morally flawed about the left and its values.

I believe that to acknowledge the moral failure of the left, especially the secular left, on most of the great moral issues of the post-World War II era -- the Cold War, the Middle East, confronting (or even acknowledging the existence of) the Islamist threat -- is very difficult for a person on the left, even one as analytical as Dershowitz. Secular leftism is analogous to Arthur Koestler’s “god that failed.” And few people want to confront the fact that the ideal, the god they bet their lives on, is a false god.